Talk:The Destroyer (novel series)

JF Kennedy

Err, what issue is it where it mentions that JFK set up Cure org? Sources?--Jondel 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell it doesn't, in fact, it doesn't mention any presidents names (aside from mr president), but if you figure that CURE was established in the early 60's, by a president whom Smith has refered to in many of the books (when reflecting on CURE's origins) as: a president whose term was cut short but an unfortunate act; or the last great american president; or some such, and factor the time period involved, it is quite simple to understand that the president with the foresight enough to establish this organization was JFK. -Joe x Boxer.

 In one of the first three books, while explaining the origins of 'CURE', the story-line refers to 'a young president that was assassinated', alludes to JFK.  However, the author should have stayed in character and sent the Master of Sinanju, to eliminate the ones that orchestrated the plot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randythehumble (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 

Solidarity

Sinanju fans unite!--Jondel 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. I read the hell out of this series when I was in grade school because one of my parents had thirty or forty of these books. I had no idea the series continued into the 90's, much less today. Talk about a blast from the past.EECavazos 05:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Inside-Sin.jpg

Image:Inside-Sin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Destroyer1.jpg

Image:Destroyer1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New title

This article has been recently moved from "The Destroyer" to "The Destroyer (fiction)." May I suggest that "The Destroyer (book series)" would be more appropriate as it would be consistent with The Executioner (book series)? --Ted Watson (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

New Title

I would like to ask that someone who knows how change back to the way it was before. Fat Man's rationale is that "too many other things called "The Destroyer" for this to be considered the primary topic." However, a look at the Destroyer Disambiguation page shows most entries are listed as Destroyer, not THE Destroyer.

See Ted Watson's example above. Another example: the rock band The Who. If you type The Who, you get taken directly to the band's entry, though they are also in the disambiguation page for Who. I propose that "The Destroyer" is the same type of case. And making it easier for fans to find is appreciated-- Donna (talk)9:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A fair point--more of the links The Destroyer pointed here than to other destinations. However, some of them were intended for the wrestler and others to various comic books. I suppose I didn't consider the move might be controversial when I made it. I already did a good deal of work disambiguating the old The Destroyer links, making them point to more specific locations, but if someone wants to move this page back to its original destination, I won't fret.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit notice

Starting copy edit; updates will be posted here. Comments here please. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. David_FLXD (Talk) 12:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent link to "men's adventure"

This article says the book series was first published in 1970s, and was the first of the "men's adventure" titles. "men's adventure", however, is described in its article as a magazine genre that *died out* in the 60s.

One of these articles is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.89.139 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rumors/hype of new production

Info was added in 2009 and 2014 concerning a new production. Not even the IMDB had any confirmation of the event 3/8 years later. Source #1 was unreliable. Source #2, the Hollywood Reporter is in the neighborhood of reliable, but 3 years after the fact, unrealized hype doesn't belong in Wikipedia: it falls into 2 or 3 categories of WP:NOT. Tapered (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)