Talk:Galactus

The Role/Importance of Galactus

I've found a lot of good source material dealing with the importance of Galactus and the role of balance he plays in the Marvel Universe.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks of having a dedicated section detailing Galactus' part in the universal order. As the article stands now, there are various scattered, but repeated, references to his importance in several different sections.

I think the article could be improved by having an area that explains cleary what exactly makes Galactus a singular, unique entity in all of the Marvel Universe and exactly why he is of such great importance.

I would propose to include information such as:

-Information already present in the article, i.e. third-force in the universe, one of the 5 essential entities, the only power that keeps Abraxas in check, the cosmic tribunal in which Eternity appears.

I would also inlcude information detailing

-Living Tribunal explaining his three faces of representation, one of which is Galactus (Equity) -Statement by some abstract character (forget which one, will look up source material) speculatng that Galactus may be even more important than Eternity because he is the only being to have ties to the previous reality, the contemporary reality, and the next reality simultaneously, something which no other character shares.

-misc other items.

I feel the need for a dedicated section because Galactus has such a specific, defined, and important role which is not replicated anywhere in any character throughout all of Marvel's characters. This is in contrast to the abstracts (Death, Eternity, etc.), who by their mere existence fulfill their roles in the universal order. Mobb One 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the problem with trying to define his role is that it is so ambiguous. Byrne seemed to establish that Galactus' role was to weed the universe, to test planets, and made a vague connection between Galactus, Death, and Eternity by naming them each corners to a "great triangle which is the universe." Steve Englehart fleshed out the Galactus/Eternity/Death relationship by establishing Galactus as the "third force of the universe" and by revealing that he provides balance between them. The problem is that Englehart never portrayed Galactus as a universal tester/weeder, but strictly as a balancing force between Eternity and Death. He also established that Galactus' existence was necessary for universal survival. For all we know Galactus MAY fulfill his role just by existing like the full-abstracts. The whole Abraxas-thing throws even more onto Galactus' plate, an interesting development from Abraxas Saga is that keeping Abraxas improsined may be the reason Galactus suffers from his hunger. TheBalance 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman?

How can Superman be one of Galactus's heralds? Superman is a DC Comics hero, Galactus is from the Marvel Comics.

Hello is anyone still there?

Anon

It's from the Fantastic Four-Superman crossover. In it Galactus takes Superman as his Herald and grants him the Power Cosmic. The empowered Superman gains a glossy, metallic, golden skin (think The Runner) and refers to himself as "Kyrptonian". TheBalance 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. I've never read that one. Thank you anyway.

Anon

Merge from Power Cosmic

• Support It's basically nothing more than a fork from the Powers and abilities section of this article, with a mention of the Heralds thrown in. Nothing that can't be covered here and in the Heralds articles (and should be). CovenantD 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - if Galactus is the sole source of the Power Cosmic, it's better as part of this article. If that changes as a result of new plot elements from Annihilation (due to Tenebrous and Aegis...) we can always revisit this, but for now it's not justified. --Mrph 10:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait I agree with merging it, but would imagine it wait until Annihilation: Heralds of Galactus #2 is released. We'll be able to gleam more information regarding Tenebrous and Aegis in this issue, and hopefully find more information on their background and whether they wield the Power Cosmic or not. If they do wield it, then I would vote for a separate article as that indicates Galactus is not the primary source, as we have all originally thought.Mobb One 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support If the Power COsmic had more detail then i would say keep, but due to lack of info, merge.Phoenix741 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree the Power Cosmic article needs to be expanded on, but other non-Galactus folks wield the Power Cosmic. It should have its own article. MightyAtom 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge But those other non-galactus folks who wield the Power Cosmic only wield it because galactus imbued it upon them. insight11 10:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Since Power Cosmic is not a trait of Galactus, but a seemingly separate entity and also since it is used by several characters and in different ways it should have its own article. However some expansion and clean-up is necessary. Evren Güldoğan 20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge The Power Cosmic the vast majority the times it's mentioned is done so in reference to the power of Galactus and/or his heralds. Annihilation didn't change this, it even seemed to make it a point to set Galactus apart in origin, nature, and power from the other members of the "Cosmic Balance". Manssiere 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Re?)added the merge tag. If this has been merged back into this article, which it looks like has happened, the stub needs to become a section specific redirect. - J Greb 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The Power Cosmic has been separated/stolen from Galactus several times. While he is the primary source of the Power Cosmic, it seems erroneous to equate the two simply because it has been proven before that they are not one and the same irrefutably. This is similar to the situation with Venom. Eddie Brock and the alien symbiote combine to create the Venom entity...however the symbiote can be separated from Eddie, and all of Venom's powers come from the symbiote. While there are obvious differences between the two, the power cosmic explains the abilities of many important characters in the marvel universe, and it would seem inappropriate to have everything redirect to the section on Galactus' powers, which is always in a constant state of editing due to differences in opinion. Mobb One 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with MobbOne. The Venom example proves that each are separate. After all, Thor and Mjolnir are separate, so why not here?
• Oppose. Asgardian 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Convinced by Mobb One. Poisonink (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There are plenty of characters that use the generalised power term. It's more convenient to link it separately. Dave (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Need to clarifyI agree that Galactus and his Heralds are the primary users of the power in Marvel, and that generally it is Galactus who bestows it. However other significant examples of users are found in the Marvel handbook, especially in the eighties editions. Characters like Adam Warlock (at the time "Him")and the Stranger are shown as using it, as well as the entire race of earth eternals. Not of whom were created by Galactus. Clearly this does none disprove that the power came from Galactus, but that is deserves recognition that it may be sourced from him unconciously.--Princekilderkin (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked out that 'article' and it was horrible in the amount of speculation, generalisation, and wild exaggeration used within. I likevise agree that just because it is most commonly used in conjunction with the Surfer and Galactus doesn't mean that similar characters, such as the Stranger, and the Watchers, or Tyrant and the Proemial Gods don't. As for 'being the most powerful force in the universe' that's ridiculous by all possible accounts, as plenty of power-sources and entities are scales of beyond anything Galactus has ever shown, and directly contradicted by Thanos in the Annihilation crossover, as he stated outright to Annihilus that he tends to favour more potent sources of power. Dave (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The creation of the character of Galactus

I've seen comic character entries that wikipedia has deemed to be excellent (storm, batman, superman), and the one thing they all have in common is an extensive publication history that chronicles the actual creation of the character by the storytellers.

I've noticed that the Galactus entry sorely lacks this. One might lead to question why does the Galactus entry need such treatment, I'll respond by saying that out of all the characters created in comics, very few have been created under the supervision of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, both of whom we can safely call two of the "founding fathers" if you will, of the comic book as we know it today. Now of those few characters created by both, it is widely regarded that the storyline that ran from Fantastic Four #48-50 is perhaps the greatest collaboration between the two creators. Those who have the knowledge can immediately recognize that those issues introduced Galactus and the Silver Surfer into the comics world.

I've found many sources on the web, as well as a Jack Kirby interview, expounding a bit more on the actual character of Galactus, and exactly how revolutionary he was when he was introduced. The whole story of "The Coming of Galactus" and the two issues following have a strongly profound Face of God/Fallen Angel mythos attached to it, which, according to the interviews, had never, ever been done in comics previous to that point. I know there are potentially semi-controversial religious undertones in that, but the fact is primary sources/interviews elaborate on this idea, and confirm it as well.

The article as it stands now contains 1 phrase to capture this entire idea. I don't think that's sufficient. If we're going to look at the standards for a standout entry, as mentioned above for Storm, Batman, Superman, the Watchmen, Captain Marvel (DC), I feel the Galactus article must discuss in some respectable depth the ideas that Stan Lee, but primarily Jack Kirby, had in mind when creating Galactus. This material would elevate the article as it is now to one that is truly more encyclopedic and distinct from many of the more "fan-oriented" entries, as Asgardian likes to label them. Mobb One 05:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a Publication section is sorely needed here. If you'd like to write up the background info (having already done the research) I'll help by pulling out the publication info from the fiction bio sections. CovenantD 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A slight tidy-up (not a removal). Some of the introductory information shuffled down to where appropriate to conform with Wikipedia opening statements. Noticed that about three times the same thing was just being said in different ways so performed a slight graft so that it reads a tad better and each point naturally flows to the next. A slight cull on two images that have been placed next to better ones and look like clutter. Perhaps the Gah Lak Tus image could be popped in further down on the left if wanting another one? Much better than a staid shot of Galactus without his helmet. That said, this article has really come along. Nice to see a few other folk actually researching and writing as opposed to just editing. Great use of new images. Looking very sharp.

Asgardian 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IQ and Powers

The article says that Galactus is the most intelligent and powerful being in the universe but aren't the five other members of his species as powerful and smart as he is? Furthermore it also says that Mr Fantastic is possibly the most brilliant mind on Earth but isn't Doctor Doom every bit as smart as him? Just something worth noting.

Anpn

Makasoff?

Galactus Makasoff first appeared in a classic Fantastic Four storyline in which...

Where is this coming from? Dlong 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Death in the Silver Surfer third volume

Galactus apparently dies in the 109th issue of the third volume of the Silver Surfer. He dies when containing the power of the ultimate nullifier which is triggered by his herald Morg when attempting to defeat Tyrant, his sentient creation. I'm sure he comes back alive later but this fact should be included in the history but I do not know where to include it. Zuracech lordum 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Galactus and his Relationship to the In-Betweener

I don't know if the omission was a deliberate action or if it was just due to the addendum being lost in multiple Page Edits (some sort of Edit War seems to be going on at the present time), but I earlier provided a direct Reference -namely, Silver Surfer Volume 3, Issue #10, -wherein it is revealed that the In-Betweener is the metaphysical counterpart to Galactus.

Unless you can find a reference directly contradicting my source that I cited, I kindly ask you to leave the addendum in.

I'm placing the In-Betweener/Galactus blurb (alonmg with its attendant reference) back into the Article.

Thanos777 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There was some debate over this topic between Galactus and In-Betweener in SS#10. Nothing was ever established. IIRC, The In-Betweener claimed the reason he couldn't summon Galactus' polar opposite was because he was Galactus' opposite -- I believe Galactus disputed the In-Betweener's claim. TheBalance 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I believe that it is as you have said; and I'll now give thought to making my earlier, declarative Statement into a more speculative/'strongly implied' one.

And I mis-typed the proper reference (which I will go and correct now): it wasn't SS-V3-#10, it was SS-V3-#18.....Thanos777 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off

Knock the edit war off. Seriously. It's getting annoying. Dlong 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you sit back, grab a beer and relax. Whenever Asgardian makes an appearance a revert war usually ensues. Asgardian can be also be found engaged in childish, prolonged revert wars on the Thanos and Celestial pages, among many, many others. I suggest you do a search on Asgardian. TheBalance 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try less assumption and more meaningful dialogue. The latter - and any real work on many of these articles - appear to be lacking.

Asgardian 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic, you are and have been involved in revert wars on numerous entries time and time again. Your stubborness, unwillingness to compromise and belief that the goal of an encylopedic entry is brevity leads to perpetual revert wars. All one has to do is look at your user talk page history - the constant here is you. TheBalance 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to be realistic, I suggest you first look at your own behaviour. You and your offsider are very quick to accuse...but do little to discuss.

Asgardian 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction - I no longer bother compromising with or initiating talks with you. It's a well beaten path that leads nowhere. TheBalance 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heaven knows I have had my differences with Asgardian, but his intro and general edits do seem to best follow the Comics Project editorial guidelines and exemplar.

As for the brevity issue: Generally speaking the fewer and more precise words needed to describe something, the better. Lots of phrases can be streamlined ("At a later point in time John Doe began to..." can be simply "Later, John Doe began to...") and the passive voice changed to active voice ("It was suggested by Joe Quesada that Galactus was..." is better as "Joe Quesada suggested Galactus was...").

I'm sure reasonable minds can come together. --Tenebrae 09:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with Asgardian's edits, is that he removes too much, and makes the article just look incomplete. -- DCincarnate

We can come up with a middle ground. What I'd like to suggest is to first conform the article to the edit-guidelines/exemplar format. Maybe Asgardian could do that. Then you and TheBalance can each add a paragraph or a sentence to that, without changing the format. Then the three (or more?) of you can discuss the pros and cons of that paragraph or sentence and refine it. Then repeat as necessary.

It's a bit laborious, but once the article's in shape, then it'll always be in shape, and it'll just be a matter of maintenance. I'm not an admin, but in the interest of harmony, I'd be glad to help peer-mediate if you need me. What does everybody say? --Tenebrae 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tenebrae. Common sense has prevailed. I've been asking 2-3 parties for some time to study the changes (eg. correct Wikipedia introduction, present tense, no POV) before hitting revert. If they looked they would see 95% of the article is STILL THERE. It's very close to "A" standard, but still needs minor work. A little more discussion and consideration would be appreciated, especially for those us that actually spend hours researching and writing these things. It's not as easy as it looks!

Asgardian.

I see that the article has been locked due to constant revisions. Well in any case...we wouldn't be in this position to continually improve the article if asgardian had not had the original initiative to clean it up and reference it, so let's acknowledge that.

That being said, it's all fine having a format done and agreed to, but in terms of brevity and the like....yes it is much better to be more succinct with terminology, but at the same time we shouldn't sacrifice delivery and tone. In this regard a middle-ground must be met.

Now in terms of content. Above all the publication history needs to be expounded. In particular the issue I raised above (The creation of the character of Galactus) concerning the actual creation of the Galactus character by lee and kirby, which covenantD has also agreed is necessary. Now I've already done most of the research on that, and have a draft of a new introduction paragraph incorporating that material, but as it is I still want to work on it. However I have a titanic, once-in-a-year exam approaching the first week of june, and all my time outside of work is devoted to that. If someone would care to begin the publication history by dealing with, specifically, the "Galactus Trilogy," Kirby's inspirations/though processes, etc. that would really begin to separate this article from the rest of the comic book character entries. Mobb One 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The "Publication history" section is wholly inadequate as it stands. Galactus has made several key appearances throughout the years not only in Fantastic Four but in Thor, The Silver Surfer, Iron Man, ROM Infinity Gauntlet and many more. A "road map" through these is needed. --Tenebrae 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hooray...progress. I'm happy to expand on a PH as that is easily done. It just has to be objective with no POV and sourced which is what my revisions have tried to achieve. Having had another look at the two versions, I'm still a little miffed that a certain trio never took the time to study the changes, which only try to enforce some consistency throughout the article and stop that POV and image overkill which seems to creep in on cosmic characters that have a strong following.

Onward.

Asgardian 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nice, hearing people come together. One quick suggestion: Probably it might be helpful to keep unmentioned those things that miff. No good comes of that in discussions like these; trust me. Unquestionably, though, as Asgardian says, POV has to be removed.

Mobb One, why not post your PH draft here, and let us fellow eds take a crack at polishing? -- Tenebrae 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairly Oddparents

In The Fairly Oddparents, I just wanted to add that Timmy's godparents appear as parodies of the Silver Surfer with skateboards instead of his surfboard. Should this be in the Silver Surfer article or can it be noted here?Hoopesk2 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer's. Still, I don't know if it's worth adding. --Soetermans 10:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes but also Timmy appear as Galactimus, a clear parody of galactus in the name,apparence and beavour(he proclam to eat the planet

Additions, Revisions, Edits, and Modifications

Alright guys, I encourage all the people who have contributed to this article lately (you know who you are) to get together here and start brainstorming about how to improve this article.

As per the discussion topic above, I'll post a preliminary draft of a new intro and publication history that details the actual circumstances and background concerning the creation of the character.

I've just read that Galactus may take the form of a storm cloud in the new FF movie. Many fans are extremely irate, some don't even know who Galactus is. From what i've seen, many people are turning to wikipedia for a complete learning of what and who Galactus really is. This motivates me to really see this article done well and I think we should use this opportunity to illustrate that wikipedia can be the one stop source of information.

I'll be posting my draft here soon.

Mobb One 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention the 'cosmic cloud' Galactus in the article. Perhaps when unlocked, it can be put in. 60.241.198.190 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a preliminary draft of the Galactus intro and opening paragraph of the publication history. I don't have the specific references with me on hand right now, but as you can see i've inserted them and will specify them sometime later this week.

-Introduction-

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity who appears in publications of Marvel Comics, occasionally appearing as an adversary of the Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer. Sometimes called the Devourer of Worlds or Ravager of Planets, Galactus is an enormously powerful being who must “feed” on the energy of planets to survive.

Galactus was created by artist Jack Kirby and writer Stan Lee, first appearing in in the landmark Fantastic Four #48. Kirby envisioned Galactus' character to be conceptually equivalent to God, making Galactus one of the first comic-book characters conceived in this mold. (citation, television interview with Jack Kirby)Depicted as a being existing since the beginning of the current Marvel-616 universe, Galactus has consumed countless planets, resulting in the elimination of entire extra-terrestrial civilizations. As one of the most powerful and terrifying characters ever created by the publisher, Galactus has become more developed in recent decades, coming to embody a force of cosmic nature whose existence is necessary for the continuation of the universe. Writers have explored topics involving morality, philosophy, and religion with stories concerning the necessity of Galactus in the universal order , coupled with the required destruction of entire inhabited worlds for his survival.

-Publication History-

"The Galactus Trilogy"

Writer Stan Lee and artist/co-writer Jack Kirby first introduced Galactus —as well as the Silver Surfer— in the landmark Fantastic Four #48, published in 1966. A classic story in which Galactus' then-herald, the Silver Surfer, located Earth for destruction, issue #48 was titled "The Coming of Galactus." It was the first of a three-part story, with "If this Be Doomsday!" and "The Startling Saga of the Silver Surfer" being parts 2 and 3, featured in Fantastic Four #49 and #50, respectively. The "Galactus Trilogy," as the three issues have become collectively called, is considered by many to be the finest work of Kirby and Lee collaborating together, and has been called "one of the most historically significant moments in Marvel's Silver Age." (citation, The Jack Kirby Collector)

In a 1989 interview, Kirby explained that the inspiration for Galactus was drawn from the Bible. (citation).

I will add more later, as the rest of it is on another computer. --Mobb One 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! We are underway. I'll have a good look later.

Asgardian 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

after my exam is over next week i'll get back to this. i'd like a real nice article before the ff movie comes out....and people start questioning who/what galactus is.

Mobb One 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can - Monster Movie

Anybody wish to add the reference to Can's album Monster Movie which has a picture of Galacctus on the cover and is a very influential LP? 82.29.114.179 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer

I recently read the novelization of the film and Galactus appears as a kind of cosmic storm/vortex but he isn't shown in his humanoid form. He's also called the Gah Lak Tus, like the Ultimate Marvel version of Galactus. It should be noted under the other media secion. While it's not the film, it's based on the film's script.Odin's Beard 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dial "M" for Monkey

{{Editprotected}}

Since I can't directly edit the page, I'll say it here... The enemy that Monkey fights in the episode of Dial "M" for Monkey is named "Barbequor". More information on the specific episode can be found here. ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to add citation

{{Editprotected}} I'd like to add this reference to the last quote (from Tim Story) in the Movies section. The code would be:

Story, Tim (2007-03-02). "Wow - the clock is ticking..." Retrieved 2007-05-21. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Thanks. [edit: the URL is currently blacklisted, b/c of the root domain. So, for now, I've put {}'s around the "blog" portion of the URL until it is whitelisted (assuming my request for it to be whitelisted is approved).]

Earthsound 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MZMcBride. I will add the cite when the URL is whitelisted. Earthsound 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a workaround to the blacklist, so I didn't have to wait for the whitelisting as I previously thought. Earthsound 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to fix headings

I would like to request that the heading "Alternate realities" be changed to "Other versions" and the heading "Appearances in other media" be changed to "In other media" so that this is consistent with the template established in the Comics WikiProject. --Freak104 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I've rv to last Smackbot. If there's going to be an edit war between The Balance and Asgardian, why don't we just start before them and ask for an RfC. Thoughts from fellow editors?

One thought from me at top: "It is revealed that" is a passive-voice weasel phrase that should be avoid. Better to use active voice and to just say what was revealed. "In Fantastic Four #1000, Galactus learned he had indigestion all these years", or whatever. --Tenebrae 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Formal Request for Comment

Since User:Asgardian has chosen to revert and continue an edit war, I am calling for a Request for Comment from fellow editors. Given the sheer number of changes, I'd suggest we take it paragraph by paragraph.

The two versions are Asgardian's and User:TheBalance's:

• Last Asgardian version

• Last The Balance version

I'd like to get the ball rolling with graf 1:

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity, in the Marvel Universe. Created by writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby — prompted by Lee's suggestion to Kirby to "have the Fantastic Four fight God"[citation needed] — he first appeared as an antagonist in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (March 1966), the first of three consecutive issues comprising what fans and historians would later call "The Galactus Trilogy".

• First sentence I'd suggest slight expansion for WPC style, to say "fictional comic-book character in the Marvel Comics universe".

• I'd leave out the m-dash phrase in sentence 2, and place it in PH if we can source it.

• The rest of sentence two seems factual: Antagonist? Yes. FF48? Yes. Three consecutive issues? Yes. Called "Galactus Trilogy"? Yes, and given that it's a term used commonly and typically, I believe it belongs in the lead, but sourced. There are countless sources; offhand, I've pulled out: Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5; Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered).

Thoughts? --Tenebrae 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "a fictional comic-book character in the Marvel Comics universe" He's not fictional within the Marvel Universe.

"a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe" would be more consistent with how we've started going with those opening sentences lately. Doczilla 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good, sharp distinction. I'll start adjusting leads that way on my watchlist articles. Although we could probably say "fictional comic book character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe", since no where else in the lead does it specify he appears in comic books as opposed to comic strips, graphic novels, manga or other forms. --Tenebrae 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc on the first line and with Tenebrae about the "dashed" section. That full second sentence though...

"Created by writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby, the character first appeared as an antagonist in a three issue story arc that began in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966). This ar would later be called "The Galactus Trilogy" by fans and historians.^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)

- J Greb 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, it's usually better to use active voice rather than passive: "fans and historians call...", rather than "called by fans and historians." Just sayin'. Though in this case the passive voice has source, and it's not one of those "It is believed that...." things, so if consensus is to go with passive in this case, I'm certainly OK.

We ready for next graf?--Tenebrae 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, first things first. It is hardly an edit war, as folks just need to understand how to do things Wiki-style. As I said, my main issue is POV. Who says this arc is the Galactus Trilogy? I'd also leave out the mention of fans, as that cannot be proven. Fans may call the first arc many different things. As to historians, again it becomes a question of who. What can be said with confidence is that the arc was "epic". This is reasonable due to the significance of the story, just as the Korvac Saga was epic. If you've found a source, then great. Link it and I have no issue.

That said, this: :"a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe" doesn't really make sense. Try saying it out loud. Try "Galactus is a cosmic entity that exists in the fictional Marvel Universe."

Asgardian 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We start with "fictional character" in these articles. The article is about the character, not the Marvel Universe itself, and we begin by clearly stating the character's own fictional nature. Doczilla 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Roy Thomas, Stan Lee, and Erik Larsen are sources for the term Galactus Trilogy. See citations above.

I'm with J Greb and the previously consensus-derived WPC editorial exemplar on the version of the intro line. Unless other editors want to comment, it's been days and we have a majority of the commenting editors reaching consensus. Let's wait a day and go to the next paragraph then. --Tenebrae 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

With Doczilla's point... a suggested rework for the lead:

"Galactus is a fictional character in the Marvel Universe, where it is portrayed as a cosmic entity.

"Writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby created the character as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four comic book. It first appeared in a three issue story arc that began in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966), which historians of the medium would later call "The Galactus Trilogy".^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)"

- J Greb 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Still a tad clumsy. Try this:

"The character is created by writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby. Galactus first appears in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 - 50 (Mar. 1966), an arc later referred to as "The Galactus Trilogy".

This keeps it simple. Galactus has always been referred to as a "he" (and is in the article), not an "it". That will create confusion. Also lead with "the character" and in the following sentence his actual name to avoid repetition. Also avoid the wordiness and go for a succinct statement. "First appears in FF vol. 1, 48 - 50 (date)" keeps present tense, spells out which book and that it is obviously a trilogy. "Historians of the medium" is also clunky and pretentious. Just say "later referred to etc." with a source tagged on the end. That's enough. People don't get preceded by a title in comics articles as a rule - there's just a source at the end of the statement.

Asgardian 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He was created - past tense. That's fact, not fiction. The statement about the first appearance at that point in the article is not fiction either. The same statement, when placed within the fictional history section, would have to be present tense, but not in the lead. The lead is fine except that (1) the unsourced remark about having the FF fight God either needs deleted or moved into the publication history section and (2) the thing about fans and historians is inappropriate for the lead without proper sourcing.

• • "Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Universe. Created by writer/editor Stan Lee and penciller/co-plotter Jack Kirby, he first appeared as an antagonist in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (March 1966)." (Or add sources for more info. Don't leave the lead with a lingering "citation needed".)

Although, does it matter that Stan edited the story too? Writer should suffice. And without a source citing Jack as co-plotter, we should call him what those issues of FF called him. We're already giving him equal credit as having created the character. Even if we have a co-plot source (which should be easy to get), that info belongs in publication history. Keep the lead simple. Doczilla 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Doc, the lead is supposed to be a real world description of the subject. I had deliberately split it into 2 'graphs so there wouldn't be a jump in tense. The first is what the subject is since it, the character, is still in use by Marvel. Looking at Asgardian's comment, I would change one thin in that sentence though, swapping "...where it is portrayed..." with "...where the character is portrayed as...". It may be a double take on "character" but it grounds that the article deals with what is essentially a thing.

As for the second section... 1) I tried to avoid passive voice in it, hence "Lee & Kirby created the character..." and "...which historians would later call..." 2) Given the profile of both Lee and Kirby, the "job" notations could be done away with entirely. And 3) looking at it again, "of the medium" is putting on airs and can go.

- J Greb 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as the edit protect is lifted I plan on greatly expanding the publication history. What will be expanded on is as follows:

The original impetus behind the creation of Galactus, sourced from jack kirby interviews/primary sources. Mystical/Mythical connotations heavily symbolized in the story, including summarized analysis/interpretation from comic hisorians Significance of the story The evolving interpretation of Galactus by writers featured in thor, silver surfer, fantastic four, and the galactus limited series, among others. this will all be referenced and cited.Mobb One 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good! If can just start with a date for every new point I'm happy.

Asgardian 10:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First issue: Asgardian saying this isn't the result of an edit war doesn't make it so. Other editors say it is, creating a consensus.

Second, I'd like to ask J Greb to put his synthesis of the lead, based on our discussion, immediately below so that we make look at it, reach consensus, and move to the next graf(s). Thanks. --Tenebrae 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Working with the additional suggestions:

"Galactus is a fictional character in the Marvel Universe, where the character is portrayed as a cosmic entity.

"Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the character as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four comic book. It first appeared in a three issue story arc that began in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966), which historians would later call "The Galactus Trilogy".^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)"

Keep in mind this is set up as a mock-up with the ref/cite call outs. It also feels a little thin, but serviceable, for a lead. - J Greb 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not fictional within the Marvel Universe. "Portrayed"? There's no actor playing the part. Within the Marvel Universe, Galactus simply is a cosmic entity. This accurately combines the information:

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Universe.

Notice that I put no comma after entity because the comma presently in the article screws up in the meaning. The comma says that in addition to being a fictional character, Galactus really is a cosmic entity, but he's not. He's only a cosmic entity within the MU. On to the second sentence . . .

"It"? Although I understand the rationale, that's just not what we say. If you don't like "he" when discussing the character as a comic property, avoid any pronoun at that point in the article. Okay, we have sources calling it the Galactus Trilogy, but historians aren't the ones who first called it that. Either Stan or the fans first called it that way back when. Try this for the second sentence:

Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four, Galactus first appeared in Fantastic Four vol. 1 #48 (Mar. 1966), the first part of a three-issue story later known as "The Galactus Trilogy". REFS

He was created as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four characters. He did not antagonize the comic book. Yeah, that sounds picky, but it's redundant to say Fantastic Four as the publication twice in the same sentence if you don't have to. I can pull out The Elements of Style and other sources to elaborate on why using coordination and subordination for the sentence's three parts is better than using any conjunction or breaking it into two sentences. Doczilla 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it, Doc. As I indicated earlier, all the essential information can be conveyed in one fluid sentence. While I don't like "it" (none of the other cosmics are referred to in this manner), I think "he" is serviceable as it is fairly commonplace. We can always alternate between "Galactus" and "the character" if that's not an option.

Asgardian 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor quibbling point... "portrayed" can be used for "shown as", ie "The news story portrayed the politician in a bad light." Evidently that usage is less common than it once was since the immediate assumption was that an actor was involved.

That aside, the structure Doc's put up works well. - J Greb 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is User:Doczilla's first graf, incorporating User:Asgardian's point about the team vs. the comic book series, and an additional word in the lead sentence:

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe. Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four, the character first appeared in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966), the first part of a three-issue story later known as "The Galactus Trilogy". REFS

What do we think? Have we nailed it? --Tenebrae 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Fingers crossed, maybe we can stick a fork in this piece and call it done.

And I hope it was clear that REFS was my shorthand for:

^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)" Doczilla 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear indeed!

If there's no objection by end of day today, I'll swap in the consensus version of graf 1.

On to graf 2!

Graf 2

Here's my pass at it, which combines the first two grafs of the PH. I've edited out some of the self-evident material ("the need to generate sales" compelled creation of Galactus -- the need to generate sales compels everything) and toned down the hyperbole and passive-voice material ("is considered by many to be the finest work of Kirby and Lee collaborating together" ... as opposed to collaborating apart, one supposes....) The material about the trilogy's historical importance can go into a Legacy section, since PH is more of a roadmap than anything.

Publication history
Image caption: Fantastic Four #48 (March 1966). Cover art by Jack Kirby & Sinnott.

Writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby introduced Galactus and his herald the Silver Surfer in a three-part story Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48-50 (March-May 1966). Insert cited ref quoting a Stan Lee sentence or two on Galactus' creation, while Kirby said he drew inspiration from the Bible. (Ref The Masters of Comic Book Art (1987), directed by Ken Viola). Galactus made a flashback cameo in Daredevil vol. 1, #37 (Feb. 1968) before returning to Earth to retrieve the Silver Surfer in actual and behind-the-scenes appearances throughout Fantastic Four #72-77 (March-Aug. 1968). He next appeared in extensive flashback in the heretofore unrevealed origin of the Silver Surfer, in The Silver Surfer vol. 1, #1 (Aug. 1968).

OK, let's tackle that above graf!--Tenebrae 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: the need to generate sales and the villains/gangsters, this needs to remain in the PH or perhaps in the legacy section which you suggest. Kirby goes on to reveal in the interview that Galactus and the Silver Surfer are the first such characters of their kind ever created in comics medium. The creations were the first departure from the standard villain archetype, which made them so revolutionary. I am a professional in finance-sales does not necessarily generate innovation, which is what I was trying to communicate in my original (though incomplete) paragraph.

Re: the stan Lee citation. I haven't found any such reliable source for his part in creating Galactus. If you can find one then that would be excellent. As it is, I've seen more articles indicating that Lee had much less of a hand in creating Galactus than Kirby.

For the publication history, there should be a sentence or three summarizing the the events of key issues/stories, along with the significance of the issue/story on the development of the character, as opposed to just having issues with publication dates. See the publication history for the Storm entry, which is acknowledged as one of the more exemplary articles per wiki comics project. I don't think it's appropriate to just have a streamlined approach to the PH...to the average reader they're just titles and the year of their publication. There's a real disconnect there. So, as it stands, I disagree with the above paragraph.Mobb One 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We should all check out the Storm entry. Lee quotes exist; I've been a little too swamped to research cites, but I promise to.

As for whether or not such characters existed before, I'm sure Kirby believes they were revolutionary and unique, but comics previously had antagonists whose actions threatened the entire world. I think we need to specify what the unique elements are.

Since it's toward the end of the day (9 p.m. EDT), it appears we have consensus on the first graf, so I'll go ahead an put it in. --Tenebrae 01:09, 19 June 2007(UTC)

re: antagonists-expounding on what makes galactus (and to a degree, the silver surfer) so unique was my intention in a subsequent development paragraph. if you watch the video interview, kirby made a clear distinction between antagonists in the past...i.e. villains like doom who threatened the whole world for power/conquest/wealth...these he lumps into a category he labels "gangsters."

The difference between them and Galactus is that Galactus is such a higher being that all human motivations are beneath him. This makes him singular in this aspect and separate from any and all villains. That is why Kirby drew motivation from the Bible...Galactus was to be depicted as having such incomprehensible power that he was beyond all mortal ken, and his motivations were purely for assurance of his own survival-the concerns of normal man were too far beneath him to even take notice...making him a true "god" in that respect-kirby even stated that they (galactus and ss) were meant to be portrayed as being above mythological figures (thor, odin, etc.) and more a pantheon of true cosmic "gods." This is what kirby was driving at and conveyed in the interview. And he primarily was motivated to break away from the mold of traditional villain (the "gangster" archetype) due to a need to increase sales. How to increase sales? Create a character that had never been seen before.Mobb One 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best way to get this across is to have the full Jack Kirby quote. Could you transcribe it from the documentary and copy it here? Since Kirby, God bless 'im, often exaggerated and misremembered things, we'd probably need a balancing quote. Thanks! --Tenebrae 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Start with the date. That's where it begins and ends.

Asgardian 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"My inspirations were the fact that, I had to make sales. And I had to come up with characters that were no longer stereotypes. In other words I couldn't depend on gangsters anymore, I had to get something new. And of course I...for some reason, I went to the Bible. And I came up with Galactus. And there I was in front of this tremendous figure, who I knew very well, because I always felt him, and I certainly couldn't treat him the same way that I would any ordinary mortal...and of course the Silver Surfer is the fallen angel. And when Galactus relegated him to Earth he stayed on Earth. And that was the beginning of his adventures. And they were...figures that have never been used before in comics. They were above mythic figures, and of course, they were the first gods."

-Jack Kirby, 1986~1987

Mobb One 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I'll find a Stan Lee quote about the creation of Galactus from a real-world, PH perspective. These would be separate grafs that would follow a set-up graf (graf 2).

I think the name of the documentary with the Kirby quote is here somewhere, but I don't readily see it. Could you add it so we can do the footnote?

Everyone else OK with adding a Kirby and a Lee quote? They're primary sources. --Tenebrae 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Masters of Comic Book Art. Dir. Ken Viola 1987 moving forward...there's material (from secondary sources, i.e. jack kirby collector journal) analyzing what the significance of the "Galactus Trilogy" represents to comics in general, and more specifically how the characters (Galactus and SS) are interpreted and why exactly they were revolutionary. This may be a bit much to include in the PH, I think we should have a legacy section as you mention. The kirby/lee quotes should suffice for the PH, and then we can elaborate on this quoting sources for analysis in a legacy section or similar. Mobb One 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that by date the PH can quite easily track Galactus' appearances. After two appearances in Thor and a return quest for the Surfer, the next one is the arrival of the Airwalker robot, then Thor again for Firelord, a bout with the High Evolutionary and then 2-3 more that lead into the thick of the Byrne era. I can help with these if you need exact specs.

Asgardian 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian can you provide these dates then? Per the storm entry I intend to place a comment on so on the key events in publication history that saw writers "flesh out" galactus' character. this will probably remove some info in the body section of the article and re-phrase it from a publication/writer's point of view.Mobb One 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do in the next day or so. I'll also try and find Mark Gruenwald's comment on the inappropriate use of Galactus as character.

Asgardian 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled the image of Galactus without his helmet as:

1. It clogs the space. There are already three very good images at the bottom of the article. All pertinent.

2. Further to this, it simply isn't relevant. The Byrne image and text explain the "differing perception" phenomenon, and then mentions that the armour can be removed. There's no need to belabour the point with another image.

3. How many Wikipedia profiles about characters with helmets have images of them without their helmet? 99% do not, as it is not relevant. Iron Man is the one exception as the Tony Stark persona is intregral to the story. Not so Galactus, as the character is seen wearing the helmet 99% of the time - it is an integral part of his mystique.

By the by, no more snide remarks in the Edit Summary, thank you. Civility first.

Asgardian 09:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

HalfShadow - good call.

Asgardian 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Half - what happened? I still believe the image doesn't fit, but that was good initiative on your part. No way to preserve the image as a link?

Asgardian 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I never changed it back; User:Durin did. Apparently, if it isn't an image, it isn't considered 'used'. I tried to create a 'hidden' image, but the system wouldn't fall for it. I don't really care anymore. HalfShadow 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed the 4 fundamental forces mention in SHB, as the Power Cosmic is all-encompassing and allows manipulation of these - not an extra ability. Tidied up the PH to lead by date and replaced the link to shot of Galactis without helmet. Half, I added a fair use rationale so that should protect it.

Asgardian 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae - you really didn't look with this one. Firstly, the "v1" style is the new thing - JGreb has incorporated this across a number of articles (eg. Absorbing Man) and it looks sharp. Secondly, I corrected an image that was available through a link so it would not be deleted, as Half and I reached an understanding on how to cover that. There's a rationale above. Thirdly, there's also a rationale for the trimming of the P & A in the SHB above. If you can wield the Power Cosmic, then manipulation of the four forces follows - it is not an extra ability. I haven't looked at the Power Cosmic entry, but that is the place for elaboration on what is possible, not Galactus' SHB. Finally, the much-debated PH. You reverted back to some rather awkward and ponderous sentences that needed trimming. Always, always keep it simple. After all, 10 year olds now have access to the internet as well!

Asgardian 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, v1 is not the new thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes. This is another example of unilaterally going against consensus. And before you "speak to a solicitor (attorney)", that's not victimization, it's the recognition of an documented pattern.--Tenebrae 14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't say silly things like that. Please.

Asgardian 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, just a point of clarification: I've been using "v#" as per the results of {{Comic book reference}}, that is in citations that that get places in the footnote/reference section. I've been using "vol. #," where it appears in the main article text. I've pointed out to Tenebrae, and I'll repeat it here, this appears to be consistent with how the template, "Titles with numerous volumes", and "Citations" read.

That being said, it is arguable that the template may need to be changed to come in line with "Titles with numerous volumes". Though I don' relish the though of having to find all the places I've used the compromise "ref using the resulting format instead of the template code for readability" situations. - J Greb 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JG. It seems we have another yet another aspect of Wikipedia that requires clarification. The "fair use" business have also cropped up this week with images. Like you, I would not enjoy having to backtrack and correct everything to conform to the latest change that may morph again into something else six months from now.

Asgardian 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae - it is good to see you now taking suggestions on board, such as the note about the Power Cosmic. And yes, it does not need to be bolded. That said, I've reverted the image as it was available through a link, and based on a rationale I provided and Half then delivered on. The issue was solved. As for the PH, the main problem is that the wording is too unwieldly. Example: "the heretofore unrevealed origin" is ponderous and a tad pretentitious. Thoughts?

Asgardian 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to make such snide remarks as "it is good to see you now taking suggestions on board." I've always done so with responsible edits.

Starting every sentence the same way is bad writing. Every writing textbook, every English composition class and every writing workshop will tell you this. It seems as if you're purposefully baiting other editors, and I am not the first editor to say this.

In addition, it's redundant to say "In 1966" when the sentence then says "issue #such-such (Sept. 1966)." Redundancy is another example of bad writing. Before reverting again, why not either accept these facts or build a valid argument against them. --Tenebrae 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between Galactus and the Celestials

Galactus actually eats planets to control the celestials, I am not sure what comic this is from but the artwork looks legit

"The Celestials are race of gigantic cosmic beings who have god-like powers. They were inhabitants of the universe that existed before our own, who had advanced themselves so far up the evolutionary ladder that their very existence caused that universe to collapse. They survived the Big Bang of our universe, and have continued to thrive ever since.

As they advanced themselves, the Celestials began to lose their physical forms. To keep from completely discorporating into the Universe, they created shells for themselves out of the metal known on Earth as vibranium. The Celestials are now beings of pure energy, thought and will incarnate. Each, however, has a distinctive outer casing.

As a result of their advancement, Celestials cannot reproduce the way lesser species do. To generate offspring, Celestials implant of piece of their essences inside a planet. They then surround the embryonic energy with vibranium, which the offspring will use as a casing when it emerges. Finally, to protect the offspring from alien invaders who might harm the planet, the Celestials modify the indigenous intelligent life of the planet, imlanting a "seed" in its genes that will mutate and give super-powers to them as the embryo nears maturation. The vibranium helps to serve as a catalyst for this change. The guardian life evolves through three levels of mutation before the Celestial emerges and the entire world, including its populace, is converted into vibranium for the newborn's use. The Celestials have one natural predator: Galactus, a being who also survived the destruction of the previous universe, and knew the Celestials had caused it. He dedicated himself to controlling the Celestials population growth, which he does using sophisticated machinery that absorbs the embryo's energy from its planetary womb. This has the unfortunate side-effect of destroying the planet, which is why Earth heroes have fought Galactus off numerous times"

http://www.mutanthigh.com/aliens/celestials1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.210.253 (talk • contribs)

This idea was suggested in the earth x stories, though i cannot remember which part. it has been reported by Marvel to be an alternativ earth (wiki page decribes it properly). either way i am sure its not cannon in regards to galactus and the celestials relationship User:Princekilderkin|Princekilderkin]] (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie Screencapture

We'll have to wait for the DVD release for a long time but, if the movie releases on DVD, could one of you take a screencap of Galactus in the movie? We might need it, thanks.

My reason for this is that the cloud looks cool (I only saw the TV spot).

Sorry for being (I don't remember how to spell it but it's someone who doesn't want people to know who he/she is)

Galactus: FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer

The article states that Galactus is a sentient cloud in the film; however, although massive and clearly having vast powers there doesn't seem to be any implicit indications that the cloud is sentient. 66.109.248.114 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer spoke to and him as if he is Sentient; the Herald even summoned Galactus by name. --Panelmyth107 06:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to something as if it were sentient does not make it sentient. Summoning the Galactus by name, does not rule out any other cues, prompts or signal that may have been projected at that point.66.109.248.114 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, give me a break. The Surfer obviously had a relationship and a bargain with him, and referred to it as "him". It's blatantly obvious it's a sentient lifeform. You shouldn't need to get beaten over the head with it to be able top understand that.Rglong 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Galactus could just as easily have been an entity surrounded by the cloud. In fact, that's how my sons interpreted shadows they saw in the area the Surfer was talking toward, while SS himself was inside some of the cloud. Either way, we cannot insert our own inferences into the article. Doczilla 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That thing was huge. Though in a way I do not believe that he was sentient because I agree somewhat with Doczilla Maybe Galactus was just an Entity surrounded by the cloud and his "Arms" (I don't know what else to call them) began to reach into the Planet. But we will never know the truth untill one of the Directors or other Crew members that worked on the movie state that he is in fact sentinet. Though he could have been part of the galaxy or something to do with like Eternity from the comics. But then again he could have been alive or the Surfer would not have been able to blow him up and kill him. Or unless that Surfer just destroyed a life bearing string in the Galaxy that hold the fabrics of reality together. But untill someone does say that he is a life form or not, all we can do is just assume. And we can not add assumptions into the article without reference saying that it is correct so I believe we just say that he is an Entity of the Galaxy, not a lifeform but not not alive. If that makes sense. ManofSTEEL2772 01:44 p.m. June 19 2007

I don't think it's an "inference" to say that he's sentient. He has the power to reason, he made a deal with the Surfer. The surfer bows down to him and talks to him. Galactus has solid, geometric form underneath the fire and his head moves to react to the Surfer. It's not like it's totally up in the air and you can interpret it any way you want. If we start limiting wikipedia to only containing what's blatantly, painfully obvious and spelled out (like you need the script to specifically use the word "sentient" or something) then it's going to end up being pretty darn shallow and stripped of real information. But then more and more people these days can't understand anything unless they're beaten over the head with it.

Additionally I saw the movie again and it's pretty clear there are solid, mechanical structures just underneath the clouds, especially metal fingers poking out underneath the smoke tendrils. Go ahead and wait for the DVD if you want but that cloud is just concealing a huge structure underneath.Rglong 23:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is one part in the film. When Reed while holding Sue is looking up towards the sky, there appeared to be a brief moment that shows an eye. I've only seen the movie once so far, but has anyone else noticed this too? I too feel that there is a being cover up by the fires and smoke, they probably made Galactus this way so he wouldn't look to ridiculous in the film.

In Universe

The section detailing the fictional biography is overly long, at conflict with Wikipedia not being a plot summary resource, and written in an in-universe style. The information should be sourced in real world detail and migrated to the publication history section, in accordance with the manual of style. The information as currently presented is more suited to a more in-universe based resource, such as the Marvel Database. Hiding Talk 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well...to be fair, long-standing characters such as Galactus have very full FCB's, and it is hard for the information to not be in-universe. As it is, I tidied it up sometime ago and introduced the right tense and culled a great deal of the POV and "tell the story" so it is just a case of "X does Y and this happens", which is more the Wikipedia way.

Asgardian 06:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This will be corrected once we get a solid PH down. The rest of the article will be improved in kind.Mobb One 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

two out of the three dc appearances are not canons?

yeah umm... where do you have proof its not a canon.

Galen

His name is Galen, not Galan. It's stated in The Marvel Encyclopedia (Book), and in Marvel Ultimate Allance (Video/Computer Game) that that is his true name.

So why doesn't someone make the corrections all over the damn article?

Because Galan is the correct spelling, perhaps? Galan was the the name used in the original origin and in the SVC #1 retelling, Galen is the mistake sometimes seen in modern comics. TheBalance 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No image

Why isn't there an image of Galactus on this page? Andraxx 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Duck Dogers and Hungortus, Eater of Worlds

On a 2005 episode of Duck Dodgers (TV series) entitled "Consumtion Overruled"; there is a giant helmeted space alien named Hungortus, Eater of Worlds. He has a face with a mouth, but, he eats planets, (along with their occupants), with an opening in his torso. When he arrives in the Solar System, Earth and Mars fight over which planet he will eat. In the end he consumes large amounts food packets dropped from spacecraft sent from both planets. It sounds a whole lot better than a massive cloud of space debris, (FF:Rise of the Silver Surfer). In Duck Dogers, the humor is intentional. Massive cloud of space debris sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, where a cloud surrouds the V"ger (Voyager) spacecraft, execpt they left out the spacecraft and only had the cloud. Execpt for a briefly seen image.204.80.61.110 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Infobox image

Before the image is removed again, can we give the current promoter of it (User:Manssiere) of the original uploader (User:Galactiac) a chance to get a proper Fair Use Rationale, including source for the image and what exactly it's an image of (toy, statuette, or what?). - J Greb 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone please find an appropriate image. The user should know images of toys are not the norm.

Asgardian 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, images of toy or statues are not the norm, but they are not forbidden, at least by no guideline I've seen to this point. As long as a complete FUR is applied and it isn't a fan sculpt. - J Greb 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an image of a heroclix miniature figure. -Galactiac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactiac (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so what was wrong with the comic book image used previously? A Jack Kirby image from the original Galactus Trilogy, or even the CGI Galactus from Marvel: Ultimate Alliance would be better than some cheap plastic toy! 68.145.128.30 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a suitable replacement and tagged it for the fair use rationale. Give me a day or so and I'll source the image. No more model shots thank you.

Asgardian 04:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement in Asgardian, so that truly speaks to the breadth of feeling about using a main image that's not from the actual medium under discussion. --Tenebrae 04:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original Andrea Devito image was much more striking and impressive than the current one. Why can't we use the original image that was present before (from Stormbreaker)?

Mobb One 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear me! "Fear the might of Galactus!"

Is it me, or does Galactus awlays talk in third person?

cultrual references: MUSIC

I move that "Other Cultural referencs" have a music section as well:

In the song "Bigacts LIttleacts" off his album "Body of the LIfeforce", Afu-Ra mentions that he is "sharper than a cactus, conquering globes and universes with Galactus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.76 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 4 rv

An image edit today brings up a really important point. I'm not commenting on the image itself, which seems fine if a little background-y. I'm commenting on the reason for the change. The edit summary said it was because the previous image, from 1999, was "dated".

Now, Galactus' trademark design is the same in both, and an encyclopedia can depict the prevalent design of a character whether an image is from 1999 or (as at Thor (Marvel Comics)) 1969. I'm not sure what the rationale is for replacing an image only because it's from 1999, unless it's a matter of decorative personal preference. Thoughts? --Tenebrae 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• See fair use rationale. The previous image depicted Galactus in a somewhat "angry" pose...in my opinion that is not quite appropriate for a character who has increasingly been depicted over the past 20 years to be emotionless and "beyond reproach" in the words of Jack Kirby. The artist of the previous image, Jim Starlin, created the art for the "Thanos" limited series (cover to Thanos #3), not the Galactus: The Devourer mini-series as Asgardian had incorrectly captioned. As such Galactus takes a secondary role in Thanos series and is understandably used as an antagonist of sorts against the protagonist (Thanos). I have restored the new image with fair use rationale which I am confident will explain. Mobb One 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" refers to copyright status, not appropriateness of the image. As you say, the image you added is better in your opinion — opinion being the notable word. As fellow editors, we both know that changing an SHB image is not something done lightly or unilaterally, and requires discussion.

Please start a new section below asking other editors whether the SHB image should be replaced, what you would like to replace it with, and why. Then let's please wait for consensus. Thanks. --Tenebrae 19:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are other images that are better than either. Galactus in impassive mode with no other visual distractions is the preference.

Asgardian 08:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SHB image discussion

OK, I guess I can get the ball rolling.

Yes, I agree with Asgardian that we can find a better image than either than one currently here or than the two new suggestions — the first of which has him in background with much clutter in the image, and the second of which is cluttered by a large number of other entities. We need a simple frontal (or close to) image of his most common design (which should be easy, since it hasn't changed since the original and very quickly changed "giant G" design), and uncluttered by outside elements or obscured by graphic effects. Should be easy enough, right? --Tenebrae 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• As I have already mentioned (and Asgardian agrees with me), an image of him in characteristic impassive stance is the best image. The image that was present before Asgardian uploaded the current image is a prime example that fit the above criteria. This is also a good image. http://www.geocities.com/kane_vi/Galactus.JPG. If anyone can find better images, please do so. This article needs an appropriate image.Mobb One 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a good image, except he's all red.
  • I've found a couple; if we like any I can try and source the art:
  • Sample 1 (need to crop out caption)
  • Sample 2
  • Sample 3
  • --Tenebrae 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sample two was the image I was discussing before...i.e. the image that fit the criteria before it was deleted. I'll try and get a better shot of the sample I provided as well. Mobb One 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found a better image of the one I suggested previously. If no one objects I would like to use this image here

• Mobb One 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was the one I'd mentioned before in which Galactus is all red, rather than his standard colors. I'm not sure that would work.

Any comments on the three samples?--Tenebrae 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgement here folks. I culled the model shot as it was inappropriate and needed a "quick fix" shot. Whatever you pick around the criteria already discussed is fine with me.

Asgardian 07:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, I encourage you to view the image on a different monitor, or to adjust your monitor settings. That image is taken from a canon story (Annihilation) and is from the Silver Surfer mini-series. The image is most-assuredly the standard Galactus. Asgardian, do you see that the image has the proper costume? Mobb One 07:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The costume design is fine; it's just the whole image is tinted red. But y'know, while I prefer Sample 1 above, if others are adamant about this Mobb One image, then for what it's worth I won't object. If it's looking all red on other screens besides mine, we'll know soon enough from other editors. Mr. Easy-Going, that's me. Now why do I feel like saying, "Excelsior!"? --Tenebrae 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and install the higher-resolution image of the above sample. If there are complaints that it's too red, then we can always try another package. I have sample 1 above, except with the English caption. I don't have an image editor so if we are going to use that image at some point, someone will have to kindly take out the Galactus' dialogue.Mobb One 02:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If we need to, I've got Photoshop. Check out how I cropped the cover and removed the logo for The Spirit SHB image. Hey, we gotta take pride in what work we can!   :-)   --Tenebrae 02:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better. That and the image with his face in shadow are the best two I've seen yet.

Asgardian 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Brevity of Article

In general I feel the article overall is too brief. As I've mentioned before, per the wikicomics project the ultimate objective of the article is to give the reader a comprehensive source of information for the character in question. Brevity does not necessarily conflict with this end, but taken to the extreme-and in the case of this Galactus article, championed over all else-the quality is severely compromised.

I encourage all editors to take a look at what wikicomics contributors have voted as "good" articles...this is only a sampling and is culled from the wikiproject comics page:

Silver Surfer - June 18 2007

Storm (Marvel Comics) — December 3, 2006

Lex Luthor - July 20 2007

As you can see, the articles cited as "good" articles have far more information in them than our Galactus entry currently has. For example, the introduction for Silver Surfer goes further in depth after the opening line...which is all we have for Galactus. Information added by other editors should be evaluated as improving overall quality of the article and not immediately dismissed as "being too long" or "too fan-oriented." There is much in the above three mentioned articles that would both be ruled "too long" and "too fan-oriented" by other editors here for the Galactus article...yet the articles cited above have been comprehensively reviewed, and as evidenced by their favored status, proved to be vastly superior to our article for Galactus.

See the full list of good articles at WikiProject Comics. Mobb One 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Silver Surfer article looks pretty good at first glance. The Storm article, however, has PH & FCB mashed together, subheads contrary to basic Wikipedia MOS (so just on that I don't know how it got a "good" rating), and an essay-ish WP:NOR quality. The more encyclopedically written Lex Luthor article also doesn't follow WPC style or the exemplar. In any event, Galactus has made far fewer appearances than any of those three, and while the article could always use tweaking and improvement, I don't believe it's too brief. Remember, we're writing for a general-reader audience, not comic fans. --Tenebrae 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed but more often-than-not, the general reader-audience are comic fans of some sort. Everyone has heard of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc. Galactus is a very niche character...the odds are if someone turns to wikipedia looking for a Galactus entry, they are familiar with any of Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, Dr. Strange, Infinity Gauntlet, etc. etc. etc. By definition that means they are comic fans....also, the general-reader audience should not mean that a comprehensive article be marginalized, which as I have maintained several times is the highest objective of the comics article, per both wikipedia and wikiprojects comics guidelines. Mobb One 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm with ya on the general principle. After that, the execution shouldn't be too hard. I guess I can volunteer to expand the PH, which, you're right, now that I look at it, is skimpy even for general readers. Work never ends!   :-)   --Tenebrae 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I still aim to have a "legacy" section of sorts on the Galactus trilogy, as we discussed previously during the summer. The other computer I had stored the information on has since died and I will need to gather my sources again...but I think it's important to at least discuss the trilogy in some manner in the PH. We also need the image of Fantastic Four #48 restored...as that is the first appearance of Galactus and I have yet to see a proper comic entry that doesn't include an image of some kind of the character's first appearance. I can volunteer to touch on the trilogy in the PH...and then discuss motives/interpretations/significance in the legacy section. Does anyone think this is not a good idea?Mobb One 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely need a first-app image (or second app, actually -- he appears in the last panel of #48, and isn't on the cover. He's very much on the classic cover of #49).

I think a couple of sentences quoting comics historians or notable critics about the Galactus trilogy is an excellent idea. We can't really talk it about ourselves, since that would pretty much constitute an original-research essay. But getting authoritative quotes should be easy. (Now if only all my books weren't in temporary storage!) --Tenebrae 01:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much room for expansion in the FCB, but a discourse on Galactus' role in relation to the MU could be interesting. It just can't be POV and would have to be sourced.

Asgardian 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few topics I would like to touch on that would be included on the FCB. However that's secondary to expansion on PH and Galactus' role in relation to the MU, as you say. That I aim to be heavily sourced...once I can retrieve the material I had stored. Mobb One 07:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Image in FCB?

It's my personal opinion the FCB can use another image, as after "Devourer of Worlds" we have several paragraphs but no image. It's not really a huge concern of mine like the SHB image was; I'm just throwing out he possibility.

If we do explore adding another image, should there be one of Galactus actually consuming? I realize there's all this talk in the article of Galactus consuming planets, and the inquisitive reader might have a hard time imagining such a process without an aid of some sort...any thoughts on the matter?Mobb One 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A image of Galactus consuming a planet would be very appropriate for this article, in my opinion. FF #257 has some excellent images of this process (albeit without the elemental converter) pencilled by John Byrne. TheBalance 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proemial Gods

I haven't read the Heralds of Galactus run, but was Galactus actually established as a member of the Proemial Gods/Cosmic Balance? After reading this http://www.marvelonline.com/universe/Proemial_Gods it seems that that he may not have been. If that is indeed the case, then the Annihilation section requires a bit of rewriting. TheBalance 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That pretty much says verbatim what Heralds of Galactus contains. Galactus is not a member of the proemial gods...however the proemial gods and galactus are "brethren" in the sense that they were important parts of the universe. the main, and significant difference, is that while the proemial gods were important, in time their presence was no longer needed, while galactus is an essential component. the comic portrayed tenebrous/aegis/diableri as seeking to disrupt "cosmic consonance," while galactus opposed them. Mobb One 06:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the Annihilation section of the Fictional Character Biography is in need of corrections and/or a minor rewrite. TheBalance 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No OHOTMU

Just a quick note here as the cosmic characters seem to attract well-meaning but possibly misguided fans. The Offical Handbook of the Marvel Universe is not recognised as being valid, as it can be proven to be incorrect on many levels (eg. strength).

Asgardian (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines

The paragraph's spirit should also be adhered to. It warns against heeding a fictitious log of data and opinion that is in the case of the OHOTMU, constantly proven wrong by the comics themselves. The entry here smacks of personal research and is also not helped when using terms such as "implied as such" and "potentially more powerful", which are POV. As to specifics, Mephisto and the Grandmaster are nowhere Galactus' power level - especialy when he is sated and fully energised. The Watchers, Odin and Thanos are also not on his power level.

There is also sentence structure, the use of too many examples, and again, the need to not contradict what has been said in the opening sentences.

I can bring others in to comment as we've had to sideline the OHOTMU argument before now, for all those reasons mentioned.

Asgardian (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The handbook is word from the editor in chief and frequently used as a relevant comparison gauge. The 'class 100' scale is utter nonsense, and to be taken biblically (they should at least simply remove the "tons" part of the term), but as comparison-chart the handbooks are official, and no more 'copyright infringement' than briefly quoting any other text, if simply used in the "he is roughly as powerful as/almost as powerful as/nearly as powerful as" manner. These ones were directly from Mark Gruenwald's supervision, arguably the most well-informed and enthusiastic Marvel cosmology crafter ever, so yes, these are just as relevant as anything else.

Mephisto did stalemate Galactus in a battle penned by Stan Lee, In-Betweener was shown as roughly equal in Silver Surfer issue 18, by the same writer of the issue you mentioned as stating that he's "as powerful as Eternity", the Watchers are consistently treated as almost as powerful whether Galactus addressing Uatu during his first appearance, having to combine their powers to summon Eternity (whom Galactus addressed as "father," which is the way I read “The Origin of Galactus” as well, a universal womb, and big bang as the birth rather than a merger... well mother then), or the ensuing battle in John Byrne's "Last Galactus Story". Tyrant was originally shown as a nearly even match, their centuries-spanning (misremembered?) fight laid galaxies to waste. The Stranger has been referred as more powerful than Watchers, when talking to them in Quasar and Beyond, and was teamed up with Galactus as a peer during Infinity Gauntlet. The primordial titans were shown as nearly as powerful in the same "Annihilation" arc as the quote/in-universe opinion originated, which I personally take with the same grain of salt as the "Sentry is as powerful as a million exploding suns, he's like the Beyonder" statement. Grandmaster and especially Thanos I would personally grant shouldn't be nearly as powerful, but there have been a few exceptions for the former. JLA/Avengers seemed to place him around Watcher level for example, and the OHOTMU stated it outright if I don't misremember, or there is any elder more powerful than himself, which I don't think there is. (It used the phrase "...certain Elders of the Universe...") Excepting the Earth X alterverse, the Celestials have consistently been treated as at least equal, and more likely superior, including their handbook entry. Not even the entire collected power of his worldship was enough for Doctor Doom to handle the Beyonder. Gravity effortlessly beat him, and by temporarily depleting himself he fully re-powered Galactus. Odin and Zeus I can't recall confronting Galactus, just referred as the same scale as Watchers in the handbook, and by doubling his power with the essence of the Asgardians within the Destroyer the former managed to cut off the arm of a Celestial. There are likely more examples.

Contradicting the first sentence shouldn't be a problem, it's a balance, rather than cherry-picking. I didn't censor it after all. There are many differing references here, and from Galactus' actual shows of power there are several beings on his own scale. The battle where he actually managed to stand up to the abstract In-Betweener was his most impressive feat as far as I'm aware.

Reformatting my sentence structure is something I personally welcome. I generally focus on matter-of-fact inaccuracies fixing, and references additions. Dave (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to trim it all down to something like "Galactus is one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel Universe. Only a select few other entities are close to, can match, or much less surpass his scale of power. ref Mephisto: ISSUE NUMBER; In-Betweener: ISSUE NUMBER; Celestials: ISSUE NUMBER; Stranger: ISSUE NUMBER; Primordial titans: ISSUE NUMBER etc /ref" to improve the text flow by placing it all in the footnotes section that seems like a reasonable idea. It's either that or making a long sentence with a reference for each significant character. Dave (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Galactus was referred to as "the most powerful creature (being or living organism, the interpretation is open) in the universe" in Annihilation #2 and thereafter. The quote has been referenced and is valid, your claims are original research and thus are not. Vague inferences and references to the OHOTMU don't have a place in this article. Your edits also degrade the overall quality of the P&A section with poor sentence structure and redundancies. TheBalance (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, you're giving way too much emphasis on comparisons between other cosmics here. You're also replacing about 18 months work of editing by various people...not to mention the groundwork built by editors dating back to 2003 that are still present in this article, and for good reason.

Your main arguments are based on your interpretations of battles that occurred in the comics. In-Betweener and Galactus were shown to be equals in a cosmic wrestling match...that's it. The watchers are *not* shown to be consistently on par with Galactus...witness Annihilation #6 when a watcher was vaporized in Galactus' attack. The battle in the "Last Galactus Story" contains a rogue watcher driven *insane*, certainly not your average watcher.

Comparisons with grandmaster (let's not forget that galactus effortlessly consumed all the elders, with the exception of ego, whom galactus also defeated), Thanos, Mephisto, etc. are all irrelevant as they have at one point or another, or through certain circumstances (e.g., Galactus threatening to devour Mehpisto's hell realm) been shown to be inferior to Galactus. However none of that need be mentioned because all the article is designed to do is expressly illustrate the topic at hand...in this case, the powers and abilities of Galactus...NOT his powers and abilities vis a vis other cosmic entities. In regards to the opening statement of that paragraph.."Galactus is the physical embodiment...sentience of the universe" I am the editor who inserted that sentence, as the issue in question, fantastic four #522, clearly states the same. It is not hyperbole, as by definition the Sentience of the Universe is Eternity...and by definition, Eternity is the sum total of universal existence, i.e. the embodiment of the universe.Mobb One (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To address all points above, in no particular order, along with a few comments made outside of the Talk. The references I've used are no more 'original research' than the single reference you've opted to use. They're relevant explicit references. Despite your somewhat ironic handle in the context, which further implies that you're actually using an alias based on the character in question, you are opting to push one single instance as all-inclusive. Much less placed in a crossover where the primordial titans defeated him, were stated outright to be of equal power in Annihilation #1, and when Gravity effortlessly handled him straight afterwards in FF. A balanced article is expected to include contradicting sources, and in this case they by far outnumber the single one you've chosen to headlight. Various comments like “Mephisto is just as powerful as Thor”, and “Galactus is as powerful as Eternity” make absolutely no sense in the context of his actual displays. And given that Mephisto laid waste to a few galaxies while fighting Galactus it’s hardly an occasion where Galactus was at less than full power. Also hardly something Thor has ever came close to matching.

Again, 'OR' used in the context of one single reference somehow outweighing a horde of contradicting ones is extreme clause-twisting to censor all factual inaccuracies when pushing a personal, extremely shaky, opinion, and can be very conveniently used alternating with 'copyright infringement' to lend false credibility to transparently attempted removal of any 'inconvenient' references used whatsoever. Explicitly shown of comparative power to Tyrant, Mephisto and In-Betweener is 'OR' how exactly? Quoting one official source but not one you personally disagree with that comes from the guy that set up Marvel ‘cosmology’ isn't 'OR' by consequence? Interesting definition. Not to mention that I only saw a "he is the most feared being in the universe" text in his Nova Corps profile when just rechecking the Annihilation: Silver Surfer issue #2 reference. No "most powerful" one, just "power beyond measure", and no other such mention whatsoever.

It also strictly states that he is the sole survivor of the previous universe, encased in a cosmic egg, not the absolute incarnation. If he were the current one wouldn't exist in the first place, since the previous one was the foundation itself, and single planets would be nowhere near enough to sate his hunger at that scale. He'd consume galaxies at the very least. It makes no sense. As for FF#522, much like with ‘’’Lee and Kirby’s’’’ “The Origin of Galactus” the actual flashback shows the voice of the previous universe simply stating "Hear me last son of Taa... I am the sentience of the Universe! Like yourself, I am dying. In mere moments as I mark time I shall draw all the matter in the cosmos into my bosom and collapse beneath my own abysmal weight. But though we both must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace, and let us become as one! Let our death throes serve as the birth pangs of a new form of life." The original then continues with “In a time beyond time shall be born a new universe and into that universe there shall be an entity like no other - A living organism who possesses the matchless power and appetites of a galaxy. But he shall be more than a galaxy… He shall be a galactic ravager… He shall be… Galactus!” to further quote “There is an eternity of nothingness, then the cosmic egg of the universe explodes! “Go, now – and let a universe a’borning beware!” I.e. the consciousness is kept separate after the communion to address him about his purpose. Meaning, he does not contain the entire power of Eternity's last previous incarnation (the universe/Eternity itself, i.e. none left afterwards). He is a 'child' that kept being separate in consciousness after being created, and contains power comparable to a galaxy, which is why he addressed Eternity as a parent during the “Trial of Galactus” story. After the flashback in FF522 the Human Torch then states his ‘’’personal interpretation’’’, which again makes no logical sense whatsoever, and I would welcome an actual explanation how this could be possible, that Galactus is the ”metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos”. Which, again, makes no sense whatsoever in any context, given that the Marvel Universe itself was the metamorphosed ‘embodiment’, i.e. restructured imploded-exploded base matter, and the universal consciousness was kept separate afterwards. Based upon the dialogue the merger of Galan and part of the essence, as a ‘child’ of both. Galactus has not been treated at that scale of power, ever, nor officially declared as such in writer/narrator texts, or editorially mandated character entries. Quasar certainly wouldn’t have been able to briefly stalemate him in the same issue if this was the case. Galactus is the tiny balance between Death and Eternity, not their equal in power. Not even being able to summon Eternity without assistance from Uatu. They’re higher-dimensional entities, scales of infinity beyond anything, including Galactus.

Explicit displays have on the other hand placed him below the Beyonder (no Doom using the world-ship energy/being far more powerful than regular Galactus, and still shown as greatly inferior, was not, and can not be retconned), on par with Mephisto, In-Betweener, and original Tyrant. In Thor 169 he stated himself about the Watcher that awakened him (Ecce?) “His is a power as strange and awesome as my own!” which would rate them as close to his level. The word from ‘’’Mark Gruenwald’’’ in the original handbooks further confirms this. Further shown in “The Trial of Galactus”, and in “The last Galactus story”. Where we for once meet a Watcher maddened by guilt and cutting loose/defending himself at full power, rather than keeping to a pacifistic oath, hardly somehow made more powerful by his rage. That’s not one of their powers the last time I checked. As shown in recent FF issues they generally won’t even try to defend themselves from dangerous attacks, or help endangered or dying brothers, and as shown in Quasar physical destruction is usually irrelevant as they can recreate themselves whenever they wish. The superhumanly intelligent Odin stated that he was of roughly equal power in Thor #168, and Thor repeated the claim to Galactus in issue #169, which wasn’t countered, and again, is backed up by Gruenwald, arguably the end-all-be-all after Lee and Kirby. The Stranger is as always an enigma, but was Galactus’ tag-team partner, and unlike Epoch, shown of equal energy-form stature in Infinity Gauntlet. Galactus is likely either equal or just a tiny bit above. The Celestials have been stated as being created to be something above the other then known cosmic beings, and have officially been stated outright as ‘’’at the very least’’’ as powerful, and more likely far above. Their and Galactus’ various entries have also shown a clear difference in power, consistently to their advantage. Even Kubic referred to them as several orders above himself, and, as mentioned before, Galactus was shown as far less powerful than the Beyonder/Kosmos/Maker, stated as powerful enough to turn the entire crunch effect/universe inside out in the late Thanos series, while the proemial gods, and Galactus would die from simply touching it. And shown at this level during its’ last battle with the Molecule Man. Molecule Man has been stated and shown as potentially leagues above Kosmos (or Kubic) which Kubic confirmed. Remaking a galaxy was child’s play to him even back before his greatest power-up, and the Living Tribunal itself stated that it had granted him infinite power. Mad Jim Jaspers had reality-warping power enough to easily destroy universes. The Scarlet Witch re-crafted reality and the effects were threatening to destroy the multiverse. There are probably several other examples like them. The Phoenix entity also bested Galactus, while inhabiting Rachel Summers during Alan Davis’ Excalibur run, and Galactus even commented that it had a greater power potential. Again, Tyrant and he fought for centuries and laid waste to galaxies in their struggle. This was back in Galactus’ younger days, when he was more powerful and didn’t need to feed so often. He would not have such stamina/energy reserves today. That Galactus eventually won after such a lengthy struggle makes it so narrow to make any margins of power difference irrelevant.

The Stan Lee battle between him and Mephisto likewise had them deadlocked during the actual slug-out between the two. To quote Stan: “How to explain a battle such as this to one who has never witnessed a cosmic conflagration? How to explain a battle wherein empyrean forces clash while the galaxies themselves bid fair to tremble and quake in agonising disarray? There are no words known to man or beast to convey the savagery of such a spectacle, and perhaps ‘tis just as well. Oftentimes what the eye can witness, what the ear can hear, the mind cannot contain! Throughout the firmament the conflagration spreads, as planet after planet is shaken and storm-tossed by the awesome aftershocks. Heedless of the eruption of nearby planets, oblivious to the erosion of distant constellations the combatants unleash power enough to shatter the very stars themselves!” Definitely no de-powering present here either, they were deadlocked with neither budging an inch. In fact it is Galactus’ most impressive visual display of power, yet this somehow ‘doesn’t count’. Since the Silver Surfer feared that the battle would threaten the universe itself if prolonged he told Galactus to threaten to devour Mephisto’s realm, to ‘’’blackmail’’’ him into giving up the Surfer. Galactus tells Mephisto that the battle has drained him enough to once more hunger, and afterwardsexpresses a mental thanks of ‘’’gratitude’’’ for the Surfer’s assistance, hardly the sign of not being in any trouble. Galactus had to resort to threatening his realm to ‘prevail’, but was never able to defeat him in the actual confrontation, in fact running low on power after the enormous output, while Mephisto didn’t show any such signs.

The In-Betweener was also shown of the same scale of power, and eventually held the upper hand, but lost due to the interference of his masters Chaos and Order. While I technically agree about the Grandmaster being considerably below the rest, the ‘eating’ incidence doesn’t really count, as he wanted to get eaten to kill Galactus from within. Yet, all of this is ignored in favour of blandly stating/pushing the view/severe hyperbole that he is scales of power above all other regular cosmic entities. The reader recap to “Annihilation #2” does indeed name him as “The Universe’s most powerful creature,” but that’s standard ongoing ‘event’ announcer propaganda, to get the audience seated, and the editor amended the faux pais a few entries later, where he said "quite possibly most powerful" instead. The handbooks are far more reliable, given that they are the official current word from Tom Brevoort (respectively Mark Gruenwald, and I think Tom DeFalco was in charge of the Master Edition), rather than lower-rung editor/event promoter editor Andy Schmidt’s possible personal opinion. Who also possesses very negligible knowledge of Marvel ‘cosmology’ compared to either of the others. You’re seemingly sweeping anything ‘inconvenient’ under the carpet. The actual demonstrations of power don’t put him far ahead of the rest. Didn’t he mention right after the crossover (The Heralds of Galactus one-shot?) that he couldn’t have single-handedly defeated both the remaining primordial titans? Galactus being slightly more powerful than either, but not than both, was the way I understood their interaction.

My basis for toning down the hyperbole is on very solid ground. No "thereafter" premise regarding mentions of his power exists as far as I'm aware. Gravity handled him summarily right afterwards, managed to re-power him, and a few issues later, channelled the mass of the entire universe while performing ‘cosmic surgery’.

The structure is, as usual, a rough initial draft. Ignoring the implied, and inaccurate, cheap shot insult, if you have a problem, then by all means, feel free to reword it while keeping the context, rather than use it as an excuse. I tend to make additions more in-depth to start with, to showcase their solid validity, so they become less likely to be dropped out of sight by any pack animal that happens to see it, rather than structurally compressed, and then work out the kinks. I could take a hand at it myself if you’d prefer, but it usually works best by collaborating to create a cumulative merger, preferably after discussing which parts should be included.

Again, a single instance makes a very arguable claim undermined by the same story, while many others say something else entirely. I vaguely recall the previous Thanos series making a similar claim about the Beyonder, and the extremely referable official original ‘’’Gruenwald’’’ handbooks are not vague in this area. They specifically state that the Celestials are at least as powerful, and that the Watchers, the Stranger, etc are on the same scale. The battles where he's been shown as equal to other beings are likewise conveniently overlooked, and somehow not worthy of referring? ‘’’Stan Lee’’’ penning Mephisto stalemating him 'doesn't count'? Tyrant fighting him for centuries back in Galactus' early days, when he was more powerful and didn't need to feed so often doesn't either? The In-Betweener being shown on the same scale doesn’t either? The same writer, at the same point of time, can be simultaneously twisted-referred and ignored? This is not speculation. My references and arguments remain solid at their core even if it could be argued that the Stranger reference from the Infinity Gauntlet should be omitted. They were teamed up, displayed at the same power-form size, and treated at the same level of force when hammering Thanos, but a case could be made that it’s somewhat vague. The handbook is generally and frequently acceptably used in Wikipedia, as long as it’s simply for character comparisons, rather than ‘class 100’ nonsense. There is absolutely no good reason why the official word from the various editors in chief, which actually get to ‘’’decide‘’’ the schematics, should count any less than the others, much less a promoting issue recap paragraph, ‘because ‘we’ claim to know so much better’. No matter if a greater amount, and more reliable, references speak against it. Demonstrations of power in comparisons to other entities are certainly not unreliable if Galactus is not shown as weakened at the time. You’re claiming that the article ‘is not’ comparing him to other entities, but yet it very blatantly is, by that very claim at the start of the text, which is invalidated by a multitude of other instances and references you’ve somehow chosen ‘don’t count’. Likewise that ‘the references are there for a reason and have been here for a long time’. Neither claim holds up on inspection, since old ones can be just as wrong as new ones, and it is not remotely a counter to the various points.

That said there isn’t much I can do if there is a team of editors cumulatively deliberately pushing a view they at heart know full well is in extreme doubt, with considerably more contradictions than agreements. So either you can show yourselves as reasonable people affected by logic, or not. Asgardian seems nice enough, and Mobb One has been similarly mostly polite, even if ‘TheBalance’ tried the underhanded and in this context nonsensical, catch all, sweeping ‘it can very selectively include anything I damn well please to use it for’ standard ‘OR’ claim. However, it certainly undermines the validity or the article itself. At the very least it should be mentioned that there are several beings shown at Galactus’ level, or just replace it with a factually correct “one of the most powerful physical creatures in the Marvel Universe”, followed by a multiple reference-pumped footnote. “’’’In one instance’’’ claimed to be/described/shown as…” is the very least change I’ve seen demanded on Wikipedia for this sort of thing, and that’s for actual visual demonstrations of comparative power, not just a thin air, unofficial promotion statement. Dave (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a few misremembered parts, and would suggest "In one instance Galactus has been described as "quite possibly the most powerful creature in the universe", but multiple other references strongly contradict this claim", together with a host of issue references in the following link. That should be fully neutral, satisfying, and unobtrusive. Dave (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if certain Galactus-worshippers would stop reverting to a deliberately wildly exaggerated regular editor event promotion blurb, that the latter rectified in later Annihilation info texts, and which by definition are far less reliable than the official word from the editor-in-chief/handbooks, which aren't allowed, so there you go. I also didn't notice this phrase in the issue in question, when checking it out. Galactus' profile page in this issue did say "most feared" however, and this should be stuck to unless Galactus is explicitly shown exhibiting feats anywhere close to the scale of a host of other entities, and his entire history of appearances with shown power-levels therein is retconned. Othervise it's incredibly biased and selective opinion-pushing POV. "Most feared" is also his traditional role, while destroying multiverses with the snap of his fingers (which would _still_ make 'most powerful highly debatable) definitely isn't. Thank you. Or you could just make this an ridiculous, and unreliable deliberate lie-page, whichever you prefer. Dave (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen so much misinterpretation, rabid fanboyism, personal interpretation and twisting of events presented as facts in my life.

Uh-huh, that's convincing. The guy making a solid case solidly based on logic, and multiple sources of infromation is suspicious, while the guy selectively cherry-picking an unbelievably unreliable source, in an issue where I didn't even see that quote (it did appear in editorial blurbs in the later Annihilation crossover however) and enforcing the Power Cosmic speculation entry that Galactus possesses infinite power and is the source of the 'power cosmic' is reliable through censorship and bland baseless statements alone, whi.e making completely inaccurate disparaging remarks of my intelligence, rather than defend your 'case'. That'll show me. Also, I'm one of the relatively few editors here who self-edit any previous errors I've made in various entries, if I notice them.

I had to quit reading this drivel about one quarter the way through. Absolutely nonsensical, you clearly don't understand how to compose an encyclopedic entry and you don't understand how to present quotes and events in a unbiased and relevant fashion.

Translation: You're completely incapable of coutnering the arguments and observations, and resort to insults to enforce your unbelievably POV, deliberately lying POV. What I have done in the Galactus entry is change the phrase "most powerful" to "most feared". That's it, and I'm fully satisfied with it. Whether you wish to make pompous declarations rather than provide some meat for your POV-pushing is your own business. Dave (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, leave the editing to those of us that can. Manssiere (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can POV view-push through censorship, and sidestepping mostly solid logic through pompous nonsense outbursts and censorship edit-warring? I must admit, it sounds arduous indeed. Dave (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave, frankly you don't rate a response. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't vadalize my discussion page edits with your bit by bit quoting method in the future. Manssiere (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, you don't have the arguments to back up your vandalism rabid caseless view-pushing, and try to hide this unreasonable idiocy through a veneer of arrogance. "The worst thing I've ever seen in Wikipedia." Please. Fer cripes sake, you state that a solid argument with multiple references is nonsencical, make wild claims of misrepresentations when you yourself make use of a single instance of minor editorial promotion recap-page mention, which the editor in question later corrected in a later recap, while simultaneously ignoring official words from multiple editors-in-chief, and don't even link the quote to the right issue. All this to promote your personal unbelievably exaggerated view-pushing that "Galactus has infinite power, is the source of the Power Cosmic, and is the most powerful being ever". You scare me. As for replying point by point, it's only vandalism by cutting it out. Dave (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I only had a few minutes to spare before going to bed yesterday, but to respond in a less annoyed mood. “Fan-ish” is a lame excuse for lambasting/dismissing a more thorough and reliable case. Not to mention that it’s a glass-house deal given where we are, your own patronage of the character, and that you’re on by far shakier and more speculative ground yourself regarding the entries you currently enforce, which by most definitions would be more “fan-ish”/unreasonably POV. “Quite frankly not worth replying to this unreadable drivel” is a particularly pompous excuse (using the non-mollifying, faux-refined “quite frankly” term no less) for not having any good defence. Given your reverts at the other two pages, to collectively rationalise one of the least reliable sources available, POV point-pushing personal speculations, respectively censoring of an explicit fact. Stating that it is misrepresented is either a blatant lie, pompous misdirection, a difference of opinion, or simply that I write too densely, alternately several options. Regardless, while I have no illusions about always getting things right, I’ve made an effort to be thorough, present it exactly as I’ve observed, and left it open to debate, but it has remained unchallenged. Regardless, the point isn’t about whether I’ve interpreted things right or wrong in all the cases, but that you are very selectively choosing to present a case conflicted by virtually every official reference, and appearances the character has ever made, as if a fact. “Most feared” in his more reliable actual Nova-Corps files character entry in Annihilation is more reliable and much more in context of his established history.

As for writing encyclopaedic entries I do know that references should not be taken out of context to utterly misrepresent a case, that prevalence should be given to the most reliable ones, and that bland unsupported statements should not be presented as fact. Wild personal speculation hyperbole (in the Power Cosmic sub-article) stating that Galactus possesses “limitless power and is the source and incarnation of the most powerful power in the universe”. If that was the case he would not need to feed, since limitless means inexhaustible as well as infinite, which is a scale he has never ever came close to reaching in any demonstration. Even the Wraith-world used in the “he teleported the Golden Galaxy” example managed to get the better of him. And if he was the ‘’source’’ per se shouldn’t the heralds/streams all wane in power as the reservoir does? The Silver Surfer has been stated to draw his energy from the stars, and the Fallen One from the dark matter of the Universe. Thanos explicitly stated to Annihilus, in the Annihilation crossover, that he tended to favour more potent sources of power, and didn’t obsess over it, yet this is somehow ignored.

It also states that all heralds can do exactly the same things the Silver Surfer can, which they haven’t demonstrated, and copy-pasting the Surfer’s (or even Galactus’) power-entries to this section seems very redundant.

You’ve simultaneously edited out an explicit reference of Odin destroying “long dead galaxies”, for no reason whatsoever. It’s exactly the same thing as if I started to cut out explicitly shown feats from the Galactus section. I’d argue that the galaxy-threatening Mephisto and Tyrant battles should be added as the thus far shown upper limit extents of Galactus’ power. Conflicts where he has been shown as truly strained. Collectively you’re deliberately pushing a personal, extremely shaky, view of preferred ‘cosmic order’ through a combination of censorship, wild speculation, or selective out-of-context, completely unfounded sources, embracing an editorial-recap-promotion-blurb, which was modified by the same editor in a later issue, while simultaneously arguing that no handbook entries should be used. Despite that all character power-rankings are written down, and accepted by the by far more informed higher-ranked editor and Marvel continuity expert Tom Brevoort, and that Mark Gruenwald wrote the originals. I could readily accept this argument if internally consistent, i.e. all editorial comments outside the stories themselves should be dismissed in the entry, but to accept a very shaky, out-of-context, unofficial and lower-ranked mention blurb, while dismissing the multiple official and far more informed versions doesn’t fit. Meaning, you can list Galactus’ power-extent displays, or say that he’s the most powerful creature when the Living Tribunal states that the Beyonder, and various other reality-benders being able to literally turn universes inside-out don’t rate squat against the glory of Galactus, but otherwise it’s just extremely transparent irate vandalism. Enforced through edit warring without solid foundation.

Look, I likely turned out grouchier than I should, due to by now being triggered at seemingly completely unreasonable illogical point-pushing changes. No matter how good a case I have made at the Talk, how little whoever feels inclined to repeatedly revert has, and how much time I have afforded to let it sink in and welcomed open discussion. However, your response was worse than my own in the bile regard, and with less justification, so it evens out. A one-word change, or omission of the extremely debatable sentence, as well as taking away the wild POV, blatantly contradicted, hyperbole point pushing from Power Cosmic, and not deleting the explicit Odin feat, is all I’m asking for here. Not much really. If you wish to prove yourself better than the standard troll/yet another User:Jjonz sock-puppet, a la User:Darrel37, I may have initially mistaken you for, ameliorate your view, and make the necessary modifications, or thoroughly address the points in this post, as well as the existence of multiple extreme explicit contradictions to the statement. I can write densely when trying to address too many issues at once, so I can understand if the original post may be off-putting/too much work, but I hope this one should be comparatively to the point, and that I’m not wasting my breath.

It’s also possible that the recap page, if there was one, of Annihilation: Silver Surfer #2 did in fact sport the “most powerful creature” moniker previous to the main Annihilation book. Given that I don’t tend to go to the store and browse through the bins for simply reference check-up purposes, and my data copy didn’t feature this intro page. Otherwise the reference should at least be redirected to the issue in question for the time being. Dave (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Galaxy?

Regarding Galactus' listed galaxy-moving feat, I just checked out Rom #27, and the 'galaxy' in question was just shown as a comparatively insignificant golden sphere, much like the Wraith-world 'sun' was simply shown as a great dark globe in the sky of the planet, nowhere near solar size. Was this billions of stars, comparative to the Milky Way, or simply encompassing Galador's home system? The art, and plot were semi-illegible at times, and I'm not familiar with the Rom mythology. If the latter, which seems more likely, the text should be modified accordingly, while adding the galaxy-ravaging (centuries-long) Tyrant and (apparently brief, but then again, time tends to be referred as very different in hellish pocket-universes) Mephisto battles (and possibly the Annihilation meganova) as Galactus' greatest feats to date. Dave (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)