Talk:Mister Terrific (character)

Untitled
Could a Hero-box be added for these character? When did Michael Holt first appear?

spectre #49,I think... -- Tgunn2

No counterpart
Holt cannot be a counterpart because there's no other version coexisting. He's the only Mr. Terrific, therefore, there's no counterpart. I understand you may be delighted by IC but any other interpretation different from facts is pure speculation. Lesfer 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By that same logic, E-1 Batman has no counterpart since the E-2 version is not "co-exisiting" at this time, and yet E-2 Superman mentioned him. If so, then what is the point of E-1 Dick Grayson being referred to as "better" than his counterpart...who also is not "co-existing". Fact is, E-2 Superman in Infinite Crisis clearly states that E-2 should've been the template for this new Earth, not E-1.  So any character left on the main Earth when E-2 was created are native to that world of the E-1 template.  Two Flashs, two Green Lanterns, Two Doctor Mid-Nites, Two Mister Terrifics.  Can we see a pattern??? Netkinetic 00:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Batmen, Robins, Flashes and Green Lanterns have coexisted. These were (are) counterparts. Mr. Terrifics and Dr. Mid-Nites don't. Now, this is a pattern. Hold your anxiety and wait till IC is over. Lesfer 04:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Lesfer, your comment relating to "anxiety" is in direct violation of No personal attacks, please refrain. In addition, the logic of your argument is not sound...both sets of Mid-Nites and Terrifics have coexisted, it's just that the appearence of the E-1 set came about *after* Crisis on Infinite Earths.  Are you denying their existence on E-1???? Netkinetic 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It needs a superherobox.
If anybody can read this,can u make 2 superheroboxes for both heroes--tgunn2

Merging Terry Sloane
What does everyone else think of merging Terry Sloane back into this article? With the article split up the way it is now, we're just makign extra detours to find the informaion on the character, and it's not like there's much detail on the Terry Sloane page any. Also, givn until recently he was the only DC character with the name, he should be given priority in the article, as Rex Tyler serves as the main subject of the Hourman article. Not to mention no one out of comics (and probably a great deal of casual comcis readers) probably has any idea who Terry Sloane is from his civilian identity alone. WesleyDodds 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(Now that it's been properly tagged so reader know that this is being discussed... I've also listed it at the Comics Project Notice Board)
 * No merge This is more of a disambiguation page and serves both characters well this way. Neither is given prominence over the other. CovenantD 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have a disambiguation page at Mister Terrific. To me, the separation of Mister Terrific (comics) and Terry Sloane splits hairs unnecessarily.  Neither page has much material on them (as opposed to Mister Terrific (Modern Age), which it seems has clear rationale to be a separate article; even then that could probably be merged as well, but that's not the topic at hand).  As I tend to argue elsewhere, having to search for Terry Slonae doesn't help the casual reader.  At times it seems like individual pages are made for these characters just so they can have their own infobox.  WesleyDodds 09:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge They're two different characters but one is carrying on the legacy of the other; same case as with the various Robins or Nightwings. We should avoid creating multiple pages for these. And few people will search for Mister Terrific as Terry Sloane. -Wilfredo Martinez 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But Robin (comics) is about more than Dick Grayson, who has his own entry, and Nightwing is about more than Superman. --Chris Griswold 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? You seem to disagree with me but you point out the same fact I did? Please explain. - Wilfredo Martinez 02:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Yeah! The cases you are pointing to are not merged like you want this one to be. Yeah!--Chris Griswold 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that both articles cover the IDENTITIES that are shared by several characters, to avoid redundancy of articles, otherwise we would have multiple Nightwing articles, for example. (Personally, I think it's an error to give Grayson a page under his real name, as his importance in comics is due to his superheroic roles.) And even if we agreed that he deserves one in light of his non-costumed actions, that still doesn't justify Sloane having a page under his real identity as it never mattered as much as Grayson's. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. --Chris Griswold 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not merge per CovenantD above.--Chris Griswold 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not merge Should Sloane be moved to something like Mister Terrific (Golden Age)?. --DrBat 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not Merge and can we just name 'em after their primary alter egos, ie Mister Terrific (Terry Sloane) etc? Golden Age and Modern Age is often arguable and uninformative, IMO -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 15:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm for that! --Chris Griswold 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JSACv70.jpg
Image:JSACv70.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 ensure 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) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Joke? Vandalism?
"He can also use his T-Spheres offensively as projectiles and has stated as a threat to an opponent that he can instantly accelerate them to 14 miles per second (50,400 miles per hour) so when it hits them, it would cause a tremendous release of energy, turning around 70% of their corporeal being into super-heated plasma and liquifying the rest. Whether this has ever been tested or was just a bluff is unknown, but considering that his opponent wasn't real, much less alive, Mr. Terrific would have had no moral difficulties in using this option if it came down to it." Where to begin with this Pile of Crud? If he has used them as projectile weapons, then say so. Does anyone really think that he threatens people who aren't "an opponent"? (was this written by a 7th Grader?) You can look up the effect of debris on orbiting satellites, it is nonsense to claim that a bullet is going to do more than punch a hole in a (organic) body. This needs to be rewritten with citations for the claims. The specific context of the bluff is important to the overall article why? What is the basis for the opinon (?) about what he does or does not consider moral? I propose this:""He has threated to use his T-Spheres offensively as projectiles stating that they can accelerate up to 14 miles per second (50,400 miles per hour), faster than any real projectile weapon, inflicting incredible damage. Whether this was just a bluff was never established." (Note that the hypervelocity railgun weapons currently being developed are limited to well under 8000 mph, there is no possibility that a macroscopic projectile could be accelerated to 50,000 mph at 1 atmosphere). Note also that the article specifically on this character has stated it better and much more briefly.173.189.72.165 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)