Talk:Geppetto (Fables)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: DC Comics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article has been marked as requiring an image. Please add one in accordance with guidance. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Apparently this article needs wikifying. According to the glossary, this means to add links to the text, which it already possesses, and to format it appropriately. I didn't think it was particularly out of line; I made a deliberate attempt to follow the general formatting used in other articles. Any ideas as to what's being referred to here? Be quite nice to avoid the same errors in the future. --Tailkinker 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the automatic redirect from The Adversary (Fables) be removed? The identity of the Adversary is a major spoiler, and the automatic redirect leads to two problems: (1) clicking on the Adversary's link inevitably spoils the Adversary's identity, and (2) users cannot be warned that they are going to be spoiled before clicking on the link.

I propose removing the redirect, putting some basic non-spoiler information about the Adversary on the new page, and putting a link to this page between spoiler warnings and without the character's name in the link text.

I realize I'm new to Wikipedia and this problem has probably been addressed before, but I can't think off the top of my head of an equivalent problem to check what's been done already. Thoughts? Kate Nepveu 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the principle. Sounds good; I suppose if you could even find a sihouette, it might be doable - however, I believe all references to the Adversary are already in spoiler-zones, meaning it is theoretically not a problem, as anyone who clicked the link is already voluntarily reading the spoiler. samwaltz 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In links, mostly--the Homelands (Fables) page doesn't have the link within spoilers--but a search on "Adversary Fables" returns, as the first result, the redirect to this page.

In my case, I got spoiled by clicking on the link in the List of characters in Fables. It's true that the whole list is enclosed in spoilers, but there's no way to tell the magnitude of the spoiler from that list. If it had been a non-redirect page and I'd seen that the entire page was marked off with spoiler warnings, I'd have clicked away before my brain absorbed the text; but because it was a redirect, I couldn't.

Kate Nepveu 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving this page to The Adversary (Fables), preface it with a good two paragraphs about what is known about the Adversary before the revelation... then toss in a spoiler warning? samwaltz 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me, but since I haven't got to the revelation in canon yet, either someone else will have to do it or it'll have to wait until I've read that far. => Kate Nepveu 11:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that far yet, either. I wouldn't mind waiting for you to get that far, however you might want to put a call out on the Talk:Fables (Vertigo) page. Based on the fact that I'm the only one responding here, I doubt many others have it on theiir watch list. samwaltz 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely, I'm afraid. His name is not "The Adversary", that's not even an official title, it's simply a nickname assigned to him by the other Fables; as such, it would most certainly not be appropriate to change the title of the page - real names should be used as page titles if at all possible. If people go to a page about the Adversary, then they should not be surprised to find that that page prominently features the identity of that individual - by definition, they are accepting the spoiler. If they actively search on "Adversary Fables" and get linked to this page, then, in my view, they are choosing to open themselves to finding out the character's true identity. There's only so much that we can cover on this one - if this page is to be truly encyclopaedic, we really can't hide the identity of the Adversary until a spoiler section at the end, particularly as his abilities are fundamental to how he ended up as the Adversary in the first place. I would be all for altering the Fables character list page and, as required, any other page about the comic, to have a small amount of detail about the Adversary, then provide the link to this page with a note that going there will reveal the real identity of the character, but that's about it. --Tailkinker 10:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed precedent in other series that allows such a usage: The article Carver (Nip/Tuck) doesn't mention that the Carver was Quentin Costa until the fourth section. Quentin's page itself doesn't identify him as the carver until the end of the section Character history. We should also keep in mind the broad spectrum of secret/alternate identities which have separate pages: Clark Kent/Superman, etc. I'll keep my eyes open for other character-revelations. samwaltz 06:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there confirmation for Peter Pan as the original Adversary? I had always heard that that was either an untrue rumor or deliberate misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Willingham has mentioned Peter Pan figuring into earlier drafts on the Fabletown message boards.[1]66.24.238.22 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the explanation of why he changed the character to gepetto seems stupid to me peter pan is very well known in britain as a brit i remember reading peterpan in school and watching the film as a youth 86.13.204.247 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what "public domain" is. Basically, it means whether or not Willingham and posse would have to ask permission or pay money to use the character. Superman is as well known as Peter Pan, but he is the legal property of DC Comics, and will be until the copyright expires. Snow White and Cinderella have been around so long that we don't know who first spoke the stories. The Jungle Book was written so long ago that even though Mowgli and Bagheera have a specific creator, anyone can use them without permission. Kipling gets bragging rights and credit forever, but he and his heirs only get royalties for so many years after his death. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense, but wouldnt it be clearer just to say that peter pan was copyrighted so they were unable to use him 86.30.108.115 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the recent events of issues #73-75, Gepetto's page sorely needs updating, with the results of the war as well as Gepetto's own status included. DestradoZero 01:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs an article section (or a whole article) on the literal "puppet Adversary"-- the one made of wood. While avoiding spoilers would be ideal, Wikipedia's purpose takes precidence over any desire to avoid spoilers, be Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, anyone reading about Fables (comics) on Wikipedia has to know they risk seeing spoilers. tahc ^chat 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]