Talk:Nighthawk (Marvel Comics)

Split?

These pages need to be broken up. The Nighthawk characters mentioned here have no relation to each other. The Squadron Supreme Nighthawk Character is not related to the Earth 616 Nighthawk.

Putting aside the fact that there are numerous similarities between the various Nighthawks, it's fairly standard to have a central page for the various incarnations of a character, such as the Flash or Green Lantern. If you want to create or help create separate pages for each one with more in depth, specific information, by all means go for it, but the information on this page should stay where it is. Pitr 06:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whiteface

A character profile wiki doesn't need information about specific adventures or miniseries. Keep the Whiteface info on the wikis for the character and the Nighthawk miniseries. Thanks.

Merge Supreme Power: Nighthawk (Marvel Comics)

The article Supreme Power: Nighthawk (Marvel Comics) should be merged into Nighthawk (Marvel Comics). The article was created by User:Brown Shoes22, known for creating articles left and right with bad grammar and spelling and adding useless bits of trivia and leaving other to clean up after him. Also, the article is badly named, the mini-series synopsis can be told in a single paragraph, and moved to the main Nighthawk article in the Supreme Power section. --Pc13 10:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the miniseries shouldn't have its own page, but the main Nighthawk page is huge already. Also, the profiles for the other Nighthawks have some plot summaries, but they seem to be crucial moments in their histories, which the Supreme Power miniseries isn't really. If anything, I think that maybe Nighthawk IV should be given his own page, and the miniseries page can be merged into that. I've seen it on other wikis for superheroes with many incarnations, like the Flash or Green Lantern. Pitr 19:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh oh... here is Brown Shoes22's comment (found at the discussion page for the miniseries): "No this is a mini-series and more info will be added". That's the problem, he's always adding more and more... I agree with Pitr, merge AFTER Nighthawk IV gets his own page. Dyslexic agnostic 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll start working on a separate page for Nighthawk IV this week after I re-read my issues of Supreme Power. If anyone else wants to get it started, I'd be happy to add on to what they write. Pitr 09:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeating what I said in Talk:Hyperion (comics), I agree, both Supreme Power versions of Nighthawk and Hypertion could be spun into their own articles: Hyperion (Supreme Power) and Nighthawk (Supreme Power). --Pc13 11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hyperion Yes you can make a Hyperion (Supreme Power). But thair isn't eougth info on the Supreme Power Nighthawk to make a Article, The article Supreme Power: Nighthawk (Marvel Comics) should be merged into Nighthawk (Marvel Comics).--Brown Shoes22 16:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There really is plenty of information on the Supreme Power version of Nighthawk to have his own page; it might not be a huge page, but he's been in comics for a couple years, I'm sure he can fill his own page. The miniseries should definitely not be merged into the main Nighthawk page. Pitr 18:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Publication history and formatting

I've added a "Pub hist" section as the exemplar requires. It's a start, and more should be added.

The rest of the Comics Project generally treats the mainstream-continuity version of a character as the main version, and places alternate-universe versions and alternate-imprint versions (such as Marvel MAX) under "Alternate versions". --Tenebrae 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Given the relative sizes of this article and Nighthawk (Supreme Power) and the structure of this article, it makes a degree of sense to merge the two into on article.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the newer team be brought over in an "Alternate version" section, but as a full part of the article.

Any other thoughts? - J Greb 20:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I really like the sidebar idea. When it comes to the various Squadrons, some kind of generic scorecard is definately needed. As to a merge, it would work now, but as little as a year from now Nighthawk may have been written into so much that logging it blows out the article length. I'm actually in favour of separation, but would like to hear from others.

Asgardian 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote Merge, Nighthawk is a fairly minor character. I don't believe this page would or grow to the extremes of major characters. If it ever does we can cross that bridge when it happens. We shouldn't be predicting the future with Wikipedia pages. 69.182.78.104 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• no merge I in contrast feel Nighthawk is not a minor character; in addition, I feel this character has been presented in several different publications, and has been presented distinctivly in the incarnations. Both with an established character history in separate publications should not be merged. 66.109.248.114 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After 2 mths, discussion closed with no consensus.66.109.248.114 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Please see discussion regarding(Merging Alternate Versions of Characters) -- [[

Use of jargon

Before going so far as to call for an RfC, could editors please comment on the use of "Earth-31916" and other non-general-reader jargon in the disambig line at the top of the article and elsewhere. Per discussion at Talk:Whizzer and general Wiki guidelines, such terms are generally to be held at a minimum.

I know Asgardian advocates using these numbers, and clearly, I don't except in a limited way as necessary. So could we hear other editors' opinions besides ours? Thanks -- Tenebrae 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whizzer article

I think it would be helpful, for the sake of consistency and to avoid redundant discussion, to use the much-hammered-out Whizzer article as a template for writing about Squadron Supreme/Sinister/etc. characters, which because of their convoluted history, iterations and permutations in mainstream and alternate continuities make them particularly difficult to render in a way accessible and clear to the general-audience reader at which Wikipedia is aimed.

And doing so does make a difference. Here's an article about Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, written for the Scripps-Howard newspaper syndicate, that is one of the very few comics-related pieces I've ever seen in the mainstream press with completely accurate details about a lesser-known character's publication history, creators, etc. — and it uses whole phrases from the Wiki article Sheena, Queen of the Jungle.

It shows that we're having an impact on scholarship, pop-cultural thought it may be. --Tenebrae 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nighthawk-1.jpg

Image:Nighthawk-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Just some comments/points:

1. The current SHB image, Image:NighthawkRichmond1.jpg, has a major problem — it's a direct lift from Marvel's on-line character encyclopedia. That's something we're not supposed to be raiding for images and this image will wind up going.
2. The first bold replacement, Image:D-102.jpg, has issues as well — the character can be considered a bit on the contorted side, and the image is watermarked by a 3rd party site.
3. The second bold replacement, Image:Lstdfndrs001.jpg, is a good image of the character, but... the captioning that was put in place on the article is jargony and misleading. Also, we should be trying to avoid the use of art for yet-to-be-published books for the SHB.
4. Both bold replacements have a technical problem with the file names in that they cryptic to the point of obscurity.
5. The spot image, Image:NighthawkRichmond712.jpg, has the exact same problem that the current SHB has — copped from another encyclopedia. Again, the image will wind up going, but it should have a replacement inserted.

- J Greb (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, J. The first image's summary didn't make it clear it was a copyvio lift; I only saw a clear and uncluttered image. In any case, after the Arbitration, Asgardian should be discussing before reverting. I'll look for a clear cover image. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't. That's one of the major problems with editors going to the "just the image" page on most sites, no back links to show where it was from. I actually had to backstep the URL to find out where this was on the Marvel page. And then poke around to realize that it's the online OHOTMU. - J Greb (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a trouper, and I've learned from that just now.

Here's a panel that's pretty clear, on which I could Photoshop out a couple of things: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/nighthawkrichmond1.jpg --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And here's his introductory panel: http://www12.nrk.no/magasin/upunkt/urort/bilder/scaled/132276_main.jpg --Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And this might actually be best: It shows three Nighthawk costumes, and it's the historically significant first issue of a Nighthawk solo title: http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=289531&zoom=4 --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the three, the first would be the best fit since it the "iconic" look the character keeps defaulting to, just crop the horizontal size, scale it to 300px by 72ppi. The second is the little know original costume, and more of a "Squadron Sinister" shot. And the third... it's just overly cluttered. - J Greb (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:CMC copyright page does not currently say that we cannot take images from Marvel's online Wiki, just the OHOTMU. Since their online Wiki is free, it is not possible for us to undercut their sales, which is the stated reasoning for not allowing the use of OHOTMU images. This is not to say that I think we should use the same images that they do, but I think it is permissible. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That falls to a question of where the images on "Marvel Universe: the Official Marvel Wiki" are coming from. If it's a case of Marvel recycling panels and covers from the comics, then no problem, though I think it would be best that we have where the image was originally published nailed down. If they're drawing from with the paper OHOTMU or card sets, or commissioning art specifically for their wiki, we should be steering clear of it. Since the MUOMW doesn't cover that info, I'd rather err on the side of caution and not use it as the listed source for the images. - J Greb (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't play your cards very well on this one, T. You should have known that the MU site images are questionable at best (after all, OHOTMU images are quickly quashed) and that there are better images available. The least of which is the Defenders cover I found, but it is still better than the MU image as you get a full, unobstructed body shot. The pick by Moshikal is better still and Photoshop can clear that up. As for the shot of the three different incarnations of the Earth-616 Nighthawk, that was the image in the SHB before you changed it. I suggest we go with that one. As for the Earth-616 tagline, it is just an extension of what's already in the SHB.

PS - Running to the Arbitrators because you may not get your way is a tad small. The reason I put in the Edit Summary holds, and JGreb supports this (possibly with a slight tweak). Take it to the Talk Page first.

Asgardian (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, play fair. Tenebrae did not have a hand in the 3-in-1 getting removed nor the initial adding of the current images. As per this page, the article history, and the current and former images' pages:

• BetacommandBot tagged the 3-in-1 as non-FURed on November 6 (Amazingly the talk section above this one).
• Maxim deleted that image on November 14, citing WP:CSD#I7.
• ImageRemovalBot cleaned up here the same day.
• Redhead911 uploaded the current image on November 22, and placed it here the same day.

Tenebrae's association with the current image are, as per his edit summaries, trying to keep the 'box in line with the project guides.

As far as my support for a particular image goes... Even with GG's comments about the official Marvel wiki, I have serious reservations about pulling images from there. If someone could or would speak up and say "That image is cut out from issue # of That Comic." I'd support keeping it since its FUR could be updated to clearly show the original published source and it fulfills the 'box image requirements. Without that though, I'm leery of using images from that site since we're either copping from an encyclopedia (free access or not) or citing a wiki as a source.

And without the current image, I'm partial to the Nighthawk/Valkyrie panel Tenebrae found over the promotional image. It's iconic of the character's look, both for costume and in action, and it covers the 'box guides. The promo seems to missing a few beats there. - J Greb (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said T had a hand in the image removal, but I can't see why the MU image should be plugged over legitimate covers. The panel shot is also fine. Just got to be consistent - no point in any of us culling OHOTMU images and the like if such images are retained here.

Asgardian (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian,

To quote your previous post:

As for the shot of the three different incarnations of the Earth-616 Nighthawk, that was the image in the SHB before you changed it.

You opened that paragraph of your post directing your comments to Tenebrae. Using "you" in that sentence makes it an accusation that Tenebrae was responsible for the removal of the 3-in-1 cover. Whether you intended it or not, you, Asgardian, made that false accusation. - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"You didn't play your cards very well on this one, T"?

I have to ask Asgardian respectfully, after all we've been through, to please not exacerbate things with accusatory, non-good-faith comments like that. Making this personal does not none of us any good.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but show me some good faith and talk to me, rather than going to an arbitrator. Moshikal's choice is still better than the current example.

Asgardian (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cropped, low-res version of the first image, as per J's comments. Image:Nighthawk KyleRichmond.jpg.

I tried to use Photoshop's magnetic lasso, and got a clear outline of just the character with no background, but couldn't seem to move it to a clean layer. Someone better than I at Photoshop might want to download this or the uncropped version and give it a try. --Tenebrae (talk)

If someone can cull the word balloons, that should do nicely. Good effort.

Asgardian (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Have since added T's pick. I agree - it is the best of the three as there are three costumes shown and it is a cover. The 2nd image is still questionable but I can say from experience that short of a direct scan, images of the Squadron types are impossible to find.

Asgardian (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nighthawk-1.jpg

Image:Nighthawk-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Joaquin Pennysworth

This is the current Nighthawk as of issue #6 of the Last Defenders. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mash-up of Publication history and Fictional character biography

As has been the case with some other articles that have since conformed to WPC MOS, this article confusingly mixes real-world publishing and creative background with make-believe, in-universe material. This needs to be addressed. I've made a first stab, but much more needs to be done.

Also, please do not put comics jargon in the lead. Wikipedia articles are to be written for general audience readers. The more proper place to put such insiderish detail is within the body, where it can be explained in context. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other versions

I'm at a loss at to why this article doesn't follow WPC convention of focusing on the original, main character, and listed others under "Other versions" or even, as in Alternate versions of Doctor Strange, a separate article. Large numbers of Marvel characters have alternate-reality versions; there's no reason that this article and other Squadron Supreme/Sinister characters' articles don't have to follow the same conventions, which were derived by consensus for consistency, simplicity and ease of understanding across the project. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)