Talk:Rom the Space Knight

Fair use rationale for Image:Rom-1.jpg

Image:Rom-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 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) 08:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rom-47.jpg

Image:Rom-47.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 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) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RomToy.jpg

Image:RomToy.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 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) 08:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It isn't bad and useful that it will be fairly self-contained (as there are no more appearances). I would like a few more sources for the final section of the FCB and the Powers and Abilities could do with a few more - just to let us know when the items were first discussed. I have a few issues lying around here so I'll blow the dust off them and see what I can find. (Emperor (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Missing information - Skrull Relationship

During Rom's original run, prior to going back to Galador, the Skrulls came to Earth to help in the extermination of the Dire Wraiths stating that they were an off shoot of the Skrull race and they, the Skrulls, were cleaning up part of their mess. The reference was made by a fan that wrote in stating that the abilities of the two races were similar and wondered if there was a connection. In an articale in the comic it stated that the person received a "No-Prize" for his contribution.

At one time I owned the complete series but no longer do. Can someone look and see which issue that was? Iandugan (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the 50th issue. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite positive it's issue 50 without digging it up. Epic cover, pretty cool story. Anthony Malena 16:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Flashback cameo

I remember an issue during Secret Wars II that showed Rom in a flashback cameo. I have not been able to identify this issue and don't have easy access to a good portion of my collection. His face was shown in the sky in a red outline. I came to this page wondering what crossovers like this would be like in reprint. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an edit I made

Just wanted to clear up the description for an edit I made.

I took out the entirety of the Television section of "Other media", though when I backed up the change I said that the piece of concept art "is concept art". I meant to say that it was fan art. I wanted to point this out so that my statement is not taken at face value, allowing the Television section to be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.105.35 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was unclear. I'll be honest, it was hard to figure out what history has happened so far. It seems that the page was tagged for a split in 2016, but the ensuing actions were a copy/paste move (here to here) and a move to a (toy) disambiguation, both of which were reverted, and the ensuing Discussion was labeled "Move" instead of "Split". Then in 2017, another copy/paste move to the (toy) disambiguation that was reverted. And then in 2018, another split proposal, that never had a Discussion started. And in 2019, there was another copy/paste move that was reverted after the latest "Solution" discussion below, before it received support, but that move was to "Space Knight" (two words), instead of the proposed "Spaceknight" (one word). That brings us to now, and I'd like to kick-start this discussion again, but with some more specific proposals. -2pou (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Suggested move.

Oppose - I'm not sure there's enough detail to warrant two different articles for the character, and furthermore the suggested title doesn't seem to be correct - all sources seem to show that the correct name for the character is "Rom Spaceknight" without "the" in the title. The current title of just "Rom" seems fine? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article should be retitled as "Rom the Space Knight", because it is not only about the comics, but the toy too. The pages Micronauts and Micronauts (comics) might not be the case. However, there are Marvel characters whose articles are named as Drax the Destroyer, Ego the Living Planet, Kang the Conqueror, Ronan the Accuser, etc. So, why there wouldn't be a article titled "Rom the Space Knight"? It is very logical! Thank you so much. Fusionem (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

From reading the article, sources, and the general opinion, it seems that the order is that ROM was created by Parker brothers as a toy first. To promote the toy, the comic was created - where he was known as ROM: Spaceknight

Additionally, ROM is a fairly minor character in the comics pantheon so I don't think it's a massive issue - but if pushed, I would say that the article "ROM (toy)" would be more correct than "ROM (comics)" given the history and origin (ie it was a toy first). It also seems that "Rom the Space Knight" is not an applicable title for the article, as that's not his name, nor how he was known at any point in time.

I would weak support a move to ROM (toy), and oppose a move to Rom the Space Knight, but also I see no real problem with the article title as is. The main problem I had earlier was the article moves which were C&P, not how they should be done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rom name, trademarks, and titles.

So I'm a month or two late, but here's a brief history of Rom's name.

• Parker Brothers only registered a trademark on ROM at the toy's release.
• The toy's packaging said ROM the Space Knight.
• Marvel Comics only had ROM in the indica, but had ROM Spaceknight (with a line break between the words) on the covers, and referred to it as ROM, SPACEKNIGHT in the letters column.
• At some point, the series began being referred to by fans as "ROM: Spaceknight." I don't know where that came from.
• The registered trademark expired in 1987. Around the turn of the century, Marvel registered a trademark for Spaceknights.
• In 2008, Hasbro (now owners of Parker Brothers) began applying for multiple new trademarks on "ROM" and "ROM the Spaceknight." Ironically, the latter applications were rejected because of Marvel's "Spaceknights" trademark. The former ones (ROM) were granted.

And that brings us up to date. --Lkseitz (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Solution

Hello. I think right title would be [Rom the Spaceknight] in order to avoid more confusion. Meanwhile, we can split the Rom (comics) article into [Rom the Spaceknight (Marvel Comics)] and [Rom the Spaceknight (IDW Publishing)]. F. E. Puricelli (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@F. E. Puricelli: I agree with this fully.★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split/Move discussion continued

So, re-opening the move discussion, I think that there are several things that could potentially happen in order to improve and possibly delineate the different incarnations of ROM here. I think that a lot of the reversions of previous attempts were mainly due to how they were carried out. Copy/paste moves are frowned upon in general, unless proper history attribution is given (edit summary or a Talk page {{Copied}} template is added), and the edit summaries were not super detailed. Additionally, the page moves and splitting need to ensure that enough weight and notability can be spread between each page.

Here are the steps that I think are needed:

1. Find the proper title disambiguation (if any) for the existing page. It seems clear that (comics) is not the proper disambiguation.
   1. Hasbro is actually the owner of the name, and its main interest is the toy and licensing abilities.
   2. This does not conform to WP:NCC which states that (comics) is a bad disambiguation.
2. Possibly Split the page into Toy and Comics content
3. Possibly Split the Comics content into separate Marvel and IDW articles
4. Possibly establish a "franchise" page tying the above together, along with Rom: Dire Wraiths, with potential future growth into film (if it's not in development hell)

Please feel free to point out any potential points that I missed. Note that #s 2-4 above are all labeled "Possibly" because while this makes sense at a high level, it might not make sense when making sure each individual page has enough notability established. (E.g. Having a toy article would only leave about a 10-sentence stub since all the biography would actually belong to the comics.) I don't want to get ahead of things though. Let's reach consensus on #1 and then move on from there. -2pou (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Disambiguation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no participation after a month. I was waiting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dire Wraith in case any confusion might arise if it resulted in a merge. I will now WP:BOLDLY carry out the uncontested proposal. 2pou (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose "Rom the Space Knight" as two words. This doesn't match the last proposal exactly, but it is what was attempted by F. E. Puricelli. Unfortunately, Hasbro has not been super consistent, but I propose this for a few reasons:

1. Hasbro points:
   1. Hasbro is the main stakeholder here, and having a (comics) disambiguator is misleading
   2. This matches the original toy name as shown on the original box
   3. The 2014 SDCC toy was labeled similarly with two words, with only ROM marked TM, and "The Space Knight" not marked (see [1] and [2]
   4. The 2017 SDCC toy was inconsistent. The the zoomed image here Spaceknight is one word, but the prose only marks ROM TM. Then the EW description has two words
2. Marvel has the "Spaceknights" (one word) trade mark, as described above by Lkseitz
3. IDW comics (at least the FCBD issue 0) used two words in the dialog bubbles
4. This title encompasses all of the toys and the comics as the article stands today before any future splitting.

Courtesy pings to prior participants: @F. E. Puricelli, Chaheel Riens, Lkseitz, and *Treker: Thoughts? --2pou (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.