Talk:ShadowHawk (character)

Old cleanup talk

• Big Bang Comics and Shadowhawk, two pages about comic books published by Image Comics, are a chaotic mess. No framing, little description, reliance on lists to fill up space, lots of grammatical mistakes and red links. Both were created by the same user, who claims to be dyslexic, but insists on writing anyway. --Pc13 18:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please tell AdyCarter the guy who works for Minimates to stop removing links that mention these comic's new toylines! He is promoting a toy line called minimates he works for and removing other toy companies mentions from WIKI and that is being a vandel!

I dont work for any toy companies, its my personal feeling that until these products are actually released or at elast officially solicited to stores they are non encylopedic, I could announce a toyline but it means nothing. Also please note that the above unisgned talk comment is by the owner of ShockerToys who has a long history of having entire Wiki articles removed as he views it as his advertising playground. I'm not removing the line listed as yopur first wave anymore, but plastering your company over every page even vaguely related to a line you may make was rediculous. Adycarter 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry you are just a crazy luntatic fan then, my mistake. Glad you left it up and decided to stop being a baby aout the whole thing. Oh and I am not Shocker Toys but do live in Niagara Falls, you must be good with IPs.

More cleanup talk

The Vanentino stuff needs serious editing.

Okay, this is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia I have ever read. The grammar is horrendous, including not only a myriad of spelling errors but a plethora of nearly non-sensicle sentences. I can't even understand what the author is talking about at some points. This is fairly frustrating for the reader, I imagine, and myself because when I was a kid I enjoyed this comic and wanted to know more about its background. Get this guy to come back and fix this travesty.

Agreed, this is in extremely poor condition. I've added this article to the Wikiproject Copyedit To Do list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/to_do

I made a few small changes, but I don't really know where to begin. Having never read the original comic I'm not sure which sentences are poorly written and which are outright errors. Markeer 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I went from the beginning of the article and worked my way down to the "Interlude" break. I attempted to reword/fill in some gaps in the pre-existing structure and reorganised the sections a little since some of their previous arrangements did not fall in with the logic presented in the article by the original writer. If I've made anything worse, anyone is at liberty to revert my edits as they so choose. Hopefully that helps the article look a bit better though. TheMonkofDestiny 09:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note, I've noticed that according to this: http://www.weirdspace.dk/Shadowline/Paul%20Johnstone.htm the character's origin is grossly untold in the article. If I can remember to come back to this article I can see about writing up something more fitting unless I am beaten to it. TheMonkofDestiny 09:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin section created/rewritten. Hopefully without too many inaccuracies. TheMonkofDestiny 10:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The series section was confusing originally and looking at it again it still makes less sense than it truly should. TheMonkofDestiny 10:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Great re-write of the origin section TheMonkofDestiny! I was hoping someone would come along and do this. I hope you don't mind, I made a textual pass at this section. For the most part I just removed the passive voice since it's a superhero piece (so should have 'action' verb forms). However, that's a subjective judgement call and I wouldn't be offended if it was changed back. Markeer 15:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to it. Nothing is ever truly "definitive" as far as the Wikipedia is concerned so any attempts to make it better won't be met with objection from me. TheMonkofDestiny 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ok guys i have a big problem with this page. i havnt even started reading it yet, just skimmed but i notice it says he died of HIV. errrr, sorry but that can't happen. HIV is a virus that causes AIDS. and i think u have AIDS for years before it kills you. SO there must have been a point when it developed and it should surely say he died from AIDS not HIV. correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think i am... (sorry if u don't like the bold, just wanted to get my voice heard. no offemce/shouting etc was meant)— ChocolateRoses ^talk

You're right. He did die of AIDS, not HIV. And it was revealed, I believe in the ShadowHawk II mini-series, that he'd lived with AIDS for awhile before dying in the final issue. Michael24 8:07, 26 December 2006

Shadowhawk II/Jim Valentino's Shadowhawk split?

I noticed that the two seem to be separate series but only one is tagged with for a split. I can see the reasoning behind the split so I am just actually opening up the area for discussion in case there's any disagreement. TheMonkofDestiny 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning to split, but there have been two schools of thought about this for comics. Obviously Green Lantern or Robin are examples of a superhero name taken by several individuals, but the standard seems to be to create a 'main' article about the character name/legacy and give some details about each. If more detail is needed/warrented, provide a link to the 'main article'. Obviously this is also affected by the significance of the character. Starman (comics) for instance gives descriptions of all of the many characters with that name, but only re-links to those individuals who have been notable using that psuedonym. For Shadowhawk it seems as if the mantle of this character was passed cleanly from one person to another, so I'd say keep it all in one article as with articles such as Phantom Lady or Black Canary.Markeer 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. One article is enough for this character. Cybertooth85 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some changes to the structure could be made, at the very least. The way the article is laid out from a visual perspective only makes it seem like it is in a state of disarray. Essentially splitting the second ShadowHawk article could serve to make it look less cluttered but I can see the validity of keeping it together. Either way whomever originally tagged it for the possibility of the split failed to open up the discussion for it and it seemed only fair to do that so someone wouldn't come along and simply make a rash decision and split it without checking whether a consensus was reached regarding it or not.TheMonkofDestiny 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming

After completing more copyeditting on the article, I double-checked the convention of ShadowHawk's name. In fandom, it's commonly spelled as Shadowhawk, and every cover after the first mini-series maintains this. But, Jim Valentino, the character's creator, has ShadowHawk spelled with an upper-case second H in every place the character is mentioned. While people may be more familiar with the Shadowhawk spelling, the creator's word would seem to be the final say. Arguments?

I had a feeling this was going to come up when I began copyediting as well. I based my changes on the way the article itself is named, i.e. with the lowercase second "h", since the covers to the first series of comic books themselves did not serve to show whether one way was the "correct" way or not. I'd suggest that if Valentino has an email link set up on his site (currently I have not checked it myself) then writing an email and posing the question regarding the instance of whether the name should be spelled one way for both instances of the hero or two separate ways for each distinct incarnation would be an avenue to consider traveling. Personally, I have no real objection to either instance. TheMonkofDestiny 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim Valentino posts regularly on the Image Comics message board, and he has said there before that ShadowHawk (with a capital second "H") is the correct spelling. Michael24 18 December 2006

Surely such issues are unimportant when you read the thing. It's still like reading a foreign language in some parts -- NOT a good article. Even the new stuff, and i can't edit it, I'm not a reader of this title.— ChocolateRoses ^talk

Contest

If I recall correctly Shadowhawk is fairly notable in that it did not state his civilian identity for several issues. They offered clues as to who it may be, but did not outright say. Then Image had a contest for people to figure out who Shadowhawk really was. Am I wrong here? If I'm not, isn't it worthwhile adding this gimmick? 71.192.54.222 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the identity and the contest. It deserves a mention in the article. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:ShadowHawk (character)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

class="assess-b " style="background: #b2ff66; text-align: center; " | B

Last edited at 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Dead links

Just an FYI, the first 3 links are all broken. HCA (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)