Talk:List of Watchmen characters

message: There is no character in Watchmen called "Sin Queen." The character is called "The Twilight Lady." Where did anyone get "Sin Queen" from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sin Queen?"

message: The following information is unnecessary:
(This may be contrary to the intent of the original novel. In chapter 1, the fourth panel of page 25 focuses on two old men sitting affectionately together near Dan and Laurie in Rafael's restaurant. They look very much like older versions of Rolf Muller and Nelson Gardner, and it was speculated by many fans that these were in fact HJ and CM, who had faked their deaths in order to retire and be together. Dave Gibbons said this was unintended but allowed that it might be true, but in the retconned world of Before Watchmen it is obviously not the case.)
Since Gibbons has explicitly stated that it was never the original intention, the entire point of this paragraph is rendered moot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Hooded Justice Section

message: Asking because I doubt it was actually specified that Manhattan was the 'ubermensch', or that Ozymandias was the Apollonian aspect. Yes, Alan Moore referenced Nietzsche in Rosharch's chapter, but I doubt we can add such an interpretation to an article that aims objectively (noting this as other articles that I've seen possessing a Nietzschean interpretations have had such interprepations removed)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.12 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that Watchmen should have an analysis section above other comics is that Watchmen is anything but your typical comic. Most comics HAVE nothing to analyze. Reading Watchmen is like wading through literary symbolism given viscous physical form. And I have seen numerous articles on books and poems (the article for the poem Ozymandias, coincidentally enough) with analysis sections. I can't help but feel that Watchmen is being discriminated against because your average joe regards it as "just a comic book." Shralla (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can source and summarize a reputable analysis, that's one thing.  But analytical, POV terms cannot just be tossed into an article because you or any other editor feels that it's significant.  If it's significant, find a source.  If there's no source, it doesn't belong here; it belongs on a fanpage.  And that goes for absolutely everything, from classic novels to "just comic books."199.73.152.100 (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a need for Nietzschean interpretation ?

message: One problem I still see is that it is contary to the style guide to have wikis in the section headings. Dyslexic agnostic 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I came to this page to find out about the Watchmen characters, having never heard of them before seeing a commercial on TV for the 2009 movie.  Instead, this page seems to be a re-telling of the novel & movie broken out by character.  This article spoiled them both for me.
24.15.61.110 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: wikis  and spoilerisation

message: Why is he in the "post" section?  He was a founding member and in the famed photograph-of-eight.  He was, in fact, the first person expelled, yet the article as written suggests he became active around 1966.BryanEkers 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe put a small section about him in the Minutemen section and the main description in the Post-Minutemen section? Corky842 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Comedian's placement

message: Moloch is a villain of the Minuteman era, not one of the heroes. He doesn't belong here. Removing... Anonymous 24.7.10.194 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think that title "Characters of Watchmen" also includes the villains and the rest of the crowd that appear in the comic? I find that the character of Bubastis is unjustly underrated! :P ---> A-Doo 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moloch?

message: The description of Rorschach's behavior seems to neglect that he doesn't just punish criminals with occasionally extreme results, he leaned toward violence from early childhood. He's basically a serial killer, although the nuance of the character makes that easy to overlook.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.154.188 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kovacs had a rage problem ever since childhood, yeah, but the comic strongly implies that he was actually a fairly normal person (at least by costumed adventurer standards) before the Blair Roche kidnapping case and had never actually killed anyone before then, either.  Not that he didn't have all kinds of mental problems, but he definitely wasn't any kind of murderous psycho until he snapped in '75. 12.36.8.62 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that it is shameful to completely have his psychological mindset completely absent from his description, though. That IS his character. His attachment to his mask, his double personality, his rough childhood, the inkblots, the violence. All that is described is a few irrevelant details that are more centralized around ALL of the characters, not just Rorschach personally. It needs cleaned up. OhDoTell (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rorschach

message: What about all the other characters? Fron what perspectice only costumed character are there? Some supporting chrcters are more developed than 40s costumed charcaters. Bernard, Bernie, the two inspectors, the kidnapped scientists, the recurring journalists, the psychiatrist, any character that appears in more than one issue is interesting. --Leocomix 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other characters

message: It seems that this article is inconsistent with the individual character articles (the glaring one is Blind Justice).  Is this on purpose?  If not, we should try to make them consistent.  I would, but it's been years since I've read the book Darquis (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent with articles?

message: I have proposed that Hooded Justice be merged into this article. He is the only member of the Minutemen with his own article and is not even the most important of the group. It seems there was some period of time where several (or all) of the Minutemen had their own articles, and were eventually all merged here and Hooded Justice's article survived. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: There seems to be a general lack of information on this page. While the page does a fairly good job of providing character analysis from secondary sources for the main characters (it can always use more)there is a lack of background information for both the main and supporting characters (especially these). The page could benefit by adding more information to the fictional character biographies. A good exaple of this can be found at the Watchmen Wiki page.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloneAlias (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is still severely lacking information, I am replacing the expasion tags.CloneAlias (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little need for more information on the characters' fictional histories; all we need is enough for context. Real-world notability is paramount. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of this page if not to expand apon information given in the main page? The same exact information is outlined here as it is there. As it stands now this page is a waste of bandwidth.CloneAlias (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to check out some books from the library again to expand it slightly. Also, I'll be trimming some details from the main article so they'll only be on this page. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion?

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support move since it is more prose-driven than list-driven. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *A list article primarily consists of links to other articles with little to no in-depth prose. This is not one of those. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *We can remvoe the supporting characters lists because there is very little secondary source info on them.  Nonetheless, this article is not a list article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would be in favor of this move if those sections were expanded not removed. There is enough information in the primary source to include fictional biographies for them. Which should be done for every character by the way.CloneAlias (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It is nowhere explained what the Minutemen are, so somebody not familiar with the comics does not get an explanation of their connection/relation to the Watchmen. The fact that Minutemen (comics) simply redirects to the main page doesn't really help, either... Thanks for anyone who will include the approriate info. --Cruncher (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minutemen

message: There was never a debate regarding the merge of these article. The AfD focused on keeping these article. Secondly because of the film release and video game these main character has been covered in different story lines and have been featured outside of the comic itself therefore they are more notable. I also opened a discussion on the Watchmen talk page. Valoem talk 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned, the discussion was carried out at WikiProject Comics. The thing is when cleanup is done for the separate articles to remove all the problems (in-universe focus, original research, etc.) you're only left with the material that's contained here. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite that discussion to remove the character pages and note it in the individual character talk pages. As of now, all the talk pages say about the subject is that the AfD concluded keep. Sligocki (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some discussion WikiProject Comics in December. See also my question to WesleyDodds and his response on my talk page, as well as a few discussion on his talk page. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The executive summary appears to be: "Not enough information in the individual character pages, they are mostly plot summary." It sounds to me like they are just underdeveloped. Is there precedence for deleting or keeping character pages? I know that many characters of V for Vendetta have their own pages. If there is a reasonable discussion that decides this, I will not complain, but it seems like it's just the two of you guys deciding to delete these all when no consensus was reached. Sligocki (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Against merge of main character they deserve their own articles

message: I see information has been deleted on the grounds that "IMDB can't be used as a source. "  This is a specious reason for deletion.  Tag if you think a better source is needed, but don't delete, since I doubt any one seriously questions that Dollar Bill was played by Dan Payne, for instance. --Michael C. Price talk 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is widely considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia, since it's user submitted. You don't need to cite cast members of a film because the credits are part of the film, but the actors really not worth mentioning anyway since that's the purpose of the film article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is also user-submitted :-)  Your last point has some validity. --Michael C. Price talk 09:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And because of that, Wikipedia can't be used as a source, either. HalfShadow 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB can't be used as a source?

message: I'm puzzled.  The Comedian's identity is a secret (Jacobi/Moloch only finds out because he sees the Comedian without his mask) at the time of Edward Blake's death, yet we see the Comedian in Vietnam without his mask and Blake attends parties in his honour in his civilian guise, where he is accosted by Laurie about his attempted rape as the Comedian.  Explain? --Michael C. Price talk 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comedian - Edward Blake, public knowledge or secret?

message: I have corrected the pronunciation of the name Juspeczyk more than once and I keep getting a message saying the edit is unconstructive and it is vandalism. That is nonsense. Saying something correctly is simply 'correct' not unconstructive.
The name is Polish and is pronounced yoo-SPEH-chick. The article keeps reverting to "juice-puh-check).
I am not interested in playing edit games with some bored teenager so I don't expect it to be left correct but can't say I didn't try ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.98.15 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Silk Spectre II (Laurie Juspeczyk)_pronunciation of her last name.

message: Why is the "Sam Hamm" script repeatedly mentioned?  An unproduced script in the infant stages of development isn't in any way noteworthy, why is it repeatedly referenced (and in a way that essentially restates the same thing every time)?  I'm asking the people who aren't WesleyDodds, I'm sure he'll share his opinion, it's just that his opinion has proven pretty worthless and he seems like a tool.  Yeah yeah, I know, no personal attacks, but sometimes a douchbage is a douchebag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.55.11 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sam Hamm script references?

message: To quote from the end of the Doctor Manhattan section...
"Doctor Manhattan is arguably more evil than Ozmandias because he would prefer that the pulic be fat, dumb and happy, and completely ignorant of the world around them. He prevents the truth from being told and even kills Rorschach when Rorschach refuses to cover up Ozmandias' plan. Doctor Manhattan does not uphold the truth instead he keeps the public ignorant of he danger around them instead of letting them face the truth and fight for themselves. Rorschach while easier to dislike than the seemingly morally upstanding Doctor Manhattan is the better person because he knows that truth is the most important thing in a civilized society. While it may not seem good or helpful te truth makes things known and keeps society from faling into a rotten pit of hypocrisy and despair."
To be honest whilst it makes some relevant points, it seems purely conjecture, and as such has no place on the article surely? If there were some evidence to support this it would still be shady, I would recommend deleting it completely or at least trimming most of the unsubstantiated details here. Some of it just reads and feels wrong for a Wiki article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenightmarecreature (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Opinion in Article?

message: Has Alan Moore ever given any indication that the name "Doctor Manhattan" might have stemmed from the Manhattan Project? Or (less likely) that his accident was semi-based off the fate of Louis Slotin? The connection seems rather clear to me, and I was almost going to reference it in the article, before I realized it was original research (!). If it was deliberate, it's worth mentioning, but I can only find a blog post on the subject—not exactly encyclopedic. So I'll drop this message off here to see if anyone else can find stronger proof of the link. ... And if not, maybe it doesn't exist. Oh well. —Switchercat talkcont 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is specifically stated in Watchmen that he was named after the Manhattan Project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: On Doctor Manhattan

message: Firstly, how is this relavent to WP:US or WP:UK except in the very broadest definition of the term "relevant"? Second, the section on The Comedian is basically a complete plot history of his character and is almost completely unsourced - the rest of the page is sourced so I'm guessing this was edited separately at some point but I can't see where. 86.148.178.112 (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple of issues with this page

message: I've removed the years because such classification encourages viewing of the characters within an in-universe perspective, which is discouraged, see WP:WAF.  Also, some of them were outright untrue.  Veidt, for instance, is not killed in the novel, and Dan's birth year is never listed, as far as I know.  Manhattan's birth year is also disputed - he was 16 in August 1945, conventionally putting him at 1929, but he could also have a birth month of November or something, making him 1928. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, as far as I understood it, the Crimebusters never existed as a group, only during that meeting. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Years

message: I read some where that Mothman can fly via his fake wings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golem866 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mothman's abilites

message: Shouldn't this article be List of Characters from Watchmen? -173.57.71.251 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I read the Under the Hood pages in the Watchmen and it never metioned that Hooded Justice was homosexual or even pretending to be in love with Slik Spectre I. -Golem866 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchmen is very specific in making clear that Hooded Justice is in a gay relationship with Captain Metropolis, with Sally acting as his beard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Flase Info on Hooded Justice

message: Nowhere is it stated in the comic that only Dr Manhattan has superpowers.  In fact, Ozymandius has mastered and advanced several fields of science from genetics to physics - far beyond what might be possible with non-superpowered intelligence in today's world.  The Comedian is referred to as having a special insight in the human condition (eg. getting the joke) and Rorshack has fought and prevailed against overwhelming odds in face-to-face combat.  These are clearly not un-powered people, but there is no reliable source either direction. -69.143.48.114 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The comic makes it clear that Manhattan is the only superhuman.
The fight between The Comedian and Ozy at the beginning seems to indicate at the very least The Comedian is almost superhumanly tough -- he was not knocked out when his head went through the stone countertop, etc.--Jrm2007 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You're confusing the film and the comic.
The "stone countertop" matter is from the film. No question that Blake/Comedian was extremely tough, but this isn't really a valid observation except with respect to the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.8.89 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Superpowers

message: I was reading the discussion page and saw that there was at one point a merge done on this article and I have to ask why did it end up staying the way it is?  I was looking for a little more background information on the characters in the comic book and movie adaption and these descriptions are just horrible.  It just seems like they deserve more than a tiny paragraph.  Not being very familiar with the story or characters I figured that I'd come here to see if I could learn more about everything, but I'm left with more questions than answers.  Is there going to be an unmerge, or a rewrite on the individual characters anytime soon?  Drunknesmonsta (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow...

message: The text refers to Dr. Manhatan as 'Kali'. Although the theology of Kali does indicate her in a specific event in which she was violent, the more correct interpretation would be Shiva. 
Shiva is actually known as the 'destroyer'. In the Hindu 3 main forms of God are taken 
Brahma-the creator, Vishnu-the protector, and Shiva-the destroyer. The reference to Oppenheimer also fits here. His quote 'I am become death the shatterer of worlds' refers to the Gita and Shiva's dance, not Kali's. 
Last, the article talks about Vishnu as a possible reference to Dr. Manhattan. A more correct reference would be Krsna/Krishna, not Vishnu. Krishna was an avatar, or form, of Vishnu taken when he came to earth. His complexion was 'blue' and he possessed superhuman abilities. 
More than likely, Dr. Manhattan represents Shiva and Krishna, not Vishnu and Kali. 
Please note I have made these corrections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.168.153 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Kali is incorrect-->should be Shiva

message: The line that Captain Metropolis' death was "later shown to be a suicide" is rubbish. I can't think of any substantiating line within the novel or the accepted additions such as the game notes. If this is kept in through some faint collateral connection (the Hamm screenplay, perhaps?) then the issues of Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis possibly surviving their reputed deaths (and appearing in panel 1:25:4) should be included as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.8.89 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibbons has stated that the older gentlemen were never intended to be Metropolis and H.J.  But you're correct--it was not a suicide. I have no idea where anyone got that impression.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Metropolis "suicide"? 

message: Some time ago the article contained a quick bit about how Dr. Manhattan was a CGI character and Billy Crudup only provided voice, and motion & performance capture. Someone undid that to make it state that he portrayed the character, but that is extremely misleading and Crudup has stated in interviews how ridiculous it is to suggest that that was him on screen. Obviously the bulk of info about the CGI character and how it was created belongs in the movie article, but a line describing what it really was is important to keep here. In other words, Please don't take this information away.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.188 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If he performed voice, motion and performance capture, surely it's just as valid to say he portrayed the character as it is to say that, for example, Kevin Conroy portrayed Batman in Batman: Arkham Asylum or Mask of the Phantasm, isn't it? I mean, to 'portray' a character doesn't exclusively mean to physically stand there and perform every aspect of the character in the flesh. GRAPPLE X 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course he did portray the character via those technologies/techniques and maybe my phrasing above could be misconstrued as denying that. (certainly not my intention) But whereas nobody would think that Conroy was on screen wearing cape and cowl, some people apparently actually have believed that Crudup was on screen nude somehow with a massive physique (Yes, really. Web surfing reveals some strange things, at least that's suggested in those same interviews with Crudup.) A big paragraph about how it was done would be out of place, but a quick mention that the character was CGI modeled after Greg Plitt with Crudup's motion & performance capture is appropriate and better than just "portrayed by Billy Crudup" without explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.188 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A detailed section about how it was done would be a good thing to include in a standalone article about Manhattan. --Boycool (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Boycool. For this article, I looked up another way of phrasing it - the article on Gollum phrases it quite succinctly as " Gollum is a CGI character voiced and performed by actor Andy Serkis", which I think works. It gets across that the visual character is simply a rendering, and not Crudup himself, but that Crudup did do the acting for it. GRAPPLE X 20:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Crudup's Motion Capture as Dr. Manhattan 

message: "You like this huh,? Is this what gets you hot?"
I think that Alan Moore make big boo-boo in not dissecting the character strong man's Rolf Muller's motivation for donning a costume and becoming a "masked crimefighter", since he was the first to do so and set-off the spree of others to follow suit.  I'm especially drawn to the incident where Edward Blake is prevented from raping The Silk Specter. Muller pummels Eddie; Blake then makes his seemingly insightful statement with blood gushing from his face.  We are reminded in the novel that Mueller and Cap't Metroplis had an alleged homo "relationship", where it was revealed by Hollis and Sally Jupiter that Mueller often was violent to Metro(polis). (Hey, do you suppose that the name was actually meant to have been "Captain Metro-Sexual"? Oh, well.) To continue: What made Mueller put on the costume in the first place? I doubt it was any kind of sense of justice, as the character was reputed to pick-up boy hustlers and young runaways which would make him a pedophile! 
So, what was it? And isn't it strange that "Hollis Mason" didn't later in his auto-bio retract his descision to become 'Nite Owl' based on the fact that he emmulated a violent homosexual? How did that jive with his 'mid-western, moral values"?  Anyway, the answer can be found in that moment when Blake is downed by Mueller. Pay attention: Blake, being the sociopath that he is, and unable to keep his violent tendencies in check, attacks Sally. Mueller, who alleges to have the same viloent impulse, and further spurred by his peculiar sexual drives is in congruence with EDWARD BLAKE, a 'kindred spirit", though Eddie would never have Rolf come near him, otherwise  obviously.  That is what Blake sensed. And if true, then Rolf Mueller, a\k\a "Hooded Justice" was a sham all along. Mueller might have donned the costume to contain or direct his violent tendencies in a manner that would be both socially aceptable, and deceptive to the publis's prying eyes at the same time. (Him being a circus performer, like his cohorts in the carny bsiness, knew all about deceiving the public, as he was among outcast, freaks, etc.)  Mueller may have also harbored a hatred of hetro-sexual males, thus further driving his 'avenger' persona.  What I don't understand is what drove Captain Metropolis?  More than Rolf Mueller, he is more difficult to dicepher. Was he possibly-like Roschasch-phsically abused as a child, perhaps sexually?  If so, then apart fom Mason, Lewis and Jupiter, the other three 'Minutemen"(including Ursula Zandt "The Silhoette") were three rather messed-up, essential "out-casts" ppl. Conclusively, this would make Rocshasch, Blake, and conditionally Metropolis sociopaththic. Interesting how in the beginning Roschach is opposed to Blake at the "Crimebusters" meeting, but since his "ordeal", later found himself approving of Blake's actions (in the U.S., anyway). I am surprised that Mr. Moore, after all these decades hasn't expanded on the profiles of said characters. --74.88.160.39 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM. --Boycool (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting "The Hooded Justice" Character 

message: How come Rorschach has his own page but Dr. Manhattan doesn't?
-  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.12.211 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the community has decided that Rorschach meets the notability requirements for inclusion and Manhattan does not. See WP:N for more (general) information. Achowat (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Basically because that would require some actual effort, thought, and searching for sources, and we're too lazy to do it. --Boycool (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: How come there is no mention of the actor who played Dr. Malcolm Long, who treated Rosasch?  What is the actor's name? --67.86.110.9 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast Credits 

message: Should the stories of characters in Before Watchmen be treated as canon to the Watchmen universe? I know they're owned by DC Comics so technically they are, but Dave Gibbons said he doesn't consider it canon, and I'm pretty sure if Alan Moore were asked he'd say the same.--Wrath X (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave Gibbons endorsed Before Watchmen and was paid a quarter of a million dollars to serve as a consultant on it. That, in fact, caused a rift between Moore and Gibbons, ending their friendship--according to Moore himself in an interview a few years ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Before Watchmen'' Canon? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Watchmen characters. 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/20120616151010/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/21.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/21.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified