Talk:Superhero/Archive 3

message: Please add all discussion relating to improving this article to featured standard here. Thank you in advance. --Jamdav86 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the Month

message: I just saw this article for the first time, and the first thing I noticed is how chaotic it looks because of the large amount of images. Maybe it could be reduced a bit? Mystman666 10:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I've cut the no source images and a few others to get to the point where, while it's still probably a bit over-imaged, it's not quite so heavily so. - SoM 16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I can understand the complaints over too many images...but are we omitting the right ones? Do we need a picture of Northstar over Storm? Daredevil over the Fantastic Four? Three of Spider-Man? Two of Wonder Woman? -Skyblade
Most (all?) of the images are copyrighted and included under the claims of Fair Use, yet considering how many are being used and how little direct appplicability they have to what's being discussed in the article, I think that that defense would have a difficult time holding up in court. We can;t just use images we think look cool or whatever, there has to be a real reason. I think they should be scaled way back and only use ones very directly related to what's beingmentioned in the article. DreamGuy 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: amount of images

message: This article has just finish a month-long collaborative effort to get it up to featured article quality.  Is it there yet?  If you think so, please consider nominating it.  Be careful to check the FA criteria before nominating; they are quite picky! ike9898 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I now see that the article has zero references. That is one major strike against it. ike9898 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article??

message: *I re-added a few pictures. I hope the page doesn’t look cluttered but superheroes are such visual creatures that I thought more pictures were worthwhile. I also wanted to make sure we got all the big ones.
**Added Gatchaman for a less Anglocentric article
**Replaced Hulk image with one more relevant to text  
**Replaced Spider-Man poster w/ X2 shot. Already two of Spider-Man, no X-Men but Wolverine
**There has to be a photo from the 1960s Batman show, which helped define the concept of the superhero in our culture 
*Tried to keep examples at one to three characters and use the best examples.
*Wiki-fied, cleaned-up section on non-US superheroes
**“Japan has numerous superheroes of its own and changes superheroes every year or so.” As someone who doesn’t know much about Japanese pop culture, I didn’t understand this. What do you mean “changes superheroes every year or so?” Different heroes become popular and then crash? I reverted this. 
*“There is also Mythology or Fantasy fiction like The Mighty Thor, Conan the Barbarian, Hamlet and others” Thor yes. But is Conan the Barbarian really a superhero? Who is Hamlet? The Shakespeare character? Again, I’m totally confused. 
*“The modern Animal Man is a compromise in this respect: he wears a standard skintight bodysuit under a normal jacket, which gives him both pockets and a distinctive look.” Despite the jacket, Animal Man looks more like the traditional superhero than a Cable or Image character.
*“Spider-Man's web-slingers mark him as a Gadgeteer, and his 'Spidey-Sense' makes him a Mentalist.” Bad example most gadgeteers listed have much more engineering skills than Spider-Man and most mentalists are much more powerful.
*“Several characters have taken-up the mantles of Green Lantern, The Flash, Captain Canuck, Zorro, Batman and Robin.” Zorro is classified as a predecessor below. Batman is a bad example because no one other than Bruce Wayne was meant to take up the role permanently.
*”Others, like Jonathin Quackup, are extraterrestrials who fight crime on different worlds and have never been on planet earth.” Others? I can’t think of another example.
*I shortened-up the antecedents section. While interesting, detailed accounts of how some earlier characters resembled superheroes waste precious space. Also you could barely see the character in that Spring-Heeled Jack picture.
*Prose: If there isn’t an article on it, it’s not worth mentioning
Rorschach567 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1/31/06 edits 

message: The opening sentence of this article began "A superhero (or "Super" for short in The Incredibles) ...", and I decided to remove the part in parentheses. It just seems kind of non-sequitur, because The Incredibles do not really define superheroes. I'm not saying The Incredibles isn't an important work, but it's still only a small part of the vast superhero genre as a whole. Normally I wouldn't explain a deletion like this on the talk page, but the opening sentence of an article is pretty prominent, so I felt I had to justify it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Super for short in The Incredibles" 

message: I slimmed down the article, getting rid of some lengthy, uneeded examples and information. Some big points:
*Again, the information about Japanese superheroes has gotten completely out of hand to the point where we are comparing two specific heroes. Also, I am not sure why heroes of Britain and India were deleted, partial revert.
*I’m not saying these French characters weren’t important or weren’t forerunners of Superman (although that seems a bit hyperbolic). I am saying that we need more information on them - either Wikipedia articles or outside links - before it’s convincing to include them at such length in the article. 
*I deleted the humor section. Obviously, a comprehensive listing of parody or comedic superheroes is too large for this article.
Rorschach567 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Japanese superheroes, Wikipedia will eventually need the article of its own as this article's focus is on "American" superheroes. Something like "Superhero in Japan" should be the good enough article title but trying to compose various things into one article like this one would be a very huge (and nightmarishly complex) work... -- Revth 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/16/06 edits 

message: My computer doesn't show anything beyond the picture of X-Men 2 and neither does my friends. I click edit and it's all there, but it doesn't show up. Can someone please tell me what's going on.
:Yeah and what happened to the "in other languages" section.
Bad formatting of a reference. It should be corrected now. CovenantD 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: *Generally tried to cut down on too many examples, especially when a few good ones are already given.
*I reorganized the first fifth of the article. I don’t see why “Common costume features” and “Superheroes outside the United States” should be subcategories of “Super-Teams.” Although it’s hard to organize, everything above “Superheroes outside the United States,” seems to more or less describe superheroes in a broad sense.
*Expanded the section explaining that Marvel and DC own most of world’s most well-know superheroes
**Used “Significant Seven” as a basis of this claim
**Explained how DC bought many Golden Age heroes but others and creator-owned heroes of the 1990s, cropped-up. 
*Cut Raj image, just not enough room, and changed Marvelman image to one actually of Marvelman and not Young Marvelman.
*Cut brawler, mastermind and teleporter from common types list. Brawler is a much more useful term when applied to gaming than comics; gamers have to worry about a characters’ “ability to soak damage.” Also, I don’t think teleporter or mastermind are common, often-imitated archetypes.
*Given his extreme distaste for guns, it’d be misleading to call Batman a marksman
*Replaced blurb about the Thing under the Silver Age w/ one about F4 in entirety. 
*Reverted much of the article on female superheroes. We don’t need every example, just ones that were truly commercially or artistically important or prove a point. 
**The content of the Lois Lane series of this era would undermine this section’s focus on women being treated as successful professionals. Wasn’t her sole aim in that series marrying Superman?
**Also made note that treatment of women in comics is still a touchy matter.
*Added diversified teams to section on minorities. It seems to fit there
*Put information on minorities who take on roles of white superheroes into new paragraph
*Added small section on religious minorities
*Once again, the detailed histories of superhero films, live action shows and in animation has its own section. Also, Incredibles should go into animation section, which dealt with prior animated superhero series released theatrically. 
*Got rid of section of real life superheroes, section obviously talks about something very different from fictional superheroes. Added to “see also” section.
::Rorschach567 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7/15/06 edits 

message: I’ll grant that some of the points need attribution, but I have three problems with recent changes to portions of this article discussing female characters:
1) It seems wrong to move the development of female counterparts and supporting characters from the female characters section to the Silver Age section. Chronologically, it would be apt to put them in either place but I think the development is more relevant to the latter. The Silver Age was spurred by the recreation of DC characters and the new wave of Marvel, not by the development of more female characters.
2) Too much biographical detail is added. Why is it important that Barbara Gordon is the daughter of “Gotham´s Chief of Police Gordon” (especially when a) Gordon is mentioned nowhere else, b) Gotham is mentioned nowhere else and c) he is more commonly known as Commissioner Gordon)? Same with the Scarlet Witch and Supergirl.
3) Some facts are wrong. Ms. Marvel was never Phoenix and Mortimer Weisinger was an editor/writer of the Superman titles and thus could only reasonably given credit with overseeing the creation of Supergirl, not the entire DC Silver Age revival (a task widely attributed to Julius Schwartz).
Rorschach567 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female characters 

message: Including images of "super-heroes" that almost exclusively uses examples of characters owned by DC and Marvel strengthens their trademark bid.
I think we can all agree it's a Bad Thing for 2 companies to have sole ownership of a common word, especially when they neither invented it nor used it first in its modern meaning. The bid for a trademark depends on whether or not there is a 1:1 association between the word and the would-be trademark owners that people make.
I'm not a comicbook reader but after minimal research there is tons of information on "indie" (ie not Marvel or DC) comic publishers, for example Dark Horse Comics. It wouldn't be out of line to include recognizable images of characters from those publishers.
* I agree; good idea.  In addition to Dark Horse, there are other possibilities too.  One that comes to mind is Scott McCloud's Zot!  Images should be available from the on-line story McCloud did on his web site.--SEF23a 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Marvel/DC superheroes 

message: The above, unsigned rant may be worth some serious discussion if it were expressed without hyperbole and contempt. That said, I think-
OK. Good. So let´s begin to discuss it, shall we?
But first, please. You are only talking in terms of what you think, while I am stating facts here. Do stop talking about what you think. Only Answer the three arguments I gave yesterday and we´ll take it from there. I don´t care that ...you think...how great ww is. I care that your Superhero article is by now only one biig bias and absolutely no truth. So let´s begin to correct it, shall we?
I will check out your answers to the three questions I posted above. Then we can begin to have one serious discussion, like you said...
Xx
btw, I posted my name. DAVID, agreed?
And here´s my email, too.
bsalas70@hotmail.com
Xx
One day later..
I am still waiting, my friend, for your serious discussion of this item.
:Well, David, it’s extremely rude to and inhibiting to open discussion to erase what others have posted on a talk page. Revert this page if you want some discussion. Rorschach567 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, coming in from the outside here, DAVID, you should get an account.  A Wikipedia account guarentees more privacy, not less. And it is free.  Then you can sign your posts like everyone else, namely with ~~~ or ~~~~ (the latter is preferred).  By the way, don't post your email address here.  The way to resolve disputes is by discussing them here (and, yes, blanking other's comments is a big no-no). — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the history of this discussion and saw no instance of Rorschach567's deleting anything you posted.  In fact, the only deletion I found was this one and you were the perpetrator.  If you're talking about your edits to the article he reverted, please stop attacking him personally and assume good faith.  He's got the same powers on Wikipedia as you do (or could if you registered).  There's a difference between blanking other's comments and changing another's edits.  The latter is okay, the former is, as Frecklefoot put it, "a big no-no." He's not pushing a pro-Wonder Woman agenda backed by the Illuminati, he's trying as much as you are to better the article.  If you disagree with him, discuss it, do not falsely accuse him.  He created the discussion in order to get a consensus and explain himself.  You'll get much farther on Wikipedia by engaging in discussion, while your current methods will only get your IP banned.   --Newt ΨΦ 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More female superhero debate

message: That first image on the page is a rather poor one, IMO. Dark with not a lot of contrast. Can someone find a better one? Turnstep 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First image

message: It's listified in places, the sections are in an odd order, the history should be nearer the front.  Too many fair use images, and no references. Needs references to bump up to an A. Hiding Talk 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: This is a very thorough, informative article about a topic that marks, like jazz, one of America's great contributions to popular culture. It's also one that sparks a lot of fannish passion. That passion is the reason we're all here, volunteering our time and effort anonymously. 
There's a lot in here, though, that is unverified or poorly cited. Inline links, for instance, are a poor substitute for proper footnotes. And there's an uncomfortable amount of original research and opinion here. The "Character subtypes" section, for instance, uses a lot of terms I haven't heard used in my decades going back to the Silver Age of comic books, nor at the comic book companies for whom I worked. The fan press may very well call the Thing and the Hulk "bricks" — so give a citation. If the term is really in wide use, that'll be easy to do.
As well, there are passive-voice phrases that weasel word their way around proper references. Re: the book Gladiator, the article says "DC Comics' Superman is commonly thought to be based partially on the novel."  Yeah, I've heard that. too. But that's not enough for an authoritative, encyclopedic reference, that you or I might have heard it. We're required to state: Who thinks so? Where was this claim published? Provide a citation. And put it in context: Siegel & Shuster always said this wasn't so. 
This article requires a lot of cleanup to be more authoritative. I'd like to suggest it once more to WikiProject Comics as a new collaboraiton of the month, so the whole Project can clean it up together.--Tenebrae 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: This page is 66 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. 67.150.120.185 01:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: *We don’t need every story that parodied the use of capes or scarves.
*“although the fact that male superheroes are muscular and wear skintight spandex is usually not similarly commented on.” It seems the article is having an internal debate here. Reworded
*“Many Golden Age comic heroes had no powers or special abilities at all, being merely "two-fisted" fighters in unusual costumes.” Is this really distinct enough to be a “divergent character example?” 
*“Some characters have broad, visionary or political goals in mind for society and work to accopmlish those goals, although in different ways. For example, Professor X and Anarky from Marvel and DC Comics (respectively) both have utopian visions for society, although they work in radically different ways.” Is this really common or distinct enough from the general superhero mission to be a “divergent character example?” 
*Eliminated some details about John Stewart controversies  
*“Subsequent minority heroes, such as the X-Men’s Storm (the first black, female superhero) and The Teen Titans’ Cyborg were created with a conscious effort to avoid the patronizing nature of the earlier characters as the comics industry became more mature and diverse.”
::Anyone have a citation that these characters were created in a conscious effort to avoid the patronizing nature of the earlier characters?
*Got rid of some lesser known gay characters, added link to full list
*”Films like The Incredibles and Sky High both introduced a new generation to the classic traditions of the superhero genre, and deconstructed them at the same time.”
::Analysis like this probably belongs in the main superhero film article
*Prose section is again way too long with esoteric examples
: It has come to my attention (somewhat belatedly, I know) that this edit was also used to remove the redirection reference to the Danish band "Superheroes". This is not explained in the comment, so I'm putting it back in. chochem 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3/20/06 edits 

message: As is, the definition given here states that superheroes are fictional. Therefore, is it not redundant that in a majority of articles concerning superheroes, the word "superhero" is immediatly preceded by the word "fictional"? Should the definition given here be changed, or should any related articles be changed? Or just...left alone? --130.111.91.63 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fictional" Superheroes 

message: There is really no way to effectively cover the entire Superhero gamut in one page. I don't think all of Wikipedia could reasonably cover the subject if the world spent a year non-stop working on these page(s). The comic book histories are too wide and diverse - at least it's a decent attempt here. Gautam Discuss 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Way.. 

message: Noticed that reference to Phylip Wylie's Gladiator was removed and can't remember where I saw discussion of this.  There is good evidence for Gladiator as a conscious antecedent in Men of Tomorrow (ie, Siegel read it and wrote a review and based Superman on it).
--Gothamgazette 10:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above on this page. Siegel & Shuster have denied any influence by Gladiator. --Tenebrae 03:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence, not opinion. When an author specifically denies something, that places a very large burden on proving otherwise. Certainly, similar ideas are in the Zeitgeist all the time; that's how two unrelated black-and-white movies about a female vampire in Manhattan came to be made back-to-back in the 1980s, for example. (The Addiction and Najda) --Tenebrae 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gladiator 

message: The last paragraph in this section contains way too much information about the series DK2 and sounds too much like a justification of the book. Considering how small a role that series played compared to the others mentioned (and some omitted), the whole paragraph should probably be removed. Gregarius 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-constructing Superheroes 

message: :Image:Showcase4.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 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 
11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase4.JPG

message: I removed this section as written since the core information needs citations, and the editorializing tone needs to be dropped. I believe this is a good and necessary section, but it has to be properly cited and to be written in an WP:NPOV format. --Tenebrae 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religions

message: Step #1 in making this a featured article: get rid of all or most of the lists. Information should be conveyed in prose form. For example, if you can't find a way to mention the Incredible Hulk in the proper context of the larger history or trends of the "Superhero" concept, then don't mention him at all and let his article be linked to on other pages. The job of the Superhero article is to explain the history and the concept of superheroes as best it can, not to function as a big list of the most popular ones. What this article needs is more solid, referenced prose to beef up its informational value; writing such a complex, pop culture-inundated, fan-fixated article from the same neutral and encyclopedic standard as other articles will be very difficult, so you have your work cut out for you. -Silence 15:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We at the psychokinesis page just got our lengthy "List of cultural references to psychokinesis and telekinesis" article (which included super heroes) speedy deleted by a swiftly working band of list-haters in six days. It could happen to you, too, if you aren't checking the list pages frequently. See the PK talk page for how to request undeletion (unlikely for a list) or a copy of the text if it does happen. 5Q5 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: Since the article uses the hyphenated form, and I guess we've decided that this is the generic, non-trademarked version, then I suggest two changes:
*Move the article to Super-hero 
*Move the discussion of this technicallity further down in the article.  The lead section should be an overview of the essential concepts of the article. 
If you agree, please make the changes...I've got a plane to catch.  ike9898 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "Superhero" is the better known form. I'll modify the article to match the title - SoM 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Super-hero/superhero

message: Welcome to Wikipedia. I understand, at least from your contribution history, that you may be a newcomer. I'd like to ask you to not remove images summarily, as you did at Superhero (and possibly elsewhere), without proper tagging and talk-page discussion. There is a process to delete images. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Thank you for understanding.--Tenebrae 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CC of posting at [[User talk:Humphrey Cushion‎]]

message: I absolutely can't find where from the work of Aristotle comes that second-hand quotation extracted from Hughes-Hallett's book. If anyone owns the book and can look in it for the ORIGINAL source (if there's is one, I suspect it's fake), please, add it to the text.201.0.66.254 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle quotation fake? 

message: Can magical schoolgirls be classified as superheroes, since they do fight evil, and they do have superpowers (the magic)? I think so, but I would rather hear what you have to say. Corrupt one (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magical schoolgirls? 

message: Can Inspector Gadget be considered a superhero, since he had powers and fight evil? I think he is a parody of the genre. Your views would be welcome Corrupt one (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Inspector Gadget?]] 

message: An interesting fact that it would be nice to add is that many have alliterations for names. M. Night Shamalyan used this when naming David Dunn for Unbreakable. Notable Alliterations:
Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Bruce Banner, Matthew Murdock, Wally West and more....
:Scott Summers, Warren Worthington, Brain Braddock...It's interesting but I'm not sure a defintive enough characteristic to warrant some space. Rorschach567 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...or it could be worth pointing out that though this was common in the golden or silver age it has since fallen out of fashion? i wouldn't know where to put it though 87.113.211.169 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliteration names 

message: This is a call to for any referances to parodies of the superhero genre. i am planning on adding a sections about how people make fun of conventions. Corrupt one (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies 

message: ===CC of post at User talk:71.206.231.102===
This anonymous-IP user deleted a footnote reference, saying the informational was trivial because, he claims sarcastically, superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". My response at the above talk page:
:RE the term "costumed crimefighter": Authoritative footnotes document this is a term used in historical and academic research. "Underwear perverts" is not, and your sarcasm demonstrates someone not behaving in good faith. 
Could we get some commentary going? I think the citations speak for themselves, and given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super", I believe the clarification is needed up top for the general reader. --Tenebrae 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My actual argument:
* The term is generic and obvious -- it's like noting that "cars" may also be called "wheeled transports".  True, and you probably find cites in which it's used, but it just falls straight out of them having wheels and being used for transport.  Noting specifically that they may be referred to by that name places a strange false-importance on the term.
* If you want it to be more clear that some superheroes are *not* super, and rather just wear costumes and fight crimes, it would be better to state that precisely, rather than focusing on the fact that the name which falls out of that observation happens to be used.
* I mentioned "underwear perverts" not sarcastically, but actually just to note that there are more ways to refer to a stereotypical superhero.  People could (and, I think, do), also use "costumed hero," "costumed vigilante," "spandex-clad vigilante," "spandex clad crime fighter," and most likely every single synonymous term.  So I don't think the specific wording of the term is important.
* The references given aren't from academic research, as far as I can tell?  Not that that matters much.
* I note on the other page you claim "underwear perverts" is not actually used, but at least in terms of google hits (obviously not a rigorous metric, but should give an initial sense of the landscape) I see on the order of 30,000 hits for "underwear perverts" (in quotes) and on the order of 3000 hits for "costumed crimefighters" and "costumed crime fighters" combined (both in quotes).  Sure, it's recently popularized, and a silly example, but it may already be used more ...
* By the same silly google-fight metric, "costumed hero" is also more common than "costumed crimefighter".
* Shouldn't crimefighter actually be two words?
-- 71.206.231.102 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Costumed crimefighters

message: This anonymous-IP user deleted a footnote reference, saying the informational was trivial because, he claims sarcastically, superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". My response at the above talk page:
:RE the term "costumed crimefighter": Authoritative footnotes document this is a term used in historical and academic research. "Underwear perverts" is not, and your sarcasm demonstrates someone not behaving in good faith. 
Could we get some commentary going? I think the citations speak for themselves, and given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super", I believe the clarification is needed up top for the general reader. --Tenebrae 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My actual argument:
* The term is generic and obvious -- it's like noting that "cars" may also be called "wheeled transports".  True, and you probably find cites in which it's used, but it just falls straight out of them having wheels and being used for transport.  Noting specifically that they may be referred to by that name places a strange false-importance on the term.
* If you want it to be more clear that some superheroes are *not* super, and rather just wear costumes and fight crimes, it would be better to state that precisely, rather than focusing on the fact that the name which falls out of that observation happens to be used.
* I mentioned "underwear perverts" not sarcastically, but actually just to note that there are more ways to refer to a stereotypical superhero.  People could (and, I think, do), also use "costumed hero," "costumed vigilante," "spandex-clad vigilante," "spandex clad crime fighter," and most likely every single synonymous term.  So I don't think the specific wording of the term is important.
* The references given aren't from academic research, as far as I can tell?  Not that that matters much.
* I note on the other page you claim "underwear perverts" is not actually used, but at least in terms of google hits (obviously not a rigorous metric, but should give an initial sense of the landscape) I see on the order of 30,000 hits for "underwear perverts" (in quotes) and on the order of 3000 hits for "costumed crimefighters" and "costumed crime fighters" combined (both in quotes).  Sure, it's recently popularized, and a silly example, but it may already be used more ...
* By the same silly google-fight metric, "costumed hero" is also more common than "costumed crimefighter".
* Shouldn't crimefighter actually be two words?
-- 71.206.231.102 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CC of post at [[User talk:71.206.231.102]]

message: Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board#Costumed crimefighters. --Tenebrae 17:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion has moved to WikiProject Comics

message: Does anyone think some of the homosexual superhero stuff should be removed. I am not against homosexuality at all, but a lot of kids are going to be reading this and parents won't like it, plus it almost seems offensive to seperate homosexuals in such a way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VanderTE (talk • contribs) 
:As far as I can tell, in the article the topic is only in a single location, which also deals with other diversity issues. - jc37 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate or accurate? 

message: http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2008-05/080506-superheroes-at-the-met-the-fashion-eye-view.aspx may have lots of useful stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  great real world content: 

message: The image :Image:First Phantom Sunday strip.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Plastic Man 17.jpg
*:      Image:Spawn Classic.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:First Phantom Sunday strip.jpg

message: Should the silver masked mexican luchador Santo be included. He has been published in comics and always treated as a hero in the movies. --189.200.113.1 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superheroes outside of the United States 

message: The whole section on the history of superheroes has almost no sources, which raises a lot of questions. Let's take the section on "deconstruction" for example - what exactly is the definition of this term? Does it even have a precise, agreed-on definition? If so, where can we find it? Is it in any way related to Derrida's deconstruction? Do comic book scholars even agree that "superhero deconstruction" is/was a legitimate phenomenon? If so, how many books belong to this trend? The article lists only a handful, yet it treats "deconstruction" as a separate phase of comic book history - is it really on the same level of importance as Golden and Silver Ages?
And it's the same with "struggles of the 90s" and up to the present day - is it a consensus view of comic book scholars, or just someone's vision? What scholarly texts discuss superhero history? How much of it is disputed? And why does this account focus solely on American superheroes? Without sources, this section of the article raises more questions than it answers.
By the way - yes, I know that the whole section has the "original research" warning, but is has been there for a long time and nothing is being done. Perhaps it would be better to delete this section entirely if no one can fix it?
195.206.112.113 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Is anyone even taking care of this page? You've got a potentially misleading, completely unsourced, probably incomplete and clearly biased section that's been tagged since September 2007 and nothing is being done with it. I'm changing the name to include the word "American" - let's see if that gets anyone's attention.
195.206.112.113 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: 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  14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: I moved this list here as i think it is redundant - we have a whole article just for listing superheroes. This just seems to be here to allow fans to list their favourites in as many places as possible:
While the typical superhero is described above, a vast array of superhero characters have been created and many break the usual pattern:
*Wolverine has shown a willingness to kill and to engage in anti-social behavior. He belongs to an underclass of morally ambivalent anti-heroes who are coarser and more violent than classic superheroes. Others include The Punisher, Green Arrow, Huntress, John Constantine, Blade and, in some incarnations, Batman. Namor the Sub-Mariner is the earliest example of this archetype, originally appearing in 1939.  Some, such as Wolverine, and Deadpool, are often repentant about their actions, while others, such as The Punisher and Rorschach, are unapologetic.
*While many superheroes are accepted by the communities they protect, some, such as Spider-Man, Outsiders and the X-Men, have generally been viewed with suspicion or disapproval by some of the press and general public.
*Some superheroes have been created and employed by national governments to serve their interests and defend the nation. Captain America was outfitted by and worked for the United States Army during World War II and Alpha Flight is a superhero team formed and usually managed by an arm of the Canadian Department of National Defence. The Ultimates, in particular, work directly under the U.S. government and are used as a metaphor for U.S. military and political power. The Savage Dragon is virtually unique in that he began his superhero career as police officer, rather than a costumed vigilante. Wonder Woman in her day job works for the government as an agent.
*Many superheroes have never had a secret identity, such as Luke Cage or the members of The Fantastic Four. Others who once had secret identities, such as Captain America and Steel, later made their identities public. The third Flash and Iron Man are rare examples of "public" superheroes who regain their secret identities.
*The Hulk is usually defined as a superhero, but he has a Jekyll/Hyde relationship with his alter ego. When enraged, scientist Bruce Banner becomes the super-strong Hulk, a creature of little intelligence and self-control. His actions have often either inadvertently or deliberately caused great destruction. As a result, he has been hunted by the military and other superheroes.
*While most superheroes traditionally gained their abilities through accidents of science, magical means or rigorous training, the X-Men and related characters are genetic mutants whose abilities naturally manifest at puberty. Mutants more often have difficulty controlling their powers than other superheroes and are persecuted as a group.
*Some superhero identities have been used by more than one person. A character (often a close associate or family member) takes on another's name and mission after the original dies, retires or takes on a new identity. The Flash, Blue Beetle and Robin are notable mantles that have passed from one character to another. Green Lantern and Nova are standard titles for the thousands of members of their respective intergalactic "police corps". The Phantom and the Black Panther both adopted personae and missions that have lasted several generations.  Superheroes who have inherited their roles or taken them up after the example of a relative or ancestor, have been referred to as legacy heroes.
*Thor, Hercules and Ares are mythological gods reinterpreted as superheroes. Wonder Woman, while not a goddess, is a member of the Amazon tribe.
*Spawn, Etrigan, Ghost Rider and Hellboy are actual demons who have been manipulated by circumstance into being forces of good.
*Superman, the Silver Surfer, Martian Manhunter, and Captain Marvel (the Marvel Comics character) are extraterrestrials who have, either permanently or provisionally, taken it upon themselves to protect the planet Earth.  Adam Strange, conversely, is a human being who protects the planet Rann.
*Some characters tread the line between superhero and villain because of a permanent or temporary change in character or because of a complex, individualistic moral code. These include Juggernaut, Emma Frost, Catwoman, Elektra, Black Adam and Venom. This change often coincides with a spin-off series in which the character must be a likable protagonist.  The Thunderbolts and the Suicide Squad are teams made up mostly of former villains acting as super heroes.
*Because the superhero is such an outlandish and recognizable character type, several comedic heroes have been introduced, including Ambush Bug, The Tick, Bananaman, The Flaming Carrot, The Great Lakes Avengers, Herbie Popnecker, The Powerpuff Girls and The Simpsons’ Radioactive Man. Early, Harvey Kurtzman-edited issues of Mad Magazine featured several parodies of superheroes and count as some of the first satiric treatments of this subject matter.
*The title characters of the franchise Gargoyles are powerful warrior creatures who have an instinctual need to protect their territory and the beings living in it, although that need can be broadly interpreted by individuals.
*The heroic Autobots of Transformers, although they frequently aid humans, are more often locked in battle over energy with the evil Decepticons. Transformers Animated is unusual in that the Autobots perform more traditional superhero duties as well as fighting the Decepticons.
:I agree that this list right here could probably use a little work to move out all of the unnecessary tidbit. But please don't just move something without holding a discussion about moving it first.207.233.124.3 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant list

message: The quote at the beginning of this article references a New York State Court of Appeals case, National Periodical Publications, Inc. v. Empire Comics, Inc. This legal definition and case is given in the fiction novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. I have been unable to find this case in the Court's archives, and have emailed them asking if such a case existed. Can anyone verify that this is an actual court ruling? If this case doesn't exist, then the quote's source needs to be changed. I'm pretty sure that Empire Comics never existed, either. The novel follows 2 fictional comic artists and the development of a fictional series of comic books, which started as Radio Comics and went on to become Empire Comics. (See pages 587-588 of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, by Michael Chabon) 
The problem is, the information provided by this article is being quoted all over the internet as fact, and the court case may be a fictional creation. If anyone has any information about an actual court case, please let me know. (Albauerly (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Check 

message: The article states "super hero" is a trademark but the reference says "superhero"
The article says "The two-word version of the term is a trademark co-owned by DC Comics and Marvel Comics."
ref quoted says "(words only): SUPERHERO" - one word version
What's happening here should we change this?
Carlwev (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Superhero trademark?

message: "the 19th century protagonists of Victorian literature, such as the masked adventurer The Scarlet Pimpernel"
--I've seen this repeated many times in Superhero discussions, I honestly think people get their image of the Pimpernel from the Daffy Duck Scarlet Pumpernickel cartoon where he wears a mask, cape and costume like Zorro's. The Pimpernel did not wear a mask, cape nor was there any form of Pimpernel costume. He impersonated people by wearing many disguises.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orzzo (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Superhero Prototypes

message: Why there isn't a criticism section?--201.201.1.162 (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Talk:Superhero/doc, a page connect to this page, has been nominated for deletion. Ppinions on the matter are desired; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Superhero/doc .  Thank you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD nomination of [[Talk:Superhero/doc]]

message: Do superheroes generally have weaknesses, such as kryptonite (and I believe magic) for superman? It seems to me (and Beth Morling) that superheroes do generally have a weakness but that is not even research. How about "And that’s what makes them even more interesting. Almost all superheroes have a human element of frailty or weakness. For some it’s an Achilles heel (like kryptonite for Superman) but for others it’s a personality behavioural issue that they’re always dealing with. "  "Samuel Jackson’s character explains to Bruce Willis that water is his Kryptonite. " A list here  another list here  and here  and here  - all blogs, or worse, not sufficiently objective. All the same though, a weakness seems to be an important part of being a superhero. Scholarly articles?  I added weaknesss in. The whole article is full of original research. Remove weakness and the rest of the unreferenced, if you wish. --Timtak (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "special weakness" as such was a plot element of early all-powerful superheroes, with a large numbers of vast superpowers, so they got an "achilles heel" so that their enemies could at least resist for a pair of pages. It became an outdated thing when superheroes were not provided with such a variety of super powers, but only with one or two (and perhaps small powers that come as a consequence of the main one). The "weakness" wasn't then a specific trait, just the thing the character can not do (such as not being able to fly), and has to work around it or use his powers in a creative manner to compensate. Notice that super heroes created since the last times of the silver age to this day, such as Wolverine, Silver Surfer, Ms. Marvel, Orion, Starfire, Cyborg, etc.; do not have any "weakness" that may be compared with Superman's kryptonite. Even with Superman himself, kryptonite is not approached as a plot element like it used to be during the first days. MBelgrano (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weaknesses