[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Zatanna

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


Publication History format versus Fictional Character Biography format

[edit]

One thing I've noticed is that some comic book character articles use a Publication History format and others use a Fictional Character Biography format. I've seen a few that use both. In my opinion, if this is indeed an encyclopedia article as opposed to a contemporary comic book guidebook of a comic book company's characters, the Publication history is a necessity as it gives the real world information about the character and then it can track how that character developed over the years. The real world information is essential to an encyclopedia article. I'm not at all opposed to a fictional character biography but if used it should follow the more factual real world publication history. Fictional character biographies can also be very fluid and that should be included in some way or form. beanlynch 16:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Zatanna's appearances in Justice League Unlimited have shown that she does indeed have magical powers. Adam Y.

Rape

[edit]

"(the idea of rape has been disputed by editors)" ...What? The Identity Crisis paperback's 'Dissection' by Brad Meltzer and Rags Morales clearly refers to this as "The rape, pages 54-55". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.241.83 (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHB pic

[edit]

I can't see why changing the pic just because someone think it's "ugly". This is no valid reason to make an edit. Wikipedia is about likes and dislikes now? The original one is good enough so it stays there. 200.162.245.104 18:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting each other is not a sensible way to chose a picture. Hold a vote if you need to (post at Wikipedia:Current surveys if you want more voices), or one of you just compromise and stop this ridiculous war. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where are SoM, 65.98.21.69, DrBat, 65.110.6.40 and Rsffblcb from Hell? It seems no one but Phil Sandifer felt like discussing the subject. So, End of story? 200.162.245.104 20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Takes folks from opposing sides to come to an agreement. What's your position? Everyone involved in the recent edit war needs to begin talking, and not just to say "where's everybody else?" · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the bolland, and please. lets not use edits to pass on messages and insult others, thats what talk sections for Sunburst 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My position? Well, as I said above I can't see why changing the pic just because someone think it's ugly. I'm for Bolland's. Iconic illustration, beautiful pin-up, that's it. 200.162.245.104 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

The behavior shown in these edit summaries is appalling. Please use the talk page to come to an agreement, and remember Wikipedia's mandates about civility and no personal attacks. If you can't agree, avail yourself of dispute resolution, but edit warring and mudslinging is no way to conduct yourself here. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

I think I prefer the Bolland version here - it's a more iconic shot of Zatanna, and Bolland is the more classic/traditional style artist, making it a better illustration of the character. Phil Sandifer 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, support the Bolland image. --DrBat 12:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count four people who support Bolland and zero others. That seems a decent consensus. On the strength of that consensus I'm going to unprotect the article. There should be enough of you here to enforce that consensus if necessary, since it seems the detractors don't feel like talking. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. 200.162.245.104 19:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

"Bolland is the more classic/traditional style artist, making it a better illustration of the character." - That statement is alike to a sick joke.

Just because it's older doesn't mean it's somehow "better". Maybe more nostalgic for some, but that's nothing to do with the actual quality of the picture...

The face part of the drawing makes her look like a monkey, it's extremely poor quality and that part looks like it was drawn by a child... --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was put to a vote; more wanted Bolland. Many consider Bolland to be a better and more well-known artist than Sook. --DrBat 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. You consider that. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a weasel word. Bolland has been around for a long time, and he has done several well-known stuff. He is arguably more iconic than Sook, who is relatively knew. --DrBat 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To you. I've never even heard of this hack, and the Sook picture is obviously better... --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, four people prefer the Bolland picture. You prefer the other. Consensus is therefore for the Bolland picture. Please respect consensus, not to mention Wikipedia's policies about civility. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Sandifer, Sunburst, DrBat and an anon all preferred the Bolland picture. Even discounting the anon, the Bolland picture was still preferred three-to-one. Consensus is not with you, Selina. Please respect consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. You're only taking into an account the views of a tiny amount of people and parading them as the "majority"... --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is the majority of people who have discussed the issue on this talk page. It's unreasonable to expect every Wikipedian to come to every page and voice an opinion on every subject. But on this subject, the majority that have weighed in on the question prefers Bolland. That's how Wikipedia works. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I still prefer the Sook pic (I missed the earlier psuedo-vote because I was sick of the mess here and didn't really want to be associated with the edit-summary war). The Bolland pic's grin is outright creepy. - SoM 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've made the issue legitimately more contested; I'd say there then is no consensus currently. (2:4 or 2:3 is a different matter than 1:4 or 1:3). The question now becomes how to resolve the conflict. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since this question is now legitimately contested, and since suspicious anons have suddenly come out of the woodwork, I have protected the article. Please work toward an amicable solution here on the talk page. Perhaps the answer is to include both pictures somewhere in the article. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Including both pics would bring in fair use problems though. See WP:CENT/FUC - SoM 23:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... yes, I see. Well, maybe the answer then is to simply go with a current illustration. Whoever's doing the regular illustrating on this comic currently. (Sorry, I have no idea what this thing is, I can't contribute much to the specifics.) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that's the Sook image then, since that was published in November 2005, a month or so back, and the Bolland image is from March 2003. - SoM 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to enter the discussion at such a late moment, but I actually prefer the Sook image (and am therefore pleased with how things have shaken out). Grant Morrison's recent take on Zatanna in Seven Soldiers (drawn by Sook) effectively reconceived the character, and should have primacy of place here, in my opinion. As we achieve consensus on images we should also work on filling in this entry a bit. One way to bolster it might be by including information on the recently published crossover collection JLA: Zatanna's Search, (DC Comics, 2004; ISBN 1401201881), and by describing in more detail the role Z. has played in the disbanding of the JLA. Zatanna will (I'd guess) also be a major player in Infinite Crisis, as she strikes me as one of the few magic-powered people left standing in the DC universe who could face down the Spectre (who's currently out of control).Galliaz 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the Bolland picture. He has a far greater reputation than Sook (whose work I'm currently discovering and liking with X-Factor), his version more easily shows more of the character because it's not foreshortened, and the lighting and color in it is way more appropriate for a encylopedic entry, in my opinion, than the Sook one. Her face is fine. Nightscream 07:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this is going to remain disputed. Therefore I'd like people to think about ways to find a fair compromise. I am increasingly of the opinion that the most fair way to handle this is to simply use an example of the current illustrator. Sort of like alphabetizing the credits in a movie when it has an ensemble cast. What does everyone think? · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Her miniseries, drawn by Sook, ended last month. She doesn't have an ongoing title. - SoM 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was not a party to the above discussion (which took place 11 years ago, as of this writing) and had no idea that changing illustrations on articles about superheroes could generate such heated controversy. Nevertheless (and not having read this talk page), earlier today I updated the Adam Hughes illustration which has been in place since 2007 (9 years as of this writing) and replaced it with a Brian Boland illustration from the cover of the graphic novel Zatanna: Everyday Magic. Aside from simply refreshing the page visually, I think Boland's version captures the essence of the character really well, especially for readers who may never have heard of Zatanna. While Hughes' illustration is technically brilliant, its silly overemphasis on Zatanna's breasts bordered on the absurd and could convey an erroneous impression of what the character's about to those unfamiliar with her. Sexy? Yes. Sexpot? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerguy (talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support the decision to return to a Brian Bolland image and I think layout of this image presents the character's appearance clearly and the playful nature of it displays personality. The Bolland image is great. Both Brian Bolland and Adam Hughes are A-caliber artists with iconic styles but a less sexualized image works better. And contrary to what the user Mistress Selina Kyle stated eleven years ago, Brian Bolland (as well as Hughes) are iconic and well respected artists who were top cover artists at the time of that debate, continue to be, and have been considered top artists in the industry since the 1980s. The way that user presented the issue suggested that the user had a very limited experience with the industry. The images that represent a current pop-trend in art styles usually date themselves quickly. The look currently shown of Zatanna is one that is returned to time and time again and remains current more so than a specific look of the moment from 11 years ago. beanlynch 15:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the above"

[edit]

I see Nightscream's point about foreshortening, but I really hate the Bolland pic. What if I went through the Zatanna mini and saw if there was a better Sook pic? Would, in theory, people objecting to the current Sook pic possibly go across, or would I be wasting my time? - SoM 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find a better image, go ahead. --DrBat 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be a waste of time. (And just for the record, Wizard magazine [#171] singled out Sook's cover to Seven Soldiers: Zatanna #1 as one of the "Top 10 Covers of 2005," p. 117). There's an image of it here: http://www.thefourthrail.com/reviews/critiques/040405/sevensoldierszatanna1.shtml I've no big problem with the Bolland image, but I kind of think it's also important (esp. in an updated encyclopedia) to provide an image and description of the latest creator's "take" on the character.--Galliaz 18:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1)The cover in question isnt the aforementioned #1. 2), the there is no significant costume change between the two outfits. --DrBat 19:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nostalgia shouldn't be the priority... --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DrB: I know the cover I linked to isn't "in question": I offered it as a possible alternative. I'm not re-hashing an old argument, just looking to get beyond this impasse.Galliaz 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the Bolland pic for the body, but I understand what Selina says about the face. I'm a big Zeelot, and I've got lots of pictures of her from comics...but they're all high-res. As a compromise, I'll see about getting the B&W image from the inside cover of Zatanna Special 1. What do you think of this idea? Orville Eastland 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a plan, to me. Galliaz 14:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No B&W, but if you need to shrink a pic, use Irfanview - SoM 14:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the face on the Bolland picture is that objectionable to some people, I think perhaps we should find a third picture that we may prefer, like a different one by Sook that isn't foreshortened, and has more naturalistic lighting. Nightscream 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pitch in and say that I'm perfectly comfortable with the current picture, and detested the Bolland one as well. Although Sook may be a new artist, I like his work, and prefer it when it comes to Zatanna. That's just my two cents. Kusonaga 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I'm such a late-comer to this discussion. It *does* seem a little silly to me that this article has gone all the way to protected status over simply a choice of picture. However, I believe Sook's style is over-all a cleaner and more modernized representation of the character as she is currently being published in DC. Perhaps a compromise would be to simply offer the Bolland picture in its own article, perhaps as a small gallery representation of older renditions of the character? It would seem that this way, the Sook image is not presenting a 'better' version, simply the most current one (in line with Wiki trying to be a relatively up-to-date reference source), and the Bolland or other past artist renderings can still be satisfactorily presented, within their context (which should even better satisfy those who appreciate those images more). Since the discussion has also turned to expanding this article and better defining the stages of her career, I don't see why this shouldn't also include older images to help illustrate, literally, those same various stages. 70.180.222.57 11:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably in this situation the solution would be to create a gallery. Unfortunately we can't do that because it would violate the fair use copyright license under which we're using them. We really must only have one picture, and therein comes the problems. I still think the fairest way to determine what picture to use (in the broad sense) is to simply say we should use one from the current illustrator. As I've said before, similar to the way cast lists are handled with ensemble casts (alphabetical). · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that limitation being the case, I'd have to cast my vote for the Sook illustration based on a more aesthetic appreciation of how it represents the character, as well as the fact that it represents the most current rendering of Zatanna as yet available. Bolland's drawing demonstrates great talent, but he is not the prominent illustrator drawing her now. I would consider the comparison that if we were to look at the Superman article, or Batman, we wouldn't necessarily use as the prominent image a Curt Swan or Bob Kane drawing. We would more likely use a John Byrne or Jim Lee drawing--indeed in those articles there seems little to no debate at this magnitude regarding just an image. In fact, while Zatanna's always been one of my personal favorites alongside the "Trenchcoat Brigade" and assembled supporting cast, she isn't on par of cultural influence with those aforementioned other heroes--if so many can seem to get along in editing and handling the Wiki articles for them, it would seem arguing to this level about Zatanna is kind of pointless. I go for the Sook drawing. Removing all arguments about the look, it's an objective fact that he's the most recent illustrator, period. 68.96.174.125 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except Jim Lee hasnt worked on Batman for a while, only doing one arc for him. Should we change the image for one of the artists currently illustrating his titles?--DrBat 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say that's a reasonable argument. It's an edit that would keep Wiki articles as up-to-date as possible. Obviously somewhere in the article one could also edit to note who the most prominent artists have been on the work in the past, and then it's up to a particular visitor's choice if they want to independently seek out samples of a particular artist's work on that character themselves. The Wiki article, as far as any illustrating image should be concerned, should really ideally have just the most recent representation of the character up so that visitors reading it have an idea of the most recent information, in this case appearance, that's pertinent. 68.96.174.125 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future direction of the article

[edit]

Once we get this out of the way, we really need to expand the article. I feel guilty for not doing enough. The question is, how much can we put in without turning it into a trivia dump? (I would like her article to run for several pages, but that's just because I love her. :) ) Orville Eastland 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One way to organize the biographical portion of the entry might be by concisely describing Z.'s part in events and series; a possible sequence might be: (1) Search for Zatara; (2) Justice League; (3) Identity Crisis; (4) "Crisis of Conscience" (JLA 115-119); and (5) Seven Soldiers: Zatanna 1-4 (and other spanning issues in this series).Galliaz 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add a section regarding her career from when she left the JLA and till IdC, especially since that time would include a miniseries as well as her Secret Origins story. I'd also go into a bit more detail on her powers, as well as her skills, do a section (And possibly a seperate article- see above) on her costumes, as well as a section on her romantic interests. Orville Eastland 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less familiar with the post-JLA (pre IdC) period that you mentioned, but it definitely sounds crucial to any "bio" of the character. The other additions you mention sound sensible to me, too. As to future directions, in Wizard #172 Brad Meltzer, who will be penning the new JLA series that emerges after Infinite Crisis, is asked about the potential line-up. Here's what he says when asked about Z.: "The first biggest female crush I have." (p. 65) It's pretty clear that she'll be a major player (and maybe she'll do more than save the day at the last possible minute and mind-wipe people). So now we have Paul Dini, Alex Ross, and Meltzer on record saying that they're in love with the character --maybe it's something DC puts in the ink?--Galliaz 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current illustrator proposal

[edit]

Would people please voice how they feel about this? We need to start moving forward so the article can be unprotected. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, everyone. I've been in favor of Katefan0's compromise suggestion all along. Yes, let's move on.--Galliaz 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her Sook-illustrated miniseries ended in November. She doesn't have a "current illustrator" - SoM 16:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this clarification is necessary as I think it's plainly obvious, but just for utter certitude: the comic's most current illustrator. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now Zatanna DOES have a more current illustrator and oddly enough, ONE OF them is Bolland, whom people are lampooning regularly. Also, Zatanna has been handed much more recently by Adam Hughes and any version from Zatanna's recent series are more of a classic look for Zatanna than Sook's version. Sook's version is great, but it is a little more gothic than Zatanna is typically depicted. So, one of the recent covers of Zatanna's own on-going series, should probably be used or the amazing Adam Hughes cover from Catwoman. You could even use the stupid icon cover that has Zatanna's Icon as a hat. [User:CureWhite|CureWhite] (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Unprotected

[edit]

The article has been unprotected. Please continue to civilly work out your differences on the talk page. If edit warring starts up again, I'll protect it again but would prefer not to have to do that. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjura?

[edit]

I came across a passing reference to "an obscure comic-book character called Conjura", didn't know who that was, looked it up on Wikipedia and got redirected here. But there's no mention of any "Conjura" in the article. What's up? 86.132.136.249 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

[edit]

I removed the following text:

Smallville
The 17th episode of Smallville's 8th season, "Hex", features a character named "Cassie" who shares Zatanna's back story and origin. It is likely that "Cassie" is a substitute name and it is Smallville's version of Zatanna.

The reference given was http://www.kryptonsite.com/smallvillespoilers.htm

It has been restored. I still think it should be removed. This isn't a fact, it's speculation.

The source contains the sentence "We're wondering if "Cassie" might be a substitute name for the DC Comics magician character Zatanna, much like "Melissa" was substituted for "Maxima" in initial leaks." The page is heavily hedged with a notice that says that "Remember, spoilers are pure speculation and could turn out to be false."

This obviously isn't a reliable source. I'm taking the step of removing it again since this is such a clear-cut case. --TS 11:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Citation templates, it states that "editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus." Several of the comic books cited in the References are lacking publication dates. Of the 29 comic book cited, only 4 of them are cited using the {cite comic} template. It appeared to me that if 25 of the 29 comic book citations were not using this template, then it's better to not use it in this article. However, my edits were reverted with the summary "If going for consistancy in the cites, please use the templates". This is the first time that anyone has reverted my edits because of my citations style. Now, I really want to make clear that I am not interested in getting into an edit war of any kind with anyone. This is not meant to step on any toes. Wikipedia is a hobby (for me anyway) and hobbies are not about stress. So let's see what kind of consensus we can get here.

Also, a few things about the comic site template that bother me. Do we really need to see "New York, NY: DC Comics" posted after every comic book? If a character has been published by multiple publishers (as in the case of Blue Beetle for example), then yes, I can see the use of this. For a character such as Zatanna, couldn't a simple "all appearances are in DC Comics publications unless otherwise noted" be made? This is probably outside the parameters of this talk page.

Why is a volume number included for Detective Comics? I thought the MOS was to only include volume numbers *after* one.

All these years of seeing issue numbers with either a # or a "No." make it a bit jarring to see (833). It looks like an area code!

Also, why is there a citation to someone's "livejournal"? Possible WP:ELNEVER

What is "Zatanna: A Magic Story" in Spanish. The link doesn't work. I couldn't fine it in a Google search and the title sounds like a fan fiction site. I deleted it but it was reverted back as well. WP:NONENGEL


Mtminchi08 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the bottom up:
  • http://odemajo.iespana.es/ link - Fair point, though noting the non-English reason would have been worthwhile at the onset.
  • livegournal - Technically the restriction you pointed to deals with external links not references. And it wasn't something you had removed. The edit made was to "cover" the raw URL. There are other issues though:
    • Whether livegournal sites are considered reliable for references for articles in general or in this specific case. If it is essentially a blog, "unreliable" is going to be to likely case.
    • A bigger "this is wrong" would have been pointing out that, in general, images are not considered sources. If the image is needed in the article, uploaded it in to Wiki. If the article cannot support it, or it's redundant, or decoration - two out of three in this case - then using the footnotes as an end run is enough to get the link removed.
  • As for consistency... the long and the short is that at a project level there has been a move to migrate to using the cite template. Mostly this is to get information that should be in the cite into it, such as the story title, writer, artist, and as needed page and panel. Yes, it has a few down sides:
    • The X(Y) volume issue notation. That was place for consistency with other publication cite templates.
    • The required "Publisher" field.
The location and ID fields are optional ones that most times aren't used.
As to fixing those issues... here isn't the place for that discussion. I've started a section at Template talk:Cite comic#Comics specific formatting outlining what looks like the major two glitches. Comments to that would be welcome.
- J Greb (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I appreciate your patience with me. The comic site template issues are ones I'll discuss at the other talk page.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zatannas relationship with Constantine cannon?

[edit]

Im not sure on this as the only vertigo stuff I have read is stuff like y the last man and fables. BUT I was under the impression the Constantines series was not apart of the main dcu kind of like the marvel max punisher series. From what I have read the 2 universes differ in some significant ways and that the dc editors have for the most part not allowed Constantine to appear outside the vertigo series (until very recently. My point being that if that is the case then should it not be mentioned in that the zatanna that had a relationship with him is an alternate one? 65.183.214.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relationships

[edit]

When it reads "A pep talk between the two women confirms how Zatanna really meant...", we are talking about who and who? Because three women are mentioned (Zatanna, Catwoman and Jezebel Jet).Brazilian Man (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zatanna series- Featured on Spanish Wikipedia, nothing on here?

[edit]

I notice that the Zatanna series was featured on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Zatanna (serie limitada) - But there is no interwiki link. Do we not have an article on this series? 200.54.64.26 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zatanna. 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: 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) 20:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zatanna&oldid=1207505940"