Talk:Cynosure (comics)

Non-notable?
Is this a novel is about mrs hilburn and her english class? It sounds like a cool story, and I would definitely give it a read, however I recommend the portion that refers to the fictional world of Cynosure to the be deleted for lack of significance, or rather it should be included in the page for the particular novel (or comic book, or movie) the comes from. Unfortunately, the whole page is nothing but the fictional Cynosure, so I would suggest the whole thing be deleted. If anyone has a good reason to not delete I would be interested in hearing why. Noahsachs (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what it is, but the very first sentence states that the Cynosure is the core of the First Comics shared universe. That tells you exactly what the Cynosure is and since First was one of the more popular independent comics publishers of the 80s, that makes it relevant. Rather than moving for deletion, please give articles a closer read. 64.222.94.132 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Real/original meaning
Hate to seem "anti-fancruft" or the like, but I believe it is worth mentioning on the plain "Cynosure" page that the word "cynosure" has a non-fictional definition. ( - cynosure(n): "An object that serves as a focal point of attention and admiration.") I don't mind if the main cynosure page is about a fictional location, it's just the original meaning should be mentioned. -- 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dictionary definitions belong on Wiktionary. Otto4711 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh crap. The article makes it sound as if it were a made-up word. Is there a rule against mentioning the etymology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.16.231 (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. Otto4711 is misapplying WP:DICDEF, which is about writing articles as if they were dictionary definitions. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In-universe problem
This has been tagged since Oct. 2009 with, but has not been improved. The most obvious and most necessary fix is publication history, which is far more important/appropriate from an encyclopedic standpoint than fictional detailia about what character did what when and why. We can't even tell from this article what comics this ever appeared even, even which series, whether it has made the transition to another publisher, etc. See Grimjack for some detail on this (IDW and an website have taken up that character and kept the setting, after a long-running legal question was finally settled). PS: Doing this first will also making sourcing (this has been flagged as even longer!) much easier, since virtually all of the sources will be these exact comics. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)