Talk:Black Condor

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

July 4 through 14

While "cultural importance" may be vague, it is better than an arbitrary criteria that cannot be used evenly.

The "character has 'X'+ yrs of publishing history - mid level importance warranted" is such an arbitrary criteria.

For this character "60" was substituted for "X", even though the character has not been in continual use for those 60+ years. At best, the character has 30 years worth of published stories, and the bulk of those as a 3rd tier character.

There is also how "'X'+ years of PH" was used to generate the same importance rating for characters first published in the `60s and the `40s. By that criteria, any character created prior to 1967 and having even sporadic use qualifies as "Mid".

Is there something else that can argue for the subject of the article being Mid?

- J Greb 06:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (sig added after its absnences was pointed out.) - J Greb 17:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually disgarding the publishing years, and specifically the number of incidences throughout the years said character has been involved in various contemporary series, seems to differentiate this character from...say...Bozo the Robot or Quality Comics Black Widow...which have definitely had a low impact as they haven't been reintroduced. Mid seems to be the best "middle ground" rather than lumping these characters with obscure characters. Regards (and please sign your posts in the future, thx).Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time since a character's first appearance matters little when assessing the importance of the character to printed versions of Wikipedia, which is what we are doing here. What matters is how vital it is that an article on the topic in question is within a printed version, and in these instances it isn't of any importance, as per the consensus shown in the histories of the relevant articles. I agree with one point Netkinetic makes, that such characters should not be lumped in with the obscure characters. The obscure characters should be merged, deleted or labelled of no importance. I agree with the low assessments offered by J Greb and Brian Boru. Hiding Talk 09:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that you've applied a blanket principle on several articles when you yourself previously mentioned we take "each article separately". Johnny Quick wasn't considered by J Greb, for instance, yet reverted as such. Are we to accept blanket, commentless reverts such as Brian Boru made as adding to "consensus". Shouldn't he explain exactly *why* he reverted only articles for which I modestly upgraded to "mid". Consensus means more than simple reverts. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the inaccurate edit summary. I'm baffled as to how evaluating each article against the importance criteria isn't judging the articles on their own merits, so I'm not sure what your point is. You'd best take up your problems with Brian Boru's edits with Brian Boru. Hiding Talk 10:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________

The info under the Quality Comics heading is itself a ret-con, perhaps derived from some latter day DC source, such as Roy Thomas' Secret Origins series from the 80s? Thomas was all about rewriting Golden Age stories to fit more logically into a modern style shared universe continuity

if the section is to labelled Quality Comics (and not Earth-X, or Pre-Crisis) it should be describing the original 1940s comics, not latter day revisionism. And I think the original version should come first, and be dealt with entirely separate from what DC has done with the character since the 1970s. Lou Fine's artwork on this series is much revered amongst Golden Age comics fans, and should be made note of in this section.

The most important error is there was no Golden Age team called the Freedom Fighters: this was only created when DC introduced the six Quality characters in an early 70s issue of Justice League of America. This opening line should definitely be rephrased and moved to the following DC universe section.

Also, Black Condor did not take on the identity of Tom Wright until Crack 11. He operated with the name and costume of Black Condor from Crack 1. The first 5 episodes take place explicitly in Asia, in exotic Sinbad the Sailor type locations. Starting in Crack 6 he seems to be in America, with skyscrapers and the Capitol building appearing, but there is no explanation how he got there. So the sequence of events in the 3rd paragraph is off.

As soon as he adopts the identity of the deceased Senator, his recurring enemy every subsequent issue is a corrupt senator/mine owner named Jaspar Crow. Worth adding if we wanted to flesh out a proper Quality Comics history section, in place of the mislabeled revisionist history.

The original Crack Comics series can be found online at the Digital Comics Museum (http://digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?cid=12), and also in a long out-of-print collection called Special Edition Series volume 2.

J Edward Malone (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Condor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]