Talk:Judge Dredd

"Good ol' Wikipedia"

Deleted the Dredd Universe character list, huh? You OCD bureaucratic chumps dig yourselves deeper every day and don't seem to realise it. Good luck keeping on with your high-strung ideals. No more donations from me. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Er no, it's still here: List of minor characters in Judge Dredd Richard75 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Old Stoneyface"

This may be Dredd's nickname, but it's not his alias and so does not belong in the infobox in the aliases section. The template page for the infobox is here and explains it. It's not a question of references. Richard75 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

sayings

"I am the Law" this must have been printed at least once per prog! and "Grud!" or "Grud on a greenie!" probably nearly as often as 'I am the Law' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phich65 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dredd's age

Like all potential judges, Dredd was inducted into the Academy of Law at 5 years old - but as a cellular clone from Fargo's cells, he must have had a "normal" previous 5 years of growth first. There has never been any mention of accelerated growth technology - and in the story Dredd Angel, clones for (IIRC) Texas City are seen as developing foetus' in clone-mother robots, so Dredd must have been "born" as a baby and grown naturally.

Granted, these 5 years of his life have bever been clarified - during his hypnotic regression session, he himself states that he cannot remember anything prior to his induction. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was explicitly stated in prog 1515 ("Origins") that his growth was artificially accelerated so that five years of growth happened in mere months. Therefore Dredd is biologically five years older than his chronological age. Given that the context in which his age is mentioned is his ageing, biological age is more relevant. The article deals with the full situation in the next section. Richard75 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Never read Origins - I'm more of a classic 2000ad man myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote marks

The recent change to italicizing the comic-book feature "Judge Dredd," which appears in the comic book 2000 AD, is based on a misreading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, which says "comic strips and webcomics" are italicized. The comics feature "Judge Dredd," like "Tales of Asgard" in Journey Into Mystery or "Iron Man" in Tales of Suspense, is not a comic strip. Peanuts is a comic strip. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From Comic strip: "A comic strip is a sequence of drawings arranged in interrelated panels to display brief humor or form a narrative, often serialized, with text in balloons and captions." That is precisely what Judge Dredd is, and there is no reason to treat it differently because it is published in an anthology. Richard75 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, every comic book is a comic strip. That is simply not so, and it's certainly not the standard definition of "comic strip." I say we ask third-party editors for their opinion. I've just seen that no one's been at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics since June 2011, so I'll ask some WPC admins to weigh in here, if you're cool with that. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Richard75 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Figured you would be; you sound like an OK guy. I asked Nightscream and Doczilla, and then saw that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics is an active page and posted a notice there. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• My tuppence: Judge Dredd is a comic strip which runs in 2000AD. So is Slaine, Halo Jones and ABC Warriors. Likewise Dennis the Menace is a comic strip which appears in The Beano. Don't know what you call them in the US, but that's how we use the term in the UK. Judge Dredd is definitely a comic strip and should be italicised. We don't use the term comics feature, so I think we're in WP:ENGVAR territory. Hiding T 23:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the WP:ENGVAR concern, and I think it needs to balance with consistency across WikiProject Comics, and also with a purely pragmatic matter: If we use the term Judge Dredd, it can cause confusion with non-British users (the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia) as to whether there is a comic book titled Judge Dredd, when in fact there is not. Aside from the consistency argument, anything we can do to communicate more clearly rather than less is a good thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents - I realize that comics are referenced differently in the UK than how they are referred to in the United States. But for the purposes of Wikipedia, it has always been my understanding that if something is part of a whole, it goes in "quotes", and only the whole thing itself is italicized. So just like a "song" is part of an album, any comic strip that runs as part of a publication should be in quotes, and the publication itself would be italicized. Therefore, to use Hiding's examples: "Dennis the Menace" is a comic strip which appears in The Beano, and "Judge Dredd" is a comic strip which runs in 2000AD. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comic strips are just that: Comics published in strip form. Comic books are not comic "strips". The reason Peanuts and similar strips are italicized is because they are independent, encompassing series, in the same way that individual comic book series like Hellboy or Love and Rockets are, even if strips are published in newspapers that feature other material. That is why both are italicized.

Tenebrae, you said that WikiProject Comics Manual of Style is silent on this, but WP:QUOTEMARK is not, and is quite clear on it. A book title is italicized, but quotes are called for individual chapters within books, stories in anthologies, or the name of a comic book story in a comic book. For this reason, "Days of Future Past" is quoted, and Uncanny X-Men is italicized, when we're talking about the two-issue storyline of the former title that ran in the latter book (though both would be italicized when we're talking about a trade paperback collecting the story).

Following this, Judge Dredd should be quoted when an individual feature in an anthology should be referred to, and italicized when we are referring to a book. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I don't know how to resolve this, but I do think that an ongoing backup feature does not qualify as a chapter or story; that ongoing feature's stories can have different individual titles each month. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Judge Dredd is a comic strip, "Day of Chaos" is a Judge Dredd story. To put both in quotes in the same paragraph would not indicate their relative positions. This is why italics are helpful: it distinguishes a single story or chapter from the series of which it is part. Richard75 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Judge Dredd" is not a comic strip. Peanuts is a comic strip. Are we really saying that "Tales of Asgard" in Journey into Mystery is a comic strip? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In UK parlance, Judge Dredd is a comic strip, or in older parlance, a picture strip or picture story. Just like 2000AD is a comic, or in older parlance a comic paper or picture paper, not a comic book. The terminology used in American comics doesn't quite coincide with the terminology used in British comics. I've been amused, in all the coverage the Dredd movie is getting, by all the US journalists who assume that 2000AD is a publisher like Marvel or DC, and publishes separate comic books of Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog etc - that's what they're used to and they have no experience of anything else, so it doesn't occur to them that things might be done and thought of differently. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I know it was inadvertent, since we come down on different sides of the issue, but you've made my point precisely. If "Judge Dredd," which is not a comic-book title, is rendered Judge Dredd, then of course it appears as if it's a comic book. Advocating for a semantic idiosyncrasy is at the expense of clarity and understanding, and certainly site-wide consistency across WikiProject Comics adds to and enhances clarity, rather than diminishes it. Do we really want to make things more confusing, leading to the kinds of inaccuracies you mention, or less confusing? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My usual preference would be to treat "Judge Dredd" as a feature in a publication, therefore in quotes rather than italics, which I would reserve for the title of the publication. So I think we're actually on the same side. I recently did a rewrite on John Wagner, following that system. Talking about individual Judge Dredd stories, I would treat Judge Dredd as a character, in neither quotes nor italics, and say something like:

"Origins" is a Judge Dredd story which ran in 2000 AD progs (whatever)

Of course, in the current wikipedia article, even Origins is italicised (I think wikipedians are overly fond of italics generally). --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, Judge Dredd is also a comic book. And Judge Dredd is a comic strip, and style guidance is to italicise it. Judge Dredd is also a character, and we wouldn't italicise it then. If we don't italicise this comic strip, I'm not sure we should italicise any comic strip, just for the sake of consistency, because the Judge Dredd strip is as independent and encompassing as Peanuts. As I say, a lot of this stems from WP:ENGVAR, and I would hope American users will at least acknowledge that point. Let's talk this through so we can be clear where the ground lies. From Hell started out as a strip in an anthology. Epic Illustrated, an American anthology, predominately utilises italics for the strips it featured. You've got Concrete and Alec. We've muddied things a lot by discussing characters too heavily on Wikipedia, rather than the publications and works. But, let's be clear, the work, the whole, is Judge Dredd; this whole is broken into parts, individual stories such as "Judge Child". Look at the featured article The Adventures of Tintin where we use italics for The Adventures of Tintin which was never a publication but the encompassing name of the strip! Similar usage is applied at Asterix. When Titan published collections of Judge Dredd it did so under the series aegis of Judge Dredd, so Judge Dredd book 1, book 2 and so on. The Manual of Style is not silent on this, it states :
• Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks.
• Judge Dredd is the work. The examples of works of art begun with the words "such as" is not exhaustive, but the note that "short works are not italicized" is not applicable; Judge Dredd itself is a long work, serialised over 35 years currently, in a number of publications. I'd also point out it is a fallacy that the vast majority of English-language Wikipedia users are non-British. Wikipedia usage is split evenly between those using an Americanised version of English and those using a British version. Hiding T 10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Also, if we are discussing confused readers, can we see some evidence of where readers have been confused, for example comments on talk pages? Hiding T 10:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Judge Dredd is not "as independent and encompassing as Peanuts". Peanuts was produced independently of any of the hundreds if not thousands of newspapers in which it was syndicated, and so is rightly considered a thing in itself. Judge Dredd was created to be a feature in 2000 AD - it's not a thing in itself, it's a sub-thing of 2000 AD. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I compared Judge Dredd to more than just Peanuts. Judge Dredd has been collected under the aegis of Judge Dredd, the strip has been published in more than one publication, including 2 eponymous American comic books and exists independently of 2000 AD. Peanuts was created to be a comic strip, as was Judge Dredd. The method of distribution is somewhat different because the markets are different. What would be the difference between Andy Capp, Little Annie Fanny, Peanuts and Judge Dredd? Hiding T 13:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "confusion," I refer to Nicknack009 above at 19:16, 20 September 2012: "I've been amused, in all the coverage the Dredd movie is getting, by all the US journalists who assume that 2000AD is a publisher like Marvel or DC, and publishes separate comic books of Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog etc." Although at least one U.S. critic gets it straight, called "Judge Dredd" a feature and italicizing 2000AD, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect Tenebrae, are we talking about people getting confused in general or people getting confused by the style of a Wikipedia article. I hope you'll forgive me if I ask for cause and effect and something better than anecdotal evidence about lazy journalism. Going by Nicknack009's comment, I don't even believe those journalists have looked Dredd up in Wikipedia based on the mistakes ascribed. Hiding T 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know you don't mean it that way, but asking someone for hours of research is a way of going around the point. It is self-evident in any context, not just Judge Dredd's, that having two different styles of expressing the same thing is inherently confusing. I write Judge Dredd — is that the comics feature or is that the comic book title? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We've done this dance before (I know I've bored Hiding with such hair-splitting before ;) ). A comic strip, as used on Wikipedia, is a specific format and is indeed comics produced in a strip and serialised in newspapers. Judge Dredd is an excellent example for explaining the different formats. So we have:

• Judge Dredd, a 2000 AD character and so requires no additional formatting
• Judge Dredd, a series (or story, as it helps make the distinction between a serialised story and the comic series it appears in) that runs within the comics anthology 2000 AD which stars Judge Dredd and is made up of storylines (of course, the one-offs are treated as storylines spanning one issue).
• Judge Dredd, a comic strip that was serialised in the (oo-ah) Daily Star, while the main formatting conventions don't specify how to treat a series within a comics anthology there is no reason it can't be treated the same as an actual comic strip as it might be a different format but the way it is published is (to all intents and purposes) the same - Judge Dredd is an ongoing serialised story that ran within the Daily Star, as Judge Dredd is an ongoing serialised series (or story) that runs within 2000 AD.
• Judge Dredd, an American comic book published by DC Comics
• "Origins", a storyline that appeared in the Judge Dredd series, and shouldn't be italicised in its own article except when referring to the trade paperback collection.

It is right that this article should focus on the character Judge Dredd as he has not only appeared in his own eponymous series in 2000AD, Judge Dredd, but quite a few other Dreddworld titles (Devlin Waugh, Judge Anderson, Shimura, etc.), the Judge Dredd comic strip, the Judge Dredd and Judge Dredd: Legends of the Law, as well as all the appearances in other media.

This all seems a reasonable formatting rule of thumb and one I've been using on here for years without any problems (it also seems consistent with WP:QUOTEMARK: "Single named story lines in comic books or graphic novels" - as mentioned above, the storylines make up the Judge Dredd series, like "Origins" or "Day of Chaos" or the first one "Judge Whitey"). The article as it stands seems fine, other than the formatting in the storylines section (which should be in quotes). Hope that explains my thinking. Sorry about the slow response (and that it might have muddied the water slightly - I might not agree with Hiding that Judge Dredd is a comic strip that is really a technicality and, while I'd argue it is a different format (requiring a different take on storytelling, at least when comparing the difference between writing a comic strip, series in a comics anthology, a full-length American comic book and a graphic novel), the way it is published and, more importantly, the relationship of the child work to the parent publication which I'll bold, as it is the core of the argument and a nice tl;dr distillation of my argument). (Emperor (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

First usage

Looking at the manual of style it says:

• If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I've been through the article history and initially no style was used, Judge Dredd was written without italics or quotes. The first edit to introduce either quotes or italics was this edit, [1] on October 28 2005 by User:Nicknack009. Italicization of Judge Dredd rather than quotation marks was introduced at this point. Hiding T 14:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That first major contributor, however, has changed his mind: Nicknack009 says above at 22:21, 20 September 2012, "My usual preference would be to treat "Judge Dredd" as a feature in a publication, therefore in quotes rather than italics, which I would reserve for the title of the publication." If we're deferring to that contributor (a term the manual uses, rather than "the edit"), then that contributor himself believes "Judge Dredd" in quotes is a feature. I think that says something about flexibility and being able to change with what is now general, project-wide consistency. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's go back to the Manual of Style:

Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

If we're discussing what the Manual of Style actually states, it states the style used not uses. Are we really debating this on such a base level that we are going to argue over the meaning of something as established as the style originally used? I'm also intrigued to hear about this general, project-wide consistency, since all the pages I've checked indicate no project-wide consistency on the issue. At this juncture, I would really appreciate it if we can discuss the actual points I've raised to come to a conclusion, even an agree to disagree at this time conclusion, rather than bat interpretations of policies at each other. So, throwing questions out again:

• What would be the difference between Andy Capp, Little Annie Fanny, Peanuts and Judge Dredd?
• Do we accept Judge Dredd has been published in both an eponymous comic book and a series of collections under that aegis?
• Do we accept that in the United Kingdom it is correct to refer to Judge Dredd as a comic strip?

Seems to me if we can all answer those questions we can move on to establishing some sort of framework to work in and understand each other. Hiding T 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy Capp and Peanuts are newspaper comics in strip form. "Little Annie Fanny" and "Judge Dredd" are multi-page comics features published within a comic book or magazine, the same as "Tales of Asgard", "Iron Man" in Tales of Suspense, etc. Telling someone that "Tales of Asgard" is a "comic strip" completely misidentifies it in that person's mind.

The collections and the comic book Judge Dredd have that as the book and magazine title, respectively, and are italicized.

If "Judge Dredd" is called a comic strip in the UK, with an English-speaking population of "X number", it is at odds with the bulk of the English-speaking world, primarily the hundreds of millions of North Americans. That creates confusion. Retaining a stylistic idiosyncrasy that creates confusion and is at odd with most of the English-speaking world doesn't seem to create clarity and understanding. Indeed, it does the opposite. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, but Andy Capp has only ever appeared in one publication, and Little Annie Fanny is widely described as a comic strip, for example in R.C. Harvey's The Art of the Comic Book and was so described on Wikipedia until User:Tenebrae changed it earlier in the month. Now on Wikipedia we don't use our own opinion to make decisions, per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR we ground our articles in reliable sources. Little Annie Fanny, Andy Capp, Judge Dredd and Peanuts are all described as comic strips in reliable sources. On what basis do we disregard these? With regards "Tales of Asgard" and so on, until we discover reliable sources describing them as foo, we don't really need to have that conversation, do we? I can't easily see that they are described as comic strips, and I don't really want to waste my time looking right now as I don't see it as germane to the point. Agreed? Hiding T 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• You're misunderstanding the point. The book collection series was titled Judge Dredd. Therefore, like Asterix and The Adventures of Tintin, it is correct to italicise it when referring to the overall work; another example is Star Wars.
• First, as I stated above, the idea that the hundreds of millions of North Americans make up the bulk of English-speakers in the world is a fallacy. More English speakers in the world derive their English from Britain than from the US, and Wikipedia usage is split evenly between the two. Secondly, WP:ENGVAR is an established part of the manual; of style which predates either of us on Wikipedia and offers that a British topic uses British grammar, spelling and so forth. And lastly, there's still no concrete anyone is going to be confused. I submit they will be educated, and surely that is the point of Wikipedia. Any confusion can easily be clarified by the way we write. Have a look at the Star Wars article where they switch between discussing the franchise and the film with ease and no confusion. Likewise the featured article on Tintin. It's not hard to do. All policy and guidance points to Judge Dredd being italicised. It also points to Little Annie Fanny being described as a comic strip. Let's make sure we avoid WP:POV and reflect the sources, not what we think or what we "know". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiding (talk • contribs)

OK, now you're accusing me of bad faith when I've been describing this as a difference of opinion. You've cited one source, Harvey; I've cited a source, Markstein. And before you make the factually inaccurate claim that the late Don Markstein — who, among other things, edited Comics Revue, a monthly anthology of newspaper comics, from 1984-87, and 1992-96; edited A Prince Valiant Companion (1992); and, in 1994, edited "Hot Tips from Top Comics Creators" in Comics Interview magazine — is not a reliable, authoritative source. Please do not tarnish this important comic historian's legacy just to push your personal opinion. That is truly wrong.

Anyone can justify adding whatever they want, confusing and inconsistent as it may be, and claim to be "educating" people. That's a specious argument: We're here to inform, not purportedly "educate."

RE: "All policy and guidance points to Judge Dredd being italicised. It also points to Little Annie Fanny being described as a comic strip." I'm sorry, but that's your interpretation, not fact. Clearly, others see it differently. You can't make the argument "I'm right because I say I'm right". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If the MOS was written with Tenebrae's understanding of what a "comic strip" is, then it doesn't necessarily apply to what a UK reader's understanding of what a "comic strip" is, so insisting "the MOS says italicise comic strips" doesn't really get us anywhere. In any case, I don't think we need to get absolutist about this. Context is important. Judge Dredd is, among other things, a fictional character, a series, and a feature in a magazine. The sense we are discussing it in dictates how we treat it. If we're treating Judge Dredd as a character ('Judge Dredd and Judge Anderson team up to defeat Judge Death') then obviously we neither italicise nor use quotes. If we're treating it as a feature in a magazine ('John Wagner wrote "One-Eyed Jack" for Valiant, "Darkie's Mob" for Battle and "Judge Dredd" for 2000 AD') then quotes would be appropriate as they make an important distinction between feature and publication. If you're discussing it as a series containing lots of distinct stories, then it makes sense to italicise Judge Dredd and put the individual story titles ("Mandroid", "Origins", "Day of Chaos") in quotes, because that also makes an important distinction. When it's the name of a publication ('"The Day the Law Died" was reprinted in Eagle comics' Judge Dredd #3') then it needs italicising. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Annie Fanny is definitely described as a comic strip by reliable sources, including the copy on Dark Horse's reprintings of the series. From Volume 2: "Dark Horse concludes its complete reprinting of Playboy's legendary Little Annie Fanny strip".

In North America, it's perfectly common to refer to short comics as "strips", as in "Robert Crumb had a five-page strip published in the last issue of Arcade". I've never read Judge Dredd or 2000 AD, but I imagine it would be similar to the Maus situation. A chapter of Maus was published in each issue of Raw. The overall work is properly rendered Maus, not "Muas". So properly, you would have: Maus Chapter 5, "Mouse Holes", appeared in Raw #6, and included the four-page strip "Prisoner on the Hell Planet". 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"If you're discussing it as a series containing lots of distinct stories, then it makes sense to italicise Judge Dredd and put the individual story titles ("Mandroid", "Origins", "Day of Chaos") in quotes, because that also makes an important distinction." - this is my take on it - Judge Dredd is a series made up of individual storylines, like "Origins" that is published in 2000 AD, as well as Judge Dredd Megazine or the various annuals and summer specials. The fundamental string that runs through it is that they are part of the Judge Dredd series, as can be seen, for example, with "Judgement Day" which was run across 2000 AD and the Judge Dredd Megazine. There are perhaps half a dozen instalments of the series which haven't featured the character Judge Dredd in the Judge Dredd series (although this is usually within a much larger complex 'epic' storyline in which he is the main character). What holds this all together is the fact that it is a series, like for example Andy Capp (I'm sure there have been Capp-less instalments). (Emperor (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

Lack of Remorse?

Why does Dredd never allow himself to feel remorse?

Jdogno5

He has done in some stories, such as Question of Judgement and A Letter to Judge Dredd. Richard75 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

First Name

Dredd's first name in the comic is 'Joe', not 'Joseph'. The first time the character was ever called 'Joseph Dredd' was in the appalling Stallone movie. There is no precedent for changing his name to Joseph, so why do people keep doing it? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you're wrong, it was expressly given as Joseph in Origins. Prog 1515 specifically. Richard75 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

and i can think of three seperate times his ID file has his name listed:

Senior Judge: Dredd, Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.17.35 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Judge Dredd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130516163232/http://www.2000ad.nu/linksproject/index.php?zone=collector&page=dreddboo to http://www.2000ad.nu/linksproject/index.php?zone=collector&page=dreddboo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Judge Dredd

Thank you for dismissing my contributions:

contribs)‎ . . (82,403 bytes) (-704)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 683944650 by Richard75 (talk): Good faith edits, but not always accurate, and WP:ENGVAR on occasion. (TW)) (undo) ...

Did you bother to read my contributions and were you certain they were any more or less accurate/inaccurate than the rest of the article? Not one bit of info was inaccurate, esp. considering the overlong and already poorly written lump sum article. There's always some wiki-cop getting their two cents worth in. Would you care to break down what was inaccurate to each of the Oct. 4, 2015 contributions?

2602:304:AF40:3149:9D18:36BC:4B50:18FA (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, sure, with a few caveats:

1. Are you Ncsr11 editing while logged out?
2. The onus is on the contributing editor to justify additions, not the removing editor. I am under no obligation to do so.
3. No personal insults. "Did you bother to read my contributions", and "There's always some wiki-cop getting their two cents worth in" are not appreciated.

Ok, where to start:

1. WP:ENGVAR - "colour" should be used instead of "color". You may consider it petty, but disregard of this makes it reasonable to assume that you may be taking less care with other aspects of your edits as well.
2. Dredd's full name is "Joseph", not "Joe", and this is clarified in the next paragraph - "Joe" (or indeed "Joseph") are not used often enough to justify being the third & fourth words in the article lead.
3. There are no oceans in the Cursed Earth! I presume you are referring to the Black Atlantic, which is not lifeless in any case - several stories refer to creatures living in it, "Atlantis" for starters.
4. Your comments about mo-pads and so forth are at best original research and synthesis, and still incorrect. There is nothing to suggest that citizens "often" live in mopads, and even if they do, this does not make them independent in any respect. Your statement that mopads are "triple-decker" is wrong in almost all examples of mopads when seen in the strip. I do believe there are occasional triple-deckers, but the vast majority are not.
5. The same is applicable to food. Possibly in this respect you are referring to the rebranding of Otto Sumps food as "Justice dept food A" etc, but in that example the foodstuff was actually very nutritional. Munce, a very popular foodstuff is entirely natural, (albeit artificially created,) and also highly nutritional. In any case your statement is too vague and esoteric for relevance.
6. Judges have on ocasional been shown to have separate lanes, but this is exceptional, and not the norm. The vast majority of strips and depictions of MC1 show Judges using the same road system as the citizens. Some of the very early strips had Judge only lanes, but they have not been seen in many a year - much like the "Call Dredd" button seen in a control room way back in the late seventies.
7. Lawmaster & Lawgiver are covered in better detail under "Character and appearance" - there is no need to clutter by mentioning them here as well.
8. An artist colony? Before or after the Apocalypse war? Source please. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Drokk. Ncsr11 (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Death of the character

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and edit the article to say that Dredd is dead just because it looks like he died in this week's episode. It's incredibly unlikely that they have really killed him off, for real and permanently. It's 99.99% certain that he'll be okay by the end of the story. He's been dead before. Richard75 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

...and he was alive all along. Richard75 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding the most recent epic (the Texan coup attempt)

I would like to write the page for the lastest Dredd epic but I am unsure what to request the page to be created to be called? The series did not have a constant name but the graphic novel reprint is going to call it "Every Empire Falls". Also would it be worth requesting a page for Oswin and what to call it, "Texas City Chief Judge Pamla Oswin"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.175.202 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Something Wikipedia's coverage of Judge Dredd-related content has completely lost sight of is WP:Notability. There is a "Major storylines" section in this article, and this storyline should first go there. Only if it is notable - that is, if there is significant coverage of it in real-world sources - should it get its own article. Judge Oswin stands no chance of meeting that criteria and so should not have her own article.

I'd like to propose a major cull of Judge Dredd-related articles, and reorganise much of the content into new, more comprehensive articles. I would suggest an article entitled something like Background and setting of Judge Dredd, which would cover the history, geography and political organisation of Dredd's world, and supersede all the separate articles on the Atomic Wars, the Cursed Earth and all the various Mega-Cities, and primarily Mega-City One and the various divisions of its Justice Department.

Then we could have an article on Recurring characters in Judge Dredd, where characters who are significant in the fictional universe but do not have real-world notability (which is probably most of them) could receive the appropriate level of coverage, written from a real world perspective (not the "Fictional character biography" approach too many of them currently have. This approach is fine for a Judge Dredd fan wiki, but not for an encyclopedia). (I would also suggest that "real world" perspective demands we write about the fictional work before the character that appears in it. So, for example, rather than having an article about Jack Point, the character, we should instead have an article about The Simping Detective, the series.)

Finally, an article on Major storylines in Judge Dredd would supersede most of the articles on individual storylines. Like characters, storylines should only have their own article if they have achieved real-world notability.

I think this reorganisation would be more encyclopedic and more informative for the general reader than the current, rather fannish, state of affairs, without losing any useful content. Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions? --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) To answer the original question, Oswin isn't a recurring character and there's nothing to say about her that wouldn't already be covered by an article about the story she was in. Just add a short entry to the list of minor characters in Judge Dredd article.

(2) I'm not sure that it was a very notable story anyway.

(3) Turning to Nicknack009's points, I agree that there are several articles about locations in Dredd's world, mostly stubs, which could just be merged into the main Judge Dredd article, or just redirected there as that article already covers the setting of Dredd's stories in some detail. I'm not sure it needs it's own Background article, as the main article already deals with it. If another article is needed, then the Mega-City One article is probably enough.

(4) I think that the whole-sale revamp that Nicknack wants to do would inevitably result in a lot of information being culled, despite the best of intentions. And that might include information that a reader was specifically looking for.

(5) There aren't so many Dredd-related articles that they're causing some sort of problem for Wikipedia. Look at how many fiction articles there are about American comics, by comparison – hundreds, maybe thousands. (There's even one about Batman's utility belt! I'd start there if I were you.) The notability policy is really there to stop people writing articles about some self-published work they put out which only their friends saw, and that sort of thing. We're talking here about stories which were in a national publication and then reprinted and sold internationally. It doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing the notability policy was intended to solve. And Wikipedia isn't paper, so we're not going to run out of room. That said, I do agree that some of these articles are too "in-universe" oriented, and would benefit from some more attention. Richard75 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I highly dissagree that it is not notible. If Aliens vs Judge Dress is notible ( a story with no long term effects in the comics or has even been mentioned since) is considered notable, then two of MC1's longer term allies turning on them, one then attempting to take over, Dredd killing its chief and then Hershey effectively blackmailing and forcing their council of five to make one of her judges their new chief then what is? The aliens story will probably new been mentioned again, this state of affairs is very likely to brought back up in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.58 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Judge Dredd vs Aliens is notable because it's two different franchises meeting in the same comic, which is a real world factor. Notability isn't derived just from the fictional events depicted in the story, however dramatic. Richard75 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes little sense most of the article (and the rest of the Dredd article's in fact) are about the fictional aspect of the world. Also just about all the other notable stories are there just because they advanced the story and have been referenced again and again. If it had not been mentioned a lot and changed Dredd's world how was Oz, The Judge Child or even Necropolis notable? They have no≠ asspect or reference to the real world, or were even culturally relevant to their times like Apocalypse War. Sorry if I am picking but don't have a clue how this seems to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.58 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, do an article on it. I'm not sure what to call it though. Richard75 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added some something for the story and on Oswin for now. It can altered later if necessary. Will proberly look into Sinfield and Maybe next now we know what has happened to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.58 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Would it possible for someone to check the prog numbers for the Murphyville airport massacre story. I have to access to the rest of the progs but I can't remember what they were right now, I wrote the bits from memory and can't be bothered right to dig out the Oswin stoires and the Murphyville ones are in a crate in the atic which I can't get to for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.58 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that there should be an entry under the major storylines section regarding the stories collectively known as Every Empire Falls, though as it stands at the moment the synopsis is far too long. For comparison, the current synopsis is four or five times longer than for any other single epic, including the Apocalypse War, City of the Damned, Oz, etc.

p.s. Blood of Emeralds appeared in Progs 1934 - 1939 sheridan (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It was far too long; I've cut it way down. Start an article for it if you want to write that much. But what was there was barely literate. Richard75 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Length of Service

"He is that magazine's longest-running character." This is debatable - Dredd certainly appears in the highest number of progs (and appearances in other places as well), but Bill Savage appeared in the first few pages of the first prog, and also appeared in this week's prog, nearly 40 years later. sheridan (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Invasion originally ended in 1978 and apart from that short disaster series Savage did not reappear till 2004. Dredd has been consistent since 1977. Most people didn't even know of Bill Savage till his sequal series (pity as that is).

Whilst I'm normally the champion of 2000AD trivia, especially when it comes to the early days of the comic[2] I'd have to say that even though this is technically correct, from a common sense point of view Dredd far outweighs Savage for length of service. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Longest-running doesn't mean oldest. Savage didn't appear in the comic for over 25 years, so he can hardly be said to be a long-running character. By any sensible measure that would be Dredd. Richard75 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judge Dredd. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140316022448/http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2355/ to http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2355/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830062017/http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2569/ to http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2569/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Judge Dredd. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050838/http://www.2000adonline.com/books/judge-dredd-heavy-metal-dredd.php to http://www.2000adonline.com/books/judge-dredd-heavy-metal-dredd.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806204259/http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2711 to http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2711/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325120110/http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/extra/2005/misc/gangsofmegacity/gangs_of_mega_city.shtml to http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/reviews/extra/2005/misc/gangsofmegacity/gangs_of_mega_city.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102173436/http://www.lala.com/ to http://www.lala.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles

I believe this article is far too big and unfocused to continue as it is. Judge Dredd refers to a character, a comic book and an overall franchise of video games, movies, merchandise and potentially television shows. I would like to suggest that this article be split into:

• Judge Dredd (character)
• Judge Dredd (comic book)
• Judge Dredd (franchise)

Thoughts? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Judge Dredd (comic book) and Judge Dredd (franchise) can possibly go in one article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above - certainly there needs to be a distinction between the character and the "universe". I don't think the "comic book" segregation is necessary, it's pretty small. I'll throw into the mix that we also already have the Judge Dredd Megazine as well that could possibly absorb some of the publication content? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would it not stay as Judge Dredd, rather than Judge Dredd (character), as we also have a disambig - Judge Dredd (disambiguation) that could be a dumping ground for all other articles that we don't hat? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article as it is. And see Batman for comparison; it's basically the same. (However the fictional world section could be moved to the Mega-City One article.) Richard75 (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Mega City One article would be appropriate since the fictional universe is about things outside of Mega City One as well. The issue with the article is that it is covering the character and the comic book at the same time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can just call it Judge Dredd universe then.Richard75 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd call it Dreddverse, because that's what it gets called on the 2000AD forum, and I would guess other places as well (haven't gone looking yet). Such an article would contain anything in the Dredd universe up to the current date in the main strip (2139), including Armitage, Year One stories, Anderson, etc, but not Strontium Dog, Harlem Heroes sheridan (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Some sources for the word Dreddverse: Wolk; Reddit, All Comic and 2000AD Shop. At time of writing, the shop contains Brit-Cit Noir, Chopper (Judge Dredd) , Devlin Waugh, Hondo City Justice/Law, Insurrection (comics), etc sheridan (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could also see Harry Potter for an example of where it is all split up into the different categories... Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That does work too. But the article on HP the character is much, much longer than our bit about Dredd the character. So I'm not persuaded that it's worth splitting the Dredd character section away from the Dredd comic section. Richard75 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm ambivalent about it really. The only opinion I hold is that I'm not sure it's such a great idea to have a single article that covers the fictional character and the environment - ie comics - that he inhabits. In that respect I do think it's better to have an article that solely concentrates on the character of Judge Dredd, and another that has a focus on the franchise surrounding the character. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy to forgo Judge Dredd (character) in favour of having Judge Dredd be about the character per the aforementioned WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but yeah, the comics stuff needs separating out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any other comics articles which do it like that? So far I can only see articles which have a bit about the publication history of the strip and then another section about the lead character's biography and attributes. Eg Superman, Iron Man. So I still don't see a reason to depart from what seems to be a standard way of doing things. Richard75 (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Batman has Batman (comic book) plus articles dedicated to games and films,Superman has Superman (comic book) and a bunch of separate articles at Superman (disambiguation). Or is this not what you meant? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant the articles I linked to. The related articles you mention take specific subjects and cover them in more detail ( and I have no objection to doing that), but the main article for each character/franchise still gives an overview of each topic. So I don't mind if the main Judge Dredd article has less detail and links to new articles that are more detailed, but I don't think we should just excise whole topics altogether. (Apologies if that's not what's being proposed.) Richard75 (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I think it's important to distinguish content. Superman for instance, the publication content I believe you are referring to is not so much about hte comic book but the development/publication of the character and then dispute over the character's ownership. It's not really about the Superman or Action Comics comic books. It's also a former featured article, which means it was delisted at some point due to it being of an inadequate quality. The intention here is not to pretend the Judge Dredd comic book does not exist, it's to increase focus on both the subject and the comic by giving them their own space to develop. You can mention hte comic in the character article where relevant, but it should focus on hte creation, design, and development of the Judge Dredd character, his characterization, allies, enemies, and major character developments, while the comic article would be the focus of publication, developments, and storylines. That's not set in stone btw, it's just how I see it working. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That could work, but we'd need to be careful about duplicating what we already have in the 2000 AD and Judge Dredd Megazine articles. Only 3 of us have commented so far; I'd like to see what others think. Richard75 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be that fourth commenter! Having a look through what's on the disambig page, I think I'd favour this Judge Dredd page being about the character, with core (IPC/Egmont/Rebellion) publication covered in the 2000AD and Megazine articles, and anything else (DC, Lawman of the Future, IDW, Dark Horse and other crossovers) in a new Franchise page, containing brief descriptions of the spin-off annuals, yearbooks, mega-specials, novels, computer games, roleplaying games, films, pinball machines, soap, candy cigarettes, card games, (Planet) replicas, figures, boardgames, miniature games and whatever else you can think of. Some of these already have their own pages, so they'd have very brief descriptions and wikilinks to their respective articles. Not sure where things like the Judge Minty fan film (and other fan produced works) would go - they're not exactly franchise material because there's no licensing involved. sheridan (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of the articles which already have their own pages: Judge Dredd (film); Dredd; Judge Dredd (role-playing game); Judge Dredd (1995 video game); Judge Dredd (pinball); Judge Dredd: Dredd Vs. Death; Judge Dredd vs. Zombies; Judge Dredd (IDW Publishing) sheridan (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the publication info being lost amidst all the other non-Dredd info in the 2000AD article. I think this belongs in a specifically Dredd article. I'm sure we can do that and still avoid duplicating existing content in the 2000AD article. Richard75 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I personally aside from a page on the character himself, I don’t think there currently is not enough stuff for decent individual pages for the franchises or a history of the comic. Is someone willing to do all the research and info gathering to make a relevant and good pages? Also would the comic’s history page just have the 2000AD and Meg stuff or the alternate American versions? I just think this page currently serves as a good “hub” to all the other Dredd universe and related articles as you can find all the important storylines, character and creators pages easily from here.86.139.155.195 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way - with the latest interview with Jason Kingsley and Brian Jenkins I think we've got enough for a stand-alone Judge Dredd: Mega-City One article now. Obviously there won't be much to add at the present time though based on the past few months we should be getting little bits of new information every month or so. I intend to mine the Thrill-Cast from a month ago for what additional info I can (you're all welcome to jump in as well). sheridan (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is "Judge Dredd: Mega City One" a story or do you mean an article about the city in the comic? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

He means the forthcoming TV series. Richard75 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok so to better visualise this I've made two sandboxes, one for the character and one for the comic book (I don't know if "comic book" is the appropiate disambiguator given it's part of another comic book, but it's just a draft. Bear in mind they aren't super near or high quality, it's just for a better idea of how they could be split. Also consider that excising content making the article shorter isn't a bad thing, it shouldn't be full of fluff to make it appear better than it is, and it gives us room to really expand on a really old character that must have a lot of information floating around.

• User:Darkwarriorblake/Judge Dredd (comic book)
• User:Darkwarriorblake/Judge Dredd (character)

There are already altogether far too many articles on this topic already. Far better to consolidate the content into a smaller number of more comprehensive articles and avoid duplication. Also, "comic book" is entirely the wrong term for what the Judge Dredd series is. That's an American term, more suited to the American model of comics publishing where each character has their own standalone publication. Judge Dredd is published as one feature among many in anthologies. Perhaps "comics series"? But I don't see why the character and the publication history can't be covered in a single "Judge Dredd". I would consolidate most of the background under articles on "Mega-City One", "Justice Department (Judge Dredd)", and "Recurring characters in Judge Dredd". There are far too many articles on characters and concepts that have no real-world WP:Notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Largely because an article on a character should not be covering the history of an overall comic series as well. It's never going to be eligible to be promoted because it is so unfocused. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The character has appeared in original works in comics, novels, computer games, audio dramas (not counting the adaptations of the Day the Law Died and the Apocalypse War) and films. A standalone character article could deal with character differences between media in ways that would clutter up one article covering character, publication, film distribution and the rest. sheridan (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The division between the two proposed articles isn't clear, and one of them gives a history which begins in 1980, ignoring the '70s. I don't see the need to divide the article up this way. I prefer NickNack's approach. Richard75 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've literally just copied and pasted information from the 2000AD article specific to Dredd, that isn't a final proposal it's just to give an idea.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I support all three articles, I'm against cramming all the info not about the character into the same article.★Trekker (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I support the split, but the proper DAB would be (comics), not (comic book). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So we've had about a month to discuss this, noone seems to be hard against the change. I think there is further room for refinement, but any final objections or suggestions? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in a year later, I think it's a good idea and frankly I think it's a little bizarre that the main article is about the character and not the comic book series. Generally the series is foremost and the character is a secondary article, but it looks like nothing has been done so far. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

time for a new image?

I've thought for years now that the infobox image is not the best one we could have. It's a pretty good image of ol' Stony-face himself, but it really niggles that he's not using a Lawgiver. In fact, I don't know what possessed McMahon to draw him with non-standard gun - by prog 168 Dredd was three years in, and everything about him had standardised.

Anyway, I propose a new one - it would obviously be non-free, but Rebellion seem OK with usage on Wikipedia, and in any case it would be a replacement image, not as well as the existing one.

I've always been clear that I'm a Golden-age fan, and have an extensive collection (including Titan Graphic Novels) up until the mid-nineties. I'll look through them and find a replacement - unless anybody else has one to hand? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. It's also strange that both images on the Judge Dredd page are by McMahon - you'd expect Carlos to get a look-in sheridan (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that's a good point. I had in mind the Brian Bolland image from the first Block Mania, but you're right that Ezquerra should get a look-in. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be an Ezquerra picture and it should be one in which Dredd isn't tiny, so you can actually see what he looks like. Richard75 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

But nobody knows what he looks like! (Sorry.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How about the cover from Prog 464?[3] It's not by Ezquerra, but it's not bad? Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a picture by the creator. I suggest one of progs 281, 1380 or 1664. Richard75 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1664 gets my vote - it shows the entire Judge uniform as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like 1380 or 1664 because they show two Judges, which is confusing to the reader. They're better suited to the Judge (2000 AD) article. I nominate instead prog 2000, which is an updated version of the current image we're using and Dredd has a Lawgiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreddFan (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Having a look at Barney, it's surprising how few covers there are that fit the criteria of a) being by Carlos b) only featuring Dredd prominently and c) featuring Dredd cleary (not in a rad--suit or lying on a stretcher). Some of the ones that make the grade: Prog 256 "The East Megs are behind us! Get out while you can!" (features one other judge but it's very clear who the main character is); Prog 281 "One of Dredd's old enemies returns... but which one? (gatefold cover, but just the front meets the criteria); Prog 970 "The Pit dumping ground for every misfit and lowlife in Mega-City One... and that's just the judges!" (Dredd is clearest in this one, though it features Guthrie, DeMarco and another judge, but like the Apocalypse War one, it's clear which one Dredd is). Of these, my faves are the Pit or the Apocalypse War in the snow covers then the old enemies cover. sheridan (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that 1664 is confusing, because the caption would include something along the lines of "Judge Dredd and his clone Rico" - as Rico is mentioned in the article, and technically is Dredd I don't think his inclusion is a bad thing.

I'm against prog 281 because it's a gatefold - from an artistic point of view it's spoiled by not having the entire cover, and the headline no longer makes sense - we can't see the potential enemies. Prog 2000 actually seems like an update of prog 168 in artistic style - but it's not by Ezquerra. Prog 256 has exactly the same problem as 168 - Dredd is not using a Lawgiver, but a Stub gun in this case. I still think 1664 is the best. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Lying on a stretcher? I'm thinking Starborn thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If it must be by Ezquerra, how about this page from The Apocalypse War?DreddFan (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty good. Richard75 (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Richard75: Done. DreddFan (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Good picture, when and where did this picture come from though? The description says it was from the Apocalypse War, 1982. Obviously it depicts that story, but the style is how he draws now, not how he drew back when it originally ran. sheridan (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judge Dredd. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170109065300/http://mentalfloss.com/uk/games/40166/the-judge-dredd-arcade-game-that-never-was to http://mentalfloss.com/uk/games/40166/the-judge-dredd-arcade-game-that-never-was

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judge Dredd. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160101050803/https://patmills.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/the-killing-machine/ to http://patmills.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/the-killing-machine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Beadle

In the Judge Dredd comic strip in the Daily Star, the "Game for a Giggle" strip originally featured Jeremy Beadle (of Game for a Laugh on TV then) but was changed to a generic host when later reprinted.(185.181.236.222 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC))

Oldest active Judge on the force?

Sorely Shenker, who has been a old bald man since the late 80's, elderly looking since the late nineties must be older?86.187.167.109 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

He had hair in the 80s. In later appearances we don't know if he's bald or just shaved his head. He could easily be younger than Dredd. It's too speculative to write about in an encyclopaedia. Richard75 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing storyline

In the "Major storylines" section, Predator vs. Judge Dredd is missing. It should be included.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing media

Also, in the "In other media" section, the trading card subset "Mars Attacks/Judge Dredd" is missing. This, too, should be included.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What happened to the Judge Death page?

It looks like it just got merged with the main characters page, but why? 65.242.71.244 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Death. They're after Anderson too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Anderson. Richard75 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)