Talk:Green Arrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green Arrow article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Another Green Arrow?

According to http://www.io.com/~woodward/chroma/crisis.html, there was a Green Arrow I who died in the Crisis. Who was this? There's no mention of this on the wiki page (I'm afraid I have no info myself to contribute).

Look under "Green Arrow of Earth 2". If your not familiar, before the original Crisis, there was a Green Arrow, also Oliver Queen, with a Speedy, Roy Harper, on Earth-2. It was explained this was the Green Arrow who wore just red gloves, no bracers, a black, not green mask, and and was clean-shaven. HE died in the original Crisis. The reason that web page calls him "Green Arrow I", is that chronologically, Green Arrow of Earth-2 came first (debuting in the Mid-40's).

GA II - the one we think of, debuted somewhere in the Mid-60's. This gives a time line such that GA has his accident, is rescued, gets several years as no-beard, while working with the JLA (as the first non-founding member) then goes to SE Asia, where he develops some of his more liberal tendencies and first meets Hal Jordan, and returns. He changes costume (Brave and the Bold), he and Roy fall out, followed by GL/GA Hard-Traveling heroes. After that, the timeline is pretty solid.

The Green Arrow who was a charter member of the Justice SOCIETY of America, which is completely left out of this article.~ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Green Arrow was never part of Justice Society - he was the most popular character of The Seven Soldiers of Victory, a second, smaller hero team comprised of Vigilante, Crimson Avenger, Shining Knight, Star Spangeled Kid and Stripsey, as well as Earth II GA and Earth II Speedy, along with the unofficial eight soldier, Wing. At no point was GA involved in the Society that I can find.

Perhaps you should mention the change in look to the hood, instead of the cap, in the Grell era? I would bet anything Grell was inspired by the late 90's BBC Robin Hood series starring Michael Praed and later Jason Connery, as they sport a similar hood, and Grell brought up the Herne the Hunter connection, also utilized in that series (R.A. Salvatore was inspired by the two scimitar-wielding character of Nasir from that series for his Drzzt.

This is covered slightly, but maybe a media influences on GA segment may be valid, but it's kind of obvious where the majority of it came from: Batman and Robin Hood.

[edit] Time with the Justice League Elite and Affair with Manitou Dawn

I know that it's difficult to keep this updated, but I am surprised that, with Ollie playing a roll in the Infinate Crisis, there is no mention od his affair with Manitou Raven's wife or his time in the Justice League Elite.4.249.84.37 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This was not an affair. I believe by the time Ollie was with JL Elite, he and BC had split up due to Ollie's infedelity with her friend in Seattle.

A list of Ollie's many trists would be appreciated, though likely hard to fully write up. I'll see what I can do.

Yes, it was an affair. You speak with such certainty, but Dawn was married to Manitou Raven. --Chris Griswold 15:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know why many of the events near the end of the time before the one-year later leap were completly ignored or not explained in Green Arrow. These things include Dr.Light(female)'s hospitalization/coma (she is later seen acting as a superheroine, which is odd because she is described as lacking the heroic qualities in the Green Arrow where she is badly wounded), the explosions that badly injured Mia (she was later seen in crucial points of the Infinite Crisis, an event that happened after her being wounded by the explosion), or the fact that Ollie was impaled by arrows and still plays heavily in the Infintie Crisis (which happened afterward). As I stated earlier in an edited comment that was removed because it was labeled vandalism, the rest of the DC universe is actively ignoring events in the main Green Arrow comic book, or the author has failed to offer plausibly explanations for the random descripencies.

[edit] Oliver Queen in The Dark Knight Returns

Is it worthwhile to address the apparent discontinuities between this biography and the Oliver Queen depicted in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns? I'm not qualified to do so, just curious.

edit: Sorry, I realize belatedly that this question is addressed in the Dark Knight Returns entry. Unless someone else wants to address this, it might be best to delete this query.


[edit] Oliver Queen Run for Mayor

In 52: Week 8, Ralph Digby suggests to Oliver Queen he should run for Mayor. In 52: Week 9, Oliver Queen is mentioned as a Mayoral candidate. How should this be mentioned?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs) 15:57 July 7, 2006

That he runs for mayor during that time. The exact days don't matter and will most likely be deleted by another editor. --Chris Griswold 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a little late, but I think the GIPU meant the possibility that Ralph Dibny gave Ollie the idea to run. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret identity?

According to the article, (1) Mike Grell did away with Ollie's secret identity, but then (2) Kevin Smith brought an earlier version of the character back to life. Does anyone know whether Ollie got his secret identity back, and, if so, how? TheronJ 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MMM...PUNCH!--Chris Griswold 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • During the Kevin Smith run, Ollie attempted to maintain a secret identity, but Mia Dearden figured it out immediately citing that his distinguished beard is a dead giveaway. She gave the impression that most people knew who he was - they just simply didn't care. Currently, it appears as if he is attempting to maintain a secret identity again.
--Brian Kurtz 22:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Arrow?

for some reason, Green arrow initially called Red arrow in denmark, even thought it was printed in B/W, does anyone have a clue to why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.209.133.174 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Comics and newspapers just do that sometimes - they make up the colours randomly if the comic is originall black & white. Maybe "Red Arrow" just sounds better than "Green Arrow" in Danish? I wouldn't know. You can look at The Phantom#Costume for something similar. ~Switch t 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article needs a concise linear publication history section and a fictional character biography section, all sections seriously need to be trimmed and put in the correct project order. That secret origin section needs to be rolled into the main article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars for correct section layout and naming conventions. --Basique 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I edited the Green Arrow "Similarities and Homages" section

Green Arrow did start the Justice League (he was behind the scenes funding thr formation of the team)

Check ou the "JLA Year One" comic book series.

Also, anyone notice how much the character resembles what WOULD HAVE BEEN a Batman character on Smallville? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.19.186 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Small Points

I agreed with most of the first paragraph underneath the outline, but I am not so sure about the reference being Ellery Queen. One doubt being that Queen rhymes with Green, which seems fairly obvious, but also that Olive Green is the shade of green preferable to the character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.164.78 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The article mistakes which is the secret identity. Nothing so very secret about being the billionaire mayor. --Wetman 10:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trade Paperbacks

I added a section on the trades, including the Lantern/Arrow ones. I'm unsure about Longbow Hunters in that if it is a three issue miniseries, and whether or not the rest of the Grell run was also published in trade form. If I missed anything please tell me. I got all my info from DC Comics.com.

[edit] Vertigo

Wasn't the Grell/Puckett run Vertigo? --Scottandrewhutchins 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not. The Vertigo line was not officially established until 1993 (some previously existing titles like Hellblazer, Sandman and Swamp Thing were brought under the heading at that time). The Mike Grell run began in 1987, and was never brought under the Vertigo line. The Vertigo line avoids traditional superheroes, even ones whose titles contain mature content.. Elijya 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Queen's Rape by Shado

It seems rather strange to me that no one apparently considers what Shado did was, in fact, rape. Not only was he injured, but he was delirious from his fever, enough to mistake Shado for Black Canary. I really think this article should be altered to include it, especially in light of alarming number of people who don't consider it to be rape. 69.14.220.112

See here for some of the relevant issue numbers and art. When you are too delirious to tell who's who, you're not exactly in a position to give meaningful consent, are you? Azundris 11:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Connor hawke.jpg

Image:Connor hawke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An FUR has been provided. --GentlemanGhost 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GLEmeraldAlliesTPB.jpg

Image:GLEmeraldAlliesTPB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Judd Winick Era - Fan Backlash & Critical Reactions

Look, I am not a huge fan of Winnick's run either but the entry under the above heading is more op-ed than informative, and reads very much like a disgruntled fans ranting and raving rather than fact - for one thing you, or whomever entered it provided no citations whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.43.1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 June 2007

I absolutely agree. This whole section did not conform to WP:NPOV. Much of it seemed to be original research, as it was wholly lacking in citations and filled with weasel words. I realize that Judd Winnick is a polarizing figure in the comics industry, but this is not the place to complain about him. Take it to a blog. Accordingly, I have removed this section. --GentlemanGhost 04:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article bloat

After giving this page a thorough read I can see that it can easily be reduced in size, lots of redundant text and cruft. Use Superman as a template for change. --Basique 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Arrow: Year One

Is the Mini-series werth a new article?--Brown Shoes22 03:59, 26 July 2007

(UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced?

The unreferenced tag seems inappropriate for this article, as it DOES contains references to various comics to uphold some of its statements. True, it could use more (or a good trimming) but that's not the same as being completely unreferenced. It should be removed (but keep the Cleanup tag.) -Wilfredo Martinez 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers?

I had added a spoiler tag for the info on the recent wedding plotline, but it's since been removed. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the spoiler tag was created for? If you're not going to use it on a major plot point of a just-released storyline, when would you use it? The reverting editor suggests that they are redundant because they appear in the bio of a fictional character. I would argue that discussions of fiction are one of the only places they are appropriate. You wouldn't need spoilers in a bio of Ronald Reagan, for example. Can someone explain the logic here? Dstumme 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers (plot details); see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Most of these are not marked with spoiler warning tags. In particular, if the reader can surmise from the section titles and article title that there are likely to be plot details in a particular section, then the reader already has enough info to decide whether to keep reading or not. Since the only thing that a bio of a fictional character could possibly contain is plot details, the reader can certainly predict there will be plot details in that section of this article.
In this case, it isn't even clear what the source is for the plot details mentioned here. Is there a reliable source that has described them? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(Due to edit conflict...)
LSS: The spoiler warnings were scraped en mass. A similar question to yours was posted at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#Reduced usefulness. As near as I can tell, the overall premise went "This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Articles on fiction are going to cover the relevant history, including major plot points and twists. As such, the entire article is a spoiler, and a user of an encyclopedia knows it. The tag is redundant and worthless." And since articles dealing with serial fiction, like comics, should not be updated until after the official realise of the issue or broadcast of the episode, I can agree with that sentiment being applied across the board. (And please bear in mind, this is coming from some one who gets his comics a day late due to Diamond's shipping practices and most of his favorite TV shows well after they are originally broadcast. I know thar be spoilers here, so I read and edit accordingly.) - J Greb 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the justification. As for sources, the GA/BC Wedding Special came out already, I think. There's an interview [1] with Judd Winick at Newsarama already, complete with spoilers. Dstumme 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rape Victim

I'm removing this article from the catagory "Fictional Rape Victims". Green Arrow was never, to the best of my knowledge, raped. Even if it refers to Black Canary, she wasn't raped either (per Mike Grell). Please revert if I'm wrong, or if there was a rape somewhere in there that I (thankfully) missed. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Read above about Ollie's rape by Shado. She slept with him when he was near-unconscious and delirious. I'd say that counts as rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.255.171 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems this article may technically belong in that category, but it feels wrong to me. That rape seems to have been an insignificant event in the whole huge history of Green Arrow, and it is barely even mentioned in this article. It is so insignificant that most people will have no idea why Green Arrow is in the fictional rape category. Perhaps that category should be reserved for characters for which being a rape victim is more of a defining feature. -- Lilwik 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I never considered that rape, but I suppose it could fall under that catagory. The reality is, though, that the most prominent rape in Green Arrow's history is probably the incident with Black Canary in Longbow Hunters (which wasn't even rape, per Grell himself). Since there's some disagreement, is there a source somewhere which points to the shado incident as rape? Or, alternatively, that points to Ollie considering it rape? With a source, we could add it with no problem - and explain the reference for those who aren't aware of the incident. I agree with Lilwik, though - It's a catagory that, while being technically accurate, doesn't feel right. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony Bedard. Birds of Prey #109. It was rape.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volumes/Series Numbering

Wondering if I could get some clarification.

I've noticed that the volume numbering is all over the place in GA-related articles (issues within the Grell series are sometimes referred to as both 1st and 2nd volume within the same article), and am curious as to how the series/volume numbering is being done.

By my knowledge, there are the following books with the title "Green Arrow":

  • Green Arrow mini-series (1983)
  • Green Arrow (1st series) (1988-1998(?))
  • Green Arrow (2nd series) (2001-present)

The question appears to be whether mini-series count as separate volumes when numbering. I've always been of the impression no, due to the confusion that entails as the series numbering would become different than the volume numbering (i.e. Green Arrow vol.2 and Green Arrow 1st series would both be valid references to the same series), but I suppose that should be discussed as it needs to be cleaned up regardless. -- 142.166.3.82 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake (all dates are cover dates):
And a general grounding...
As you point out, there have been 3 runs of a magazine title Green Arrow published in the US. Arguments have been put forward to use "series 1, 2, & 3,", "<Year> series", "volume 1, 2, & 3", and "mini/limited series, vol or series 1 & 2". Under the current guidelines, the preference is to use "volume" not "series", so two of the options are not viable. That leaves "volume 1, 2, & 3", and "mini/limited series, vol 1 & 2".
The major proponents I've seen for "m/ls, v1, v2" run the arguments of "Volumes have to have 12 issue or more", "Volumes have to have run at least a year" (since there are quarterly and bi-monthly books that are considered "vol 1" even though the final issue was short of #12.), and referencing hobby based, not industry (publishing) based or general use, sources such as CPG.
However, the definition of the publishing term varies:
(search run through OneLook Dictionary Search)
Generally, the term can refer to:
  1. A calendar year's worth of a magazine;
  2. A run of a magazine; or
  3. A run of a magazine, generally, but not absolutely related to a calendar year.
I've yet to see a dictionary or like reliable source the uses "a series of issues of a periodical of indeterminate length, but covering a minimum of one calendar year." or "...covering a minimum of 'X' issues." Let alone one that is the definitive, all other sources are wrong, definition.
Since the aim here is to write articles for a general audience, not one that is specifically targeted at hobbyists, I'd argue we use the most general definition: "a series of issues of a periodical" with the barest minimum of qualifiers: same title, consecutive numbering/publication. Yes, that means the 1983 issues are "volume 1". Even though they form a limited series, they were the series of issues published under the title.
- J Greb 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally find the use of volume confusing as a series could be collected into a number of trade paperback volumes. This might just be a British thing or I may not be au fait with the specific usage of the term.
I think the bottom line is that it isn't our place to decide what they are called and we should use whatever the creators use. No I do believe that volume is used and well defined with some series (like The Authority) but as a rule of thumb I'd refer to things as:
  • Limited series - if up to around 6 issues they get called a mini-series from there to 12 they get called a maxi-series but the basic thing is that they are off a well-defined length and duration announced when they launch.
  • Series - something of unspecified duration
So here we have a mini-series followed by two series. It is probably unwise to refer to things as the first or second series so you could say "the 1981 mini-series" or "the 1988 series" which is more specific and helps people hold the relative chronological position in mind (although obvious if this is all outlined further up the page it isn't a big deal. (Emperor 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
What do Wizard and Overstreet call them? Doczilla 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The example I'm most familiar with is Martian Manhunter. The first series with that name was a four-issue mini in 1988. He then had a 36-issue run from 1998-2001, followed by an 8-issue mini last year (2006). Without exception, the 1998 series has been referred to as Volume 2, and the 2006 series as Volume 3 - which makes Volume 1 a 4-issue mini. It's not difinitive, and it's a different character - but, using that as a guide, Green Arrow would be Volume 1 (1981), Volume 2 (1988) and Volume 3 (2001). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Just chipping in to note that the West Coast Avengers also had a four issue limited series which was referred to as volume 1, with the ongoing series launched later referred to as volume 2. It's been a while since I worked in the industry, but my recollections are that this is how price guides also refer to them, certainly the British price guide used to. Hiding Talk 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great big donkey dick  ?

Great big donkey dick is being removed by me. As Damaging to the article !--Brown Shoes22 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


On the subject of ridiculous things, though, how the heck does Ollie keep his secret identity when he's got such a distinctive hair, facial hair, and cheekbone structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Alternate versions of Green Arrow

The result was merge. The article was improperly divided when split, failing to acknowledge the text source as set out at the guidelines on Wikipedia:Summary Style, a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. If it is determined through consensus that the material should be divided again, please be sure to note in the edit summary that the text has been split from this parent article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • merge/nom - The article was created by extracting the current Alternate versions section from the GA article. There is no need to remove a small section of an article to created a stub article, particluarly when the article is not currently overpopulated. I pose to merge to restore the page from a needless and cavalier split. 66.109.248.114 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current version of the article is 40,266 bytes. That's not all that big, really. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - no need for a new article for this as it is distinctly thin. (Emperor 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.