Marvel Database
Advertisement
Marvel Database

Deletion

As it is already known the events of some issues of Ultimate Marvel Team Up Vol 1 are non-cannonical. As Stark's origin has been somehow shown not to have anything to do with a kidnap and escape from anywhere, shouldn't this page be deleted unless there's any confirmation a cannonical Morgan Stark exists?
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 02:28, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the issue, so I don't really know what happens in it. Why are the events non-canonical and not a new universe designation?
Artful Dodger (talk) 13:46, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


In the SDCC 2011, in the Ultimate Comics panel, a fan told how confused he was about the origin of Ultimate Iron Man. There it was revealed Orson Scott's Ultimate Iron Man wasn't cannonical, and Ultimate Marvel Team-Up's either.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:57, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm still confused then. Just because it is "non-canonical", it still happened and was printed. That means it should get an Earth number or at least a TRN.
Artful Dodger (talk) 23:15, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but... is it worth of it? Because it looks more like it is a "retcon", let's say... And we all know what happens when we have way too many TRNs with no hopes to finds their official number.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 23:20, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Even if it might not be high on the priority list to get a reality number from Marvel, we still would cover it, beause we're awesome like that. Now, "non-canon" and "retcon" are not the same thing. Retcon is like Jeff Mace as Captain America, non-canon is like Scott Card's Iron Man, which is in it's own canon/reality. If it's retcon, then all of the characters need to stay, and the retcon explaination needs to be spelled out on the page of all characters involved, and the issues involved. If not, it needs a TRN. Same goes for Issue #9, which also states that it is non-canon. Since I am completely ignorant of the Ultimate Universe, I'm not sure which of those needs to happen. ADour, I'm sure you know more about that and can explain it for us. --Spencerz (talk) 23:58, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Found the source. But I it was more like "Well, this is not what we wanted, didn't happened". I don't know if we should make a TRN for something that "didn't happen".
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:04, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly, it seems like a text book case of retcon to me, as in "We wrote it, we decided we didn't like it, we re-wrote history". But, I think I'm going to invite Nick to weigh in on this one, just because he has handled a number of rectons with all the ancient Timely/Atlas stuff he goes over, and see what he thinks this qualifies as. --Spencerz (talk) 00:13, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Alright. But also, Ultimate Marvel Team-Up is pretty bad in terms of origins of the characters introduced, almost everyone had the same/way too similar origins as their 616-counterpart, like the Fantastic Four's issue from Ultimate Marvel Team-Up, another "didn't happen" story.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:24, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
I can't say that I am overly familiar with much of the Ultimate Marvel stuff. I am aware of the fact that the majority of the Ultimate Team-Up stories (like the Iron Man and Fantastic Four ones in particular) are considered non-cannon because they went on to get their own series. As far as retcons go, to explain how Marvel does them... Well that's an interesting explanation. Initially, they were basically were of the mind that everything that was published in the Timely/Atlas era (in terms of their major heroes) actually happened. Steve Rogers was active all through World War II and in the 50s. However, when they brought him back in 60s and did the frozen in 1944 retcon, they "fixed" things by putting Nasland, Mace and Burnside as replacements who took his place. It wasn't until the early 2000s where they decided to do a soft reboot. All those old stories from the 40s were "comic books" based on real events, and with the westerns that they were "dime store novels" based on real events. I also point out that Marvel has done a lot of retellings of old stories, presenting them in a "modern" context (The early Marvel Adventures: Spider-Man and Professor X and the X-Men are a good example of this) These I would say shouldn't be considered as happening in an alternate reality, but just a reinterpretation of the original story (Using Marvel's time-scale is a good way of explaining them) from an editorial standpoint though, when doing the handbooks, Marvel usually generalizes the events so that someone reading say Amazing Fantasy #15 or one of it's many retellings, still gets the general basic story. But there are things that are simply, just not considered cannon. An Earth-616 example is the Adventures of Captain America (I believe the title was called). It was supposed to be an expansion on Captain America's early history during the war, but it's since been divorced from cannon because it conflicted with a lot of what was already established. It's considered non-cannonical, but has no universe designation that I know of. Much in the same way that *most* promotional comics (Spider-Man VS the Prodigy, Captain America VS the Asthma Monster and so-on) are not considered cannon unless otherwise specified. For example, there was a series of Spider-Man comics that were released in Canada as part of a drug free awareness and bicycle safety campaign, but the stories reference Spider-Man storylines that were then current (Particularly the 5th issue called "Dead Ball" is placed as happening before Spectacular Spider-Man #200 and one of the stories (Issue #4) was referenced in the Frightful Four entry in the Marvel Handbooks. I would say that at the end of the day we should take Marvel's lead, if they are not referencing it as cannon anymore then we should specify it. The TRN idea is.... Kind of a double edged sword in this case. You're right that it would be a good way to categorize, but it might not be easy to find later. Unless that is, someone keeps careful track of it. Honestly, I highly doubt that Marvel is ever going to revisit those stories, much less assign an reality number to them. Perhaps an impasse would be to take the unique characters (IE: Someone who hasn't appeared yet in the Ultimate universe proper) and keep them with the Earth-1610 designation, but put a blurb in the notes section explaining that they appeared in one of the Marvel Team-Up stories but their appearance is not part of cannon. I suggest this because people would go to these Ultimate stories and assume that they are 1610 characters and hence look for them in that means. For someone like Iron Man, who has been retconned since, we could put a page heading or a secondary page (Much like Expanded History entries) that cover the non canonical stuff.
Nausiated (talk) 03:06, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
As an afterthought here: Also in a lot of cases where the information I have about the Timely/Atlas era stuff is a mix between "fictional" tales based on true events and more recent additions, I always put a Preface to explain that some of the stories are "fictionalized".
Nausiated (talk) 03:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good explanation to me.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:13, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. ADour, you seem to know the most about Ultimate here. Are there any other issues in Team Up that have this issue, other than the Iron Man Spider-Man issue? We may as well hit all of them while we're think of it. --Spencerz (talk) 04:24, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
The only stories to have been said not in cannon are Spider-Man & Iron Man (Ultimate Marvel Team Up Vol 1 5 and #6) and Spider-Man & Fantastic Four (Ultimate Marvel Team Up Vol 1 9). Other stories aside from these have been kept as cannonical to the Ultimate Universe and even referrenced in other Ultimate comics.
--ADour, the ADour-incible ADour (talk) 04:34, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
Great discussion and decision. And even better, the To Be Deleted category is now empty! (except for that blasted Last Appearance page; anyone know how to get rid of it?)
Artful Dodger (talk) 14:30, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
On my end it's just a page with the word "Test" on it. Gonna try and put a delete tag on it.
KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 15:40, February 13, 2013 (UTC)