# Talk:Randall Flagg

I removed the comicbook image for the time being. Unfortunately, WP is clamping down on fair use images for featured articles. The first thing that will happen when we put it up for Featured status is that it will be considered 'decorative' and not adding anything to the article. There was a time when the article actually had quite a few illustrations, one of which was Flagg from the comics, and they were all removed.
As it is, I'm not even sure if the image of Walter will be permitted when the time comes even though that shows Flagg's second major persona. I won't stop anyone if they want to put it back, but an image of Flagg from the comic will be the first to go when it gets nominated again.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's better to have no images than the klingon sorcerer who looks nothing like this description: "Later, he attributed Flagg to an image of a man walking the roads in cowboy boots, denim jeans, and a jacket, a notion which "came out of nowhere" when he was in college. Flagg's character and the nature of his evil have been the subject of considerable critical attention."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.240.130 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 

Well again the image of Flagg as a sorcerer is one of his major personas throughout the different books. He only has the denim outfit in a few of his appearances.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you all know that this article is looking great. I was hoping that whoever was working on this article could they do the same for the article on The Crimson King, Flagg's associate and master. The article is in a state of severe underdevelopment and needs to be expanded upon significantly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I will try looking at it if I get some time but I don't think there's as much real-world information (I.e. King discussing his conception, general critical analysis) about the CK as there is for Flagg.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref. number 3 currently reads as "King, Stephen (1990). The Stand: The Complete and Uncut Edition. New York: Doubleday," but then it goes on to say "pp. 214–215." The problem is that it is cited something like 13 times. All those different spots in the article are clearly not referring to those two pages!
On Internet Archive, pages 214–5 are an early-ish scene where General Starkey is walking among the dead bodies in the germ lab. It's clearly nothing to do with the description of Flagg's face, the warhead exploding, or many other places this reference is used.
What now:

Get page numbers for all references? (Best option, but I don't have time)
Delete page numbers & leave as generic reference to whole book? (I guess so, but I didn't want to do that either. The current number has a link to Internet Archive that's kind of useful. And it's maybe a reminder or placeholder that each reference ought to have page numbers?)
Officiallyover (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think page numbers should be provided rather than asking readers to hunt through a book that's over 1K pages long to verify claims made in the article. That said, it doesn't necessarily have to be done in any sort of hurry per WP:NODEADLINE, but at minimum something should be done to address the fact that many of the statements being linked to the book likely aren't supported by the provided page numbers. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)