Talk:Planetary (comics)

Name

No reason to move this to Planetary (comics) until and unless there are other entries in Wikipedia for the name Planetary requiring disambiguation. It just muddies the waters. Let's leave it where it is. -mhr 03:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's a need for it now: Dumbbell Nebula RedWolf 08:50, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'd really like to see this moved to Planetary (comics). I came here looking for information on a Planetary gear! --Sfoskett 17:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed from the article: Planetary#The_Premise "Let's try to keep this entry spoiler-free."

I removed this from the article as I wasn't sure if it's to apply just to the section or to the entire article. If it's just for the section, maybe the {{msg:spoiler}} warning should follow. -- User:Docu

The spoiler

Wiped the spoiler; not the first time, I notice. A single, context-free sentence spoiling the major plot development of the first half of the series doesn't exactly seem to be helpful in intent, even with the spoiler tag. (And it certainly doesn't need its own subsection.) --Unint 20:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Dyslexic agnostic 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on character references

Several small points with regard to the list of issues and what references and analogs are present.

Issue #1 -- "The Shadow". This character is a lot more like a combination of The Spider and The Green Hornet than it is the Shadow, and is very definitely not named The Shadow in the comic. All the other characters have their Planetary/Wildstorm analogue name unparenthasized, and the character they reference parenthasized -- so it should be The Spider (The Spider, Master of Men).

Actually, Ellis referred to this character as the 'Shadowy Spider'. The Green Hornet connection wasn't know until later. And actually, the Spider was kind of loosely based on the Shadow to begin with. --Emb021 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Shadow was mentioned explicitly in Ellis' script. --Mister Six 11:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but early on-line discussions by Ellis, he refers to the character as the 'Shadowy Spider'. Looking at the character, you see elements of both characters. Being a long-time pulp hero fan who is familiar with these characters (Doc Savage, Shadow, Spider, G-8, Operator #5, et al), I quickly got the references and this is what made me interested in this series. --Emb021 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Issue #3 -- Not only is this an homage to John Woo, it's also DC's 'The Spectre' character. A killed cop who does not die and returns to avenge crimes? Same origin, just in Hong Kong, with John Woo/HK cinema trappings.

Issue #4 -- This is a bit harder to see, but Jim Wilder is an analogue of Billy Batson and Captain Marvel. Both Jim and Billy are orphans who gain the ability to transform from a more or less normal human form into a somewhat swashbuckling superhero form. The zig-zag scar on Wilder's chest (in both forms) clearly resembles Captain Marvel's lightning bolt insignia. Likewise, the buried shiftship stands in for the Wizard Shazam and the Rock of Eternity. Wilder's talk of needing to find more people to be the superhuman crew of the ship harkens back to the existence of The Marvel Family.

Issue #6 -- Minor reference, but the scene where William Leather burns his beard off is a direct homage to the classic FF story in which the Human Torch does something similar to an amnesiatic and bearded Namor.

Issue #7 -- The superhero who is so mad at the John Constantine analogue is, I think, himself an analogue of Miracleman. The references to altered sexuality echo some of the events in the unfinished Silver Age storyline Neil Gaiman was working on at the time of Eclipse's demise.

John Constantine analogue but he becomes a Spider Jerusalem analogue, I believe? I took the angry superhero's rant as a commentary on the shift in comics generally, i.e. less heroic heroes with more complicated backstories (and more explicit sexual references).

Issue #9 -- This might also be seen as referencing another Grant Morrison title aside from The Invisibles; that of Flex Mentallo, which also deals with themes of fantasy vs. reality, and having the two mix.

True, but the fictionsuit idea is specifically from The Invisibles.

Issue #12 -- The issue title, 'Memory Cloud', may be a reference to the ailment of Joe in Joe Versus the Volcano, a 'Brain Cloud'.

Issue #14 -- Not only is there a Miracleman reference in the appearance of the "Armory" universe, but the stick which transforms into a superweapon is a very clear reference to the cane that Donald Blake used to transform into Thor in the Marvel universe. Also, the bearded and wheelchair-bound scientist is more than a little reminiscent of The Chief (comics) from Doom Patrol.

Issue #15-- The Carlton Marvel character seems a reference to the Burroughs adventurer characters who traveled to Venus, the Moon, etc. --Emb021 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Issue #19 and #20 -- The vast structure with it's dead alien is a direct analogue of the Marvel universe's world-devouring Galactus, a frequent foe of the Fantastic Four. Likewise, the three constructs from the center of the galaxy whose job is to record all information are reminiscent of The Watcher, a character who played a significant role in Galactus' first encounter with the FF and the Earth.

well, the vast structure is also based on Arthur C Clarke's Rama. --Emb021 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Issue #22 -- The Lone Ranger and The Shadow are not related, but the connection between The Lone Ranger (aka John Reid) and The Green Hornet (aka Britt Reid) is quite similar to the connection between Planetary's Dead Ranger (aka John Leather) and The Spider (aka Brett Leather) (uncle and nephew in the first case, father and son in the second). The first names and histories are quite similar, too. --Dana 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Until this issue, we didn't know that the 'Shadowy Spider' was more of a Spider/Green Hornet analog. --Emb021 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cuh, I actually meant The Green Hornet when I was typing it in... --Mister Six 11:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Issue 25...

So, unless I'm misreading, The Four seem to have gained their powers from the analogues of Darkseid and Apokolips, yes? Dana 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

kind of. There is also hints of the 'terragin' mist that gave the Inhumans their powers. --Emb021 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the reference, but I think the main thrust of the story is pretty clearly supposed to be 'The Four sold out the Earth to Cosmic Evil.' The link to the Teragen Mist is there in the words, but the Inhumans don't really relate to what the Four did in any meaningful way. ( Unless Warren Ellis has a *waay* different view on them than anyone I know. . . ) --Metaphysician

Why would "References" section need citations but not "Analogues" section?

I removed the markers that were recently added to the "References" section, because it seems to me these are no more or less speculative than the "Analogues" in the previous section. For example, why would we need a reference for the idea that the "theoretical snowflake existing in 196,833 dimensional space" refers to the 196,883-dimensional "Monster Group" in math, which is also referred to as a "snowflake", but not need a reference for the idea that story of David Paine being transformed into a giant monster by the description theory bomb in "Nuclear Spring" was intended to be an analogue to the story of David Banner being transformed into The Incredible Hulk by a gamma bomb, or even the idea that "The Four" are meant to refer to the Fantastic Four? Most of these analogues/references seem pretty obvious, but short of the creator actually confirming on the record that he got the idea from a specific source (and for the record, I found this post from Warren Ellis' blog confirming that he got the idea for 'the snowflake' from the Monster Group), it's hard to see what would qualify as a valid citation for this kind of thing. Hypnosifl 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The analogues need citation as well. It is very possible to find that information. No doubt Wizard needed to fill space some week. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, unless it was directly confirmed by Warren Ellis, why would a comparison between Planetary and earlier comics in Wizard or any other published source count as a valid reference either? It's all just noting of similarities, without any other evidence that the similarities were intended. So I don't see why it's a problem for the wiki article to note such similarities, without necessarily claiming that they were what Ellis had in mind.

In any case, looking throughout wikipedia at different media-related pages it seems that comments about possible homages or references are almost never given citations. Is there a wikipedia guidelines page which clearly states that such comments must be referenced, and if so, could you give a link? Hypnosifl 20:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another example: would you say that the article on the Sesame Street segment Monsterpiece Theater, in which Cookie Monster played "Alistaire Cookie", needs a for the claim that it was meant to be a parody of the PBS show "Masterpiece Theater" hosted by Alistaire Cooke? If not, would you say it's any less obvious that "The Four" in Planetary, whose powers and origin directly mirror the Fantastic Four, were inspired by them? If you google "site:en.wikipedia.org" and some phrase like "inspired by" or "homage to" or "parody of" (which is how I came across the Monsterpiece Theater page), it really does not seem to be standard practice to give citations for these sorts of claims. Hypnosifl 03:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources are generally required, otherwise this kind of information violates our no original research policy. Also, we do not limit ourselves to only commenting on authorial intent, but rather source outside opinion where it is deemed useful or germane. Regardless of the state of play on other articles, the position is that Wikipedia needs sources, that's writ large in our verifiability policy. That other articles do not currently meet that policy does not mean this article should not, each case is studied on its merits, but it could also mean we haven't focussed on those articles as of yet. What may seem obvious to you may not appear obvious to another reader. Given that we are not dealing with a pastiche here, and given there are numerous sources to cite regarding these comparisons, and given that it would improve the article to use quoted opinion,. I can't really see a reason not to cite a source. That said, the whole analogue section needs a complete rewrite to bring it in line wit the manual of style, it's listified and certainly contains original research as it stands, I'd like to know for example how it is clear "Ellis pays homage to Grant Morrison's comic book The Invisibles" in issue nine. That appears to be the opinion of the editor rather than the opinion of a source. Hiding Talk 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but are you saying that the question of whether comments about homages need sources is decided on a case-by-case basis, or that they are universally required in every case? For example, could you specifically address the question of whether the Monsterpiece Theater article requires a source for the comment that it was meant as a parody of Masterpiece Theater? I'll note that the verifiability policy you link to does not say that every single claim in every article requires a source, just that 'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source.' Although I can see that people might challenge the claim that issue nine pays homage to the Invisibles, I doubt any person reasonably familiar with comics history would challenge the claim that "The Four" are based on the Fantastic Four, given the near-exact similarity of their powers and origin story. Hypnosifl 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia written only for people reasonably familiar with comics. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But the "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" rule implies the possibility of claims that are not "likely to be challenged". What exactly do you think would fall into this category? I would think that the idea is that people are only likely to challenge claims in areas they already know a little bit about--I don't know offhand what the colors of the flag of Albania are, but I'm not about to go to the Albania article and challenge whatever they say there. If some information is extremely easy to verify on your own with the most basic research into the subject, then I don't think a reference on wikipedia should be needed. If you disagree with this, could you outline your own standard for what sort of claims are not "likely to be challenged" and thus don't need references? Hypnosifl 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am sure you'll agree that since the point has been challenged, and the policy states that "any material that is challenged" should be sourced, you'#re arguing a redundant point discussing whether it is likely it will be challenged. This argument occurs constantly on Wikipedia, and yes, if people wish to challenge what the colours are in the flag of Albania, a source can be provided, although most people would agree that it's a little disruptive to do so. We have guidance on what we're working towards at the perfect article, and there we guide that an article is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles, and that all facts are cited from reputable sources. Wikipedia is constructed collaboratively, and discussing issues to form a consensus will resolve areas of dispute. In this case, it isn't hard to find a source for the fact that The Four are based on The Fantastic Four, and it also enhances the article and brings it closer to our ideals and policies. Given all that, I'm not sure what we are debating. We all want to see a better article, a more encyclopedic article, and better sourcing and rewriting to reflect sources enhances the article. Hiding Talk 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was interpreting the "challenged" in "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" to mean that some wiki editor had sincere doubts about the veracity of a claim, and I don't think Chris Griswold was expressing such doubts about "The Four" in particular. I do concede that some other claims, like the "Invisibles" reference, are questionable, so the "Some information in this section has not been verified and may not be reliable" is appropriate (although I still wonder what kind of sources would count for these kinds of claims, since anything short of confirmation by Warren Ellis is just speculation on the part of the writer, regardless of whether it appears in 'Wizard' or any other professional publication). But I think if someone were to provide references for the less obvious ones, but leave the more obvious ones like the "Fantastic Four" and "Hulk" analogues unreferenced, it would then be appropriate to remove the "Some information in this section..." warning unless some wiki editor had sincere questions about them (the WP:POINT article you linked to suggests to me that 'insincere' questioning of a claim just for the sake of making a point would be considered inappropriate 'gaming of the system'). And I would also suggest that part of "sincerity" is that one should only question a claim after having done a little basic research into the subject, so that questioning something like the colors of Albania's flag would be inappropriate even if the editor genuinely didn't know offhand what the flag looks like. If not, virtually every sentence of every wikipedia article could be questioned--you say that "we all want to see a better article, a more encyclopedic article", but it certainly wouldn't be the policy of print encyclopedias to source claims that are easily-checked and common knowledge among anyone with a basic knowledge of the field, like "George Washington was the first president of the United States" or "spiders have eight legs".

Anyway, I've conceded the point about the need for sources for at least some of the claims in the "Analogues" section so there isn't a need for further debate on that point. But if you'd like to continue the discussion about wikipedia policy on sources in general I'd be happy to, although maybe somewhere else like the talk section of WP:V would be a better place for it. Hypnosifl 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'll just carry on here, ta. :) You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We summarise other sources, so it is perfectly acceptable to summarise what Wizard may write, but it is not acceptable for us to simply make it up. So yes, we can summarise what Wizard say on something, and no, it doesn't matter that that is speculation. As long as we present it in a manner which makes it clear it is speculation or commentary, it does not matter. Also, as I noted above, we aren't slaves to author intent, to do so ingrains a point of view in our writing, again something which our policies instruct against. On your talk page, you probably received a welcome message with a link to Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. If you have a look at that page, it will hopefully explain some of the issues we are debating here, but to quote it:

Guidelines for writing high quality articles:

1. Neutral point of view. Write from a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental principle, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us. Even if material is verifiable, it is still important to put it into a balanced and representative form so that it conveys a fair impression of the views of the many significant viewpoints on a subject.
2. Verifiability. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.
3. No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position.

• We appreciate that every sentence can be questioned, and in fact that happens. We encourage it. It's how we get better. Note that we also have a good faith policy, which means we comment on the content, not the user, so I'll refrain from commenting on any particular user. Now, like I say, and like our policies say, we summarise other sources. It certainly wouldn't be the policy of a print encyclopedia to source obvious claims, as you say, but Wikipedia isn't currently a print encyclopedia, and Wikipedia also can't currently rely on the credentials of its contributors. Wikipedia has evolved its practises through the contributions of many editors to the point that they have become agreed upon standards. You may not agree with them, but they exist to solve problems such as these. Now I can't see where someone was looking for a cite on the Four being the FF, so perhaps we can leave that argument for a time when it matters, and rather work on referencing statements which are unlikely to be self-evident. Hiding Talk 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything about wikipedia policy, at least not anything that's spelled out on any of the pages you've linked to. My comment about a Wizard article being speculation in the absence of confirmation from Warren Ellis probably should have included a caveat that I understand it would be OK to include a sentence like "Wizard magazine speculates that 'The Four' are intended as a reference to The Fantastic Four"--I was just saying that a Wizard article would not be sufficient for a simple factual claim like "'The Four' are a reference to The Fantastic Four'", only a confirmation from Warren Ellis would suffice as a source for that sort of claim (and in the case of references and homages, I think it's clear authorial intent is critical, since no one would say that a character or storyline was intended as a reference/homage to work X if the author wasn't even aware of work X). Most sentences in wikipedia articles tend to be simple factual claims of the second kind.

I take your point about the increased need for sources in articles which aren't written by authorities, but it's still not clear to me that wikipedia's policy is "if anyone asks for a source, a reference to one must automatically be added as a link in the main article, regardless of whether that person is being sincere or just trying to make a nuisance". Again, the WP:POINT article you linked to makes clear that an editor's motives are important in some circumstances, since saying that an editor is taking an action for the sake of "either parody or some form of breaching experiment" is an issue of motive. If someone were to add "citation needed" to every single unsourced sentence in article after article, I think it's clear that would be considered disruptive, and other editors would probably revert the change without bothering to find sources for every sentence. As the good faith article suggests, the assumption of good faith is only meant as a starting assumption, but the policy "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I think that too many spurious "citation needed" added could be considered "evidence to the contrary", although this particular question is not dealt with explicitly on any of the wikipedia policy pages I've seen, presumably it would be a judgment call based on the consensus of other users or administrators. But it's probably true that if a person were to occasionally add "citation needed" to claims that are very basic common knowledge, this alone would not be seen as sufficient evidence of bad faith; still, it might be that other editors would prefer to link to a source in the talk page for the article rather than footnote something that is such common knowledge.

Anyway, I would still interpret the "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" to mean that ideally, an editor should only add "citation needed" either if he himself has doubts about a claim, or if he thinks it's insufficiently well-know that others with a basic knowledge of the subject would be likely to find the claim doubtful. It's not common practice for wiki editors to challenge claims about subjects they don't have any basic knowledge of, and I think that common practice should be taken into account when assessing the "likelihood" of a claim being challenged. If you instead interpret "is likely to be challenged" to mean that a source should be provided for any claim that anyone anywhere wouldn't recognize as true off the top of their head, then the policy would be equivalent to "you should provide a source for any factual claim of any kind, no matter how well-known or easily-verified", and if that's what the person writing the policy had really meant I think they would have just said so in less ambiguous terms. Hypnosifl 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not sure how much clearer I can state it, but one last try. You don't present any opinion as fact, you present it as opinion, per our neutral point of view policy, so Warren Ellis' opinion is still opinion, regardless of the fact that he is the author. You are better stating that Ellis based The Four on the FF than stating the Four are based on the FF. Second, our verfiability policy is as follows:

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. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

• So as you can see, the policy is that "you should provide a source for any factual claim of any kind, no matter how well-known or easily-verified". We can argue about the ins and outs of policy all day, but this article is on notice that sources are required or information will be removed. As the policy states, if you don't cite a source, the material can be removed. What seems obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. Now if you want to tag every sentence in every article with "citation needed", I can guarantee you will quickly be reverted. However, a source has already been provided for the fact that the sky is blue, so I reckon that proves how we work. Now how good faith applies is that we assume the person asking for a citation is ignorant of the fact they are asking for a source to be provided, and so we provide it. Good luck getting those sources. Hiding Talk 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• On the topic of authorial intent, I would say it's already understood that the statement "X is a homage to Y" is exclusively a statement of the author's intent, not of the opinion of the person making the statement--no one would say that a given character is a "homage" to a character in another work if the second work didn't appear until after the death of the first work's author, for example. So, the meaning of "X is a homage to Y" is understood to be exactly equivalent to the statement "the creator of X intended it as a homage to Y". And that's a statement of fact, not opinion, just like "Jonathon Swift intended 'A Modest Proposal' as satire" is a statement of fact. Neither would violate the NPOV policy.

• And I would understand the policy you quote to mean that editors making a claim should provide a source if they want to ensure that another editor won't challenge or remove it, and that they have an obligation to provide a source when challenged, but not that they are obligated to provide a source for every single edit regardless of the likelihood of it being challenged. If the policy was really saying that editors are in violation of the rules whenever they don't cite a source, that would contradict the later statement on the same page that "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source". It would also make it rather confusing that the page says "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page." Why would editors "object" to removing unsourced claims (and why would the policy page imply it is reasonable for them to do so) if they had been in clear violation of the rules by adding the claim without a source in the first place?

• Finally, on the subject of the need for sources for well-known facts, note that the source on the Sky page is not for the claim that the sky is blue, it's for the claim that the blue color "is the result of the air scattering sunlight" (the link goes to a physics page that discusses the way light scattering works). Hypnosifl 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Authorial intent is an intent, not a fact so no, you can't present it as a fact and you can't presume that people will know what you read. How you understand the policy is up to you. What it says and how it is enforced is up to community consensus. You still seem to be peddling the line that a statement which reads "any material that is challenged" doesn't actually mean that. I hope you can see that's a non-starter now. Editors may object because they have not been given a chance to source it, our good faith policy means we should ask before we remove stuff. On the subject of Sky, note it links to a page titled "Why is the sky blue?" which undermines your point completely. Anyway, I have removed the unsourced material, and I would hope to see sources provided before it is added back in. Thanks for your time discussing the issue, but now I have an enbcyclopedia to build. Hiding Talk 13:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not understanding my point about facts vs. opinions, a fact about someone's opinion is not itself an opinion. For example, if a wikipedia article said that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" that would be an opinion which would violate NPOV, but when the wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins says that "Dawkins believes that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other", that is a fact about Dawkins' opinions which can be verified by checking the reference cited (The God Delusion, p. 50) and seeing that he does, in fact, express this opinion. And I was saying that "X is a homage to Y" is similarly understood as a fact about the author's opinion/intent. If you really believe that sentences like the Richard Dawkins one above would violate NPOV, I'm pretty confident the consensus of the wikipedia community would be against you, but we could always start a discussion on this question in the NPOV talk section.

You're also missing my point about the sky and obvious facts, the fact that the sky is blue is obvious, but the question of why the sky is blue is a technical question about the physics of light scattering, and clearly the reference was for the physics-based "why" question, not the claim that the sky is blue in itself. Analogously, the fact that bumblebees are able to fly is obvious and without even checking the bee article I feel quite confident that it would be given no reference, but the question of why they are able to fly is a complicated issue of aerodynamics that even scientists were not able to understand until quite recently (see this article for example), so any statement on the "why" question in a wikipedia article would probably cite a reference.

On the subject of "challenges" you yourself have admitted that the "any material that is challenged" guideline is not necessarily absolute, since you said "Now if you want to tag every sentence in every article with 'citation needed', I can guarantee you will quickly be reverted." I admit that this is an extreme case, but then I never disagreed with the idea that every good-faith challenge should be answered with a reference. I did suggest that if someone were to ask for a reference for an obvious claim, the reference might be provided in the talk page rather than the main body of the article itself, and my other point was that Chris Griswold had not specifically challenged every claim in the "analogues" section, for example he had not challenged the point that 'The Four' were based on the Fantastic Four, and I doubt he would if asked specifically. So even though I agree that every good-faith challenge requires a reference, I don't think that claim (or other similarly 'obvious' ones like the Hulk analogue) need a reference until someone does in fact challenge it specifically.

Lastly, I hope you didn't remove the material as a result of this discussion with me, it doesn't seem to be the usual practice to remove entire sections so quickly because they contain some unsourced claims unless the claims are particularly dubious or controversial. I had understood this to be primarily an argument about general principles rather than about that particular section, which is why I said "If you'd like to continue the discussion about wikipedia policy on sources in general I'd be happy to, although maybe somewhere else like the talk section of WP:V would be a better place for it." You seem to have misunderstood this point as well, since you later said "Good luck getting those sources", when in fact I had never volunteered to find sources and did not see it as my responsiblity, since I was not responsible for a single edit to the "Analogues" section (my only contribution was on the subject of the 'Monster Group' from mathematics in the 'references' section, and I already did find a source for that). I don't really have the knowledge of superhero comics to know where to look for references for those kinds of things, I didn't even know about the magazine "Wizard" until I looked it up as a result of Chris Griswold mentioning it. I think it would have been better to leave the section up with a warning for a little while longer so that other editors with more knowledge of the subject would have had time to see that references were needed and look them up, but of course it's your perogative to remove it. Again, I just hope that this is something you would have done anyway even if I hadn't posted any comments here. Hypnosifl 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• We seem to be talking across each other here then. Good day to you sir, and happy editing. Hiding Talk 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pastiches and analogues

Just to nitpick, but in a spirit of accuracy, the article lists Sherlock Holmes as one of the characters on whom a pastiche version was 'based'. Technically, this is misleading and inaccurate; Holmes is actually one of the few 'other' fictional characters who appears in Planetary as 'himself'.--Joseph Q Publique 09:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I was about to say the same thing!, also it doesnt even mention the Spider, the Shadow, or Fu Manchu, in that particular area. I may change it soon.FourtySixNtwo 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue 27 plus an expensive one-shot

According to this article at newsarama, at SDCC '07 Warren Ellis himself said: Planetary #27 was written two months ago. and later added that There will be a one-shot Planetary comic, and it will be expensive.
Although I haven't read about it anywhere else, we should mention that one-shot in the article somewhere. --h_a 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Absoluteplanetary.jpg

Image:Absoluteplanetary.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 Wikipedia: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) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

I'm doing some research right now, with a view to cleaning up the Planetary-related articles. I feel like this article currently draws too many inferences from the comic (OR), rather than references from independent sources. Yes, we're all supposed to infer that Jack Carter is John Constantine. The problem is that the comic doesn't make that explicit connection, so we can't cite the comic as such a reference. I'm tracking down sources that spell out what we all know.

I also feel like the individual character pages may be overdone and that one List of characters in Planetary might be better. Perhaps the Planetary field team members deserve their own pages (though I don't really think so), I'm nearly certain Bret Leather and Lord Blackstock don't. The useful info on the characters is fairly limited, and I think it will make the articles more accessible to new readers. Thoughts? » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Gravity and bad writing

Clark (Superman) Kent is quickly killed off in the JLA edition because it is theorized that many of his powers are dependent on gravity, and he is on the Moon. The Moon has just one sixth of Earth's gravity so a 180 lbs man would weigh 30 lbs. There would surely still be sufficient gravity for Clark Kent to retain some of his powers, even if diminished, like flight. Also he was expelled from a building only a short distance from the surface so should have floated down again instead of leaving the Moon as if there were NO gravity there. This idea of his powers would also mean that Clark Kent could never travel far beyond the atmosphere of Earth or he would die as he lost many of his powers as gravity diminished. While Diana (Wonder Woman) Prince struggles and is twice badly wounded by her foe, Bruce (Batman) Wayne of course effortlessly defeats his foe by moving faster than two bullets fired simultaneously at him about one hundredth of a second ago. He's Batman. He can do anything bad writing allows of this human being.(171.96.122.240 (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC))