This page was proposed for deletion by Avilich ( talk · contribs) on 26 December 2021.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

While the purpose for the original revert was that "in some of the spin-offs the name "War Machine" is never used, and some of those do not put the character in armor", that's not the case when it comes to the majority of the spinoffs. The majority of the character's appearances in other media has the character listed and credited as either War Machine or as both War Machine and James Rhodes/Rhodey more than just James Rhodes by himself or "Rhodes in the War Machine armor". TV, video games, toys, etc. While the character of Rhodes was around in comics before he became War Machine and he's been shown out of armor, War Machine is the character's superhero name just like Iron Man is Tony Stark's superhero name (and with Stark appearances out of armor still being synonymous with Iron Man). Stormshadows00 ( talk) 17:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I have to agree. There's only one or two instances of the character showing up sans the War Machine name and armor, which doesn't really justify the move. There's a reason the character's main article is called "War Machine" and it seems the same should apply here. - Fandraltastic ( talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Exactly. Clear case of WP:UCN. Including each and every reference listed so far (video games/toys/movies/television), it's double digit instances of the character being officially credited and acknowledged as War Machine versus single digit instances of the character Rhodes not in armor (Two movies, an animated series, a Sega video game, and two Marvel Minimates toys) and Rhodes with armor but no acknowledgment of the War Machine name (Iron Man 2 and Superhero Squad TV episode). And even the latter is slim as Iron Man 2's own cast, filmmakers, website, and other media based on the film acknowledge the character as "War Machine" despite the film not mentioning War Machine by name (but indeed acknowledging the armor's comic book name as the VTR Battle Suit). Same with Superhero Squad as War Machine is credited in other Superhero Squad media. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 14:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

There was an OR tag in the X-Men section before revert about War Machine's appearance in the X-Men animated series. How is it original research when it's clearly War Machine in those episodes?
From "Time Fugitives"
From "Child Of Light"
There is no mistaking who that is supposed to be. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Then there should be a reliable source from it other than "Any fan can see...". - J Greb ( talk) 00:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not "any fan can see" when being a "fan" isn't even the issue here. A person who has seen Marvel character art can point out a cameo appearance of the Marvel character on a Marvel series and that has nothing to do with being a "fan". Marvel characters did show up in the X-Men animated series along with other Marvel series. Just like the cameo appearances of DC characters in some of their respective programs. And Larry Houston, X-Men's producer/director, has stated on record at his own website that he was responsible for all the unscripted cameos of Marvel characters in X-Men. This is clearly the case here and the screenshots clearly shows the intended character. As others pointed out as well. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 03:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

If it relies on the viewer recognizing the character, then it is reliant on fan knowledge.

It's nice Mr Huston states he is responsible for peppering the episodes with uncredited cameos of Marvel characters. Unfortunatly he dosn't provide any detailes beyond that. It, again, leavs it up to fans to ID the characters based on their knowledge of Marvel characters.

Toon Zones forum isn't a reliable source, sorry.

And hammering a fan site three times for the same point is pedantic. It's a fan site, and not a particularly good one.

Without a good reference that it is supposed to be the AoA War Machine/Rhodes, it still falls to an editor here presenting an assumption.

- J Greb ( talk) 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

If the viewer recognizes the character, it is not solely "fan knowledge" because you don't have to be a "fan" of a character to know who or what the character is. That's like saying I have to have fan knowledge of apples to know what an apple looks like. The point is that Houston, a creator of the very show, said "I used all my Marvel Comics trivia and knowledge to create all the unscripted cameos fans saw throughout the series". It doesn't matter if he didn't give individual stats on each cameo because he's saying plain as day that he was behind all of them and where they came from in a pretty direct and valid statement. Based on that, other statements by Houston on using his knowledge of Marvel Comics for the series, and comments by other people behind the scenes like Frank Squillace on how they used the comic books directly for the series, there is no way that Houston would make a statement like that without something tangible behind it. What I said was that the sites listed clearly showed that Marvel characters did have cameos in the X-Men series via the actual screenshots, not original research, from the series themselves (regardless of personal opinion of the "quality" of said site. And main toonzone.net sites have been used as references on Wikipedia before. The example was the pictures anyway). They clearly back up Houston's statements of these cameos being in the series and they are not "fan assumed characters" by a longshot. I'm siding with the creator on this one.

I didn't say anything about the character being "AoA War Machine/Rhodes". It's clearly the mainstream version in the animated series' continuity (Especially when the episodes he was in didn't have anything to do with the Age Of Apocalypse whatsoever and War Machine wasn't in AoA). It's two unscripted cameos of War Machine complete with the character's distinct design and likeness. There's no mistaking who it's supposed to be and it's not based solely on "fan knowledge". I can see a picture of War Machine, I can see the cameo, and it's clear who it is and it wouldn't be a "fan assumption" based on the very art itself and Houston's comment (especially since it's a Marvel Comics show on Marvel Comics characters). Just like the Spider-Man cameo in the same episode War Machine was in. Just like all the other cameos made in various Marvel animated series. Just like the cameos in the Justice League animated series. So all those cameos that are uncredited/unscripted and even listed on the main animated series articles are "original research" by default? No. Just like references to characters made in words, pictures are just as valid. The creators knew what they were doing when they designed the series and added them in the storyboards and plot. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

1st, sorry about the AoA slip... don;t know how that got in there.

2nd - "I can see a picture of War Machine, I can see the cameo, and it's clear who it is and it wouldn't be a "fan assumption" based on the very art itself and Houston's comment (especially since it's a Marvel Comics show on Marvel Comics characters)." - That is by definition original research. You, as an editor, are taking two items, neither of which specifically say "War Machine appeare in episode 'Foo'", drawing a conclusion, and treating the conclusion as sourced.

3rd, pointing to problems/deficencies in othe article doesn't justify the issue here.

- J Greb ( talk) 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

1. Original research, BY DEFINITION, "refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources.". You mean to tell me that the direct source, Larry Houston's own statement (SAYING that the characters shown in the Marvel Comics production are the characters they are intended to be and that he is responsible for the inclusion) and the show itself (with proof of who these characters are), are wrong and that is not War Machine at all in the unscripted cameo? And that applies for all the cameos shown in X-Men? I'm sorry, but that is bogus when it's clear who that character is and the intent for the inclusion is STATED by the very creator of said show. Not an "alleged statement" or "original research". War Machine is very much included in "Marvel Comics trivia and knowledge to create all the unscripted cameos" and that's no denying that the character in both episodes are War Machine's very design. I guess that the same episode with Sunfire isn't Sunfire but "some guy" and Houston's statement doesn't apply at all? Or Captain Britain's cameo? Or even Spider-Man's own cameo? Or Black Panther's cameo? Or Deadpool's cameo? Or the AoA characters? I can't believe this is even considered an argument.

2. What you quoted was not "the definition of original research". You forgot a BIG key thing in what I said: "There's no mistaking who it's supposed to be and it's not based solely on "fan knowledge".". I said what you quoted as an example of how a non-fan would know who the character is because you're the one that said it required fan knowledge to know who the characters are. And that is not true by any means. A person who isn't a fan looking at the art from Marvel, the series by Marvel, and pointing the character out would not be "fan knowledge". And a creator saying that it's intentional is not "original research".

3. There are no "problems/deficiencies" when the subject is verified by the creators. It's a big difference when a creator flat out says "there's no cameos" versus "all cameos are there and intentional". I can't believe that it's "forget the creator, he's not a detailed source" and "it's just bad fansites saying it, toonzone.net with their articles on Marvel Animation doesn't count as a source, that site with the pictures from the actual show don't prove anything, etc.". And any other page like TV.com, review sites, etc. are all "fan knowledge", right? Stormshadows00 ( talk) 00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Bluntly:

• Provide a reliable source that states in text that it's War Machine. You haven't.
• The cite you provided boils down to "I'm responsible for the cameos." That's all. It doesn't provide anything to help identify the characters.
• WP:SYNTH

Now, do you have anything other than "I know it's War Machine by sight. Others will as well."?

- J Greb ( talk) 01:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

1. "You haven't"? Sorry, but that site [1] that you dismissed as a "bad fansite"? DRG4 not only has the pictures, stated in text that it's War Machine, and an acknowledgment that Larry Houston was responsible for the cameos listed on those pages (before Larry's own site was made with his acknowledgment of the same thing), but it has interviews with its creators, storyboards, production history, AND it is credited as a reliable source in the main X-Men Wikipedia articles as well as MAJORITY of the Marvel Animated Series Wikipedia articles with reviews and pictures used as well. I did provide a reliable source and your personal opinion that it is a "bad fansite" (and didn't state how it is "bad") does not make it a bad reference as stated in WP:IRS. So it can be used as a reference as the page does indeed have reliable information in it pertaining to the article.

2. Toonzone.net, an animation site which has a Marvel subpage.....you claimed was a "not a reliable source" when it is also been used as a reliable source in animation Wikipedia articles MANY a time. Marvel Animated Universe. DC Animated Universe. The aforementioned in this article and other animation pages. And interviews and special articles on Toonzone are indeed published on their forum as well as their main page. So again, that is wrong. Both main site and feature shown above mentioned the War Machine cameo.

3. TV.com, also credits War Machine in cameo as well.

4. "Combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". DRG4, a source, STATED the Houston acknowledgment that all the cameos listed, including War Machine, were created by Larry Houston. Larry Houston's site also has the same acknowledgment that he was responsible, using "ALL the characters" instead of listing each cameo one by one. The main point is that the character was included in the cameo list DRG and toonzone stated and that DRG4 (both cameo and acknowledgment), Houston's site (acknowledgment of ALL cameos) AND Toonzone.net (acknowledgment of cameo appearance) point in that direction. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

1. DRG4 is a FAN SITE. Can you show a DISCUSION where it has been up held as a reliable source, or are you working from "It hasn't been challenged, so it's OK"?
2. FORUMS POSTS are not reliable or verifiable sources. Do the article pages for the 2 episodes on TZ identify in the text War Machine? That would be good source/
3. TV.com, at this point, is fine as an external link. But as a database editable by enyone it is NOT a reliable source.
4. AGAIN Houston's stament identifies by name ZERO - nada, none, nil, zip, 0 - characters. It is him taking responsiblity, or flack, for how much of the Marvel Univers wound up in the shows.

I really hate to yell like that but you are stubornly not looking at the posts and insisting on using a wall of text to thum your points. Look at exactly the problems that are pointed out and see if you can find better sources.

- J Greb ( talk) 23:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Stormshadows00 and this whole argement of whether or not that's War Machine is pretty ridiculous. I've seen MANY cameos of heroes or villians not mentioned by name on shows from X-Men to Justice League Unlimited, some of which I wasn't familiar with the character, and pretty much all of them were mentioned on that particular hero or villian's wiki page. They don't stick these cameos in for people who are not familiar with these characters, but rather those who are, that's probably why they don't feel like they need to mention them by name. And never have I seen someone who's familiar with the character say that's not that character and on top of that remove pretty much all appearances of the character from shows that don't focus on the character's universe (in this case all non-Iron Man focued shows). So since J Greb is being stubborn, how about a compromise. We mention these cameos and say that it "resembles" War Machine. - Magic-Man ( talk) 06:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.213.73 ( talk) reply

Major points/issues (please do not break the formatting by replying after a specific bullet, comment at the end):

• Scope: As has been hashed out before, IIRC, this article is limited to the appearances of the character James Rhodes/War Machine outside of comic books. This is reinforced by the lead section - either version of the lead section. Inclusion of "alternate versions" - characters that are not the James Rhodes character but are referred to as "War Machine" in other media stories do not fall under that scope.
• Masking edits: Reverting or changing multiple items which in no way, shape, or form are mentioned in the edit summary is an attempt to mask what is being changed. So is not providing an edit summary. Edits can be broken down so that a clear reason for the change(s) can be provided. Note that some editing functions can be summed up in one or two words even if the cover multiple changes. Examples of this include: adding multiple maintenance tags (Tagged; Tagging), fixing multiple typos or spelling mistakes (Typo(s); Spelling; Spellcheck), correcting tone or word usage (Copyedit).

Issues at this point:

• Infobox: The infobox fields have specific uses and really shouldn't be pushed beyond them.
  • First appearance:
    • Unlike the infobox for a comics character, this is intended to be limited to the character actual first appearance. In this respect only " Iron Man #118 (January 1979)" is appropriate. When the character was first called "Iron Man" or "War Machine" is not relevant to this article.
    • The MoS for citing a publication's cover date in a situation like this is to use the full month, not an abbreviation.
    • The template is also set up to include an acceptable link to the 'Year in comics article for that first appearance.
    • Media titles (video, films, tv, etc) are intended to be non-inclusive examples of the character's usage in those media. Generally these are limited by:
      • Number: Between 3 and 5 examples.
      • Focus: Using examples where the character is a primary or major focus. With video games this would be where the character is a playable character.
      • Series: In cases where 4 or more examples exist for a particular media, only the first in a particular series should be applied. In this case, if 4 or more movies exist with Rhodes/War Machine as a major character, the Iron Man 2 and the potential Iron Man 3 films would not be listed.
• Lead section:
  • First off, the character is commonly known as either "James Rhodes" or "War Machine". Since this is an element in multiple works of fiction, inclusion of a rarely, if ever, used middle name is improper. If this were the biography of a real person, living or dead, then noting the full name in the lead would be correct as per the MoS for such biographies. That MoS, as per discussions there, does not apply to characters in fiction. (Slight tangent: Yes, this means that War Machine and most other comics character articles are in error. That error does not justify doing it wrong here. War Machine really should be corrected to remove "Rupert" from the lead, cite when/where it was added in the infobox, and mention in the "Publication history" when it was added and by whom.)
  • Iron Man is a singular comic book title and is at odds with the characters usage in the comics. The character has been used by Marvel in various comics either directly featuring or closely related to Iron Man. The lead should reflect that distinction.
• Body of the article (television and film sections)
  • Tense:
    • Real world events that happened in the past are written of using the past tense. So "The actor reprised a role from 1994 television show in 1997."
    • Events told in an in-story tone, such as a plot summary, are written in the present tense.
  • Consistency: If the information from sub-section to sub-section covers similar ground, the presentation should be consistent. The information should also be clearly presented. "from/for the animated series The Show Title" is clear; "from for The Show Title animated series" isn't as clear and is a bit clumsy. That said, "For the episode 'Story Title' from the first season of the animated series The Show Title, the character appeared voiced by actor A." is also awkward. "The character appeared in the episode 'Story Title' from the first season of the animated series The Show Title voiced by actor A." would be cleaner.
  • Plot summaries: This is not the place to provide full or colorful summaries of the individual episodes, films, or series. They should be kept as short as is reasonable to cover the ground of how the character was involved or portrayed in the story.
  • Assumptions: Just because an editor recognizes something in a work of fiction as looking or sounding like something from another work of fiction does not make them the same thing. Without a clear, citable, verifiable reference from a reliable, third party source that A from work 1 is indeed B from work 2, it is original research to present such a claim in a Wikipedia article.
  • Ultimate Avengers 2: This falls under both "Scope" from the top and "Assumptions". The character appearing in the film is not Rhodes. Period. This section may be appropriate to include under War Machine#Other versions (in an IoM sub-section), Iron Man in other media, or Alternate versions of Iron Man (again in an IoM section).
  • Iron Man and Iron Man 2: The general consensus about writing about the content of the films is that if a name does not appear in the film or in the credits, it isn't used in plot summaries or describing the film content. This does not mean phrases pulled from interviews or similar that amount to "We had War Machine concept art done" or "We gave a nod to War Machine" cannot be used. But it does mean that "The War Machine armor was featured in the film..." is wrong.
• Lists (video games and toys)
  • Tense: While the MoS used by WP:VG is clear that the present tense be used for existent video games, it also notes that events around the marketing and development of the games should be treated as other past events. ie An actor provided the voice for a character in a game released in 2009, not that they are currently providing the voice for the character. It seems reasonable to extend this to toys as well.
  • Game minutia: The list should provide a general outline of how the character was adapted and used in the video game. Detailed lists of the characters moves should be at the appropriate game article. If they were removed from there under WP:NOTGUIDE, they likely should not be here either.
  • Consistency is also (looking at the toy list) something that needs to also be applied here.
  • Jargon: Remember that this article is aimed at a general audience and they may not understand terms used by small groups of collectors or professionals.

- J Greb ( talk) 18:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

First of all, the War Machine armor is synonymous with the War Machine character just as the Iron Man armor is synonymous with the Iron Man character. A note that the armor primarily associated with Rhodes and his superhero identity is in that film does not shift the page away from the scope and that armor is not primarily associated with Tony Stark. It's another version of War Machine armor in other media. Of course that could be placed in the in other media section.

One of many holes in your explanations is while you said "With video games this would be where the character is a playable character." and "In cases where 4 or more examples exist for a particular media, only the first in a particular series should be applied.", you removed the video game in which 1. it's the FIRST time that the character appeared in that media and 2. IS playable. Marvel Vs. Capcom. He's not even playable in the game "Iron Man" at all! Yet you kept it there in the infobox which goes against your explanation. More mistakes in your explanation is that "Iron Man is a singular comic book title and is at odds with the characters usage in the comics. The character has been used by Marvel in various comics either directly featuring or closely related to Iron Man. The lead should reflect that distinction." That is completely wrong. The character was originally introduced as James "Rhodey" Rhodes, a supporting character, in Iron Man in 1979. And he was the superhero Iron Man, not "Rhodes in the Iron Man suit", and the lead of the Iron Man comic from 1983 to 1985. But he's been the superhero War Machine and synonymous with War Machine for more than a decade now. He had four Marvel comic titles under the name of War Machine with himself as the lead and unrelated to Iron Man. Over six ensemble comic book titles as War Machine. Cameos as War Machine or storyline referencing War Machine. Featured in the Iron Manuals (and the 2010 Iron Manual) and other Marvel encyclopedic books as War Machine. And now? In two ensemble titles as War Machine and yet another upcoming series as War Machine. Don't have to be a "fan" to actually research that.

And in other media? Without your "James Rhodes in the War Machine suit" edits and looking at fact from the actual media itself, it's three animated series appearances as War Machine including his first appearance with a fourth series using the War Machine name, one film in which the armor's technical name from the comic is used in the film itself instead of the "War Machine" name save for a comment, seven video games, twenty three plus toys including six additional SHS toys as War Machine, and the aforementioned film's official website and spinoff media using the NAME "War Machine". Versus one animated series appearance in which there's no War Machine name or reference, another animated series appearance with with the black and white armor but called "Rhodey", two films with one nod to the character (What do you think "tip of the hat" means? It means "A gesture of acknowledgment" in the dictionary. Same definition as "nod".), one video game as a non-playable character, and just two toys as James Rhodes/Rhodey. And the lone exception of Rhodes not being either just War Machine or Jim Rhodes is a toy of Rhodes as Iron Man.

While you're stating MOS, look at naming conventions in Wikipedia especially where it pertains to comic characters. This article is "War Machine in other media" based on the character War Machine and his civilian identity James Rhodes and WP:UCN clearly states that the character by primary name is the one that is used. Reflected by the main article, reflected by his appearances in media, and reflected by MARVEL COMICS themselves, "War Machine" is that primary common name more than "James Rhodes" and that is exact same reasoning why this article is NAMED "War Machine in other media" and not "James Rhodes in other media". When Fandraltastic made the separate article, you have made edits removing or reducing the emphasis of the War Machine name that doesn't even reflect the actual media that the character was in along with a title change. You still make edits to make it a "James Rhodes in other media" page evident by the same lead and editing out facts/references or put lesser emphasis on the fact that this character is known as War Machine by superhero identity in the majority of appearances including where the character is actually credited as that name in the very media you are writing about. You don't have to be a "fan" to actually do the research by looking at the media itself, looking at the production credits, and seeing who the character is credited as. It's not "As Spider Man, Peter Parker appeared...." or "Tobey Maguire starred as Peter Parker in the Spider-Man suit". It's superhero name name and civilian identity reflected in credits and reflected in the media itself in which the superhero name appears and is acknowledged. On several of your edits, actual end credits state "War Machine" in plain text. Just like "Iron Man" is credited. Even the opening of Iron Man animated has War Machine by name! The original changed lead actually reflected both superhero identity and civilian identity as the focus of the article is on both as Iron Man and Tony Stark are both the focus of Iron Man in other media.

And as far as plot summaries go, it's not "colorful summaries" on the page. It 1. explains the story and 2. notes on the character in that media. And as far as consistency, you don't even look at the media you're editing about. I put up a PICTURE of the Secret Wars 2-pack packaging clearly showing the name "Iron Man" and toy and you edited once again to "War Machine". Not a single package there lists that item as "War Machine". I corrected the Ultimate Alliance section based on the fact that War Machine didn't function the same as X-Men Legends II War Machine and again, you edited it with a statement that is false. And this "The list should provide a general outline of how the character was adapted and used in the video game. Detailed lists of the characters moves should be at the appropriate game article."? Previous edit SHOWED how the character was adapted and what was changed in MvsC. And as a video game CHARACTER, character moves that show the distinction between said character and Iron Man character he was palette swapped from can be added in a brief description.

Your "general consensus" in the Iron Man 2 film article has to to with the film itself. And in that film, the technical name of the War Machine armor, the actual name of the armor from the comics media it came from, is used and spoken. Where do you even think "Variable Threat Response Battle Suit" came from? Regardless of what Rhodes is called in the film, the armor's technical name acknowledges what that armor is in that media and that is verifiable. That armor is indeed "the War Machine armor" and it's not "editor assumption" or anything you stated up there. It's not "visually based on the War Machine armor" when a technical name is used. Not "visually based on a Cadillac" if the Cadillac model name is used in a film. Not "visually based on a lion" if the name "Panthera leo" is used. This is not a "Kid Omega vs. Quill" debate with two unrelated characters when the filmmaker actually states who the character is along with something actually said in the film giving filmmaker's statement credence (and it came from reliable sources). That should be stated on the page and it's ridiculous to ignore that while the character isn't called by name in the film, the filmmakers themselves and official media states that the character is an incarnation of "War Machine" with name used with verifiable sources (how is actual interview from filmmaker's mouth NOT reliable cite?). It's "respect the filmmakers wishes" yet ignoring the filmmaker who actually worked on the film making statement on the film he worked on with an actual reliable source? Or things actually stated in the film? That's hypocritical.

Now to "masking edits" and "masked changes".....let's once again use fact here. Fact: Wikipedia has a set limit on edit explanations regardless if it's extensive or not. Fact: Some people fill it out, some people run out of room, and some people don't fill out explanation. And even you haven't filled out edit explanations on edits before. So I'm "masking edits"? Yeah right. Try "running out of room to type the entire detailed edit description before the cutoff point". Actually look at the edit. Putting War Machine name back to where it's actually credited IS consistent with my "roles credited as War Machine isn't "Rhodes in the WM suit" explanation despite running out of room. Editors make corrections and additional edits on the fly be it long or not and that is not "massive masked changes". First it's insinuating dubious means when I never moved a page in my life and moved it using a method that's not used on Wikipedia anymore, now this? What's next? I'm "masking references" by forgetting to put the article name with the link? There's a big difference between someone actually working on the page vs. someone using means to push a POV. While you tried to reference my history with an editor claiming similar mess in my talk page, not once did you even look at the edits. Nothing vandalizing. FACTUAL. Followed pillars. Worked with editors. Actually fixed vandalized pages. Corrections based on the subject and refs themselves. And in case you didn't know, about a good # of sources on pages came from me actually researching via book, printed media, website, media and adding RELIABLE cites for a page relating to what was found in said research. Oh but I guess that's "WP:OWN", right?

I'm officially seeking an third opinion on this since it's obvious what is going on here. " War Machine in other media by name, James Rhodes in other media by content" instead of "superhero identity and civilian identity focus". And that is not reflecting the page's purpose at all. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm going to start with the broadest point first, the "War Machine in other media by name, James Rhodes in other media by content". This article was forked off of War Machine, which in tone only covers Rhodes and covers the character getting the armor and taking the name "War Machine". That carries over to this articles - the focus is the character of James Rhodes/War Machine. If the focus is solely the character War Machine based on the name use and/or armor fairly good chunks of the article - the bulk of Armored Adventures the first film - get removed since those do not deal with that limited focus. Also, the first appearance and the lead section would need to be re worked with that regard. And before invoking examples like Spider-Man or even Iron Man, keep in mind that this character was not "War Machine (James Rhodes)" at day one. That's something that happened over the course of years and an idea that has been incorporated into a few of the adaptations covered by this article.

Now as for the other points:

• Infobox and video games: Read the full points, please.
  • "[A] primary or major focus" should be the benchmark, and generally with video games that also means the character is playable. In Marvel vs Capcom games it's debatable if any individual character is "a primary or major focus" of the game, even the top list one like Spider-Man, Captain America, Ryu, or Chun-Li.
  • "[T]he first in a particular series" is pretty straight forward - the first instilment in a film series, a video game series, a book series, etc. No the first appearance in a particular media.
  • And you are correct, Iron Man should have been pulled from the video game section as well. Good catch.
• The lead section:
  • The rub I was pointing to, and which you quote, was about the phrase "Appearing in the Iron Man comic books since 1979..." And it stands: Iron Man, the comic book, has only had three volumes covering 434 issues. There have been multiple titles published by Marvel that are related to Iron Man as a character or franchise - including the two War Machine runs. Rhodes, as a "normal person" and under various code names has appeared across multiple titles related to Iron Man, not just in a portion of those 434 issues. It's also worth keeping in mind that the adaptations are either as part of the Marvel Universe in general or as part of the Iron Man franchise.
  • You may have a point about how the lead is kicked off, "War Machine" should appear closer to the start of the section.
• Television shows: Point taken about the start of those. The Iron Man one should be "War Machine appeared..." with "James Rhodes" being mentioned for the out of armor arc. And The Super Hero Squad Show should simply be "Rhodes appeared in..." since the "War Machine" name is not used in the show.
• Plot summaries:
  • They should be kept short. Period. Keep what absolutely needs to be there for clarity, remove the rest. With respect to this article, including one off asides about other characters, starting to go into detail about fight scenes, or detailing each scene change isn't necessary.
  • They should be grounded with real world context. And in some cases this shortens the in story material needed.
  • When an in-story perspective is use - the ever present now - the information is limited by what is in that work. If the character never dons a particular suit/costume/armor or is never called by a specific codename, That information does not get added into the plot summary. It can be noted as real world context, but not to the point where it re-works the in-story information. Bluntly: In-story sections of Iron Man 2 are about a suit of armor, at best the VTRBS. (Though you raise an interesting question on that one...) The character is not credited as "War Machine", so there is nothing within the work itself to imply this as a name for the character. Interviews with the director have him referring to the character as "War Machine”, which is real world context but does not carry into the story itself. The toys marketed for the film are labeled "War Machine", and is separate from the information within the film itself.
• Quotes: Frankly "tip of the hat" is a direct quote from the reference cited. And the only explicit thing mentioned is the closing credits. It seemed reasonable to use a quote there rather than rephrase.
• Video games:
  • I'll repeat: This is not a game guide. If the list of moves/powers/attacks a video game character can make is not allowable in an article on the game, and AFAIK it generally isn't, it isn't acceptable here.
  • By all appearances, the use of War Machine in Rise of Apocalypse and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is identical. The character design is used as an alternate costume for the playable Iron Man character and if all 4 characters in the party are using alternate costumes in that themed group, each character gets some sort of "bonus".
• Toys: What picture of the "Secret Wars 25th Anniversary"? So far no image has be added to the toy section nor has any reference to that particular product been provided. Can you point to one?

Second to last thing, that question I mentioned. Are you implying/stating that "Variable Threat Response Battle Suit" was not used, mentioned, implied in the film? That it is something an editor included in good faith to cross link the armor in the film to the armor in the comics?

And lastly, masked edits... and thank you for quickly providing an example - look at the edit. Bluntly: If you cannot fit your explanation into the edit summary in a way that properly covers you changes either:

1. Break up you edit so that you can provide proper summaries., or
2. Do similar to what I did on the 12th - create a section on the talk page, succinctly explain the changes there, and link to it in the edit summary.

This is courtesy - showing other editors that you believe they should be able to understand what you've changed and why. That there is a reason for it not just your whim. And, based on the example you pointed to, to show that you are not just reverting to the version of the article you like because you like it. That example does read as an explanation of a small section with the rest falling under "this version is better" or "and all the other changes are irrelevant or crap."

And please, do not equate misleading, incomplete, or missing edit summaries with unsubstantiated claims in the article text. Those are two entirely different things. One falls under good faith editing, the other discourteous editing, at best.

- J Greb ( talk) 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Last time I checked, do not misrepresent people and be precise in quoting someone is a Wikipedia policy in regards to talk pages. Insinuating and twisting edits/actions into something they are not isn't "courtesy" by any means. "Discourteous editing" is coming with "masked edits" accusation based on what you "read" to color my edits as dubious instead of looking at what was actually said and done. And with what you did on the 12th and your instructing me on discussion of edits, I'm the one who brought issues regarding the page to this talk page and discussed edits long before you did. Issue of you changing the article name which you didn't discuss at all, edits on the page in which you changed content in which you didn't discuss at all. So please don't insult my intelligence by acting like I don't discuss issues on the talk page or never did that before in tandem with edits.

"And, based on the example you pointed to, to show that you are not just reverting to the version of the article you like because you like it. That example does read as an explanation of a small section with the rest falling under "this version is better" or "and all the other changes are irrelevant or crap."

And you're misrepresenting edits once again. THIS was my edit summary.

"1. Favreau himself said that IM scenes were nods to War Machine in interview. 2. Roles credited as War Machine isn't "Rhodes in the WM suit" 3. UA2 has the WM armor and article includes it."

As far as me "looking" at my own edit, the edits clearly backs that statement up. Corrections on where War Machine is actually credited in the very series the name was in. Favreau statement put back with addition of cite via the interview where that statement came from. Now additional edits included CORRECTED Marvel: Ultimate Alliance information as stated above, CORRECTED toy information as stated above. And the edits made reflected what was said in this very talk page and in the 15+ edit summaries after you deleted and reverted back to your edits. And other additional edits, the majority of edits, were clearly based on #2. So you can stop twisting my edits into what you "read" based on things that I never stated, said or implied. It's so funny when all you have done is revert to what YOU like and pick/choose things from the previous edits instead of actually looking at the content or even the edit summaries themselves. All this talk about "massive masked edits" when you don't even read them because all those "pictures I never showed"? "Explanations"? Right there. IN THE EDIT SUMMARIES. All consistent with edits. All consistent with corrections. And consistent with the edits you claim were "masked". And what did you do? Reverted back to your edits right down to your typos and your wording. And again, you started bad faith accusation instead of actually looking at what was actually done.

Now let's run this one more time.

"Superhero identity and civilian identity focus" = "focus on the superhero character War Machine and his civilian identity/alter ego of James Rhodes"

"Superhero identity and civilian identity focus" = "focus on the superhero character Iron Man and his civilian identity/alter ego of Tony Stark"

Of course I know that this article was forked from the original. I'm the one who said that all the way up there in this talk page and I actually worked on content for the original page. The original article acknowledges the character as War Machine and is CALLED by superhero name in the article in tandem with his identity just as Spider-Man and Peter Parker are used, Iron Man and Tony Stark are used, etc. "Rhodes eventually kept the armor and later adopted the name of War Machine". "Rhodes once again becomes War Machine" And in that article, it is NOT "Rhodes in the War Machine armor" in the main article or eliminating references to character being known as War Machine like you have in edits on this page. There's a big difference between that and making it into a "James Rhodes in other media" page and while you stated that you reverted based on what Fandraltastic stated, your content edits don't reflect that at all. It doesn't matter if he was introduced as a supporting character first when he's been the superhero War Machine for over a decade now and he is War Machine right now. More than the three year stint as Iron Man in the 80's, the only other superhero identity that he was ever known as. The War Machine runs had nothing to do Iron Man when the focus was solely on Rhodes and only Rhodes. If you actually read them before and did the research, it was his own series, his own supporting characters, his own villains. His own series completely unrelated to Iron Man. Had nothing to do with Iron Man save for crossover. Iron Man wasn't even a focus in many of the ensemble books War Machine starred in and that can be proven easily. I actually read the entire run of these series to ADD content to the original page. So your lead is misleading. The fact that he's a superhero in his own right should be there along with the fact that he started as an Iron Man supporting character and was featured in the Iron Man book. As a lead for War Machine/James Rhodes and not as a lead for a "James Rhodes in other media" page.

If the character is credited as War Machine as the superhero name in a certain media via plot or actual credits, then that name is acknowledged and recognized in the article in which the character is actually known as War Machine and his secret identity. Not "James Rhodes in the War Machine armor" like your previous edits. As the superhero "War Machine" and then "James Rhodes" as civilian identity. THAT is actually reflected in the main article. The same way as all other superhero in other media pages from Batman to Spider-Man. If he's acknowledged as just Rhodes in a TV series with no superhero identity, then that is the focus on the section it pertains to. Plain and simple.

And what in the world @ "Are you implying/stating that "Variable Threat Response Battle Suit" was not used, mentioned, implied in the film?". I said and I quote: "And in that film, the technical name of the War Machine armor, the actual name of the armor from the comics media it came from, is used. Where do you even think "Variable Threat Response Battle Suit" came from?". And IN THE EDIT SUMMARIES, which apparently you don't read, I said and I quote, "3. The name "Variable Threat Response Battle Suit IS the technical name for the War Machine armor. Listed in comics and pretty much everywhere there is an explanation on the armor.". What makes you even think that what I said even insinuated that the film didn't say that when I stated that it did all throughout said comments? Rhetorical question. If you actually watched the film before, the armor is officially called "The Variable Threat Response Battle Suit" as I stated up there. Actually spoken in the film. Said in the script. That name is the technical name of the War Machine armor as stated in the comic media it came from. Its actual armor name. Look it up. Go directly to Marvel.com via their articles on War Machine or their wiki and you'll see it. Or actually read the Iron Man book (as per Wikipedia policies, the actual media is a source) especially the Iron Manual. Therefore, if it's stated in the film, stated in the media it came from, and acknowledged by filmmakers by film/script/statement, there is no argument as to what that armor is and should be stated as such. It is the War Machine armor based on it's actual technical name being used and not "an armor visually based on the War Machine armor".

The filmmakers were not clueless or ignorant of the War Machine armor. Favreau himself made that perfectly clear and what filmmaker and actors who worked on film states > opinion on who the character isn't. And it's not just the toys that state "War Machine" in movie related media. Try the official movie website on the VERY first page and in the site itself. Try official media adaptations of film. Try movie book. Try video game. Try almost every spinoff media using that name. Name not used in film, but blatant reference to said name made via acknowledgment in the movie which justified the character being called that in movie related media and merchandising. Research.

On Marvel vs. Capcom 1 and 2, a game in which there are multiple characters are selectable, all of the selectable are a focus as a game just as a game with two selectable characters or three selectable characters or four or five being the focus of the game. That's common knowledge. War Machine being a playable video game character in that game series and the sequel to said game DOES warrant mention as his first appearance. And as far as your "game guide" comment, listing of moves which explain HOW the palette swapped character was changed to make the character War Machine is something that can be placed in the article and not "game guide" material. If you read a game guide before, details like that aren't even mentioned at all. Game oriented wikis such as strategywiki do NOT have information like that. It was more than a simple palette swap and that can be mentioned in an encyclopedic sense.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Again, you're wrong. If you actually played the game before or read any media on it, certain costumes contain bonuses. Each of Iron Man's other costumes have bonus attributes that changes the character's stats in gameplay. Extremis? Bonus. Silver Centurion? Bonus. War Machine? Bonus. X-Men Legends II does not. They are just costumes with nothing additional added to said costumes. Why? Because the stat adding costumes started in Ultimate Alliance! The only similarity is a team bonus. So again, it's not similar. Research.

And now we're actually removing content from the page and "citation needed" listed on actors now? This page is supposed to list the appearances of War Machine in other media, not "certain War Machine appearances in media". You didn't object or even bother to restore it which makes your argument on how I'm editing really hypocritical. As far as your comment on "Toonzone refs" made to the editor who removed all the material obviously referring to the talk on War Machine in X-Men, Toonzone.net was not even used in the sections removed. Why? The actual source material was watched, researched, and then added to the page. While LeVar Burton did say that he got the role on Twitter as another editor added, Burton is actually CREDITED in the actual show credits if you even watched it before or seen credits to research the article. Which reflects IMDB's production credits list with LeVar's role listed that matches the credits to said show. Same with Daniel Bacon. Same with James Avery. Same with Dorian Harewood. Same with Bumper Robinson. Same with EVERY actor that portrayed the character so far. So no citation was even needed because it was actually credited. It doesn't take too much time to actually look at the media you're writing about, look at the credits, verify the credits, and add to the article.

This entire thing has reached levels of "wow". Stormshadows00 ( talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The long and Short:

• Edit 1 section at a time including a proper edit summary.
• If in editing a section an edit summary cannot cover all the changes, break it down to edit one item in the section at a time.
• Most, if not all Wikipedia information hinges on it being reliably sourced, verifiable, and notable. Non-notable appearances are not included to "make the list complete.
• Removing tags without providing substantiation they either aren't needed or by providing a cite rendering them moot does not help the article.
• Walls of text to steamroll a POV are not appreciated.

- J Greb ( talk) 05:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

"Steamroll a POV"? Here we go again.....and reverting without even looking at material is all you've done. The edit summary AGAIN described the edits made with no contradiction to said edits. Sections were removed from article that clearly depicted said character in other media. This is War Machine in OTHER MEDIA, not selected appearances of War Machine in other media. And how is a guest appearance and lengthy speaking role in two series in which the character is a part of the plot "non-notable"? Especially a two part series? If one actually WATCHED the material, you would see the credit shown right with actor's name. ALL OF THE ACTORS that fact tags are at. Is there a fact tag for Don Cheadle or even Terrence Howard on the page? They're credited, no? So how in the world is a tag needed when the original material actually credited them? And original material IS A SOURCE. Said credits are actually reflected on imdb....which was added as a link that you removed. So again, you don't even read the summary or even look at the edits. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 05:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually let's look one more time at my edit summary since you missed it. "Additional edits and link. Restored material as TV section lists appearances of WM in other media, not selected appearances. Credited as WM in SHS. Removed fact tags as it is VERIFIED that these actors played the character and listed in credits." Additional edits to article made? Yep. To Iron Man TV section to clarify that the character is portrayed two ways in said show. Be Bold is a PILLAR. Link added? Yep. IMDB. Which lists the actors in the series listed. Restored material? The material removed were not "non notable" as those series had Rhodes in a SPEAKING ROLE and involved heavily in the plot of said episodes. Appearances in other shows is a focus in "appearances in other media". Credited as WM in SHS? Yep. And the credit did say so. Only called Rhodey in the actual show and his armor as the Mark II armor. First scene at Stark Enterprises. Yes...watched it. Added it AFTER watching it. Tag removal? As stated above, the actual show material is a source. Watched source. Every actor listed as War Machine/Rhodes is CREDITED in the end credits of said media. Each and every one. Not from "Toonzone" as you facetiously stated before in a talk page when the removal was made. And imdb has those credits listed. Hence the link added that you removed. So you can miss me with the "steamrolling a POV" and "wall of text".

And last edits? Again, you revert edits without actually taking the time to look. Example: This is the figure that YOU edited as "War Machine" before and said I never showed a picture of in the summary. http://www.cooltoyreview.com/Hasbro/MarvelUniverse/SWcomic7/MUniverse-895.jpg As stated before in the summary, that is not Rhodes as War Machine. And big surprise, another revert by you. Stormshadows00 ( talk) 06:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Off the top:

• IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Period. Please stop trying to use it as such.
• Films and animated television shows treat credits differently. The norm for films is to link actor and roll. That isn't the case for animated TV shows. Unless there is such a link, Batman: The Animated Series for example, relying on a list of actors and your own ability to link one to a particular role is not supported by the source material. It is original research.
• OK, lets look at your edit summary and what you did:
  • "Restored material as TV section lists appearances of WM in other media, not selected appearances."
    • Yes, material was restored. But that material was to replace a section mention 2 of the 3. And given the lack of notability of the three
      • Expanding the section that was there to include episode title(s) and voice actor(s) (and see above and below on that) from Spider-Man and The Incredible Hulk would make sense. Re-adding the plot summary doesn't.
      • Re-adding a trivial cameo of the armor doesn't.
    • None of the sections is based on notable information justifying ploy summaries.
  • "Credited as WM in SHS."
    • I'll assume you mean "War Machine" and "Super Hero Squad" since you had to compress the edit summary.
    • Where in the show is "War Machine" credited? Actually spelled out on screen? Opening credits? Closing? Where? Maybe this could have been clarified if you hade done this change as one edit and had the room in the summary.
  • "Removed fact tags as it is VERIFIED that these actors played the character and listed in credits."
    • Repeating: How are the actors listed in the credits? Is it the animation staple of a page or two of actors' names with no characters mentioned? If so that isn't verification in any way shape or form.
  • "Additional edits and link."
    • The external link could have used a bit more explanation. Why exactly was it being added?
    • As for the "Additional edits", frankly they need explanation, not just masked by an unininformative pair of words.

- J Greb ( talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply