Marvel Database
Register
Advertisement

Trivia[]

I added some trivia that I found in an old wizard special about the (real-life) origins of the character. (I also took out that bit about Vampyre, who I assume from the previous text was a competing character that got less far along in the process that Nightcrawler, since they were both ultimately rejected.) Two questions pop up:
1) I thought that the <ref> tags still worked in the new template, but I don't see it added anywhere. What should I change this to to create a proper footnote?
2) I notice that my predecessor used wikia:c:dc interwiki links for all the DC pages (and I went along with that in the "Murray" Boltinoff link), but isn't our policy to link to our sister project, the DC Database Project? Just want to be sure of policy before I change it. Also, that brings me to...
3) I noticed when I went back to check my old interwiki links (on the Amalgam Comics page) that the DCDP interwiki link seems to be broken. For example, it directs to /index.php/Man-Bat instead of simply /Man-Bat. Do we use a different code to link to that wiki now, or is this more of a back-end problem?
-- WhyBother 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And already an ammendment: I just saw the Notes section with the intended reference (although the combination of bullet points and numbers looks a bit odd in this particular case). -- WhyBother 06:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. The ref tags: ref & /ref should work. They have to have either the "template" in place and it will put the reference in the notes or you have to manually add the reference point in as a </references> link. If you use the reference point I think it may override the notes section (FYI).
  2. The interwiki links on many pages (especially those merged from the previous site) are off. You will run into this especially on non-character pages I would think. Many of those types of pages came from the merged site and many of the links that came with those articles have not been...well verified and may be off.
  3. Also the issue on #2
Not sure if that helped any, but let me know. ;) --M1shawhan 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category[]

Why is Kurt Wagner in Category:Winged Characters? -Mule 05:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The template looks for the word 'wing' in the 'UnusualFeatures' block, and Kurt had the word 'allowing' in there. The template has been corrected for this, and it should be all cleared up. If you see similar situations anywhere else, please bring it up, and we'll correct the template. Great catch! :)
--Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny Nightcrawler[]

I added Nightcrawlers tale in X-Men: Manifest Destiny Nightcrawler Vol 1 1 can someone please read it and check it to make sure it's correct, make sure it's good and if it should even be here. Thanks. AHB 05:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems that one of our admins came in behind you and "tweaked" it with a couple of references and minor grammar corrections, but otherwise yours is good. Good job! I was actually surprised that Nightcrawler has not been kept up to date as well as others in the universe. So, thanks for the assistance and upkeep. --M1shawhan 23:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Nightcrawler is one of my favorite characters and I was surprised he wasn't kept up to date either. Sadly I don't have any current books with Nightcrawler in them so I used info I found on the wikia and turn it into a good biographical format and try not to copy something that's already been said on another page, and I forgot to check my grammar. Thanks for the reply! AHB 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


They Wouldn't Technically be Homo Superiors[]

In all honesty, both Beast and Nightcrawler wouldn't be Metahumans/Homo Superiors/Superhumans/Superpowered Humans per se, since both of their physiologies had been altered ever since they have been mutated and lost their humanity as a result. Mutants and Homo Superiors are completely different from each other. In physiological terms, Mutants are a type of science-fiction monster that was created when a Human is injected with a virus or through other means such as exposed to radiation, etc, while Homo Superiors are just Humans with superpowers. Sure, I've seen some Homo Superiors that have underwent minor mutations before such as Spider-Man 2099 having retractable talons and fangs, but they still appear Human. --ChocolateElemental (talk) 15:16, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't stand because your definitions of mutants and Homo superior don't follow what's known in Marvel. Mutants aren't defined by their appearances but their genetics:
  • Homo superior are humans with the X-Gene (and sometimes other mutant genes), and are the main human mutant strain, and both terms are pretty much synonymous in general acceptation.
  • Mutants are various types of individuals or groups, the most known being the human mutants Homo (sapiens) superior.
Also Spider-Man 2099 is a mutate. I think you're confusing mutants and mutates, given your definition of mutants.Undoniel (talk) 15:54, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Parents[]

The pecking order of Kurt's fathers seems a little wild. I wanted to make a talk post instead of editing because I'm sure that otherwise, any change I make would just get quickly changed by another opinion. What do you think?

Raven: I imagine flatly calling Raven his father is best to explain their genetic relationship, despite both of their preferences in calling her his mother (although that may warrant a note). As the previous issue in this storyline mentions re: mitochondrial DNA, what your egg donor passes down to you is technically different from what your sperm donor does and that's worth distinguishing (esp. for mutants).

Wagner: If he's still worth a mention on Kurt's family tree at all, X-Men Blue Origins shows on-panel that Raven did actually marry him, ultimately making him still her former spouse -- and Kurt, as a child born from an affair during that legal marriage, his stepson.

Azazel: "Genetic" father is seems a bit of a stretch. Raven calls her act of imitating someone in this way as using "shades on her palate," and shades get mixed with other things -- that's the point of them. She could have just changed the genetic donations of a few prominent visible features -- ears, digits, tails -- and called it a day (which makes logical sense, as she would want the child to mostly be her's and her wife's). That's not enough genetic similarity given the whole. The most accurate title might be that "presumed father" title currently on Wagner, until Kurt and his parents reveal the truth to everyone including Azazel at which point he is no longer presumed either.

--Reimeille (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


What about his teleportation ability to the brimstone dimension, or how Azazel was able to control him and his other children through their genetic connection, or how Angel's healing blood burned him. That's seems more than just a few prominent visible features. It would make sense for Irene to persuade her to make the child able to pass for his on more than just appearance. Freddy1428 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It would make sense, but that does not make it true within the canon. As Kurt's adoptive mother is a notable dark sorceress (and Irene made a point of making sure she raised him), the intention could be that she set a series of spells on him to simulate being a neyaphem. Or it could be any number of more or less convoluted answers. [EDIT: It's also worth noting Nemesis' analysis of her noted that she doesn't so far seem able to simulate another X-gene, which would be where those traits would have come from.] The point is that we don't know yet, and I just don't think it's good to assume for a page intended to be a reference for facts (especially when uninformed non-readers are excited and looking at this page for their definitive answers). ---Reimeille (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Given Doctor Nemesis' analysis in the issue, it seems like Mystique was able to at least somewhat mimic Azazel's genetic code. I think "Genetic father" would be the most accurate title for Azazel.
--Gipdac (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Nemesis' focus on Raven's ability to fine-tune her changes to her wishes should only add to the skepticism of whether she can be claimed as having fully/closely imitated Azazel. We only know that it was enough so the resulting child would look convincing enough for him (which was not hard, as he is notoriously proud and cocky). --Reimeille (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Advertisement