Talk:The Phantom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Australian Elementary schools

In the trivia section it claims that the Phantom is the only comic allowed in Australian Elementary schools. As an Australian teacher I've never heard this. I do take the Phantom in to school for my kids to read, but there are some that I don't tke in. I also take in other comics. Also in Australia we have Primary Schools, not Elementary Schools

I've just reverted a large edit by an anonymous user partly because it is unencyclopedic - reading more like an RPG character profile than an encyclopedia entry - but mainly because it is composed largely of uncredited quotations (see [1], [2], [3]), and is therefore problematic from a copyright standpoint (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations). --Paul A 04:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We never had them at our Primary School down in Tassie in the 1980s.  :-( Actually, we did have Tintin and Asterix comics in our school library, so there were allowed. 202.138.16.69 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who came in late...

For those who came in late, can someone please provide some information about this new "Ghost Who Walks" film? IMDB states it is due for release in 2009 but provides no information about actors or crew involved, etc. A web search revealed little other information other than the screenwriter is a former Olympic swimmer.

Does anyone have information about the film? Is is a sequel to the Zane film? Have any plot details been released? Has the film been in the pipeline for a long time?

My personal thoughts are that I would like to see a slightly grittier Phantom, perhaps in the mould of Batman Begins, provided essential elements of the character were not compromised. I am not a fan of camp.

I would definitely love to see the Golden Circle worked into a film plot. Does anyone else have information or thoughts? 202.138.16.1 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, thoughta about improving the articles, not hopes for the film. Discussion pages aren't forums for film speculation.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, what I am saying is that the article provides very little data at all about the film. I am asking this question because the detail it provides is so vague. Watch your manners next time. 210.50.56.61 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The "information" part suggests that. The "or thoughts" suggests discussion of things like the "My personal thoughts are that I would like to see..." section.

I don't feel there was anything wrong with my manners, and it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just a reminder before anyone else replied in a non-article-building way. If you took it as an attack, I am sorry.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cr138c1.jpg

The image Image:Cr138c1.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:

• Image:Phantomissue12mikebullock.jpg
• Image:PHANTOM Avon NOVEL.jpg
• Image:Ghostwhowalks2040.jpg
• Image:Fantomencover.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It needs quite a lot more references but is solid enough on all other fronts. Plenty of potential to go all the way. (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

B-Class?

In an attempt to make this article considered worthy of B-Class on the quality scale, I have added many citations and corrected some errors, plus added some all new information. What more, if anything, is needed to get the article considered as B-Class, or even better, A-Class? --Kit Walker (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Colors

" In one of the European nations the Phantom was never printed in a purple costume since it was the colour used for mourning." -- Er, doesn't that seem rather vague? Anyone know which European nation is referred to here? 69.208.249.123

in finland Phantom has a blue contume, but as far as i know that has nothing to do with mourning.

The reason Fantom or Mustanaamio in Finnish has a blue costume is because Lee Falk created the character before there was colour strips. As far as I remember Lee Falk wanted the character to have a grey costume, but the different colour publications made his costume all the way from from blue to red. The movie settled on purple, which isn't really good, as Lee Falk wanted him to be dressed in grey, and the Ghost That Walks. I remember there was a fan vote for the colour of his coat when he walks among men, when Egmont started releasing Mustanaamio in colour when I was young. I always loved the black & white stuff by Egmont. I never liked the blue colour of The Phantom's outfit, the grey was much better, and I was relieved when I read that Lee Falk wanted him to be grey.

I love best the historical stories with not the contemporary Phantom, but his ancestors. And isn't it time for Kit and Heloise to come to terms with their ancestry? Christopher Walker junior might have to deal with the world, or Heloise. I'd like like to see Kit junior taking on his father's mantle in a dedicated book. It would be too obvious for Heloise to take on the mantle of The Phantom.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.239.135 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 

Below the fold

What paper(s?) was the strip first published in? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as there was no opposition to the requested move after 7 days at WP:RM Jojhutton (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Phantom (comics) → The Phantom — Actual name and discussion above —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, seems sensible to me, especially since the proposed title is already a redirect. Powers ^T 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, actual name of the subject. Seems to be a uncontroversial move. Flamarande (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LEE FALK

Someone deleted the Lee Falk image on Falk's Wikipedia profile. Would anyone mind helping out with a new photo of him?

The article states that Falk drew the first two weeks of the daily strip this story is apocryphal according to:

Falk, L., Moore, R., Goulart, R., & Rhoades, E. (2010). The Phantom, the complete dailies: Volume One 1936-1937. Hermes press.

.--Teletran (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First costumed crimefigher

The reason for the rv is that this version states only the observable facts without making any claims. The version I rv'd says the Phantom "is often considered" such-and-such ... but we can't do that in WIkipedia. We have to provide a cite. And if we're saying "often considered," more than one cite. --Tenebrae 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the Phantom is the first hero to wear "the skin tight costume" often associated with superheroes. Zorro didn't wear one of those, so I'm not sure if it's revelant to add the Zorro-note to the opening of the article..? KIT WALKER

Try telling Tenebrae that.

Duggy 1138 12:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be snide. No one said Zorro wore a skin-tight costume, only that he was a costumed hero before the Phantom. "Kit Walker" in the post above would be more credible if he registered properly as a Wikipedia editor. --Tenebrae 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not logged in, Tenebrae. I have done a little editing on the article here and there myself. I did not say I rejected your compromise; I only asked whether it should be there. --Kit Walker 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing implies it. No, no one said it, but it could be taken from it. Kit thought it. I thought it until I re-read it three times. The Zorro reference is pointless. Duggy 1138 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Superman, created in 1932. Wasn't he the first to wear a skin-tight costume? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Superman did not appear in print until much later. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The first costumed crimefighter was Hercules (lion skin, club). The first crimefighter with a secret identity was Odyssius, who pretended to be a poor begger and then threw off his rags and slew his wife's sutors. In more modern times, you have The Scarlet Pimpernell before Zorro. But The Phantom was the first costumed crimefighter in the comics. Rick Norwood 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Under the influence

"====Betaal Pachisi====

"An Indian TV serial named "Betaal Pachisi" (meaning Phantom XXV), starring Shahbaz Khan, Tom Alter and Sonu Walia, and directed by Sunil Agnihotri, was inspired by the Phantom, after the producers failed to obtain the rights to make an actual series about the character. It was first aired in May 1997 on the Doordarshan TV network of India. Each episode was half an hour long and in the Hindi language. 49 episodes were made."

While this is interesting, it's not The Phantom. "Influenced by" is not "same as", any more than Rorschach is The Spirit or The Question. I'm not sure it should come out entirely, but it doesn't deserve parity nor the implicit endorsement its own section gives it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Journal Inquirer's artist name mistake!

• Every single weekday, Journal Inquirer keeps mistaking the Phantom artists' names of Tony DePaul and Paul Ryan for the names of former artists George Olesen and Graham Nolan, even though both Olesen and Nolan retired MANY YEARS AGO! That newspaper keeps making mistakes! >_< --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Girl Phantom

I have a 73 king comics (charlton comics) book, with a character on the back cover dressed just like the phantom, but with the name "Girl Phantom". This may be an extremely minor character appearing in later stories from this publisher, but she may deserve a mention in the article. Issue: Prince Valiant R-08. (supplementary reading program material added for helping to teach reading skills to children, thus no ads, only reading aids). ps i dont know how to stop the blue highlight below, so i put this comment here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the sister of the 17. phantom occassionally appeared in a phantom costume to assist her brother. --Oddeivind (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Parodies

As far as I can remember, there was a parody of the Phantom in a Norwegian edition of Mad Magazine at one point in the early 1980s. Unfortunately I am not sure which edition, so I cannot verify this. I am not sure whether it also appeared in the American edition or whether it was made in Norway. The phantom character was named "Fantomsen". "Toms" means something like jerk/moron/idiot. The Norwegian translation of "The Ghost Who Walks", "ånden som går" was changed to "ånsen som dør" (The idiot who dies), while "The Man Who Cannot Die", "mannen som ikke kan dø" was made into "mannen som ikke kan gå" ("The Man Who Cannot Walk"). Maybe some other Norwegian edititor could help me. --Oddeivind (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Marabella

This section is inconsistant.

(The comic sometimes runs flashback adventures of previous Phantoms written by various authors who sometimes confuse Phantom history. Current stories have Marabella as the daughter of Columbus and marrying the first Phantom.[20][21] As Columbus died in 1506 while, according to the new history, Marabella first meets the Phantom in 1544, this results in another inconsistency, requiring her to be at least 38 years old despite being depicted as in her early 20s. Inconsistencies in storylines and histories are not corrected as a mark of respect to authors, but Falk's original history takes precedence.[22])

• It does say she is GRANDDAUGHTER. So that means if her mother was born in 1506, and gave birth at age 19, Marabella would be 19 years old? This is all theoretically possible. Jokem (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, the Phantom has no personality

I had inserted the following paragraph into the article:

The Phantom has always had something of a one-dimensional personality. In contrast, for example, to the angst-ridden Spider-man or the brooding Batman, the comic-strip Phantom is never seen upset, doubting his abilities, confused, in despair, or, in general, with a less-than-cheery disposition. He rarely, if ever, makes a mistake. He is occasionally shown angry at evil-doers, the only concession to what might be considered a negative emotion. Moreover, readers never see "the man behind the mask": the Phantom is never seen without either his double-diamond mask or his sunglasses.

Rick Norwood completely reverted this, saying that "The Phantom does get angry and upset when Diana is threatened, and is often seen without mask or sunglasses when with his family.) " I did mention that the Phantom gets angry at evil-doers, but would certainly like to see any strip where the Phantom is upset (without being simultaneously angry), confused, the slightest bit sad, doubtful of his abilities, or shows any degree whatsoever of angst. And I know that I've never seen the comic strip Phantom without either the mask or the sunglasses.

At the very least, some mention needs to be made of the Phantom's rather one-dimensional character.

Your thoughts, folks?? BayBoy 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See this pic for an instance when Phantom is shown without the mask. There are a quite few such (as when he skis on the dolphins in Eden) pictures. Re emotions too, I tend to agree with Rick Norwood but leave it to the experts, as finding one will need too much effort for a novice like me. Tintin (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of The Phantom BostonBay has read. Certainly, The Phantom is one-dimensional compared to, say, Hamlet. But I think he has as much character as, for example, Superman. Rick Norwood 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Having as much personality as Superman is certainly not a ringing endorsement.  : )

Regarding the strip that Tintin provides, one still can't see the Phantom's face. I continue to believe that my earlier posting is a correct assessment, but in the interest of consensus, I'll just leave it here on the Talk page. However, I will/did add this sentence: "The Phantom is rarely, if ever, seen without the sunglasses or his trademark double-diamond mask".

Oh, this is part of the story. No one, except his immediate family, is 'allowed' to see his face. According to the jungle legend, 'he who sees Phantom's face dies a terrible death' :-) Tintin (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many stories where The Phantom goes unmasked around his wife and children. Rick Norwood 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an old story where the Phantom wore some kind of Keffiyeh, masked around the lower part of his face, but you could see his eyes. I copied them onto the rest of his face, to see what he looked like. I'm still waiting for my "horrible death" to occur. 惑乱 分からん 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could solve the mask issue by writing "the Phantom's face is never seen without either his double-diamond mask or his sunglasses"

I think it's safe to say that the phantom has as much personality as his early contemporaries as the comic book characters of the 1930s were rather stayed compared to what we're used to today and unlike batman and superman for example the phantom has stayed very close to his enigmatic roots. He does however sometimes show emotion, I remember one story when his horse broke its' leg and he was visibly upset at the thought of having to shoot it and very relived that he didn't have to. I admit that's not the best example but it's the best I've got offhand. You could also consider the running gag of the phantom going into a seedy bar and asking for a glass of milk as evidence of a sense of humour.--Teletran 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the phantom shows the different sides of a more complex personality. I will agree in the earlier stories, we didn't see much of one but most of these stories were all work with crime fighting and not much thinking. In a lot of the later stories not written by Lee Falk we see emotions coming through. Like when the phantom thought Dianna was dead. Then when he got her out of the prison. We saw him quit being the phantom and got jobs in construction etc like us normal people because he was confused about who he was. We see love, hate and many other emotions even pride come out in some stories. I think he has great personality. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.77.66 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

withdrawn

The Phantom → Phantom (comics) – Wikipedia MOS is quite clear that character names do not have the definite article "The" in article titles. This has been shown over and over with Lone Ranger, Green Hornet, Joker (comics), Spirit (comics), Hulk (comics) and countless others. Two editors after seven days in a past RM hardly seems enough to justify breaking MOS, and it should have been re-listed at the time. Tenebrae (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this isn't the only "Phantom" in comics, so "(comics)" should not even redirect here, it should point to the disambiguation page. IF this is not the primary topic of "The Phantom", then after this article is moved, "The Phantom" should also point to the disambiguation page. I would suggest Phantom (Lee Falk character) if this is not a "The"; or The Phantom (Lee Falk character) if this is a "The" and not the primary topic of "The". The nominator's proposed title fails WP:PRECISE as it is ambiguous disambiguation (thus why it should be repointed to the dab page). -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There is currently no other Phantom in comics at Phantom#Literature, so I'm not sure how it fails WP:PRECISE.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not reading it closely then. There are two other comics topics called "Phantom" already listed in that section, one a Superman topic, one a manga topic. That's without counting comic adaptations of other works, like the Phantom of the Opera. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "The Phantom" is the name of the comic strip. Wikipedia does use articles when they appear in titles. See, for example, The Simpsons. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If we say "The Phantom is a comic strip", you're absolutely correct; The Shadow says "a collection of serialized dramas, originally in 1930s pulp novels, and then in a wide variety of media". And at The Simpsons it says "The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom." But this says "The Phantom is a superhero" — a character, not a proper-noun series title — and that's impermissible.

• Oppose this is not like the Hulk, or Lone Ranger and the article is more than a description about the comics. As stated previously there are precedents where WP:MOS does not apply and this is one of those cases. Dan arndt (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See above. If the lead were changed, you're right. But the lead says this is about a character. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 5 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The Phantom → Phantom (comic strip) – Wikipedia MOS is quite clear that character names do not have "The" in article titles. This has been shown over and over with the Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet, the Joker (comics), the Spirit (comics), the Hulk (comics) and countless others. Two editors after seven days in a past RM hardly seems enough to justify breaking MOS and making a special exception, and it should have been re-listed at the time. Note: As currently written, the article's primary topic is the character — exactly like these examples — and not the proper-noun comic strip The Phantom. Tenebrae (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. But see Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Requested move 20 April 2015. Your examples are characters that are commonly identified without "The". Regarding The Doctor, the evidence presented favored treating "The" as part of the name. Choor monster (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet, the Joker, the Spirit and the Hulk are not, in fact, commonly identified without "the." I don't know why anyone would say that. If "The Doctor" is an isolated case, for the questionable reasons given at its talk-page move discussion, that has no bearing on changing MOS everywhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would have to question Tenebrae's recent actions. In that his initial move request had three objections including my own, whereby he then withdrew the request and immediately lodged a new move request, effectively wiping out all the previous opposition to the move. The cynic in me sees this as a clear case of trying to make it appear that there is no opposition to the move request. At the very least he should have notified those editors of his intention or actions, to allow them the opportunity to reassess their positions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it was clearly because 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2015 said it failed WP:PRECISE, and from subsequent comments I saw that this claim, which missed the bigger, overall point, was something that had to be addressed. And as I certainly knew, anybody commenting would have this page on their watchlist, so that wasn't even an issue.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The Phantom is the name of the comic strip, books, films and televisions series. I have adjusted the lead to reflect this. Essentially it is no different from The Shadow, where the article is not limited to the character. Whilst it may have originated as a comic strip it has been adapted into numerous novels, films and television series therefore it makes no sense to limit it to The Phantom (comic strip) either. WP:THE is a guideline that is subject to exceptions, and I believe that it is clear that such an exception is warranted in this case based on the evidence that all predominant form of use for the comic strip, books, films and television series is "The Phantom". Dan arndt (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support no primary here. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment would "The Phantom" be repointed to the disambiguation page? -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably. Like The Joker, The Hulk, The Spirit, etc. Choor monster (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:THE lists pros and cons, and the main issue is whether capital-T "The" is treated as part of the name. As examples the page refers to Joker (comics) and The Shadow. Including "The" here is not an exception to WP:THE, but an application. In fact, it may be time to move Spirit (comics) to The Spirit: the now-out Dynamite #1 issue splash page definitely calls him "The Spirit" (in prose with the usual sentence case writing, normally you can't tell in comics because it's all uppercase). Choor monster (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that approach, as we've seen time and again in this issue, is that everybody thinks that their personal fan-favorite character should be exempt to the rule. The Shadow sets a bad precedent for article titles, since thousands and thousands of characters appear in a multitude of media. There's no difference between the Shadow and the Hulk or the Joker. Arguing to include the "The" for any of these is essentially overturning Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) without discussion of this larger issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You say this as if it were a bad thing. Quite simply, there is no larger issue. WP:THE clearly allows with and without, and you are reading it wrong. It's no different than saying we ought to rename Captain America to America (comics), or Doctor Fate to Fate (comics), because of WP:CREDENTIAL. Choor monster (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I'm the one reading it wrong if you think a related guideline can be interpreted to mean we can rename Captain America to America (comics), or Doctor Fate to Fate (comics), since we're talking about full proper-noun character names. To put it another way, we include the "The" in The New York Times because that's part of the full proper noun. To say that we should use "the" for every single character — The Hulk, The Spirit, The Joker, The Flash, etc., etc. — is throwing away the guideline and saying it has no bearing whatsoever. The Phantom is no different from the Hulk, the Spirit, the Joker, the Flash, etc., etc. But everybody wants to feel that their favorite character is special and exempt. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the Hulk, the Spirit, the Joker, the Flash, The Patriot, The Spider, or the Phantom, & I'd say moving the page to The Phantom makes sense: that's what the character was (is) called. I'd also support moving all the others, too. As for America (comics), when did "Captain" become the equivalent of "the"? The character, & more importantly the book, is Captain America, not The American. Note, the page isn't Phantom, The, either; would you suggest all the listed pages be renamed that way, instead? And, I notice, The American is listed with "the" in the title... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec, response to Tenebrae)You are having trouble reading. I do not think WP:CREDENTIALS means we rename Captain America to America (comics), etc., precisely because the "credential" is part of the name. Similarly, we include "The" in "The NYT", etc. The question for fictional characters is whether "The" is considered part of the proper name or not. For example, Hulk has been used as the standalone title for his book. But not Joker (except, I think, for the Joker/Mask team-up). I would consider this as evidence in favor that their respective article titles should be Hulk and The Joker.

This is what the discussion is supposed to about here. Is the proper-name with or without the "The"? The discussion is not supposed to be somebody telling us to ignore that policy-question.

If anything regarding the general policy needs to be looked at, it's that it has been misapplied in numerous instances. Choor monster (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It is exactly about the larger issue of the policy, and whether the rules apply to people's fan-favorite characters. Everybody calls the Hulk "the Hulk" and the Joker "the Joker" in a way that they don't say "the Hawkeye" or "the Daredevil". See the WikiProject:Comics guideline at WP:NCC/THE, which makes clear that the Phantom is no different from any other character referred to as "the" such-and-such. You're saying the rules should not apply here, but there is nothing different or special about the Phantom as opposed to the Flash, the Hulk, etc.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCC/THE is the extremely abbreviated short form. The long form is at WP:THE, and those are the rules that are relevant. Familiarize yourself with it already before saying further pointless irrelevancies of the WP:IDHT sort. And no, not everyone calls the Hulk "The Hulk". I referred you to the fact that Hulk, no-The, has been the title of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choor monster (talk • contribs)

OK, you need to stop with the uncivil remarks, which you've done for quite some time now. No one says, "Look out, here comes Hulk" or "Here comes Joker". They say, "Here comes the Hulk" and "Here comes the Joker" unless they're casually referring to them directly, by name. ("You're in trouble now, Joker."). The Phantom is no different. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about pointing out how you insist on applying the wrong guideline. I pointed out your "nobody" is false already. Marvel Comics has called the big green angry guy just plain Hulk, as the title of his book. In addition, the big green angry guy famously talks about himself in the third person, "Hulk smash", without an article. Choor monster (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It is only your opinion as to who's misreading the guideline. It's equally clear as my opinion that it is you. And to suggest that the guttural rants of a semi-literate monster, "Hulk smash," is the basis for whether we follow the guideline is ludicrous. People refer to characters in diminutive form all the time — someone speaking to the Hulk may call him "Hulk" just the same as someone may call Doc Savage "Savage" or the Spirit "Spirit." Such familiarity is inconsequential. The Hulk overwhelmingly is referred to as "the Hulk" from his first comic book, The Incredible Hulk. To suggest otherwise is being deliberating misleading. With the Phantom, we have another case of fans wanting to believe that their favorite character is more special than any other and deserves special treatment. He does not, any more so than the Joker, the Flash, the Abomination, the Executioner, the Enchantress, the Spirit, the Punisher, the Green Goblin, the Prowler, the Black Panther, the Avengers, the Defenders, the Invaders, the Justice League of America, the Inhumans, the Thing, the Human Torch, the Invisible Woman, the Wasp, the Sandman, etc., etc. By your way of thinking, we'd need to change all these. That is completely against the guideline. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. WP:NCC/THE was explicitly introduced as a comics-focused summary of WP:THE, apparently without discussion, and it looks like not very accurately. See this diff, for example. Your comments about "fans" are inappropriate for this discussion. They have better knowledge of just this sort of minutiae, of the sort that was essential to resolving The Doctor (Doctor Who). Your comments about "fans" should be limited to cases like Spider Queen. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If the subject of this article is the comic strip (which it apparently is now, and explicitly would be after the proposed rename), and the title of the comic strip includes "The" (which afaik it does), then WP:NCC/THE is clear that the article title should include "The". Only if the article is about the character would it matter whether or not the character's name customarily includes "The". --Pi zero (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I did see that, as I mentioned about The Shadow, this seems to be a way of making an end-run around the guideline. You could say of virtually any character, including the Hulk and the Joker, that they're part of a franchise. Why even have the guideline? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as an end-run. Each encyclopedia article has a focus, and the naming conventions appropriate when the focus is one kind of thing are different from the naming conventions appropriate when the focus is a different kind of thing. It's entirely possible, in general, that one might have two separate articles, one about a comic strip and the other about its protagonist, in which case different rules would apply to naming the separate articles. I wouldn't think that would work here, as there wouldn't seem to be enough material to support two articles.

Please note, I am not taking any position, atm, on whether this article should focus on the comic strip or on the character. I do agree with the conventions, though; they seem very reasonable to me. If this article is about the comic strip, it should have "The" in the title. If this article were to be focused on the character (I don't see a proposal to do that), then and only then do we have to wade into the question of whether the character's name includes "The". Granted, that sort of issue can get messy. --Pi zero (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: From what I'm gathering the main issue is the primary scope of the article. Is it the comic strip or the character? Per guidelines if it is the comic strip then The Phantom (notice the italics) would be appropriate because "The" is a part of the title. If it is the character then it would be acceptable to omit the "the" similar to Hulk (comics) and Joker (comics). However if this is the case the suggested disambiguation of "(comic strip)" would be out of place. The correct disambiguation for a character-centric article would be "(comics)" or "(character)". In this case, I would go with "(comics)" as it is less precise than "(character)" and would allow more room for comic strip information in its scope since there is no separate article for the comic strip.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. --Pi zero (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "The rule of thumb established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics is as follows. Use the name itself (e.g. Green Arrow) unless that leads to ambiguity," Since there is no other article titled "The Phantom", there is no ambiguity, therefore Wikipedia policy is to use the name itself. Essentially this article is about the comic strip, the books, the films and the television series as such it simply reflects the actual title, which is "The Phantom". Dan arndt (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I can see this reasoning for a comic strip, which follows the same formal-noun logic as The Far Side or The Bungle Family. I have no issue with that, other than an editor making a substantive change to the article when there is an ongoing discussion about it. But that's fine: I can go along with it if the article is truly about the comic strip. Where I have a concern is that this change followed the mode of The Shadow, the title of which was changed from that of the character to one about "a collection of serialized dramas." One can just as easily say "The Hulk" is a collection of serialized dramas, or "The Flash" is a collection of serialized dramas. I believe before we can close this move discussion we need to reach a consensus that naming this The Phantom is not a way of doing an end-run around WP:THE, as The Shadow does. (Compare The Shadow to James Bond, about that collection of serialized dramas, and James Bond (literary character), if you think I overstate.) If we're calling this The Phantom, then for the sake of clarity down the road, I urge the closer to please make clear we're talking about a proper-name comic strip and not a collection of stories in various media — because if the latter were the case, WP:THE has effectively been thrown out where comics and related characters are concerned. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Phrasing the discussion's points against yours as some sort of clever "end run" is quite obnoxious. You are engaged in massive WP:IDHT, from refusing to acknowledge WP:THE to thinking consensus in quite similar discussions that you disagree with must be dismissed as mistaken. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the consensus here should not be used to legitimize WP:BADFAITH attempts to circumvent established guidelines. However, cases like that should be fairly easy to spot because to properly change the focus of an article it would take more than just rewriting the lead sentence. I also wouldn't worry about Hulk (comics) or Joker (comics) because their comics books each have their own respective articles (The Incredible Hulk (comic book) and The Joker (comic book)).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment:Wasn't this Phantom (comics) at one time? I personally am not a big fan of WP:The because there sometimes there can be that ONE character who has THE as part of their common name. The Doctor is one example out of probably many. In this case though it seems to be named "The Phantom" because the comic book cover always add the "the". If this article is more about the comic book strip and comic book titles and the rest of its media, then of course it should be called "The Phantom" just like The Mask and The Shadow. It should also have italics. But it appears to be more about the character in a whole. If so then I am uncertain that it's a official part of his name. We are having a similar discussion going on at Joker (comics) about this mess. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is exactly the kind of mess WP:THE was supposed to avoid. And I would hope that the redlink editor can stop making uncivil and inaccurate accusations, since other editors also disagree with him. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split proposal

This article, at more than 8,600 words and art that pushes this to over 50K, is of so large a size that it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Splitting. Splitting the large in-universe section devoted to the character, his background, his enemies, etc., from the real-world content about the comic strip and its media spinoffs would accomplish this. The model would be that of James Bond and James Bond (literary character). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this would leave the publishing/media info here ("The" Phantom), and just split the character info to a new article, correct? If so, I support that. The new article should be Phantom (comics), and several redirects will need to be fixed to point to the new page. - jc37 00:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds right to me: the character article would be "Phantom (comics)". If somebody then wants to try to make a case that the character article should be "The Phantom (comics)", which would presumably also call for adding a parenthetical qualifier to the name of this article as well, then at least that debate could be conducted on its own merits, without stumbling over the strip/character issue. --Pi zero (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae I note has already commenced splitting the article however what also needs to be done is the information about the character, 'The Phantom', needs to be populating The Phantom (comics) - which doesn't seem to being done at the same time. If it isn't done shortly it may result in editors trying to repopulate the article on The Phantom with the information that has been deleted.Dan arndt (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I have not started splitting the article. Everything that was in the article is still in the article except for one picture which was deleted and hasn't been split off anywhere else.

jc37 and Pi zero are correct: It would be "Phantom (comics)" and not "The Phantom (comics)" since comics characters don't use the definite article "The" in article titles. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I didn't notice that you'd moved the character biography to the bottom of the article. I don't have any objection to moving that section to Phantom (comics) on the basis of Tenebrae's arguments above. Dan arndt (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. So it looks like four editors are all in agreement. I guess we can wait a day or two and see if anyone else comments. Sound good?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel no need for it, :) but I won't object. (I still think the split-off page should include "The", as should the others, but... ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Split completed. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phantom (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090810200123/http://www.gamemobile.co.uk:80/low/thephantom_low.htm to http://www.gamemobile.co.uk/low/thephantom_low.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)