Talk:Black Condor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: July 4 through 14

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510031223/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900
*Added  tag to http://www.dcindexes.com/indexes/indexes.php?character=187
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507101813/http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/FreedomFighters/03/USFF03_Pre.html to http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/FreedomFighters/03/USFF03_Pre.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified