Brad it was discussed. What is your definition of discussed? I found it to mean a consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; or an informal debate. Are you saying that you didn't get your say? Because that is no fault of mine or anyone else. We will discuss it, but prove to me that this isn't personal and MAKE AN ARGUMENT. You saying that I didn't discuss it is wrong and unimportant in the argument of the importance of a page.
I still see no discussion on this. You can say there was a discussion if you'd like, but I've yet to actually see where a discussion on this specific thing took place. I see a discussion on removing repetitive information from the Mother Askani page. I see a discussion on the Mother Askani page getting made (neither of which I participated in, and neither of which I'm arguing with now). But I still don't see where making a separate Marvel Girl page was discussed. Vaguely referenced, yes, but not actually discussed.
"If we went by your logic, we would have to create a new page for the Rachel at the school and, on Mother Askani Rachel and Rachel Grey Rachel, say that their history is the same as Rachel Summers (Earth-811), until she went into the timestream. I figure that would be too confusing and, like I said, I don't know what to call the new Rachel."--Wazzirving
"I'm not arguing for either way, two or three pages is both fine by me. But I do want one (or two, in case we're going with three) of the pages to be "relieved" of duplicate information, to make it more accessible. Either way is fine for me..."--EdKaufman
It was discussed. We both agreed that having the history on both pages was incorrect and were deciding a way to correct it. Ed's idea was one that I had thought of and I also believed that to achieve it, we would have to make other arrangements. His response was that it was "...fine by me...". That constitutes as a discussion about creating another Rachel page, to me. It was simply resolved quickly. Ed just recently decided to take the info off of Mother Askani's bio, so I just recently decided to acknowledge the split, by truly considering her a separate character and giving her her own page.
That's not him agreeing with you. That's him brushing aside the two or three and trying to get the duplicate information removed from the Mother Askani page. Hence why he's saying "two or three", not agreeing to "three".
So, now that we agree that the topic was discussed, you don't believe it was discussed to your liking, or you don't consider it a finished discussion? Both of those points are not something that you could blame me for. It was discussed and now you're saying that you don't agree. That's understandable. Let's re-open the discussion.
It WASN'T discussed. It was mentioned. It's like saying we've discussed getting rid of the Mother Askani page because I just mentioned it. That's not a discussion. That's a mention. Discussion would be actually addressing the point, not brushing it aside because you're actually discussing something else entirely (with you and Ed, it was about getting rid of duplicate information. THAT'S what was discussed, not the need for another Rachel Summers page. You literally mentioned the possibility of another page, but not remotely what that other page would be, why it was needed, or what purpose it would serve, all things that would be required if an actual discussion had occurred).
Let us pretend that I didn't discuss with Ed "...technically, there should be three Rachel pages. In terms of actual beings, Rachel went into the timestream and slit into two different people. Neither of them are the original Earth-811 version, but both are new Earth-811 beings. So, we should have an Earth-811 page (that ends when she went into the timestream), a new Mother Askani Earth-811 page (that starts after she went into the timestream), and a new Rachel Grey Earth-811 (that starts after she went into the timestream). ...".
He didn't respond "...from the point of the timelines, you may be right...".
Then, I didn't say "...You're probably confused because the one at the school has the name "Rachel Summers (Earth-811)". I honestly don't know what else to call her, but she is not the original Rachel." "If we went by your logic, we would have to create a new page for the Rachel at the school and, on Mother Askani Rachel and Rachel Grey Rachel, say that their history is the same as Rachel Summers (Earth-811), until she went into the timestream. I figure that would be too confusing and, like I said, I don't know what to call the new Rachel."
He never retorted "BTW, I'm not sure, they are not the original character - from my point of view, they're both the original character." "I'm not arguing for either way, two or three pages is both fine by me. But I do want one (or two, in case we're going with three) of the pages to be "relieved" of duplicate information...".
It would seem to me that we were arguing/discussing two different points and maybe I cared more about one subject, while he was interested in the other, but that doesn't meant that both topics weren't discussed.
But, for the sake of time and humility, we are going to pretend that discussion NEVER occurred. NOW, can we discuss it? Make your discussion, Brad. Argue why we don't NEED to consider the new Rachel a new character. Tell me why considering her a separate character, like Mother Askani, isn't needed.
I'm not saying you're crazy. I truly don't think you are. I'm merely looking for the justification for the change. I've heard you say that the post-timestream Rachel isn't the same character as the pre-timestream Rachel. All I've heard for reasoning is that the handbooks mentioned her return to have come about due to "unrevealed circumstances." How does this justify a new page? If we don't know the circumstances, why assume her to be a new character? Why confuse people by creating three pages when two of those characters have a very clear, linear timeline with one small bump in the road (something MOST characters have)?
Thank you for responding. Three, not two, of those characters have a very clear, linear timeline with one small bump in the road. Don't forget that Mother Askani WAS Rachel for quite a while. Let's look at the timeline, in '91, she took Nathan into the future, in '94, the original Rachel disappeared, in '94, she was revealed as the same person. She died in '94 and the other Rachel wasn't introduced, until the end of 2000. So, simply because a certain writer wasn't ready to kill Rachel, he made a story that she split. Looking at a calendar, we thought that, like Cable, this mysterious woman that was introduced prior, was the fate of Rachel for almost a decade. If you believe that Marvel Girl is Rachel, then why wouldn't you believe Mother Askani is also?
Here on this wiia, we seem to give EVERYONE that has a separate version a page, even when it is the same person. Artful Dodger once argued with me that we needed the Age of ApocalypseBishop, even though it was just the regular Bishop in another dimension. He said that we need to give justice to the other "character" and their costumes. We have a separate page for EVERYONE that wen to the Age of X, knowing full-well that they were the same people, literally sucked into Legion's mind. There will never be an Earth designation for that universe because Marvel has told us it was an illusion.
There is also a problem of too much info for one Rachel. The group that I cater to wants to know details of their characters. I struggle with keeping as many important instances as I can without overloading the bio and giving Marvel Girl her own page helps with that.
If we consider Kang and all his counterparts different characters, while giving the same Bishop his own page, and don't want an overload of info, then we should create a page for Marvel Girl.
Who said I didn't believe Mother Askani was Rachel? She is, like Kang is Immortus. But she's also NOT...like Kang ISN'T Immortus.
And, actually, MOST of the alternate Kang identities ARE Kang, just at different points in his life (Immortus being the exception as we've literally SEEN them being physically ripped into two separate beings). They aren't separate entities, just one entity with an extremely confusing chronology.
As for Age of X, we have pages for the same reason we have House of M pages: What we SAW was not an illusion, but an alternate reality overlayed on 616 (something the Moira personality specifically said was her ability). Something helped by Revelation being a physically separate being. And with Bishop, I'd compare that to Rachel Summers/Mother Askani.
Marvel Girl, on the other hand, is just a continuation of Rachel's continuity if Mother Askani had never happened. The Mother Askani thing, much like the AoA Bishop thing, lifts right out without damaging the history or confusing matters (actually, it makes things MORE confusing to leave it in, as you're suddenly confronted with a character losing decades of their life). Kang, on the other hand, goes back and forth between identities (we know of at least two distinct periods where he was Rama-Tut, in one a dictator who battled the Fantastic Four, and in another, a benevolent ruler who actively aided the Avengers). Not to mention, with Kang, you often have the identities crossing over and battling each other (Kang/Immortus, Kang/Rama-Tut, Kang/Iron Lad), so you'd end up actively having to describe a battle from both sides. With Rachel, there's no confusing meet-ups with past selves.
And what group are you catering to? Who else supports this? If it's just you, then it's not a group, it's just your personal preference.
First, staying with the Nathaniel Richards idea, Iron Lad and Immortus are the only ones that we can compare to the Rachel/Mother Askani/Rachel Grey scenario. As you stated, the others are just different moments in the same persons life. Those two are actually two people that consciously decided to be different and continued different lives (although I thought that Immortus was an older Kang that decided to change his younger self). Although they began in the same origins, they eventually ended as different people. Rachel Grey and Mother Askani are both the continuation of Phoenix, but you don't want to recognize one as a "new character" because she shares the same past as the original? They both do. I agree that Mother Askani and Rachel Grey ARE and at the same time ARE NOT Phoenix, but then why give all of the same Nathaniel Richards a separate page, knowing they are the same person at a different point, and not a new character such as Rachel Grey? There is no reason that we can't have three Nathaniel Richards pages and just tell his story from the Kang/Rama-Tut/Scarlet Centurion point of view and then the Immortus and finally Iron Lad. His history is confusing, but so is Cable's. Chronologically, we first saw him as a young man, Traveler, then a baby, while he was running around as an old man, Cable, then he spent his childhood and the majority of his life in the distant future. We kept all that on one page and just told it from his chronological POV. Kang got six pages out of his past. I'm just asking for you to recognize one Rachel that isn't exactly the same as the original.
Next point, we have no need for the entire Age of X cast, only Revelation. She is the only separate being because she was created from the Astral projection of the real Rachel Grey showing-up at the wrong time. Everyone else was simply in that reality. No different than when the Avengers time travel or the journey to Asgard. Also, the same case for Age of Apocalypse Bishop. If they changed their names and/or think they were someone else, that grants a new page. Mother Askani IS another person. If she wished she could talk with the current Rachel Grey, something that none of the Age of X cast (except Revelation) could do. Bishop too, he could not talk to the Bishop operating in 616, because it was him. Those are, again, the exact same characters, with separate pages. Why can't we just put on their page that at one time, they went to the Age of Apocalypse or Age of X? Now, a character that split into, AT LEAST, tow different beings doesn't get a page? To keep it simple to understand, I think we should show the split, by noting that Mother Askani and Rachel Grey are two people that came from it.
By my "group", I mean the people I personally know that navigate this site for info, not the users I assume you were thinking I was talking about. The constants are a cousin Spencer, a friend Paul, and a co-worker Steve. I also have friends that simply drop-in from time to time, but all of them are impressed with the info I include and some actually ask for more.
ok, so I'm just trying to ease the waves here a little. I guess you could say I agreed to the split into three pages, although as Brad pointed out, all I was trying to achieve was not having duplicate information on the different pages. However, it is also true that no one else voiced opposition to the idea. Me neither, so if anyone has to apologize, it's me.
Now that I think about it, I'm really not sure we need all three. I very much disagree about not needing pages for the Age of X cast - yes, possibly in a decade or so, we will remember this timeline as a simple hiccup, but considering how different its inhabitants were from their 616 counterparts, it makes sense. And that would probably be the strongest argument for having only two Rachel pages: Mother Askani was very different from Rachel's other incarnations in the sense that her character was noticeably different: she was older, wiser, a little more on the depressed side - the orgiginal Rachel and the "new" Rachel from that perspective have no differences as far as I can tell. Seems to me more of a case of "resurrection" than a case of new character. And on that note: Imagine we'd do a new page for each incarnation of Jean Grey - we could do our own wiki on that, probably. And wazz: you just made a very strong point against three pages: "If they changed their names and/or think they were someone else, that grants a new page." Rachel hasn't changed her name and has never considered herself to be a separate entity from her older self.--edkaufman (talk) 07:03, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Ed. No need for apologies. Also, thank you for clearing-up the debate about our "prior discussion", but I believe we're past that.
Not sounding fictitious, but, so we understand each other, you believe that because a character goes to another place, has a different name, and changes their personality, then they deserve a page dedicated to their brief moment of difference. That doesn't exactly fit as a uniform idea, because, then, we should make a new page for every character that was brainwashed or under the influence of magic. Those people hit two of the three ideas, for sure, and I'm sure a number of them hit all three points, but we know better than to give them their own pages, because they were the exact same person, thinking they weren't. That said, I actually agree with your point of "...the orgiginal Rachel and the "new" Rachel from that perspective have no differences...". If you get a new page based on you full-well knowing that you are a separate entity, then you win, but Kang/Rama-Tut/Scarlet Centurion do not and have separate pages, to differentiate themselves from one another. Age of Apocalypse Bishop did not and got his own page. Why can we justify that those are "needed", but a character that is another entity, but has the exact same origin as her counterparts, is not "needed"?
Also, you believed that there were many incarnations of Jean Grey. Honestly, I take that as a poke, because there has actually only been one and I know you are aware of that. More importantly, you said that Rachel didn't change her name and doesn't consider herself a separate entity. Literally, half-right. If she was born "Rachel Summers" and called herself "Phoenix", but comes out of the timestream calling herself "Rachel Grey" and "Marvel Girl", then she changed her name. Like Mother Askani, though, you're right, she does not consider herself a separate entity, but once again, neither do any of the Nathaniel Richards. All of them know that they are the same person and have no problems interacting with their counterparts, while still not considering themselves separate entities. I guess the issue is more about the timestream and chronoanomalies than separate universes. Rachel's (all of them) scenario mirrors Kang more than anyone and I believe it is not confusing and more explanatory to keep three pages, lest someone believe that there were only two Rachels in existence.
Keeping two pages simply because they have the same histories does not watch our backs for later problems that may arise, such as Illyana Rasputin. There have actually been three Illyana's and the current is not the original, but I have been putting that entire bio on one page. I have had at least two users confused about her death, which Johnnybravo 44 and Peteparker both said that we will keep, because I have to explain that there were actually three of her and we put it on one page, much like what you want, because two of them had the same history (until one of them snatched the other prematurely from the timestream) and the third one only exists from a part of the original's soul. I actually tried to say that in the text, but you both know that certain people don't read an simply look at the pictures and powers.
"Not sounding fictitious, but, so we understand each other, you believe that because a character goes to another place, has a different name, and changes their personality, then they deserve a page dedicated to their brief moment of difference"
No. That happens all the time. With Kang, that's a VERY small factor. It's mostly the chronologies that intertwine in such a way as to make ANY attempt to figure them out a sure path to insanity. By presenting them as separate pages we aren't forced to figure out which Rama-Tut incarnation this is, just that it's A Rama-Tut incarnation. Beyond that, there's the simple fact that we just don't know when each alias actually occurred (with the exception of Iron Lad, which was pre-Kang, and Immortus, who was both Kang at the end of his lifetime AND a physically separate entity). Trying to pin in Immortus' timeline ON ITS OWN is a crazy task, but adding in Scarlet Centurion, Iron Lad, Rama-Tut, and Kang (who may or may not have died several times, and may or may not even BE the original Kang due to the number of divergent timelines he's created), it's just...it's impossible, which is why even the Handbooks split him up by alias. Something they only do with Mother Askani, NOT with Rachel pre- and post-timestream.
"Age of Apocalypse Bishop did not and got his own page. Why can we justify that those are "needed", but a character that is another entity, but has the exact same origin as her counterparts, is not "needed"?"
Except that there is no real evidence to suggest she IS a separate character. Mother Askani is the separate character, and her return to Rachel's original form creates a timeloop, restoring Rachel to her pre-Mother Askani existence, something that's happened countless times in the past with various characters (usually in one-off stories). Bishop in AoA is EXACTLY like Mother Askani in that he's restored to his original body at the end of that event, with those events essentially being omitted from everything but his own mind (yet still having occurred since Earth-295 still exists). Both he and Rachel find themselves restored to their original forms after spending decades living completely different lives thanks to time travel.
"but comes out of the timestream calling herself "Rachel Grey" and "Marvel Girl""
Wrong. She came out of the timestream calling herself Rachel Summers (and maybe Phoenix. That, admittedly, is an alias I can't recall her using post-return). She adopted the Grey alias after the deaths of the other Greys at the hands of the Shi'ar Death Commandos (and anger over her feelings that Cyclops was dating Emma, with Rachel feeling Cyclops was completely forgetting Jean). She adopted Marvel Girl earlier, following the death of Jean Grey (that MAY have been upon her return, but it was specifically a response to finding out that Jean was dead). Check the Index issues covering the Uncanny issues around that period, or check the specific issues (I believe she adopted Marvel Girl in X-Treme X-Men, but Rachel "Grey" was specifically done during Claremont's run in Uncanny). It wasn't that she returned from the timestream and became those identities immediately. Both were in response to deaths in her (sort of) adopted family and Grey, at the least, was specifically dealt with in-issue by her openly stating what she was doing and why (and I'd ALMOST guarantee we have a note regarding her name change in the issue of Uncanny it happened in, but I won't swear to it. I know I added that issue, but not what all I added).
"but once again, neither do any of the Nathaniel Richards"
Kang vehemently considers himself separate from Immortus. Check...any issue in which both appear. In fact, that's a major plot point throughout the entire Avengers Forever series and leads to the physical split that leads to the two being separate entities. Kang literally wills himself to NOT become Immortus. I may actually get around to scanning that page at some point (don't know why I keep forgetting. Would solve so many problems).
"Keeping two pages simply because they have the same histories does not watch our backs for later problems that may arise, such as Illyana Rasputin. There have actually been three Illyana's and the current is not the original, but I have been putting that entire bio on one page."
Well, Illyana's more complex. She's the gathered memories and experiences of the original Illyana given a new form and eventually regaining the soul of the original. She's closer to the Exiles' Morph post-Proteus possession.
First off, thank you for at least giving me the chance to argue my perspective. You make great points, but you were off on a couple, that may not be important to our discussion. I wasn't talking about Kang with the whole "...a character goes to another place, has a different name, and changes their personality, then they deserve a page dedicated to their brief moment of difference". I was talking about Bishop in the AoA and the entire cast of AoX, excluding Revelation. Each of those is the same character that simply went somewhere else, changed their names and personality and got a separate page for it. Like I said, those scenarios are the same as an Avenger going back in time and being brainwashed to believe he is a villain and getting a page. I was saying that we freely give those scenarios a separate page, but don't recognize a separate being, because they have a similar origin to their original counterpart. Everyone of them has a similar origin to their original also, because they are the original.
I agree with the need for separating Kangs, but believe that, for the same reasons, we need to differentiate the Rachels.
Also, Mother Askani never "...return to Rachel's original form...". With no offense to your intelligence, maybe you don't understand what happened to her. The run-in with the timestream literally sent one of her to one point in time and another to a different point, simultaneously. While one Rachel was fighting Apocalypse and his order, the other was a prisoner. When Mother Askani died, she stayed dead. Her returning to her younger form was simply a choice, because, in one book she stated, that is when she felt the most confident. It was merely a mental illusion. Mother Askani could, and has, possibly still talked to Cable from the Astral Plane, as she is Omega Level Mutant and we know they never die, but live-on in the Astral Plane (Shadow King and Madelyne Pryor-Summers). Bishop was restored to his original body, but Mother Askani is still dead in the far distant future. Marvel Girl has no recollection of ever being Mother Askani. It was just a writer's preference to "bring her back" and that is why I said we should watch our backs for future problems with this. We have only been shown two Rachels that were in the timestream. It would take nothing to go to another time and see another Rachel that was sent to said timeline at the exact time Mother Askani and Rachel Grey were sent to theirs and so on.
You're right that she came-out of Gaunt's prison calling herself Rachel Summers, but she immediately gained an alias to attend college and, just to clean it up, she adopted "Rachel Grey" in UXM 444, after the heated baseball game. The next issue, she decided on Marvel Girl and XTXM was cancelled by then. I think you misunderstood again. I was responding to Ed believing that she did not change her name, like the cast of AoX. They kept their real names, but changed their code names. Rachel changed both, true, not right out of the timestream, but none-the-less still changed her name. I wasn't so much focused on the "when", but the fact that she did.
I didn't mean ALL of the Kangs. I thought I made it clear that I believed Immortus and Iron Lad made conscious decisions to be different and were excluded from the "Kangs" that I brought-up.
Also, don't forget that Illyana's page has three Illyana's. Original Illyana died during the Inferno, where she went back in time and brought back her younger self. That younger self that died of the Legacy Virus was not the original. I don't know her Earth designation, but it isn't 616. The third one is the one you brought-up.
In the end, it seems you don't want it because there is no evidence that she is not the original Rachel. I honestly can't provide that because it does not exist, but just like with Mother Askani, there is no guarantee that when Rachel Grey dies, we won't learn an elaborate story of another Rachel out there. If it was 10 years ago, we would have called Mother Askani "Rachel Summers (Earth-811)" and been wrong. With the timesplit deal, like Kang and his counterparts, we have no idea which Rachel this is and separating them makes it so we aren't forced to figure out which Rachel incarnation this is. Yes, they have the same pasts, but they are going to. That is not a reason to call another page "unneeded".
"I was talking about Bishop in the AoA and the entire cast of AoX, excluding Revelation. Each of those is the same character that simply went somewhere else, changed their names and personality and got a separate page for it"
With AoX, it's like HoM: A different reality was overlaid on Earth-616 in a localized area. AoX has a reality number, and again, Moira SPECIFICALLY said that's what she was doing. Not to mention some of the supporting series that took place prior to the AoX event itself and outside of the Utopia (or equivalent) area. Many of the AoX characters (such as the Avengers, Omega Red, and a few others) were ONLY seen in those series OUTSIDE of the Utopia area. Not to mention the changes inflicted by the event that were the result of those personalities and powers being overlaid on the existing characters (Chamber's repowering, Frenzy's feelings for Cyclops, Gambit's brief love of guns, Cannonball's psychological trauma).
"Rachel changed both, true, not right out of the timestream, but none-the-less still changed her name. I wasn't so much focused on the "when", but the fact that she did."
This harkens back to Ed's statement about Jean Grey: So anytime a character changes their name, it should be a new page? Or are you saying that a traumatic event should be key? If so, then does that mean we need a new page for Archangel? Just because she changed her name (in response to certain events) doesn't mean she needs a separate page. She went through a life-changing experience. That doesn't mean she's a different lifeform. Or even an altered lifeform (any more so than ANY change is an alteration to a lifeform).
"I didn't mean ALL of the Kangs. I thought I made it clear that I believed Immortus and Iron Lad made conscious decisions to be different and were excluded from the "Kangs" that I brought-up. "
Even Rama-Tut made a conscious decision to be different from Kang. It's not just those two.
"Also, don't forget that Illyana's page has three Illyana's. Original Illyana died during the Inferno, where she went back in time and brought back her younger self. That younger self that died of the Legacy Virus was not the original. I don't know her Earth designation, but it isn't 616. The third one is the one you brought-up. "
And I agree, regarding the younger Illyana (the one that appeared post-Inferno). Though I'd want more people's opinions.
"n the end, it seems you don't want it because there is no evidence that she is not the original Rachel. I honestly can't provide that because it does not exist, but just like with Mother Askani, there is no guarantee that when Rachel Grey dies, we won't learn an elaborate story of another Rachel out there. "
And until Rachel returned, we WOULD and DID treat Mother Askani AS Rachel. Yes, she may be revealed to a new character in the future, but that could be said of ANY character (we all thought Mockingbird was dead until she came off that Skrull ship. Aunt May was revealed to be a duplicate how many years after she was thought dead? There's Spider-Man's parents, who we thought had returned, but later found out were simulacrums). Until we KNOW it's a separate character, we should treat it as the SAME character. Just like we don't treat Aunt May NOW as a separate character or Mockingbird NOW as a separate character from before their return. ANY character could end up being something else at ANY time. We shouldn't operate on the assumption that they are, but on the assumption that they AREN'T. When we know better, then we can make the changes (creating a separate Mother Askani page. A page for the Mockingbird Skrull), but until then, there should be a FIRM reasoning for it being a separate page, not just "it's happened before" (unless it literally happens ALL the time: Every time the character appears, it's someone new, similar to the Grasshopper identity). Just like we can often assume a character's dead, even though more often than not, they AREN'T dead (though that's pretty much a given. A duplicate/alternate character isn't, as that's ALMOST never the case...though it certainly happens quite often).
Heck, we didn't even make a separate page for the Jonas Vision until he started SPECIFICALLY identifying himself as a separate entity, despite him having only the imprinted memories of the original Vision (but none of the personality, and a completely new body).
"If it was 10 years ago, we would have called Mother Askani "Rachel Summers (Earth-811)" and been wrong."
No, we would have been RIGHT...until she came back. THEN we wouldn't be wrong, we would be responding to the new information. Just like assuming the Phoenix that appeared in Uncanny #101 was Jean. It wouldn't be wrong to assume otherwise until something else comes along and disproves it (in fact, it would be wrong to assume she WASN'T Jean. Looking back, it would be absolute nonsense to think it was anyone BUT Jean). NOTHING has come along to disprove that the current Rachel isn't the past Rachel. When something does, changes can be made. Until then, there's no more need for a separate page for this Rachel any more than for a post-Ragnarok Thor, a post-HoM Hawkeye, or a post-Winter Soldier Bucky (ALL of whom have been assumed to be imposters, but none have YET to be proven to be anything but the original article. Could that change in the future? Absolutely. And when it does, it can be dealt with. Until then, all should be assumed to be the same). Heck, how do we know that the current Colossus is the same as the original? He was dead. Couldn't it be possible that the current Colossus is a Skrull, Dire Wraith, Chameloid, or some other imposter alien, alternate reality version, or some other such thing? And if not, how can you PROVE he's not? And why SHOULDN'T we create a page for him? Because he didn't change his identity? Because he has the exact same personality? I dunno, seems kinda suspicious to me. Like something an imposter would do. I say we assume he's NOT the same and create a new page.
"With the timesplit deal, like Kang and his counterparts, we have no idea which Rachel this is and separating them makes it so we aren't forced to figure out which Rachel incarnation this is."
Except that it's STILL Rachel. With Kang and his counterparts, we always know it's Kang, we just don't know where in their personal chronologies they're appearing or where they take place in regards to other identities' chronologies. Nor are we dealing with constant meet-ups of various Rachel identities with them fighting each other and splitting off of each other and otherwise causing a headache (in fact, if you can make sense of Kang and his identities' chronologies, motivations, and reasonings, I will declare you completely right about everything ever and do whatever you say from this point forward). Her life, with the exception of the Mother Askani business, is one clear line. Could events change that? You betcha. But until they DO, it's bad policy to assume it's anything but the original Rachel for the many, many reasons I've listed above.
Let me start-off by saying that I dislike written conversations over physical, because of all of the misunderstandings. I also see the core of what you are trying to say. I still disagree that the Age of X characters from the 616 reality, Bishop's Age of Apocalypse, or anything similar to those scenarios deserves a page. Age of X does not have a number. It was numbered on this site, by fans, as "To Remain Numbered". I think that we should mention the changes to the character that were affected on their pages. The Avengers from that world and the entire rest of the Age of Apocalypse cast are exceptions, because they belong to those realities, but not the characters in question.
About my "...because a character goes to another place, has a different name, and changes their personality, then they deserve a page dedicated to their brief moment of difference" comment, you either don't reread the previous edits, or there is a nice sized misunderstanding, because I was just telling him that if those earlier mentioned members of Age of X and Bishop in Age of Apocalypse get a separate page, then Rachel should. I also said that it "... doesn't exactly fit as a uniform idea, because, then, we should make a new page for every character that was brainwashed or under the influence of magic..."
I conceded my argument when you posted "And until Rachel returned, we WOULD and DID treat Mother Askani AS Rachel. Yes, she may be revealed to a new character in the future..." and "When we know better, then we can make the changes (creating a separate Mother Askani page. A page for the Mockingbird Skrull), but until then, there should be a FIRM reasoning for it being a separate page, not just "it's happened before" ". I don't think that is exactly the SOP of our site, but if that is how you want it operated, then I understand. If we operate by that reasoning, I can also see why you don't see a correlation between any of the scenarios that I presented. Let the page merge and I'll clean-up all of the changes I made.
On a side-note between us, I feel that you handled this all the way to the left (not the right way). I asked you at the very beginning "Tell me why considering her a separate character, like Mother Askani, isn't needed" and that was all you really had to say, but you wished to play a different card that left us roughly a weeks worth of useless debate. You first had me under the impression that the reason you changed it was because you didn't think it was "discussed" then went from useless point A to at lest G. Just tell me the rules, or how you feel the wikia should be ran during your term as an admin, and I'll agree.
"Age of X does not have a number. It was numbered on this site, by fans, as "To Remain Numbered". "
It HAS been numbered. Officially. The softcover reprint of Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z Vol 1 3, Chamber's "Update Appendix" entry states "Starsmore was later drawn into a reality warp (Reality-11326/"Age of X") generated by one of Legion (David Haller)'s multiple personalities. When reality was restored, Starsmore reverted to his former mutant powers and bodily damage." Not only clarifying the reality number but also that what we saw was a reality warp, NOT an illusion (as I've said).
And "TRN" stands for "temporary reality number", which we use to designate realities that haven't been given an official number yet. Basically a clear placeholder until a real number is designated.
"I don't think that is exactly the SOP of our site, but if that is how you want it operated, then I understand. "
That IS the standard operating procedure for this site. Always has been. There have been exceptions, sure, but those are rare, and usually either not caught or allowed to stand because it was short-term. Or for characters who were making a LOT of appearances, but whose identities weren't entirely clear or were completely speculative (Red Hulk, Red She-Hulk). And even THOSE I fought, but ultimately gave in because they were drawing out the reveal for an insanely long time (I believe it was about two years before Red Hulk's identity was revealed, while he made appearances left and right) and teasing every other person as being him.
"You first had me under the impression that the reason you changed it was because you didn't think it was "discussed" then went from useless point A to at lest G. "
It WASN'T discussed (as Ed, the person you "discussed" it with agreed. And I STILL don't see where Loki got involved). And your inability to understand that point is what caused my shifts, as I attempted to let you have your say instead of following my instinct and just deleting the page and making the changes myself (the main Rachel page was reverted because it was the main page and should have been unchanged until a decision was reached). I shifted from point to point because I was attempting to get one through to you so you'd understand my main point: Assumption should not be the reasoning for a page's existence.
"Just tell me the rules, or how you feel the wikia should be ran during your term as an admin, and I'll agree. "
My term is never ending, and it's run on one simple principle: Never assume and any time a big change is needed (a move, a deletion, etc.), the chance should be made for discussion, and any discussion should not only be SPECIFICALLY about the change (I, for instance, wouldn't make a new Colossus page based on my having mentioned it here because it wasn't actually discussed, it was merely mentioned in passing as part of a separate, but related, discussion), but also laid out in a clear and definite manner, not just mentioned while discussing another matter. And the opening for this clear, specified discussion should last more than a week, unless the deletion is due to a duplicate, nonsense, or vandalized page having been made.
I don't understand, im puting the images at the Phoenix Force arc, where it says she transformed into Phoenix and Dark Phoenix, you said she didn't transform that early but it says in the text that she did, can you explain to me pls?
Jean Grey never transformed into the Phoenix, back then. No offense, but I don't think you fully read or understood the text. Jean was approached by the Phoenix and it made a clone body of her, while it left her body at the bottom of Jamaica Bay to heal. Jean took the name Phoenix, because her alternate reality daughter was dying and asked her to. Years after that, the Phoenix actually merged with Jean. You putting the pics of "Jean as Phoenix" in the test that says Phoenix is confusing because she wasn't the Phoenix. You're actually attempting to put pics of another character on Jean's page. To be literal, those are pics from when she was resurrected by the Phoenix many years later in Phoenix Endsong. Go to the Phoenix Force's page and you'll see the bio for when the Phoenix and Dark Phoenix were impersonating Jean. The only reason I even put that storyline on Jean's page is because the Phoenix took a portion of Jean's memory and she later got it back, with memories of all the Phoenix did.
I like that you put new pics (like the ones for X-Factor uniforms), but I just wanted to pay more attention where we placed them, so as to not confuse a new member.
--Wazzirving 21:52, February 14, 2012 (UTC)wazzirving
thx for the welcome, it's been awhile. It was never about "calling someone in" - the questions of omegas has been debated and decided upon many times in the past, for good reason. The constant bickering along the lines of "my mutant is better than your mutant" was getting tiresome and an inacceptable drain of already thinly-spread admin resources - much like the battle over power grids later on. Which is why we decided to stick to canon references, that is the comics themselves and the handbooks.
The reason I wanted someone else in on this was that I've been gone for a long time and I wasn't sure that the issue hadn't changed. So it was not "bossing people around", rather the contrary. i didn't want to push "the admin is right" because I'm at best only half an admin at this moment.
I'm glad you voice your opinion to me, but I'm not sure I agree with you on the role of the admins. The admins' role is certainly more than "maintaining civility", more importantly, they ensure the quality of the site as a whole. This includes double-checking information and setting the rules for what counts as acceptable references.
btw, good to see you're still on the site.
btw - I'm a union man myself, so I sympathize for being skeptical of power. There is a difference between a union and a collective, however. Even in a labor union, not every decision is put through the democratic process of everyone voting in. And as history teaches us, the democratic process is only as strong as the laws that temper it and prevent it from becoming the dicatorship of a majority.
Why remove Ink from the Phoenix Force page? I realize he was never an avatar, but I think his history warrants inclusion under the "related" section of a page. How is it hurting anything by including him?
I speaking about the Phoenix Force disambiguation page, not the Phoenix Force (Earth-616). And I agree, Ink received "Phoenix like" powers, which is why I added him to the Phoenix Force disambiguation page under the "related" section.
That makes sense to have it in the "related" and, like I said it was a long time ago and I don't entirely remember what was on my mind then, but, having "Phoenix like" powers doesn't really have anything to do with the actually Phoenix Force, does it? Do we put Gladiator in the Cyclops related because he shoots beams out of his eyes? I could understand putting it on Ink's page, but the Phoenix page is, in my opinion, reserved for actions of the actual Phoenix and things that the Phoenix has inadvertently created.
--Wazzirving 10:49, November 11, 2011 (UTC)wazzirving
I have to disagree with you reasoning. Gladiator's optic blast aren't meant to mimic Cyclops. Ink's Phoenix power was made specifically to mimic the Phoenix Force. It would be more like not including "Angel" from the Angel page.
Again, I'd say that Ink's powers (though not the actual Phoenix Force) are still VERY much related and deserve a footnote on the Phoenix Force disambiguation page. I don't see the harm in having one more character entry on the page. It only adds information, and if anyone is interested in HOW INk is related the to the Phoenix Force then they can follow the link.
Then, under your logic, we would have to put Mimic under all of the original X-Men's discomb pages. There has to be a line somewhere, and, like I said, it makes sense to put it on Ink's page, but if I simply mimicked someone and that person had nothing to do with my origin or current storylines, I don't think that warrants a mention on said person's page. My page: yes, but said person: no. It's all opinionated so, i suggest you bring it up on Phoenix Force'stalk page.
--Wazzirving 23:51, November 12, 2011 (UTC)wazzirving