When you get a minute could I get a favor, could you confirm when Marvel Two-In-One Vol 1 77 takes place and convert the footnote into the style you typically use for these kind of apn and its surrounding issues. Thanks
Not clear on what you mean exactly. Are you talking about the World War II portion of the story? I can take a look. This is one of those odd stories that was written before the sliding timescale became cannon. So far Marvel hasn't really explained what is happening there since the story is framed as though Ben Grimm fought in WW2. Anything to explain that would be speculative so it's kind of at the readers interpretation at this juncture. Editorially, for us, we could suppose that Ben's having a hallicnation, or seeing another reality (since he is in the Florida Everglades, it puts him in proximity of the Nexus of Realities, I forget if he specifically cites it in that story or not, I'll have to double check.) But yeah, when I get a moment I'll give it another once over. I had to take a break for a bit, writing about Spider-Man for such a long stretch was driving me bonkers.
I'm specifically talking about the footnote next to each of the characters, its something about appearances on pages 4 and 5 and something to do with Fantastic Four #229-231 and Dazzler #3-4. I haven't read the story yet, its just breaking something with our new automatic reprint functionality
Well, can Yahweh(earth 616) be removed from the Omnipotence page?
Its literally stated on the Omnipotence page that only the One above all is Omnipotent and only a being with no weakness can actually be Omnipotent but Yahweh has plenty of weaknesses and even on his page it is not stated that he is Omnipotent.
So, can he be please removed from the Omnipotence category?
I don't get into these hair-splitting contests about god-like entities. It's not worth my time, and honestly, I don't care. You'll be better off taking your request to someone else. However, some advice, you're going to have to cite some actual references from comics that prove your claim. Nobody in a mod/admin capacity is going to even listen to you based on your say so, you need actual facts and research to back-up your request. Also, I'm going to remind you that these have to be in-universe facts. If you're basing your opinion on anything outside of comics (ie: religious belief, or some religious text that is outside of Marvel Comics) then that's not going to fly either.
Well, though my claims were actually based on the Omnipotence page of wikia itself as it sounded contradictory to actually have an entity who was clearly listed to have weaknesses on his page, to be placed in a category which can only have beings without weaknesses, its okay I'll go to some other admin as I have actual proof.
I think Omnipotence is a rather, paradoxally, relative value in comics, like the Omega Level mutants were (previously) the greatest level of power a mutant could obtain.
As for those, the only way to be added to "Omnipotence" should be a statement in-comics or in-handbooks stating as such (unless if evidently untrue. And in this case, Yahweh can decently be considered as having or approaching Omnipotence.
And I don't see why an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being could not be alcoholic, depressive and sociopath. At the contrary. Omnipotent means he can do everything, not that he is without weakness, despite what the category states (or maybe there are many acceptations of the term?).
Or maybe the flaw is the Omnipotence category itself. And I checked it, nothing is referenced, it's a mess of Beyonder vs. One-Above-All's rambling.
I think the problem is Category:Omnipotence was created with out an out of universe perspective, as Glossary:Omnipotence seems to be the definition marvel gives in some handbook somewhere. So its probably not that Yahweh needs to be removed. We need to confirm Marvel's stance on Omnipotence, not the real world use of the term. How it is used in the comics
Personally, I dont think that in any Handbook there is ever a mention of anything about Omnipotence. Even when they mention TOAA, it is just stated in the handbook that he is the supreme creator/being of the Omniverse.
But whatever you may wish to do I do think that either of the glossary or category should be changed as they directly contradict each other.
"Omonipotent. All-powerful. The term is also used generically to describe numerous beings possessing vast power, which, although not unlimited, by far surpasses that of most sentient beings. Among the known so-called omnipotents are Galactus, the Celestials, the Watchers, the Stranger, the Living Tribunal and others."
- Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Vol 2 #3, Glossary
It doesn't mentions anything about weakness, and confirm my understanding of the term.
Hey, Reading through your continuity notes on Spider-Man, you keep referring to there marriage as "As a common-law couple". I'm not sure that is accurate mostly because New York (at least in our reality) does not recognize common law couples, so I don't think they would have been counted as such. I mean while they probably fell into this camp, unless a comic stated they were a common-law couple I would have thought there marriage would be noted a topical reference instead.
In the One Moment In Time story arc states that they remained engaged instead of getting married. That about as close as they got to explaining the nature of their non-marriage post BND.
As OMIT and handbooks have gone on to say is that all the events that happened post ASM Annual #21 happened exactly as they did with a few minor changes. Engaged instead of married. Their honeymoon was a regular vacation. Doctor Strange did all the post-Back in Black magic. Otherwise it's all pretty well the same.
That said, I used the term "common-law couple" not so much in the legal sense (as you are correct that New York state does not recognize one unless you were considered to be in a common-law marriage elsewhere) but in the more general term, which is synonymous to a demestic partnership or a conjuical union.
In the eyes of the law in the state of New York they don't have what is considered a marriage. I think that on a personal level, the two considered themselves something more than just a normal couple. Certainly with all the hocus pocus created by Mephisto their union is outside of the norm.
Still, even though state law might not recognize a common-law union, it could still be recognized at the federal level. That could range from sething as mundane as taxes to an ugly drawn-out-in-court separation.
So there are many legal complexities around a legal definition and we probably won't get any answers since I doubt that would make for compelling reading. That said, generally speaking, common-law is not incorrect.
As for calling it "topical" is not entirely accurate either. They were married at the time of the publication in question and there is an in universe reason why they are not and why events were changed (the handbooks still mention their marriage after ASM 545 even) It was a fact, now it's not by means of altering reality. A topical reference usually applies to a real world thing mentioned in universe that has or will become dated (a celebrity, a current event, the date on the calendar, the type of real world equient used etc.)
Do you remember or if you have a second could you check, which characters you thought Yellowjacket and Wonder-Man were on Earth-TRN584 from Dark Reign: Fantastic Four Vol 1 2. I got all the others, just not sure anyone is particularly obvious as either of them Thanks
Hey! Sorry, for the slow response, my area was hit by a huge winter storm so I haven't been on the computer quite as frequently.
Anyway, I have the issue in front of me right now. From the plot, the Medieval Civil War reality is an unforeseen side effect of Reed Richard's examining various alternate realities to see how different events prior to Dark Reign (namely Civil War and Secret Invasion) being combined with another reality. To really complicate things, the other members of the Fantastic Four-616 were caught in these amalgamations.
In the case of Yellowjacket, he has black facial hair, complete with goatee and twirled up mustache. He's never mentioned by name (either code name or real name), the broad assumption is that since his costume looks like a Shakespearean version of the Yellowjacket costume. The character who is identified as Wonder Man here is also not mentioned by any of his names but is wearing Simon William's trademark sunglasses.
It's up for interpretation, but I think that the intent was for these characters to be alternates of Henry Pym and Simon Williams.
Where it gets complicated, at least as far as Pym is concerned, is that if this is an alternate version of Civil War is this an alternate version of Henry Pym or his Skrull impostor? There is no indication that there was/will be a Medieval Secret Invasion on that world.
In the broader context of that series, the realities that Reed examines makes mention of the various Henry Pym's of those worlds but none of them make any specific reference to him being a Skrull. (Example, Earth-155's Henry Pym died of an aneurysm after the SHRA was passed and not a mention of him being a Skrull)
If you look at the series as a whole, issue #2 looks at alternate Civil Wars, issue #3 looks at alternate Secret Invasions and issue #4 looked at alternate Dark Reigns. However, by what is depicted there is no evidence for or against one reality having there is no immediate indication that these alternate Civil Wars led to a Secret Invasion, or that these alternate Secret Invasions were precluded by a Civil War or followed by a Dark Reign and so on.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that those Civil War realities that Reed examined were done so without taking into consideration, or acknowledge if there was a Secret Invasion after the fact.
So saying all of that, I think it would be safe to assume that this Yellowjacket is Henry Pym. I don't think that his having different hair color would be a disqualifier in that regard. There are many documented instances where alternates have different hair or eye color.
My thoughts on this would be to create a page as though the character is Henry Pym and explain it in the notes section. Something to the effect of "This character was never identified by name. However, given his general appearance, it is plausible that this is this realities version of Henry Pym/Yellowjacket. In the absence of evidence that confirms this one way or the other this page has been named for easier reference."
If I could editorialize for a moment, the visit to that reality took up a few pages of a comic published ten years ago. I think it is unlikely that the reality will be revisited in any capacity where there could be a confirmation about such a detail. I think we could consider ourselves lucky if it warrants a mention in a handbook, but those aren't coming out very frequently as they used to so... I'm thinking it's pretty slim. So I'm thinking, from an editorial perspective, it would make the most sense for us to classify this character as Henry Pym for the lack of anything better.
I discussed the Skrull issue with other admins recently and we determined that unless they are explicitly revealed as Skrulls then it would be simplest to assume they weren't replaced until confirmed (especially in realities that arn't directly what if?). Thanks by the way
Hey I was reading Blockbusters of the Marvel Universe and they give a reality to the Fantastic Four Fifth Dimension at least, I know you worked on the characters, so I'm just giving you the info in case you want to re work the pages(like splitting I.T. page into 3), I'm adding move tags with the new universe name for the characters. The Fith Dimension page would also need to be worked on, either becoming a reality page or taking the content from the Fantastic Four Stories into a new Earth-6212 reality page.
That it is considered an alternate Earth makes a lot of sense to me. Particularly during that story line where I.T. tried to start a war between Earth-616, Earth-A and the 5th Dimension.
As for what to do with I.T.... Should it be three different pages? For me, I'd feel that a single page for I.T. instead of three different pages would be easier to navigate for visitors who want to read about the organisation. I'm not against the idea of splitting it up into three pages, I'm just wondering if that's the most practical way of presenting the information.
Looking at the situation we could do it one of three ways, neither are right or wrong, just matter of preference.
We can keep it as is. Based on the principal that was assign the reality designation to the place of origin. I.T. is technically a signal organisation (even though it calls itself under a different name in each reality) and it would founded by Aarkon on Earth-616. Comparable group would be the "Prime" version of the Warriors of the Great Web/Web Warriors. Although the primary version of the Web Warriors operate on a multiversal level, they were founded on Earth-001.
We could treat each iteration as a separate entity and create a page with each reality I.T. existed in. This could have some practical given that while I.T. was shut down on Earth-616 and the 5th Dimension, the one on Earth-A was still active later (She-Hulk Vol 2 #21).
We could keep it as one page, but change the designation from (Earth-616) to (Multiverse) since it did operate on a multiversal level. A comparable group would be the "Prime" version of the Exiles who are classified as such because they were formed outside of a specific reality.
Thinking about it, I don't really have a horse in the race so-to-speak, because none of those choices are really right or wrong.
I say do what you think feels right. I'm not going to be working on character profiles (other than small fixes here and there) for a while (I'm sticking to issue summaries for now, specifically Spider-Man comics for what feels like an eternity) so if you want to go ahead and make some changes on that page on what you've found, I say go for it.
Yeah I think the page can stay as it is, I haven't read the story, but since the article gave three different names to the organization in the 3 different realities, I though it could be split, but I was waiting for someone who has read the stories to give their opinion, since it is all interconnected I think it does make sense to keep it as one.
I've added the move tags to the characters, what do you think I should do with the Fifth Dimension page? it seems to refer to other stories that don't seem to be part of "this" Fifth dimension. I'm not sure if I keep the page and move just Earth-6212 content to a new one or if I just decide its all the same reality and turn the page into a reality page(its currently a location).
Oh yeah, that Marvex stuff.All that Marvex stuff was from the Timely era. Marvex has a profile in the A-Z Handbook #14. I just took a look at it and it lists "Fifth Dimension" in quotations.
That Handbook was published a year before the Blockbusters handbook, so I think we can give the quotations a lot of credibility that Marvex comes from a place called the 5th Dimension, but it is different than the one that has been dealt with ever since.
I think when I wrote that 20th Century stuff, none of that material has been published (either that or I wasn't aware of it). I think in light of the new evidence, it would be reasonable to assume that we're dealing with two different locations.
My thinking is that we have the Earth-6212 page only include everything from Strange Tales #103 onward there, change the first appearance back to ST #103. Create a new page for the Marvex 5th Dimension. I'd think "Fifth Dimension (Marvex)" makes the most sense. Turn the current Fifth Dimension page and turn it into a Disambig page and we're golden.
Yeah that makes sense, I'll make those changes then, the edit history will be lost though if I create a new page, I'll move the info as a copyedit so people can go back to the other pages and see the history there.
At this time we are not creating TRNs for material that is adapted from the Cinematic Universe. The main reason is that it creates man unnecessary pages. The pages for the rides is sufficient enough we don't need individual character pages for characters that are, at best, featured in promotional material for the movies. It's akin to creating a TRN for Happy Meal toys. Sorry.
No, it's not specifically mentioned, but using some common sense would make it pretty clear amusement park rides also fall under this category. Instead of splitting hairs and bringing up semantics, perhaps you could focus your energy on the countless pages that already exist on this wiki that are either blank or incomplete?
The overall language employed in your message conveys a tone that is unmistakably aggressive, evidenced by the use of censored expellatives, the multiple use of "garbage" to describe Lord Crayak's edits, and a choice of words that show disdain, like asking Crayak to "use some common sense." This has nothing to do with reading between the lines or projecting a tone. Your opening sentence even treats the message as an ultimatum.
You should give constructive criticism, not call something perhaps unnecessary (which is not decided just by you) garbage edit, pile of garbage, etc. Its not a tone thing, its what anyone reading what you wrote plainly sees, I have to be "stern" with people at my job and I don't talk to them like that, that doesn't incentivize people to create more content, that deters them from contributing and we need active editors (even if they aren't working on what you want them to be working on).
You talked about this subject in the administrator forum, so wait for people to agree on something before telling an editor that he shouldn't be doing that, I agree with some of your points, but Lord Crayak didn't do anything egregious for you to talk to him that way.
I'm going to have to agree with my fellow mods/admins. Your behaviour and interactions with other users are often unusually confrontational, insulting, and unconstructive. I understand the need to be stern, but there's a difference between that and belittling others. You run the risk of driving users off this site.
And I feel I should mention you're enforcing a policy that has not been agreed upon. In other words, you're getting mad at Lord Crayak not for breaking any rules, but for not conforming to your opinion.
And I guess now is a good time to remind you all that I am on the spectrum. I've said in the past. I don't always pick up on social cues. I'm not asking you all to excuse when you think I'm crossing a line, but at least understand where I am coming from before you jump to conclusions as to my intent when I write things.
Above, I see the use of "mad", "angry", "condescending", you're applying emotions to my words that are not there when I write them. I don't think I need to belabour the point to explain how someone with my condition has issues with social cues. I may have a large vocabulary, but I don't make any emotional connections between using one word or another.
The lot of you react to me without any consideration or understanding of my condition, even though most of you are aware of it after my last exchange of words with ADour.
Instead of immediately concluding my intent and say "you're being this"
try and understand that I don't make an emotional connection to words. Instead say "Hey Nick, people might see this as _____ becauase ____"
Anything above is accusatory and not helpful for me to understand the social cues at play when I communicate with people. It's like, to use a crude metaphor, like trying to house train a dog by rubbing its head on the carpet when it pees inside. The dog doesn't understand why you're upset at them and they don't learn anything from it. You're doing more harm than good at correcting the behavior.
Also, you all seem to forget that I apologized and said I'd be mindful of my tone. That takes a lot of work for me because I am on the spectrum. But it looks like you guys are having more fun ganging up on me over this.
Your track record of interactions with other users as well as your actions as a contributor make it incredibly hard to believe that you don't understand the connotations of your words. You don't ask users to proceed a certain way, you order them around. You are not open to conversation, you treat your word as final. You're not even willing to abide to community consensus, since you've been caught violating voted policies. Your behavior shows through what you say, not simply how you say it.
With full honesty I can say that it's hard for me to see sincerity in your words, that is our approach what prevents these observations to getting through to you. If you were actually open about the way others perceive your words, you wouldn't have shunned my initial observations with "That's your opinion. I disagree with it." Additionally, this apology of yours is interwoven with accusations of ableism and that we're ganging up on you.
I hope that I'm wrong and that you're being genuine. If that's the case, I do appreciate that you're apologizing and compromising to watch your tone.
I promise you from my perspective, these types of threads are not fun at all, rather very much the opposite. I appreciate that you've apologized and hope you will indeed try to be more mindful, so to that end, maybe it would help if you paused and considered how you'd react if someone posted on your wall whatever you intend to post on theirs. I don't believe you'd appreciate anyone saying "your edits are garbage and you shouldn't bother to edit anymore because I'll be doing things my way instead," so even if you say you don't intend to be a certain way, hopefully you'll see that it's reasonable for someone to feel that confrontation and condescension is what that type of messaging conveys.
Annabelle: Thank you for putting it into perspective. As you may understand, sympathy and empathy are concepts that are difficult to grasp for someone in my condition.
At risk of beating a dead horse: I again apologize for people taking my words out of context, and I am trying.
But now that we're talking about it, I want to point out some problematic issues here:
ADour is, again, suggesting that I am lying about my condition. He speaks of my "track record". I'm sorry ADour, but my condition doesn't allow me to change behavior at the flip of a switch. I was only diagnosed a few years ago and I'm working to overcome over 30 years of learned behavior. That's no easy task and requires extensive therapy and it is expensive and meeting my needs is prohibitive. You've been aware of this for months now, and still, you dictate how I should conduct myself with the ignorance of someone who does not understand my struggles.
Also, am I the only one to notice that "these conversations" always happen when ADour goes out of his way to try and "correct" my behavior.
Since he's expressed his doubts about my condition, perhaps he is the wrong person to be addressing any issues, as I'm being made aware of in this thread, shared by the rest of you.
I get it, I come off as harsh and unapproachable, some of you may be reluctant to approach me with anything. But perhaps if there is a collective agreement with my conduct in the future, ADour is the last person that should be approaching me with the issue.
I suggest that since ADour has made it clear (a) he doesn't like me (which fine, that's his personal preference) and (b) he has, on more than on occasion, doubted my condition, he shouldn't be the one to approach me with the issue. There's a clear conflict of interest and is a license for him to bully me under the veneer of "the following policy"
So in the future, I ask that ADour stop contacting me from this point forward because it is bordering on harassment. If he has an issue, perhaps he should be delegating it to someone who is more willing to play devil's advocate and give the benefit of the doubt to all parties.
I am not suggesting that you're lying about your condition. It's a simple matter of observation that pinning down the perception that you are confrontational and abrasive on our interpretation of what you say doesn't add up with the way you actually behave and the things you actually say. You have blocked pages simply to fend off edits that you don't like. You have violated policy consensus on the sole basis that you don't like them. You berate users for doing things their own way even if it's not against the rules. You have regularly brought up proposals to change policies you don't like, despite there being a clear and recent consensus. Sounding harsh and being harsh are two different things.
Your behavior is an elephant in the room. Up until now, no other users wanted to adress it because of what's happening right now. Initially that was the same for me. But I had grown tired that nobody was willing to ask you to be more considerate of the rest of the userbase. As a matter of fact, this last instance surrounding your message to Lord Crayak was brought to my attention by another person.
Despite the fact that five people in total have come forward to this, you keep ignoring the points that need to be adressed and point fingers instead. You completely ignored my observations until more people came to back them up, and now you say that you'd actually be open to accept them if it wasn't for the way we approached you.
I don't have any kind of feud against you. I have already expressed that I respect you as a contributor, and I have agreed with you on many topics numerous times. So you don't need to try to shift the attention by labelling me as a witch hunter. This is not about you. It's about your behavior. I don't approach you because it's you, I approach you because I want to ensure the Marvel Database is a healthy community where editors aren't told their edits are garbage and are warned to stop editing for no reason other than personal taste.
As I already expressed, I'm grateful that you intend to be more mindful of your tone. But I will step in again if I feel it's necessary. And this is all I'm going to say about this.
Hey, I've been moving all the Resident pages and I found a couple of characters had the link to the resident page removed (see this edit). Can I ask why?, If the character wasn't then removed from the corresponding resident page. Did you do this for everyone of these you have found? If so which comic series' so I can go back and fix all this rather than having to back through every single character manually to confirm.
I understand your feelings on character relevancy but you didn't remove the character entirely so it feels like an unfinished edit, since the only way people will find those characters is from the comic themselves. I ask in future you either don't remove the link, or if you feel like you have to, remove the character from the index as well
It was less my issue with minor characters, it was more culling a red-link or a link that didn't actually go anywhere (In that it would go to the city page, but there wasn't an actual corresponding hash link)
At lot of those pages were absolutely mangled by DuellenteMagic going overkill in the appearance section. I picked up on his pattern of creating links that went nowhere and got fed up of checking and just removed the links. The appendix approach is a the census approach among the other admins so linking to City Name#Resident Name seems like a redundancy anyway, especially when the majority of them weren't even there to begin with. (I've gone through thousands of Spider-Man comics that Duellente went through, it was very daunting since all he was doing was adding links and tags and no actual content)
I left them as plain text until the appendix format has been fully realised (and once we figure out how to create links that take people not just to the appendix page, but the proper portion of it.)
From the perspective of adding the link later, I figured it would be easier to spot and identify minor characters if there was no link.
Hello Nausiated. I talked to you a while back on Facebook to try and contact you, but per your request, I have moved my discussion to here. On the Ares main wiki article, you have posted a picture of him from comics circa 1950s. What is the source for that picture? I am currently writing a research paper regarding changes in comic book characters from classical sources throughout history, and I would like to know the source so I can source that image in my paper.