Rachel / Mother Askani[]
ok silly me, two questions: if Mother Askani IS Rachel, why do we need this page? If Mother Askani is NOT Rachel, why would she have the same reality designation? --edkaufman (talk) 09:50, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I'll explain, but you should check Rachel's Talk page. In one issue of Excalibur, Captain Britain and Rachel switched places and, somehow, that resulted in the creation of two Rachels. It's also in the text on both bios. They are exactly the same being, but, at one time, they split like twins. That is why Mother Askani has the same memories and powers as the Rachel at the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning, but is older...and dead. The reason that both are listed on everyone's relatives section, is because she a very bold presence in the 616 universe. The reason she has the same reality designation is from the Naming Conventions. I created the page and checked the rules for what to name it. Her original reality was 811, but she is not the same Rachel, so we give her original reality designation and a deciding name difference. I chose Mother Askani.
- --Wazzirving 10:19, January 5, 2012 (UTC)wazzirving
- good point, thanks! The I do have to ask, though: Do we truly need all the history from before the split? (it's kind of the same issue as we had with 295-counterparts - we usually keep the history from before a reality split on the main character only, which in this case, would be Rachel Summers (Earth-811)...--edkaufman (talk) 10:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
- That was discussed also (the reason you're not able to see it is because when I first created the page, I named it "Rachel Summer (Earth-4935)", then, as per the Naming Conventions, I created this new page and deleted the original) and I believe I won that argument because, 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). Both of the new Rachels have the same exact history and to give them justice as two separate beings and not alternate reality versions, I left their pasts. I consider Rachel a rare case, such as Nate Grey, that she is from another dimension and then began her adventures in Earth-616, and believe that was the best solution for two of the same beings. I don't think it would be fair to give Mother Askani the full history and not Rachel Grey or vise versa.
- ---Wazzirving 10:23, January 6, 2012 (UTC)wazzirving
- That was discussed also (the reason you're not able to see it is because when I first created the page, I named it "Rachel Summer (Earth-4935)", then, as per the Naming Conventions, I created this new page and deleted the original) and I believe I won that argument because, 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). Both of the new Rachels have the same exact history and to give them justice as two separate beings and not alternate reality versions, I left their pasts. I consider Rachel a rare case, such as Nate Grey, that she is from another dimension and then began her adventures in Earth-616, and believe that was the best solution for two of the same beings. I don't think it would be fair to give Mother Askani the full history and not Rachel Grey or vise versa.
- I'm not sure I agree - from the point of the timelines, you may be right; but from their relevance to the Marvel universe, their importance cannot be compared. The Rachel who is still around would seem to be the main character, having been a part of Marvel community for several decades now. The mother askani was around for a few storylines, but was never a mein character in any series. In any case, I really do think some of the history should be kept to one of their pages. Again, there is always the possibility of creating an extended history with all of this, but the main article should focus on being readable first and being completist second.--edkaufman (talk) 10:46, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
- No, brother. Neither of them existed prior to the original going into the timestream. They were both born on the same day. Neither has been in continuity longer than the other. 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. That's what I meant by saying "I don't think it would be fair to give Mother Askani the full history and not Rachel Grey or vise versa." 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 01:37, January 7, 2012 (UTC)wazzirving
- No, brother. Neither of them existed prior to the original going into the timestream. They were both born on the same day. Neither has been in continuity longer than the other. 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. That's what I meant by saying "I don't think it would be fair to give Mother Askani the full history and not Rachel Grey or vise versa." 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.
--PS - Mother Askani was the main character in the X-Men: Phoenix storyline. Not a lot, but she had her time to shine. They had to give her origin somewhere.
- not what I meant - even if we consider her going into the timestream as their "birth point" of both characters, they've been around for decades: The Rachel who is still around has been a regular character, and yes Mother Askani has had her time to shine, but she was only ever a regular during the nineties... BTW, I'm not sure, they are not the original character - from my point of view, they're both the original character. But we're getting off track. I still think the full character history should only be on one, I'd vote for the other Rachel.--edkaufman (talk) 10:16, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you mean. It has been proven that they are both new characters, Lokiofmidgaard even chimed-in on that one, but I actually thought, since we don't have three Rachel pages, that the fairest thing to do would be exactly what you said, they are both the original character. Loki said that they are three, and I read it somewhere to confirm it, but we had "Rachel Summers (Earth-811)" hold both bios. That's why I created Mother Askani and considered them both the original. From a retrospective point, you're NOW saying that the Rachel Grey is the "main" Rachel, but that really isn't fair because, when Mother Askani was operating, from the 80's-90's, Rachel Grey wasn't even introduced. Who was the "main" Rachel then? Rachel Grey's first appearance was November of 2000. Since then, she is constantly "missing", also. I just isn't fair, to me. We say one is more important, but what happens next year? Maybe Rachel Grey dies a new one is introduced from the timestream split again and she is the "main" Rachel for a decade. Also, Mother Askani has still existed, while Rachel Grey has been active. It really isn't that harmful, in accordance with your "easily readable" parameters, because Mother Askani died at one point and there have only been a few appearances since then. I vote that, unless we create a third page, we consider both of them the original Rachel and leave well enough alone.
- --Wazzirving 13:14, January 7, 2012 (UTC)wazzirving
- We're arguing in circles. :) 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, but you have to admit, it makes more sense to have the full history on the other Rachel's page, no?--edkaufman (talk) 15:06, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
- The point still remains that I'm trying to call it fair, Ed. I'm glad we agree on the symptoms, but the problem we need to address is the fact that there is no fair way to decide which Rachel should get the prior to the split bio. You're asking me to take the Rachel Grey Rachel, but I disagree. 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. Who is to say that won't happen again? The original argument with Artful Dodger was that Mother Askani didn't do enough to deserve a bio, but when I put it all on the other Rachel's page, they said it was too big. That's when Lokiofmidgaard told us that they were technically two people. It is not fair to Mother Askani, who was considered the end of Rachel's story for 6 years, that because a new Rachel, who is never there anyway, comes into the picture, you assume she is no longer the main. To call it fair, neither of them are. I'm actually having a similar problem on Illyana's. We started wrong on this one.
- Also, I've never agreed with your guy's view on easily readable. Explain how a person that is wanting to know about a character is aided by being told "go here and read this first, then come back to this one, but know that they are not the same person, when you come back to this one"? I want to know who this "Mother Askani" is that rescued Nathan in X-Factor. I go to the page and it tells me. That seems easier to read, than being sent to different links and having to piece it together in my head. I might read too much of the other Rachel's bio and now I'm all confused, when I get back to the Mother Askani page. I understand that there is a high concentration of higher-ups that believe a Google fan is not "attracted" to too much text, but I've said before, when you come to a site like this, it's because you want more. You've been to the main site (Marvel, DC, Image) and they didn't answer your question. We are the true fanboys, that put more time into our characters than some of the writers. You may have one question, but I still feel it's easy to scroll down and answer the question, than to jump between pages and piece it together. I've been doing, what I consider, a much better job at fitting all the years into condensed sentences and using headers to not only make the bio more attractive, but also answer certain questions (such as "when did Rachel become Mother Askani) and no one has complained, except for characters like Wolverine, but...ya know. Back to the original point, if you're going to change this one, it needs to be done fair.
- --Wazzirving 14:05, January 8, 2012 (UTC)wazzirving
- I realize you don't agree. That doesn't make it right. The whole "completist thing" is just bad style, sorry. You start with the main thing and then get to the details. It is simply not user-friendly to have to scroll through tons of information until you get to the relevant part. And no, duplicate information is not relevant. Not in this case. Unless there's more opposition, I'm calling this.--edkaufman (talk) 01:12, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Clean-Up[]
So, I want to start cleaning up this page, but since there was Talk Page activity, I'd like to check first. My perspective is this page should only cover the divergent Rachel that became the Mother Askani. Frankly, it would be better at Rachel Summers (Earth-4935), just like the Bishop who lived through the Age of Apocalypse is at Lucas Bishop (Earth-295) instead of Lucas Bishop (AoA) (Earth-1191), or something.
Her first appearance would be Cable #6, because that's the first time the Mother Askani appeared. Yes, she shares history with Rachel Summers up until Excalibur #75, but then they diverge. For precedent, we have the TRN240 X-Men listed as first appearance All-New X-Men #1, not X-Men #1 and the divergent Spider-Man 2099's at first appearance Exiles #75 and Age of Ultron #10, not all three as Spider-Man 2099 #1. Arguments? Monolith616 (talk) 16:29, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
Merge into one character[]
Both Marvel.com and Knights of X Vol 1 4 describe Rachel's time as Mother Askani as part of her main self's history. A bit confusing as it may be, these are the most recent sources and the pages should be merged, with histories in the respective orders. HBK123 (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)