Talk:The Phantom/Archive 1

Episode lists
I removed the episode lists, since they only show a small portion of the early stories, with no comments about later stories. I find no point in including such a list unless it is complete (300+ daily and Sunday stories) or at least make some sort of reference as to why only the very first stories are listed. AEriksson 08:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll share my thoughts, and let you decide whether to restore the list or not. Ray Moore was the original artist on The Phantom (except for the weeks Lee Falk drew himself) and his stories are arguably the most famous and worth listing (especially the Sky Band stories). I thought I would do the Ray Moore stories, and leave it at that, since a complete list would be too long.  I had planned to go back and add the post-war Ray Moore stories, but before I could do that, you deleted the list. Rick Norwood 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with Andreas here, it's way too little. And there's nothing called "too much" when it comes to Wikipedia. It could be placed in an article of its own, called "List of daily Phantom stories" or something like that… Jon Harald Søby \ no na 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Here is the list as far as I carried it.  Feel free to add to it, move it, or whatever you like. Rick Norwood 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say that it is completely subjective whether Moore's episodes were the most famous and worth listing. IMO, both the McCoy and Barry stories could qualify for this aswell. Listing all stories would be a time-consuming but possibly worthwhile project. On the other hand there are plenty of other sources on the net with complete story lists already. Maybe a link to Deep Woods would be enough until someone finds time to do a complete story list here on wikipedia. AEriksson 10:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I took a liberty and added this list to the Ray Moore article. Hope you don't mind, whoever made it, it was to good to not be used. KIT WALKER

Episode Guide

 * daily stories


 * Sunday stories

Message boards
Someone had added the link ipcomic.net which leads to a message board. Am not sure whether it is good enough to be retained. Tintin 13:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 Film
Does anyone know anything about this film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyjrg (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The legend
I do not understand the significance of the section "The legend". I feel that either more information should be added or the section removed. -- Aman King --221.134.26.129 08:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement. It seems out of place, stuck on perhaps.  I took the liberty of placing that section and the family tree section under the "The character" section.  BayBoy 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Family tree
I like the idea of the Family Tree, but it takes too long to load. Either a way must be found so it loads faster, or it needs to be deleted, or at least moved to a page of its own, where people can see it if they are willing to wait for several minutes. Rick Norwood 13:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Source of the tree
I like the idea too but it should definitely be accompanied by a line stating the source of the information and also that it is not a "strictly followed version", as Lee Falk himself wasn't very consistent about the Phantom's vast history. -- Aman King --221.134.26.129 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll have to fix it, since I cannot load the article since the "family tree" was added. Rick Norwood 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I love that tree. I am on dial-up with a Windows 98 computer and this page loads no slower than any other, despite all the images.  Gotta love those images too.  This is certainly one of the better comic strip articles in Wikipedia (although perhaps this has something to do with the "superhero" aspect of it).  BayBoy 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the family tree, too, and maybe I am just impatient. It takes about a minute to load -- but a minute seems very long when you are waiting. Rick Norwood 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Publishers listed within the infobox
At first, I didn't understand why the anonymous user reverted my addition of DC Comics to the list of publishers. After all, the leading image is taken from the DC series. However, now that I see that there are a multitude of publishers that have published original or reprinted stories of the Phantom, I realize that it would be foolhardy to list every single one within the infobox. Still, for those of us who are familiar with the character through either one of the two big American publishers, I thought it might be helpful to acknowledge that the publishers listed in the infobox are not the only ones. To that end, I have compromised and added a link from the infobox to the comic book publication history section. Hopefully, that accomplishes something useful without damaging the aesthetic or the integrity of the article. GentlemanGhost 11:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Title
The article was recently moved to "Phantom (comics)". I've moved it back. First, the title of the comic strip is and always has been "The Phantom", not Phantom. No other article is titled "The Phantom". According to Wikipedia recommendations for an article based on a comic strip or comic book, the title of the strip should be the title of the article, as it is with Superman, Popeye, and most other comic book and comic strip articles, unless there are other articles with the same title. Rick Norwood 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not about The Phantom -- the comic strip --, but about The Phantom -- the character. We also have a large amount of info on comics in here, not only comic strips. —Lesfer (talk/@) 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

None of which changes the fact that the character, the comic strip, and the comic books, are all titled The Phantom, not, as you would have it, for reasons unexplained Phantom. You really do need a consensus before making a change like this. I'm changing it back, again, until you can show a consensus, or at least a really good reason, or even an explanation as to why you want to make the change. Rick Norwood 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You say, read the policy. I did, before I changed it back the first time. Here is what the policy says: "The rule of thumb established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics is as follows. Use the name itself (e.g. Green Arrow) unless that leads to ambiguity," Since there is no other article titled "The Phantom", there is no ambiguity, therefore Wikipedia policy is to use the name itself. Now, I assume your objection is that the word "Phantom", with the "The" has other meanings. It does, but so does Superman (see George Bernard Shaw's 'Man and Superman" for example), so does Batman (the servent of a British officer), and so do many character names. The title of this article follows Wikipedia policy and also follows the precedent set in other Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't see why this page was moved from The Phantom in the first place. Both names have validity, and beyond that, redirects are free, so it matters little where this page lies.  The spirit of the naming convention is to use the simplest name possible.  I think The Phantom suits just as well as Phantom (comics), and that people are more likely to search for The Phantom rather than Phantom (comics).  It's best to avoid disambig phrases where possible, so this page should stay at The Phantom.  If an existing article has a name which is common to the topic and has no disambiguation phrase, I cannot see the value in adding one.  disambiguation guidance states If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. For example, Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics).  Since the spirit of Wikipedia guidance on disputes over spelling is use the spelling of the first user, and since the naming convention policy states that we Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things., I fail to see why The Phantom cannot be used, it being the most common name, and that it is not in conflict. Hiding Talk 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Hiding. Also, look at The Shadow.  When the 'The' is a significant part of the title, it should remain.  Batman is sometimes called 'The Batman', but more often just Batman.  The Question is generally refered to as 'Question' to his face, same with the Green Hornet and so on. But unless folks call him 'Phantom' to his face (and IIRC they don't), then The should remain. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Hiding and Ipstenu. --GentlemanGhost 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Norway and the WWII
The stuff about The Phantom in Norway and the WWII reads like hearsay or urban legends. I've never heard any of this before, and I'm Norwegian. Citations, please. 80.202.93.131 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Norwegian (bokmål) article, they write about the strips being smuggled into Norway, and edited to look like they were reprionts from before the Nazi occupation. Nothing about this "proving the USA still exists" for the Norwegian population. 80.202.93.131 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The story about the smuggling, and also the detail about the USA still existing, has been included in several Phantom publications in Norway, most recently in the Jubilee comic book Fantomet jubileim 1936–2006, and also in Phantom comics and in the Fantomet Krønike series. I can find the exact references later, if needed. Jon Harald Søby 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM on the family tree
Who ruined the Family Tree? Please get it back the way it was before the vandalism


 * There does seem to be something wrong with the family tree. Where is Diana Palmer?  But I don't know how to fix it.  Help? Rick Norwood 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some tinkering going on => Village_pump_%28technical%29 - Schmiteye 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried fixing the page using "subst" and it got rid of some of the junk from the article but the entire tree stilldoes not display properly. Perhaps breaking the tree in hhalf would work? Schmiteye 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better if we made a separate article for the tree? KIT WALKER

Article size
Trying to expand the trees in this article has made it over half a megabyte in size – 200Kb larger than the next biggest article, according to Special:Longpages. The article cannot remain this size, remember that many people use a dial-up connection to access Wikipedia, and even on broadband connections the load time it significant.

Possible solutions to the pre-expanding template problem:


 * Make the templates more efficient
 * Do without the trees
 * Use images for the trees instead

– Gurch 11:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above; is it possible to move the tree to an article of its own, maybe called "Family tree of the Phantom"? It would be a shame to loose such a detialed work! KIT WALKER


 * I second the motion. Move the tree to a separate article: Family tree of the Phantom. Rick Norwood 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I did it. The tree is now moved to Family tree of the Phantom. KIT WALKER

Template
Going through, copy editing, I kept running across more and more and more opinion and uncited claims, and much original research. This seems very much a well-intentioned fan's essay with a lot of stuff he knows and is probably accurate, but which he doesn't cite or footnote. The conclusions and opinions are not allowed under Wikipedia encyclopedic standards. It needs a lot of work. I've inserted citation requests and embedded questions where necessary. -- Tenebrae 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a bare attempt at starting to bring this article to a more encyclopedic standard, by deleting a couple of self-described rumors and uncited future claims, as well as cleaning up the hype-filled References/External-links sections.


 * As to the intro's paragraph about the costume: I offered a compromise. It was rejected. In retrospect, the compromise was perhaps a mistake, since an encyclopedia article needs to be written as strictly factually as possible, without jargon or original-resarch claims. The Phantom is, observably and inarguably, a costumed crimefighter. It is debatable that one could call him "a superhero". An encyclopedia can only published the confirmable, non-debatable facts. I've also edited the text in this graf to make it more readable: Phrases like "non-comic media" are jargony and unspecific; "short stories and other forms of literature" is clear and specific.


 * If others insist, we can go into mediation at this point. I've gone back-and-forth in good faith attempts on my part, though the jibe at me in the talk-section above suggests otherwise on another's part.


 * There is no question that this overwritten, poorly referenced, and clearly non-neutral article needs work if it's truly going to be an authoritative, encyclopedic entry about a major, highly significant comics character who deserves nothing less than a thoroughly researched, fully cited, comptehensive and well-written article. The broad outlines are here. There's a lot of promising material. Can we put aside fannish enthusiasm and approach this as editors, journalists, academic researchers? --Tenebrae 16:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll put my inner Phantom fan aside, and try to make the article more encyclopedic, and less neutral. But, shouldn't there be links to the official publishers of Phantom comic books in the External Links section, or would this be unnecessary? What do other people think? As for whether we can call the Phantom a superhero, I am not quite sure. However, he is frequently mentioned at the Wikipedia superhero article as one of the "original" superheroes --Kit Walker 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kit, your words are manna. I'm looking forward to working with you.
 * The official publishers of course should be in the links, and I believe King Features and Moonstone already are. Who else did you mean? The foreign-language sites would each go in their respective-language Wiki articles, of course.
 * The Wiki article on superheroes may or may not need editing, but one of the guidelines of Wikipedia is not to use other articles as Reference citations -- only published sources and other websites.
 * Finally, I'm reverting the one intro graf, since User:Duggy 1138 doesn't seem to understand that this sentence is a conclusion which is disallowed under WP:NOR:
 * "This makes him, despite having no powers, the first comicbook Superhero."
 * &mdash; Tenebrae 17:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the link section: Sorry, my bad. I have a strange problem with Wikipedia on my computer, with the External Links not always showing. By the way, I am already in the process of tracking down sources for some of the information which needs citation, and as I don't know how to add "Footnotes" correctly (I'm no Wikipedia expert, I'm afraid), I hope that Tenebrae and other users can help out with that when I simply add links to the source site in the text. --Kit Walker 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kit, Kip and Christopher
The article says: The 21st Phantom's birth name is Kit Walker (it was the tradition of the Phantom's for the eldest boy, who would be Phantom, to be named Kit. It should be noted however that Phantoms-to-be have been named Kip and Christopher as well as Kit).

Unless I'm very wrong, it would be more accurate to phrase this something like The 21st Phantom's birth name is Christopher "Kit" Walker (it was the tradition of the Phantoms for the eldest boy, who would be Phantom, to be named Christopher. This was usually shortened to "Kit" although sometimes to "Kip"). Daibhid C 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Kip" was only a nickname briefly used for the 21st Phantom; real name Kit Walker, so you might just delete that one. It's never been used since the fourties or so. KW

I always thought Kit was short for Christopher--Teletran 16:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image
How is a low-res, thumbnail image of the historically significant cover of DC Comics' first issue of The Phantom not fair use? That seems contrary to Wikipedia's own statements on the image and copyright pages.--Tenebrae 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. --Kit Walker 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phantomzane2.jpg
Image:Phantomzane2.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 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 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phantomcomics2.jpg
Image:Phantomcomics2.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 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 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Phantom
Whatever the article superhero says, you still have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot cite another Wikipedia article. You have to cite an authoritative, outside, third-party source. Please see Verifiability which says at the very top, in boldface there: '''The policy: It also says (boldface below mine): Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources [NOT other Wikipedia aricle] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."
 * 1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * 2) Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * 3) he obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.'''

I have tried to explain this on The Phantom talk page. Kit Walker has tried to. You ignore consensus, you ignore Wikipedia polcies and guidelines, and you refuse to work responsibly with other editors. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia rules abour proper sourcing and citation, I'm going to the Admins and I will seek to have you blocked. This has gone far enough. --Tenebrae 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the concept of a consensus, but I don't think two people is one, especially when I'm building someone else's change that your repeated reverted. Two for two against... no clear consensus, IMHO.  All I did cleared up a paragraph that you made jumbled and rambling, with unnecessary references to Zorro.  I'm not citing the Superhero page, I'm building on it.  If you think the Superhero page I have no problem with you changing it, or the Batman page which says he, too, is a Superhero.  However, you'll find the consensus there agrees with the Wikipedia defintion.   I completely agree that there are people who are destructive and need blocking, I don't think that people need blocking just because they disagree with me, however.
 * Duggy 1138 07:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A&E Biography
The section about the A&E biography seems to need some citations. But how are one supposed to find citations for a TV documentary? I have not been able to track down any other sources either. --Kit Walker 13:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article may not be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia"
I think it should be time to remove this tag now. After finding a few references and deleting the odd untrue fact, there are only four "Citation needed" marks on this page now. The link section has been cleaned up, and the design of the article's been given a makeover. I'd say it is time we remove the tag now. Comments? --Kit Walker 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the tag. There is no need for it whatsoever anymore. Feel free to come with arguments against this claim. --Kit Walker 12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You've done good work. The article is so much more encyclopedic-seeming. There's been some contention, but your calm head and editing have been critical to this piece. --Tenebrae 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you. There's still more work to be done, though, and I hope to get more time come the holidays. --Kit Walker 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kit - is there space on this article to add some of the classic lines from Phantom comics - 'Phantom moves faster than eye caan see,' " ...rough with roughnecks," etc. ? Am not sure of where they'd fit in, but do hope they can be part of the article. wildT 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We'd need some citation as to what makes them classic, since one of us saying "classic" is POV. Is there a Phantom book, encyclopedia, or historical article (not a fan site) that addresses this?


 * There's nothing really like this that I know of offhand elsewhere; the Superman article doesn't have a list of, say, "Up, up and away" or "This is a job...for Superman!" (which could at least be objectively tagged as catchphrases of the old radio program). The Dr. Strange article has a list of his incantations, but that, too, is an objective list.


 * Also, wildT, couple of Wiki-pointers: If you place four tildes (the ~ sign on your keyboard), it will automatically place a timestamp and link to your registered page, User:Wildt. Additionally, since you addressed a general policy question to one editor in particular above, it might be helpful to read the policy at Ownership of articles. Happy Wiki-ing, -- Tenebrae 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The myth and "supernatural" elements
First of all, I'm not a textboook expert on the Phantom, and I can't quote scripture and verse from the series. My intention for entering the section on an allegedly "supernatural" element to the myth of the Phantom is simply to note a number of times I'd read in the comic strip over the years (since the 70s, at least), when a twist of fate happened to occur in a manner that benefits the hero. This, of course, is something that happens to many comic book superheroes; and I'm not going to suggest there's a genuine "magical" power present -- because there isn't. Much of the Phantom's appeal stems from the fact that he is an ordinary mortal (albeit one who is highly skilled and trained, like Batman) promoting a generations-long hoax...or "myth"...that he is actually a supernatural figure, the Ghost Who Walks.

Still, the 4-issue Phantom comic book miniseries by Peter David in the late 1980s (which was pretty darned good, IMHO) also played up the aspect of a mysterious "fate" working with the Phantom -- especially the flashback to the Eighth Phantom, who had his mask ripped off by the pirate Chessman. A stream of blood from his forehead happened to surround his eyes, forming a brand-new mask; and when he chased Chessman back to the land of his ancestors and fought him to the death, he could "feel the presence" of the previous Phantoms, and he knew they were pleased.

Similarly, in the pilot episode of Phantom 2040, the young Kit Walker was repeatedly attracted to the "jungle level" of their VR video games, as though the generations of Phantoms before him were drawing him back to the jungle.

I like this idea of there being an indefinable, mysterious fate entwined with the legend of the Phantom. It's not something that anyone can point to and say, "a mysterious guardian jungle spirit protects him;" but rather, it's just something that adds an aura of mystery and depth to the legend. --Modemac 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the myth surrounding the phantom has been addressed in several comics- notably 'massacre at walker's table' the peter david series is apocryphal, as publications like FREW generally only use lee falk penned stories as canon H0D G 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Phantom musicals
I really think demanding citations for the Norwegian Phantom musical is unnecessary, to say it the least. There is little to no information on it available in the English language, and unless I am allowed to use a Norwegian site for citations, I doubt I'll be able to help out here. And what is need for a citation on Jahn Teigen's involvement in the play anyway? It's like needing a citation for whether Billy Zane played the Phantom in the movie or not. Teigen playing the bad guy and composing the music was frequently mentioned in the Norwegian Phantom comic, making him an honorary member of the Official Phantom Club. It would really need some damn good counter-arguments to convince me I am wrong in claiming this is absolutely unnecessary (it's a casting note, after all, and I have NOT ONCE seen any of these needing citations in other Wikipedia articles), and therefore, I dared to remove it for now. --Kit Walker 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure you can use non-English references if English ones can't be found. A RS would be appreciated to establish the scope of the play, as the only Teigen involvement I know of offhand is the song "Sala Palmer er pen". M urgh  disc.  14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation request is for the existence of that stage production. The reference to the actor just happened to be at the end of the sentence is all. -- Tenebrae 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry for my misunderstanding. I will come up with a reliable source as soon as I have the time to actually find one. --Kit Walker 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reprints
The Reprints section contains a list that is implied to be complete, but is very far from that. The number of stories actually published by Nostalgia Press (NP), Pacific Comics Club (PCC), or Comics Revue (CR) is much greater. Plus, reprints of the newspaper strip stories produced after Lee Falk's death have also appeared in CR. This list seems to be a narrow selection based on someone's own preferences. Also, it makes no reference to which specific issues the stories were published in which limits its usefulness. I am tempted to delete the list altogether, but I have already done so once in the past and tried to explain why, which apparently did not help. AEriksson 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Phantom (comics)
As noted in the edit summary, this move follows Wiki policy regarding the definite article "The" in article titles, and is consistent with The Joker &mdash; Joker (comics) &mdash; The Spirit &mdash; Spirit (comics) &mdash; etc. etc. etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say I personally find this very unnecessary, no matter how much it follows Wiki policy. The Phantom is always - ALWAYS - referred to as THE Phantom, unlike the Joker and the Spirit. The name of the comic is and have always been THE Phantom, not just "Phantom", and therefore, I wish the article-title would refer to it as such. --Kit Walker (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The examples are quite relevant, they are really "The Spirit" and "The Joker", just like "The Phantom". The problem arises when a policy regarding articles that focus on a character is applied to articles concerning a body of work. This is where "The Joker" diverges from The Spirit and The Phantom, and the reason the two latter ought to be exempt from this comics naming convention. M URGH   disc.  16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the debate on this subject from further up in the discussion section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phantom_%28comics%29#Article_Title. Really, the title of this section should not have been changed at all; lots of good arguments against it. Also, how can there come there are still articles titled THE Rocketeer, THE Shadow and THE Avenger? Shouldn't they all follow the same policy then? I must say I find it rather pointless to not call the article THE Phantom, when there are no other articles called it anyway. --Kit Walker (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote User:Lesfer at the debate you cite:
 * This article is not about The Phantom -- the comic strip --, but about The Phantom -- the character. [...] —Lesfer (talk/@) 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absent a compelling reason that an admin would accept &mdash; and I can tell you that pointing out other Wiki articles that are done incorrectly is never one of them &mdash; we have no cause to go against Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy is at WP:NAME. I've made rename corrections to the articles notes above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Green Phantom
Can't believe there isn't a single place in this article with the information that The Phantom's costume was originally suposed to be green... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.99.81 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Without a citation as to source, the above comment may be a prank, a rumor, or an urban legend.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was meant to be grey but there was a printing error and the purple was liked so it remained. Early on, Falk considered calling the character "The Grey Ghost." 202.138.16.1 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)