Talk:Radioactive Man (comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alternate[edit]

An alternate Earth Chen Lu who never became the Radiocative Man appeared in the 1988 published special.

19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Igor[edit]

What about the Radioactive man that was in Black Panther 1-6? His name was Igor.

Will find a spot for that other image!

Asgardian 10:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CovenantD[edit]

CovenantD - your behaviour is becoming obsessive. You showed no interest in this page before I edited it and now revert for the sake of reverting, with no discussion - even AFTER I accommodated both images. You WILL be going without work and sleep if you intend to try and keep Wikipedia as you prefer it. It is an impossible task, and such obsession is not healthy. Do you really want another page of entries similar to what is on your first Talk page? Or to be banned again at some point? No one person owns these entries, and it could all quite easily be gone tomorrow. Relax and learn to be flexible. If for nothing else than the sake of your own health.

Asgardian 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


PS - You also just reverted to a page featuring a dead link that I corrected! Who's teaching who?

Asgardian 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good - you are actually studying the text now instead of just reverting.

Asgardian 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hide his Asian features???[edit]

I know no one wil read this, but why does Osborn convince him to hide his Asian features? 66.167.233.99 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is explained better, I'm deleting it. 66.167.147.162 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It is looking pretty solid but it could do with a publication history as the artice is solidly in-universe. Otherwise it seems pretty good. (Emperor (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was: Move. –Drilnoth (TC) 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive Man (comics)Radioactive Man (Marvel character) — Since Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) is a comic book character as well. In fact he has his own comic book series, which have won the Will Eisner award. This character is just a villain. Radioactive Man (comics) could refer to both this character and Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character). I therefore propose that this article is move to Radioactive Man (Marvel character) and Radioactive Man (comics) is made into a disambiguation page. — Maitch (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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--Maitch (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The Simpsons character also has his own comic book and I would argue he is more notable (i've never even heard of the Marvel character before today). TJ Spyke 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support arguably, the Simpsons character is more notable. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Closing comments: This move looks pretty uncontroversial; I'll perform the move and create a dab page. Please let me know if there is any opposition to this change, but right now I can't really see any problems which could be raised. –Drilnoth (TC) 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation[edit]

I seem to have missed the move discussion. While the move seems wise (as long as someone updates all the incoming links), this isn't a proper disambiguation. Following WP:NCC this should be at Radioactive Man (Marvel Comics) and should be moved before all the links get changed to keep things neat and tidy. I won't move it immediately (given the recently closed discussion) but it will have to be done at some point. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agree with Emperor. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting there are 100+ links pointing at Radioactive Man (comics) [1], which no longer points here. One of those is the link from the infobox image and not updating that link could lead to the image being deleted. If you do go switching the article names you really have to make sure you clean up your own mess - I've done a few such changes and fixing the links can take quite a bit of work but you sign up to doing that when you start swapping the article names. I've changed the link on the template to point to the suggested address which should help resolve what needs work. (Emperor (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I see this has been moved back, which is tricky as there is a consensus behind the move (above), and it makes sense given the fact there are two such characters, my main quibble was the disambiguation wasn't right, following WP:NCC. So I think the new name is the best option but there are still a lot of incoming links here [2], so perhaps an eager editor might want to update those to Radioactive Man (Marvel Comics), so when this is moved (and I think it should be) nothing will get broken, like it was last time. (Emperor (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]