Talk:Firefly (DC Comics)

Ted Carson
Added discussion of Ted Carson Firefly. See Batman #126, September 1959.Brainster 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TB-FF.JPG
Image:TB-FF.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 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 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 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Color Changing Gun?
Lynns appears in a backup story in Outsiders #12 in 1986. He wears the blue FF costume and uses a color changing gun. This confuses me. -Fire-fly, not Color Changing Dude Man. Is this story even considered canon, since it's so very, very weird?

Lots42 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firefly2.jpg
Image:Firefly2.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 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 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 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FireflyBTAS.gif
Image:FireflyBTAS.gif 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 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) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Knight
Do we really need the "Dark Knight inspired by" section. (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

i know we cant use formus but theres proof from eidos that he's in the new batman game.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88504 .--Lbrun12415 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving...
FWIW So, if I understand dabing correctly, we got 2 likely targets for "Firefly (comics)", one more than the other. The more likely search gets the "(comics)" extension and a hatnote.
 * The GI Joe character is a toy.
 * "Firefly comics" amounts to a redirect for "Firefly the TV show in comics" that is unlikely to be used.
 * The Archie Comics character is the less likely search topic for a strictly comics related character/topic.

Am I missing anything?

- J Greb (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The G.I. Joe character is not only a toy; it is a comics character who has appeared in comics published by Marvel Comics as well as four other publishing companies. In the Serenity comics series, Firefly is a class of ship. With the DC Comics character and the Archie Comics character, there are four valid comics-related disambiguation page entries for "Firefly". The issue, however, is not how many entries there are but that "(comics)" is not a sufficiently specific disambiguator to identify the DC Comics character. If the primary target for the term "Firefly" was the DC Comics character, then there would be no need for the disambiguation; the other articles would simply be linked from a disambiguation link at the top of the primary article. The primary target, however, is not the DC Comics character but the family of insects. For this reason, the article for the DC Comics character must have a title that includes a disambiguator. In titles where disambiguators are used, the disambiguator must be sufficiently precise to exclude all other articles. The title "Firefly (comics)" employs a disambiguator that does not serve its purpose. What is the objection to moving to Firefly (DC Comics)? Neelix (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing... each "level" of dabbing is subject to "What's the most likely target?" not just the bare, top level. And obviously this article isn't going to be "that" article for "Firefly". But it does get looked at when asking about the Fireflies that are withing the "levels" of (character) and (comics).
 * "(character)" is right out since the is no clear "likely" between this character and the GI Joe character.
 * As for "(comics)", this is the more likely target for someone searching for "Firefly (comics)" than the relatively obscure Archie Comics character, the comic adaptation of the GI Joe toy, the comic book adaptation of the sci-fi TV show, or the comic book representation of the ship type that show was named for.
 * And that's pretty much where I get hung up - This dab looks appropriate for this article. Three of the others have more likely dabs that would be searches - and that's assuming that the Firefly class of starship has an article - and the last one is a reasonable hatnote here. Splitting the hair here seems pointless fiddling. - J Greb (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting the idea of disambiguation levels? I don't see that in the disambiguation guidelines. As far as I can tell in reading the guidelines, parenthetical disambiguators are supposed to make article titles unambiguous; this title doesn't do that. The guideline about primary topics is about titles that do not include parenthetical disambiguators; the guideline does not extend to the identification of primary topics corresponding to disambiguated titles. Neelix (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay... and no, I'm not opening this up again. Either I had originally miss-read the guide pages or they changed over time - either is likely - but the current wording matches better the application you've implemented instead of what seemed to be the status quo - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)