Talk:OMAC (comics)

	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.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

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 articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Justice League#JLA: Classified|JLA: Classified]] The anchor (#JLA: Classified) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Barbara Gordon#Oracle (1989–present)|Oracle]] The anchor (#Oracle (1989–present)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Title

1)They called the OMACs, not OMAC (plural)
2)Since they're the only article known as OMACS, they dont need a "(comics)" at the end. --DrBat 00:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) And...? Lion is about lions, but is not called "Lions". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) clearly says that it is preferred to use singular form for titles. "OMACs" is clearly used as a plural form for "OMAC", which is used often enough to warrant the article be named that. It also comes out pretty silly as "Omni Mind and Communities", but I digress.
- Yes, but we're dealing with a group, not a species. And in the media, they're usually referred to in the plural sense. --DrBat 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2)"(comics)" is necessary because there's already a vaild OMAC article. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Series (Batman)

Does anyone remember an episode of the Batman Animated Series where an OMAC replica of Batman atempts to set in motion a plan to replace everyone on earth with a cyborg. But fails since it's [programed] similarity to the real batman forbids the taking of life?

I also recall an episode beforehand that introduces the replica's/OMAC cyborgs and Brother Eye.

Sentinel Simulatity

Aren't these OMACs a lot like the sentinels in marvel comics?-Giant89

Please do not use Wikipedia as a discussion forum. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean it as a discussion. I'm asking if that should be put in that article.-Giant89 15:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:NOR. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the connection between Sentry and Superman isn't?-Giant89 19:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how two wrongs make a right. I don't care for the Sentry and Superman articles. Go to their talk pages if you have a issue with them. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that was a bad referance, but what I mean is does listing a simularity and a reference that might further explain it help. I'm not saying: wow DC stole their idea, I'm saying they have a simular concept. But I guess I'm not turning you to my side.-Giant89 03:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Eye

"Brother Eye" redirects here. I think it is an important enough character to have its own article. Is there any particular reason it doesn't?? Matt White 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects because BE doesn't currently have an article. If you want to give him/it an article, go ahead. --DrBat 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Eye similarity?

Would it be appropriate to note that Brother Eye is slightly similar in appearance (and sometimes speech to the Emerald Eye of Ekron? 65.12.103.198 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Garrick listed twice

Why is he listed twice under Alpha- and Beta-level? --Pentasyllabic 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is what I came to write about as well.why is Garrick listed twice.Did his threat level change during the story? maybe he was beta, and got upgraded to alpha, or vice versa. I would think this would be easy to tell if one of you has the story it happens in. Or maybe its an error in one of the comics. -Blues

Ollie and Mia

Is Mia supposed to be listed as bigger threat than Ollie, or is that a mistake?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Omac1.PNG

Image:Omac1.PNG 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) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OmacProjectSpecial.jpg

Image:OmacProjectSpecial.jpg 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) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective character discussion

In the part where the article talks about the events of Infinite Crisis, there was this sentence: "Batman, however, says that he'll take his chances, and accepts Hal Jordan's aid in getting him to safety (an uncharacteristically trusting leap of faith as Batman views Hal Jordan as a bitter disgrace because of Jordan's fall from grace at the hands of Parallax)" I've removed everything in the brackets on the grounds that it's incredibly subjective and is an unsourced matter of opinion. I for one don't think it was out of character at all - it was a moment of character development. Batman, despite his constant naysaying about Hal Jordan, would prefer to trust him over Brother Eye - even with his own life. How is that uncharacteristic? If you disagree, then fine - I realise this is a matter of opinion. But as it is opinion, it needs to be indicated as such and sourced to a third party commentator. --Stenun (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The characters are clearly tied both in concept and design. The recent incarnation of the OMAC Project draws heavily from the One-Man Army Corps in concept (cyborg, Brother Eye, Mohawk, powers) and has become more fully integrated in recent publications. In exploring naming conventions, One-Man Army Corps thru length of publication history, (utilization thru silver and bronze age), and uses thru other mediums would point to that incarnation as having the more common name of OMAC, thus taking the OMAC (comics) naming convention. I suggest a merger of both to OMAC comics with a (sub)header describing the Omni Mind And Community. The separation creates a disjointed nature between these two intertwined topics, merging places them in a greater context. Such an overhall may also resolve some of the multiple clean-up issues. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be interested in seeing how it works. I say go for it, we can always split if it causes issues. Hiding T 10:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE I always thought they were basically the same thing; just different generations (obviously more complicated than that, but you get my point). For people looking up information about the new version it would make sense to have the old version on the same page so it is easy to learn about the older inspiration. --Spidey104^contribs 15:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OMAC that this page is about is for Omni Mind and Community while the Buddy Blank character is One-Man Army Corps. Besides, Brother Eye redirects here. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP SEPARATE The fact that both are tied in concept and design/intertwined/different generations does not mean to me that they have to be merged. Many articles are devoted to individual incarnations or generations of thematically or historically linked characters that are thus tied or intertwined: The various characters to have been a Flash, Green Lantern, Firestorm, Blue Beetle, etc. all have individual articles, which are each branched off from a main one devoted to the identity itself. It would seem to me that the criteria for separation should be whether there is sufficient notable information for individual articles, and looking over both, that certainly seems to be the case here. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"have individual articles, which are each branched off from a main one devoted to the identity itself" by Nightscream

So would you suggest we have a small main article that both of these are branched off from? (I still advocate the merge.) --Spidey104^contribs 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against The two are separate enough for separate articles.--One-Man Army Corps (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion. No consensus. No new posts for several months.--One-Man Army Corps (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited citation removed

<ref>Greg Rucka on the OMACs' [[Mohawk hairstyle|mohawks]]; "The mohawk isn't actually a mohawk; don't mistake it for hair. What's the most vulnerable place on your body? Soft tissue in the brain. So the mohawk serves as a defense for the head, protecting the process network."{{Citation needed|date=August 2007}}</ref>

I removed the above "citation" from the article's second overall paragraph. For one, it does not relate to the paragraph at all. Second, whoever put it there did not include a source for the quote. I tried to find one myself, but couldn't; so I've removed it until someone can justify its inclusion. Khaotika 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]