Talk:Iron Fist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
???	This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

I put an excellent shot of Iron Fist there, but I can't get it to work. Can we all stop arguing and just fix the page already, please?

Contents 1 The Thing (of Iron) 2 Daredevil 3 The cover gallery 4 Enough 5 Ongoing series 6 Cleanup tags 7 Relevance 8 Please do not add abbreviations to the article.

[edit] The Thing (of Iron)

You can't have an Iron Fist article without mentioning "like unto a thing of iron".

Who took it off? And why?

[edit] Daredevil

There is no proof at present that Iron Fist is Daredevil.

It was removed from the Daredevil site so shall be removed from here, unless of course you would like to show some proof?

You have put this back without proof? Are you some high and mighty god? Though I haven't deleted because of Cable/Deadpool 30, it is still only speculation. I do hope it is Iron Fist though... - 88.106.226.168

Read Daredevil #87, out this week. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers bud, good issue. I edited it because it was put on there a little early; but that issue confirmed it. Iron Fist! - 88.106.192.46

[edit] The cover gallery

The cover gallery needs to go, immediately. It fails WP:FUC #3 and #8, and also WP:NOT. We don't need the covers to explain what happens in these issues (FUC #3; in this case, zero images suffices as well as one), these images aren't necessary and often aren't useful for illustrating the events in the corresponding issues (FUC #8), and Wikipedia isn't for galleries of images (WP:NOT).

It wouldn't be a problem if some of these images were used at the corresponding places in the body of the article, but a gallery of fair-use images generally isn't kosher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to note that fair use does not magically become more legitimate just because the pictures are used in the "corresponding places". It's just as strong or as weak if it's elsewhere on the same page. If the position is that it's okay because it's talked about in the article, it really doesn't matter where the picture is as long as it's somewhere on the same page (then it becomes about aesthetics, not fair use). Conversely, if it isn't okay, then it doesn't matter where it is because it's not going to be fair use. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The policy states that if one image suffices. The word suffices if open and left to interpetation. Thanks for your opionion but I think that key covers is pertinent to the article. The is ample justification and fair use rationale in each of the images.FrankWilliams 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a copyright issue, and I strongly suggest we wait for discussion at the comics Wikiproject before you revert the gallery back into the article. (I will shortly start a new topic on talk, there.) I'm almost certain that this issue has already been discussed before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a fair use rationale. You are being too stringent. All images on this encylcopedia that are NOT public domain could be viewed as copyright infringement. That is why there is fair use rational. 138.162.0.45 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked the gallery, and it didn't seem to take up much space. --Basique 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of fair-use rationale or taking up space. This is a gallery of fair-use images, which is generally disallowed, as failing WP:FUC #3 and #8, and WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You use the word general (which means not necessarily all the time). I agree with user Basique the gallery doesn't take up that much space and it's at the end of the article.FrankWilliams 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I used the word "generally" to mean "in general," meaning that these rules apply to all cases. "It doesn't take up much space" and "it's at the end of the article" doesn't solve the problem that this article violates those rules. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules themselves are use vague words and are open to interpetation. Your interpetation of the rules seems rather strict and narrow.FrankWilliams 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally so. The fair-use rules need to be construed narrowly; to do otherwise damages the ability to republish Wikipedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your opionion and your entitled to it but you are seriously diminishing the quality of content in articles by having such a narrow minded view of your interpetation of the rules.FrankWilliams 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As may be, allowing galleries such as this seriously diminishes the ability of others to republish Wikipedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep changing your rationale. So now your suggesting that the quality of an article should somehow be dependent on "the ability of others to republish Wikipedia content" ?? This is absurd.FrankWilliams 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Galleries of fair-use images aren't allowed per WP:FUC because allowing them would make it harder to republish Wikipedia content. (That's part of the "free" in "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia.") I've been consistent on this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read through the WP:FUC and there is no mention of galleries. You seem to be interpeting the policies to your own advantage and viewpoints again.FrankWilliams 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any image that's not subject of significant discussion within the text needs to go. As it stands, the images serve a decorative purpose. Combination 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll expand the paragraph so it covers the gallery thus making it a "significant" part of the discussion.138.162.5.7 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a whole paragraph to the gallery under Key Comicbook Covers to tie the article to the gallery per suggestions.FrankWilliams 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, the cover gallery still fails WP:FUC and WP:NOT. Use of so many images goes beyond fair use and treads copyright violation. Tagging a paragraph at the end to try to justify and address WP:FUC #8 it doesn't change the fact that Marvel owns those images and using so many violates WP:FUC #3: Keep use of copyright images to a minimum. Inserting a cover gallery is not keeping their use to a minimum; avoid using multiple images unnecessarily. Doczilla 08:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There a tons of marvel pages that have more than 8 images. Why don't those fail?? Why are folks hung up on the fact that the images are in a table rather than spread around like the other articles??FrankWilliams 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Those pages also probably need a lot fewer images. Fair-use images should only be used when they are absolutely necessary to illustrate the text; if you're adding text to justify a bunch of copyvio images, you're working backwards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you better start deleting a whole truck full because I've been checking the other marvel pages and there more than you realize. Also, you are missing the point. The Iron Fist character is such an unknown character that having key issues is necessary for those not initiated in the character (many many more than say X-Men, Avengers, Spiderman, etc.) No one is working backwards the intent of the images was always the same. The verbiage was added per suggestions of the talk pages which I happen to agree with.FrankWilliams 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Describing the key issues is important. You should do that. You don't, however, need a massive gallery of copyrighted images to describe the key issues.

8 images is hardly massive, it's not like there's 20 or 30 which would be excessive. Why is your opion on the number more valid than anyone else's??FrankWilliams 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the other articles, I've been removing unnecessary fair-use whenever I find it. It's just that it's a thankless job and there's so much to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Same questions applies why you determing what is ununnecessary?? You're not even giving the discussion pages a chance if read them folks seem to be divided on the issue.FrankWilliams 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In the event that there is controversy, this needs to err on the side of exclusion. Worst-case, these are copyvio, best-case they can be replaced harmlessly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen. As to the issue of why not give the discussion a change before deleting: When in doubt about what is essentially a legal issue, err on the side of caution. Doczilla 23:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

This gallery is still completely unnecessary. While some of these images may be useful to illustrate specific points made in this article, the gallery as whole isn't illustrating anything; it's just lending pretty pictures to a discussion of various Iron Fist firsts. There's no need to have a dozen images illustrating this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of fair use image galleries violates our policies on fair use and our goal of making a freely redistributable encyclopedia. Anyone re-adding the gallery may be blocked. --Cyde Weys 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some misconception that this is a content issue. It's not. This article has more fair-use images than it absolutely needs. When this happens, the extras need to be removed, and they need to be removed immediately. While it's not strictly copyright violation, each fair-use image impairs the ability of others to redistribute Wikipedia, which is a core part of the "free" in "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the deletion of the image in the infobox is unrelated; it was deleted because it was unsourced. It will be deleted as a repost of deleted content if it is reuploaded again without a source, but with a source it's kosher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing series

Added that he will be starring in new ongoing in November, written by Brubaker and Matt Fraction. Just a minor edit, coupled it with the Doctor Strange tidbit. (Spike412 13:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cleanup tags

I'd like more specific complaints to be raised here regarding this. The in-universe perspective complaint is not invalid, but the problem is that there doesn't seem to be much other available information on the publication history and conceptual history aside from what is already mentioned in the lead paragraph. The presence of the tag makes it sound as if it's a bad article or written badly; which is isn't. It just doesn't have the information that isn't available to be had.

Unless someone raises specific complaints here in the next few days, I'll remove the tags. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a content problem so much as a style problem. Take, for example, Iron Fist's origin...

Daniel Rand was the son of wealthy American businessman Wendell Rand, an entrepreneur who had appeared out of nowhere with a large sum of money and over the course of ten years built up Rand-Meachum Incorporated with his business partner Harold Meachum. His mother Heather Duncan Rand had been a New York society belle before she met and married Daniel's father. Wendell was obsessed with finding the mystical city of K'un L'un, high on the mountain of the same name which according to legend was the dwelling place of the immortals of China and the basis of other legendary and immortal cities like Shangri-La. When Daniel was 9, Wendell organized an expedition to seek K'un L'un, taking Heather and their son, with Harold Meachum also following.

Where did this come from? Has any of it been retconned? How could I ever verify any of this?

You may want to read WP:WAF for a bit more on the style problems in this article; nearly all of it is the substantially similar to the first, "don't do this" set of examples, instead of the second, "do it like this" set. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, at least this is something specific we can work with and address. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

I'd like to see some commentary on the importance of the book within the industry. Wasn't this the first pairing of Claremont & Byrne on a character book (rather than a "gallery" book like MP, where they'd intro Fist)? IF was a much more traditional superhero book than MOKF; Moench's Shang was often philosophical to the point of obscurity, & matters ended up unresolved. It had a LeCarré flavor, "the great game" never resolved (as Keegan puts it, for an intelligence operator, the best thing that can happen is nothing: war doesn't start, the world doesn't end, the game goes on). Anybody? Trekphiler 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Or not. I added this:

"Iron Fist was the first pairing of Claremont & Byrne, beginning with Marvel Premiere 24 and 25, Fist's last two appearances before going on to his own book.

"IF was a much more traditional superhero book than MOKF; Moench's Shang had a LeCarré flavor, where matters often ended up unresolved as "the great game" continued. Where IF was straightforward, MOKF could be philosophical to the point of obscurity. Moench seemed to aspire to a literary level, much as Alan Moore would with Watchmen, where Claremont's scripts were much more accessible.

"It seems they were both ahead of the curve. A decade later, amid the success of "Walker, Texas Ranger" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", both heavily reliant on martial arts, they might have succeeded in achieving enduring popularity."

I read every ish Fist appeared in back in the day, & a few ish of MOKF; I'd say it's an accurate assessment. Disagree? Trekphiler 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think it falls foul of "no original research". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not add abbreviations to the article.

Stop abbreviating Iron Fist to IF. This is an encyclopedia. This is particularly bizarre since some of them are wikilinks which means you are putting in more work to make thge abbreviations. Try using cut and paste. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)