Talk:Superhero/Archive 3

Please go to

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 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section as written since the core information needs citations, and the editorializing tone needs to be dropped. I believe this is a good and necessary section, but it has to be properly cited and to be written in an

Step #1 in making this a featured article: get rid of all or most of the lists. Information should be conveyed in prose form. For example, if you can't find a way to mention the Incredible Hulk in the proper context of the larger history or trends of the "Superhero" concept, then don't mention him at all and let his article be linked to on other pages. The job of the Superhero article is to explain the history and the concept of superheroes as best it can, not to function as a big list of the most popular ones. What this article needs is more solid, referenced prose to beef up its informational value; writing such a complex, pop culture-inundated, fan-fixated article from the same neutral and encyclopedic standard as other articles will be very difficult, so you have your work cut out for you. -Silence 15:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

We at the

psychokinesis page just got our lengthy "List of cultural references to psychokinesis and telekinesis" article (which included super heroes) speedy deleted by a swiftly working band of list-haters in six days. It could happen to you, too, if you aren't checking the list pages frequently. See the PK talk page for how to request undeletion (unlikely for a list) or a copy of the text if it does happen. 5Q5

18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you agree, please make the changes...I've got a plane to catch. ike9898 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "Superhero" is the better known form. I'll modify the article to match the title - SoM 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • What's better known doesn't change the fact that DC and Marvel own "superhero" and therefore we're supposed to say "super-hero." Doczilla 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I generally got rid of examples in cases where two or three would be sufficient to make the point or got rid of superfluous information about the examples where it doesn’t illuminate the point being made (the life sustaining capabilities of Iron Man’s armor or what number Phantom the current one is)
• “While some people see heroes without superpowers as not being superheroes, their existence in a superhero universe, a superhero format (e.g. comics) and sharing many of the traits listed below place them firmly within the definition.”

This is problematic because

a) It seems the article is having a conversation with itself

b) A citation is needed

c) “Some people” seems to be a euphemisms for hair-splitting comics fans.

d) This is already covered in the intro

For marketing purposes, within the framework of comics universes and to the general public, someone like Batman, The Question, Green Arrow, Blue Beetle or Hawkeye is a superhero. To avoid some confusion, though, let’s get rid of Green Hornet, who does not exist within a superhero universe and predates Superman

• Punisher seems like the purest example of a superhero with a vendetta against criminals
• “or a family legacy of fighting crime (e.g. The Phantom or Black Canary)”

This applies to a very small minority and can also be considered a formal calling

• Added small paragraph on the public perception of superheroes.
• We don’t need two Phantom images
• I don’t see how an elementalist, mage or marksman is a subcategory of blaster as each has abilities beyond just “blasting” something.

“Sometimes called "Egoist", in a direct reference to the character Attribute in Champions most associated with such abilities; since many such characters are physically unimpressive or outright fragile (vis. Professor X's wheelchair), they are sometimes denigrated as "Ego Wimps".”

This seems more related to gamer terminology than superheroes

• Changed Phantom image so the covers are chronological; this is a history section.
• The divergent characters section deals with how the Hulk and X-Men differentiated from the norm, so there’s no need to repeat it in the Silver Age section.
• The bit about crossovers seemed to be more about the history of American comics than superheroes.
• Moved some of parts about female characters being used as damsels in distress and love interests and breaking out of that role to the history section. The controvesy section deals more with modern controversies and it seemed so inherently linked to the change that it belonged under history
• Made some changes to Dust entry, she is not a member of a minority faith in her nation of origin
• Maggie Sawyer is a supporting character, not a superhero
• Moved critical and artistic response section to follow the history section.
• Moved Mad parodies to comedic superhero listing in divergent character examples. It doesn’t seem like Mad and honest academic responses belonged in the same area.
• Moved Darga section to place for non-U.S. superheroes. Although I can see the reason for the Canadian Nelvana’s inclusion (she was the first), most of this section deals with the development of female superheroes in the U.S. so it just seemed out of place. Also I cleaned it up a bit.
• Because superheroes are inherently visual, readded some pictures Rorschach567 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't put 27 images on a 16 page articule. I'm going to remove a few.67.150.12.29 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I don't see anything under the policies section about such rules (I could be missing it, there are a lot of policies and guidelines) [3]. I think using 20 to 25 images is fine as long as they are sized and positioned wisely. If there has to be a limit, the number and which pictures should be used should be discussed. Action Comics #1 is way too historically important to miss, there should be at least one Wolverine and I don't see why we need two Phantoms. Thanks for your input Rorschach567 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that given the huge number of notable heroes and types of heroes that there really is no justification to have two images of the Phantom. I do think it's important to have one image that shows him in the sui generis costume, but no more than that. --Tenebrae 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you guys out. The current line up is 3 Batmans, 2 Supermans, 2 X-men, Spider-man, Fantastic Four, The Phantom, Captain America, Kamen Rider, Miracleman, Plastic Man, Hulk, Captain Marvel, Flash II, Spawn, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Northstar for a grand total of 20 images across a 17 page article.207.62.88.11 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow. There has got to be a little winnowing and some swapping out. I can see 2 Batmans (cover of Detective #27 and a modern-day image) and 2 Supermans (cover of Action #1 and a modern-day image), given that those really are the big 2, but otherwise the Marvel/DC concentration is a bit much. There need to be examples of other companies' heroes. --Tenebrae 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My Plan

First of all, I’d appreciate it if anyone taking part in this conversation would get a user name and sign in. Thanks.

As far as images are concerned, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Hulk, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, X-Men, Phantom and Flash are, to me, the ones that can’t be missed. Green Lantern, Daredevil, Captain Marvel and Plastic Man would also be good. So here is my plan:

1) The Ross/Lee Superman and Batman - good in the introduction because it has the two most popular and archetypical heroes

2) Spider-Man - In the common traits section because he’s the third most popular and archetypical hero

3) The Fantastic Four - In the common traits section

4) There’s a lot of text in the common traits section after the F4 image, how about a Frank Miller Daredevil cover to represent superhero noir or a spacey Green Lantern for sci-fi superheroes?

5) Captain American - Under common costume features, really any hero with a typical costume could be put here but I can’t see another good place to slip Cap in.

6) Some typical Japanese superhero in superheroes outside the U.S.

7) Plastic Man under types of superheroes, also many heroes that could be used here but this seems like a good place to insert him

8) Hulk under character examples

9) Phantom under antecedents

10) Action Comics #1 under Golden Age, too important an issue to pass up

11) Captain Marvel also under Golden Age

12) Showcase #4 under Silver Age, an important issue and way to insert the Flash

13) The Dark Knight Returns under destruction of the superhero or a Green Arrow/Green Lantern if we don’t have Lantern anywhere else. It’d also be nice to get Arrow in here.

14) Spawn under struggles of the ’90s because he was such an archetypical 90s character and because it gets another non-Marvel-or-DC character in

15) Wonder Woman under female superheroes

16) Giant-Sized X-Men #1 under Non-Caucasian superheroes, gets the X-Men and an important issue in.

17) A Hugh Jackman Wolverine under film, gets Wolverine in

18) Adam West Batman under television, I know it’s another Batman but this show dominates all others in historical importance. But we could go with a Hulk if we wanted to switch it up a bit and use someone else under character types

19) It seems like any character with an important animated series has been used above. I’d keep the Superman just because it’s so iconic. Rorschach567 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is great — so well-thought-out.

• I would suggest Watchmen under deconstruction (point 13), since that really was the ne plus ultra and adds diversity.
• Wonder Woman is covered so much elsewhere, and while she's important, we have so many DC heroes already that I'd like to suggest a superheroine example from Charlton Comics or one of the other lesser-known companies.
• Adam West is important, though the campiness factor I think makes him an example of playing with the superhero image rather a superhero per se. Something from the TV show Heroes might be good since it also provides an example of a non-traditional superhero, without costume.
• Don't know if he'll fit, but E-Man is a good example of a humorous hero. (If no room for image, a text line about him and Plastic Man as humorous hereoes under "Character examples" might be good.)

Fun stuff! --Tenebrae 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On point 13 I agree with Tenebrae. Watchmen under deconstruction is a good idea.

• 4 I do not think there should be an image between F4 and Cap. America. I just don't see the space your talking about and I think it would look too cramped.
• 14 Spawn is an excellent example superheroes outside of DC/Marvel. No need to put a image up just for Charlton Comics and there are other, more well known humorous superheros thanE-Man.
• 15 A Wonder Woman image need to be there at least once and the Female Superhero section is ideal.
• 18 Before we add a Heroes section we must first mention them.
• 19 For the Animation section we could use a Ben 10 or Danny Phantom picture in place of another Superman to show made for television superheroes.

We should all agree that a concensus must be reached before anyone begins this major edit.207.62.97.195 00:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is an agreement that Watchmen should go under deconstruction.

For the other media sections, there’s the balancing of getting characters not shown elsewhere and getting the most important examples (which tend to utilize characters already popular in the comics). We could do both by using them as a way to get the Hulk, X-Men, Wolverine and/or Wonder Woman in. And for historical importance and familiarity to the general public, I don’t think WW can be skipped.

And, yeah, there should probably be a place under character types for Plastic Man, E-Man, the Flaming Carrot and others who, while not parodies exactly, are humorous. Rorschach567 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for consensus!

I believe it'd be an oversight not to have one Charlton Comics image: It was the #3 company, at least in fans' minds, for years, and historically significant. I'd suggest E-Man since he's one of the few who hasn't since appeared in DC Comics, and because he's also been poublished by First Comics, Pacific Comics and who-knows-what-else [which certainly gives us diversity apart from Marvel & DC...! :-) ]. Another possibility might be the Steve Ditko versioj of Captain Atom, which looks nothing like the current iteration.

Finally, I can go with Wonder Woman's inclusion for historical reasons as the best-known superheroine, but to otherwise have only men (or, if Danny Phantom, men and a boy)? There are soooo many superheroines that it would seem imbalanced not to have at least one other! --Tenebrae 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why Charlton Comics and E-Man are important. They aren't mentioned once in the article and don't seem to warrant an image. As for another superheroine how about we leave the Halle Berry X2 image of Storm or put in one of her from X3 instead of Wolverine (point 17). One of them together? There's also the Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four there (point 3).

Should we be altering The Plan as we go along so everyone can keep track of everything or should we put in a new headline insert the new plan and keep going from there.

What we are trying to create is a lasting set of images that everyone can agree on unquestionably.66.53.212.225 05:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that another female superhero is a good idea but who? Storm seems the most mentioned (under female, non-Caucasian and religious minority superheroes) and she’ll fit in under several sections. I agree the pictures should match the text; so I’m not sure why E-Man, who weren’t just talking about mentioning now, or another Charlton character should be put in. Rorschach567 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can go with Storm for all those reasons cited.

RE: "Can someone please explain why Charlton Comics and E-Man are important." Reiterating, Charlton was the #3 company, at least in fans' minds, for years, and historically significant. An encyclopedia article needs to have diversity, and while Marvel & DC need to be well-represented, an article on superheroes needs to have a broad range reflective of as much of the entirety of the field as practicable. I never insisted on E-Man; I suggested either him or the Steve Ditko Captain Atom since neither is reflective of DC.

As for where it can go, we have several sections devoted to things like powers, origins, and types of costumes.

Captain Atom, for instance, is a good example of Silver Age superhero conceptions in that he was an astronaut (the way Green Lantern was a test pilot, both glamorous occupations for young readers at the time). While E-Man is an example both of a shapeshifter and of a humorous hero (and we have the necessarily included Plastic Man for both of those), he's also an example (for example) of a non-humanoid hero, being sentient star matter. (The only other example of that off the top of my head is the Green Lantern that's an actual planet.)

There are other Charlton hereoes we could use: The Pete Morisi Thunderbolt was one of the earliest respectful examples of Eastern philosophy in popular culture, predating its widespread inclusion in TV and film. He was also the basis for Watchmen 's Ozymandias. Steve Ditko's Killjoy is an example of Objectivist heroes, one of the few created not primarily for adventure-lit reasons but to embody political/philosophical concerns, like an editorial cartoon. To neglect any example of what was one of the major American companies of the Silver and Bronze ages — the company that first published John Byrne and gave Dick Giordano and others their stars — seems like it would be a big oversight in an encyclopedia article about superheroes.

Rorschach567, would you volunteer to maintain The Plan list? You seem like a good person for the job. --Tenebrae 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't what's being asked. What's being asked is that no where in the article is Charlton Comics or E-man mentioned. Notice how with every image in the article there is a corresponding line of text next to, directly above, or directly below it. Watchmen fits into the Deconstruction section because it's mentioned there. John Stewart is right next to his name in the Non-Caucasian characters section. Even the first image is right next to Superman's mention. No where in the article is Charlton Comics mentioned. Therefore if you wish to add the image of Charlton Comics you must first mention it in the article as I am going to do with Heroes RIGHT NOW. 67.150.175.242 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was unclear. It's acceptable in encyclopedias, reference books, etc., to use a captioned image that illustrates a point not literally or specifically mentioned in the text. For example, an entry on comets might describe comets' composition, history, and physics, and mention some famous comets such as Halley's or Kohoutek, but also have a picture of the otherwise unmentioned Hale-Bopp with a caption to the effect of "Some comets, such as Hale-Bopp, inspired cults of panic and prediction, UFO-related claims, and even group suicide". Also, please register and don't shout. --Tenebrae 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Plan Revision

1) The Ross/Lee Superman and Batman in intro

2) Spider-Man - In the common traits section

3) The Fantastic Four - In the common traits section

4) A Steve Ditko Captain Atom for a sci-fi superhero with the example in the text changed accordingly.

5) Captain American - Under common costume features

6) Some typical Japanese superhero in superheroes outside the U.S.

7) Plastic Man under types of superheroes

8) Maybe a Wolverine, vol. 3 #24 for character examples (both Daredevil and Wolverine)

9) Phantom under antecedents

10) Action Comics #1 under Golden Age, too important an issue to pass up

11) Captain Marvel also under Golden Age

12) Showcase #4 under Silver Age, an important issue and way to insert the Flash

13) Watchmen under deconstruction

14) Spawn under struggles of the ’90s

15) Wonder Woman under female superheroes

16) John Stewart Green Lantern under non-Caucasian heroes

17) X-Men (including female hero Storm) under film

18) The Incredible Hulk under live action television

19) Superman under animation

Does that satisfy everyone? Rorschach567 13:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to applaud Rorschach567 for stepping up to the plate and sifting through all the various discussions in order to synthesize a list. Bravo and thank you! --Tenebrae 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The only thing I notice is that Superman is up there three times. Should we start editing now? 67.150.174.127 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Right — Action Comics #1, plus the alpha & omega spots. Missed that. How about a different animation image at the end? Maybe something non-Marvel/DC, for diversity. The original Space Ghost (designed by the late, great Alex Toth)? The Maxx? (Something serious would be good, so as not to play into the idea that cartoons can't be dramatic. --Tenebrae 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking

Bruce Wayne) back. You bringing up Space Ghost and The Maxx reminded me about the necessity for diversity so I'm good either way. What do you think? 67.150.14.103

00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This way, we'd get Batman twice, which isn't excessive given his prominence, plus a sidekick, and we'd have the animation spot left open for something diverse.--Tenebrae 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm for a Batman and Robin from Batman: The Animated Series under animation instead of Superman. Gets Robin, a second Batman and an important animated series there. Oh, and thanks for your applause. I appriciate it. Rorschach567 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rorschach's idea 100%. An image if Batman: The Animated Series makes perfect sense. No 20th image. 67.150.10.131 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with ya. Now, about a sidekicks section....--Tenebrae 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a Sidekick section. 207.62.97.195 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's a whole 'nother thing separate from the images, for which it looks like we may have a consensus. Time to get to it, do we think? --Tenebrae 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. How about you Rorschach? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 67.150.120.12 (talk

) 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

• apprentices, growing up to become independent superheroes; e.i. Dick Grayson, the original Robin, become Nightwing and Wally West
  , the former Kid Flash, took on his mentor’s mantle after he died.

Thank you for putting in the images. I have some small ideas for tweaks but these can settle for a while. Rorschach567 00:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I DID IT!!! I really want this set of images to last until the next millennium so please no changes, no tweaking, no rearrangement without discussion. Just let the images set for a while.

Now on to the business of making this a featured article. 67.150.120.12 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Niiiiiiiice.

And, yeah.... --Tenebrae 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image-copyright tag, which has been up a month (since Sept. 13), explaining in the edit summary that each image's purpose was arrived at via long consensus process and that each image has an individual fair-use rationale. --Tenebrae 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I understand, at least from your contribution history, that you may be a newcomer. I'd like to ask you to not remove images summarily, as you did at

I absolutely can't find where from the work of Aristotle comes that second-hand quotation extracted from Hughes-Hallett's book. If anyone owns the book and can look in it for the ORIGINAL source (if there's is one, I suspect it's fake), please, add it to the text.
201.0.66.254 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can magical schoolgirls be classified as superheroes, since they do fight evil, and they do have superpowers (the magic)? I think so, but I would rather hear what you have to say. Corrupt one (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can Inspector Gadget be considered a superhero, since he had powers and fight evil? I think he is a parody of the genre. Your views would be welcome Corrupt one (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting fact that it would be nice to add is that many have alliterations for names. M. Night Shamalyan used this when naming David Dunn for Unbreakable. Notable Alliterations:

Peter Parker, Clark Kent, Bruce Banner, Matthew Murdock, Wally West and more....

Scott Summers, Warren Worthington, Brain Braddock...It's interesting but I'm not sure a defintive enough characteristic to warrant some space. Rorschach567 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

...or it could be worth pointing out that though this was common in the golden or silver age it has since fallen out of fashion? i wouldn't know where to put it though 87.113.211.169 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It would also be OR without something you can refer to. Corrupt one (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a call to for any referances to parodies of the superhero genre. i am planning on adding a sections about how people make fun of conventions. Corrupt one (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How abot we include a section called parodies into the article, and have something like this:

Block quote Parodies have become accepted. They are accepted just about anywhere. An example is in the movie X-Men, wolverine does not like the uniform he is given, and Cyclops asks him “What would you prefer, yellow spandex?" That is what the character wolverine usually wears into fights in the comics and cartoon of the X-men.

Since the people who make webcomics are more lax about what they make, and pay less attention to runs about trademark infringement and copyright, they do not hesitate to include well known superheroes, wether including them in the webcomic as a cameo, or mocking conventions. The webcomics Mechigical Girl Lisa A.N.T. features a girl who wants to become a magical schoolgirl and be a superhero like in the animations she watches who managed to get an outfit that gives her massive powers, but she is a klutz and stuff things up trying to follow the conventions in the Anime she watches. Another example is Sparkling Generation Valkyre Yuuki where a boy who like magic school anime as well gets turned into a Valkyre.

On occasion mocking superheroes can be the basis of entire shows and magazines, such as graphic novel The Pro (where a prostitute gets superpowers and links up with a group of superheroes who have versions of Green Lantern, Superman, Batman and Robin, the Flash and Wonder Woman), the movie Stuporman (which IS pornographic) and many, many issues of Mad Magazines and Cracked Magazines. The movie Mystery Men features a group of would be superheroes who accidentally kill the real superheroes death through their ineptness.

Just an idea Corrupt one (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

CC of post at User talk:71.206.231.102

This anonymous-IP user deleted a footnote reference, saying the informational was trivial because, he claims sarcastically, superheroes are also called "underwear perverts". My response at the above talk page:

RE the term "costumed crimefighter": Authoritative footnotes document this is a term used in historical and academic research. "Underwear perverts" is not, and your sarcasm demonstrates someone not behaving in good faith.

Could we get some commentary going? I think the citations speak for themselves, and given that non-super-powered characters are being called "super", I believe the clarification is needed up top for the general reader. --Tenebrae 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My actual argument:

• The term is generic and obvious -- it's like noting that "cars" may also be called "wheeled transports". True, and you probably find cites in which it's used, but it just falls straight out of them having wheels and being used for transport. Noting specifically that they may be referred to by that name places a strange false-importance on the term.
• If you want it to be more clear that some superheroes are *not* super, and rather just wear costumes and fight crimes, it would be better to state that precisely, rather than focusing on the fact that the name which falls out of that observation happens to be used.
• I mentioned "underwear perverts" not sarcastically, but actually just to note that there are more ways to refer to a stereotypical superhero. People could (and, I think, do), also use "costumed hero," "costumed vigilante," "spandex-clad vigilante," "spandex clad crime fighter," and most likely every single synonymous term. So I don't think the specific wording of the term is important.
• The references given aren't from academic research, as far as I can tell? Not that that matters much.
• I note on the other page you claim "underwear perverts" is not actually used, but at least in terms of google hits (obviously not a rigorous metric, but should give an initial sense of the landscape) I see on the order of 30,000 hits for "underwear perverts" (in quotes) and on the order of 3000 hits for "costumed crimefighters" and "costumed crime fighters" combined (both in quotes). Sure, it's recently popularized, and a silly example, but it may already be used more ...
• By the same silly google-fight metric, "costumed hero" is also more common than "costumed crimefighter".
• Shouldn't crimefighter actually be two words?

-- 71.206.231.102 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I say Superhero and costumed crimefighter (or costumed hero) are two different things. A superhero is a person who has powers beyond what is humanly possible, and a costumed hero/ crimefighter is someone who is a hero or fights crime and wears a costume. Examples on thins would be Buffy, who has inhuman strength, endurance, healing and other things, being a superhero, BUT she does not wear a costume. Also, Robin from Batman IS a costumed crimefighter and Costumed hero, BUT does not possess any super power. There IS a large overlaop, I agree, but they are seperate. I think that should be mentioned. Corrupt one (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has moved to WikiProject Comics

Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board#Costumed crimefighters. --Tenebrae 17:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a large number of types here, which I think can be whittled down to a smaller number of "primary" types that are broken into subtypes. I also think it is important to distinguish classifications that look at how powers are used from those that look at how powers are acquired. For example, "mage" tells you how the character gets his powers...he may be primarily a blaster, a mentalist, or crossover when it comes to function. Other power origins may be common (mutant, alien) but they are generally not of importance when it comes to classifying the powers. Anyway, here's a first attempt:

types by combat function

• Fighter (hand-to-hand)
  • Brick/Tank
  • Slasher/Scrapper
  • Martial Artist
• ??? (any better name than "ranged attacker"?)
  • Blaster
  • Marksman
• Mentalist
• Special (these types are more rarely seen, usually revolve around a special effect of the power)
  • Shapeshifters
    • Size Changers
  • Speedsters
  • Adjusters

types by power origin

• Mage
• Tech-driven (better name?)
  • Armored Hero
  • Dominus
  • Gadgeteer
• Elementalist

I've left out Healer because, as described, that is generally not any character's primary ability. (Of course, there are rare instances, like Mr. Immortal, where this is the defining characteristic.) Instead it is usually an additional gimmick. However, a characters based on powers that can only be used to help others could be seen as a distinct type, as a subtype of characters that adjust/influence others' abilities. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Classifying it like that would be OR, and not allowed. Also, for part about types by power origin, you left out those whoes power comes from themselves, like the Xmen, and other such people. Then you left out things like aliens. After all, Superman's powers come from him being an alien.

There are many different ways to classify superheroes, but the best thing I can think of is the way described in the book Superman On The Couch. It lists them like this, the three main types are;

• The Protector (who fights to protect the good, like Superman)
• The raging Hero (who fights out of anger, like Batman, The Punisher, Wolverine and others,)
• The Antihero (who fights not out of anger and not just to protect. It shows how Spiderman in an example)

This is a classification method with a referance that can be verified and covers the main areas. Unless you can provide a classification method with referances, this is the best bet so far for reorganizing it. It is not based on HOW they fight, their powers, or how they got their powers, it in on WHY they fight.

Corrupt one (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the existing section currently lacks citations, and my suggestion is basically a reorganization of what is already there, I don't see how this could be considered OR. From the descriptions given, it is apparent than some types are related (hierarchy), and that some classifications are based on power usage where others are based on power origin. Making this explicit simply makes the article more readable. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your idea that it would not be OR is wrong. It would imply at all the types of superheroes can be classified in those ways. It would also mean you have looked at what there is, and come up with something. That right there is OR.

It would consitantly revised as being change things to add new things, and to alter things to as they deem right. The organization part I gave about WHY they fight does have a referancale source, and can't be changed.

Any work of your own, excepting pointing out things in other peoples works, contitutes OR. We can list things as a general guideline, ( I think). We will have to check the rules on that one. Until someone checks the rules and finds out if it is or is not allowed, it would be best NOT to put it up.

I provided some examples of how your systems did not fully work, with aliens and the X men. Things will never be fully perfect, I agree, BUT, all that is added to Wikipedia MUST be from REFERANCIBLE sources! Those are the rules.

I like the gerneal idea, and would actually like there to be a classification system, BUT I would not like it to be show down.

Saying that, I would like anyone who has found any way to classify superheroes in a referance source, please mention here what they have found, and where.

Corrupt one (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then remove what we already have, since it is unreferenced. Stick to your principles, or get out of the way and let someone improve the article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I had not really looked much at the article, and thus had not really noticed it. I agree that there should be a thing about types of superheroes, and that it must be referanced. i also admit that people most probably can't find anything. I guess SOMETHING is better then nothing, but I would SOMEONE to provide something with referances. If you want to change it, I won't stop you, BUT if someone cames up with something referanced, I would be for your work being moved over and letting theirs move in. Corrupt one (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not D&D, where not dividing them into classes for our saving role. OMG!!! I just leveled up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.232 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with the elementalist, The definition there says they control natural elements or part of the naturla world. the Human Torch does not control fire he manifests it while the mutant Pyro controls fire. additionaly Magneto is a better choice than Polaris as he is better known to comic book readers and the general population.--70.24.140.170 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think some of the homosexual superhero stuff should be removed. I am not against homosexuality at all, but a lot of kids are going to be reading this and parents won't like it, plus it almost seems offensive to seperate homosexuals in such a way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VanderTE (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, in the article the topic is only in a single location, which also deals with other diversity issues. - jc37 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, if Wikipedia starts censoring articles because they "Might be offensive" we may as well all start living in a delusion. Censorship of any topic on wikipedia would be bad, but what you propose would be one of the worst ways I could think of. The appearance of gay superheros, like that of non-white and female superheroes, is an important milestone in the genre.--Pyritefoolsgold 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about it being offensive to have a seperate section for homosexual superheros, this isn't segregation, this is a section about an important trend in the history of comics. We might sometime see a day when a superhero being gay is no more noteworthy than having blonde hair, but the fact is, once a comic would have been banned for having any gay characters at all, and taking the risk to change that is a noteworthy action.--12.72.235.146 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone edits things because they just don't like it, and remove information, that can be classifiable as vandalism. If the section is in bad taste, they can work on it, BUT they must keep all the information there! Corrupt one (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IF we went on that logic, then we should censor black superhero's too, and aliens, for "aliens". Stupid comment. There are gay people in the world, and comics reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.232 (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A less emotionally charged argument would be the wikipedia is not neccesarily approriate for children under a certain age. luckily the lack of animated characters keeps them from spending much time here. Before raising any concerns over homosexuality (a non-explicit topic) look to article on sex, masturbation or ejaculation, no censorship is practised there and children of 8-12 are just as likly to look them up as they are superheroes. The only parents who should be worried are those who rely on the computer as a baby sitter. the worse case scenario is that children may learn some truth about homosexuality.--70.24.140.170 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, removinging things just because you do not like them is classifiable as vandalism, and we must also take bad taste into account. So, leave things relevent to the superhero section there, but to not focus on a few areas. If you do focus on them, or censor them out, then the article will not be NPOV and will be biased. Both things to avoid. Also, I agree that children will look at this area, however, parent should be watching them. It is very easy to come across porn on the Internet when not even trying, and anyone who would leave the internet as a kind of babysitter should expect them to find this.

Wikipedia is susposed to be an encyclopedia, using the resourses of its members to grow. If we censor it because we do not think something is appropiate, we are in vilation of that principle. It would also be a bit like how some libraries and schools have gotten into trouble because they put filtering programs up that blocked them accessing clasic arts sites, medical sites, and other such sites (even though in high school we had a filter, and I found 150 ways around.)If people are ultimatly worried about children coming across adult stuff here, the only way to avoid them seeing it is to restrict wikipedia to those of legal age to see it. We have things like manga, which is a style of animation, linking to a page about a man who, in Japan, is an informous pornographer of his time as he ws the one who started the styler called manga, and came up with the term.

Just add the information, providing resourses and refferances, and try to keep it in good taste as much as possible. Corrupt one (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2008-05/080506-superheroes-at-the-met-the-fashion-eye-view.aspx may have lots of useful stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Plastic Man 17.jpg
• Image:Spawn Classic.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem Solved66.81.251.184 (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Should the silver masked mexican luchador Santo be included. He has been published in comics and always treated as a hero in the movies. --189.200.113.1 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Surten

The whole section on the history of superheroes has almost no sources, which raises a lot of questions. Let's take the section on "deconstruction" for example - what exactly is the definition of this term? Does it even have a precise, agreed-on definition? If so, where can we find it? Is it in any way related to Derrida's deconstruction? Do comic book scholars even agree that "superhero deconstruction" is/was a legitimate phenomenon? If so, how many books belong to this trend? The article lists only a handful, yet it treats "deconstruction" as a separate phase of comic book history - is it really on the same level of importance as Golden and Silver Ages? And it's the same with "struggles of the 90s" and up to the present day - is it a consensus view of comic book scholars, or just someone's vision? What scholarly texts discuss superhero history? How much of it is disputed? And why does this account focus solely on American superheroes? Without sources, this section of the article raises more questions than it answers. By the way - yes, I know that the whole section has the "original research" warning, but is has been there for a long time and nothing is being done. Perhaps it would be better to delete this section entirely if no one can fix it? 195.206.112.113 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone even taking care of this page? You've got a potentially misleading, completely unsourced, probably incomplete and clearly biased section that's been tagged since September 2007 and nothing is being done with it. I'm changing the name to include the word "American" - let's see if that gets anyone's attention.

195.206.112.113 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved this list here as i think it is redundant - we have a whole article just for listing superheroes. This just seems to be here to allow fans to list their favourites in as many places as possible:

While the typical superhero is described above, a vast array of superhero characters have been created and many break the usual pattern:

• Rorschach
  , are unapologetic.
• While many superheroes are accepted by the communities they protect, some, such as Spider-Man, Outsiders and the X-Men, have generally been viewed with suspicion or disapproval by some of the press and general public.
• Some superheroes have been created and employed by national governments to serve their interests and defend the nation.
  The Ultimates, in particular, work directly under the U.S. government and are used as a metaphor for U.S. military and political power. The Savage Dragon is virtually unique in that he began his superhero career as police officer, rather than a costumed vigilante. Wonder Woman
  in her day job works for the government as an agent.
• Many superheroes have never had a
  The Fantastic Four. Others who once had secret identities, such as Captain America and Steel, later made their identities public. The third Flash and Iron Man
  are rare examples of "public" superheroes who regain their secret identities.
• The Hulk is usually defined as a superhero, but he has a Jekyll/Hyde
  relationship with his alter ego. When enraged, scientist Bruce Banner becomes the super-strong Hulk, a creature of little intelligence and self-control. His actions have often either inadvertently or deliberately caused great destruction. As a result, he has been hunted by the military and other superheroes.
• While most superheroes traditionally gained their abilities through accidents of science,
  genetic mutants whose abilities naturally manifest at puberty
  . Mutants more often have difficulty controlling their powers than other superheroes and are persecuted as a group.
• Some superhero identities have been used by more than one person. A character (often a close associate or family member) takes on another's name and mission after the original dies, retires or takes on a new identity.
  Black Panther both adopted personae and missions that have lasted several generations. Superheroes who have inherited their roles or taken them up after the example of a relative or ancestor, have been referred to as legacy heroes.^{[citation needed}
  ]
• mythological gods reinterpreted as superheroes. Wonder Woman, while not a goddess, is a member of the Amazon tribe
  .
• Ghost Rider and Hellboy are actual demons
  who have been manipulated by circumstance into being forces of good.
• extraterrestrials who have, either permanently or provisionally, taken it upon themselves to protect the planet Earth. Adam Strange, conversely, is a human being who protects the planet Rann
  .
• Some characters tread the line between superhero and villain because of a permanent or temporary change in character or because of a complex, individualistic moral code. These include
  Elektra, Black Adam and Venom. This change often coincides with a spin-off series in which the character must be a likable protagonist. The Thunderbolts and the Suicide Squad
  are teams made up mostly of former villains acting as super heroes.
• Because the superhero is such an outlandish and recognizable character type, several comedic heroes have been introduced, including
  Mad Magazine
  featured several parodies of superheroes and count as some of the first satiric treatments of this subject matter.
• The title characters of the franchise Gargoyles are powerful warrior creatures who have an instinctual need to protect their territory and the beings living in it, although that need can be broadly interpreted by individuals.
• The heroic Autobots of
  Transformers Animated
  is unusual in that the Autobots perform more traditional superhero duties as well as fighting the Decepticons.

I agree that this list right here could probably use a little work to move out all of the unnecessary tidbit. But please don't just move something without holding a discussion about moving it first.207.233.124.3 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote at the beginning of this article references a New York State Court of Appeals case, National Periodical Publications, Inc. v. Empire Comics, Inc. This legal definition and case is given in the fiction novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. I have been unable to find this case in the Court's archives, and have emailed them asking if such a case existed. Can anyone verify that this is an actual court ruling? If this case doesn't exist, then the quote's source needs to be changed. I'm pretty sure that Empire Comics never existed, either. The novel follows 2 fictional comic artists and the development of a fictional series of comic books, which started as Radio Comics and went on to become Empire Comics. (See pages 587-588 of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, by Michael Chabon)

The problem is, the information provided by this article is being quoted all over the internet as fact, and the court case may be a fictional creation. If anyone has any information about an actual court case, please let me know. (Albauerly (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albauerly (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states "super hero" is a trademark but the reference says "superhero"

The article says "The two-word version of the term is a trademark co-owned by DC Comics and Marvel Comics."

ref quoted says "(words only): SUPERHERO" - one word version

What's happening here should we change this?

Carlwev (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All sources I've looked up regarding the trademark say that you can't get around it by using different forms of the word. I.e., "superhero," "super-hero," and "super hero" are all the same word for the purposes of trademark enforcement. Also, you can use the word within the pages of a comic book freely, you just can't use it on the title page, which would indicate a brand name or trademark use of the word. So the whole theory about the current use of the words "ultras" and "metas" and so forth as synonyms for superhero being trademark dodges isn't true.

http://goodcomics.blogspot.com/2006/03/superhero-trademark-faq.html

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/20/1349236

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=6738 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.213.178 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"the 19th century protagonists of Victorian literature, such as the masked adventurer The Scarlet Pimpernel" --I've seen this repeated many times in Superhero discussions, I honestly think people get their image of the Pimpernel from the Daffy Duck Scarlet Pumpernickel cartoon where he wears a mask, cape and costume like Zorro's. The Pimpernel did not wear a mask, cape nor was there any form of Pimpernel costume. He impersonated people by wearing many disguises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orzzo (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why there isn't a criticism section?--201.201.1.162 (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It moved to superhero fiction.--207.96.47.130 (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The current Starfire, who's wiki page is linked to in the text, has been around almost 30 years (since 1980), not "four decades"; further, a comparison of the cover of New Teen Titans #1 (http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/4/18575-3036-20776-1-new-teen-titans-the_super.jpg) and any recent image of Starfire would show not much change in her costume; finally, the description of her costume is outright wrong -- for example, she doesn't wear a mask. (Never mind that the garment usually called "a thong" is a "pelvic covering".) Coyote6 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is unsourced, unresearched POV piece with some imagined agenda regarding comic book mysogny, I'm removing the whole thing. Why? I'll review:

"In American comics, superheroines often sport improbably large breasts and an illogical lack of muscle-mass, and their costumes sexualise their wearers almost as a matter of course. For example, Power Girl's includes a small window between her breasts; Emma Frost's costume traditionally resembles erotic lingerie; and Starfire's started as a full-body covering and has, over four decades, been reduced to a thong, pelvic covering, mask, and stiletto heels. This visual treatment of women in American comics has led to accusations of systemic sexism and objectification."

I've give the writer the improbably large breasts part, but what would be the logical muscle mass? Someone as strong as Superman would have to have arms the size of a whale...yes, the whole whale...so comic books take what is known as "poetic license". Power Girl occasionally has a window between her breasts, which anyone familiar with the character knows was a deliberate jab at the editor by creator Wally Wood. He specifically wanted to see what he could get away with, and liked the idea of a super-powerful woman who was not only able to have the males on her team drooling on her, but she would make a point of snubbing their interests as an independant, liberated woman. As for Emma Frost, she kind of, sort of has a costume that looks like lingerie, primarily because the costume comes from the in-story plot about her being a member of a mutant group that emulated a 19th century gentleman's club, hence the corset and garters. Rather than being a victim of such a group, Frost is the White Queen of the Hellfire Club, and so important as a leader that she is one of only six villains on the planet to be invited to join Norman Osbourn's Cartel. In the last case of Starfire, the previous writer is correct, she doesn't wear a mask, hasn't been around for 40 years, and never, ever wore a full-body covering. A major point of the character's personality is that she is a member of an alien race who have no qualms about displaying sexuality, and Starfire would just as soon be flying around naked. The writer of the above section of the article has taken a few unusually extreme examples to demonstrate quite a generalization. For instance, Sue Storm of the Fantastic Four has always worn a full bodysuit, and the Huntress shows little skin. Do superheroes, both male and female, wear tight fitting outfits? Yes! One reason is they are by nature, very physically active and two, body forms are much easier to draw than clothes! Finally, the idea that anything has "led to accusations" are merely weasel words. I might say that the writer of that paragraph is a dope, then turn about and say the quality of her research "has led to accusations of low intelligence". I'm taking out that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.107.55 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a devil's advocate but, there is a nugget or two of truth to the section - the depiction of women in comics has gone through cycles of questionable content and intent. That goes as far back as the bondage elements in the original Wonder Woman stories and the 1940s costume designs used for her, Phantom Lady, various "jungle girls", and so on. The result is that there has been a some characters depicted wearing what would be considered "daring" attire for the time the comic was published, even the Huntress who was introduced with a neck line that almost hit the belt line. Wonder Woman is a good example of this since we've got 70 years worth of costume evolution to look at. Also, regardless of the personality, position, or competency given the character by the writer, the immediate impact is going to be the visual - both in clothing and pose. True, Sue Storm's costume covers her from neck to toe, but put the character in a suggestive pose and the covering doesn't matter.

The problem isn't that the section raises the issues, it's that it doesn't present reliable sourcing for them. Something more than the Gadfly column is needed. A lot more actually. Otherwise all that is there is

personal observations and conclusions

.

- J Greb (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Devil, I think you miss the point, but only just slightly. Of course women in comics are and have been portrayed as sexual..women ARE sexual, nothing wrong with that. The reason I eliminated the paragraph I did was that it intended to lead to the conclusion that women in comics are portrayed as NOTHING MORE than sex objects, and that simply ain't true. (i.e. "systemic sexism and objectification") Most of the information presented to support that conclusion was either misleading or plain factually wrong. Even the bondage elements you refer to in early Wonder Woman were intended to support the idea that women had an almost innate ability to tame men's more destructive urges, as the men "submit to a loving authority", rather than portray WW as anyone's victim. BTW, the inclusion of Marston's WW concepts would go well in the "women in comics" section. So, I agree that women in comics have been portrayed as sexy or sexual, sometimes as sex objects and, sometimes not, but to present the idea that comic books generally take the position that women should be victimized, that would be a big, big stretch. 166.216.128.77 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do superheroes generally have weaknesses, such as kryptonite (and I believe magic) for superman? It seems to me (and Beth Morling) that superheroes do generally have a weakness but that is not even research. How about "And that’s what makes them even more interesting. Almost all superheroes have a human element of frailty or weakness. For some it’s an Achilles heel (like kryptonite for Superman) but for others it’s a personality behavioural issue that they’re always dealing with. " [4] "Samuel Jackson’s character explains to Bruce Willis that water is his Kryptonite. "[5] A list here [6] another list here [7] and here [8] and here [9] - all blogs, or worse, not sufficiently objective. All the same though, a weakness seems to be an important part of being a superhero. Scholarly articles? I added weaknesss in. The whole article is full of original research. Remove weakness and the rest of the unreferenced, if you wish. --Timtak (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "special weakness" as such was a plot element of early all-powerful superheroes, with a large numbers of vast superpowers, so they got an "achilles heel" so that their enemies could at least resist for a pair of pages. It became an outdated thing when superheroes were not provided with such a variety of super powers, but only with one or two (and perhaps small powers that come as a consequence of the main one). The "weakness" wasn't then a specific trait, just the thing the character can not do (such as not being able to fly), and has to work around it or use his powers in a creative manner to compensate. Notice that super heroes created since the last times of the silver age to this day, such as Wolverine, Silver Surfer, Ms. Marvel, Orion, Starfire, Cyborg, etc.; do not have any "weakness" that may be compared with Superman's kryptonite. Even with Superman himself, kryptonite is not approached as a plot element like it used to be during the first days.

talk

) 13:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)