Talk:Rogue (Marvel Comics)

"Reluctant Supervillain"? Horsefeathers!

The first paragraph includes this odd statement: "Rogue is initially depicted as a reluctant supervillain, . . ." Rogue's first appearance was in Avengers Annual 10 (which you may read here: https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/The-Avengers-1963/Annual-10#1 ), and her first act was an attempted murder of Carol Danvers by throwing her off the Golden Gate Bridge. She also stole the abilities of Captain America and hurled his unconscious body through a window. And with the additional powers of Thor, she aided the Brotherhood and fought the Avengers.

She also fought the X-Men in the Pentagon, contemptuously mocking Carol Danvers. And she also conducted a one-woman vendetta against the Dazzler, admitting in a later issue of the X-Men that she was trying to kill her.

So, I vehemently disagree that started as the "reluctant supervillain." She seemed to embrace supervillainy with alacrity. In fact, in reading her first appearance, I had to note that she seemed quite ruthless back then, when compared to her appearances as a member of the X-Men.

She might, perhaps, have become a reluctant supervillain when she left the Brotherhood to appeal to Professor X for aid, but when I read that she was "initially depicted as the reluctant supervillain," I had to laugh. Someone is not reading the same Rogue I was reading. SanctimoniousPharisee (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Though I haven't read that particular annual in years, I agree that there was nothing "reluctant" about her original depiction. Also her early appearances did not specify that Rogue was not adult villain. By the time she joined the X-Men, Rogue was depicted as much more conflicted, and she was portrayed as a teenager. Dimadick (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

See the following bio of Rogue for some visual differences in her early appearances: https://uncannyxmen.net/characters/rogue/biography/page/0/1 Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you agree. Moreover, the biography you shared seemed to underscore my point. She not only attempted to murder Carol Danvers, but she attempted to murder Dazzler several times (and she admitted that murder was her objective in her ongoing vendetta with Dazzler in X-Men 178, page 20 https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Uncanny-X-Men-1963/Issue-178?id=22862#21 ).

She also fought the X-Men to a standstill at the Pentagon, cruelly mocking Carol Danvers in her fruitless attempts to shoot her.

As for Rogue not being an adult villain, I'm not sure there ever was a time when she was not an adult. The first time I heard Rogue mention her age was in X-Men 182, page 17, she said she was 18 (https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Uncanny-X-Men-1963/Issue-182?id=22867#18)

But of course, that doesn't mean she wasn't 17 in her earlier appearances, comic book timelines being what they are. She may have not ben an adult yet. And even if she wasn't then, at 18, she's only borderline and most people don't make a huge distinction out of it anyway.

As an aside, we could also argue that she's a sexual assailant, she she often chose to steal the powers of men by kissing them. Something that would definitely not go over well today. Which would explain the revamping of her powers.

But I digress. The point is, there's nothing "reluctant" about her actions in the role of supervillain in her early appearances.SanctimoniousPharisee (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Italics

Why is the title of the page italicized?
LoveWaffle (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Because somone put in {{Infobox comic book title}} instead of using {{Infobox comics character and title}}. - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Caldecott, Mississippi

The article says "Hailing from Caldecott, Mississippi (a fictional county)", but if Caldecott were a county, it would be called "Caldecott County" not "Caldecott". Leaving off the "County" means that Caldecott is a city (or town or unincorporated community) not a county. Which is it, it Caldecott a county or a city? There's a third option, Rouge could be from the City of Caldecott, which is located in Caldecott County. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rogue got naked and enthusiastically banged the Sentry. They had sexual intercourse, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

I know there's this thing. This thing about Rogue. Our own article states she's been a consistently popular character for decades, and you certainly can't say that about the Sentry. But I knew about this thing with her because I have read whole articles, reviewing the Sentry: Fallen Sun one-shot, that basically turned on the question of Rogue's virtue, or perhaps her very virginity. It was all they cared about in the entire issue. I have seen a whole blogful of comic geeks roaring, "This is ONE Sentry-related retcon TOO FAR!"

So, yeah, obviously there's a thing about Rogue, this beautiful and beloved mutant girl who couldn't touch anybody, or it might hurt them or kill them or something, but I bet a lot of those angry fans had moments when they would have gladly taken the chance. If she was, y'know, real.

Okay, but first of all: If you're going to argue that the hot superhero sex they definitely had didn't happen, then you're basically calling Rogue a liar. Not the Sentry—just Rogue. (And on what planet do women lie about having sex with certain men?)

You could claim that the whole one-shot issue, this epilogue to Siege, about the memorial for Robert Reynolds, as written by Sentry creator Paul Jenkins, is non-canon. Oh, except, gee, you don't get to make that call. So, yeah, secondly: Marvel gets to retcon all it wants, and the readers get to retcon not at all.

So, this is how I found this article:

Following the Siege of Asgard, Rogue was present at Sentry's memorial, where it was suggested he was immune to her power and that a time in the past when she knew no other physical contact, she had at least one encounter with him of some physically intimate nature. However, it was established in Sentry #4 that Sentry and Rogue never met.

Boy, oh boy, talk about, first, tip-toeing around the very possibility that Robert and Rogue got down and dirty with cock and clit and fucking and sucking -- before stamping your foot down on the very idea, as if it were a big nasty cockroach, and insisting it didn't happen, anyway.

And talk about your wishful thinking.

So, third of all, I cleaned up that first part, making it more simple and direct:

Following the Siege of Asgard, Rogue was present at the funeral of Robert Reynolds, the Sentry. She stated that Robert was immune to the ill effects of her power, and that a time in her past when she could touch no one else, she had at least one intimate encounter with him.

(Funny how trying to make writing better so often makes it shorter.)

I mean, "at least one encounter with him of some physically intimate nature"? Seriously?? Are we pretending to be sophisticated robots from some other planet, detachedly gathering data on the ape-like behavior of Terrans???

Or are we just holding out hope that it was all about aromatherapy, candles, crystals, and deep-tissue massage?!?

Guys, they fucked. That's what we adults DO with each other. C'mon.

However, it was established in Sentry #4 that Sentry and Rogue never met.

That's gone. It was never true. I know exactly what scene the contributor is referring to, and it doesn't "establish" anything of the kind. That's wishful thinking, which is very sad. Now, since this is Rogue's article and not the Sentry's, I was fairly brief in what I wrote next, but let me spell it out for you here:

As Emma Frost and Doctor Strange both discovered, Robert Reynolds has a head full of mental blocks, courtesy of Jason Wyndgarde, the mutant Mastermind. The point was to make Robert forget that he even was a powerful superhero in the first place, to destroy the Sentry from the inside out. This might have also been how his evil alter-ego, the Void, was created. Maybe not. Either way, it turns out that Robert forgetting both the Sentry and the Void is the best thing for the human race, so he has voluntarily submitted to subliminal hypnosis, designed by Reed Richards, that wipes the Sentry and the Void from the minds of everyone on Earth, including his own.

But one night Robert woke up with his memories slowly returning, only certain that the Void was coming to destroy humanity, and determined to stop that. Misguided, he struggles to make himself and all his former allies remember the Sentry and the Void as much as possible. These allies include Professor Charles Xavier, who he contacts telepathically. Through this telepathic bond, Robert "sees" Angel, Nightcrawler, Wolverine, and Rogue. I don't know how accurate that is, "seeing" via telepathy, through someone else's eyes. Do you? Anyway, he says "Who are these people, Xavier? I don't recognize any of them." That's it. Not, "I've certainly never met ANY of these people before in my LIFE!" In fact, he realizes that he does know Angel, but didn't recognize him at first because his skin is now blue, while Robert remembers him as Caucasian-colored. This is less than one day of remembering his life as the Sentry -- he woke up in the middle of the night with dim memories and dark foreboding, drank his super-serum, and is gradually regaining both his powers and memories. Gradually.

Come to think of it, if his history was anything like the way it's described, the Sentry, the mightiest hero on Earth, might have bedded a lot of women he doesn't entirely remember. He banged Crystal of the Inhumans while she was fighting with her then-boyfriend Johnny Storm. This comes up when Bob is just sitting on the moon, avoiding the Civil War, and he's completely forgotten the Inhumans - including Crystal - LIVE on the moon! So . . . yeah!

Just to replace the removed text with something of balance, I wrote:

However, between two episodes of psychic blocks that caused Robert to completely forget his life as the Sentry, when he regained those memories for a few days, he contacted Charles Xavier telepathically, and did not recognize Rogue when he "saw" her through that telepathic bond.

Of course, let's face reality here on Earth-Prime, too: The real reason for this contradiction is, when Paul Jenkins wrote the first miniseries of The Sentry, he surely had no idea he'd want to retcon the Sentry's fireman into Rogue's hot, wet tunnel of love. It's all fiction. The first Sentry miniseries wasn't the beginning of Sentry's life as a superhero, far from it, but it was the beginning for his creators. That's the real reason for all this. But no matter how you balance out the contradiction, it's a lot more likely that Rogue did indeed buck and squirt all over Robert Reynolds, and dig her nails into his back as she shuddered through the spasms of a violent orgasm.

You can still accuse Rogue of lying, if you want, but you can't accuse the Sentry because he's dead, and you can't accuse Paul Jenkins because Marvel paid him for that story and not you.

Sorry this is so long, but I try to forestall as many arguments and misunderstandings as possible. It's a compulsion, trying to anticipate and neutralize every possible objection.

--Ben Culture (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Non-Canon Event

It's no longer canon and it's the writers who make that decision, Rogue & Gambit Vol.1, issue #3, page 4 (2018) has Rogue herself stating that her first time with anyone was with Gambit in Antarctica.

"It was out first time, but also my first time... something I didn't know if I was ever going to get..."[1]

But I'm not going to edit the page with this, that's for someone else to do, I just felt like saying something about this.--108.208.137.95 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris Claremont isn't credited for creating the character anywhere in the article.

That's - kind of a big oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.127.9 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got a reliable source saying who created Rogue, then? I've been looking for one for months to no avail.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Which of the X-Men had met Rogue?

Corrected a small error in the X-Men section which stated that of the active duty members of the X-Men at the time when Rogue joined, Storm was the only one who had met Rogue. Nightcrawler had also met and fought Rogue in the same issue in which Storm had met her. 107.144.133.225 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll double-check the issue when I get home, but I'm 99% sure you're wrong. Only Storm, Wolverine, and Carol Danvers even went inside the Pentagon (where the entire encounter with Rogue took place); Nightcrawler was outside in the car.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I double-checked and it seems my memory failed me; Nightcrawler gets involved in the situation in the Pentagon only briefly, but he does meet Rogue. Going to restore your edit now.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move to the "Rogue (Marvel Comics)" title. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 18:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Rogue (comics) → Rogue (character) – Per 2017 update to WP:NCC. DarkKnight2149 21:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: To understand some of the debate going on below, I would recommend taking a look at the multiple consecutive move discussions that began with Requested move 5 April 2018 at Talk:Joker (character). It involved Zxcvbnm, Netholic, myself, and the several users tagged below. DarkKnight2149 05:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) Too generic a name to use the generic disambiguation (character). There is also Rogue (character class) which can easily be confused._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Rogue (Marvel Comics), per Zxcvbnm's suggestion. We should avoid confusion with Rogue Trooper, the British comic book character. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Are there actually any other characters called "Rogue"? I'm not aware of any. And am sorry to say, but a relatively obscure character named "Rogue Trooper" stands very little chance of being confused with this Rogue (even by name alone). I don't even think you could add a Not to be confused with template at the top of the article, because it would fall under "disambiguating things that aren't ambiguous." DarkKnight2149 08:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I should, however, add that it would be viable to place a Disambiguate template at the top of the article for Thief (character class) (which Rogue (character class) redirects to). I would only support a full move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) if there is a singular character named "Rogue" that this character would reasonably be confused with. A character class with a different article name and a supervillain team are similar enough to warrant a disambiguation at the top of the article, but not enough to convince me that the (Marvel Comics) DAB is necessary for the title. DarkKnight2149 08:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The main character of Rogue Trooper is indeed called Rogue, so he could plausibly be referred to by Rogue (character)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The main character appears to be pretty obscure and doesn't even have an article of their own. This is clearly the primary topic, and most people searching for a character named Rogue are almost certainly searching for this character. This was also discussed at move discussions at Talk:Joker (character), and the consensus was that the existence of minor characters of the same name that lack articles of their own do not warrant an alternate DAB. (character) is the proper title here. DarkKnight2149 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Pretty obscure" doesn't really mean anything. Unless there is absolutely no chance of it being confused, it should not use such a disambiguation. I don't really understand what's the 5 alarm emergency to use a more vague disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

They stand very little chance of ever being confused. It was already determined (more than once) at the move discussions that you and Netoholic repeatedly opened at Talk:Joker (character) that the existence of minor characters that aren't even notable enough to have their own article do not warrant an alternate DAB. This Rogue is easily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and (character) is the correct DAB per past discussions and repeat community consensus. The fact that the two of you are still pushing this at other articles is pretty worrisome. DarkKnight2149 20:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" anything, it's the guideline. Quoting WP:NCC here directly: If a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate. I would advise you to stop being WP:TENDENTIOUS yourself and listen to the many other users here who have pointed out how you are wrong. It seems like you are blowing this way out of proportion to be "right"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is determined by consensus, and the section you are referring to only applies when multiple characters of equal notability have articles of their own (see Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics)). Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NCC, and the multiple overwhelming consensus at Talk:Joker (character), the correct title is Rogue (character).

You and Netoholic opened three back-to-back move discussions (one after another) at Talk:Joker (character) using the same reasoning you are here, while trying absurdly hard to get the title changed. You were met with overwhelming opposition each and every time, and now the two of you are going from article-to-article with the same proposals. That's definitely disruptive, and this should honestly be dismissed per WP:SNOWBALL. If you want to change the consensus, I would recommend opening a larger discussion at WP:COMICS. Otherwise, this is exactly civil WP:POV pushing. Take your own advice and listen to other editors. DarkKnight2149 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should also mention that your comment about "listen to the many other users here who have pointed out how you are wrong" is highly hypocritical and holds no water. Besides you and Netholic, the only user that has formally supported you is Dimadick, and he most likely wasn't aware of the previous discussions. That's pretty much the only support you have, as far as "other users" go. Even Darkwarriorblake was just making a complaint about the circumstances that led to WP:NCC being changed in 2017, and not a formal vote about you being correct. Please do not exaggerate your circumstances. DarkKnight2149 05:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to do with Netoholic's actions and often heavily disagree with him in move discussions. Suggesting that we engaged in some kind of shadowy cabal is outright ridiculous. Per WP:TAGTEAM, Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. There is no conspiracy here nor any sort of evidence that we are working together in any way._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please demonstrate for me where a "shadowy cabal" was suggested. Using strawman fallacies to try and WP:GAME the discussion is also disruptive. The two of you opened three consecutive move discussions at Talk:Joker (character), and a fourth one elsewhere, and were met with overwhelming opposition. By the end of the fourth move request, several editors were even complaining about the ridiculousness of the situation and the discussion was closed by an administrator per WP:SNOW. An administrator had to specifically say not to open another move request at that article because of it.

Whether or not the two of you are "tag teaming" is irrelevant. Both of you have continued to make the same move requests at other articles, despite the consensus being overwhelmingly against you in multiple consequentive discussions. I don't see how you can justify that. If you want to change consensus that badly, I would suggest opening a larger discussion at WP:COMICS instead of making the same requests at other articles and hoping no one notices. DarkKnight2149 05:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) - "Rogue (character) could apply to several media characters, the RPG and other archetypes. -- Netoholic @ 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note - This matter was already been discussed before at Talk:Joker (character), where Netoholic and ZXCVBNM opened multiple move discussions pushing the same reasonings they outlined here. Given that this is the exact same subject matter, I'm indiscriminately notifying everyone (regardless of their position) involved in those move discussions for a more clear cut consensus: @Dekimasu: @Erik: @Argento Surfer: @TheJoebro64: @Darkwarriorblake: @Tenebrae: @IagoQnsi: @Katolophyromai: @Old Naval Rooftops: @Rreagan007: @Cuchullain: @Paine Ellsworth: @SmokeyJoe: @Amakuru: @Cambalachero: @SnowFire: @Ribbet32: @No such user:

Everyone is tagged regardless of their positions (except for one user who I have a two-way WP:IBAN with), so there was no selective choosing here. If the exact same subject matter has been discussed before in a move discussion, the right thing to do is to notify everyone involved in the previous one. DarkKnight2149 19:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both options on an argument applicable to this page only; Rogue (Marvel character) would be my suggestion, but open to other options. (In other words, as a supporter of Joker (character), this is not an endorsement of moving that article as well to include needless disambiguation, I haven't changed my mind.) Rogue / Thief as a character class in games is certainly a relevant possibility, and more generally, there may be a missing article on the literary archetype of the rogue. I see from the disambiguation page that Lovable rogue exists as a bad stub; possible that article should be moved to Rogue (archetype) and expanded, since it seems like Joseph Campbell, etc. should have plenty of material on the idea of Rogueish characters in fiction. Re the "(Marvel Comics)" suggestion: is there someone called "Rogue" in other comics who is actually notable? If not, I don't understand why "Marvel" needs to be added. Regardless, "comics" is misleading as a disambiguator since surely more people have known this character thanks to TV/movies/games/etc. than actual comics at this point. (Note: Came here due to Dark Knight's ping above.) SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to hold back replying here to avoid accidental bludgeoning, since this discussion is pretty small, but to answer your question - No, there is no other notable comic book character named Rogue. The closest thing is a supervillain team, and that's something that would only warrant a Not to be confused with template at the top of the article. This is a near identical situation to the move discussions at Talk:Joker (character), so I honestly don't know why WP:SNOWBALL wouldn't apply here. DarkKnight2149 19:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Re the "(Marvel Comics)" suggestion: is there someone called "Rogue" in other comics who is actually notable? If not, I don't understand why "Marvel" needs to be added. There is nothing called "Marvel", because the publisher is Marvel Comics. "Marvel Comics character" is too long, per WP:CONCISE, so it's just "Marvel Comics"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Marvel is referred to as just "Marvel" constantly in the Marvel Comics article, as well as other media. I'd say that if we're invoking WP:CONCISE, "Comics" is less helpful and more misleading than "character" if we're looking to cut a word. We have Henry Howard (Rhode Island politician), not Henry Howard (Rhode Island and Providence Plantations politician), so no need to have the full title. SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I would probably go with Rogue (Marvel Comics). I am probably going to have to do something similar with Joker (character) because the same person keeps derailing its FA nominations by claiming that the article isn't about the comics character and needs coverage of the character in other media. Then I point them to Joker in other media and they ignore that and derail the nominations until they're inevitable delisted. This person is an idiot. But that is the world we live in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We would need to go back and change WP:NCC to what it was before the major 2017 WP:COMICS discussions for this preference to be valid. Right now, the current WP:NCC dictates that (character) is what we should officially go with. DarkKnight2149 21:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Rogue (character) looks OK to me per nom. Even if there is another obscure character by thay name, this is primary over it and it doesn't even have an article anyway. No need to add superfluous disambiguation  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose due to Rogue (character class) which can easily be confused. Support alternate move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (character). Anyone searching for character class will see that as an option, and a hat note (or link to the DAB page) can fix that for the few who miss it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The difference between "character" and "character class" is tenuous at best. If I told someone "I'm making a rogue character", they would assume I was creating a character that was a rogue. IMO, the existence of the other Rogue character doesn't even matter in this case, because it's still too easy to confuse the D&D class._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Rogue (character). I personally wouldn't be opposed to Rogue (Marvel Comics), but this seems to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JOEBRO64 00:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: there's a general consensus to move away, but no consensus on which title. I'm relisting this to get a few more opinions on the best title assuming a move. Sceptre (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "(character)" disambiguation as Rogue (character class) exists and almost any RPG game will have a rogue character, either as a class, or a specific character. Do support "(Marvel Comics)". --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics) due to the existence of Rogue (character class). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics). It is about Marvel. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics) per above. – Levivich 16:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics)--Ortizesp (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. I can understand but don't quite agree with the argument about Rogue (character class) - no one knowledgeable about that subject would think Rogue (character) referred to it. And there don't appear to be any other articles on characters of this name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 25 October 2019 (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.

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)