Talk:Whizzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

More information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (publisher):
	Marvel Comics work group

[edit] The Blur

The Blur does not belong in a category for the superhero The Whizzer, having never used that name. He's simply another Marvel super-speedster, and no one other superhero entry lumps together, say, all archers under Hawkeye. And there certainly shouldn't be a Blur picture in an image sidebar that refers to the Whizzer's first appearance in USA Comics #1, etc. -- the two charactes are completely unrelated. Moving Blur to his own entry, and remming-out image box until a proper Whizzer/USA Comics/etc. image can go in its place. Tenebrae 17:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have once more removed the Blur -- as I just noted at User talk:Pc13 as well as here now -- noted because The Blur does not belong in a category for the superhero The Whizzer, having never used that name.

No one looking for The Blur who didn't already know who he was would look for him under The Whizzer.

The relationship -- an alternate-universe (MAX) version OF an alnerate-universe (Squadron Supreme) version of a Golden Age hero -- is extremely tangential. Any explanations as to the Blur's background can be addressed in his own entry. Please do not revert unilaterally without Discussion. -- Tenebrae 13:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said in Tenebrae's talk page, the Blur makes no sense without the Whizzer to put him in context. The Blur is not a MAX version of an alternate-universe version of a Golden Age hero, because the Squadron Supreme Whizzer is not an alternate-universe version of the Golden Age Whizzer. He is a parody of another company's character, namely, the Flash.

Since both characters are called Stanley Stewart, and Supreme Power is a revision of the Squadron Supreme, there is no need to scatter the information. Likewise, the entry on James Sanders remains on the Whizzer page, even though the character is now called Speed Demon.

Also, Tenebrae simply erased the Blur from the Whizzer's entry, and did not bother to move it to the The Blur, which is still a redirect to Whizzer.

I'd also like to point out that although Tenebrae has asked on my talk page not to revert without discussion, he has removed the Blur without a discussion having taken place [1] -- Pc13 13:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The content's at Blur (comics) (which needs categorised, BTW). The Blur would be going against the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (comics). I also added a "See also" link to Blur (comics) on the Whizzer page.

Abrasive as he's been about it though, I have to go with Tenebrae on this one. Maybe a mention at the end of the SqSup Whizzer section would be a good idea, but having the content at Blur (comics) makes a lot more sense. - SoM 15:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up issues

Reasons for reverts and changes:

Infobox image: As per Project Guidelines the character should be the focus, not buried among other characters and elements.
Alter ego(s): The line is there for a reason.
Removal of the Speed Demon character information: The character has its own article, which is where the 'box information belongs. The "Alter Ego" links to that article, again, part of the reason the line is there.
Lead: Restructured to follow publication order.
"Reboot": Removed as editorial assumption. The Blur is the "Ultimate" version of the character, nothing more. Unless, of course, a cite can be found showing that Straczynski's characters replaced Thomas' in the older Avengers stories...
Section header: By secret identity for clarity and consistency.
Restored a portion of the first paragraph for clarity. Also reworked the reference for the origin retcon.
Moved, and cleaned, Liberty Legion retcon ref to where the article actually mentions it.
"In other media" created for Spider-Man cartoon appearance.
"See also" restored. The article is related, but not heavily referenced, as the Squadrons Supreme and Sinister are.

Crap edit contents:

Information that should be in the article hidden in the reference/footnotes. References are where you cite the source for a point in the article. It is not the place to put the point, nor is it a place to editorialize to justify a point.
References should also be as short and specific as possible, where and by who stuff. Some righteous citations here are marred by extraneous stuff.

- J Greb 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting...

As much as the headgear is extremely goofy looking, the image is an improvement. As is the expansion of the Frank bio.

That being said...

Infobox:
- Redundant information in the "Alter Ego" line removed
- Unwarranted bolding undone.
- Speed Demon: This is not a suggestion but based on consistency of use. The character has its own article. All the 'box info save the wikied "Alter Ego" doesn't belong here.
Lead:
- In part see below in regard to the "references". The crap has been removed from the needed reference information.
- Again this is not a suggestion, unless a non-fan spec citation can be made that the Supreme Powers characters replaced the "712" characters in past stories, wording that implies that the Blur is a replacement for the 712 Whizzer should be avoided.
"Fictional Bios": "Lowest common denominator" disclaimer removed as redundant and offensive.
Frank bio:
- As per Project naming guidelines, re-worded to avoid explicit or implicit numbering.
- See below. Germaine point(s) moved back into the body of the article. Proper referencing left in the footnotes.
- Retcon is implicit in the dates of the sources. If it needs clarification (and it likely could use it...) should be in a Publication history.
- Specifics of the Magneto revelation belong in the Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Magneto articles. Generality moved into the article proper with proper cite left in the foot notes.
- Minor cleanup for clarity.
Speed Demon
- Compressed to a "lead" section. The details belong in the Speed Demon article.
Stewart
- Cleanup for clarity.
- Removed unsourced fan spec about the removal and replacement of the 712 characters.
"See also": Reverted to this instead of the poorly worked out "Blur" section. Suggestion: If the Blur section is to be included (and an argument can be made for it), it should include a brief "lead" type section like the one under the "Speed Demon" section.
General: Cleanup of the citation formatting. (in progress)

Crap edit contents that has been re-entered

Information that should be in the article hidden in the reference/footnotes. References are where you cite the source for a point in the article. It is not the place to put the point, nor is it a place to editorialize to justify a point.
References should also be as short and specific as possible, where and by who stuff. Some righteous citations here are marred by extraneous stuff.
The insistence of constantly reinserting this could lead to the belief that it is vandalism by an editor or editors who just don't give a damn.

- J Greb 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you need to adjust your tone and keep it civil. There's a Wiki-policy about this as well. You may also like to remember who is actually been ploughing through the Supreme/Sinister entries for the past few weeks to try and sort out the continuity mess.

Anyway, the main edits sort all the players into their respective categories. The introduction was reworked and includes universe designations - the only real way to distinguish who's who. Note that the opening statement needs to be factual, and not POV. There were a few subjective terms (eg. "generally") and mistakes (eg. the Golden Age Whizzer is dead - he does not reappear from time to time) that needed to be pulled. I've also removed the information about the reboot.

Note that the villainous Whizzer's exploits belong here, as he committed these acts as the Whizzer, and was the Whizzer for many years. Also note that the entry stops and directs to the Speed Demon entry once there is a name change. There is also a note and a link prior to the Earth-712 entry spelling out the difference between the Stanley Stewarts.

Asgardian 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding tone: I'm sorry if it hurts you feeling to have parts of the content of your edits commented on in less than glowing terms, but it's going to happen. I will though try to avoid the expletive, though it seems to be the only way to actually get your attention to discus things on the talk page.

The main piece of content I'm finding fault with is the extremely poor way the references are being used. In your preferred version three go well beyond what a reference should be. Yes, they have a reference buried in them, but they are information that should be in the article proper. Beyond that, one reads like it wants to be a side bar (related to the article but not really part of it) and another is written to force emfasis, which is very encyclopedic. Yes it's done on the talk pages and in the lead sections. though one is a conversation and the other is reinforcing the topic of the article. Beyond that, this isn't a newspaper or a fan site, keep it simple and let the text speak for itself.

Now, if you want to discus civility of actions, and implied attitude of editing, fine. Let me know and alert everyone else that WP:NPA might get pushed. Other wise we both need to back off of the rhetoric, wouldn't you agree?

Other content items:
By and large, I do think a lot of what you've done has help the article. Finding a usable, focused image. As well as tightening some items up, such as the lead, and bringing in additional information in others, such as expanding Franks bio. However, that does not mean everything is perfect. Aside from the issue with the references, a few other content related issues are cropping up. As well as what may wind up being, for good or for ill, procedural issues.

The caveat "To avoid confusion, the biography is separated into three sections that describe the Golden Age, villainous and heroic versions of the Whizzer."
At best, this is redundant. The lead spells out that there are 3 characters, the header "Fictional character biographies" (FCB) implies that there is more than one to deal with, and there are what should be 3 subsections of FCB. That is enough for a reader to glom on to the idea that there is a distinct section for each of the characters to use the name.
FCB sub headers: While I can see a reasoning for them to be descriptive, they also need to be functional. Especially if there is a likelihood that other articles are likely to link to that section instead of the article in general. And that is the case with this article, Frank and Stewart are more likely to be the direct target of the link. That puts the article in the position of needing short, descriptive headers. All things being equal, the secret identities work best. The era, inclination, and home reality of the characters can, and should be spelled out in the body of the section.
Speed Demon. This is the one that may wind up having some procedural issues. LSS, the character has its own article, including what should be a complete FCB. At best, the Whizzer portion of that FCB should be nutshelled and placed here, under the {{Main}} link. Ideally, if {{Further}} will take it a link can be set to the general speed Deamon article as well to a potential "Whizzer" section of that article's FCB.
Going beyond that looks like a move to merge the Speed Demon article back into this one. If that's the case, since the the split is a reflection of the consensus towards "1 character, many codenames", I'd caution to propose it first. Put up the merge tags, start the discussion, and get a feel for whether or not there is a consensus to do it.
The infobox... stylistically, I think the Squadron characters are the only place I've seen the alter egos bolded and saddled with extraneous information. The idea of the 'box is, IIUC, "Keep it short, keep it simple". I'm not sure it's such a good idea to add descriptors to them in this case. If all three characters had been names "Robert Frank", I could see "Robert Frank (Golden Age)", "Robert Frank (Earth-616)", and "Robert Frank (Earth-712)" to clarify the characters and the information in the 'box. Since the alter egos are unique to begin with in this case, it's extra information that doesn't need to be there.
Also with the 'box, from what I've seen there does seem to be an informal "consensus by use" for multiple characters in one box in 2 aspects: 1) (minor) the "- John Doe" format and 2) (major) characters with their own 'box, in the same article or not, are only mentioned as a link at the alter ego field. As with the {{Main}}, the information is resident elsewhere and doesn't need to be here.

- J Greb 08:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: (knew there was something I forgot) Looking at some of the information, both currently in the article and what should potentially be in the article, there needs to be a short "Publication History" section. One benefit of this would be to pull the publication quirks out of the bois, ie retcons and revamps noted as real world decisions by writers, creators, and editors instead of shoehorned into the flow of the bio. - J Greb 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I went through and edited the ref tags to JUST reference the source/issue etc as they should be. As for Speed Demon, he has his own article, he gets to be a short bit here, just like Blue Beetle and The Flash. Leave him on his own, it's JUST enough to warrant it's own article and I think that's fine. For the infobox, you might want to consider using Robin (comics) as an example. The current Robin is bolded, however that would probably mean we need separate infoboxes per character... Atom (comics) has another example of the multi-hero box. - But yeah, pub history, if we pull it out, may help. It's also okay to later say 'This was retconned and became...' since I know that;s been done in a couple places. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup - As for keeping the Whizzer/Speed Demon information for the guy who's both separate - No. We don't do that for anyone else. Wally West has his exploits as Kid Flash and the Flash, Dick Grayson has Robin and Nightwing. Speed Demon the article should be about Speed Demon and everything he was and has been. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Went through the refrences to put most of them in the "Comic book refrence format". I also added external links to a on-line source for the issue information for each cite except the Exiles.

One worrying item though... ref #13 covers 2 arcs, one 4 issues the other 3, and a stand alone issue that cover a nine year period. I think I see how to split it up, but it still looks like it'll be clunky. - J Greb 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

On the references... As they stand right now they are in the proper format, or at least as close to it as is possible without each issue getting a separate number, and there by making it a de facto all inclusive appearance list.

As pointed out, the Sanders section is nothing more than a passing "Yup, he used the name. To read about it go here." statement. If the intent is to move the Speed Demon article, in whole oer in part, in to this article, it needs to go through the full blown procedure. I'm going to try and be bluntly clear here. This has become a major point of contention, with the Whizzer and Speed Demon article specifically, but also with all of the related Squadron Supreme, Squadron Sinister, and Supreme Powers articles. If the mergings are the desired result, propose 'em, let the debates run, and live with the consensus that results.

Section headers... restored the formatting. The 3 bios are sub-section of the FCB. - J Greb 05:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

References aren't supposed to be parenthetical comments. I'm going through and fixing them as best I can. If you can't say it in-line, then rethink how you're phrasing it. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeat ad nasuem. Assgardian are you reading these or just reverting for the sake of reverting? It's hard to tell. the ref tags should just be a note to say what issues (books etc) you can find information in. If I've taken out parenthetical comments, please add them back in outside the ref tags. Joe Superhero does ABC. <ref>Comic Foo, Issue Blah</ref>. Not Joe Superhero does ABC. <ref>Comic Foo, Issue Blah, even though it says BCA</ref> -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be tweaked, but I've just reworked the Earth-712 Whizzer section in layperson English and as the "Alternate versions" item it is. I've also copy edited all the details about his adventures with the Squadron Supreme and embedded it so that someone can place it in the Squadron Supreme article where it more properly belongs. (I'm afraid to go over there since what I saw in passing needs so much work and I've only go so much energy!) --Tenebrae 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a thought, Tenebrae or Ipstenu, do either of you know how to set up a side bar, preferably as a template, that would run down the right side? What I'm thinking is that, given the point that this article, as well as the others associated with the Squadrons, a sidebar nutshelling the Marvel Multiverse, with specifics for the character or team the article focuses on, would clear at least a portion of the jargon problem.

I had included it as a Note, in a separate section, not as a cite, here at one point, but that was reverted out. I've cobbled a rough idea of what I'm thinking about here. - J Greb 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am enormously impressed both with your ingenuity and your technical skills! I can only contribute some copy editing that hopefully streamlines while also helping make a difficult concept even clear. Specifically, I exchanged the publishing data for the Official Handbook with simply a link to the Official Handbook Wiki entry, and removed the sentence about "This article deals with...." since that would be self-evident if the sidebar appears in a particular article. Those things aside, Bravo, dude! Now that is constructive.--Tenebrae 12:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the rework, it simplifies things and it eliminates the annoying "band" that cropped up with 3 or less characters. (Yes, I deliberately changed the background for the 4th through 6th characters as a readability issue.) That being said, there still needs to be a linkage other than the sidebar being on the page. Did a little tinkering with that... - J Greb 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it rocks. Other editors may see things I'm missing that might need tweaking, but I'm down with what you got. What now? Do you put it on the Comics Project noticeboard for comment? --Tenebrae 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea... and posted on the Project talk. - J Greb 07:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The naming of the Blur

The anom 66.44.54.180 brings up a good point. I've got nagging images of both the Squadron Sinister and the Supreme Power characters mentioning the degrading connotation of the name in story. Unfortunately I don't have the stories readily available (bagged, boxed, and stored...).

Could someone who has the books at hand check that for a primary source?

- J Greb 05:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up PH, as it had quite a few spelling errors, speculation, POV and some incorrect tenses /grammar. Basically, we can only say what we can prove with a source. That said, good effort. The PH is the hardest component to write, and many make the mistake of turning it into an extension of the FCB, which it is not.

Kept intro, as it is consistent with many other entries, and as has been explained the universe numbering is the key to separating "who's who" for all the Supreme/Sinister members. Also need to keep that early history of the evil Whizzer, then jump to Speed Demon. All that's really happened is that I've expanded it and made it clearer, of which there can never be enough with the aforementioned teams.

Asgardian 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your points are absolutely right that we need to take out the POV, etc. But a wholesale change that rewrites the intro with jargon meaningless to the general public and which is contrary to Project editorial guidelines and exemplar is not the way to do it. We've all been through this before, A. Let's take things paragraph by paragraph together with other editors. It'll save us all a lot of time and agro, if history serves. You know your Marvel, so let's do this together right. Thanks-- Tenebrae 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...intro reworked, with universe numbering now in notes, which helps. PH still needs some tidying up and a few tenses are a little off. Should really always be about the dates and then the information follows. Will do in a day or so. The FCB I wrote is pretty strong if I say so myself, as I spent some time in working out chronologies and then applying sources.

Asgardian 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cameo

I know about vol. 1, #69. All four appear on a cliff in the final panel. It's a cameo and not a first full appearance. So, let's note it as such.

Asgardian 11:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still the character's first appearance. Honestly, to say otherwise is being historically inaccurate. We can't ignore facts that we don't like. The Whizzer's first appearance is The Avengers #69. Yes, it's a cameo, but a cameo is still a first appearance. Luke Wilson has a cameo in Meet the Fockers, but it's still an appearance. We can't really say he doesn't appear.

--Tenebrae 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine's first appearance is cited as #180 - 181. Sounds like a good way of covering the bases.

Asgardian 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 1 edits

I'm going to explain why I reverted, and if Asgardian still feels his version is the more encyclopedic, we'll need to do a Request for Comment from the editorial community.

As I noted above, the verifiable fact of the Whizzer's first appearance is The Avengers #69.

Second, Asgardian violates much of WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines and exemplar. We don't spell out months in an issue cite, we don't separate the months from the issue cite (e.g. "from Timely in August of that year"), we say the full name of a company in first-mention ("Timely Comics", not "Timely"), etc. All this is in just the first couple of PH sentences and the superhero box. I can list every other vio or clunky phrase individually, but rather than nitpicking, I'd encourage Asgardian and myself not to engage in an edit war, and, if Asgardian feels so strongly about his version, that we present both to the WikiComics community for peer evaluation. What say? --Tenebrae 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The cameo issue is still out there. The more I think about it, it should read like the Wolverine example to be accurate. This extends to a LOT of characters seen in one panel, and opens a whole new can of worms. As for technical edits, I've checked and abbreviations for dates are fine, although you'll find umpteen articles cite it as the Avengers. As for the text, I'll touch it up again tomorrow, and note the Timely point. Your paragraph should also lead with a date for consistency, and there's some text that's a tad too conversational. Again, tomorrow. Despite Gentleman Ghost's bizarre assertion, I would hardly call this a edit war given how the article has improved (and who's done most of the research).

Asgardian 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why Asgardian continues to disregard WikiComics MOS, but we don't say for an issue date "in August of that year," and we use correct titles, like The Avengers. --Tenebrae 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed date. But, in every other article I've seen it's "Avengers". By that logic, it has to be "Daredevil, The Man without Fear." Other changes made for consistency. Like the table.

Asgardian 08:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A subhead is not the same as a main title. And just because other articles are incorrect doesn't mean others have to be; I could site you two dozen articles that give the title correctly as The Avengers or The Amazing Spider-Man. If you go to Fantastic Four, it even discusses when the "The" was dropped from the cover logo. --Tenebrae 13:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed Demon

I really feel we should move the majority of the details of Speed Demon to his own article. Just as the Dick Grayson page has the full character history of Dick, and not split between 'Robin' and 'Nightwing', Speed Demon should have his whole history on one page. Naturally there will be redundancies, but you shouldn't need to switch back and forth. When characters change codenames, their history follows them. This shouldn't be an exception. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already done that, and Asgardian reverted it. --Pc13 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied the Wizzer section over to Speed Demon, and if we can 'refactor' the section here to something more of a summary, we'll be okay. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

As per Wikipedia dispute-resolution policy, User:Tenebrae is asking for a formal Request for Comment regarding dispute regarding style, content and other issues in two versions of Whizzer.

Here is the current version last edited by User:Tenebrae, and the previous edit by User:Asgardian, the other party.

Statements by editors involved in dispute

Asgardian's version has writing and structure that defies Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines and exemplar. In the SHB, he has the character making his first appearance twice. The writing is wordy and clunky. He has continually reinserted incorrect titles of comics and insisted that it's OK because he's found others with the same incorrect titles. And his repeated insistence that he's saving each article to which he contributes serves as a catch-all rationale for his bulk reversions. --Tenebrae 13:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Asgardian statement to go here)

Asgardian's mistakes appear mostly to be poor grammar and wordiness. The essential information is correct, though it does appear that the second (not the first) Whizzer debuted in two consecutive issues of The Avengers. As to titles, may I suggest one or both of you looking up the titles on the Grand Comics Database for the correct names? Other than that, the differences are minor. This is a tough article to organize, what with all the alternate universe versions and whatnot; you are both to be commended for your efforts. Konczewski 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The title was The Avengers. See [2] or [3]. More importantly, the indicia says The Avengers.

His modern debut is one specific issue, not two issues. Therefore it’s just 69, not 69-70.

“In 1941, the Whizzer first appears in USA Comics #1” technically means he could have appeared before 1941. “The first Whizzer (Robert Frank) debuted in USA Comics #1 (Aug. 1941)” avoids that problem.

Read this next one carefully. Try reading it aloud. Surely you will hear what’s grammatically incorrect about it: “The Stan Lee Lambiek Comiclopedia cites Stan Lee as the writer but with no independent secondary credit is tentative.” What is the subject of the verb ‘’is’’ in that sentence? If it’s the word ‘’credit’’, then what noun is supposed to go with ‘’but with no independent secondary’’?

This is unnecessarily wordy: “Timely published solo adventures of the Whizzer throughout the first half of the 1940s, and in 1946 the Whizzer joined Timely stars Captain America, the Human Torch, and the Sub-Mariner, plus others, as part of the superhero team the All-Winners Squad in the final two issues of (the unhyphenated) All Winners Comics.” I do recognize the reason for saying “the unhyphenated” because otherwise contributors will keep screwing up one or the other, either thinking the hyphen is the error or the absent hyphen is the error.

Tenebrae's version is more consistent with how we word the image captions: "Panel from Squadron Supreme #4 (Dec. 1985). Art by Bob Hall and Sam De La Rosa.]]” The other version’s “features in” is vague and adds nothing.

“This version of the character lives in an alternate reality from the mainstream Marvel universe known as Earth 712.” is more clear than “is based in” and is an active sentence. The “is based in” wording makes it sound like he could be from another universe/timeline.

Tenebrae’s paragraph that starts with “The Whizzer supports team-mate” is too wordy, although Asgardian’s could use a little more detail.

External links: I don’t think the “Lame Superhero of the Week” is objective enough a resource for inclusion.

Overall, Tenebrae’s version has fewer problems, so let’s work with that one. Doczilla 17:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying this again... (comp glitch ate my last attempt)

Magazine title: As Doc points out, the indencia is The Avengers, that is what should be used for volume one when it is mentioned by title. The references need to be corrected here as well. If the comic is miss-named in other articles those should be fixed. Those errors should not be used to justify the error here.
First appearance: I can see the argument for wanting to include both the cameo and first full appearance since they are subsequent issues. However, that should be in the PH where it can be properly explained. The infobox should be short, limited to the first appearance, even if it is only a cameo.

(I'll get to the rest later.) - J Greb 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The indica should be good enough to establish the title, but if you want a secondary source, my old edition of the Overstreet guide also lists the first volume as Avengers, The. It even denotes that the series title was briefly changed to The Mighty Avengers for issues 63-69, not that I particularly want to open a new can of worms. (For the record, it refers to Daredevil simply as Daredevil.)

As for the first appearance, I suppose it's more accurate to show only one issue, but it's such a small point, it doesn't matter that much to me. Whizzer's modern debut didn't merit a mention in my Overstreet guide, but using the previously mentioned example of Wolverine, the guide refers to The Incredible Hulk #180 as the "first appearance (cameo last page)" and #181 as the "first full story". Whichever style is chosen, we should be sure clarify the difference between the cameo and the first full story in the PH, as J Greb has suggested.

As a side note, the SHB instructions use The Incredible Hulk #181 (not 180!) as an example. Perhaps a less convoluted example should be chosen. --GentlemanGhost 22:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or the SHB instructions need to be reviewed, since they aren't reall clear. The infrence would be "first [full] appearance". Either way, that a discusion for the template page. And the camo would still need mention in the PH. - J Greb 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(The rest... I hope)

Publication History:
- The cover date should not be broken up. As Doc notes, Asgradian's structure suggests the Whizzer appeared in stories prior to 1941 as opposed to first appearing that year.
- Magazine/comic book title should always be italicized. USA Comics is a comic book title.
- Timely to Marvel: This seems incorrectly placed in both versions. Frankly, it should be referenced when the character is put back into use in the 1970s. In this section, it should be enough that the wikilink will explain Timely's relationship to Marvel.
- Intellectual property: Since the PH is about the character as a property, a thing, gender specific pronouns should be avoided.
- Writer credit: The sentence is awkward, it also does not belong in the cite. I'd suggest rewording like this:

The character was created by penciller Al Avison and an unnamed writer. One source credits Stan Lee as that writer,[#] but there are no other sources to cooberate the credit.

# http://www.lambiek.net/artists/l/lee_s.htm Lambiek Comiclopedia

- All-Winner Squad: Asgardian's phrasing, though clunky, is more concise. It also avoids naming Whizzer twice in successive sentences. It still has two major drawbacks:
  - All of the characters Timely put into the book were "mainstream" that the time. It wasn't until the collapse and re-birth of the superhero genre that all but Cap and Namor would elicit a "Who's that?" from readers.
  - The end reads more character bio than corporate use of a property. I would suggest:

The company then placed the character, along with its other strong characters such as Captain America and Namor, into team format stories as part of the All-Winners Squad in the final two issues of All Winners Comics.

- - This also avoids the redundant parenthetical from Tenebrae's version. It is self evident that the comics title doesn't have a hyphen.
Caption: As per Doc, Tenebrae's version is closer to guide. It also has the links in place, red or not.
Stanley Stewart:
- The "Note": In both versions this seems out of place. The linkage to the Blur should be under the PH, not what amounts to an FCB.
- Tone: Both versions seem to have the wrong tone. To be frank, I don't see why this is set off as an "Alternate version". The character has seen fairly regular use, and it has been tied to mainline Marvel stories. I really think it should be moved back under the FCB and that the tone should reflect that.
- That being said, there is a problem that Stewart, along with most of the 712 Squadron members, has. Most of the characters history is tied extremely close to the team's history. There is very little solo character development to put into the section. What's left becomes a template for a lot of the characters. ie Replace "Whizzer" or "Stewart" with "Doctor Spectrum" or "Princess Power" and the paragraphs work in those articles.

- J Greb 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A note RE User:Asgardian's refusal to wait the proscribed week and for formal consensus to be achieved on an RfC: When consensus is reached, a third-party editor will incorporate the changes. Asgardian simply reinserted many of his own, old edits — the very ones we're discussing here. I would ask Asgardian to respect the process and to cooperate with other editors. --Tenebrae 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum (based on Asgardian's faux pas)

The article for the Avengers is currently titled properly by the Wiki naming conventions. The proposed change to include "The" to the left of the piping smacks of WP:POINT. The editor should damn well know that the call is fine and that it is the text to the right that should include "The" when referring to the comic book title, not the team.
The Blur: If moved to the PH, the mention should be in chronological order just like the rest of the section. That means the Blur reference is the last thing in the section along with an explanation about Strawzinski's (sp) rework.

- J Greb 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"editor should damn well know"...tone! Unnecessary.

I've phased in Doc's point about the first sentence in PH, it reads well but still begins with a date for symmetry with the rest of the PH. As per JGreb's suggestion, also included a note on the Blur in the correct place with the necessary extra information. Kept the information on the Earth-712 Whizzer in FCB as the other version is clumsy and is not consistent with the style of the rest of the article.

Before anyone screeches, note that I've been listening and incorporating changes. They are there. I just need to SEE how they mesh with the rest of the article, which I imagine is also helpful for everyone else. The discussion is still in play and nothing has to be set in stone just yet. It's not an argument, folks.

Asgardian 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To Asgardian: You put a lot of the same specious edits in all over again, and I believe at this point you are deliberating flouting RfC guidelines and WikiProject Comics editorial style just for kicks. It's been months of this, here and elsewhere. I don't think it's a violation of good faith guidelines to point out that you don't like to follow the rules, and you don't get along well with others. I believe you know better, and you're refusing to let RfC follow its course because you like to get a rise out of your fellow editors. This has got to stop. The fact that a dozen other editors wish you would go away at this point must tell you something. Believe me, it's not, as you keep insisting, that anyone's jealous of your comics knowledge, which is adequate but not exceptional. Do we really need to bring an Admin in this point to sort things out and referee?--Tenebrae 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if that wasn't an emotive post that showed all your cards, I don't know what was. Immature to say the least. Did you read anything I said, or that Doc and JGreb's suggestion have been incorporated, as opposed to ignored? Or are you simply annoyed that some of your edits won't make it through? I suggest letting someone like Doc do the talking for a while. He can be objective.

Asgardian 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How about you play by the Wikipedia policies? An RfC was called, that means the editing of the article stops, period. Not that we pitch ideas an let you implement them as you see fit.

Because of the RfC, you, Tenebrae, and the rest of us who are chiming in don't get to implement suggestions or changes in the article until a third party closes it after it runs its proper course and wither states which version stands, what changes need to be made, or actually implements a compromise based on the information presented here. - J Greb 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment (Neutral to the RfC topic) - Well, technically I think the intent of what you're trying to say is "non-controversial edits". I'm going to revert the entire page to the start date of the RfC, feel free to re-store any non-controversial edits. I would like to avoid protecting the article if possible, but I will if it appears necessary. - jc37 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility and Wikiquette need to return to this discussion immediately. For example: "The editor should damn well know..." and "Immature to say the least." are very inappropriate. - jc37 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm even wary of making a non-controversial edit at this point, I did go ahead and reinsert the missing "of" because that's just grammatically necessary. While the RfC is ongoing, however, it would be most prudent for those of you who've been editing the article to refrain from editing it even the tiniest bit. Give things a little time to cool down. My serious advice: For right now, do not touch it. Doczilla 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Jc37, you're right, that was a very poor choice of phrase on my part (the "The editor should..." one). My apologies for that.

Second, given the nature of the content conflicts, I don't think any edits made to the article would be viewed by all involved as "non-controversial". At best, the changes would get added to "the list" of what needs to be hashed out in the RfC. At worst, they would look like an attempt to support points made during the RfC and circumvent it. (For clarity, this is looking at edits I'd likely make outside of the edited section between Tenebrae and Asgardian that kicked off the RfC.)

- J Greb 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, how does my last edit read given I incorporated the changes proposed by both Doczilla and JGreb? I think it covers all the bases. PH leads with a date for consistency, mentions the debut clearly, avoids POV and has the mention of the Blur in the right place.

Asgardian 10:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian's PH is written partly in present tense, rather than out-of-universe past tense. It uses non-WikiComics Project-style for issue dates, or leaves them out entirely. Less concretely, the tone of the writing is amateurish — sorry, it just is, which is no shame if someone's not a professional writer/editor. And significantly, it's written for a fan audience, not the general-reader audience that Wikipedia requires. Is a non-comics reader supposed to be able to wade through "Note that while the character the Blur is also called Stanley Stewart...he is from the Earth-31916 universe and a different character". It's jargony, insidery fanzine writing, and this is an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae 12:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've just described the majority of comics-related articles : ) - That said, I agree that we have to improve them, even if it's "one-at-a-time". How about this for a way forward: Instead of singling out one editor's writing (whether it's Asgardian, or some other editor's contributions, can be set aside for the moment), and let's just list, by section, what needs to be improved in this article. Call it a pre-featured article peer review, or whatever. - jc37 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and thanks for weighing in. Normally I wouldn't single out an editor; in this case I was responding to his question, "So how does my last edit read?"

You're correct, sadly, in saying that many, many of the character articles are poorly written and fannish. Batman and The Spirit are great examples otherwise. And, thankfully, many of the comics-creator pages, from Stan Lee to such lesser lights as Gary Friedrich, read pretty well.

My hope is that a third party other than Asgardian or myself incorporates consensus changes according to WP:MOS and WikiProject Comics guidelines, and that he and I don't touch this except for non-controversial grammar, punctuation, etc. from here on in. --Tenebrae 12:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies if you thought I was responding negatively to your comments. I merely was/am attempting to shift the discussion from what was done, to what can be done. In other words: "Let's move forward" : ) - jc37 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section by section

Going with Jc37's suggestion, going to list what appear to be issues from top to bottom, and from both versions... (sections listed as they currently fall in the edit window...) - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

General point of clarification: When I cobbled this together, I was looking at both the before and after that Tenebrae cited in the RfC. Point being made may be about one version or the other, or both.
- J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the sectioned discussion list. I believe it's been positive. I'd like to give one more day for anyone else to discuss their thoughts and concerns. After that, I'll "close" each section based on whether or not I see "consensus" in the discussion of each point. And since J Greb took the initiative to make the initial discussion list, once the discussion is closed, I'd like him to make the initial edits to the article of those things which would then be determined to have consensus. If there is no controversy after that (I'd like to presume that there won't be), then we will be able to consider the RfC closed, and you all would then return to regular editing of the article. Any thoughts/concerns about this plan are welcome. - jc37 08:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox (done)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the information about the second character. This information is, or should be, covered in the "Speed Demon" article. Aside from the alter ego being listed and wikilinked, the info shouldn't be here.
Character identification: This should be kept simple and consistent. Since there is no "doubling up" of the alter egos, leaving it as the last name should suffice.
Information in error: There were different pencillers involved with the creation of the two Squadron characters. This is pointed out in the PH.
Magazine titles:
- The Avengers: This is the way the title appears in the indencia of the magazine, so it is the proper title for the first volume. This filters through out the article, including the citations.
- Italicized: Also through out the article there needs to be a consistency of putting magazine titles into italics. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem with any of that. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify something here: Are you referring to the italics point, the titles point in general, or the Infobox point as a whole? - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All - Asgardian 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Sidebar (done)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. (Link in the main article, not the sidebar.) - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible need to include the Blur. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As you like, but I did put the Blur statement with the new title information in the PH in chronological order as requested. I suppose either/or is fine. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at what the sidebar is, the brown text box that shows just below the infobox. At the state where the RfC started it only listed 3 characters: Frank, Sanders, and Stewart (712). If the decision is to include a mention of Straczynski's, then the character should be mentioned in the sidebar, appropriately linked. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. - Asgardian 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A much earlier, lengthy discussion, ending 13 October 2005 above, concluded with decision to mention the Blur only, and link to the Blur's own article. --Tenebrae 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What was being pointed to here is if the mention and link should include a wikilink in the sidebar. - J Greb 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would just confuse things. It's hard enough keeping all three straight as it is, and the sidebars are designed to be a "quick look" reference. A mention and link in the main article, where more details exist, would probably serve.--Tenebrae 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Use Alter ego. The alternate codenames should be mentioned in the text, not in the infobox (it's about characters named Whizzer). Use the full name (first last) for the Alter ego section, and for the other sections of the infobox. For the article text, use the characters' names, rather than "Whizzer", to reduce confusion, since they all are named Whizzer. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible debate point as to how to refer to the character: "Codename", "Alter Ego", or some combination of the two. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alter Ego sounds better. More classic. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on my end: As currently listed the characters are identified by alter ego. It is possible that some would want it as 3 Whizzers, 2 Whizzers and a Whizzer/Speed Demon, Codename (Alter Ego), or Alter Ego (Codename). - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the 3 Whizzers is good, as that's what they are. - Asgardian 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, how about "Whizzer (last name)" and possibly forcing internal links? - J Greb 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking other pages with multiple heros and finding no definitive precedent (i.e. everyone does whatever! Woo!), I would suggest Whizzer (full name) as the best thus far. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead (done)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tense: The section is not supposed to be "in universe", so the past tense should be used when appropriate. This may mean that the section needs to be broken up in to two short paragraph, one for what the character is and one for when each first appeared. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No biggie. That's the work of seconds, and the information can be kept. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication History (done)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Magazine dates: As per MoS these should be kept intact and follow the title.
Grammar: The sentences should not be structured to create ambiguity, such as a statement that leaves the impression that a character appeared in a year prior to its debut. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was fixed, and is in the changed version. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tense: The PH is not an "in universe" section and should be written in the past tense. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual property: The section deals with the character(s) as intellectual property, and this should be reflected in how it/they are referenced. Preferably with the terms "the character" or neuter pronouns. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definately. I use "character" whenever possible. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. It's a big help in keeping the section grounded in reality. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Timely/Marvel: If the general rule is that the Wikilinks can take a reader to where clarification can be found, then the "Timely became Marvel" or "Marvel's predecessor, Timely" doesn't need to be there until there is an actual movement of a property from on to the other. ie "Conway revived the Robert Frank character, which Marvel inherited from Timely." with a link to the appropriate article and section. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As Timely evolved into Marvel, with a continuous provenance, and since we specify at the start that it's Marvel's forerunner, I'm not sure we need to say "which Marvel inherited from Timley". --Tenebrae 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of when/where the tidbit should be in the PH. What I proposed was to use the "inherited" comment in the revival paragraph instead of the current "forerunner" comment. - J Greb 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Information expansion and clean up - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not too much to expand without it becoming repetition and spilling over into the FCB. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. One good example I can think of: the transfusion/mutant origin change. The PH is the place for it to be stated that a writer, 35 years after the character was created, tweaked or retconned the origin. In the FCB it is just "The transfusion of mongoose blood triggers Frank's latent mutant ability." Is there going to be over lap? Yes. But the context of the sections changes what the information means, and what type of information should be included.
- J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- The last Golden Age appearance of the Frank character should be mentioned.
- The "writer" creator credit for the Frank character needs to be cleaned up (suggestion already put forward up page).
- The All-Winner Squad lines need to be less awkward (again, suggestion already put forward up page). - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did mention this. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement but only for the first four characters (and as a team) noted in the reference (which I presume includes The Flash/The Whizzer). The rest are subjective, and currently without reference.

- "1969" needs a mention of the Whizzer being based on the Flash. It also needs to be expanded slightly. the paragraph should round out that Marvel has been using the character and that a later writer revamped it with a name and costume change. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Must have reference proving the Whizzer is based on the Flash, and be written without all that DC bias and POV I pulled. I'll nail that every time. "thinly disguised" was the worst term I've seen yet. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the cite is there, with the previous sentence. Thomas created the Squadron as a pastiche of four of the members of the JLA. That brings with it the four characters as well as the team.
With regard to other article, such as Amphibian, this does not give a cart blanche to try an equate characters. Such later additions to the Sqadron Supreme would need a separate cite by the writer or editor that "We took our cue from Roy and worked up variants of other DC characters." or multiple reputable critics, not fan site speculation, pointing it out. Otherwise it is, as you point out, POV. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

- "1971" needs a little expansion for clarity. It also needs to collect the "1985" and "1989" paragraphs. This keeps the information about this character together, and it also shows Marvel's use of the character. Those paragraphs also need expanding, right now they come across as terse afterthoughts. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A blend is fine, so long as it leads with the date. I am wary of expansion as it becomes conversational and again can just become FCB information. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First what controversy does it raise? Second, see comment up page about PH and FCB overlap. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Conversational, not controversial. - Asgardian 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Here I am looking for trouble where there ain't none... ;) - J Greb 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both re: keeping text succint. --Tenebrae 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was No consensus - I suggest that it be "uncompressed", and a new discussion regarding it started. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- "1976" needs a lot of work. When it was compressed a few salient points got chucked out. First being that the retcons happened over 2 different stories in 2 different years, 1974 and 1976. Second, Conway and Thomas each did different things. Conway tweaked the origin, while Thomas expanded the characters WW2 exploits. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Getting into origins is FCB stuff. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't OK. And this does to a degree relate to the omission of publication dates in the citations.

As currently worded the paragraph implies that Conway and Thomas worked together to reintroduce and tweak the Frank character in 1976. That is patently false. Thomas (amazing how you correct yourself when you look over cites/sources a second and third time...) brought the character back in 1974 (Giant Sized Avengers #1... of 5 quarterly issues). Two years later Conway retconed the Whizzer into a mutant in Avengers Annual #6. That same year Thomas, in a separate story, retconned the character's exploits in WWII.

Since these are the actions and contributions of real people, they do not belong in the FCB. They are part of the characters' PH. Again, I realize this creates what appears to be overlap, but it is consistent in the intended tone of the sections and what they are designed to impart. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying an edited version of the above is just fine for the PH. Adding in-universe origin details here muddles things for average, non-comics reader looking for information about who created what when.--Tenebrae 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That becomes a fine line to dance since the PH could concievably list various creatoes specific contributions to a character's look, personality, and/or origin elements.
For me there is a priority that comes down to which is easier to vet. It is easier to remove PH material from the FCB since the FCB should only deal with in universe material. That becomes a lesser focus. The PH, to be complete, is going to have small bits of "in universe" information. The best way to handle that is to keep it to a minimum and off-set the "in universe" stuff, such as: "In 1976, Conway retconned Frank's origin so that the 'tranfussion of mongoos blood' was not the source of the character's power, but instead triggered its 'mutant ability'." - J Greb 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as suggested - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- As implied above, structurally it would seem to make sense cover each character in full before moving on to the next one in publication order, the exception being the revival. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --Tenebrae 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as suggested (A quick reference sentence or two as part of an existing section, not its own section.) - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- Also, a final section needs to be added to present Straczynski's revisit of the concept.

- J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Did that. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking the Blur, this discussion reached consensus in late 2005. A "main article" link and mention may be appropriate, but not a full section.--Tenebrae 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the suggestion is for a paragraph of one to three sentences in the PH pointing to Straczynski's revisit to the character and its concept. Not a full PH for the Blur. Nor is it being suggested to place a FCB for the Blur in the article. A quick and dirty version would be: "In 2003, Straczynski revisited then concepts Thomas and Grunwald put inplace. He recycled the powers and the alter ego of Stanley Stewart, but he changed the codename for the new character, otping for 'The Blur.'" (with appropriate wikilinks) - J Greb 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction Character Biographies (done)

The result of the proposal was User alter egoes. Though retain/clarify "Golden age" in the first paragraph of the Robert Frank section.- jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headers: As with the identifiers in the infobox, these should be simple and clear. Using just the alter ego is the simplest and clearest way to do this. The current sub-heads are redundant, since the article title is "Whizzer", and clunky. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. (Essentially, to pare down/cull the section.) - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanders/Speed Demon: Based on the existing consensus, this section should be very succinct with the full FCB residing in the "Speed Demon" article. And by succinct, I mean it should approach "Granted powers by the Grandmaster as a pawn against the Avengers. Later cut ties with his 'teammates' and began working solo as 'Speed Demon'." (Gross over simplification, I know.) - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What is there is a pretty good summary of Sanders' days as the Whizzer. Since he was called the Whizzer then, it belongs here. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't good. But that it is in the wrong place. The consensus is that for a charter like Sanders (multiple codnames, at least one shared with other characters, and fair body of use) the bulk gets laid out a separate article with a bare bones sketch in the parent. What is being done here is effectively duplicating the Whizzer portion of the content that should be in the Speed Demon article. That's the wrong way to go about it. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A cull is possible. I'll post a briefer version here. - Asgardian 10:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. - J Greb 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as suggested below - Remove "alternate version". since that's made clear in the "Marvel Comics Alternate Universes" infobox, and in the text. Change Template:Main to [[Template:See also}}. Expand text as suggested below. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stewart: Since this isn't a "one shot" character, but is part of the "working Marvel Universe", it should be included in the FCB, not set off as an "Alternate Version". That being said, the bio does need work since a good chunk of it is effectively a "Fiction Team History" for the Squadron Supreme and is replicated in the FCBs for related characters. Also, the "Main" call out doesn't make sense unless the character is going to folded into that article. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No Alternate Version title. Beyond that, the information is similar as the Squadron travel as a group. I can cull it, but Tenebrae's version is very simplistic and too conversational. The dates in paragraph also jar with the rest of the article. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the bio needs work. It may be a case where the source material needs to be revisited with an eye to specific charter development. Yes, the Squadron shows up as a unit, but what was Stewart's role in it? What character moments did Thomas, Grunewalrd, or other writers give the character? Is there something more than "The Squadron showed up, the Whizzer among them."? The same questions can, and should be asked of the other Squadroners' FCBs.
- J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image/Caption (done)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version is in line with the guidelines for image captions.
Placement: The Stewart image would work better from a design standpoint on the left side. It would "point" the reader back into the article and it would also balance out the 'box and sidebar. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem there. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, and image of Sanders in a Whizzer costume should be included for completeness. Something about the same size as the Stewart image. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I checked. Photoshop may be the best bet for a good look at him. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I take you cant find a good mug shot of him in the story pages? Keep in mind, there is no guideline against the use of images with word-balloons. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Other Media

[edit] Footnotes (done)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. (See Wikipedia:Footnotes for the guideline.) - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename "references" since this is the citation section.
In general with the cites:
- Consistency: All of the cover dates are available, there is no reason that some cites have "month, year", some just "year", and other nothing. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Some are one-shots and mini-series, in which case just the year is presented. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup.. and that accounts for #s 5, 10, and 18, Annuals all. It doesn't account for #s 7, 13, 14, and 17. None of these are complete series, but rater individual issues, or a pair in the case of 7, where they were published with a month and year. And it come nowhere near explaining #s 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, where no date is given at all. - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Miniseries and one-shots have dates. Best source I've found for these is The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators which tends to be slightly more up-to-date that Grand Comics Database.--Tenebrae 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Six of One..." Main point is the information for full citation of the issues exists. Personal preference for me would be the GCD since a link can be made to the specific index for a particular issue or series. That being said, there are some current series/issues that have yet to be indexed there. - J Greb 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

- Redundancy: the current #4 is a dupe of #s 6 and 7. And #s 5 and 10 are the same source. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That can be written to say something like see Point X. What is Wiki-proper. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Or the first cite can be given a name and the second, and later cites can call that name. That had been done with the redundant cites at one point. It results in one listing in the Reference section, all be it with two or more links into the article body.- J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as unopposed. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- Appropriateness: #15 does not fit what it is supposed to be a citation for.
- General use: It would be a good idea to use the "Comic book ref" template, even in a truncated form, for consistency in the cites.
- As an addendum to that, I had put those in place with an additional item added, an external link to the various issues at the GCD. I did this in an attempt to include the credits and story titles without actually including them in the cite. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  
  The addendum is mostly a moot point. With the suggested inclusion of the GCD base site in the References section, the individual links become redundant. - J Greb 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and External Links (done)

The result of the proposal was Consensus to implement as suggested below. (Separate sections, with "references" specifically for use as a bibliography, "footnotes" as footnotes, and "external links" as Wikipedia:External links.) - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Combine into "External Links" - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be separate. - Asgardian 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Aggreed. "References" are the citations made in the article. "External Links" are sites out side of Wiki that are not cited in the article. Hence the point immediately below and the suggestion to rename "Footnotes" to :References". - J Greb 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE specifies that "References" and "Footnotes" (or "Notes") are different things with different headings. --Tenebrae 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the guideline and looking at what has been suggested, "Footnotes" is inappropriate.

With the move of the information into the article proper, everything in the list becomes a cite, making it a "Reference" section.

The two web site links fit as "External Links", however:

1) If the links to the GCD indexes are incorporated in the cites, the USA Comics #1 link is redundant; and

2) The "Lame..." is most likely going away.

If this happens, then the "External Links" section is unneeded. - J Greb 19:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what WP:CITE says:

"A 'footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference for it, or both. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is indicated by a number or symbol which appears both after the relevant text and before the footnote."
"It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained...."

A "Footnotes" section is not the same as a "References" section. If they're connected by numbers, they're footnotes. --Tenebrae 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... this indicates that recommended (and I tend to read that as "acceptable") section headers include both "Footnotes" and "References".

Further, the following section, which you start to quote, lays out that "Footnotes" contain both citations and tangential information. It recommends in those cases that separate "Reference" (cites) and "Note" (tangential stuff) sections be used.

Taken together, that can be read as, that while "Footnotes" is a correct and acceptable heading, "References" is more appropriate to a section that is only citations.

As an aside, I have a hunch that the guideline is the way it is because of coding limitations. Since the "Ref" tag only seems to work one way, it isn't possible for there to be separate citation and notes end sections with embedded call-outs.

One other salient point. The Comics Project exemplars specifically use the term "References" for the section, just as the use "Publication history" and "Fiction character biography". Given how the exemplars are laid out and applied, that reads as what the section should be headed. - J Greb 07:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The exemplar actually doesn't has Footnotes on its section list at all. That doesn't mean this section is disallowed -- it just means the exemplar didn't include something that overall Wikipedia cite guidelines say it should have.

"Tangential information" is a vague phrase. I take it to mean things like this.

Numbered-citation sections throughout the comics project are labeled Footnotes, as they mostly are throughout Wikipedia -- correctly, I believe, correctly given the common dictionary meaning of Footnotes,. Do we really want to change every Comics Project article and dispute the dictionary? With so much else we're fixing, I'm not sure why such a radical change is so important. I've agreed with you on everything so far; I'm sure there's room to see something another way. --Tenebrae 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The exemplar lists, as a bulleted point with bolded text identifier, "References". The bulleted points are used as section headers in article. WP:CITE is clear that "References" is an acceptable header for a footnote section. At that point we may be arguing "tO-ma-tO", "tO-mA-tO".

That, and the other "note" point in the FF article, are more or less exactly what I meant by tangential. Something that is all but impossible to easily work into the article itself.

I'd ask if the "Footnote" headers you are looking at reside on all types of the sections or not. I'm not arguing that it should not be used in cases where the section is purely notes, or a mix of notes and cites. I'm putting forward that "References" is more correct where the section is purely citations. What is the "Footnote" to "Reference" ration on the purely cite sections? From what I've seen, the favored use is "Reference" in this narrow case. - J Greb 18:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because "Footnotes" isn't listed in the exemplar does not mean it's forbidden. The exemplar can't list every single possible section that might be used, and in any case, Wiki MOS overrides, like federal law overrides state law. There will be a References section with links to the Grand Comics Database, the Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators and other general database sources, which is preferable to footnoting every single database entry for the credits of every issue here. You're getting your way on everything else, so I'm not sure why you're so insistent on not compromising. --Tenebrae 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Back up a tick. At least one point we're butting heads on is a matter of semantics. The places for the points in conflict to be hashed out would be the project exemplar page (expansion/change of the bullet/header suggestion) and WP:CITE (change in what is acceptable as headers), or our talk pages.

And you're right, I'm digging my heels in on, what is here, a silly point. Either way we move forward from here, there will be other articles that will need to have these sections looked at. Lots of articles. At this point, given your point of putting links to specific sites used as or containing source material in a separate section, it makes sense to split it.

My apologies if I've been acting the ass on this point. - J Greb 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. And you're correct that some vagueness and seeming contradictions in the policies need to be addressed where you say. I'm not quite sure what the sentence beginning "At this point" is saying, but it sounds like we'll be using both "Footnotes" and "References" (and, I guess, if applicable, "External links" of the non-"Lame Superhero" variety.... :-) -- Tenebrae 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"At this point" I can see that "it makes sense to split it" as a Footnotes section for the ref call outs and a Reference section for the "links to specific sites used as or containing source material", as per "your point". Sorry if it parsed poorly :). - J Greb 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was Implement as suggested. - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- As noted above, the "Lame Super Heroes of the Week" should be removed as non-objective.

Agree. --Tenebrae 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that covers it all... And if an editor is going to discuss a point, please do so immediately following the point and place a copy of my sig at the end of my text. That way we can have a more cohesive idea of what's going on. - J Greb 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisits

Not quite...there's still...present tense in the introduction as that's the norm. 1941 at the start of the first PH sentence for consistency, and keep the mention of the Earth-31916 title at the end of the PH. Tidy up the conversional and slightly simplistic tone (eg. "good") in the Stanley Stewart section and tag references rather than in-sentence as does not gel with rest of article. Keep the first two SS appearances as they are very significant and feature the Whizzer heavily. Direct to SS article for the rest.

Asgardian 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian,

The lead is not an in-universe section. The only item it relates that could be view as "in the present" is the ownership of the characters. That's a separate section. Also, what is currently up is the result of this. Where, to all appearance you agreed with the statement that past tense should be used where appropriate, and it is definitely appropriate when talking of comic book published in the past.

PH, as per the first section closed here, the publication date needs to stay together. If you had a problem with that you should have addressed that point specifically.

The Supreme Power PH section is still open for discussion at the end of this section, just before this one starts.

Likewise, the Stewart FCB is still open, just above the start of this section. It might be proper for you to repeat your comment on that section there.

That still leaves other points you may want to chime in on:

Sidebar here;
The PH here beyond SP, including: Timely/Marvel, the "Stan as writer/creator" credit, 1969, and 1976;
The FCB sub-headers here; and
A final word on the Sinister Whizzer image here

- J Greb 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional note

I'd suggest we very sparingly use terms like "Earth-616" and "Earth-712" and use such general-reader-friendly terms like "mainstream Marvel continuity" and "an alternate reality". We have to keep in mind that we're writing for a general audience, and to keep jargon to the minimum. As well, what we do here is going to serve as the template for Nighthawk, Hyperion, etc., so we need to take extra care. --Tenebrae 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) that is probably a good idea. However, at some point in the article the earth-# should be noted as well. "The mainstream Marvel continuity (also known as Earth-616)..." - or whatever words you want to use for the mainstream MCU. - jc37 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Or "(see sidebar)", since that was the fundimental function the sidebar was created for. - J Greb 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "See sidebar" is a great idea! And, yeah, you're absolutely right that a mention of the different numbered Earths should be made in the article. I'd suggest doing it once each in the "Fictional character biography" sections, since that's as in-universe as it gets!--Tenebrae 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me : ) - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So...? - Asgardian 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The next step, as outlined by Jc37, is for him to close the discussion. Then he has proposed that J Greb make the agreed-upon changes to the article. --GentlemanGhost 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I closed most of the discussion points. If I left a section open, it was either "no consensus", or each person's perspective needs clarifying. Please feel free to further clarify on those points. (I would rather see more discussion, than to close them as "no consensus".) User:J Greb is welcome to implement the results of the discussions which were closed. And as I noted above, As the RfC is still "open", other than User:J Greb implementing the closures, please continue to refrain from editing the article until the RfC is fully closed. And I'd like to echo Doczilla's comments below. I think that this has been very productive. I'd like to see more of our contentious discussions resolved in such a point-by-point manner. It seems to facilitate communication better. - jc37 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just dropping by to see how this is turning out. I'm impressed with the effort I see here. Doczilla 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok... first round of closed points hit... any movement on what's Left? - J Greb 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... I added present tense in the introduction as that's the norm and culled a spelling mistake or two. Just put 1941 at the start of the first PH sentence for consistency, and kept that mention of the Earth-31916 title that you wanted at the end of the PH. Tidied up the conversional and slightly simplistic tone (eg. "good") in the Stanley Stewart section and tagged references rather than in-sentence as does not gel with rest of article. Kept the first two SS appearances as they are very significant and feature the Whizzer heavily. Directed to SS article for the rest. Looks pretty sharp! - Asgardian 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. my bad. Saw the comments above were boxed, but couldn't see anything about the actual article. Well, there you go. That's all I think it needs now. - Asgardian 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do the minor edits get discussed then? - Asgardian 09:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up to "Section by section", and please feel free to comment in any section of text which hasn't been "boxed" (as you put it). - jc37 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarity and ease of finding what's still unresolve, I've tweaked the headers. - J Greb 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give this a couple more days, then I'll close the rest. There are several unopposed sections above, if no further comment occurs, they'll be closed as "implement". - jc37 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, all sections have been closed. I think we've waited more than long enough. (I didn't bother with the image request, if you find one, discuss it here first.)

My apologies to everyone for the length of the RfC (typically they only last around a week), but I very much was hoping for discussion, especially since I think this may be useful for a precedent in the future. Though "in the future", I think after 48 hours of reduced discussion (I waited over a week), the sections should start being closed.

As before, we're waiting on J Greb to implement. Once that's done, then the RfC will be closed.

A word of warning - I've had to revert the page several times during this RfC. The next time I have to do so (especially with it nearly over), that person will be blocked. At this point, such edits would be seen as bad faith edits, likely to be tendentious or disruptive.

In the meantime, everyone is still welcome to comment if they wish (this is still a talk page after all). - jc37 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some final notes on the last sections:

PH: Implementing the changes specified under "Information expansion and clean up" required implementing some changes from under "1976", even though that was closed as "No consensus".
Image: At this point it looks unlikely that an image of the Saunders Whizzer is available, so that section as a whole should likely be closed.
FCB for Stewart: There is still a chunk of text memoed there... given the close I believe it should be chucked, but I'm leaving it until what is relevant of it can be mover to the Squadron Supreme article.
Comics ref template: Deliberately left to be the last thing done.

- J Greb 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, and nice job : )

Since The 1976 section was considered "No consensus", if someone opposes those changes, please feel free to start a new section below to discuss it.

If, as I read the above, J Greb has implemented all the changes, then I'm closing this RfC as completed, with consensus determined on nearly every point (see each section for more information).

And while I am disappointed that User:Asgardian edited the article again prior to the close, I'll refrain from following through on the warning (to block), and just revert. If the changes that Asgardian is making/suggesting are contrary to the above consensus, I presume that they may be reverted at will (unless/until a new consensus should be determined). - jc37 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Nebulon

Sorry, I just remembered that you've got a dispute on this article so I thought I would add a note here in case you need to revert my change. Just wanted to note that the alien Nebulon in this article needed to be disambiguated, since Nebulon refers to Transformers characters, while Nebulon would have to be a placeholder for an eventual article. 204.153.84.10

Fixing bad links is never controversial (or it shouldn't be, anyhow). Thanks for helping out! --GentlemanGhost 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

I fail to see the problem with those minor edits. They add consistency and tidy up sentence structure and style. Hardly disruptive. Asgardian 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because the RfC had not been closed yet. Quoting from above:

"And while I am disappointed that User:Asgardian edited the article again prior to the close, I'll refrain from following through on the warning (to block), and just revert. If the changes that Asgardian is making/suggesting are contrary to the above consensus, I presume that they may be reverted at will (unless/until a new consensus should be determined). "

I suggest, if you haven't already, that you may wish to read (re-read?) through the "section by section" closed discussions. - jc37 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the edits improve the clarity. It's very simple.

Asgardian 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great that you're self-confident enough to feel that way about your edits. However, I would appreciate if you would actually explain how the edits improve the clarity. And, more importantly, how your edits match the recent consensus on this page. - jc37 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead with date for every opening sentence in PH. Clarity and consistency.

All information in PH in chronological order. No biggie.

Tidy up FCB for last two Whizzers for clarity.

Asgardian 06:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you're wiping out a lot of the ref-formatting when you do your changes. Is there a reason you're doing what appears to be a sectional revert instead of a more careful copyedit? -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ipstenu, have included the new references. I've added the PH references that were mentioned (and needed), and done a modest tidy up of the FCB so it is less simplistic and more to the point. Now reads fairly well.

Asgardian 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Once more: Your edits are contrary to the consensus above. Even the simplest part in duplicating the "Timely predecessor to Marvel" comments. If you do this once more, Asgardian, you'll be blocked. - jc37 12:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an overreaction and not correct. I am aiming for consistency throughout, which the article currently does not have. Are you a comic fan and know your SS and Whizzer? I did add the new references. Changing a sentence to lead with a date like the rest of the paragraph is not earth-shattering...

Asgardian 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But you're just throwing up an old version. You're not making any new changes, you keep restoring the version you like. Why not do ONE thing, like take the current FCB and change it alone, rather than try and do a massive revert. Chuck the old version and work for something new. You're trashing a lot of valid data and refs when you do it the way you are. Repeat: Is there a reason you're doing what appears to be a sectional revert instead of a more careful copyedit? -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll rework a version for your perusal, Ipstenu. You I respect, so I'll do it your way.

Asgardian 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you a comic fan and know your SS and Whizzer? - Whether I've been reading comics for several decades (which I have), is immaterial. There is now consensus on "the way forward". And it doesn't matter whom you "respect" at this point either. If you do this even one more time, you'll be blocked for tendentious editing. - jc37 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why weren't these potential edits discussed during the cooperative effort posted up above on this page? Shouldn't the RfC-related work have taken care of all this? Why is this dispute happening at all? Doczilla 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you go through the edits, you'll find that most, if not all, of them were listed and/or discussed above... - jc37 08:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is they ought to have been resolved already. My question is aimed at any involved party now introducing deviations from the agreed-upon edits. I would prefer not to look through the specific edits because I hope I might offer some semblance of an objective outside view. Somebody is in the wrong here. Either (a) contentious edits are being made that should have been discussed during the RfC but the person making them refrained from mentioning those, (b) somebody is blatantly disregarding consensus which didn't go his or her way, or (c) other people who have chips on their shoulders are overreacting to minor edits. (Choice c seems unlikely given the amount of red lettering I see when I compare the two versions. I have not checked to see which of the two best matches the agreed-upon version from the end of the RfC.) Did somebody plan on introducing these edits all along regardless of consensus? The only way this makes any sense is if these are wholly new edits that in no way have anything to do with anything that was discussed or that should have been discussed during the RfC, and I have trouble imagining what could possibly qualify for that exception. It's not like any Whizzer is so busy a character that he's giving everybody a lot of new material to incorporate into the article. Doczilla 09:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever big work the article still needs should have crossed somebody's mind before the RfC-connected discussion ended. If it wasn't important enough to think of then, it's not important enough that it has to be rushed into right now. Doczilla 09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with anything in your above two posts. - jc37 11:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here... I think there may be one or two points over the last three actions by Asgardian that are additional to the RfC, but it would take some doing to dig them out of the rest. - J Greb 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll rewrite a version in a few days and post it here.

Asgardian 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Page

The result of the proposal was Split - I'd suggest using Whizzer for the Marvel comics characters (the more commonly known), and Whizzer (Robert Frank) for the Timely comics character, since it's about a single character, rather than an overview page. This would also deal with J Greb's (Marvel Comics) disambiguation concerns. - jc37 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the Robert Frank character had absolutlely nothing to do with the Squadon Supreme/Squadron Sinister/Supreme Power versions of Whizzer/Speed Demon/Blur, I think it makes sense to split it off similar to Black Widow (Timely Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics). -- 69.183.15.244 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mild Oppose -- The Vision and Black Widow articles are nice precedent for characters the Marvel has all but ignored since the end of the Golden Age, if not earlier, but there are two issues that make the application here problematic.
1. The Frank character was brought back as a recurring character from the mid-70s through the mid-80s. This made him as much a "Marvel" character as Captain America or Namor.
2. The modern versions of both the Vision and Black Widow have substantially more information to cover than the Golden Age characters. The Whizzers each have roughly the same amount of material to cover. - J Greb 08:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak support but go with the general structure in this entry: create Whizzer (Timely Comics) and link it in from the section here with {{Main}}. If you made an article on the Timely Comics I feel it'd need to be mentioned in here anyway making the need for a disambiguation page unnecessary. (Emperor 12:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
- Just to clarify why I proposed the disambiguation page. Since a Whizzer (disambiguation) page already exists, I though redirecting Whizzer(this page) to the disambig with the two character entries linked from the disambig made sense. -- 69.183.15.244 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Um... you may want to look at articles like Frankenstein and Werewolf. If there is a well defined likely "first target" the practice is to have that article take the name, not the dab page. And in this case, it is most likely that a user would be looking for the character(s) owned by Marvel. - J Greb 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I assume the precedent for the split is here [4] although, as J Greb notes, the case may be less clear cut here (due to his appearances in Marvel titles - making his inclusion on this page seem a good idea - although that doesn't stop a separate entry from being created). (Emperor 12:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Support The Timely Vision appeared in a later volume of Invaders, and the Timely Black Widow (IIRC) will be in The Twelve, so you have at least some precedent there. BOZ 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Normally I support merges for different versions of characters but I just think the Squadron characters are confusing enough as it is. I hate to see the Robert Frank character getting caught up in the madness given that his only thing in common is the name Whizzer. He doesn't have the same creative connections to the other character that Jay Garrick has to the other Flashes. I also think that at some point there needs to be a discussion on how to handle the four main Squadron characters(Hyperion, Nighthawk, Doctor Spectrum and the 3 runners) so that the pages are structured similarly but thats a discussion for another time. -- 69.183.15.244 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Split, with reservation I've been on the fence, but 69.183.15.244 makes a good point -- it is damnably difficult keeping all the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme/MAX etc. straight. I draw a different conclusion, though: Whereas we'd want to keep the various Nighthawks, Doctor Spectrums, etc. together for easy compare/contrast, I would split the Timely Comics Whizzer, who as a character is unrelated to the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme/MAX Whizzers. The only connection is the name. That said, I'd keep the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme/MAX Whizzers together. --Tenebrae 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with JGreb's point about Robert Frank, which most have overlooked - probably because they haven't seen the comics. He was around in the 70's and 80's. The summary is fairly clear, and there's not that much information here, as the Earth-712 version has all but disappeared. Asgardian 11:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Split The Timely Comics Whizzer is a completely seperate character, as different as Spider-Man is from Spider-Man 2099. Creatively speaking, the Squadron characters have more in common with The Flash than they do with Robert Frank. The way the article is currently merged makes it seem like Robert Frank is just another version of the Squadron characters. - 12.76.129.127 07:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to work up a model when I have the time, and you all can have a look at it, work on it, and then we'll decide as a group if we want to use it that way. BOZ 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't be the one to attempt this. Because of the article's current structure, I'm finding it hard to find a place to start - everything's interwoven a bit much. Maybe I'll look at it again later and something will come to me. Meanwhile, to allay some concerns that a few people seem to have, I'd advocate splitting the Golden Age Whizzer into Whizzer (Robert Frank) rather than Whizzer (Timely Comics). The Spider-Woman characters, for example, are disambiguated that way. This way the title doesn't imply what company owned/published the character, but instead focuses on the character himself. BOZ 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to look further back in the edit history. It may make your task easier. - jc37 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's edit

Why:

Foremost [this] was a revert to the same editor's version of June 20, 2007. Which the editor put in place in spite of the RfC consensus results, and RfC he participated in.
Given the contentiousness of these edits, before the publication history has information removed or it structure changed, a discussion should be had here on the talk page.
Check links before doing a blanket revert: the article on the cobra is now the primary use of that title, no dab extension.
As with the publication history, the Stanley Stewart section changes also need to be discussed first.
The spot image. Graphic design 101: Images that have a definite flow which the eye follows should be placed so that the eye is directed back into the text. The image drags the eye from the upper right, corner through and arc, and back out the right side. The text should be to the images right.
"See also" instead of "Main": If the above split happens, then "Main" should be used since it will be directing to the actual article on the subject, as is done with Speed Demon. But if the article referred to doesn't share the same primary focus as the section, it should be "See also", and since the Squadron Supreme article does not focus on the Stewart character, "See also" is the way to go.

- J Greb 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In looking over the June 14th edit and the two June 21st edits, they are the same as the edit User:Asgardian attempted today.

Now there was an extensive RfC about all of this. And the user was invited to join in on it, and all I need do is scroll up to see that the user agreed with the results. But then after it was done, attempted to ignore the results and add his version. And now we see this again today.

It's just a repetitive pattern, constantly being called in to referee over Asgardian's Ownership of articles issues. This is simply an example of Tendentious editing, a type of Disruptive editing. - jc37 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Six guns and assumptions back in holsters please. I take the point about the cobra, but is there is a Wiki ruling as to image placement, or is it just opinion? Also, the PH still has some sloppy wording and a touch of POV, such as "other strong characters". Without sales figures that's opinion. The Stanley Stewart section is also weak and needs work. I'll post a revision here.

Asgardian 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're missing (or ignoring) in the above statements is that you're consistantly reverting to your "preferred" version. The exact same version of the page. - jc37 18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also occurred to me that there is still no good shot of the evil Whizzer.

Asgardian 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, which assumptions, that it was a blanket revert or that you had agreed with the RfC?

That aside, you're right the "other strong characters" comment is awkward, at best. There are also a few typos in the paragraph as it stands. A possible correction to the para is:

The first Whizzer (Robert Frank) debuted in USA Comics #1 (Aug. 1941), published by Timely Comics. The character was created by penciller Al Avison and an unnamed writer. One source credits Stan Lee as that writer,^[1] but there are no other sources to support the credit. Timely published solo adventures of the Whizzer throughout the first half of the 1940s, then, in 1946, the company placed the character, along with a number of its other marquee characters, such as Captain America and Sub-Mariner, into team format stories as part of the All-Winners Squad in the final two issues of All Winners Comics. These were the character's last appearances during the 1940s.

As for the image, there is a reason I tagged the comment "Graphic design 101" instead of "Wiki image placement 101", the view is based on fundamental concepts in the area of graphic design and page layout. I would also direct you to #Image/Caption (done) where you agreed with a left side placement of the image. - J Greb 16:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiram Arnold

Was there a Whizzer named Hiram Arnold, member of the Squadron Supreme before Stanley Stewart? [5] He apparently appeared again in Quasar #54. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.15.188 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks like fan fiction. It's not a source to use.Doczilla 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Whizzer (Robert Frank)

I think Tenebrae did a fine job of making the information on each of the Whizzers more distinctly separate, with his latest edit here: [6]

If Robert Frank was ever going to be split into his own page, I think that would be the best starting point. It seems that a consensus was established above to do just this (and leave the other Whizzers here on this page), so if there are no strong objections I'd be happy to do the work myself. :)

I'll hold off for a day or so, in case anyone feels this needs to be discussed further. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, BOZ. And, yeah, it looks like consensus was made in September to split him off (modeled, I guess, after the Golden Age and modern Visions). Geez, guess we've all been busy with back-to-school and other work! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok at first glance. - jc37 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'll work on that this morning. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been done. Note that I wasn't sure which Whizzer the "In Other Media" section was referencing, so I left that as-is. If there's anything else that needs fixing, have at it! BOZ (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Whizzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Blur

[edit] Clean up issues

[edit] References

[edit] Re: The naming of the Blur

[edit] Cameo

[edit] May 1 edits

[edit] Speed Demon

[edit] Request for Comment

[edit] Section by section

[edit] Infobox (done)

[edit] Sidebar (done)

[edit] Lead (done)

[edit] Publication History (done)

[edit] Fiction Character Biographies (done)

[edit] Image/Caption (done)

[edit] In Other Media

[edit] Footnotes (done)

[edit] References and External Links (done)

[edit] Revisits

[edit] Additional note

[edit] Nebulon

[edit] ?

[edit] Split Page

[edit] Today's edit

[edit] Hiram Arnold

[edit] Split Whizzer (Robert Frank)

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search