Talk:ShadowHawk (character)

message: *Big Bang Comics and Shadowhawk, two pages about comic books published by Image Comics, are a chaotic mess. No framing, little description, reliance on lists to fill up space, lots of grammatical mistakes and red links. Both were created by the same user, who claims to be dyslexic, but insists on writing anyway. --Pc13 18:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Please tell AdyCarter the guy who works for Minimates to stop removing links that mention these comic's new toylines! He is promoting a toy line called minimates he works for and removing other toy companies mentions from WIKI and that is being a vandel!
I dont work for any toy companies, its my personal feeling that until these products are actually released or at elast officially solicited to stores they are non encylopedic, I could announce a toyline but it means nothing. Also please note that the above unisgned talk comment is by the owner of ShockerToys who has a long history of having entire Wiki articles removed as he views it as his advertising playground. I'm not removing the line listed as yopur first wave anymore, but plastering your company over every page even vaguely related to a line you may make was rediculous. Adycarter 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old cleanup talk

message: I noticed that the two seem to be separate series but only one is tagged with for a split. I can see the reasoning behind the split so I am just actually opening up the area for discussion in case there's any disagreement. TheMonkofDestiny 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the reasoning to split, but there have been two schools of thought about this for comics.  Obviously Green Lantern or Robin are examples of a superhero name taken by several individuals, but the standard seems to be to create a 'main' article about the character name/legacy and give some details about each.  If more detail is needed/warrented, provide a link to the 'main article'.  Obviously this is also affected by the significance of the character.  Starman (comics) for instance gives descriptions of all of the many characters with that name, but only re-links to those individuals who have been notable using that psuedonym.  For Shadowhawk it seems as if the mantle of this character was passed cleanly from one person to another, so I'd say keep it all in one article as with articles such as Phantom Lady or Black Canary.Markeer 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. One article is enough for this character. Cybertooth85 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some changes to the structure could be made, at the very least. The way the article is laid out from a visual perspective only makes it seem like it is in a state of disarray. Essentially splitting the second ShadowHawk article could serve to make it look less cluttered but I can see the validity of keeping it together. Either way whomever originally tagged it for the possibility of the split failed to open up the discussion for it and it seemed only fair to do that so someone wouldn't come along and simply make a rash decision and split it without checking whether a consensus was reached regarding it or not.TheMonkofDestiny 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadowhawk II/Jim Valentino's Shadowhawk split? 

message: If I recall correctly Shadowhawk is fairly notable in that it did not state his civilian identity for several issues. They offered clues as to who it may be, but did not outright say. Then Image had a contest for people to figure out who Shadowhawk really was. Am I wrong here? If I'm not, isn't it worthwhile adding this gimmick? 71.192.54.222 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest 

message: Substituted at 05:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Just an FYI, the first 3 links are all broken. HCA (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links