Talk:Nighthawk (Marvel Comics)

message: These pages need to be broken up. The Nighthawk characters mentioned here have no relation to each other. The Squadron Supreme Nighthawk Character is not related to the Earth 616 Nighthawk.
:Putting aside the fact that there are numerous similarities between the various Nighthawks, it's fairly standard to have a central page for the various incarnations of a character, such as the Flash or Green Lantern.  If you want to create or help create separate pages for each one with more in depth, specific information, by all means go for it, but the information on this page should stay where it is. Pitr 06:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: The article Supreme Power: Nighthawk (Marvel Comics) should be merged into Nighthawk (Marvel Comics). The article was created by User:Brown Shoes22, known for creating articles left and right with bad grammar and spelling and adding useless bits of trivia and leaving other to clean up after him. Also, the article is badly named, the mini-series synopsis can be told in a single paragraph, and moved to the main Nighthawk article in the Supreme Power section. --Pc13 10:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the miniseries shouldn't have its own page, but the main Nighthawk page is huge already.  Also, the profiles for the other Nighthawks have some plot summaries, but they seem to be crucial moments in their histories, which the Supreme Power miniseries isn't really.  If anything, I think that maybe Nighthawk IV should be given his own page, and the miniseries page can be merged into that.  I've seen it on other wikis for superheroes with many incarnations, like the Flash or Green Lantern. Pitr 19:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh oh... here is Brown Shoes22's comment (found at the discussion page for the miniseries): "No this is a mini-series and more info will be added".  That's the problem, he's always adding more and more...  I agree with Pitr, merge AFTER Nighthawk IV gets his own page. Dyslexic agnostic 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start working on a separate page for Nighthawk IV this week after I re-read my issues of Supreme Power.  If anyone else wants to get it started, I'd be happy to add on to what they write. Pitr 09:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Repeating what I said in Talk:Hyperion (comics), I agree, both Supreme Power versions of Nighthawk and Hypertion could be spun into their own articles: Hyperion (Supreme Power) and Nighthawk (Supreme Power). --Pc13 11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyperion Yes you can make a Hyperion (Supreme Power). But thair isn't eougth info on the Supreme Power Nighthawk to make a Article, The article Supreme Power: Nighthawk (Marvel Comics) should be merged into Nighthawk (Marvel Comics).--Brown Shoes22 16:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There really is plenty of information on the Supreme Power version of Nighthawk to have his own page; it might not be a huge page, but he's been in comics for a couple years, I'm sure he can fill his own page.  The miniseries should definitely not be merged into the main Nighthawk page. Pitr 18:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Supreme Power: Nighthawk (Marvel Comics) 

message: I've added a "Pub hist" section as the exemplar requires. It's a start, and more should be added.
The rest of the Comics Project generally treats the mainstream-continuity version of a character as the main version, and places alternate-universe versions and alternate-imprint versions (such as Marvel MAX) under "Alternate versions". --Tenebrae 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication history and formatting

message: Given the relative sizes of this article and Nighthawk (Supreme Power) and the structure of this article, it makes a degree of sense to merge the two into on article.
To be clear, I am not suggesting the newer team be brought over in an "Alternate version" section, but as a full part of the article.
Any other thoughts? - J Greb 20:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I really like the sidebar idea. When it comes to the various Squadrons, some kind of generic scorecard is definately needed. As to a merge, it would work now, but as little as a year from now Nighthawk may have been written into so much that logging it blows out the article length. I'm actually in favour of separation, but would like to hear from others.
Asgardian 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Before going so far as to call for an RfC, could editors please comment on the use of "Earth-31916" and other non-general-reader jargon in the disambig line at the top of the article and elsewhere. Per discussion at Talk:Whizzer and general Wiki guidelines, such terms are generally to be held at a minimum.
I know Asgardian advocates using these numbers, and clearly, I don't except in a limited way as necessary. So could we hear other editors' opinions besides ours? Thanks -- Tenebrae 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of jargon

message: I think it would be helpful, for the sake of consistency and to avoid redundant discussion, to use the much-hammered-out Whizzer article as a template for writing about Squadron Supreme/Sinister/etc. characters, which because of their convoluted history, iterations and permutations in mainstream and alternate continuities make them particularly difficult to render in a way accessible and clear to the general-audience reader at which Wikipedia is aimed.
And doing so does make a difference. Here's an article about Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, written for the Scripps-Howard newspaper syndicate, that is one of the very few comics-related pieces I've ever seen in the mainstream press with completely accurate details about a lesser-known character's publication history, creators, etc. — and it uses whole phrases from the Wiki article Sheena, Queen of the Jungle. 
It shows that we're having an impact on scholarship, pop-cultural thought it may be. --Tenebrae 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whizzer article

message: :Image:Nighthawk-1.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 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 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nighthawk-1.jpg

message: :Image:Nighthawk-1.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nighthawk-1.jpg

message: This is the current Nighthawk as of issue #6 of the Last Defenders. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joaquin Pennysworth 

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  16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: As has been the case with some other articles that have since conformed to WPC MOS, this article confusingly mixes real-world publishing and creative background with make-believe, in-universe material. This needs to be addressed. I've made a first stab, but much more needs to be done. 
Also, please do not put comics jargon in the lead. Wikipedia articles are to be written for general audience readers. The more proper place to put such insiderish detail is within the body, where it can be explained in context. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mash-up of Publication history and Fictional character biography

message: I'm at a loss at to why this article doesn't follow WPC convention of focusing on the original, main character, and listed others under "Other versions" or even, as in Alternate versions of Doctor Strange, a separate article. Large numbers of Marvel characters have alternate-reality versions; there's no reason that this article and other Squadron Supreme/Sinister characters' articles don't have to follow the same conventions, which were derived by consensus for consistency, simplicity and ease of understanding across the project. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other versions