Jump to content

Talk:Civil War (comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevingarcia (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 29 September 2006 (→Characters list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. April 24, 2006 — July 26, 2006

Listing by issue

Because every current Marvel character has been listed and then re-listed on the opposing side, for the purposes of accuracy and out-of-world perspective, the characters on the lists should be grouped by the issue in which they are clearly shown to support or oppose the act.--Chris Griswold 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I started to re-organize tonight and realized it was a bad idea. I have some new ideas, however: See beliow. --Chris Griswold 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline

I believe that it would be a good idea to include separate page listing what happened in each of the Cival War comics. I saw this on the Planet Hulk page and I think it would work well here, too. --71.118.168.253 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.168.253 (talk • contribs) 00:38 July 25, 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:CMC tries to avoid drawn-out plot summaries. Please sign your comments. --Chris Griswold 08:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Chris, definitely bad idea. Not only is it consensus at WP:CMC, it's also against WP policy to have articles solely dedicated to summarizing plot. --Newt ΨΦ 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters list

I examined the article again tonight, and a few new ideas came to me about what to do with the characters list:

  1. We desperately need to define our terms: "propononent", "opponent", etc. Do these character just agree or disagree, or are they actively supporting or opposing the Act? Are people fighting for the Act but not necessarily voicing support? (Val Cooper) Are people signing up but not because they think support it? (Great Lakes Champions)
  1. We really need to cite page numbers. Some of these characters are a little unclear, and seeing more cleaqrly why a character has been listed will help in the editing and discussion of those characters.

Right now, the list is a mess. Characters continue to be added, deleted, and moved. Editors will remove characters, only to have unregistered users who only edit this article revert those edits. There's just so many characters and issues involved that it's difficult to keep straight. Let's focus on the above measures to make this article more accurate and easier to edit. --Chris Griswold 09:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm thinking 2 categories then - keep "Proponents" and "Opponents". Split "Proponents" into 'Active Enforcers' (People like Iron Man, She-Hulk, Doc Samson etc.), 'Goverment Enforcers' (Deadpool, SHIELD, Thunderbolts etc.), 'Registered Heroes' (Great Lakes Champions, The Thing etc. - Registered but not actively tracking down the law-breakers) and 'Major Civilian Supporters' (JJ Jameson, May Parker, Happy Hogan etc.)

Then, for "Opponents", we've got 'The Secret Avengers' (Capt. America, Goliath, Young Avengers etc.), 'Underground Resistance' (Network, Aegis, Gladiatrix etc.), 'None-Registered Heroes' (Justice, Black Panther, Namor etc.), 'Registered Opponents' (X-Factor, possibly Sue Storm and Spidey) & 'Major Civilian Opponents' (John Jameson, Yancy Street Gang, Sally Floyd etc.). I'd also keep the current 'Apprehended' and 'Retiring' categories under this column.

Finally, move 'Neutral' underneath the columns, above the 'Confirmed Deaths'.--Goldenboy 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds great, although your mention of Aunt May highlights the list's problem with assumptions about characters and the need for page citations. I am really interested in someone pointing me to where May Parker or Mary Jane say that the Act is a good idea. If it's in there, great, but it just seems to me that they accept it but don't particularly support it. --Chris Griswold 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - MJ & May seem to support Pete not having a secret identity, rather than the actual act itself. Hell, if/when Spidey does switch sides, there's no way they'd support the act then. --Goldenboy 21:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we can substantiate where someone takes such and such a stance, I think the breakdowns will work. Could we, perhaps, do the two columns and follow each name with appropriate letters (GE=Government Enforcer). Or would that be unwieldy? Darquis 06:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Black Bolt, Black Panther, and Namor should be in the "opponents of registration" list. The SHRA is a USA-only thing, and each of them is a foreign head of state; the act doesn't affect them. Even if they arrived in the USA, they have diplomatic immunity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCanada (talk • contribs) 17:27, July 31, 2006 (UTC)
They can still be against it. So far, each has shown that he disagrees with it. They don't have to fight it or be affected to oppose it. --Chris Griswold 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to this discussion mostly because, er, I just read all the Civil War tie-ins today but looking at this article I'm struck with the question: Why exactly are these extensive lists here at all? What do they add to this encyclopedia article about a fictional work?

It seems to me that this article should present a plot synopsis, a list of related comic titles, and that's it. While it's certainly not an official policy, the often used definitions of Listcruft seem to apply here in several ways. A list for the sake of having a list, an indiscriminate collection of information, more or less unmaintainable (although I grant that some impressive work has been done to maintain it so far), no content beyond links to other articles and most of all -- it doesn't seem encyclopaedic.

Not saying this to disrespect the work done on this at all, my thought is that these extremely large lists of who's for and who's against would be more appropriate for a Civil War fansite than the official encyclopedia entry of an ongoing fictional work. -Markeer 01:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm for the list. Yes, it can get unwieldy (this is supposed to encompass the whole of the Marvel Universe), but the nature of the series makes the distinction of "whose side are you on" extremely relevant. What is important is that characters have changed sides and some characters have died in the process... more will die and more will switch sides as the story goes on. I feel this list should remain even after the series has reached its conclussion -- but... Why not simply create a catagory for "Marvel Characters in Civil War." Admittedly, such a list might be pointless for events like Infinity Guantlet, Secret Wars or DC events like Armaggeddon or 52, but for a story like this it is both relevant and interesting, not to mention informative (which is the whole point of Wikipedia). Such a catagory could list characters as "pro," "con" or "neutral" as they are first considered in Civil War with notations in parenthesis of "Spider-Man switched sides in ..." or "Goliath was killed in action in ...." That's just my thought on the subject. Regardless, I think the list is both useful and signifigant. - Kevingarcia 04:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of a reading order

While Marvel is being nice this way and letting the readers escape having to buy every single book in the entire crossover, it would be handy if we can list the comics in more or less chonological order. Obviously Civil War 1 - 4 goes like that, but all the other comics take place at various times and should be listed in such an order. Much handier methinks. -Krawnight 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I can tell this one's going to be a headache to compile, but I agree, it should exist (not necessarily as a "read order" but more as an "order of events"). Thankfully Marvel is keeping their continuity, such as it is, fairly tight in the Civil War refrences, at least they were. Darquis 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been arranging my tie-ins by each Civil War issue. Since they all overlap, it's impossible to be 100% accurate, but this is as close as it gets:

Issue One -

Amazing Spider-Man #532 Frontline #1 New Avengers #21 She-Hulk #8 Wolverine #42

Issue 2 -

Amazing Spider-Man #533 Frontline #2 New Avengers #22 Cable & Deadpool #30 Thunderbolts #103 Wolverine #43 Wolverine #44 X-Factor #8 X-Factor #9

Issue 3 -

Frontline #3 Frontline #4 Civil War: X-Men #1 Thunderbolts #104 Young Avengers & Runaways #1

Issue 4 -

Amazing Spider-Man #534

However, because there is so much overlapping and not strict timeline, I would advise 'against' putting one in the article some time soon.--Goldenboy 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Hulk - really necessary?

I think the information on the Hulk (listed under the Neutral section) should not be included. They didn't send the Hulk away because he'd be a danger to the Act, they sent him away because he was a danger to everyone in general. He has absolutely not role in Civil War (at least not at the moment). So I feel we shouldn't even included him at all. Jedispyder 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was removed for that reason on an editorial level. --Chris Griswold 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either I changed Hulk from being neutral, or I created a header for the headerless Hulk by making him under Uninvolved, since he technically isn't neutral becuase he knows nothing about it.Jedispyder 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of universe

I would think there would be quite a bit more to talk about what with NYT spoiling the Spider-Man identity reveal, Joe Quesada appearing on Colbert Report and the fact that this is news-making even to the non-comic-book fan. Any thoughts on this, or are we just keeping this an in-universe discussion of the comic book? --Newt ΨΦ 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't forget that this Talk page is only for the Wiki Civil War page, if you want to talk about Civil War in general there are other websites for that (www.ComicBoards.com is a popular one--Jedispyder23:48, July 31, 2006
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that we should not discuss out-of-universe details, such as the non-comics media attention it got? --Chris Griswold 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought he was referencing to there being no talk in the discussion about Civil War, not in the article itself. Info in the article itself about important features of the title (including how issue #1, including 2nd prints, has reached a record high) is fine by me--Jedispyder 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Black Panther is neutral

Black Panther is indeed neutral, he is not pro nor anti-registration. Just look at his dialogue in CW#3: "A super police force covering all fifty states? And me helping him (Iron Man) hunt down the super heroes who disagree with it? I don't think so, Reed. We (Wakanda) don't like it when America interferes in Wakandan affairs, and I can only assume the feeling is reciprocated". He feels that this is something America needs to deal with on its own, and he should not be part of it at all.--Jedispyder 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to see what he thinks of it when it fucks up his wedding. He paid a lot of money for that ice sculpture. Storm will be so upset that she'll be in the attic for days taking magic showers. --Chris Griswold 06:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wedding is over and done with, only problem was one drunken "fight" and Cap and Iron Man walking away from the wedding after Black Panther tried to get the two to talk about what is going on. That usually would mean he is neutral if he's trying to get both parties to think about what is going on without forcing his views about it).--Jedispyder 06:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing

We have him under opposed and neutral? He seemed pretty nutral to me, refusing to enter into the fighting. MaxusDarte 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but he said he was fully opposed to the act. He just didn't want to get involved. Best to remove him from "Registered Opponents", but keep him in "Emigrating" and "Neutral" (Since both are true). --Goldenboy 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing is opposed. See Fantastic Four #539, page 22, panel 3: "Registration's wrong, and I won't support a law I don't believe in." That he's leaving the country and not fighting is irrelevent; he is still opposed to the act. --Chris Griswold 08:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look up. Three to one, Thing is neutral.
Note: I have merged the two threads.--Chris Griswold 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's seen fighting here. Does that mean that he'll come back and get involved? Image:Civilwarbugle.png— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.168.253 (talk • contribs) 23:49 August 8, 2006 (UTC)

No. I believe that is supposed to be an illustration of the fight at the Stark company in issue #3. Much like other illustrations we've seen for this series (CW:FL#1), it's not supposed to be taken as canon, however: That Daily Bugle issue is supposed to be out around the time of #3 (It's already been seen in several of the comics), but it shows lots of characters who were not involved in that fight or the fighting in general, including Wolverine, Namor, and the runaways. Any use of this as reference material is flawed. --Chris Griswold 04:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Illuminati?

From what I have read, the Illuminati broke up and they were a secret. So why doese it say that the world is waiting for their response as stated in the Synopsis.--Phoenix741 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Illuminati have rebranded and are now called the cabal. Addhoc 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! There is no cabal!

Dr. Strange

Dr. Strange keeps getting put on the neutral list, but he does not belong there. In Civil War #1, page 18, he shows his reluctance to register by saying, "So what are they saying, Dr. Richards? That I'll be forced to become a federal employee or face a warrant for my arrest? In Civil War #3, page 3, Wong tells Wasp and Wife-Beater GiantYellowjacketMan that Strange said he "wouldn't even consider supporting Tony Stark's plans. In fact, he's gone into seclusion in his arctic lodge in the hope that he might resolve your differences by fasting for forty nights."

It's pretty clear that Strange one, has left the country, and two, is not neutral because, Wong's comment indicates that he didn't sign the Registration Act. --Chris Griswold 05:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is such a double standard argument. Several other people that have been listed as neutral, such as the X-Men and the Black Panther, have both stated that they do not agree with the registration, yet you continue to list them as neutral. Just because they're the only ones to vocally say that they don't want to pick a side is not a reason to only include them on the list. Haven't you ever heard of the saying "actions speak louder than words"? Strange and Thing, while both saying they don't want to support Stark, have physically demonstrated that they don't want to be any part of the fighting for either side, so that makes them neutral. If you continue to list them as opponents, you should add Panther and the X-Men for the same reasoning. And clearly, there are a lot of people on this discussion that agree with the fact that Strange and Thing should be neutral.
I think things are getting complicated because there are two issues. One is the registration act and one is the civil war. Iron man is pro-act and pro-war. Cap is anti-act and pro-war. The X-Men state their neutrality, meaning they are anti-act and anti-war. Same with Dr. Strange and Thing. The X-Men are also de facto registered because of the O*N*E* (see Wolverine 43). Maybe we need more categories, or make what we have clearer? Even more complicated are characters like Black Bolt and Black Panther who aren't American so aren't subject to the law. Bradtcordeiro 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that those characters should not be listed as neutral.There's no double standard with me. Let's put them where they belong, then. --Chris Griswold 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, you just completely miss the point, don't you? You don't own this page, and clearly more people than you see that Thing and Strange are neutral, but you just can't admit that you could be in the wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.71.53 (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 8, 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I'm not sure why you believe I think I own the page; I'm giving my point of view, just as you are. The difference is that I am citing what I am talking about. If you did the same thing, it might make the discussion easier. Additionally, I removed Black Panther and X-Men from neutral because you pointed out that they should be. So far, the only person who has explicitly stated he that he has no opinion on the subject is Ben Urich, who is trying to be subjective for his article. --Chris Griswold 04:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I've given plenty of reasons why, you just don't listen to them and never even consider them because you keep changing everything around. And no, I did not say the X-Men and BP should be removed from neutral. I said that they are not neutral based on your ridiculously skewed logic. And yet again, stop basing everything on just what they say. What they do is as much of a part of their reasoning. If they refuse to take either side, even though they don't like the registration, it would make them NEUTRAL.
It would make them opposed but inactive, which may be a better compromise. What do you think? --Chris Griswold 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact same thing as neutral. Again, refusing to take a side means they aren't doing anything in the war, which would put them in neutral territory. Everyone else considers them neutral, why can't you?
Please tell me who "everyone else" is. I am saying that there is a difference between opponent and combatant. Strange is an opponent but a non-combatant. Do you disagree with that? If so, please provide some sort of evidence. Please work with me on this. --Chris Griswold 04:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is not the same thing as opposed but inactive. Sorry to butt in here, but I think a real world example may be appropriate. If someone is against the Iraq war, but they do not actively campaign against it, does that make them neutral? No, it makes them opposed, but inactive. I'm wondering who "everyone else" is as well. --Newt ΨΦ 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? You push people to use this page all the time but you don't even bother to read what else people say on it? If you had bothered, you would have noticed that a lot of people on here clearly see them as neutral. Not this "opposed but inactive" stuff. In the OVERALL PICTURE they are looked at as neutral because they are not playing an active role in the sotry. And it's also obvious no one else disagrees because it hasn't been changed since I fixed it last night. And it's not just here. Other, more reputable sites, which have actually been recognized by Marvel for their correct info, have them listed as neutral as well: [[1]].
Again: You say, "a lot of people on here clearly see them as neutral." Who? I've opened discussion, and you're the only one voicing opposition. Please sign your posts. --Chris Griswold 03:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, you've got eyes, USE THEM AND GO READ THE REST OF THE TALKS.

unreferenced tag

We need to make some indication of in which issue events in the "synopsis" section are depicted. I just realized right now that after actually visually scanning each panel of the limited series so far, I could probably do it myself, but if anyone else wants to do it, please do. --Chris Griswold 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes for Hire

Heroes for Hire is not out yet. Please do not add it until it is. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Chris Griswold 18:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a little thing you may have heard of called "Solicitation Info" that clearly has them as enforcers. Get with it.
No need to be rude. There's also a thing called a colon. We use it to indent on talk pages. Get with it. Here's a link to help you out. Bradtcordeiro 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty hypocritical to tell someone not to be rude and then be rude right back at them. Did you think that maybe Griswold was rude to him/her in the first place? He does seem pretty bent on making all of this his way.
Solicitation information is unreliable. Please see: "Green Lantern: Emerald Twilight" (entirely different story was changed before publication) and The Sentry (Solicits were a hoax). --Chris Griswold 04:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very weak argument and you know it. Preview art clearly shows them as enforcers, why can't you let other people be right for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.128.116.34 (talk • contribs) 15:02, August 7, 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are taking this so personally. I think you need to take a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Have you read the issue in which these events take place? No, you can't. This is just like people writing, before Flash: Fastest Man Alive #1 came out that Barth Allen debuts as the Flash in that issue. They were wrong, and they made the same arguments you are now. --Chris Griswold 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my distaste for 172.128.116.34;s comment, i think he's right. The evidence as well as the Civil War panel at Comic Con have confirmed that Heroes for Hire are going to be hero hunters. Stop being a nazi over this. Its not like you run the Civil War page alone. its Wikipedia, its everyone's encyclopedia.

Keeping Footnotes Clean

I noticed we had over 40 references, but most of them were duplicates. Check out Wikipedia:Footnotes for info on how to use one footnotes for multiple references. I've cleaned up all the ones that are already there, and created these ref names in case anyone needs them:

civilwar1pg7pn4 - Civil War 1, page 7, panel 4
civilwar1pg33pn1 - Civil War 1, page 33, panel 1
civilwar2pg3pn3 - Civil War 2, page 3, panel 3
civilwar2pg17pn1 - Civil War 2, page 17, panel 1
civilwar3pg3pn2 - Civil War 3, page 3, panel 2
civilwarfrontline4 - Civil War: Frontline 4
civilwarxmen1pg19pn3-7 - Civil War: X-Men 1, page 10, panels 3 and 7
nytimesfeb2006 - NYtimes article from february 20, 2006
shehulk8 - She Hulk 8
thunderbolts103 - Thunderbolts 103
thunderbolts104 - Thunderbolts 104
wolverine43 = Wolverine 43

You can see the naming conventions I'm using, if you want to start adding some yourself. Note: I did not check sources that had already been put into the article, I trusted them and just changed them into footnotes.

Again, thanks for doing this. I just wanted to get them down; I'm just glad you came by to tidy up. --Chris Griswold 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, if we stop citing pages and panels it could be condensed a lot more, most of the different citations are just different pages and panels of the main Civil War series. Bradtcordeiro 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I included panels is that characters keep being moved from list to list; now, you actually have to look at what is being cited and provide your own citation to refute it. --Chris Griswold 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that with all the complex referencing, it's much more difficult to edit and add characters to the various lists. I.E, I'd love to be able to add citations for Jane Foster and Night Nurse, but frankly, I have no idea how. --Goldenboy 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's way easier than it seems, the wiki software does a lot of the work. Check out the Wikipedia:Footnotes section I mentioned before, or look at the article as it is to learn by example. The complexity involved in citing individual pages and panels makes it more difficult, that's why I suggested just referencing issues so that someone can use ref names. Bradtcordeiro 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do add them. I saw two tiny, nondescript women in CW#2, panel 1, but they weren't clear enough to state that's who they are. Where is it clearly stated that they are with the hooligans? --Chris Griswold 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh: And the Civil War solicitations and covers. They're not accurate at all. One CW:FL #1, two anti-reg heroes are standing on the pro-reg side. To take any of these solicitations is pure folly, sir, and I will not see good men such as yourself be made the victim of such treachery. --Chris Griswold 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Believe The Refrences has really made the article more complex. It seemes easier just looking for the characcter's name and fllowed by the issue in which they were describe as wether they were for and against the act was much simplier. Simply adding the exact panel would had improved it enough,IMO. This I believe will make it harder for other editors to add to the list as more releases will tell us more.--RedBugz007 05:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, it's easy just to copy the template and change whatever info you need, and I or another editor will certainly come along and make sure it is all proper. --Chris Griswold 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help Bradtcordeiro, definately easier than it seems. And yeah Chris, those 2 non-descript women are Night Nurse and Jane Foster. Newsarama had a "Civil War Room" shortly after issue #2, where Tom Beveroot did indeed confirmed their identities - Goldenboy 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then actually, that's what we should cite; incidentally, great use of those two characters. They're going wonderfully obscure. And "Beveroot" sounds like an Australian soft drink. --Chris Griswold 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, actually, I should have said "Brevoort"! Incidently, I've linked the first 3 "Civil War Rooms" at the bottom of the article, just above the other external links, since they're a "Director's Commentary" of sorts. Goldenboy 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. Great work. It definitely improves the article.--Chris Griswold 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war resolution

172.147.211.42 (talk · contribs), why do you insist on reverting my edits? I am trying to have a dialogue with you about this, trying to compromise, to work with you, but you keep telling me that I am not listening and reverting my edits. Please lay out clearly for me and the other editors what your problems are with the edits that I have made. I want to work with you, not fight you.

What I want:

  • Clearly cited characters on the list
  • Recognition that "opponent" does not mean "combatant", and perhaps claification within the lists to address that.
  • This article's uncited information has been difficult enough as is; comics that have not even been released should not even enter into the mix; we should only cite comics we have actually read. This isn't just my preference, it is an actual Wikipedia policy.

Now what would you like? --Chris Griswold 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i like cookies =D, anyways, i agree, comicbooks that are yet to be released shouldnt be included in the synopsis, its spoils my reading =/ by the way, how do we define "combatant?" i mean if youre against the registration, whether you fight by your fist or mouth, youre still against the law, right? so the OPPONENT concept there is both, or do we have to segregate fighting opponent to legislating opponent? †Bloodpack† argh! 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True: "combatant" indicates physical fightin' more than legislatin'. We could fall back to "active" and "opposed but inactive". --Chris Griswold 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I revert them because I have the right to do so. This is the public's encyclopedia, not yours. And if you really want to compromise, you wouldn't have threatened me with a ban.
  • What's the obsession with the citations? I see you and others push so many times to keep things to such a minimum, yet you're references and such are doing nothing more than clogging up the page with redundant information that a simple "Title #" can take care of. Other people obviously also feel that way since they've been deleted several times.
  • No, because, again, in the overall story, they don't matter, so they should be considered Neutral. And creating more categories is going to do nothing more than, again, clog up the page, which is apparently also against policy around here.
  • Heroes for Hire should not fall into that category, because anyone with a pair of eyes would have seen by now that they are enforcers, because the solicitations and cover art and other info have been circulating for months that they are on the Pro side of the war. And to address Bloodpack's concern, like I just mentioned, that info has been out for anyone to see, and it wouldn't spoil anything that someone wouldn't already know going into the story. They belong on the list.
First of all, I didn't threaten you with a ban. I let you know that you broke the three revert rule. I even linked you to the applicable information. The "obsession" with citations is because this is an encyclopedia. You haven't read the overall story, so you don't know what matters yet. All we can do is note what has been written so far, if we are to be up-to-date; however, we can't go overboard and speculate about what is important and what isn't. That's not our call to make. Add Heroes for Hire if it has been clearly spelled out somewhere, but only if your addition includes a citation.--Chris Griswold 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the mediation cabal to help us resolve these differences. The request is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Civil War (comics) here. --Chris Griswold 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The obsession with the citations is explained in WP:V, which states "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed". Addhoc 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the main players in question that I've noticed and can comment on are Dr. Strange and Black Panther. That said there are spoilers:
  1. Dr. Strange in Illuminati voices his opposition to the act, and in CW #3 is fasting to "resolve differences". Now he's definitely not neutral in the ideology, but in the campaign/war he appears neutral as he is abstaining from combat and not fasting to change minds about the registration but rather to bring an end to the conflict. That said, he is not inactive, he is actively campaigning for an end to the conflict, but he's not active on either side of the conflict. I could see the need due to him to create a new dichotomy between campaigning/warring and ideology, which I've seen in the above discussion. Maybe an "ideologically opposed but inconsequential". Off the record, he seems like he's another Hulk, the writers are just removing him from the equation to level the playing field.
  2. Black Panther's tone in CW #3 suggests he's ideologically against, but he is remaining totally inactive in the conflict.
I see a difference between "neutral" and "ideologically opposed, but inactive/inconsequential". This really seems to point out the ineffectiveness of a list format for this. There are many non-notable or inconsequential characters, and it's just messy. --Newt ΨΦ 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would call Ben Grimm and the Black Panther "neutral" - they both think the law is a stupid idea, but both of them are deliberately not taking any action to support or hinder the law. (Namor probably fits this category as well). Switzerland might have an opinion on whether the Nazis suck, but that doesn't make them non-neutral. TheronJ 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when people get carried away posting [citation needed] all over an article, but without citations for everything in this particular article, we'd spend way too much time arguing about who's on which side, etc. People will still argue, of course, but at least those citations give us a starting point to discuss these things. I'm just amazed that anyone took on the monumental task of giving us all those references. Well done. Doczilla 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anonymous poster in a revert war. Not that we aren't all anonymous to one degree or another here anyway, but anyone who wants to fight for an edit should have the guts to sign on with a username so others can track that person's edit history. Your edit history helps establish your credibility. Plus, using a username creates your talk page where people can post messages they know you'll discover when you sign in. Doczilla 07:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banners

Will anyone terribly mind if I remove the banners from the Pro and Anti registration lists? I really don't think it falls into our Fair Use guidelines, and it kind of looks tacky.--Toffile 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I usually prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to fair use, I think those images fall within fair use guidelines. Plus, I like them. They served a purpose for me. They saved me some time when I cleaned up a couple of citations because they help me skim straight to EDIT. Doczilla 07:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So...you like them because they change the placement of the edit button? Seriously though, it looks very amateurish, and doesn't jive with being in an encyclopedia.--Toffile 14:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The banners were released by marvel [2] to be used on people message board signatures. Fair use shouldn't even cross your mind. As for aestetic opinions, I don't buy them as legitimate reasons to remove a (minor and localized) internet phenomena of people editing them and creating their own Civil War Banners. -- Majin Gojira 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Write an article about that phenomona then. However, the images don't really fit with the rest of Wikipedia. Lets face it. I don't believe there are any other lists on this site that have images for the headings. I believe that images should illustrate something within the article. There's nothing to illustrate with a list though. The banners do not enhance this article, they are out of place, and unneeded.--Toffile 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, drop the condescending tone. Whether you meant it or not, it is in your word choice. Secondly, your appeal to the massess statements fall flat as other lists do not have (to my understanding) officially released banners for them. Thirdly, the rest of your statements fall soley on your opinion. Until you have objective proof of their aestetic failure (and yes, you can get objective proof of aestetic failure. You can't just say "It's bad", you have to say WHY it's bad.), you're only left with what you believe. -- Majin Gojira
Despite his tone, I agree with Toffile. Once the series is over, I imagine that the list will go away, replaced by something more descriptive and encyclopedic. When that happens, the banners will go away anyway. That said, if you can get a citation on Marvel's proposed use for the banners, I'd think that a section of the article could be dedicated to them (with possibly another cited reference to the Internet meme they spawned). --Newt ΨΦ 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. I think those qualify. -- Majin Gojira 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first one works as it's a press release. The other two are forum/livejournals and can't be used as citations. See WP:CITE. I think the meme's gonna be hard to find a citation for. --Newt ΨΦ 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The meme really picks off right in the posts in the press release. The other two are collections of various selections of the meme. Internet memes are notoriously difficult to find "unbiased" citations for, unless it's a Slow News Day. -- Majin Gojira 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I sound condescending. I try not to be, but it happens from time to time. As I've said before, the images do not fit well (in my honest opinion) with the article. It makes it look a bit like a fansite, (something that Wikipedia is not). If you wish, we could solicit some people's opinions on how it looks. Also, you should understand that I'm not against using the images in the article, I'm just simply against using them in that context. I'm certain that if we add a reactions section, where we discuss the fan reaction to Civil war, (we can mention sales figures to show an increase) we can easilly use the banners on the side with a caption something like "Promotional artwork Marvel released to fans".--Toffile 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against such a proposal. Thank you for the citation. A "Fan Ractions to Civil War" section, I think, would work best, as we could cover the banners, sales and the internet meme without the creation of extra articles. -- Majin Gojira 17:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the banners being a part of a fan reaction section or to demonstrate Marvel's publicity regarding the crossover. However, as I mention above under the "Characters List" section of this talk page, my problem is with the extensive lists below those banners as they do not appear to be encyclopaedic. Newt mentions above that those lists would probably be removed when the series ends so I'm not in a rush, but if there's consensus for the lists being removed in ~3 months, I'll add the question: Should we remove them before then (for instance, now)? -Markeer 16:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should remove these lists. Such lists need to be cited, and it has been difficult to keep them accurate; the citations - although necessary - fill the page and make it unwieldy; the list, when it comes down to it, is really trivial and unimportant to the reader's understanding of the subject. The only reason I even tried to work on the list was that it was the most frequently edited section of the article. I was attempting to justify its existence if it were to exist at all. Having failed in trying to justify it, I think it needs to go. Thank you. --Chris Griswold 02:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for keeping the banners. They're Marvel-sanctioned for lack of a better word, and work well to make the page both more acessable and easier on the eye. Keep 'em. Goldenboy 00:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
having a banner onto each group doesnt hurt and not having 'em doesnt hurt either so why pay too much attention on a simple thing when theres lot to be done on the article itself? †Bloodpack† argh! 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep the banners. They help those clunky lists look better. Besides which, it's almost all temporary until the series is over and the dust settles. Wryspy 07:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of banners

I have removed the banners as their use violates our policy. I can instantly create a free banner with the words Civil War and a tick or a cross which would replace them. Since this would suck, I won't do that, but note that the first fair use criteria states that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Steve block Talk 09:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enlighten me on 2 things: 1) Which specific aspect of the Wikipedia policy do they violate? 2) Don't you usually need consensus for something that's been discussed at length in order to prevent people from reverting it? -- Majin Gojira 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First point, they violated the fair use criteria, specifically number one, which states that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." As I posted verbatim above. Secondly, no consensus trumps the consensus found in policies, per Wikipedia:Consensus. If you believe the policy is mistaken, you have to change the policy. People reverting are in violation of the vandalism policy, specifically "Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies". Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, last time I checked, those banners were provided free for public use by Marvel, so I'm pretty sure that using those don't violate any copyrights.
My guess is they're free to use for the purpose they intended (spreading publicity through use in forum signatures) not as headings to plot spoilers for the comics they're trying to sell. I may be wrong though, and they may not care. --Newt ΨΦ 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not free to use, they contain images of trademarked and copyrighted characters, therefore for some commercial reusers of Wikipedia content there are potential problems. Free means that the images are not copyrighted. If you provide a link to where Marvel state these images are in the public domain, I will happily discuss reinstating them, but I very much doubt Marvel's legal department would allow these images to fall into the public domain. Most likely they have released the images as promotional material, which means copyright in the images is still reserved. Please also note that violating copyright, whilst serious, isn't the main issue. The main issue is that they are copyrighted images whose use violates Wikipedia policy. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.marvel.com/news/-1.414
  • This link does not state that they are released into the public domain, but that they are promotional material, released to promote the comic. The code should be used as Marvel have released it, and the code includes links back to Marvel which if used on Wikipedia would constitute linkspam, and if they aren't included we violate the terms of use under which Marvel have released them. Note also that the terms of use dictate that:

"Any and all content including, without limitation, code, Shockwave files, text, graphics, photographs, titles, sound recordings and software contained in any files or materials comprising Marvel.com are, as between you and Marvel.com, the sole and exclusive property of Marvel.com. This includes all content, whether initially transmitted as part of the Marvel.com service or transmitted by any subscriber, user, or other individual. Marvel.com's rights in all content as set forth above include the rights in all underlying intellectual property such as copyrights, trademarks and designs."

Removal of lists

I wanted to pull this out into its own section so that interested editors can see and contribute to the conversation. Several editors, including myself, have expressed interest in the removal of the lists.

What do you think? --Chris Griswold 10:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. On top of the fact that you can't categorize everyone easily, the lists break the perpetual present of fiction (anyone that switches sides or began as neutral and chooses a side would be both). --Newt ΨΦ 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? They keep interested readers up to date, and they look pretty accurate to me. Or is this a result of your feud that you have with that user above and that you just want to get rid of them because you can't keep them looking the way you want? No offense, but I agree with the other guy, and it just seems like you're doing this a bit out of spite. And yes, I am aware of the fact that my isp looks like his, I must just live in the same area as him or something, I don't know how all this stuff works. I say keep them until the event is over at least, then maybe move them to their own page.-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:172.166.25.81
While I stated why above, I'll state it again.
  1. Fictional characters exist in a perpetual present (any time you open a comic book, for instance, what they are depicted as doing is what they are doing at that moment in time), and thus for a character who may begin a proponent at the beginning of the story, and by the middle be neutral, and at the end an opponent, they would need to be listed as all three (confusing to say the least).
  2. Some players in the conflict do not fit any of the headings, or their addition to extant headings is POV or speculative.
  3. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and we are writing encyclopedia articles. This list is unwieldy, difficult to maintain, and does not look at all like part of an encyclopedia article.
What would be a better option is to give a short descriptive statement about each notable character or group in a dedicated section. Please assume good faith, we're all looking to better the article, not spite each other. --Newt ΨΦ 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, I agree with removing the lists as they are basically the exact definition of listcruft. However, as some of the conversation on this page has gotten heated, I would recommend either a formal survey or else at least giving it 2-3 days for people to make their arguments for keeping the lists -Markeer 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A formal survey is the way to go, find out what a consensus feels before changing the article in such a major way. Find out where a majority stands, then go from there. Otherwise, it does, at least to some degree, make it look like you're going to do it your way no matter what anyone else thinks and that will only start yet another edit war. Odin's Beard 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the lists, however problematic they are. They're the only part of the article I find informative. I'm reading Civil War but don't know what's going on in every single related comic. If someone changes sides, you might put a note on that in <> brackets to point that out to anyone who jumps in to edit them. Besides, it's not like the lists will be here permanently. If you don't like them, don't read them! Leave them there for those who find them useful, then remove them after the series is over. Doczilla 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Per Markeer's suggestion, we will have a formal survey to last 2-3 days. Should the Civil War character lists stay or go? Please make your case below.

  • Remove - The lists cannot properly convey the information they are intending to convey, which, if anywhere, should go in a plot synopsis. As I have said, such information should be cited; otherwise, the characters will continue to be moved from list to list as they have been, and that has proven problematic as well. --Chris Griswold 07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - per reasons stated above (probably my vote not needed here) -Markeer 13:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Per my above reasons. However, I would rather try to reach a consensus through discussion (which may take longer than 2-3 days) rather than use a survey that may close without reaching a consensus. --Newt ΨΦ 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Seems unencyclopedic to me, and just leads to edit wars and a huge reference section. Bradtcordeiro 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Until the event is over, it would be impossible to properly place all characters involved. After the event is over it might become appropriate, but the characters current affiliation should be covered in the synopsis and on the individual characters entry pages. A list would be more appropreate under the heading of the upcoming "Civil War Files" book's entry as I imagine that this will give us a more comprehensive and citeable source. MaxusDarte 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I also stated above, they should be kept until the end of the event at least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.4.222 (talk • contribs) 17:41, August 15, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I feel the lists should be kept at until the event has run its course. The lists have been included in the article since the article was created, or nearly as long. Since the event will be over in a few months anyhow, I don't really see any harm in waiting. Odin's Beard 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove -- Majin Gojira 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is wikipedia and wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and what encylopedias do is basically provide the most vital information as possible as we can get. The list provides the most concise (although not precise) information for the article and us editors duty is to keep our patrons up to date with our edits and with what we give. Again, the list is part of the information about this article. It will not spoil any readers but rather will give them a quick-guide as to where they should follow or what comicbook they need to read in order to find out †Bloodpack†

argh! 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per the above. JQF 01:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've been using Wikipedia to keep up with the storyline, and the sides list helps. If they change sides, then we should note that too. -- Lampbane 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am new here, but I have to agree with the user above. I have been using Wikipedia's "Civil War" article to help keep up with this massive event. I found one of the better parts of the article to be the lists, as although they are constantly changing, they helped provide a guideline ----Becklove 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, I see you are new here; you registered this user account today just in time to join the discussion. --
--Chris Griswoldspan>| contribs  05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had never thought to register prior; I saw that there was a vote going on and I thought that I should throw in my opinion; I didn't mean any disrespect and I had hoped to convey how much I had enjoyed the work put into the list--Becklove 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I am glad you have decided to register; I hope to see this name on future edit summaries. Welcome to Wikipedia.
--Chris Griswoldspan>| contribs  11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Remove - How bout we just remove it from the page and set it up as a seperate page. Several Wiki-pages have just a link for a section of either characters or issue summaries that take you to a page that doesn't make the main page as cluttered. That way we can keep the information, but let the main page be nice and clean. Jedispyder 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Post-Civil War - After Civil War, these lists will be mostly useless. However, until then, they're a useful source of info for anyone who's interested in th tie-ins, or looking for their favourite character. - Goldenboy|talk|contribs 20:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change/Rename/Redo - The info's good, the list terribly unwieldy. Change the format. Throw in some tables, make it more easily referencable, that kind of stuff. Kusonaga 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed. Concensus appears to be in favor of removal. Actually, it's a dead tie, so the list is going to be put back until a consensus is reached. JQF 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is is why I was against the straw poll in the first place. They usually close w/out consensus and there's very little discussion. People state their viewpoints and leave it. --Newt ΨΦ 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I count the consensus as 8-5 in favor of removal of the lists, with Kusonaga a possible ninth. I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Would you like to lead it? --Chris Griswold 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, and dealling with something of this weight to the article would require some commited discussion. JQF 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Later we might remove it to diffrent article. Brian Boru is awesome 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey closed without reaching consensus, please join the discussion below --Newt ΨΦ 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

In an effort to focus the discussion, below are the pro-(list) and con- points as I have read them. I ask that if anyone reads bias in how I've worded these (beyond the obligatory bias of listing two sides of an issue):

  • Pros
    1. The list keeps readers up to date, and as editors of an encyclopedia it is our job to keep readers informed.
    2. Removal of the list is premature because we do not know yet who the major players are. We need to wait until the event is over to decide what to do with the list.
    3. The list is encyclopedic.
  • Cons
    1. The list is confusing due to the following:
      • WP:WAF states that fictional characters exist in a literary present and so a character like Spider-Man, who may eventually switch sides, will be listed in at least two subheadings, confusing uneducated readers.
      • Minor characters possibly inconsequential to the story are included and given weight equal to the major players.
    2. The list is not descriptive enough, as its subheadings cannot add nuance needed when describing the positions of characters like Black Panther, Dr. Strange, and Namor.
      • Corollary: The list is difficult to maintain, leading to POV revert wars.
    3. The list is unencyclopedic.

I hope that helps focus the discussion. Please direct your comments at discussing the incorrect or correctness of the above points. If any points are missing from either side, list them above. This, I hope, will help reach a consensus, and again, I apologize if any bias is found and ask that if it is found that it be fixed. --Newt ΨΦ 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the list is confusing. Speculation is that Spider-Man will switch sides sometime in the 7 issues of Civil War which will mean he will need to be listed under both. I may be mistaken, but I think Thing started out pro, but is now neutral. Again, he will need to be listed under both. There are a number of characters that are not notable included and crowding the list. Overall it's unwieldy and difficult to maintain. I cannot imagine that if we ever want Civil War to be a featured article it will contain this list. --Newt ΨΦ 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While most people believe of keeping the list while the storyline is ongoing, me on the other hand recommend to remove the list while the storyline is ongoing because things might change, changing sides is most likely imminent. And then archive the list for the moment. And when all of this is over, i suggest we bring back the list again because now we already know the whole storyline. †Bloodpack† argh! 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The list format is not at all as descriptive as prose/paragraph form would be. Why would we not discuss the affiliations in the synopsis when the series is complete. Really the only characters we'd be missing would be the non-notable ones if we did that, right? --Newt ΨΦ 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well thats also fine with me but we must all take note that IF we do include the sides of these heroes within the synopsis, itll probably gonna take a whole lotta words/storytelling (because we must also state why they joined on that side, etc.) and we might end up doing a novel instead, when a synopsis should only be a brief summary =] either way is good to me; by a list format or within the synopsis idea as long as we put their sides (pro or con) because the tag of this article is Whose side are you on? †Bloodpack† argh! 23:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on experience with other storylines, I think we will find that the affiliation or feelings of many of the characters on the list will not affect the story one way or the other. As I am doing with the plot summary for 52, we should only add information once it becomes vital to the story. --Chris Griswold 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's unnecessary to list characters like Thunderclap or Aegis who do not play a major role. Mere mention due to a minor character's inclusion on either side adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the event. We're not writing this for readers of the Civil War event, nor even for readers of comic books, so keep in mind information that could be confusing and how the list format does little to inform or focus readers. --Newt ΨΦ 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just do away with the survey? I think straw polls distract from discussion. --Newt ΨΦ 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

damn marvel, theyre giving us headaches to do their article =D †Bloodpack† argh! 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do away with it. It's not going to help anyone. --Chris Griswold 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we simply re-structure the list? I was in favor of removal, but I believe that this list could work well if it just showed who was fighting on what side. No needlessly complicated quantifiers to confuse people, or quantifiers that really have nothing to do with the act itself (emigrating, ect all). I am also in favor of us removing the lists until after Civil War is over, which I see as the only real way to make sure that we don't get into POV arguments. MaxusDarte 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I personally think it's foolish to remove this until after both the Civil War and all it's tie-ins are finished. After then, perhaps we can re-format or remove it, but until then, it's a useful tool for anyone who uses it. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encylopedic value: The list seems fairly encyclopedic to me, and I think the unwieldiness and edit wars will die down once the series is over. Certainly, the Contest of Champions and Secret Wars articles are benefitted by a list of the combatants. (Also, the Secret Wars article seems to be able to explain that the X-Men started out on Captain America's team, but later split off to form their own team, without violating the "eternal present" rule too painfully). TheronJ 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm gonna stop the "encyclopedic value" argument because that's POV buzzword that won't get us anywhere. I'm guilty of it, too. I will say that I do not believe that the list at all makes sense to any but readers of the comics. It does not explain the difference between "Underground resistance" and "Secret Avengers". I have no idea what "Thunderbolts detainees and recruits" even means. The list leaves out nuance that could add more understanding (we're here to help understand, not just inform) to the stances of "Confirmed neutrals" Dr. Strange (also an "Expatriate") and Black Panther. It's loaded with characters whose importance is dependent upon understanding of the story like Bantam, a minor character overall but possibly important to the story. It creates a dichotomy between "Active enforcers" and "Government enforcers" that I don't understand. It's also entirely cited from primary sources, without any secondary analysis (some of which I know will come later). Plot sections are supposed to be brief and are given in order to help understand the subject. This is just a mish-mash of information that would confuse the casual reader. Can anyone tell me how this information is good? --NewtΨΦ 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO it's good because it answers some questions readers might want to know (like who is on which side, who was in the Thunderbolts' jail, etc.). I agree that it's a mess right now, but I think it will clean up nicely when (or if) Civil War is over. TheronJ 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Literary Present": I don't see the "literary present" argument as holding much weight. (1) Our readers aren't the Prophets - literary present doesn't mean we can't discuss cause and effect in the articles. (Eg, Peter Parker was originally shown as self-interested, but after the death of his Uncle Ben, he decided to devote himself to living out his Uncle's motto.) (2) As I said, the Secret Wars article seems to be able to explain the idea that the X-Men started out on Captain America's team, then formed their own team, without blowing too many people's minds. TheronJ 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list doesn't discuss anything, it lists. Literary present actually dictates that Spider-Man, if he switches sides, be listed as both an "Active enforcer" and a "Registered opponent" because the stories both happen whenever someone picks up the book and reads them. It's not a history, these things didn't happen in the past, it's a story. Read WP:WAF. Since he'd need to be listed in both places, and this list doesn't discuss why, it would only confuse the reader. --NewtΨΦ 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the effort in explaining this to me, but I still don't understand.
  1. What specific language in WP:WAF says that we can't say that some things are presented in the story as happening after others? The whole Slibvorks example appears to explain that Slipvorks are not blue before episode 5.14, but are blue after episode 6.0, and that this change is explained as occurring as a result of actions taking place as a result of a story set between those episodes. What language in WP:WAF says that we can't say "Spider-man is presented as a supporter through 'Astonishing Spider-man #532', but is presented as an opponent shortly after he is seduced by Wonder Man in 'Tales of Spider-man to Astonish #1053"?
  2. How is it confusing to readers to include "Big Bertha (prior to CW #5)" in the "supporter" column and "Big Bertha (after CW #5)" in the "opponent" column?
Thanks, TheronJ 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things can be presented as happening in an order, my issue is how difficult it would be to meaningfully do so using this list. Your own description is a statement, not a mere entry in a list, and I've been calling for a condensed summary of the stances of the major players/characters instead of the list. I have not been calling for the removal of the information entirely. --NewtΨΦ 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Consider a table with columns for "signed the act" and "fought another hero" as a more empirical and binary (yes or no) way to separate active from passive people. List the date(s) or issue(s) that the action occurred to show alliance changes and varying extents of involvement. Thank you.Wikist 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War
Signed Fought Issue Signed Issue Recanted Issue Fought
Iron Man Y Y #? #?-#?
Yeah, that sounds good. Would require a bit of work, be would be easier to follow. Keep the people in alphabetical order, and maybe include a "Notes" section. JQF 03:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the time we get through debating this, the crossover event will be all over with. I find the list to be informative. It shows where each of the heroes stands. The list has been up all this time so before it's removed or whatever, just wait until the Civil War event is over. Yes some people change it, sometimes adding total crap to it, but that's no different than any other article Wikipedia has. It's not really anymore of a problem than on any other article. Odin's Beard 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War: War Crimes

Where did this listing in the Tie-Ins come from? I don't remember hearing anything about it, does anyone have a source? Brad T. Cordeiro 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been mentioned during Con Season, but Newsarama has a feature on it today. From what I can tell, it's a set of three One-Shots. One on the Winter Soldier, one on Kingpin, and one on Iron Man & Cap's last meeting. - Goldenboy|talk|contribs 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the story now. I couldn't trace when/who it was added and wanted to make sure it wasn't just a piece of hearsay, Newsarama is legit. Brad T. Cordeiro 00:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose side would you choose?

This is a poll on whose side you would join in the Civil War. Would it be Iron Man's team or Captain America's team? That is for you to decide. Both teams have their qualities and reasons to be on. Since I'm the founder, I'll go first. I would choose Tony Stark, the amazing Iron Man. My reason? Stark's choice to find the rebel superheroes and help them be a part of the government is a very nice choice for me. Plus, he's got a lot of good guys on his team, such as Spider-Man, Mr. Fantastic, and Doc Samson. Anyone else who has a choice, sign below me. Cheers! 71.38.19.176 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.220.71.38.19.176 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is an appropriate topic for this talk page, although I agree it's a fun subject. As it mentions in the box at the top of this page "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Civil War (comics) article. Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." -Markeer 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Fun subject, but that is absolutely not what these article discussion pages are about. Doczilla 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mistake. 70.58.221.220

Merge with Civil War: Front Line

So I posted on the talk page of Civil War: Front Line how the article is blatant copyright infringement as it's a highly detailed issue-by-issue summary of the series. The question is, has it already been discussed whether CW:FL should be part of this article? Almost all of it could be removed or at least significantly condensed. I didn't want to start a redundant merge discussion by tagging the articles if it's already been discussed. If it's not already been discussed, then I guess use this as the start of the discussion. Also, if it's decided to keep it separate, can we get someone to condense CW:FL and maybe some more people to patrol it to help it from growing? I'd do it myself, but more and more I'm just finding enough time to discuss problem articles than actually do major edits. --Newt ΨΦ 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already disscussed when it was proposed that all Civil War mini-series be mergered with this page, but it was decided that this page would get too long and clutered, that each series should have it's own article, and that this article should for the most part focus on the main Civil War series. JQF 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where this was discussed? Regardless, anyone want to condense the Civil War: Front Line article? I mean Jesus! That is so very not fair use. We are not here to act as substitutes for the comic or keep people up to date on what's happening in the comic. --Newt ΨΦ 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It evolved out of the Merger with Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways discussion, near the end. JQF 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, it was brought up as a red herring and never discussed on its own. Its separateness was assumed by your comments and then not questioned as it was not part of the discussion at hand (i.e. whether CW:YA/RA should be merged). The fact that its existence had not yet been questioned is not reason enough for it to exist. Right now, it only exists (though I do like the lead) as a repository for plot summary. The fifth issue summary alone is longer than the summary of X-Men: The Last Stand. Anyway, I think it's time to question the need for CW:FL as a separate article. --Newt ΨΦ 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a series comprising upwards of 80 issues. I think it's OK to cover 10 of the important issues (CW:FL) here. --Chris Griswold 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on Capt. America and Iron Man

Since my "whose side would you join" poll was somewhat a large failure, I'll open up a new topic that's less forumish. I think that Iron Man's decision to bring the rebel superheroes is very generous. Considering that Captain America was unwilling to join the registration act, you'd think no one would care to help him face to society. The problem is, Captian America is a superhero, but by refusing to let the superheroes say their part, his stubborness is seperating him more from the public. I apologize if I have offended any Captain America fans or done the same mistake twice. If you wish me to remove this, I shall gladly do so. 75.58.211.220

This is not a fan forum. If it has no business in the article (and POV statements rarely do), then discussion of it has no business here. --Newt ΨΦ 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, keep it cool Newt =] anyways, dude im sure youre eager to express your thoughts with the civil war arch, i suggest you visit http://superherohype.com/forums, you can also try http://newsrama.com, btw, im also a pro-registration =p †Bloodpack† argh! 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that regardless of whichever side a person chooses, the whole thing is still racist. --Chris Griswold 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
eh? what does race has to do with law implementation? †Bloodpack† argh! 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Jim Crow laws for race and law implementation (one instance), but keep in mind that Chris has a very dry sense of humor. As for my earlier comment, I wasn't trying to come off as mean, just frank. Sorry. --Newt ΨΦ 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the link, didnt know theres such thing as Jim Crow laws, US is really rich in history †Bloodpack† argh! 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice way to put it. --Newt ΨΦ 22:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Yes, I was being silly about the racism thing. Although I haqve found it very interesting to see that all the African American characters appear to be joining Captain America - all the ones that aren't crazy dudes from the future. In recent issues of Black Panther, Luke Cage is enthused about the idea of the Black Avengers after he teams up with Falcon, Black Panther, Blade, Brother Voodoo, and Monica Rambeau. I hope someone writes an article about how race is being factored into this series. --Chris Griswold 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sad thing is, it'd fall foul of original research on Wikipedia. Steve block Talk 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I meant someone should write an article for the even-handed, middle-of-the-road comics magazine that doesn't exist.--Chris Griswold 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew exactly what you meant, hence my comment. I meant Wikipedia is the only place such an article would likely get published. Steve block Talk 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everybody. I appreciate your comments and edits that keep Wikipedia going. As for Bloodpack's answer above about me joining a forum, that's a good idea, but I'm too young to make a username and password on a forum, at least my parents don't want me to. And due to circumstances, I feel it best not to give my age. But it's okay, for I enjoy my place on Wikipedia, and will continue to contribute in any way I can. 70.58.211.220

no problem buddy, but i dont understand why you restrict yourself from joining a forum just because of age †Bloodpack† argh! 07:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He may be under 13 years of age and subject to the COPPA act. 68.249.2.213 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. And while I continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I need some advice. I feel like I'm being a little too sympathetic for the pro-registration heroes. I put that their mission is to find and convince superheroes in violation of the act to join. Is it that, or is it kind of like a police-chasing-burglar kind of thing? Thank you! Cheers! 70.58.211.220

"Plot" and "Synopsis"

Should one of these be renamed? They seem like almost redundant headings for differing information. --NewtΨΦ 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I renamed the plot to overview. Whether that solves anything I'm not sure. I'd also like to see issue numbers in the synopsis section, can people who know what issue and comic this stuff happened in add them in please? I don't mind formatting the stuff, but I don't know where it all happened. Thanks. Steve block Talk 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Steve. I edited the synopsis to focus more on the central story and added some issue #'s. As it were, certain important-to-specific-comics material was included (like JJJ threatening to sue Peter Parker, Wolverine hunting Nitro) that I removed as extraneous to understanding the plot. That said, are we going to summarize all 80 issues of the event in this article or can we leave some to the separate specific character and comic articles? --NewtΨΦ 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Newt. I would think after the crossover has ended we can get this article into some sort of shape and work out what the main points of the plot were. At the present time, it's pretty much a what sticks to the wall approach. Most articles which cover current events tend to adopt a similar scrappy form. It's hard to get a fix on what matters until it's all done. I'd expect the issue of the lists to be resolved once it ends, but at the moment it appears to be of use. I remember when the 7/7 and Jean Charles de Menezes incidents were in progress, both those articles were just as much works in progress. Steve block Talk 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Illuminati mini

http://www.newsarama.com/WW_Chicago_06/Marvel/IlluminatiMini.html

I wonder, however, if this really ties in to Civil War. It mostly covers the Illuminati's actions prior to the war (such as the Kree-Skrull War and Hulk's exile). Substatic 13:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unidentified" Super-Humans

Is this really necessary? If we don't know who they are, then is this notable enough to be included? I don't think it necessary to list every person who appears in every panel, if we don't know who they are. I feel the same way about the "Many citizens of Harlem, New York" under opponents. Brad T. Cordeiro 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal is a good idea.-Chris Griswold (☏) 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)`[reply]
But without the unidentified tag, it looks like the underground resistance is made up of just those five guys, when in reality it was much more than that. --71.7.134.247 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop

Is it fair to classify Bishop as anti-registration, perhaps under SHIELD agents? Arti1337 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Bishop ever mentioned his feelings on or fought for the Act? He's concerned instead with the 198. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to put him under "Government Enforcers" since the Government has given him permission to sort of "police" the mutant population, notably the 198, during this event, along with Sabra and Micromax and the Sentinel Force, which is government owned, so I think that's the best way to describe his involvement here.172.166.249.171 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection

Somebody mentioned on the Marvel 1602 page that the two arcs might be connected.

Could be worth looking into and mentioning here too. Newb 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't see any mention over there?

--Charlesknight 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rojhaz" is none other than Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America, who was atomized by a fascist US government in a dystopian future. His "destruction" (i.e. he disappeared from the normal timeline, but reappeared in this timeline) caused the rift that is destroying the universe. It has been speculated that this future is the same one that the Civil War story arc is now leading to, but it has not been confirmed whether this is the final intent.
Regardless, it's not worth mentioning w/out a reliable secondary source citation. Otherwise it's entirely speculative and, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In fact, I'm removing it from Marvel 1602 for that reason. --NewtΨΦ 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Event or comic book?

Is this article meant to cover the entire event or just the Civil War comic? --NewtΨΦ 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers all the goings-on of the event. The character list, certainly, and the list of related comics. Additionally, the event has received the press, in both the comics and mainstream media. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thor?!?

So what's exactly the deal with him? Other than hitting people with lightening(Civil War #3)and supposedly killing someone(Cable/Deadpool #31) he hasn't even spoken yet. Is not his assumption as an enforcer a bit premature? Alsosprachmiyamoto 04:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. But editors like to speculate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CivilWar/04Pre/CivilWar04Pre.html "You are all going down."--DrBat 13:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, neat panels, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that Thor is going to do exactly what he claims: take everybody out. That means enforcement and opponent side each.
Speculation is fun, but it's not appropriate for entry into this article. Well, maybe this one, but not ones that rely heavily on POV and speculation already. I can't wait to fix this article when the whole event's over. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, Thor aint really thor it seems. Who'd have thunkit Alsosprachmiyamoto 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it appropriate to remove my comment? Unless it's troll-stuff, I thought it was frowned on to edit/remove other comments.68.248.3.122 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)MD[reply]

Not sure if this was directed at me or not. I did make a slight edit today in on the polemic list. I changed an earlier edit of "Thor(clone)," to "Clone of Thor." I feel this rewording is clearer and more in line with what was presented in the comic. Didn't mean to step on anyones toes. Alsosprachmiyamoto 04:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I haven't looked to try and see what was going on - I'm referring specifically to a comment of mine placed here on the talkpage that someone deleted. It contained a spoiler, but was marked as such, and was placed on the talkpage late Tuesday night. Not a hugely big deal, but I'm a bit bemused since generally people have a thing about not editing other people's comments.71.144.83.13 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)MD[reply]
The clone of Thor is actually killed by Reid in issue 4 - A hole is drilled in the side of his head, just before Spider-Man asks if Yellowjacket if he's sure that they're on the right side. ChrisDV 22:20, 22 September 2006 9 (GMT)
I got the impression that was more or less the introduction to brain surgery to see why Clor went bongo. Quesada states we are not done with Clor. While the pro-reg side are easily seen as bastards right now, there are a lot easier ways to 'put down' someone than putting a friggin' Black & Decker in somebody's skull.69.221.32.164 19:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)MD[reply]

Tony's sound device

This is in the article: "One of the pro-registration heroes shuts off the device (hinted to be Sue Storm based on her comments and later actions)" -- I thought the device was damaged due to Iron Man being hit by the tanker. I was under the impression that the sound amplifier was built into Tony's armor, so it would be hard for someone, even Sue, to just switch it off. --SHODAN 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As was I - Hercules drops a tanker on Stark & the amplifier is turned off. [User:ChrisDV|ChrisDV]] 22:17, 22 September 2006 (GMT)
em.. no .. Reed seems to doing further mental programming on the CLone - you see that's he still alive after the probe has gone in. --Charlesknight 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shodan and ChrisDV - The idea that Sue Storm interfered with the audio device is nowhere mentioned or implied. It is pure speculation and unncessary. (And Charlesknight, I have no idea what you are referring to).

Civil War #4 Changes

As a result of the changes in Civil War #4, I have changed the lists, moving Nighthawk, Cable and Stature to the list of Unregistered heroes, because they abandonned the Secret Avengers, but have not registered, as of yet. I also put Black Goliath on the list of casualties and taken Wiccan from the Secret Avengers roster, although I see someone has already put him on the Aprrehended Opponent's list. I have not included referances, and it'd be nice if someone else wanted to, or at least put 'citation needed'. Atreyu1075 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, Cable did not leave the Anti-Registration side, since we know from Cable & Deadpool #31 he came back from the fight in which he saw a good man die. Therefore, Cable left the Anti-Registration to go pick up Deadpool and go to the White House to argue about the Fifty State Initiative, and at the end the President ask Deadpool (a.k.a., a government agent) to attack Cable (a.k.a., Secret Avenger). Nighthawk is somehow working for the Grandmaster anyway, and is probably a spy (but that's only speculation). Stature is the only one really abandoning her post. --142.167.151.10 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No More Speculation

Editing this article has been extremely difficult because of all of the speculation that has gone into it. Now we know that Thor is not Thor, despite a number of editors claiming they knew better before the issue came out. I'm not writing this to say, "I told you so," however; I just want this here as a record of this example for the next time someone wants to add something they don't actually know to the article, the next time someone wants to write about an issue (for instance, Heroes for Hire #1) that hasn't been distributed yet.

If you haven't read it, don't add it. It's that simple. We need to be able to verify it. Now that I am caught up on the story again, I am re-committing myself to deleting all uncited information that is added to this article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But were you deleting comments here on the talk page?69.221.32.164 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)MD[reply]
Doing a quick glance at the history of this talk page for the past two months User: ChrisGriswold has made no deletions to this page, only additions/replies. Just mentioning to put that line of conversation to rest so people can focus on the article.
Regarding the topic he brings up, I would agree that speculation has no real place in a wikipedia article. This is emphatically not a fansite, This article (like all wiki-articles) aspires to be the official encyclopedic entry regarding this work of popular fiction. As such, verifiable facts are the only items of interest. -Markeer 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage Control

Following the events of the most recent Wolverine, should there be a section in this article regarding Damage Control's orchestration of the Stamford event, their manipulations of government policy, or their subsequent profiteering from the event? ThuranX 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - my reading of that is that they supply Nitro with his drugs to increase the damage of his activities - that stamford got hit by that is a result of that - but that's different from an act of "orchestration". --Charlesknight 20:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. Walter Declun supplied Nitro with MGH for the explicit purpose of using his increased power to cause as much devestation as possible in an inhabited area. Even if Declun never specifically stated where to do it, which it's yet to be revealed if he did pick out Stamford, Declun knew full well that such devestation would only boost support for the Superhuman Registration Act, which itself generates tremendous revenue for the company, and to acquire the clean up contract for Stamford, generating even more revenue. Damage Control has basically orchestrated every event that's transpired in the Civil War storyline. That's a pretty important revelation, so yeah it definitely deserves a section. Odin's Beard 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Avengers

Where does the term come from? and what's secret about them? --Charlesknight 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the comics as the name of Captain America's rogue team of superdudes. One of the newspapers named them that. What's secret about them is their recipe. The secret ingredient is Danny Rand. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
shhhh! this is a secret! =D Bloodpack 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Changing Sides" section

Do we really need this? If someone changes a side, it's recorded in the synopsis and we just move the character name to the appropriate section on the lists after. Do we really need to record every change in its own section like that?164.107.218.14 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need that. It is more cruft. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need such a section, although to avoid confusion and reduce edit conflicts (oh, yeah, like people could ever reduce those in this article), you might need a parenthetical note like "(changed sides)" after the character's name. I wouldn't be keen on seeing it, but it might help. Maybe. Sorta. Kinda. And if so, it should be something even shorter than that. Doczilla 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-man HAS changed sides

Amazing Spider-man 535 is out, he said himself that he had made a mistake and was on the wrong side. He should be switched over to the the registered opponents side

pls sign your post with 4 tildes and yes, most probably, until we see the next issue, btw, cable left together with stature and nighthawk, how come hes still in the secret avengers list? Bloodpack 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cable didn't say he was leaving the Avengers. He also has a country to run. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Spider-Man #535 is not out yet. Until it is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the issue, and I'm sure more than a few others do as well. If Spider-man himself admitting that he was on the wrong side isn't "official" enough, I don't know what is. Odiin 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

errr, yeah still isnt official, hes speaking his thoughts, what would be official is when we all see steven mcniven draws a comic book panel with spidey already fighting along side with the secret avengers against the government, but yeah, itll probably happen Bloodpack 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Spider-Man #535 is not out yet. Until it is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem when dealing with a work of fiction is that nothing is definite "fact." At a certain point you HAVE to assume one thing or the other, or you simply couldn't write about it at all. Spider-man said he had been wrong all of this time, and then Iron Man attacked him, and called him a traitor, at this point it is safe to assume that Spider-man HAS switched sides, otherwise we can't say anyone is on any side. It's possible that Captian America is 100% for the registration act, and is only fighting against it to gather as many unregistered heroes as he can to turn in to the government, but we have to assume, based upon the things he's said and done, that this is not the case. Likewise I believe Spider-man trying to sneak off with Aunt May and Mary-Jane, telling them he was wrong all along, then Iron Man attacking him, is proof enough that Spider-man HAS switched sides. Odiin 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, you didnt say spiderman and iron man already had a conflict, if thats the case, then yes spiderman is officially screwed Bloodpack 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. We will not assume anything more in this article. See above. Until Spider-Man #535 is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thats what ive been telling this odin guy here, but he keeps on insisting and also, i read the synopsis for issue 4. someone put it saying its sue richards who stopped iron man's sonic weapon based on her previous actions. i enclosed it with a note in my edit but its reverted. isnt that also an assumption or one's personal POV?, stating that its sue, when in fact it should be left for the readers to decide. i feel its unencyclopedic Bloodpack 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WHY make ANY assumptions? WHY???????????? Just wait till we all have the opportunity to read the dadgum comic. What's your hurry, for Pete (Parker)'s sake? Doczilla 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about the synopsis format

ive been wondering, should we narrate each issue's synopsis by paragraph like what we have now (i.e. in civil war #1...in civil war #3...) or should it be as a "whole", compressing them all together into just one whole synopsis, summarizing the whole 1, 2, 3, and 4th issue into one? Bloodpack 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really ought to be condensed. After the event is over, this article will probably be a lot short than it is now. There's kind of a Doppler effect with these articles among editors: Every detail of a current comic seems so very important until after the series when it becomes obvious that those minor characters, etc. are minor. Current details appear to seem more important than old ones, or sections on Infinite Crisis and 52 wouldn't be as long or longer than the entire history of characters that have been around for 20 years (Booster Gold) or even 35 years (Elongated Man). --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for replying, i feel the summary for the 4th issue is still too long Bloodpack 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xavin Dead

Is it right to be listing Xavin as dead? We heard a crack, and the others speculate that Xav is dead, but we don't know anything for sure until they decide to bury him. It is my own speculation that he couldn't possibly be dead, with one of those reasons being his life continues on in the main storyline (although clearly not taking place at the same time). How should he be listed until he is confirmed, without a doubt, one way or another? What about "presumed dead"? --142.167.151.10 01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_War_(comics)&oldid=78445272"