Talk:Union Jack (Marvel Comics)

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	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 Marvel Comics work group.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: This tag specifically applies to the character of Brian Montgomery.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Captain America#Super Soldier Serum|super-soldier formula]] The anchor (#Super Soldier Serum) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

WWI - bulletproof costumer?

Is it ever mentioned how the WWI version of Union Jack could have a bulletproof costume when such things as Kevlar were yet to be invented?

Union Jack II - gay?

Where exactly is it mentioned in that Gay League profile that Union Jack II was gay? i question the validity of that Gay League link and page.--Basique 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, the reference is understated just has the relationship in the comics has been understated. The reference and the category are legit. Mallanox 10:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Fabian Nicieza who used Roger Aubrey for several storylines in Thunderbolts stated that Brian and Roger were lovers on the Thunderbolt message board.

There's been enough references both within the comics and by the creators. It's not a matter of "possibility", it's fact until the continuity is intentionally changed. Read the "The New Invaders: To End All Wars" trade paperback if you still have any doubts. Lucky number 49 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant panels have just appeared on the Livejournal.com scans_daily community. Read the dialogue and make your own judgements. If it's still a point of contention here, we can always quote the line word-for-word and let Wikipedia readers make their own judgements. --Mrph 23:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Invaders 20 union jack II.jpg

Image:Invaders 20 union jack II.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) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Invaders 8 union jack.jpg

Image:Invaders 8 union jack.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) 19:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ujack1.jpg

Image:Ujack1.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) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

The infobox is about James and Brian Falsworth, because Joey Chapman has a seperate entry. But the image is of Chapman, isn't it? Daibhid C (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about all 3 Union Jacks so an image of Joseph Chapman isn't unreasonable. Personally I'd be happy to see a picture of an earlier incarnation if someone is interested in seeking one out. (Emperor (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Iron Man 2 bit - pretty sure that was 'G Chapman' on the drivers list not J... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.17.74 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one reincarnation of Union Jack have a separate article?, would it not be clearer and less confusing to have a single article that represents the Union Jack character as a whole. ChefBear01 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The Union Jack (Joseph Chapman) character has no notability outside of the context of the "Union Jack" costumed identity. As of now, the page is almost nothing but a far too intricate plot dump. That's mostly what this page consists of, too. All three characters need their plots trimmed significantly, and some real-world context added. There's certainly no reason for any of the three to have their own article, separate from this one. -Fandraltastic (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joey has some potential, because he has starred in multiple self-titled series, and recurring roles in more than one other series. I think this is a case where it just needs some more work. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anonymous contributor above me. Joseph Chapman's article needs more work to make it notable. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:59, March 1 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it all needs work, but I don't see why the two miniseries can't be covered on this page. The characters are all three relatively minor and only really notable in the context of the "Union Jack" identity, not on their own merits. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the person who originally split Joseph Chapman from the Union Jack page probably needed to have more information on him to be covered on a separate page. Rtkat3 (talk 4:58, April 25 2013 (UTC)

The first two UJs are relatively minor characters, whilst Joseph Chapman has appeared in a wide range of titles including two eponymous series. There is also plenty of room for expansion, not just in the publication history section (could flesh it out with the interviews linked in) but you could also have a reception section for the series, drawing on the reviews I've linked in. In this regard it is pretty much like a lot of notable comic articles - as they push on to a C and B grade, they need the in-universe material trimmed back, and the out-of-universe material expanding (of which there is enough to make a start). I've been a bit scarce around these parts recently (hence my being a little late to this discussion), but it is on my list of things to do, but my first round of research is on the article if someone wants to crack on with it. So, yes, I agree with other comments - I have no concerns over his notability, but it could be demonstrated more comprehensively, so there is no need to merge the two articles. Emperor (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can probably be closed since it has been two years, but for what it's worth I agree with Emperor. BOZ (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Union Jack (comics). 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) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]