Talk:Poison Ivy (character)
Comics Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Labels
Explain to me how she is either a serial killer or a sociopath. She has never been shown to kill because she enjoys it or feels compelled to do it, and she would not be friends with or have concern for Harley Quinn if she were a sociopath, as sociopaths are incapable of having empathy for anyone. A character with mental illness? Fine. A murderer? Yes. But let's not go overboard with labels. --Treybien 03:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Poison Ivy's birthday
Does anyone know Poison Ivy's birthday? --86.132.30.100 15:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Controversy
I don't recall there being any controversy concerning Ivy's skin color. And she's been portrayed as green-skinned ever since the formula fell on her in Catwoman (at least in the comics; I dont know how the other media portrays her).--DrBat 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I know you're obviously a comics fan but other media is just as important as the comics... Elsewhere she has been alternately displayed as having both white or green skin at varying times and appearances.. --65.98.21.69 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Still, the comics is the main universe. Furthermore, I don't recall there being any real controversy over the white-green skin colors. --DrBat 05:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Name of article
It seems a bit, um, strange to have "Poison Ivy" to be an article on the comics character instead of the disamb page. But oh well... Jorge Stolfi 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are there any other articles as significant as the character that have Ivy capitalized? --DrBat 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Joker/Mask
Uhm, at what point did this "break from continuity"? Clearly whoever wrote that has never read the "Harley Quinn" one-shot, the "Harley Quinn" standalone series or the recent "Harley and Ivy" miniseries. There's been lesbian subtext cropping up between these two in way more places than Joker/Mask you know...
Fanfics
I'm not a censoring anon. I'm an anon with enough edits on my IP that I don't want to get an actual account because I'd just rather not lose them. Either way, I think that my point stands. Fanfics, no matter their content, needn't be included as a link. External links are places someone can go to get further factual information about a character. I'm not trying to censor anything. That the link was to sexual fics featuring Poison Ivy doesn't matter to me nearly as much as the fact that it links to non-official, non-canon stories about the character. It simply has no place in an encyclopedia. 204.69.40.7 12:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Mistress Selina Kyle insists on adding a link to a fanfic page as one of the outgoing links. In response to the above, her reasoning is that "'Canon' isn't everything -& fan fiction can be just as good as published work -there's plenty of bad ones, but really good ones too. Just cos you don't have to pay to read it doesn't mean it's worse". My response to that is to say that the quality of the work is not important. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia needs to reflect the notability of its subjects in entries. Fanfics on a subject simply are not appropriate materials for a comic book character. External links should either provide a link to an official page for the subject (such as DC Comics official page for Poison Ivy, if there is one) or offer a better understanding of the subject (such as a link to a page that had a bibliography of appearances or a number of images of Poison Ivy's different looks since her introduction.) A link to a fanfic page has no more place here than a link to my 'Fifty Reasons Andrew Jackson is a Tool' webpage would on the entry for Andrew Jackson. However, if the prevailing opinion is that I am wrong, I will stop reverting her additions. (Note that this is the same person who repeatedly changed Poison Ivy's status to 'alive' because she's alive in the TV show and only 'geeks' would care about what the comic said.) 204.69.40.7 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The fanfic is a well written piece that improves the encyclopaedic value of the article. There is no need to remove it. 02:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of sense. 24.62.27.66 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Censoring Anon
I note that the anonymous IP 69.183.6.222 has removed everything referring to a potential Harley/Ivy relationship from the Harley Quinn page as well as this one, and I'm assuming they removed the link to the Poison Ivy gallery page that was here because it also refers to Harley/Ivy. I've replaced it because regardless of feelings on Harley/Ivy, it's still first and foremost a Poison Ivy gallery.
- Statements in the text to a potential lesbian relationship between the two may be inappropriate without pointing toward direct in-canon references. Otherwise, it smacks a bit of original research. 24.62.27.66 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the site text is biased in favour of the relationship, but as it's an image gallery rather than a character biography or information page, I didn't think the text would be particularly important since people can draw their own conclusions from the images. Admittedly it doesn't have "the" scene that pretty much started the speculation, (which was in Batgirl Adventures #1 from Feb 1998 I think) but it does have a couple of suggestive mainstream images. Especially this one.
Anyway, it's technically a bit more than an image gallery, but It's definitely not bad for a fansite. Plenty of reason to list it. Plus, it looks like wikipedians might have gotten a few of the images in this article from there. Ha!
Ace Class Shadow 21:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said in my edit (when I forgot to sign in, sorry), the "Harley-Ivy" slash coupling obviously got started simply by a lot of fans wishing really hard at their TV screens. Stuff like that doesn't need to be mentioned on wiki, you'll get it in any fandom with any two characters. What does bear mentioning is that the Ivy-Harley speculation became so well known that even people writing the books began to make references and jokes about it. This is something worth noting - wiki is ideally meant to be a resource for new readers to get up to speed, and just cutting it out of the article is of no use to anyone. D1Puck1T 07:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
I meant 'Jan 06' in my latest edit. Oops. 204.69.40.7 12:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories
The category 'Evil Scientists' is a pointless category. it's got a stack of fictional and nonfictional persons in it, making it a useless jumble of WIki articles ripe for POV issues. the whole thing should be removed, since a Jehovah's Witness could easily add Louis Pasteur and Jonas Salk to it. Instead revert it to Ficitonal Scientists or Evil Comic Book Scientists, or Fictional Evil Scientists. Evil Scientists calls for judgements, and WIki's POV policies preclude such. As such, it's reverted to the more accurate and more NPOV Fictional Scientists.ThuranX 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)