Talk:Livewires (comics)

Major Edit Coming

I got some advice on what I should do to get the cleanup warning removed. So when I can do so next, I'll be following that advice. I'll be removing the cover images for issues #2-6 and shortening up things where I can. I thought I'd put up this warning in case anyone else who has worked on this article was wondering why. (Stephen Day 04:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

Status

Hang on...it says at the end that most of them got blown to bits (literally) in the end of the series. Is 'active' really accurate, then? --InShaneee 01:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Stem Cell is fully functional (minus skin) and Hollowpoint Ninja is reparable, and Gothic Lolita is salvageable, so they could be considered active. It only takes one of them to continue the mission after all. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Ninja was explicitly said to be fixable (not least since he was conscious) - he just needs a new set of limbs. Lolita's fate was left much less certain, since she was practically welded into a solid mass.

Then again, they could hijack another tank of nanos and build some new Stem Cells that way, so I'd leave them active :)

Incidentally, the "Aftermath" section should be changed to reflect the fact that Ninja told/showed her the fate of Project Livewire upon her demanding to know what happened after seeing the crater, rather than her flashing back on seeing it. - SoM 11:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Creative team

There is currently no information on the series' creative team in the article. Maybe someone could add a paragraph to the lead naming its writer and artist. (unfortunately I don't really know the series, otherwise I would have just added it myself) --Fritz S. 10:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam Warren wrote it, did layouts and pencilled part of issue 6. Rick Mays pencilled the rest - SoM 11:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on them just now. I hope its OK(Stephen Day 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

The Edit Warning

There isn't anything else I can think of to do to this article. Would it be impolite of me to request that the edit warning be removed at this point? If not, could somebody tell me what else needs doing? (Stephen Day 00:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

In my opinion the article is fine. I removed the tag. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That's good

At this point I'd like to thank everyone who worked on this article. It was the first article I wrote that was more than just a stub, and I wanted it to be good. Its nice to see it finished and warning notice free. :-) (Stephen Day 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Superteambox Picture

I notice that the superteambox picture has been changed to the cover from issue #4 again. I don't think this is the best picture to use, and that issue #1 is better.

The problem is Cornfed. He is depicted on the issue #4 cover in a way that doesn't refect how he actually looked in the comic well at all. This can't be said about anyone on issue #1's cover.

I don't want to start an edit war over this. So I thought I'd post this and hear what people have to say. (Stephen Day 06:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

Since nobody responded here I'm going to change the superteambox picture back to cover #1. If anyone disagrees please let me know your reason here. My intention isn't to be unreasonable. I'm willing to listen, and even be swayed be another person's opinion. :-) (Stephen Day 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Gallery

I deleted the gallery because of where it was. On my monitor the gallery images and the trade paperback image were merging. It really didn't look good.

I don't see why this article needs a gallery anyway though. If someone can tell me why I'm willing to listen. :-) (Stephen Day 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

We have almost all of the covers posted, why not the last 2? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The way things were before with all those gallery images, the article seemed to be cut into two pieces for no real good reason. Seeing things the way they are at this point -- it doesn't look bad at all. So, there is no real problem anymore I guess. (Stephen Day 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Why does "social butterfly" redirect to here?

I'm so confused. 136.176.8.18 03:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor had created anchors out of the code names for the members of this series' group. I agree, with most of the names this is more confusing than helpful and I've removed them. Stephen Day 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that the majority of people hitting that redirect are looking for a definition of the term, not a character. And while there's no article about "social butterfly," it still seems strange to redirect this here, because most people probably don't mean this. --Trog 66.235.19.146 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer is to intercept the redirect. I've done it now: Social Butterfly. A little clunky and not ideal but better than the previous solution. (Emperor (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Livewirescover1.jpeg

Image:Livewirescover1.jpeg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livewires (comics). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521070426/http://runaways.mergingminds.org/ to http://runaways.mergingminds.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)