Talk:Nova (Frankie Raye)

(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)

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 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.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: criterion met

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

WikiProject Fictional characters

(Rated Start-class)

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Needs disambiguation link[edit]

Not only is "Nova" a term with other meanings, it's a name for other Marvel characters. I don't know how to add the link, but it needs to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.103.102 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Galactus?[edit]

Didn't Frankie end up leaving Galactus of her own free will?

Lots42 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Silver Surfur ep4.jpg[edit]

Image:Silver Surfur ep4.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 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) 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

An outside look at [1], [2], [3], and [4].

A few things jump out:

Minor issue: The first edit does not have a mention of the layout change in the edit summary. It may have been wise to add the header for a currently empty section as a separate edit. Possibly one that also added the "Publication history" section in full.
Not so minor: The first edit's edit summary - "Added debut image: full frontal; zing and classic Byrne." - is also dishonest in what was done to the infobox. "Replaced" or "Changed to" is accurate in this case.
Both images have issues and going over them point by point (See {{Comics-infobox-image-issue}} for further information):
- Fair Use Rational: Both have a FUR that covers the basics. But both would need to be downsized to 300px across. And neither needs to be, or should be, converted from JPG format.
- Minimal usage: Not an issue since the infobox image is the only image.
- Iconic/most recognizable look: File:SilverSurfer012.jpg meets this, File:FantasticFour-244.jpg doesn't.
- Head shots: Not an issue.
- Contorted pose: The "in flight" pose from the Silver Surfer cover does fail this point.
- In shadows: The back-lit character from the Fantastic Four cover fails this - the lighting in the image makes it hard to clearly see the character. This is not part of the character's normal depiction.
- Forced coloring: The Fantastic Four cover is also dubious here - the character is normally not depicted in stark black and white.
- One element among many:Not really an issue in this case. Both images make the character to primary focus.

Based on that, the Silver Surfer cover "hits" more of the criteria than the FF one. Changing the image as proposed would be at least a step backwards.

WP:BRD - At the point where the bold change was undone, discussion should have begun. And for clarity: the editor wanting the change should be opening the dialogue, not reverting.
Currently there is no guideline for or against particular artist. Nor for using key points in a character's history. That can be something to bring up on the talk page if the change is only based on the artist and/or "scene", but it isn't a good reason to just change the image boldly.

- J Greb (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are overanalyzing the situation, and I'm curious as to why you don't tackle the many images that are obviously inadequate elsewhere. Also, please desist from using emotive terms such as "dishonest." There is no need for this. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

First: It seems that the clarity is needed.

Second: You are just as free to upgrade those image. Through keep in mind that other editors may not find your choices to be improvements. And this situation is in the vein of a request for a third opinion.

Last: Keeping in mind the Wikietiquette complaint you lodged against Tenebrae and what was stated there, your edit summaries do not match the changes you made. You are consistent in this and it has been pointed out many times. The word choice in your edit summary comes down to one of three things incompetance, lazyness, or dishonesty. And I really do not believe you fall into either of the first two. - J Greb (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like arguing over whether apples or oranges are the better fruit. Both images are indeed imperfect, but then it can be rather difficult to get a "perfect" image of a character from a comic book cover. The FF cover depicts a pivotal moment and does have a full-body shot, but there she is unrecognizable to anyone who has not read that specific comic. The SS cover has her more recognizable image, but she is moving in perspective and we can't see her legs. I prefer the SS cover image, but really you may as well flip a coin in this case. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better idea might be leaving an imperfect image up and then those editors concerned about this can go and find one that would satisfy everyone (and run it past us first instead of throwing it straight in). There is no reason we have to use a comic cover, it is just that it is easier to find them but the requirements of an encyclopaedia and those for a striking cover image may not be the same thing - I wouldn't imagine it should be too hard of someone has the relevant comics to hand. (Emperor (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

The rest of the conversation was elsewhere, but I'm already sourcing another image. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

anhducwiki7

Monday, January 17, 2022