Talk:Human Torch (android)

Synthetic relatives

Professor Phineas T. Horton, Adam II and the Gremlin (revealed in the Vision Icon series to have been created during the 1940s) should all be listed as relatives. Kevingarcia 04:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Cybertooth85 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Relatives? For an android? You gotta be kidding... —Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "relatives" is a matter of science fiction convention, also reinforced by the use of the term in official Marvel publications. Oh, and there's another brother I forgot: Volton[1]. Although not originally a Marvel property, he is now part of Marvel Canon. - Kevingarcia 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Phineas Horton talked about the Vision as his son. In Avengers 135, he told the Torch that he was not the marrying kind, but had wanted to have offspring, and created the Torch to fill that need. This was as close as a 1970s comic book could come to identifying a character as gay. - Anon.135

This is mere speculation and has no basis in fact. It is actually possible to not want to marry and still have a desire for children. There is no evidence that Horton was gay.

72.42.186.94 (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio?

This page looks good, but it is so well written that I suspect it has been lifted from a copyrighted source. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? If it's not, it needs to be wikified (I wanted to see if it was copyrighted before I went to the effort). —Frecklefoot 15:23, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article was originally created by User:209.179.230.140. Googling phrases in the article turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, so it seems legitimate and not a copyvio. —Lowellian (talk) 06:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jim Hammond

Jim Hammond previously redirected here. I have now created a page for the footballer of this name. Anyone wishing to add a link here from that page (with explanation) should do so.

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 14:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just did it. Thanks for telling us. :-) (Stephen Day 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:YoungMen25.jpg

The image Image:YoungMen25.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't someone go in a rework the use rational for this image, instead of allowing betacomandbot jr. to kick down the barn? The current image from an Avengers comic is inappropriately modern for an article about a golden age character.--Drvanthorp (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Newinvaders9.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Newinvaders9.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 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: not moved. There is a consensus this article is not primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Human Torch (android) → Human Torch – Given the character is the original version of who bears the name "Human Torch," it should be rename while other should also be rename as "Human Torch (Johnny Storm)". NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment is there really a primary topic among Human Torch (disambiguation) ? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move dab over base line. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment per Dicklyon at the other discussion at Talk:Human Torch, this is a badly formatted multimove request -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the base name should be a disambiguation page, move Human Torch (disambiguation) there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a badly formatted request - but, also, the later character is far better known. This one is not the primary topic. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. On top of what's already been said, being first does not make something a primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:19, 20 January 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.

Requested move 22 November 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: NO consensus to move  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Human Torch (android) → Human Torch (Timely Comics character) – I previously requested the article to be renamed as "Human Torch", but it is opposed. However, I now think it may be possible to rename the article to Human Torch (Timely Comics character) to help better differentiate between the original character (who was published by Marvel Comics' predecessor company Timely Comics) and his modern counterpart Johnny Storm. NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Plus, I don't think the word 'android' was ever necessary. Come to think of it, ÷just put 'Timely Comics character' may work better.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - it's debatable that we should be using Timely at all. While the character clearly did originate with publisher Timely Comics, the character has actually made far more appearances in comics published by Marvel Comics and in related media. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  True, but the character originated from Timely Comics. Another character, Mr. E, used Timely Comics for one.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The name "Timely" for the publisher in the whole period is a widespread inaccuracy. Also this Human Torch has been used many times in Marvel. Either the current title or Original Human Torch (the disambiguation Marvel has used for him over the years) is much better. Timrollpickering 12:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  Hmm, how about Human Torch (Carl Burgos character) or Human Torch (Burgos character), similar naming as John Clark (Tom Clancy character) by adding the Burgos' name may help further differentiate with the one created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby? I am starting to see the point of not using Timely Comics, but using the original character's creator's name should be fine then.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are terrible suggestions. Tom Clancy is a well known author, and readers looking for that character will know the writer's name. I doubt many people looking to learn more about this android will know Carl Burgos. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The current dab is the easiest to understand - he's always identified in the fiction as an android when he appears. He's not always identified by Timely, his original creator, or Jim Hammond. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not "(fictional android)", Argento Surfer? George Ho (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

DABs should only be as specific as they need to be. Is there a Human Torch (non-fictional android)? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 5 December 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.

Refimprove and Development Information

This article contains information that is unsourced and either needs to be removed or given proper citations from reliable sources. Information on the character's creation and development is missing from the article and should be added to it with proper citations.--Paleface Jack 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth missing

According to Englehart, I believe the Torch spent 10 years encased in concrete, so if his debut was in 1939, he must have been created in 1929. But I think the precise year must have been stated somewhere, and this is a pretty vital bit of data to be missing from this article. Can someone please correct this oversight? Thetrellan (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to make the correction, but you'll need to cite a reliable source first. Argento Surfer (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status?

I saw somewhere that this character is apparently public domain due to the comic he first appeared in not having copyright renewed. If this is true, should we add this to the page? Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)