Talk:Gauntlet (Joseph Green)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gauntlet (Joseph Green) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Article names[edit]

Currently this is Gauntlet (Marvel Comics) and the Dark Riders member is Gauntlet (Inhuman). Not really a good compromise if you ask me. What about changing this articles into Gauntlet (Initiative)? I suppose Gauntlet (Marvel Comics) could be made into a disambiguation page for both, and Gauntlet (comics) probably should be made into a redirect to that disambiguation. What do you think? Luis Dantas 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you haven't read the Project's naming guidelines and that's why Gauntlet (Marvel Comics) is sitting around unused. --Basique 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gauntlet23.jpg[edit]

Image:Gauntlet23.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...[edit]

Why exactly did someone decided to use a pic of him having been beaten up? It's a little offensive...especially when there was a perfectly good pic of him before.

Agreed. I've added the old picture - since the New Warriors image was no longer there anyway. Goldenboy 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slapstick[edit]

Slapstick is lowly? The dude's pretty damned powerful. Besides, wasn't half the superhero community actually there when he saved the day from Nuetron Bum? Lots42 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move again?[edit]

I'm not so sure I'm fond of "Gauntlet (Avengers: The Initiative)" as a title for this article... BOZ (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hideous title. Revert back to "Gauntlet (superhero)" or "Gauntlet (comics)"? Yes? No? - Goldenboy (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - I missed the change. :) You might want to move the talk page, as well. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh - it's being a bit of a pain to do; "Talk:Gauntlet (comics)" already exists, but as a redirect. Wouldn't that have to be deleted first? - Goldenboy (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but shouldn't Gauntlet (comics) be a disambig with links directing off to the Inhumans and Initiative characters? --- Paulley (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd pondered that, but Green is clearly the more major and notable barer of the name; and the top of the page does acknowledge the Inhuman. Any sort of precedent we could look to? - Goldenboy (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I propose that the Inhuman character page be merged into this page. Both are Marvel Comics characters and there are several other articles that include all characters with the same name. I would keep this character (from the Initiative) as the main one of this page, but include the Inhumans character farther down. See Copperhead (Marvel Comics) for an example of what I mean. --Spidey104^contribs 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if they had any more of a connection than just the name... Lots42 (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles where the only common denominator is the name of the character, so there is a precedent. I don't think the Inhuman character is notable enough to warrant an article all of its own. --Spidey104^contribs 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge Personally, I'd argue that merging the two articles devalues the Initiative character to some extent. - Goldenboy (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge They're heterogeneous enough, and each have enough material, for them to remain separate. Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ended with consensus to NOT merge Looks like it's 3 against the merge and only 1 (myself) for the merge. --Spidey104^contribs 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW after the fact, I agree with not merging. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]