Talk:Archer & Armstrong

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Can we really say it was highly successful when it was canceled after the Chaos Effect? It's a great read, but highly successful is highly dubious--Impulse 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squiddy Awards

I previously removed text stating that "The comic and the characters have received recognition in the industry with a nomination for the R.A.C.Squiddy Award for Favorite Continuing Series in 1992, the R.A.C. "Squiddy" Award for Favorite New Series in 1992, and the R.A.C. "Squiddy" Award for Favorite Character Team in 1992." This removal was because the comic received only one vote in two of those categories, and two votes in the other category. [1]

This information was reinstated by an anonymous editor on the grounds that 1 or 2 votes is still recognition. It's not really significant recognition, though. Consider that for major entertainment industry awards like the Oscar, Grammy, or Emmy, the public only finds out what were the top five nominees in each category. The Squiddies are much less significant awards, so it doesn't make sense to treat every single item voted for as an honoree just because that data is publicly available. --Metropolitan90 07:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong's Age

Please quit changing it. 5000 is incorrect. In issue number three he says that he celebrated his 5000th birthday in Herculaneum. Considering it was destroyed in 79 AD, even if he isn't 10,000 years old he's at least well over 5,000. It doesn't matter what any timeline says, the comic itself overrules that. Armstrong has stretched the truth and has told outright lies, but that wasn't one of them. 70.54.127.2 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Valiant Voice #2--Aram was born 3266 BC. That is considered the official timeline of the Valiant Universe. As for knowing whether a fictional character is lying, unless you're Jim Shooter (or perhaps BWS), you have no way of knowing.--Robbstrd 21:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Windsor-Smith wrote that issue. I didn't say I could tell when he was lying, just that there was no reason to think so unless something valid contradicted it. That timeline is not canon, anymore than the Marvel Handbook is canon for that universe. Admit it when you have no idea what you're talking about, when you're in over your head. 70.54.127.2 21:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Voice, being a publication of Voyager Communications (you know, the company that owned Valiant), certainly qualifies as canon. Or did you not realize that?--Robbstrd 22:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from Archer and Armstrong 3 is doubtful, both due to Aram's general lack of care with facts, and also because he in the same panel admits that he might be joking.

On the other hand Eternal Warrior 1, Eternal Warrior 37, Eternal Warrior 38, Timewalker 0, to mention a few examples, all indicate an age around 5000 years.

Personal attacks

To the unregistered user who insists Armstrong is 10,000 years old, even in the face of overwhelming evidence: You referred to me as a "colossal moron" in your last edit [2]. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before further editing.--Robbstrd 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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) 15:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current article

The entire article needs to be deleted and rewritten. It is a hopeless morass of original research, trivia and plot bloat. Lots42 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for later; when it does get rewritten, Archer's insane action movie star neighbor plays an important plot part. Lots42 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archer & Armstrong. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Archer & Armstrong. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1017?articleID=78078%2F
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810042944/http://www.geeksunleashed.me/2012/12/26/geeks-unleasheds-top-twenty-comics-of-2012-20-16/ to http://www.geeksunleashed.me/2012/12/26/geeks-unleasheds-top-twenty-comics-of-2012-20-16/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wiki.valiantentertainment.com/index.php?title=Archer_&_Armstrong

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) 14:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]