Talk:Question (character)

"Original series" concerns

The current version of the article describes the "origin of the character, established in the original DC Comics series" - but there's no such thing as "the original DC Comics series", because the original series was under a different publisher. I thought maybe it meant the first series to be published by DC, but the article goes on to describe that series separately. So where does this origin come from? --Paul A 07:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I used that phrase considering that DC Comics is restarting the Question series in a few months time. So, I am referring to the O'Neil/Cowan series. As for the origin, it appeared in the second Annual of the series. But it could use some clarification.

-Kchishol1970 07:51, 6 Sept 2004 (EDT)

Mister A and The Question

The article neglects to mention "Mister A" which is the original version of the character that became "The Question". Ditko created both, but I think Mister A came first.

No, Mr A came later, and took Dikto's Objectivism even further than the original version of the Quesion did.-Daibhid C 15:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but per an interview with Ditko himself, Mr. A. came first. Go here: http://www.vicsage.com/misc/mistera.php to read the relavent stuff. 8 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.158.137 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Page Disarray

I've noticed that this page is a little disorganized, what with information being listed under incorrect headers, like The Question's appearances in the Inspiration section and some of the Appearances info being more biographical than it is related to appearances.

I am wondering if this has been the subject and ground of vandalism. Hopefully someone can restructure things in a better manner.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 82.92.119.11 29 June 2005 10:22 (UTC)

Actually, I had made a move of some bits of information. But I am not entirely familiar with the layout and I did not want anyone else to think that perhaps my good intentions were made in a move of vandalism and subsequently move to get my access to the site restricted.

Wikipedians are required to assume good faith. Nobody can block you immediately for just moving around information or even completely overhauling the page; they are at the very least required to warn you that what you're doing is vandalism (and really, vandalism is adding things like "OMG U R GAY" to pages, not just editing them). Be bold. Don't worry about it! 82.92.119.11 2 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

Page is still presented in a very non-standard fashion. For example, it is standard practice, on Wikipedia, when discribing a fictional being to give the publication history, (the history of the stories in which a charater appears) and the in-universe histories (the biography of the character) in clearly defined, headed and seperate sections. I understand and sympathize with how problematic this is for any charater whose biography is extensively retconed, who is presented very differently by different authors or in different works (or for any of DC's "Crisis continuity" charaters but it is what I, a reader unfamiliure with this charater, expect. This article seems to be dividing the differing presentations up based on what publications they appear in, but trying to present an "in-universe" sequence of events. If this charater is important enough to warrant such a large article, perhapse they have a fan dedicated enough to standardize their presentation here.75.68.16.228 (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar DC Character

Oddly, if you take a look at Detective Comics #34, there is a character whom Batman encounters named Charles Maire who has a blank face (though his was burned off by a villain named Duc D'Orterre), and wears a fedora and a trenchcoat...

Peasily 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Detective Comics #34 was printed in December 1939, and the page says "The original was created by writer-artist Steve Ditko, and first appeared in Blue Beetle #1 (June 1967)."

Xylon.doulas (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm doing this right. I was just re-reading the series when I suddenly realized that the no-face look was also used by the agents of the Global Peace Authority in Jack Kirby's OMAC series - the one difference being that the GPA masks covered their hair, as well, while the Question's shaggy locks were the subject of some discussion and debate in the DC series lettercol - mostly, I think, by female fans.

70.172.198.138 17:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Peter Maranci, pmaranci at gmail dddot com.

The most similar character to the Question has to be Yankee Doodle, from the pages of Morrison's Doom Patrol. Yankee Doodle was actually a cancelled Showcase character, who had the same basic shtick of the Question, namely the blank face deal. He would use his disguises to confuse the baddies before taking them down. Intended for Showcase #50, in May 1964, he was pulled and some King Faraday reprints were done instead.

He's notable because he stole notes from Professor Rodor to make the gas for his disguise. Of course, Professor Rodor is the Question's main man. Yankee Doodle finally saw print in Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol #51, in January 1992. More information can be gleaned at http://members.tripod.com/originalvigilante/yankeedoodle.htm DoctorWorm7 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That link no longer works. -- Beardo (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Szasz

Is the Question related in any way to the Batman villain of this name? It's a real, Hungarian surname, but it's not common in the US. Also, the Vic Sage's Randian existentialism is similar to Szazs's Darwinian philosophy, but for the fact that one is evil.
But I am trying to avoid original research, so I'm getting this vetted on the discussion page.Bjones 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of Mr./Victor Zsasz. Different spelling than the Question's surname, so, no. Zsasz gravitates more toward nihilism, anyway. They do share a given name, so the question is asked rather often.--Buinne 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The article on Mr Zsasz mentions that he's named after the Hungarian psychologist, but the spelling is different.Bjones 06:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, I only mean to say that the characters themselves are unrelated. It's quite possible that Szasz is also the Question's deliberate namesake. I'd not state it as a definite until finding confirmation from Denis O'Neil, who was the first to reveal Sage's "real" name, I think.--Buinne 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychotropic chemical?

I've just re-read the most recent Question series, and I can find no reference at all to the Question's altered perceptions being created by psychotropic chemicals. Instead, the text - and interviews with the writer - suggest that Sage's new abilities are shamanic in nature. Supernatural, not hallucinated, which would also explain why they always seem to be right, not to mention including the ability to see a ghost. Given that this is the DC universe we're talking about, supernatural abilities don't seem that unreasonable to me, even if they are new to the character. Anyone else? Lokicarbis 07:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing that since that particular interpretation of the character did not catch on, as the miniseries was not very popular, that the miniseries is no longer continuity. We'll find out once the Secret Origins back-ups start in 52, and we get Victor Sage's origin recapped for our pleasure. But if it isn't drugs that change the way he interacts with the world in the 2005 mini, then that should be rectified.--Dont Waltz 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is this panel: [1].152.30.163.114 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mark Waid-penned origin of the Q? appears in the back story of 52 #18. When it arrives, I'll try to update things. 152.30.150.22 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this makes it official -- the Q-Saves-Superman miniseries is non-canon. I could not be more disappointed.

What is the proof of the Question's popularity on JLU?

I enjoy the Question character, but given the relatively short life of the JLU series, I question if the Question is popular. Yes, he appeared more promiently than most secondary characters in the series, but that can simply be because the producers preferred to use that character more than others.

So, is there any evidence of the character being popular with the viewers of the series?--kchishol1970 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While statistics may be lacking to prove the Q?'s popularity with viewers, his popularity among creators has been documented in several interviews with producers Bruce Timm and Dwayne McDuffie. Perhaps this is enough to let the statement stand? --Enewsom 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.batbeyond.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7351&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Here's a fairly big thread on a large and active JLforum dedicated to The Question, if you read a couple of posts you'll see he is very popular.--storms-eye 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer: you're doing it wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.181.141 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Priorities?

Forgive if I'm intruding, but it seems a bit odd for there to be numerous paragraphs about 52, a series only four issues deep, and not much about Mysterious Suspense, the Charlton book that many consider renowned comic creator Steve Ditko's magnum opus. --Enewsom 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Certainly a mention that the Question is currently appearing semi-regularly in the ongoing series 52 seems to be in order, a link to the 52 page from there should suffice. As far as why there isn't much about Mysterious Suspense, I suspect not as many people have access to it. Somone who has a copy would have to step up and write the info. --Deinol 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a good overall summary of the DC Comics thirty-six issue Dennis O'Neil ongoing series, which, if we're discussing priorities, is the far more relevent background story. In particular in regards to his history of the character's involvement in the news media, his role as protector of Hub City, his connections to Lady Shiva and Richard Dragon, and most importantly, the reasons why he left Hub City, leaving him without a home base until he relocated to Gotham in 52. This series was recommended by the editor of 52 as background reading on the Question, and it would all appear to still be in current continuity (despite claims that they are working to make the character more like his Animated Counterpart). --Dont Waltz 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In your synopsis of the O'Neil/Cowan series, your section on the retro'ed origin of the Q? should include the original section on the Q? origin, as it was created for the Question Annual #2. I own all of the Ditko/Charlton appearances, and will start work on compiling a section to replace that first "origin" section sometime next week. I'll also put in a blurb about Helltown, the forthcoming Denny O'Neil novel about the Q? (this would go in the "Other Media" section, correct?). The question of whether or not the O'Neil series is more relevant is part of an ongoing debate between Ditko fans and O'Neil/DC fans. The subject is still, 20 years after the series was published, a sore spot for many. To be fair, I think we should give equal credence to all versions of the character. To not do so would be an injustice to the Wikipedia audience. Also, since we're covering the whole O'Neil series, would it not also be good to cover the Question Quarterly, Batman/Huntress: CFB and (briefly) The L.A.W., all of which featured Vic in major roles? Enewsom 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking there should be a section to cover all of his Charlton comics appearances before the current "Origin" section, and the Origin section should be relabeled to note it is the DC origin. I'd be willing to tackle a brief summary about L.A.W. as I have that series. As far as the O'Neil series goes, I would say there is nothing wrong it being in continuity and the character becoming more like the animated version. As a character he questions himself more than anything else, he can grow and evolve from the angry reporter he once was. --Deinol 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

With the most recent issue of 52, it seems clear that the O'Neil origin story with Vic Sage being his work name, and Charles Szasz being his fake name is the more relevent series to the current DCU. Also, in one of the first 5.2 about 52 articles on Newsarama, the editor of 52 told readers to look into the old O'Neil Question series, as well as the old Booster Gold series, as starting points to understand the character. One might also consider things like how he wore the baseball cap and tank top in the recent issue to be a sign towards the character's incarnation in the O'Neil series. It would also seem like the writers of 52 are modeling his personality after the sarcasm and playful cocky attitude O'Neil gave him, rather than the wacky conspiracy buff he was in the Animated Series. --Dont Waltz 21:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Question?

Silly question, but I just picked up a copy of Guy Gardner #29, and I couldn't find the question anywhere in it. Granted, it has a lot of cameos in that issue, so I might have missed him in the background. Can anyone confirm he appears or should that entry be removed? Deinol 07:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Check page nine, just behind Lady Blackhawk's...derriere. Panel from Guy Gardner #29 Enewsom 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, no wonder I missed it. I'm going to add a note that the appearance is just a cameo. --Deinol 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In my quest to find all these appearances of the Question, I re-read Crisis on Infinite Earths. I easily found him in Issue #6, but Issue #7 he eluded me. Anyone know which page he's on? --Deinol 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay...so this is stretching it. He's on the cover, I think, to the right of the top of Supergirl's boot. Also, I assume he's the shadowy figure behind the winged creature in panel 7 on page 4. You can just tell he's wearing a fedora. It's probably not a big enough appearance to list...I wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't asked. Perhaps we should break the bibliography down into two sections: 'Appearances' and 'Cameos'. Enewsom 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that has to be him. Clearly that panel mostly has Charlton characters on it. I don't think we need to break it down yet, I'm content with marking things with [Cameo]. I'm defining a cameo as any appearance where he doesn't speak. Also, Green Arrow 16 is also a cameo, it's a single black and white photograph he appears in. Should I mark it as a flashback cameo, or just a cameo to be consistent? At some point this list will get long enough that it needs to be moved to it's own page. At that point it might be good to reorganize it. For now chronological appearances is good. He isn't likely to appear in anything other than 52 until the event is finished. There will be an updated Secret Origin for him in issue #18, so I hope they plan on using him more after the series. --Deinol 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a few comics that aren't listed in the Wiki listing still that are mostly one-panel cameos. I'll work on these next week too. 71.68.84.163 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Luthor's role in the recent mini series

Luthor's role in the story is clear for those who know of Superman III's weakness versus magic. He obviously planned to use the Science Spire to kill Superman and was using the Subterranean crime syndicate to do so. the section with the text "Events in this series that contradict current comics, particularly Lex Luthor's position as a legitimate businessman, make it difficult to place in context of recent continuity." should be edited or removed.

Mostly complete comicography

Hey guys, I just posted a mostly complete comicography of the Q? in DC Comics at my site—http://www.vicsage.com/dc/ . I've underestimated the amount of time it would take to put together the site I want to, and I'm struggling to make it to my January release date (on top of grad school stuff too). I don't have time to do the edits I want to this wiki entry until probably next year, but if anyone wants to match the list on my site (I think it's still missing an Infinite Crisis and a Blue Beetle entry) to the one here, I thought I'd offer the information. Enewsom 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen reference

"In his room on the Justice League satellite is a poster warning of a global fluoridation conspiracy, a reference to the last page of Watchmen, which in turn references Kubrick's black comedy about nuclear war, Dr. Strangelove, in which a mad general believes that it is part of a Communist plot"

I'm looking at the last page of watchmen now and I'm not getting it, am I being dense or does this need taking out?Dickiedudeles 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rorshach believed that the flouride in toothpaste was doing something bad, don't remember what. Ragingtsunami726 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OYL and Vixen's Note

We don't know who sent her the note. IF it turns out to be the Question, then we should put it in. But as is, we're making a leap of faith on who sent it, or that it was even Charlie/Vic. Let's just keep it out until we know. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Plus, I have a bad feeling about that GIPU. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

? in other media

hey in that paragraph it says that he thinks that anglets are sinister(etc.)is not really true cuz he was being totured at the time.I may be wrong though, cuz i havent seen too many episodes

theleftist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.102.254.33 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Bibliography?

Can we get rid of that? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should we do that? It strikes me as useful. --The Hanged Man 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's useful. Wieners 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Observation about 52 and it likely outcome

While it is extremely likely the 52 will end with a new Question, if it is the safe bet, Montoya, I don't think this is the place for the bulk of the information on her to go. She has her own article based on her appearances prior to 52' as well as that series.

Since it would be improper to merge the two articles, what we should do when the time comes, after the end of the story sees print that is, is rename both articles as per the standing guidelines.

— J Greb 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest we wait and see the outcome of the 52 storyline before we do anything (such as adding Renee's name to the infobox as The Question's alter ego). Since both Renee and The Question have been absent from any of the One Year Later storylines, it's not 100% guaranteed that she even survives the series (or if she does, whether or not she remains The Question). 23skidoo 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point... If the result of 52 is that Montoya takes up the mask, fedora, and name, the article Renee Montoya should be updated with that information. The current practice within the Comics Project would then see this article change to Question (Vic Sage) and that one become Question (Renee Montoya) with an updated 'box. — J Greb 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not gonna call it Question (Charles Victor Szasz/Vic Sage)? (And now I run and hide). Seriously, though, it's a pill to figure out what to call him sometimes :P Stupid retcons. When he 'died' he was Charlie again. I think Question (name) is the way to go, but we should hold-off on the renames until we see if they kill Renee too in 52. Whee! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree... wait at least the 2 months. As for this article's name... I'd say drop back to Ditko's original, I beleive it's been better used, even since O'Neil's tweak. — J Greb 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing out some comparison articles. Green Arrow (no disambig) and Green Arrow (Connor Hawke) and Batman (no disambig) and Batman (Terry McGinnis) are examples of the "iconic character keeps mainspace, later or briefer addition gets dab". But Flash (comics), Green Lantern, Batgirl, Robin (comics) Supergirl and (best example) Venom (comics) separate it by monikers and characters to assume the moniker. ANOTHER way is the Ant-Man way, simple standard disambiguation page. Renee is an interesting one though, since she's been for the majority of her run as well as the entirety of her stay in her original medium. Could Question (Renee Montoya) just redirect instead?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference (and problem, perhaps?) being that Batman and Green Arrow may have 'secondary' people with the title, but you walk down the street and ask 'Who's Batman?' and I'm willing to be most people say 'Bruce Wayne!' The issue becomes one of 'notability.' That is, who is the MOST notable hero of a given codename. Check out Blue Beetle as well. I lean towards Flash style pages, as I think they address the ambiguity of a shared codename when it's been used by multiple people fairly well. Of course, this all depends on if Renee stays on as the Question. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Should Renee die and Vic return in some way, we should do it Batman/Green Arrow style, but the Flash solution is definitely the way to go if Renee stays on. Of course, whether or not her page should be renamed is sort of a grey area in the WP:COMIC manual of style. Sure, she does have a codename, but her real one has always been more notable.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uglyguy2006's edits

(Of course at the time he was being tortured and interrogated by Dr. Moon to reveal the information he has on the video tape he saw of the Justice Lords Superman killing Lex Luthor)

This doesn't follow the sentence it's attached to, which is about his Mulder-esque qualities and conspiracy theory ideas. 'At the time'? There's nothing going on 'at the time'. I think this is about a specific episode, but I don't know which one it is, and I can't begin to parse this out. Can someone help explain what is meant here and we can work something out? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What I referring to was the predicament the Question was in at the time. The Question was being tortured by Dr. Moon in the episode "Question Authority", and stumbled upon the video of the Justice Lords Superman killing President Luthor, and was tortured by Dr. Moon to reveal information. Instead of revealing that Superman killed Luthor in an alternate reality, He told Dr. Moon a number of conspiracy theories which he knew. Now I don't know about you, but despite being a conspiracy theorist, these statements are ambiguous in terms of his beliefs. He may actually believe that everything he told Dr. Moon is true, but then he may also just be trying to be uncooperative. Just to let you know. Please let me me know if you disagree. Uglyguy2006

Question or THE Question?

This article's title is Question, while the character's name is apparently The Question. Shouldn't it be moved? --Soetermans 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no. The Flash, The Green Lantern, The Green Arrow etc are all 'the' first, and naming conventions for Wikipedia dictate we not start an article with 'The' :) That's all. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright! Good to know for future reference. --Soetermans 12:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Update Proposal

I've long been bothered by the fact that the Charlton era of the Question, including what many consider to be one of the greatest comic achievements of its time, Mysterious Suspense, isn't covered on the page, and that the section currently under the heading Charlton Comics is actually taken from the O'Neil era. However, my feeling of...botherment...has been outmatched by my complete lack of spare time.

Some time has opened up for me in coming weeks, and I would like to take on an overhaul of this page in coming weeks, but have seen that for major edits, Wikipedia advises a pre-discussion on the...uh...discussion page. Would anyone have an issue with me making some large edits, including expanding the Charlton section and clearing up incorrect / incomplete information throughout the article? For reference, I do have some authority, if you can call it that, through my research in creating a Question "fansite" (http://www.vicsage.com). -- Enewsom (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Earth-4?

• Where is the source for the Vic Sage on Earth-4 being the original Earth-1 version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.85.225 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

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 14:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dc Comics Acquired The Character while the former Company was declining?

What does that mean>? Charlton Comics was still going when DC Comics acquired it? Show me the links to that? what do you guys mean? Charlton Comics went bankrupt way before that! so either you explain to me what went on or that should be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.13.117 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a nutshell history of Charlton here along with the other references listed on Charlton Comics.

Up shot is, Charlton wasn't doing well in 1983-84 when it licensed out then sold the super hero characters, but it wasn't in "bankruptcy". Charlton sold the rest of the comics properties in, effectively closing Charlton Comics. The parent company, Charlton Publications, lasted another 5 years, closing in 1991.

- J Greb (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DC Universe Classics Action Figure

The article notes under the Merchandise section that the DC Universe Classics action figure of The Question is expected some time in 2009. It's now available for purchase, so the page should be changed to reflect this. I'm not sure of any exact date though or how to cite it; just wanted to mention. -Ryokuu (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Origin / Catholic Orphanage / Annual #2

The existing page says "The Question Annual #2 retroactively altered the character's origin by revealing that Victor Sage was originally Charles Victor Szasz, an orphan who had a reputation as a troublemaker." The next sentence identifies his boyhood home as a Catholic orphanage. In the first place, Vic's real name and orphan status is told in issue #1 (1987), long before Annual #2 (1988). In the second place, I've looked through both issues, and can't find any mention of the orphanage as Catholic, nor Vic's reputation there. I think this paragraph needs re-writing. Comments?

Whbjr (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Surname Szasz and Zsasz

Is there any relation between Victor Zsasz from Batman's stories and Charlie Szasz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.130.138 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's Jackie?

The article says "She leaves Jackie in Sage's care and goes back to do what she can." This is the first mention of Jackie on the page, and I can't find any indication of who Jackie is. Could someone add info to clarify that? --Elysdir (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Still. This is currently footnoted as reference 6, taking place in The Question #36 (1990) but not given any clarification. I am not familure with either "Jackie" or the Question and would find it very helpful if a small note is given. A clause should suffice. If Jackie is mentioned previously by another name, it would be helpful to mention this here; if Jackie is assumed to be in the reader's general knowladge, it still would be useful to link to an article providing this backround; if this is the first mention of the charater then here is a good place to give some slight backround detailing Jackie's significance. In the last instance, if Jackie is Myra's daughter, you could say "She leaves her daughter, Jackie in..." or if Jackie is a pet turtle you can say " She leaves Jackie, a pet turtle relevent to the plot, in Sage's care and...". It is alright to refer to Myra and Sage as such as they have both been refered to extensively, this previously unused name stil confuses me. If I read this section, even having never read the magazine, I should be able to understand the significance of any charater worth mentioning here. If she is not worth mentioning, she should be removed.

75.68.16.228 (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Question (comics). 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060215195456/http://moviepoopshoot.com:80/comics101/128.html to http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/comics101/128.html

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) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)