Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radar Sense

There needs to be a little more detailed mention of his "radar sense" in the powers and abilities section. It isn't even mentioned at all

Isn't it just due to a combination of his remaining senses? --Newt ΨΦ 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah; I think the idea of an actual, pulsing internal radar has been retconned out or they're at least being as vague as possible to allow for a "combined senses" interpretation. If this isn't so, then we could use a citation from Marvel Encyc. or somewhere for the latest edit... ka1iban 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
My addition may need to be removed, as I used the marvel.com profile of Daredevil. --Newt ΨΦ 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


The introduction describes the "radar sense" as "sonar sense". If it's not called this in the books, why call it that in the into?? 88.108.127.110

"superhuman agility

I removed that shit of "Daredevil also possesses superhuman agility, dexterity and reflexes, allowing for acrobatic and gymnastic feats exceeding those of Olympic athletes. Daredevil has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to evade a bullet fired at point-blank range. He has shown unerring precision with thrown and missile weapons, and has waded through hails of gunfire and fragments without sustaining a single injury.

Daredevil has a level of physical endurance and pain threshold that seems to border on superhuman, at times. He has shown the ability to survive extreme injuries and blood loss, debilitating disease and crippling pain. In many cases, Daredevil has demonstrated himself to still be combat-capable and extremely effective in times of these great physical stresses..."

Because it's FALSE. He doesn't have superhuman agility or anything like that. His agility is from training in acrobatics and martial arts which require a flexible, agile practicioner. Whoever put down that he is a superhuman acrobat is an IDIOT.

Check the info HERE. http://www.spiderfan.org/characters/daredevil.html

First of all, there's no need for the flagrant cursing and belittling of the previous editors. Secondly, Marvel.com's profile of Daredevil does list him as an Olympic-level athlete, while I agree that the "superhuman" is incorrect, there are other ways to approach disagreement. --Newt ΨΦ 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That contributor obviously saw all the things DD does and (rather reasonably and correctly) realised that it's impossible for an ordinary athlete to do, but yes, it is false. 88.108.127.110

Film Appearance

Didn't daredevil appear in one of the made for TV Incredible Hulk movies? The costume was black and very different, but the whole blind lawyer/superhero thing was intact, and the kingpin was even in it. Does anyone have enough information to add this?

Moved

I moved it back to (comics). It being (Marvel Comics), with {comics} being a redirect, was just redundant. The user who had moved it noted how a character named Captain Marvel appears in both DC and Marvel; there is no other major comicbook character named Daredevil. --DrBat 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually? I dont know if he counts as "major" but there is another Daredevil in comics. check out Daredevil (Golden Age) ka1iban 00:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That character is very obscure, and not comparable to the Captain Marvels that DC and Marvel have. And Daredevil (comics) was just a redirect to Daredevil (Marvel Comics), which is redundant. --DrBat 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The character actually is not obscure in the encyclopedic history of comics. The Golden Age Daredevil was one of the biggest-selling superheroes of its time, and has continued to influence creators
Pete Morisi designed Charlton Comics' hero Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt in homage to the legednary creators Jack Cole and Charles Biro's Golden Age Daredevil, after being unable to secure the rights to that Daredevil itself. This Daredevil-inspired member of the Charlton "Action Heroes" became a DC character, and as well inspired the Watchmen character Ozymandias. Alex Ross and Mark Waid, in fact, went back to the GA DD's costume when depicting Thunderbolt in Kingdom Come. And in the Marvel series Mutant X the alternate universe Matt Murdock wore a costume similar to the GA DD's as an homage.
The Steranko History of Comics 2 devotes much space to the GA DD, as do other books about the Golden Age. Present-day popularity aside, the GA DD is as prominent as silent-movie comedian Harold Lloyd -- the average person may not know who that is, but in terms of film history, he's far from obscure.
To list only Marvel's Daredevil -- whose stories I and others love, though he's often been referred to as a lesser Marvel hero -- as "Daredevil (comics)" does an historical disservice, and it's technically inaccurate: There is another "Daredevil (comics)" who is certainly notable to folks like Alex Ross and Mark Waid, so there's really no reason not to have the heading be Daredevil (Marvel Comics). If nothing else, it's just more detailed and accurate. — Tenebrae 04:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolution?

Noticed theres been a back and forth on this. Dr Bat's argument is that theres no need for a useless redirect. Tenebrae's argument is that the Golden Age character is essential. Why not have Daredevil (comics) be a disambig page of its own, with links to Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and Daredevil (Golden Age)? GodzillaWax 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Daredevil (Marvel Comics) / Daredevil (Golden Age)

I thank you GW, and given that are are two Daredevils in comics, both of which are prominent, and that the editor reverting hasn't brought it up in Discussion, Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and Daredevil (Golden Age) is a more accurate way to go. -- Tenebrae 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

12 Images on this page

Does this strike anyone else as a bit much? It is starting to look like we're just throwing in images for the sake of it, no? AriGold 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess one of the Gene Colan images and the "I Am Your God" one can be taken out.--CyberGhostface 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Maleev collage seems kind of pointless. As does the varient cover to #82. I actually liked the "I am your God" in reference to the Catholicism section, but I guess it's not needed. The Kingpin cover probably isn't needed. A few of the covers are there just to illustrate his costume it looks like. Maybe we should do something like the Wolverine page see here, where they have a section detailing his uniforms and they use several comic covers/images to illustrate it? AriGold 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Variant cover is good because it shows what Brubaker's run is about.--CyberGhostface 22:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you guys all think, I just didn't know if it seemed excessive to anyone else? While we're on the subject of images, has anyone seen the image used on the Foggy Nelson page? It's like Japanamation or something, just awful, imho. AriGold 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If all the images were cluttered together, that'd be one thing (see Nightwing, for example). But they seem to be spaced out, and the article is pretty long anyway.

The Namor image seems a little 'eh' to me, even if it was the first cover to feature DD in his red outfit, though. --DrBat 22:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I think on all the respective images.
  • Namor: DD's first red costume.
  • Brother, Take My Hand: Eh on this, although its supposedly Stan Lee's favorite issue.
  • DD 181: Shows Miller's run.
  • Guardian Devil: Representative of Smith's run.
  • 'Collage': Representative of Bendis's run, although the covers for Out and Hardcore would work just as well.
  • Variant: Representative of the new run.
  • Yellow costume: Good for his origin.
  • I Am Your God: Represents his origin.
  • Elektra: Matt's love interests.
  • Kingpin: Matt's enemies.
  • Movie: 'nuff said.
So I think all the pictures are for the most part good. They all fit one specific section of the article.

Reductions

I agree that maybe there's too many. IMO, the Brother Take My Hand, the collage and the movie poster could all go. The rest I think are solid. Im going to go ahead and be proactive about this. Obviously feel free to change as things get discussed. GodzillaWax 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated how the pics worked. The majority of those pics fit the article and their specific sections. Its not like we just have random pics of DD posing scattered around. I'm willing to get a better pic for the Bendis run, but why have pics for two out of three of the major runs? Going to revert it.--CyberGhostface 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to muddy up the waters any further, but would there be any precedent for having an image of his "grim and gritty" Fall From Grace costume? ka1iban 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there's no other pic for the section, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We're now up to 13

I think GodzillaWax's version made this page look better. Peronally, I say remove the #47, the "darker design", #50, the "God" one, #170 and even the infobox picture (and use vol 2 #1 instead). I am not going to just do it and make waves because I know some fanboys can't hanld this page not looking the way they want it. But that's just my opinion. The page looks like it has too many images, imho. We don't need 3 Maleev images, some probably don't qualify as fair use (including the #170 one that I uploaded) and It's starting to look more like a gallary than an article. Again, just my opinion. AriGold 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet you're complaning because its not the way you want it. But whatever, the page is fine right now.--CyberGhostface 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I am offering mu opinion, it's not a complaint, it's a critique. I admit that I have even contributed to the problem by inserting the Kingpin issue and that some of them probably don't qualify under fair use. AriGold 13:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly Guys

Theres way too many pics on this page; they dominate the actual content of the page. Not every section needs its own image. We should just try for landmark pics - first red costume, pic for Millers run, pic for Guardian Devil, pic for Bendis, etc. Pic for Brubaker is good too since its topical. But really, its gone overboard now. GodzillaWax 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I removed some pics, moved others around, and added a cover gallery. Is this a relatively pleasing solution for everybody? GodzillaWax 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There's room for other costumes. Not all the pics are the greatest - it was hard to find a good Matt Murdock one. GodzillaWax 19:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

Given that it was this legendary artist's signature character, and that he drew over 100 issues of Daredevil, it's important to have a representative piece of Colan art here.

Also, is the current superherobox image really the best shot of Daredevil? He's mostly in shadow; he's not even waist-up, let alone full body; and handcuffed is not a respenative image of the Daredevil's usual state. It's like having him there in his old costume -- yes, it happened, but it's not how the character is usually seen. -- Tenebrae 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Publication History vs. Character History

The great Tenebrae/GodzillaWax Battle of 2005/2006 has come to an amicable end, with the agreement being that Tenebrae will work on Publication History and that I will work on Character History, with each not touching the others realm. A result though is that some things are going to be duplicated in each section (since, for example, I cant remove duplicate points from his section). So if other editors want to contribute to making things less redundant, cheers.

I think a good general rule of what belongs in Publication History is things of historical context or issues of creator involvement and the like. Conversely, Character History should have plot points and developments in Murdocks life. Cheers GodzillaWax 11:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for wording change

Per Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly:

Phrases to avoid include "recently", "in modern times", "now considered", "is soon to become", and "the sixties"; instead use phrases such as "as of October 2001" or "the 1960s." In many cases, such statements are also more precise.
Imagine someone is reading your words in six months, five, ten, fifty years. Will they still make sense?
Using precise language that will not sound dated if the article is never edited again is considered the best practice.

Per Mediation agreement (long story), I'd like to ask fellow editors to fix the "recently"s and the "not yet been seen" in the two items below (and elsewhere in the article if you see it). The whole phrase "the ramifications of which have not yet been seen" can probably go, since that can be said of any plot occurrence. They all have ramifications, and who knows what will be seen in the future even if there are immediate ramifications. (See Bucky, for instance.)

  • Luke Cage — hero for hire with unbreakable skin, has become one of Daredevil's closest friends in recent years. Matt's public denial of his life as Daredevil has strained their relationship.
  • Gladiator — former villain turned close friend and bodyguard. Was recently coerced into betraying Daredevil, the ramifications of which have not yet been seen.

— Tenebrae 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The agreement was just not to touch Character History - the rest is fair game I think. GodzillaWax 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Daredevil

There's no independent article on Ultimate Daredevil, and seeing as how he's only appeared in Ultimate X-Men, Ultimate Marvel Team-Up, and Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra as far as I know, I think it should probably just be an addition to the standard Daredevil (Marvel Comics) article rather than it's own.

Thoughts?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is no more info you can add then merge it.

Requested move

Daredevil (Marvel Comics) → Daredevil (comics) … Rationale: Yeah, I know I'm opening a scab, but per WP:NC and WP:D, this is overdisambiguated. There is only other article about a Daredevil in comics - a character who has been out-of-print for almost fifty years, and which could be served by a link at the top of the article. Given that the Marvel Comics DD is in-use and has been constantly for forty years, and has also been adapted to movie form and the character has appeared in various animated series, I think that a safe presumption can be made that the vast majority of people looking for an article about a Daredevil in comics will be looking for the MC one. - SoM 03:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Support. --DrBat 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. as someone stated above "given that are are two Daredevils in comics, both of which are prominent,Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and Daredevil (Golden Age) is a more accurate way to go."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs)
One of whom is a character who has been out-of-print for almost fifty years. --DrBat 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Relevance of that? It doesn't change the fact that there is another Daredevil in comics, and one certainly well-known to comics professionals and historians. -- Tenebrae 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Support.--CyberGhostface 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Daredevil (Marvel Comics) succintly describes what it is, and is not over disambiguation. Look at all the Star Trek articles... they are xxx (Star Trek), not xxx (TV). Hell several characters are xxx (Star Trek) and not xxx (character) when they could be. 132.205.45.110 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:NCCom, it's "(comics)" unless it causes confusion - SoM 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It's simply factually incorrect to have "Daredevil (comics)". There is a major other Daredevil in comics besides Marvel's, and it's grossly unencyclopedic to pretend the earlier Daredevil never existed or is somehow less notable. The Golden Age Daredevil sold millions of copies per issue, far more than Marvel's Daredevil. A sense of history is vital to an encyclopedia. This is not a fan publication. -- Tenebrae 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I agree with all of the above. Actually, the older Daredevil would be more notable than the current one, if we want to get technical... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree with you in terms of historical importance, but I'd caution against phrases like "if we want to get technical" when there's no basis for saying that. Agree as I do, it's still opinion — there's no technical reference or handbook.--Tenebrae 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Help With Character History

Howdy all. I've been way too busy to work on this page, regrettably. Can someone(s) help a brother out and beef up the character history part? It was never supposed to be as short as it is. Cheers GodzillaWax 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Defenders

Pretty sure DD was never a Defender...try this page http://www.marvel.com/universe/Defenders ka1iban 14:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From the same article --> "The team also attracted an eclectic array of recurring associates such as Daredevil, Yellowjacket and Devil-Slayer." GodzillaWax 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for that page. The non-team had a very loose definition of membership and everyone who fought alongside them was as much a Defender as the rest of them. Daredevil served in "Giant-Size Defenders" #3 , "Defenders" #24-25, 40, 88-91, 103-104, 106-107. See for example his listing in the Marvel Chronology Project. I think there are available summarries for at least some of those stories for further detail. User:Dimadick

I guess what's important to me is that it's an official MARVEL page, and in three lists of members (current, former, reserve etc etc) they don't mention DD ka1iban 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Marvel is notorious for its poor research of its own history. I usually distrust any "official" information because it tends to fall apart when researching the actual issues. User:Dimadick

Yep, Daredevil was a Defender on several occasions. Doczilla 09:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Too Big, too big !

At last edit this article is 47 kilobytes too long. Help find to cut it down ?--Brown Shoes22 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on Spider-Man is 54 kilobytes despite having several sub-articles. Articles are bound to expand as users add more information. User:Dimadick
That's true. But it's not about quantity, but quality and encyclopedic apporpriateness. This article could benefit from keeping but condensing the level of detail. We need to keep in mind these articles aren't for us, but for people who don't know much or anything about the character and need to look him up in an encyclopedia. As with any form of information, whether it's a magazine, newspaper, or encyclopedia article, there has to be judicious editing. Otherwise, important stuff can get lost beneath a sea of minutiae. I've pitched in where I can, and I believe it would make the article better, ultimately, to try and trim some of the excess wordage. What say us? -- Tenebrae 14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa! A little judicious editing needs to be applied to the recent Powers and Abilities edits. They're comprehensive but overlong and completely lacking in sources... ka1iban 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I've added a cleanup template to that section, which is currently a few huge, unbroken blocks of text with few wikilinks and a huge degree of minutiae. -- Tenebrae 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The only source cited for his powers is Marvel.com's entry on him, and some of it is copied verbatim. Is that even fair use? I think unless we can get some sort of comparison going on with the comic from what Marvel.com says about him we're going to have to slash and burn a lot of this and keep it simple. I understand that minutiae is kinda what his powers are about (if what they could detect wasn't minute, then they wouldn't be powers), but too much is overwhelming, and nearly impossible for us to get, as editors of wikipedia, from a fair use source, no? --Newt ΨΦ 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Powers and abliities section is WAY too long, simply stating he studied Martial Arts under stick and is a skilled fighter is enough. The rest of his powers don't need hypothozing about how they might work in the real world. Lets just state what they are breifly and what they let him do. --Colossus34 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC

I deleted most of the speculation of powers but kept the wording of some of the paragraphs. Nice language. --Newt ΨΦ 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Earth X Daredevil identity

I just happened on this and am not familiar enough with this system to feel comfortable enough to make an edit, but under the "Other Daredevils" section it says that the identity of the Earth X Daredevil was never revealed, which is not true. In Paradise X it was revealed to be Mephisto.

Brubaker and Lark

"Purple writing?" Really, give me a break. What I wrote is a simple description of the comic storyline. If you can find any evidence that contradicts this description (an article, a quotation, a sound-bite, etc.), then I fully agree to a change. In fact, I would support a deletion and re-write. Otherwise, I feel that a deletion is unwarranted -- it would be a deletion based solely on personal opinion, which is definitely a no-no, of course. Bhissong 02:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)bhissong

"peels back the veneer of the costumed super-hero story to examine Murdock's life as a prisoner" is a bit purple, don't you think? (Additionally, one doesn't "peel back" a veneer; one scrapes it off.) It's also an interpretation, e.g., opinion. I simply cut back to the strict facts -- the actual, concrete happenings in the plot.
I've an idea -- go in yourself and cut the paragraph back to the facts. I'll stay hand's-off today. It's good to meet another editor who appreciates the series so much; it's as good as it's ever been, I think. -- Tenebrae 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose's one's sense of "purple" is simply another's sense of fine writing. As a result, I'm not removing the sentence in question. (Oh, and check out the Wiki. article on veneer, especially the part where it states, "Veneer is obtained by 'peeling' the trunk of a tree...". Hmmm, I guess veneer really is peeled after all. But, alas, I'm just being petty. I'll tell you what. After an examination of the section with your suggestions in mind, the only thing that I think might be construed as OR is the statement that the authors focus on the issue of identity during the prison riots. I do think this is obviously the case, but, maybe not. So, that part I will edit. But the rest I honestly feel is solid. This is a story line about Matt Murdock -- not the costumed Daredevil -- in prison. Therefore, I feel that my description of this story being about the man beneath the costume is accurate. And really, what's wrong with a little penache in writing styles as long as the information is accurate? And, yes, I think this is a great run on Daredevil. I agree with you. Bhissong 18:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)bhissong

I was wrong about veneers being peeled; veneers I've used in woodworking require scraping off, but on looking it up, I see that's just one type of veneer. Learn something new every day...! That said, "peels back the veneer of the costumed super-hero story" really doesn't seem of encyclopedic tone. As a former Marvel Comics writer, I'd also suggest the line interpreting Brubaker's theme is opinion; without a citation that this was his intention, I'd say his and the editors' thought process was "Hey, let's put Daredevil in prison and see what happens." Whether this is so or not, ascribing a particular theme to the story arc really is an interpreation. -- Tenebrae 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're just reading crappy encyclopedias. But I'm done with this whole thing now. Not worth it, really. Especially since I'm dealing with a "former Marvel Comics writer." Ohhhh....how can I compete? You've put me to shame. Bhissong 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)bhissong

There was no need to be sarcastic. I'm just pointing out in a concrete way that your interpretation isn't the only one. (And it's not like I claimed to be a current writer.) --Tenebrae 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's best to avoid speculation at this point. I deleted the bit that suggested the "Daredevil" still in Hell's Kitchen was Iron Fist because this is only opinion or guess-work. I've read an article that suggested the faux Daredevil was Hawkeye. So at this point, we just don't know. As a result, best to keep it out of the article. Bhissong 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Newt ΨΦ 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

From the size alone, it is easy to see that the Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra article is a footnote and should merged into those characters' articles.--Chris Griswold 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Merge--Chris Griswold 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge -- or Merge all three Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra miniseries into one, and put character information on their respective pages. -- HKMARKS 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No merge - see Elektra for why. --Jamdav86 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No merge -- It's about a miniseries and one that doesnt wholly revolve around daredevil. This article is also long enough as it is. 88.108.127.110

No merge -- Article is already way long and Wiki policy is to break sections off on their own this happens. Ultimately (so to speak), the Ultimate material for all the other heroes may have to be spun off, with a paragraph and and "main article" template-link. --Tenebrae 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

What's happened recently?

The article doesn't really talk about recent issues. What happened to Murdock during House of M? Who is daredevil if Murdock is in jail? This article seems confusing to me.-Giant89 15:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

House of M, I don't remember any real mention of him. The new Daredevil is now mentioned, but any speculation as to his identity has no real place in wikipedia. --Newt ΨΦ 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's Foggy! I'll go change the articles! --Chris Griswold 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The article talks about recent events within the perspective of an encyclopedia article. Recent events do not get more weight than other events in the character's history. According to WikiProject:Comics guidelines, we're to keep pub history and character bio as succinct as possible without adding extraneous detail.-- Tenebrae 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not like this article is supposed to be a substitute for reading the comics. It's not an episode guide for a comic book. It's an encyclopedic entry that is already too long. Doczilla 06:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotional art vs. cover art

Since an anonymous IP has been making incorrect changes to captions, it might be helpful to add this link here to Wikipedia Comics Project: Cover artwork crediting convention for guidelines. -- Tenebrae 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

History and Origin

Can we merge the History and Origin sections? There seems to be a lot of overlap in them, the difference being the in-universe treatment of the character in the Origin and out-of-universe treatment in History. How 'bout it? Maybe we can just stick to the *ahem* original origin and leave further exposition (about Elektra and Foggy, and extra about his father) out of it? --Newt ΨΦ 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for streamlining, but I'm not sure what you mean. WikiProject Comics style is to have Publication History and Character Biography be separate. Or are you referring to something different? -- Tenebrae 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow: It does. I missed that somehow. --Chris Griswold 07:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to the fact that the publication history really creates no need for the origin section as it's written. However, I could see a use for an in-universe treatment (e.g. the origin story in Captain Marvel (DC Comics)) of his origin up to his beginning fighting crime as it was originally written, before later comics expanded it. I know the WP:CMC templar has the two sections separate, but something has to be done about this overlap. --Newt ΨΦ 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at Publication history > Early years, and I just don't see anything about his origin (pushing the blind man away, etc.). Where should I be looking, exactly? -- Tenebrae 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh... I must have been at least partially mistaken. There is still a bit of overlap, the bit about "Mike Murdock" is a repeat of above info, as is the love triangle between Foggy, Karen, and Matt. The origin also talks a bit too much about current info. I'll go ahead and edit out what's not needed or redundant. I think I may have overreacted and then continued to overreact based on my previous assumptions. --Newt ΨΦ 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here goes. I edited out ongoing history, because a lot of that is covered in the publication history (i.e. Karen Page, Mike Murdock, and the recent Brubaker stuff) and left the expanded origin. Any thoughts? --Newt ΨΦ 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible edit; the very detailed Karen/Foggy stuff really does seems better suited to their individual entries ... especially 'cuz this is one lonnnnng article! You might want to go in and un-ital Nelson and Murdock, though -- names of law firms aren't italicized. Just ask Jacoby & Meyers!   :-) -- Tenebrae 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, did so. Went ahead and cut out a little flowery language too. We may need to go through and edit to instead focus the pub history on an overarching summary of the later writers'/artists' run (i.e. make Bendis and Maleev's section more like Frank Miller's) rather than arc by arc summary. I think that could cut out quite a bit. --Newt ΨΦ 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
In general, that sounds like a good idea; different eras have different milestones, and a blow-by-blow description of each story arc probably goes into too much detail. The Pub Hist > Volume 1 stuff looks overall OK to me. -- Tenebrae 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is called Wiki-magic. --Chris Griswold 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Age of Apocalypse/2099 Daredevil

Here it states that even in AoA Matt got his powers from an accident. Does it actually state this anywhere in AoA? I just assumed his powers genuinely were granted by someone else like he claims they are. I'm going to edit it for now but let me know if I'm wrong.Jayunderscorezero 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Also (not relating to AoA, but still relating to alternate versions), aren't the two 2099 Daredevils the same person?Jayunderscorezero 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure... the recent 2099 one-shots by Robert Kirkman I *think* happened in a different 2099, unrelated to the one in the 1990s. In the new one, he was decended from Wilson Fisk, fought crime in costume and was a criminal out of costume. I don't know about the earlier one. -HKMARKS 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Other people using the DD id

The current version of the article mentions the ongoing spoiler, but fails to mention the occasion way back when Black Panther pulled a similar stunt. It is also probably worthwhile to mention, however briefly, the storylines involving doubts about "who is the real DD". There was one by DeMatteis involving the third and first costumes, and IIRC somewhere along the line DD and Bullseye subbed for one another. Luis Dantas 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And I believe the Bob Gale arc had a DD impersonator as well. And Foggy Nelson masqueraded as DD in an effort to impress Karen Page way back in Daredevil # 19 or 20. --Tenebrae 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Powers and abilities

Two issues here:

It's a falsity that there are just five human senses. The sense of feel and how our body senses heat is different. You don't touch the heat and you're not being burned by it, you're feeling it. We have a sense of balance, thirst, hunger, time, etc. These all come under the heading of 'human senses'. I heard (on QI of all places - go stephen fry) that the body has somewhere between 19 and 22 different senses. Are these all heightened in daredevil?

His radar sense has been desribed as being from his hearing. With sound, the waves pulsate outwards and are sensed by him similarly to how bats and dolphins have echolocation (making it sonar more than radar). Bendis also said once (i think it was in Underboss) that an explosion played havok with his hearing and so radar sense. Does this mean we have to assume this is the modern interpretation of the power?

Discuss :) 88.108.127.110

The sense article only lists 9 senses anyway. The five senses are something the average person recognizes. I'll look at the article for the listing and attempt to fix if he reference is wierd.-Giant89 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When an article (the sense page) refers to "general consensus" you know it isn't very good, no offence to wikipedia. In truth (as i said with '19-22 senses') people are unsure of what constitutes a sense, but it seems fair to say there are more than five. Are daredevil's other senses (away from the generic five) heightened? (It'd be an interesting direction to take the character - he'd be a walking measuring device! "the temperature in this room is 21.6 degrees and exactly 3 seconds has passed since i started this sentence"!)88.108.127.110

Religion

In the 2003 movie Daredevil is clearly placed as a Catholic, which also appears to be part of the Frank Miller storyline and perhaps other arcs. As this is a notable aspect of this character and helps address issues like his attitudes towards justice and guilt, I should probably be expressly mentioned in the character biography.

There are people who like to say "X" character is like me in way "Y", and Wikipedia would be an appropriate source for people trying to quickly do that kind of survey.

I'm not enough of an authority on the subject to be confident that what I wrote would be correct, but I'd encourage someone to do so.Ohwilleke 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trimming

One thing I'm not sure about trimming is the Everett quote from early in the article. On the one hand, I liked the look of it. On the other hand, it really didn't add anything to our knowledge of the character Daredevil. Doczilla 07:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Parodies" and enemies

The way it's put now, the "parodies" sections seems more like trivia. Should this be reworded or removed entirely? While I'm at it, I should also ask - Daredevil has a large list of enemies. I don't want to split it into its own article like the Spidey one, because frankly, only a few handful are notable and I don't think I can create a new article that has that kind of focus. I was going for a tiny section featuring around maybe 4-5 villains that have impacted the character? Characters that writers and reviewers agree have progressed the character's development. -- A talk/contribs 22:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Such sections can be magnets for unsourced speculation.
The parodies is tight and sourced (although I suspect some of those sources are probably not too reliable - it isn't much use just relying on someone else's speculation. The best things would be comments from the creators saying, yes they did it, and there might be good reasons, some legal, for not saying so).
Lists of enemies is equally problematic. Unless someone has a well-defined list of rogues then such things can be nearly infinitely long (I'm pretty sure we have been round the block a few times over the Batman one). It is worth noting that the current list is completely unreferenced. Personally, I'd say remove it - the main enemies of the character should be mentioned in the main body of the article. You'd only need a new article is they were a distinctive and well known set of characters (as with Flash and to a lesser extent Batman and Spider-Man). (Emperor (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
Regarding the information on DD's enemies, I disagree on deletion. Yeah, a few can be trimmed so that it's not overly long, but the tone of the Daredevil series has changed a great deal over the years, and his Rogues Gallery reflects that. Transitioning from colorful costumed villains to organized crime figures and darker killers for hire after Frank Miller's first run on the series is something I personally consider noteworthy to the history of the series. I think the explanatory text of the rogues gallery section itself reflects this (or if it doesn't, it should be modified to do so.(208.58.221.239 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
Thank you for the response. The main enemies of the character shall be integrated into the 'recurring characters' section - the image already features them. I'll look over the 'parodies' section again. -- A talk/contribs 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Batlin Alias

Shouldn't Jack Batlin be listed as a notable alias? I mean, he did feature in around 40 issues of daredevil and was a large part of the plot after Matt Murdock's "death" 80.6.230.36 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging Alternate Versions

I'm gonna merge the Alternate versions of Daredevil to Daredevil (Marvel Comics)'s page.

Crashsnake 3/13/2012 —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

You need to explain why you're doing that and allow discussion. Spidey104 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Recurring characters

I'm confused as to why someone feels that citations are needed for Gladiator and Jessica Jones, but not for any of the other characters in the list - especially the latter, as her line is much the same as Luke Cage's ('was a bodyguard for him') but his line hasn't been deemed in need of a citation.

My gut feeling is that all of the characters should have a citation, or none of them should. Otherwise how does one quantify which ones to cite and which not to?

Per WP:TPYES, Please sign your posts with four tildes (~) 18:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Civil War

I didn't see a mention of Daredevil's lack of/involvement in the Civil War. I say lack of because I don't remember seeing him. Did he get up to anything in CW, and what is he up to now? {{Subst:unsigned|86.128.80.

Matt Murdock himself isn't involved in Civil War. He was featured in the Civil War: Choosing Sides one-shot in the Iron Fist segment and the SHRA is mentioned in, I think, Daredevil #89. Danny Rand, masquerading as DD, did fight in the war on Captain America's side and is featured as such, although outside of the Cable and Deadpool series, he is treated just as Murdock would be and no hints are given to show that Murdock isn't in the costume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.118.250 (talk • contribs)
Per WP:TPYES, Please sign your posts with four tildes (~) 18:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

Some jerk registered as User:Freddyape vandalized a footnote on May 19, in three edits beginning here. I only just now found and fixed it, but let's keep an eye out in case he comes back. --Tenebrae

Adding date stamp so this be archived. 18:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been nearly two weeks with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the archiving proposal, and in fact had been thinking about the need for archiving on this talk page myself. Sorry for the belated response, but I figured it would still be worthwhile to let it be known that this proposal has support.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk of Daredevil's Flaws

I'm glad that the topic of so-called "sexual frustration" comes up about Daredevil. It would seem absurd, given that comic book heroes (and heroines) are all virtually troubled sexually. It's actually a religous staple in comicdom. Lets's start with classic Superman and go straight to the dynsfunctional families in Marlve's roster: The Sue and Ben Richards clan, the Pyms; Thor's rage at Big Daddy Odin refusal to let him sow his godly "wild oats" with any comely mortal woman. (Or was the All-Father really afraid of his son engaging in office sexual harrassment, for which all of Asgaard could be sued?)Then there are my favorites: Luke Cage pining for the ghost of his dead girl-friend, and that "Benighted Fool" Prince Namor, and his self-continuous riunation every time he gets obsessed with a blond (which gets us back to Sue and Reed Richards). Steve Rogers, for example, should really calm down and simply assume a bullet-proof secret identity, get married and spit-out a couple of little American super-soldier aryans! On Matt Murdock more narrowly, I take umbridge at at the "unsigned"'s thinly-veiled suggestion that DD is a closet fag. The Carnaughvan formulic reaction has no place here. A more rational explaination of why Murdock is attracted to femme fatals is-obviously-they are mostly sent by his enemies to kill him until he able to assuage the lies told to them. Then the womwn get all hot and sweaty with him after all that intense battling. But more telling is that the personage of Matthew Murdock, molded by the twin tragedies of his mysteriously disappeared mother and murdered father could be suffering from a form of-for lack of a better term-"BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME"!!! That's right; you heard me. Y'all are familiar with this. Traumatized woman (and yes, sometimes males) are attracted to, or fall into impulsive, and-to-themselves-inexplicable laisons with people they can't stand and\or they know to be dangerous (like Tony Soprano's "cummahs". Except, in his case, he drives the troubled women he meets to farther extremes). So, this is not unusual at all. It's not that Matt can't respond amorously to "nice" girls and get to "third-base, home and a cigarette" with them; he has all these interferrances in his life (women with knives and guns, and other exotic super-weaponry coming after him, who are not wound too tight in the first place, that is if they believe lies coming from freaks like The Kingpin). And, of course the old mantra of putting a love interst in harm's way. It should be explored further that this is, in fact DD's real problem, the "battered" syndrome, I mean. It would be novel if Matt and Tony Stark clandestinely shared the same psychologist, analyzing and trying to remedy their emotional problems. In fact, their should be a group therapy session with Namor included, cautiously chained to a chair, of couse, could possibly though reluctantly participate in. Hey, wouldn't such a plot be reason enough to revive Marvels' lampoon comic. which for the moment I forget the title? 75.193.126.41 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Veryverser LOL. Absolutely right. (I suspect Subby likes being chained up. ;p) Of course, you have to be a bit disturbed to put on the spandex to begin with... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Only a bit disturbed? Maybe. But, hey: Many of us wear spandex in our daily indulges. Exercise freaks who are in love with the fantasized image of themselves; WWE World wrestlers; certain ice-skaters and dancers. They all draw massive crowds, don't they? So, the "super-hero" is chimera reflexive of our some of our over-the-top endeavors, and might I say uniquely American. 65.88.88.40 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Veryverser

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Daredevil (Marvel Comics) → Daredevil (comics) – Way back in 2006, there was an edit-war on whether this should be Daredevil (comics) or Daredevil (Marvel Comics), with the former being contested on account of the existiance of Daredevil (Lev Gleason Publications), having been quite notable in his own time. Now, while notability is not temporary, degrees of notability are; the vast majority of readers looking for the comics character named Daredevil will be looking for this one - which is no doubt why Daredevil (comics) currently redirects here, without even so much as a hatnote. There is an overwhelming case where the Marvel Comics Daredevil is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Daredevil (comics), so the page should be at that location (with the needed hatnote added). The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - sorry but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only covers basenames, so Daredevil is judged to have no primary topic and Daredevil is a dab page; we have no such sub-guideline as WP:PRIMARYCOMIC. Once something is dabbed as (..... comic) no one will naturally type it anyway, hence disambiguation should be unambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. Once a disambiguating term is judged to be necessary, it must be sufficiently precise to resolve completely any ambiguity. The existence of Lev Gleason's Daredevil causes the term "comics" to be imprecise as a standalone disambiguator in this case. "Marvel Comics" is an adequately precise alternative. Xoloz (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The Lev Gleason character was one of the biggest superheroes of the Golden Age, and he continues to be revived as a latter-day character. Any comics historian would rightly find this proposed change a recipe for unnecessary confusion.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this is clearly not the primary topic of Daredevil since you didn't suggest this title. Disambiguation should not be ambiguous. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Daredevil's "Hidden" Powers

There is another aspect of Daredevil's powers that the writers incredulously missed. And that is his other tacitile sense of HEAT registration!!! We all can sense slight and subtle fluctuations in heat and temperatures in different environments (in-doors or out); and commensurate with subtle airflow and pressure (same thing). With our hero here, it's obvious that he can map an entire environment with receptors of his skin (face and fingertips, entire epidermus, even his tongue, like a snake). Also, perspiration and odor from people, and heat-generated objects, and revealatively 'cooled' objects as well. So it is that instead of a "radar sense" (which, when I first read the premiere issues of DD way back in the Kennedy\MLK era, I was fascinated that Matt Murdock had these rather bat-like attributes,) our hero actually has a more elegant I-N-F-R-A-R-E-D senses, never used and I bet never even mentioned! I got the idea from a suggestion from that bomb of a Ben Affleck movie (actually, it should be called a Jenny Garner flick, since she is fast becoming the new girl-in-the-refigerator of failed movies). Matt uses a bathtube full of water to mute all the instrusive sensory onslaught in his down-time when he needs to sleep, otherwise he would go insane. Very novel, although I assume that like most blind ppl. who learn to block out extraneuous noises even while they sleep, we also can be lulled to sleep with noisey crickets, rainfall, some low-frequency, monotonous droning, or our favorite soft music (Mine are Mozart's serenades, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, and Karen Carpenter!) This is not just simple cult speculation. More and more scientist are developing exploratory instruments using higher bands of EM, or electro-magnetic field (ultraviolet, gamma,etc.) using infrared as a visual 'canvas'in astronomy, medicine, and increasingly in terrestrial meteorology and surveying. Like the more serious DC writers and artist(like Gardner Fox in the Silver age of comics,) writers then used to cut their teeth studying the latest popular scientific break-throughs and incorporated them into their characters' abilities(The Flash, Atom, Green Latern, Adam Strange,"Strange Sports Stories") to give them more believability. This unfortunately was never developed at Marvel as they never sweated over the usage of a semblance of science rationality (with the exception of Jack Kirby while he tenured there). I suppose that's it's too late at this stage for a "reboot" of Daredevil's abilities. There could have been a way to use DD's powers to have him traispe into the Supernatural, like the 70s Batman. Matt Murdock would then be a more natural ally to Doc Strange than Spiderman, whom the latter is Marvel's true "Angel of Death" Oh yes, I almost forgot: Since DD has these tactile senses, he probably could 'read' electro-musclular spasms, so he can anticipate and dodge the fast movements of any bruiser, just like Spiderman oughta. Come to think of it, if Murdock wanted a second career and identity, he would be great as a forensic medic as a day job. A better crime-fighting investigative capability, for sure 75.193.126.41 (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Veryverser

--65.88.88.40 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

It's "Murder" to be a "Daredevil"

(This is a repost, and a response from an earlier entry about the naure of "superheroes" seccret identies). What's so funny about the name M-U-R-D-O-C-K? After all, many english surnames have ominus origins to their dark, barbaric past. For instance, names such as TODD (I suppose from the original German toth, or tot(death); or, Mortimer (more civilly) stylized from M-O-R-T (obviously). And then there are the myriad of Scandavian surnames (Bjorke e.g. "berserker", or Scarvid, Hacker, Shriver, etc.) Just as those two clever, runny-nosed kids 'christised' their mild-mannered reporter with a prosaic name of "Clark" (Clerk in German) K-E-N-T (humble-to-nobel implication. Or Bruce Wayne; not only invoking old, inherited blood, but the name B-R-U-C-E (black,or "dark one" I think in Gaelic). So, as the prosodic monickers for superheroes such as the character Mr. Murdock is not only in keeping with comic book tradtion, but consider what the creators were thinking: That the civilian "secret identity"'s moniker could be just as compelling and r-e-v-e-a-l-i-n-g as their alternate, "action" tags. And lest some smart-ass gets a dim-bulb of an idea: Yes, Doc Savage, The second "Superman" of the pulps's name was borrowed by Shuster and Seigel for their titular four-eyed protagonist, as the former revealved in a mid-90slive forum! 75.193.126.41 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Veryverser

--65.88.88.40 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

Today's edits

A redlink editor has been adding extensive overdetail to the live-action TV section that has a main-article link. He's also violating WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:DATED and citation MOS. I've asked him in the edit-summary to please stop edit-warring and discuss his issues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Split of Daredevil (comic book)

Hi Tenebrae, having come across the above article at NPP, which was a split from this article with the addition of more material. I considered it was valid and well written. The article on the 1930s-1940s Daredevil says that he is unrelated and seperate from the Marvel version.My opinion is the article should be restored but perhaps the creator could be asked to go through the proper procedure for splitting first. Perhaps you could advise the IP as you are more knowledgeable than me on correct procedure. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. The issue for me is that even with italics, " Daredevil (comic book) " can refer to two completely different publications, and so is technically invalid as an article name. This was an issue back in 2005 or so when Daredevil (Marvel Comics) was given that name. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a different title such as Daredevil (Marvel comic history), or something better. Have restored the split material to this article for now, hope ok, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that; I'd lost track with all the back-and-forth. We honestly don't have too many, if any, WikiProject Comics articles that split "Publication history" and "Fictional character biography", though, since FCB articles are in-universe fictographies, which Wikipedia generally does not consider encyclopedic without the larger context. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrae and Atlantic306, thank you for bringing this to discussion. If the issue is the article title, we could move it to Daredevil (Marvel Comics series) or something else more appropriate? I did consider the 1940s character, but when I initially looked at his article I did not really see much about where he had his own solo title (as "Daredevil", as opposed to "Daredevil Comics"), but looking again at Daredevil (Lev Gleason Publications) I do see one mention as "Daredevil #13 (Oct. 1942)" - kind of easy to miss, sorry. Regardless, obviously, that article doesn't focus very much at all on his solo title, where as the Daredevil (Marvel Comics) article focuses quite a lot on his title. I think that the Daredevil comic title has some legs to stand on its own separate from the titular character, much like The Amazing Spider-Man or The Incredible Hulk (comic book) and other such long-running titles. The sources are there for both. My feeling is that the article on the character should focus on development of the character and story details (using as much out-of-universe description as possible) and the article on the comic title should focus on the creators and publication details. My thinking was that the comic book title article has the potential to look something like The Amazing Spider-Man while the character article has the potential to look something like Spider-Man. Just some thoughts! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Spider-Man is pretty good in that it's very much out-of-universe and non-"fictopgraphic", with loads of citations from books and articles. Given how lengthy Daredevil (Marvel Comics) is, it's not unreasonable to split it. Indeed, my only concern was the article title, which from my perspective had the potential to create confusion. What do we think of "Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)" and "Daredevil (Marvel Comics series)"? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, If we go that way, I'd suggest that Daredevil (Marvel Comics) should then redirect to Daredevil (Marvel Comics series)" since most of the mentions I found are referring to the comic book rather than to the character, though a couple refer to the character. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Go ahead and restore the comic book series page and move it to the link as suggested above, and I will do some cleanup on it. For the character article, I would suggest a requested move discussion; some people might want it to point to Daredevil (Matthew Murdock) or something instead. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, Tenebrae? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think most non-comics people would more likely search under "Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)" since they wouldn't know who Matthew or Matt Murdock is. But the other one sounds good to me. I'd like to hear @Atlantic306:'s thoughts. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Tenebrae about the naming- seems a good option.Hopefully no information from this article or the new one will be lost overall. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@73.168.15.161: @Atlantic306: The consensus seems to be for "Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)" and "Daredevil (Marvel Comics series)". Anyone want to do the honors? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably best if Tenebrae does it, being more experienced.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I would be happy to restore the Daredevil (comic book) article, and will leave it to Tenebrae to move them. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Done, along with accompanying redirects. I would ask other editors to please note this talk-page consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Daredevil (Marvel Comics) appears to be locked, so an admin has to be requested to move it. I'll post a notice for one. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Provisionally moved. Judging on the current state of #Merge discussion below, the articles are going to remain split, so the move achieves necessary WP:PRECISION. As to where the Daredevil (Marvel Comics) should point... it's an editorial issue to be solved, along with sorting out of the incoming wikilinks. No such user (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Daredevil (Marvel Comics) → Daredevil (Marvel Comics character) – As per consensus at Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics), for consistency after that article was broken into two: One for the character, and one for Daredevil (Marvel Comics series). – Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae and Feinoha: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just saw this and checked the talk page and am currently not sure why the page has to be moved. That and the word "character" doesn't seem (to me) to be necessary in the title. Feinoha Talk 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Regardless, a consensus was reached after discussion on the article talk page. The consensus is that it actually is confusing, since "Daredevil (Marvel Comics)" could refer either to the character or the same-name series. I suppose we could have a formal RfC / Rename discussion if that would help. Please let the editors involved know at Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics) if you wish to continue contesting the rename and would prefer an RfC / Rename discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tenebrae: I've moved your comment from WP:RMT here. Posting again at RMT might confuse those who don't realize that this 7-day RM is currently ongoing. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The page Daredevil (Marvel Comics series) is an unnecessary WP:REDUNDANTFORK that I'm nominating for deletion (update: discussion here). This page shouldn't be moved until that discussion is over. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC), edited 09:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Provisional support for now, per WP:PRECISION. If the alleged redundant fork is deleted or merged away, then ignore me on this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daredevil_(Marvel_Comics_character)/Archive_3&oldid=1136649972"