Talk:Dazzler (Marvel Comics)

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

Front Image[edit]

Since there is now an edit war over the image, there needs to be a solved dispute. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, collecting information on characters' past and present histories. The profile image for the character should be the most recognizable and unique to the character, so that it is an identifiable reference point for viewers.

The new image continually being posted by User:DrBat is not consistent with this view. A foray to any site, summary, or article on recent comics or the New Excalibur series will demonstrate this appearance, but it is not indicative of the character's history. The old image should be kept; the new image either should be in-boxed toward the bottom in Character History or left out altogether. It is not even established yet! Novaya havoc 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed in the WikiComics section, which you already know as you posted there before posting here.
The main picture should represent the character as they are currently represented. Dazzler has hardly worn the Disco costume since she dropped it in Dazzler #38, and has only worn it a few times since, during performances and not when she is in battle. It has shown how her character has changed so much since we first saw her.--DrBat 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Otherwise, don't mess with the 20+ year old (and still going) image." It's not still going! She dropped it a long time ago, and rarely wears it anymore!!!--DrBat 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image continally occurrs in promotional material issued by Marvel Comics: collectibles, trading cards, encyclopedias, handbooks, and so on. It is the definitive Dazzler image and costume. And there is no reference on Project: WikiComics stating that characters are to be depicted as they are currently in comics -- I looked to avoid such an argument (if it were a widely accepted rule, I would concede, but several articles use images of characters in familiar/popular appearances and not according to current styles).
The image was not ditched by Dazzler #38. Chris Claremont may not employ it in his rendition of Dazzler, but the image is still predominant outside of 1985 and prior, contrary to your opinion. Downsize and box the new image in her character history profile, where it belongs. I'll do it for you if you'd like. Novaya havoc 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When has she really worn the outfit in the actual comics universe, not some unrelated merchandising? And yes, Dazzler did change her outfit to a more practical one in #38.
And I'd like to see an example of an SHB box that reflects a superhero wearing an outfit he or she hasn't really worn in years. --DrBat 22:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, show me where Dazzler has worn this "new" image outside of some preview and promo solicits? Yes, I know what happened in Issue #38, thank you. But the image has been consistently revived for marketing, tie-ins, and other information -- including two "revival" pieces: Deadpool #67 and X-Men Unlimited #33. The recent Marvel Handbook: Women of Marvel Comics depicts Dazzler on the cover -- in classic silver. Her mid-90s action figure: classic silver. Diamond select bust: classic silver (with the blue one being the variant). Marvel Overpower: classic silver. Need I continue? Show me where this -- or ANY -- of Dazzler's 1990 character redesigns have taken hold. They haven't. If you want to have X-Men bios that deal exclusively with latest appearances, start your own fansite. For the love of Pete: it's an encyclopedia entry.
Example of a character bio using CLASSIC images for the character? Jean Grey. I don't see her in New X-Men, Eve of Destruction, or any other character redigns that have befallen the character in recent years. Novaya havoc 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your examples (DP, Unlimited), was her PERFORMING. She has rarely worn the costume outside of performing, and she wears the other outfits when battling. And concerning Phoenix; she wore that outfit recently in Endsong. She also wore it in New X-Men #150, and Here Comes Tomorrow. When she had the leather jacket, the article reflected that.
By your logic, will you be ok when Dazzler does wear the outfit in NXC (which she most certainly will).
And again, I am referring to inside the comics universe, not some out-of-continuity merchandising. --DrBat 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stage outfit, superhero outfit -- what line are you treading? Her "stage" persona is integral to the character. Wikipedia articles do not exist as a continuity reference for characters, DrBat. It is not a blow-by-blow, issue-by-issue summary; pages like that would be titanic. The character's appearance in other media and the general perception definitely affect the article. Continutity does not even comprise one half of the entry, so the argument that the Wiki entries are limited by current continuity (or continutity at all) is bogus. Either the article is about Dazzler as a whole, or it is simply a showcase of what she is to the current reader. This being an encyclopediac entry would lead to the former. Novaya havoc 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, it isnt her real outfit anymore, and besides for a couple of apparances she doesn't wear it anymore.
Almost all comic characters contain their current outfit in the SHB box. Your Jean example doesn't count, as that Phoenix outfit is her current outfit. --DrBat 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the silver image is the definitive Dazzler image and is consistently used and most accepted in fandom. And despite that you feel a sense of authority and self-righteousness over all SHB images (making them "most current") there is nothing in Wikiproject: Comics that demonstrates this is an overarching goal. Silver Dazzler is Dazzler and the main image should reflect such. Novaya havoc 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And despite that you feel a sense of authority and self-righteousness over all SHB images (making them "most current") What are you talking about? I'm not the only one here who wants to have the SHB boxes having the current outfit, as opposed to some old, unused outfit. --DrBat 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dazzler (series)[edit]

Ummm... WTH? Redundant/duplicate article, had a superTEAMbox for a solo character and, in the context of the above argument looks in danger of being a WP:POINT breach. This needs merged in here ASAP. - SoM 01:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. One is about the character. One is about the series of the same name. They're two different articles highlighting different elements. I used SuperTeam box since there wasn't a template for generic comic series, though one was suggested in the talk page of Wikiproject: Comics.
I don't see why these two articles need to be merged. One explains a series; the other, the character. I felt that merging them would make the entire article too long.—preceding unsigned comment by Novaya havoc (talk • contribs)
  • The merge is absolutely necessary because Dazzler (series) is completely redundant with the parent article. Merging the two won't bring this article even close to the 32k limit. -Sean Curtin 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Covers[edit]

Hi:

I don't want to add this without imput, but I believe Bill Sienkiewicz had a long streak as the cover artist for Dazzler in the early days. These were very striking covers from high talent. Looking back, I suspect that it may have been a choice to try to help establish the comic and character. Just my .02.

Yes, Sienkiewicz did do painted covers with issue #27 in an effort to help boost sales (he also did some assisting art in Dazzler #29, and also the cover for Dazzler #18). The embedded Dazzler: The Movie image is a Sienkiewicz piece.
I say add away under the Dazzler series bit.
69.222.154.10 00:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (Novaya Havoc)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Per the WP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article.--Chris Griswold 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Closed with CONSENSUS TO MERGE CovenantD 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Relatives[edit]

Lois London is Dazzler's half-sister, and Nick Brown should be listed as her stepfather.

Apperences[edit]

Is there a list of comics and issues this character has appeared in? I've always been a fan, and seek to have a more complete collection. Coolgamer 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most major appearances occur in Dazzler #1-42, Marvel Graphic Novel #12 (Dazzler: The Movie), Beauty and the Beast #1-4, Secret Wars II #4, Avengers 211 and 221, Amazing Spider-Man #203, and Uncanny X-Men #130-131, #213 (I think), #217 - #260. I'd throw in Deadpool #67 for good measure, and X-Men Unlimited #32. There are more, but these are pretty much all the Ali you can handle! You can always go to my talk page and I can offer some more if you want a "more complete" collection than this! I b-lined most of the schizoid Mojoworld stuff. Novaya havoc 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powers[edit]

I don't think her description of her mutant powers are very detailed... I spruced up a few things, but simply added a few details, nothing major. Saintvrus22 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What issues detail her powers? If someone knows they should be referenced. Savre 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Film On April 6, 2007, called Variety Drawn-animation movie coming in 2011 by Warner Bros. Pictures.

this date hasn't happened yet so it's probably a lie and should be deleted especially since it's march right now and unless wiki got future powers it's defenetily a lie


Powers Light to Sound[edit]

In Dazzler's last issue of her series (#42). Dazzler did demonstrate the ability to convert light into sound. This act did leave her weak and she has not performed this stunt since (to my knowledge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.5.75 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Pryde617 1/15/10 ----[reply]

Powers Vol. 2[edit]

The Outer Limits continues to include Dazzler's resurrections as a "power," when this is an ongoing plotline and not confirmed in-canon. Also, this "diving/swimming/barefoot" power has no basis in any Dazzler chronology I'm aware of. Cite your sources, or stop adding junk info. 76.197.226.161 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nine years since the last comment here about Dazzler's resurrections, and it does appear to be established as a power since it has happened again in A-Force #4. There needs to be some mention of it in the article. Gronteam (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki dazz initial.jpg[edit]

Image:Wiki dazz initial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki dazz initial.jpg[edit]

Image:Wiki dazz initial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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 (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Overuse[edit]

Since this article has been tagged for image overuse, what images do you think should be kept and which scrapped? The infobox image seems fine as illustrating a current look. The images in the "other versions" section don't seem particularly illustrative, apart from the Age of Apocalypse one which shows a different costume and power use. I would be in favour of keeping the Graphic Novel cover as an example of Sienkiewicz covers and illustrating a highpoint of Dazzler history. The Marvel Zombies image does show the original Dazzler look with the silver jump suit and mask make-up, but I would suggest replacing it with the Dazzler #1 cover which shows the full look, including roller skates, as well as being of historical value. That would be four images in all. Any comments? Robina Fox (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definately keep the main image and that of the Dazzler graphic novel. I am impartial to the Alt versions, but if they were to be kept, I would say Ultimate, Apocalypse, M, End, Darkness in order of importance from greatest to least. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have now removed these images and the overuse tag:

Image:Dazzler aoa.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Dazzler from Amazing X-Men #1. Art by Andy Kubert; Image:Dazzler theend.jpg|200px|left|thumb|Dazzler, Iceman, and Storm from X-Men: The End (Vol. 3) #4. Art by Sean Chen; Image:Dazzler marvelzombies.jpg|200px|left|thumb|Dazzler with Ash Williams of Evil Dead fame. From Marvel Zombies vs. Army of Darkness #2. Art by Fabiano Neves; Image:Dazzler hom.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Dazzler from House of M #2. Art by Olivier Coipel. Robina Fox (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Worthington[edit]

This text was removed from the article:

Angel's uncle, Burt Worthington, also went by the name the Dazzler.[1] The first Dazzler killed Warren's father, Warren Worthington, Jr.

References

  1. ^ Marvel Tales #30

A possible member of the Twelve?[edit]

Its possible that Dazzler is one of the twelve unofficially of course but I've noticed that members of the Twelve aren't only powerful but when it comes to there powers in one way or another there unique. The number of ways Dazzler can use her powers and the ways in which they work kind of hint that shes one of the Twelve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.173.139 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 have already been revealed and Dazzler was not among them. It's possible she may have been considered initially since the membership of the 12 was never fully revealed for years and only hinted at. ----Prydee617 1/16/10----

Citations Needed[edit]

There seems to be a lack of citation needed tags in this article. There are several entire sentences without a citation needed tag, and in some places it is almost possible to read the article normally wihout having one's reading constantly interrupted by citation needed tags. This is quite unacceptable. I would suggest a subheading "citation needed" whose text would entirely consist of the words "citation needed" repeated perhaps 50 times. This would help balance the woeful shortage of citation needed tags in the rest of the article.82.71.30.178 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word. Most "citation needed" tags stem from the first cite to both references 1 and 2. I guess I can link them all to that cite, but it seems redundant to me -- as much so as needing to cite "citation needed" after every cite when it's been cited and the link is provided under Links. 99.56.189.202 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me -- cited under References. 99.56.189.202 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Those two cites are all those "citations needed" as they stem from the two front links. What more is possibly needed? Sheez. (Novaya Havoc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.201.85 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added over a dozen citation references on 1/7/2015 only to find six more "citations needed" again today on 1/8/2015. Seems like overkill considering, for example, the mini-series was already referenced in the paragraph. Nevertheless, I added even more citations today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapahiro (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Issue nos.[edit]

I added a bunch of Issue numbers as citations, but I don't know how to format them. Someone should do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.24.138 (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dazzler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for various reasons[edit]

I've tried not to chop too much unnecessarily despite the whole X-Zombie vibe steaming off the page.

  • Lead & Creation section


Clipped

  • "Despite the fact that Dazzler was commissioned as a disco singer, the character shifted to other musical genres, including rock and adult contemporary."
Feel like this needs a citation, and even then I'd question its' placing in the lead when the character didn't actually produce any music. Due to being a comic.
  • "Dazzler was commissioned by Casablanca Records in 1978 as an animated special to be a multi-media cross-promotion with the character known as "The Disco Queen". Marvel Comics would develop a singing superhero, while Casablanca would produce a singer."
The cited source for this only notes it was a joint venture between Marvel and Casablanca, and doesn't mention most of the above. Without wanting to be any more snippy than is necessary this isn't the only one I found that just did not line up with what the source actually says on the topic.
  • "The film project was ultimately canceled after Filmworks refused to let Bo Derek's husband, John Derek, direct the movie."
Again, the cited source mentions nothing about this; JRJ mentions Dazzler for about a page in Modern Masters, and while he's clearly less than happy about the sassy black babe to blonde airhead change he says nothing about the film's cancellation and doesn't talk about anything really that happened after he stopped working on the book. Why make up something like that? There does have to be more to the story as I'm not sure how serious DeFalco is being about Tarzan (which after all took loads of money), but we can't just lie for neatness.
  • Dallas, Keith; Sacks, Jason; Beard, Jim; Dykema, Dave; McCoy, Paul Brian (2013). American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1980s. ISBN 9781605490465.
This I've removed only as I don't have it, it's not searchable on GBooks and there doesn't seem to be anything that isn't available in other sources; it's no shade on the source itself.

Edited

  • "She was briefly a member of the spin-off group Excalibur but has since re-joined the X-Men."
Is she still in the X-Men? Is she going to be a member of the X-Men forever and ever and ever? This sort of statement needs to be avoided, especially in a lead section as it dates far too easily. Have rewritten it to be more vague.

Querying

Basically every source seems to agree this was a committee thing, with Shooter, Mackenzie and Stern all involved to varying degrees, as well as some sources mentioning Louise Simonson (or Jones as I believe she was at the time).

Comment

  • That TV special would have made the Star Wars Holiday Special look like Edge of Darkness and I hate everyone and everything who played any part in stopping it happening. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing history

  • I'm struggling to come up with sources for a lot of the post-solo series stuff, though as it's non-controversial stuff a bit of goodwill means it can stay there until some sources are found. I've incorporated some of the stuff from that awful Literary Reception section (which I will be gutting like a fish once I work down there because it's a mindless quote farm that lacks focus, and because it's called Literary reception and features stuff from fucking CBR, the Sun of comics websites) to give it a bit more meat, though obviously I've pruned the over-quoting aspect and tried to focus on the stuff that actually, y'know, mentions Dazzler. One of the problems with this page like many is the awkward attempt to be about Dazzler-the-character and Dazzler-the-comic. A possible solution is to break some of it off to Dazzler (comic), especially as the character creation stuff is for once weighty enough to keep both away from primary source fancruft. But might be something to look at once the rewrite is finished. After a quick scan I am girding myself for that sprawling fictional character biography, so the page could shrink considerably. Also I think I may have to delete that shitty Scary Mummy listicle from every single page that uses a random A-Z listing of female Marvel characters like it's an actual article rather than clickbait shit - the Dazzler content of the entire article is "32. Dazzler (Alison Blaire)"; it's not even a ranking, it's in alphabetical order. Get better. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities

  • I'm not sure if fatigue is setting in but that section reads like a nonsense to me; it's a full screen that seems to jump backwards and forwards saying the same basic thing with only minor variations.

Images

  • I've put up #20's cover as the main image; the disco costume is iconic and by far the best known (note how often it's brought up in all the listicle shite), and the #20 cover shows off the whole ensemble and her powers and is slightly more representative of the series than all the gorgeous but totally misleading painted covers. The previous infobox picture is a crappy little cramped frame of a less remembered look (though the Starvadge costume deserves more criticism - "Hi, I'm Dazzler, there's a star around my sex organs!") and seems to have been picked for the Dodson tits. I've also added #40 as an example of the later costume on the grounds it was featured in Uncanny, which was probably the height of the character's exposure, though I'm less wedded to that one. It's a shame she isn't really featured strongly on any A-Force or New Excalibur covers aside from group shots.BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023[edit]

The dates given for one the sections "===Dazzler (1981-1985)===" should be changed to "===Dazzler (1981-1986)===" While I understand the difference between cover dates and the date of actual publication, the final issue of the initial run is cover-dated March 1986, and it is confusing to assign it to 1985 (fwiw, the first issue was cover dated March 1981, and that year is not called into question) LabarreNicolas (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dazzler_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=1206898576"