Talk:Galactus

The article Taa_II was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 27 July 2008 with a consensus to merge the content into Galactus. If the merger is not completed promptly, Taa_II might be re-nominated for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

	Comics portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (publisher): Marvel Comics work group

Archives

Archive 1 (25 Feb. 2002 - 25 Jan. 2007)Archive 2 (25 Jan. 2007 - July 21. 2008)

[edit] WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FF48.jpg

The image Image:FF48.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Please discuss the changes proposed by Cameron Scott here. Asgardian (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note a lock of the article prior to the major changes may be required if this becomes heated. Asgardian (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is my position, I am removing the in-universe perspective from the article. If there is a good reason why this article should exist outside of policy and every single guideline we have - please list them here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To start, I would disagree with the contention that the article exists "outside of policy and every single guideline". That is ignoring all the good work done thus far. The article also requires sub-headings so that such a large mass of information is readable. Asgardian (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It will have sub-heads, I see looking at the Living Lighting article that the problems with this type of article have been explained to you in detail (Writing about fiction as if it is real), so I don't propose to waste my time explaining to you in detail what someone else already has. Once I have finished my re-write, please feel free to outline a) notable bits you think are missing and b) how you think they can be written about from the perspective of the real world. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Living Laser". Also, try and avoid being so confrontational. Comments such as "I don't propose to waste my time explaining to you in detail what someone else already has" aren't going to help if you want people to get on side with your edits. I note you were also quite sharp with someone here:

http://en.wikipedia.orgindex.php?title=User_talk%3AThuranX&diff=247827732&oldid=247825290

You can disagree with other users, but try to keep your six-guns holstered where possible.

Asgardian (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I find bluntness is better than fake politeness. Anyway, you can see where the article is going - is there any specific points that you think are going to be a) missing and b) can be covered in a style that satisfies the MOS and our policies on writing about fiction? The article had an additional problem is that it presents elements of his origins as always being present rather than being additions over the years (for example making claims about the content of his Thor appearances that were simply wrong), this has largely been removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on this but I'd hope it doesn't get "heated" and instead disagreements get talked through here first. I'm sure if everyone keeps these in mind we should be fine: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS.

Worth bearing in mind a couple of things while we are discussing this:

• Having subsections in the other version section is often very useful for linking to the relevant version - especially useful with Ultimate Marvel characters.

• This article needs a longer lead.

That should be enough to be getting on with. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

OK, someone reverted the page. This is not set in stone so there's no need to panic. I'm going to contact some other editors that have contributed to this page for opinions on the changes. I still think the page needs some work, but I'll hold off for now. Asgardian (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A mysterious IP editor... who'd have thunk it, "he" was already reverted by someone who wasn't me and also reverted back other editors who aren't me, so that's a no-no, rolling past other editors. So again - what's missing in the current article and can you write about it in a style that confirms to the MOS and our other policies on fiction. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I've added back the sub-titles that Emperor suggested (and added additional third party references that include quotations and creator intend, anyone want to have a go at the lead). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the sections are accurate. Almost all alternative versions are within the Marvel Multiverse - Ultimate Marvel is as much a part of it as Marvel Zombies, the Mangavese is Earth-2301 and even the DC Universe is included. So trying to make a distinction isn't going to work.

Also that is some good out-of-universe material on Ultimate Galactus - it'd be handy if it could be used and expanded on in Ultimate Galactus Trilogy. It was three separate entries (Ultimate Nightmare, Ultimate Secret and Ultimate Extinction and was merged but it still looks like an awfully thin article. I've grabbed a few bits from the pages and will drop them in. (Emperor (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

The good thing about modern comics is that creator's do such much pimping that we should be able to expand it quite a bit - I'll put it on the list :-). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. You can find interviews on most comics that you'd think meet notability, it just takes a little more effort to find it then hammering out 500 words retelling so minor plot point, but it is well worth it. (Emperor (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

What do you think of the current sub-headings for the alternative universe section? are those what you were thinking of? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is better - there are incoming links pointing to some of those sections and so that helps things work again. I'll need to check this but I think some of the versions in the DC crossovers were actually Galactus. Some, like the Amalgam Comics character Galactiac, were definitely other versions (there should be a section for the Amalgam Comics character - possibly that Galactiac article needs trimming down and merging with it, given the problems with Amalgam Comics characters in general). (Emperor (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

The article so far looks promising. That being said, there are editors of this article who have been regular contributors for quite sometime (myself since Sept 2006), Asgardian, Tenebrae, TheBalance, DCincarnate, and others-as such we must have a final consensus before any edition is finalized. I'm going to take this opportunity to address an issue that Asgardian mentioned in stressing that there's no place for curt statements. There are plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people on Wikipedia; don't affect an air of impatience or superiority but rather make your statements/arguments with logic and reason. Being conscise and being civil are not mutually exclusive.

Going forward, I see the FCB has completely been eliminated. While there has been some information migrated to the PH, there is still a large amount of information that needs to be reinserted. The method of inclusion into the article may have been in-universe style, but that by no means indicates that it should forgoe treatment entirely. As I've pointed out to other editors in the past, the purpose of these comic book-character-related wiki articles is to give a *comprehensive* article that answers the inquisitive party's questions. Obviously that does not mean inclusion of every plot-point or summary etc. However major characteristics should be kept-such as Galactus' role in the universe, his relation with other cosmic entities, his amoral nature...in short, there short be information on why exactly Galactus is "beyond reproach" as Jack Kirby intended, and mentioned.

Pertaining to the Powers and Abilities section...that is in-universe style, but frankly I did some preliminary research in attempting to overhaul the secion, and I have found that other model articles (Silver Surfer, Storm, Watchmen, etc.) are of the same style. These are the same articles that I referenced when I greatly expanded the PH along with help from Asgardian and Tenebrae, which I see you've largely kept in your subsequent edits. So I can be confident that those model articles I mentioned previously are an acceptable standard to look against.

Regarding images...I have plenty of Galactus images from his comic appearences (admittedly, most are from Secret Wars on). If there is a need to excise irrelevant images, so be it. However I don't think we should strip the article of too many. I have tried inserting relevant images to the article. There are others I could proffer here, and see if others would agree regarding their inclusion.

In closing the article is looking good, and combined with input and contributions from regular editors we should be able to pull this whole damn article up to excellent standards.

Galactus is one of the 3 most important characters in the entire Marvel Universe. Personally, I translate that to mean his entry should be no less important in the Marvel Comics articles in Wikipedia. Mobb One (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While there has been some information migrated to the PH, there is still a large amount of information that needs to be reinserted. The method of inclusion into the article may have been in-universe style, but that by no means indicates that it should forgoe treatment entirely.

Yes, yes it does. Plot summaries should be used in very very limited circumstances, the fictional history presented here (as in as the clean-up I did over at Ultron) was misleading in many instances, and simply wrong in many other, his origin in particular was a complete fuck-up mixing up decades of story like they all occurred in a linear fashion. If you want to write about something, we write about it in an out of universe fashion, with limited reference to primary sources and analysis and critique from third party reliable sources. That is what an encyclopaedia does, Just because areas like this (and Gundam) have been allowed to act like ghettos in the past doesn't mean we should carry on like that in the future. Look at the recent rating fiasco, most of our B-articles are actually C articles, so reliant are they on plot summary and primary sources. So what do we want? To carry on in our little ghetto, writing sub-standard articles or are we going to get to grips with the problem?

However major characteristics should be kept-such as Galactus' role in the universe, his relation with other cosmic entities, his amoral nature...in short, there short be information on why exactly Galactus is "beyond reproach" as Jack Kirby intended, and mentioned.

Which can and should be expanded from third party sources NOT primary because they are largely meaningless.

Pertaining to the Powers and Abilities section...that is in-universe style,but frankly I did some preliminary research in attempting to overhaul the secion, and I have found that other model articles (Silver Surfer, Storm, Watchmen, etc.) are of the same style.

Two of those articles needs a rewrite, Silver Surfer is particular poor. Watchmen which *is* a featured article (and of the standard we should be aiming at) doesn't even *have* a powers and abilities section - so draw your own conclusions from that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Silver Surfer-as well as a litany of others- is deemed a good article by WikiProject Comics, of which you apparently are a member. Either you hold some double standards or you're just imposing your own particular view on this article.

Regarding plot summaries, you are utterly incorrect. Plot summaries are not meant to be used in "very very limited circumstances." No, again you impose your own interpretation of this. WikiProject Comics clearly states here that plot elements are to be "concise summaries." You're telling me that they are to be used in "very limited circumstances" when even the word "limited" is not used in the entire passage. I tell you this now because I guarantee you you will turn this article into a complete shitshow if you end up imposing your personal views and dismissing all others as you did right there in your response to me.

You have eliminated the FCB. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars clearly provides guidelines for treatment of this stage. I am arguing for reinsertion of critical plot points that are not written in-universe style. You dismissed this outright claiming the complete fuck up of his origin. From a publication standpoint, yes it is. In the FCB the character's primary continuity history is discussed. Major plot points can easily be tied to the real world while still maintaining continuity history, which is what I was implying by contracting all of this into my one word of "treatment." I'll be more explicit in the future.

Lastly, you should have really opened these mass scale edits to discussion. This article is not yours alone. There are established contributors here and people who have unilaterally implemented massive edits have had their efforts refuted until consensus is attained. I have outlined what I disagree with. Other editors may wish to put their opinions here but as it stands my position is to put back the excised content and work on it from there.

You want to bring this out of the ghetto? You want to improve articles which you deem as shit? Fine. Don't presume to be the only one who knows how to contribute correctly. Mobb One (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says I'm the only one, other editors have worked on the article as well? If you want to add back plot points that 3rd party reliable sources mention as critical, then I'm not going to stop you, indeed, I couldn't stop you. However if you are going to select "critical" storylines based on primary sources, well that's simply original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to have a thorough look at the two versions, but I'll say up front that the P & A section is necessary. It can be written in an out of universe style, but this is one of the sections laymen certainly gravitate to. The only other thing I'd say now is for everyone to be careful with their language. We don't want to have to humour a formal process such as Request for Comment.

Asgardian (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On this: "most of our B-articles are actually C articles, so reliant are they on plot summary and primary sources." I have done a lot of the assessments recently and downgraded a lot of Bs to Cs (and one A) and it is rarely for those reasons. Part of the reason is because there was no C-class until recently so articles much better than a Start were being give B-class ratings but without actually applying the checklist. If the C-class had been available the majority would have been assessed as Cs all along. Equally the only bit of the B-class assessment that really touches on those issues is the part about covering the topic properly so articles without a Publication History would fail this. However, the area almost all former Bs failed on was referencing and this includes primary sources which are needed so we actually know what issue it was when something happened. It is perfectly possible to write a good B-class article which is largely plot and 95% of the sources are primary.

I suspect these areas become problematic when you push on beyond a B aiming for GA/A/FA and that is where the rewriting often starts (there are Bs that will either need a complete rewrite or, at the very least, a lot more work to go any higher). As I said on the Comics Project talk page when discussing FCBs, what you tend to see are is the improving articles expand their PH and the FCB is either absorbed or shrinks considerably, so the PH ends up looking at character development, the reasons behind changes, etc. as well as simply just what issues they were published in. However, these articles are also the most popular characters with long histories behind them and it would be impossible to cover all their plot in an article and the major stories will be covered in separate articles, so the plot will naturally become less of a focus. It may be as more articles get up to higher quality that we will see different patterns. Most of the high quality and high importance articles follow this pattern, the exception is Silver Surfer which is a GA. However, I suspect as that shoots for higher quality levels the plot is going to be trimmed back further. So it is a pattern and I can see why this occurs, it doesn't mean every article has to follow the same trajectory as they develop but I can see why this would happen and I'd personally prefer to read articles in an encyclopaedia which give me background information rather than just retelling the plot (as you read the comics for that). This article was one of the good Bs as the PH was expanding nicely with good background on character creation and development but it did need a rewrite to push it further, whether this rewrite is the right one is something we can discuss (again with a reminder to remain civil) but I think it is at least going in the right direction. As mentioned above it will need a longer lead which is worth keeping in mind as people go over the article. (Emperor (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Well here's a proposal - we sandbox the old "fictional History" and we rewrite it to a) make sure it does not duplicate the publication section and b) remove any use of in-universe tone. Then if we are happy with it, we merge the sandbox into the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for clarification, the Silver Surfer now seems to be a B article at best and should be listed for reassessment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Then go for it. I think the main place most B-class articles are going to run into trouble shooting for a GA assessment is in WP:WAF, which could be read to suggest we should include no in-universe material. Personally I think that some might be OK if need be but too much plot and you are going to struggle to get beyond a B. We should certainly think carefully before restoring large chunks of it because, as has been said, this is an important article and does deserve to go all the way. Given the characters high profile things I would like to see are more scholarly analysis and there do appear to be quite a few discussion on him [1]. I have access to a few of those journals and some of the books (like Holy Superheroes) can be read online and there looks to be plenty of fodder there. It is that kind of angle that I think is worth pursuing. Flesh out those kinds of angles and the sky is the limit. (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't have many problems with the new changes. Readability has been diminished a bit, perhaps better organized sub-headings and some minor rewording will help. Most of the important information has survived the changes. TheBalance (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edits today

I'd hate to be opening up a can of worms or wading into something that seems contentious, so I'm explaining my edits here in the hopes we can have discussion before any major changes or reversions are made.

Couple of technical things: Quotes aren't italicized. They're simply put in quote marks. Book titles, movie titles, comic-book series titles are italicized; story titles and story-arc titles are in quote marks. Also, we don't use the definite article "The" in subheads, unless it's part of a formal proper noun (The Grapes of Wrath). And if a section is just one paragraph, creating a "stub section," we can combine it with another section until the integrated part grows larger.

I've added a couple of identifying phrases as to who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby are, for general-audience, non-comics readers, and what Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer are.

Finally, I've removed a few sentences of detailed character history, such as the name of the first planet Galactus ate, from the PH. This is in-universe biographical material that should be in the FCB.

One additional point which maybe we can address later: The PH relies I think overmuch on Kirby's recollections, which are meandering and not always supported by other evidence; it's also a bit muddled — the Silver Surfer wasn't a fallen angel in the generally accepted sense of that term (e.g. Lucifer). But all that's a much more complicated edit, and I'm hoping the edits I've made will be seen as non-controversial. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, there are a number of spelling and grammatical errors, which I am ironing out. When the sentence structure is right, we can then take a step back and run a critical eye over the article once again.

Asgardian (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)