![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is all of this sub-trivial information necessary? This isn't the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe; we don't need to list that the Invisible Woman has an unnamed aunt or that Gambit was briefly involved with the Crimson Pirates. If the information is pertinent to the character's history, it should be mentioned in the actual article text and given context; if not, it shouldn't be presented at all. - Sean Curtin 01:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
In theory I agree with the idea of an infobox, but there are a few things that bother me about this one. This infobox is pretty huge on a 1024x768 monitor and overpowers the text of the article. This sheer size of the box also creates a whole whack of problems with regard to formatting and inclusion of other images unless it's a really long article. The colours for the infobox serve no purpose because someone would have to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics to realize what they mean. The infobox tries to summarize too much information, eg. previous affiliations and relatives. I agree with Sean that if information is relevant to the character's history, it should be mentioned in the actual article text and given context. I'd prefer to see a small simple info box that contains a good image of the character, character name, publisher, first appearance, and creators. (Sort of like the top half of the current superherobox.) -- NormanEinstein 16:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||
Wolverine | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Real name | James Howlett | ||||||||||||||
Publisher | Marvel Comics | ||||||||||||||
First appearance |
The Incredible Hulk #181 | ||||||||||||||
Created by |
John Romita, Sr. Len Wein | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | |
Wolverine #17 John Byrne, artist. | |
Wolverine | |
---|---|
Real name | James Howlett |
Publisher | Marvel Comics |
First appearance | The Incredible Hulk #181 |
Created by |
John Romita, Sr. Len Wein |
Statistics | |
Status | active |
Affiliations | X-Men |
Previous affiliations |
Secret Defenders, Devil's Brigade, Four Horsemen, First (Alpha) Flight, Weapon X, Canadian Parachute Battalion |
Notable aliases |
Logan, Death, Patch, Weapon X |
Notable relatives |
Viper (ex-wife) |
Notable powers |
Healing factor Adamantium-coated bones, including retractable claws Enhanced senses |
Should the "Aliases" field be including catchphrases like " The World's Mightiest Mortal", " The Amazing Amazon", " The Pliable Paladin"? -- Paul A 04:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In some cases, a character's equipment/tools/gadgets etc doesn't make sense in the Power box. Should a 'notable equipment' field be added?
-- Vodex 22:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
A list of things must be determined about the relatives section. To sum:
Apostrophe 05:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-- El benito 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC):*Not sure on the formatting
For the formatting, I would just stick with Character name (relationship) and put deceased inside the parentheses as well if they're deceased. (ex: Sabretooth (father) )-- BRIAN 0918 13:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the interests of pushing the discussion further, I draw your attention to the ultimate acid test: the Hyperstorm family tree! As a challenge for us to draw up some guidelines, I've added in any character with their own article who holds any position on Cousin chart, including clones and alternate realities/timelines... and an adopted son from a deleted future timeline of a clone of the half-cyborg son from the never-quite-anulled marriage of the clone of the grandmother with the genetic grandfather. All I need to do now is whip up an article for Scotty from the Mutant X comic book and then we'll be able to invent a whole new world for the relation of an alternate reality son created by an affair of the maternal grandmother with a paternal grand-uncle! weeeeee coffee! -- El benito 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that was more than a little bemused that the relatives field had gotten disabled completely as fruit of the Hyperstorm experiment, but it's time to make this work again. I say keep it specifically to parents/siblings/offspring. No grandparents, uncles or aunts, unless they fulfill the role of a parent ( Aunt May). From the superbox, I also say we cut out all clones and alt universes. Those can be mentioned in article. Include a section on relations if necessary, but the superbox needs to be limited to the type of information you'd find on a baseball card (which I think is the best way to think of it). Use normal names via piped links. Curious minds can click or read the body of the article. We either have to keep this very strict, or we're going to have to follow through with the preliminary judgement and just strike the field altogether. -- El benito 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the use of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Color scheme, particularly in regards to America's Best Comics. ABC used to be an imprint of Image comics, and is now part of DC. For a series like Promethea, the series was primarily under Image. Should I use the Image or DC color? -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Has the "infobox borderless" class been changed? There's something pretty funny going on with it's white-space. Until I find out what, the main class for the table will stay on the old one. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What happened that caused the image to be on the left as opposed to the center, like it was before? -- DrBat 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I came across this template on the Batman page, and see that the bottom half goes under the unlikely heading "Statistics". May I ask you to please think of another heading, guys? The word statistic (and its plural) have several distinct meanings; under none of them can "real name" or "special powers" be considered examples. I do appreciate that popularly (and erroneously), the word is sometimes employed in this way, but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Thanks! — Encephalon 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Me and User:Lesfer think it would be a good idea, both practically (saves space) and aesthetically (less white space, especially since we want short powers descriptions in the Infobox), to change the template's Notable Powers section from a vertical list (with all the <br>s in it) to a not-vertical list. We wanna reach consensus on it, too. Also, I believe most manuals of style state there's no need for punctuation at the end of a list such as this. dfg 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
i remember there being an official line on alternate reality relatives and teams here but can't find it. relatives (in continuity) are listed and "notable" if they have a page on wikipedia. but what about batman, who lists several of his alternate reality children, plus several out of continuity WWII teams.
his relatives look like this:
Thomas Wayne (father, deceased), Martha Wayne (mother, deceased), Phillip Wayne (uncle and foster father, deceased), Alfred Pennyworth (butler and foster father), Dick Grayson (adopted son), Jason Todd (adopted son), Helena Wayne (alternate reality daughter, deceased), Ibn al Xu'ffasch (alternate reality son), Terry McGinnis (alternate reality biological son)
Not only, is there Earth-Two, and Kingdom Come info, there's continuity from television.
What's the deal? Opinions anyone? --- Exvicious 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to rough out a page for Mister Fear, who's had 4 different people wear the costume. None of these had particularly different powers or interpretations of the character, but had different identities/debuts/relatives. I can't personally justify splitting the character into 4 separate articles, but if I put in 4 superboxes it doesn't look pretty. I'm not aware of a way to make the superboxes line up with the content subsections.
For another example, consider the Serpent Squad article. Are we going to put a bunch of superboxes in there? How?
-- El benito 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Declaring that a character "is" alive, dead, inactive, etc., contradicts the MoS guidelines for writing about fiction—fictional stories exist in a perpetual present. The complete lack of context for this description renders it nonsensical as well; a fictional character is depicted as deceased in X work, not actually deceased. I think a much better use of this would be to convert it to stating whether the character is currently being published—is there an ongoing comic book series that features this character? If not ongoing, the last appearance can be given, or perhaps just a statement like "occasionally appearing in JLA." Thoughts? Postdlf 06:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The status may be relavant (and yeah, it really is in a lot of ways), but it's also damned hard to come to a consensus as to what it should be. Depowered, active, inactive, retired, kind of retired, missing, dead, resurrected ... the list of what you can put in is nearly endless, and at that point it ceases to be useful and just gets messy. Unless we can come up with a strict list of what belongs there, it's dead useless. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why should "Species" be optional? It should not be that way.
I think it would be great if a character's Universe of Origin could be listed in the box. This would be very useful for the DC entries to show where a character is originally from(Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-4, Earth-8, Earth-S, Earth-X), especially since many of them have had memories from these universes returned after Infinite Crisis. This could also be helpful for Marvel characters, though much less needed than DC. 69.182.118.34 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
While I would like to think that this field can function as navigational tool, but I can't really think of a time I have used it. And it tends to lead to arguments over whether characters are related or how, and it's just fan BS that should be dealt with in the article (or talk page). I have seen a number of other arguments, too, including whether alternate-reality relatives, characters without entries, or clones should be involved. And then there's the discussion about how to phrase " clones of alternate-future versions of children of clones".
A Man In Bl♟ck said on the WP:COMICS talk page, "I'm really tempted to remove the relatives field because of this, this, this, and let's not forget this. 95% of the time, this field is listing either wholly unimportant supporting characters (huh, Wiccan's parents are named Jeff and Rebecca), is insane fanon (Vision II is Wonder Man's nephew? WTF?), or requires the article to actually explain it (making the quick reference useless and indeed often misleading or confusing - e.g. Stryfe's convoluted backstory). It also encourages that sort of nonsense in other infoboxes, since the SHB is so visible and widely used; I've seen relatives fields in everything up to and including Mega Man infoboxes."
The SHB's repurposing as Template:WBToonChar has unfortunately led to this argument, about whether Plucky Duck is Daffy Duck's son.
We should really remove this unnecessary, trouble-making, cruft-encouraging field from the Superherobox template. -- Chris Griswold 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've amended the real name field to display secret identity, although you can input the field using either real name= or secret identity= at present. Eventually I'll look at migrating them all over. Steve block Talk 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I support the first two, and I'd be willing to support a style change on Affiliations. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No "previous" in any infobox fields; remember the rule of the eternal present in writing about fiction. I support all the above changes, except I still wish "status" could be refactored into real-life publishing status, with such descriptives as "supporting character in three monthly ongoing series," "infrequently used villain," "last published as a backup feature in 1940," something like that. I know this may seem like something that should just be explained in the article text, but I think we might be able to come up with some accurate and concise ways to use such a field, and the extent to which a character is or isn't being used is a central fact of the article. Postdlf 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I totaly speak against the disabling of the Status field. The Relatives are ok, go and disable it, but please put the Status field back. Answer under this comment as soon as possible and tell if you will enable the Status field or not and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.121.118 ( talk • contribs) 12:58 July 26, 2006
Now why don't we delete the relatives now since you're not using it. now it's worthless information since you "disabled" it. it doesn't make sense that we keep it there when it's not being used. -- Brian Boru is awesome 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh good grief. Check some recent edits, people are still adding to the relatives and status lines. The only reason you haven't been getting more complaints is because it's tricky for less experienced users to find this page. It took me quite some time to find the right place. Put back the relatives and status sections, for heavens' sakes. It was useful information. Pretty much every user affected by the change had no idea a debate was going on. D1Puck1T 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks notice? I had then no idea what was going on. per what puck said. Airwave and Green Lantern II are related., You click on them and they give you more information. wikipedia is a encyclopedia. at list give external links the name of their relatives. -- Brian Boru is awesome 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
We could cram all sorts of trivia into the infobox. At some point, we need to choose to exclude information that won't be relevant for most characters (many characters have boring relatives only referred to in passing) or will be too complicated to fit into an infobox (the Summers family tree, the Richards/Storm family tree), sometimes even shading into fanon (someone created an elaborate family tree for Henry Pym, Vision, Ultron, Wonder Man, and others). Oftentimes putting minor characters alongside major ones is misleading (Havok has been Cyclops's brother for decades, Vulcan was introduced in one miniseries and hasn't appeared since). Any cases where the relatives are actually important (Ras and Talia, Cyclops and Havok) will be mentioned in the article, with a mention proportionate to its importance to the character. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so how do we address the affiliations field? Past and present should be lumped together, but I don't think I can just go in and make that happen.-- Chris Griswold 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, shouldn't we apply the same changes to Template:Supersupportingbox? I would if I knew how to make such edits. — Lesfer (talk/ @) 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields there. -- Chris Griswold 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I'm going to delete some stuff in the superobox that's been diasbled. it's of no use if it doesn't appear on the dang article. -- Brian Boru is awesome 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the SHB in the X-Men article. It lists every current active X-Men member. -- Chris Griswold 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that this box has been popping up alot, specifically in entries about cartoon characters. The problem is the box seems to be for comics, and the "Publisher" field seems to furthers that. Is there some other term that can be used, so it dosen't sound so akward on those pages? Or it should it just be scrapped on those pages? Pacific Coast Highway ( blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hal Jordan, Jay Garrick, and Rick Tyler all have their superhero names in their SHBs; however, I know that at least Carol Danvers does not. I haven't seen anything to indicate that one way or the other is right. Should the name used in the SHB be based on the depiction in the SHB image? Should it be based on the title of the article? Or, as in the case of Donna Troy, should we update the character's name/title every time it changes (She's labeled as Wonder Woman). Personally, I think that if the article is called Hal Jordan, the SHB should use the same name. -- Chris Griswold 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Moon Knight has dissociative identity disorder and thus his "aliases" Marc Spector, Jake Lockley and Steven Grant, could be considered alternate egos (personalities) and so qualify, I would think, as fodder for the Alter Ego field. Thoughts? -- Newt ΨΦ 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This template is showing a little bit of age; it can probably be picked up a bit using parser functions. Additionally, there's really no reason for {{ Supersupportingbox}}; all of its functions can be combined here and used with parser functions to turn them off when not needed.
I'm volunteering to do the work on SHB, if nobody minds, as I know tasks have been piling up.
I've got a preliminary list of things that need doing...
If it's got a question mark, I'm not going to do it without outside encouragement. If it doesn't, I'm doing it unless someone asks otherwise. The numbers are for easy reference, so you can yell at me for #2 without having to type out "The SSB merge idea" every time.
Any suggestions? Criticisms? Requests? Cease-and-desist orders? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus on how to distinguish between old and current affilations. They cannot be removed as it invalidates some arguments for removal of team navboxes. -- Jamdav86 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Some relevant discussion: WT:CMC#Alien/Cosmic Races box - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the color codes are on the way out. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, would anyone object to me also merging {{ Comiccharacterbox}} here, also, to make this a Grand Unified Comic Character Box? It'd be easy to include all the functionality of that infobox, as well, and its name might be better as the most inclusive name. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Supersupportingbox is merged and redirected. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've combined alliances and previous_alliances into one field. You can move everything from previous_alliances to alliances, but for the time being it's unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I merged {{ Comiccharacterbox}} here. The only outstanding issues are how to deal with alternate superhero names (is this even an issue?) and dealing with alignment issues (purely superficial, and I'll deal with that when I get around to it ¬_¬). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion about how to deal with characters who have had multiple superhero names (Hal Jordan or Jean Grey, for example). I think a field with all the superhero names a character has used might be a good idea; does anyone have any suggestions on how it should be named or used? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Readd info like Relatives and Status. For remove Notable powers and add Powers/abilities (Not all Superhero have Superpowers). For relatives make it Marriage and Kids.-- Brown Shoes22 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Why were the colors for their comicbook company and their alliance (hero/villain/neutral) removed? -- DrBat 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Good question. See the "Kill company color codes?" discussion. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Because they are meaningless to readers and rather tacky-looking. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance of "Notable Powers" being changed to "Abilities"? It takes up less space and covers more, right now notable powers takes up two lines. -- Basique 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it could be just a little bit smaller? Just like in {{ Superteambox}}? — Lesfer (t/ c/ @) 05:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when is the invsable woman a picture of some man? Lego3400: The Sage of Time 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we please have a singular colour where there used to be alliance colours, as it is not as good-looking without it? -- Jamdav86 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
So far most votes seem to go for blue. Please feel free to add your vote Dizzy D 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the field "Real name" was deprecated due to some editors feeling the field could be redundant sometimes, since several heroes and villains (eg: Zauriel) perform their customed activities using their real names. It was immediately replaced by "Secret identity", which was deprecated almost immediately after inception due to the civilian identities of many superheroes not being secret. However, for reasons that I'm about to state, I feel that "Alter ego", while a better replacement than "Secret identity", has some major flaws which indicate that we should probably revert the field's name back to "Real name", and I hope the majority of editors will agree with me. Well, here goes my rant:
The American Heritage dictionary defines "Alter ego" as "Another side of oneself; a second self". How does this apply to say, Darkseid (birth name: Uxas)? There aren't two sides to the personality of Uxas. Uxas is always Darkseid, and Darkseid is always Uxas. Therefore, the name Uxas doesn't belong under a field called "alter ego". I know that when a field does not apply to a certain character, we are supposed to leave it blank, but isn't the fact that Uxas is Darkseid's birth name important enough to be included in the box? Koriand'r, Stephen Strange, Samael and Hank McCoy are not the respective alter egos of Starfire, Dr. Strange, Lucifer and Beast, because they act and sometimes even dress exactly the same when being referred to by the former names as they do when being referred to by the latter ones. Should " Diana Prince" and "Kory Anders" (a name Starfire shortly used while she completed Earth studies, and the closest thing she has to anything which could be considered an alter ego) take precedence over "Princess Diana" and "Koriand'r"? I think not. With the name of the field being "Alter ego", the line between what should be considered an alter ego and what should be considered a "Notable Alias" is effectively blurry. Matches Malone is as much an alter ego to Batman as Bruce Wayne is. What should we do then? While some editors have been encouraged to move Moon Knight's disassociated personalities from the Alias field to the Alter ego field, determining what belongs under what will inevitably lead to arguments where subjectivity and biased opinions have a lot of weight, for example: "Was enough of Wolverine's true personality shining through during his time as Death that it can be considered more of an alias than an alter ego?". And I'm the only one who thinks that while "Real name: Kal-El (adopted as Clark Kent)" sounds OK, "Alter ego: Carl Lucas (legally changed to Luke Cage)" sounds like hell? Wrapping up, also consider that a casual reader without much comic book knowledge might be confused by the fact that, Adam Strange's article (for example) doesn't seem to list his real name, which the reader could easily not be aware is the same as his superhero name.
If no one posts anything opposing my proposed change in two days time, I will make the change myself. I anyone disagrees with the change after that, we can still discuss it here and/or leave it as it was until a compromise is reached. Whew. That took long. -- Ace ETP 23:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer real name. I'm really not sure if it was changed to alter ego from "real name" or "secret identity." But there are some weird cases like Moon Knight, or people who use their real name as a super-name and then make something up for civilian life... but that can be handled by aliases. On the other hand... sometimes the field is used for the character's full name, as was the old field on the supersupportingbox (which is gone)-- which might be a problem. --HKMarks CANDY IS A FOOD GROUP TALK♦ CONTRIBS 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting alter ego back to real name. Brian Boru is awesome 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please resolve this disagreement before changing the template again. The parameter ends up broken every time someone edits it, and I've had to made the code rather complex to deal with everyone changing the name of this parameter and because of a similar-but-different parameter from {{ Comiccharacterbox}}, which was merged here. Every time someone fiddles with it, they just break it, instead of changing it, and I just finally got it working again. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Should the name in the SHB be different from the character name used in the title? Examples: Carol Danvers, Kyle Rayner. It just seems strange to have an infobox at the top of the article with a different name from the article. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 09:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Anyone actually watching the template these days? No? Feh. Seems we have another problem. A user is trying to re-add at least one field removed with consensus and add an undiscussed field such as "voice actor." The user doesn't seem to realize others would probably want off these changes or that the former in made in opposition of a consensus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Readd info like Relatives and Status. For relatives make it Marriage and Kids. For the Superhero's Status isn't that much of a porilm to add -- Brown Shoes22 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We've been over relatives over and over again. One of three things happens:
There's little reason to have a relatives field, and many possible headaches.
As for status, every single superhero who has ever been alive in a fictional work is alive. Any hero who has ever been active in a fictional work is active, every hero who has been retired in a fictional work is retired. Spider-Man is alive in some comics, dead in others, active in some, retired in others. All comics are present, because works of fiction, even serial works of fiction, are eternally present. WP:WAF has more on this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is all of this sub-trivial information necessary? This isn't the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe; we don't need to list that the Invisible Woman has an unnamed aunt or that Gambit was briefly involved with the Crimson Pirates. If the information is pertinent to the character's history, it should be mentioned in the actual article text and given context; if not, it shouldn't be presented at all. - Sean Curtin 01:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
In theory I agree with the idea of an infobox, but there are a few things that bother me about this one. This infobox is pretty huge on a 1024x768 monitor and overpowers the text of the article. This sheer size of the box also creates a whole whack of problems with regard to formatting and inclusion of other images unless it's a really long article. The colours for the infobox serve no purpose because someone would have to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics to realize what they mean. The infobox tries to summarize too much information, eg. previous affiliations and relatives. I agree with Sean that if information is relevant to the character's history, it should be mentioned in the actual article text and given context. I'd prefer to see a small simple info box that contains a good image of the character, character name, publisher, first appearance, and creators. (Sort of like the top half of the current superherobox.) -- NormanEinstein 16:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||
Wolverine | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Real name | James Howlett | ||||||||||||||
Publisher | Marvel Comics | ||||||||||||||
First appearance |
The Incredible Hulk #181 | ||||||||||||||
Created by |
John Romita, Sr. Len Wein | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | |
Wolverine #17 John Byrne, artist. | |
Wolverine | |
---|---|
Real name | James Howlett |
Publisher | Marvel Comics |
First appearance | The Incredible Hulk #181 |
Created by |
John Romita, Sr. Len Wein |
Statistics | |
Status | active |
Affiliations | X-Men |
Previous affiliations |
Secret Defenders, Devil's Brigade, Four Horsemen, First (Alpha) Flight, Weapon X, Canadian Parachute Battalion |
Notable aliases |
Logan, Death, Patch, Weapon X |
Notable relatives |
Viper (ex-wife) |
Notable powers |
Healing factor Adamantium-coated bones, including retractable claws Enhanced senses |
Should the "Aliases" field be including catchphrases like " The World's Mightiest Mortal", " The Amazing Amazon", " The Pliable Paladin"? -- Paul A 04:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In some cases, a character's equipment/tools/gadgets etc doesn't make sense in the Power box. Should a 'notable equipment' field be added?
-- Vodex 22:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
A list of things must be determined about the relatives section. To sum:
Apostrophe 05:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-- El benito 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC):*Not sure on the formatting
For the formatting, I would just stick with Character name (relationship) and put deceased inside the parentheses as well if they're deceased. (ex: Sabretooth (father) )-- BRIAN 0918 13:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the interests of pushing the discussion further, I draw your attention to the ultimate acid test: the Hyperstorm family tree! As a challenge for us to draw up some guidelines, I've added in any character with their own article who holds any position on Cousin chart, including clones and alternate realities/timelines... and an adopted son from a deleted future timeline of a clone of the half-cyborg son from the never-quite-anulled marriage of the clone of the grandmother with the genetic grandfather. All I need to do now is whip up an article for Scotty from the Mutant X comic book and then we'll be able to invent a whole new world for the relation of an alternate reality son created by an affair of the maternal grandmother with a paternal grand-uncle! weeeeee coffee! -- El benito 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that was more than a little bemused that the relatives field had gotten disabled completely as fruit of the Hyperstorm experiment, but it's time to make this work again. I say keep it specifically to parents/siblings/offspring. No grandparents, uncles or aunts, unless they fulfill the role of a parent ( Aunt May). From the superbox, I also say we cut out all clones and alt universes. Those can be mentioned in article. Include a section on relations if necessary, but the superbox needs to be limited to the type of information you'd find on a baseball card (which I think is the best way to think of it). Use normal names via piped links. Curious minds can click or read the body of the article. We either have to keep this very strict, or we're going to have to follow through with the preliminary judgement and just strike the field altogether. -- El benito 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the use of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Color scheme, particularly in regards to America's Best Comics. ABC used to be an imprint of Image comics, and is now part of DC. For a series like Promethea, the series was primarily under Image. Should I use the Image or DC color? -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Has the "infobox borderless" class been changed? There's something pretty funny going on with it's white-space. Until I find out what, the main class for the table will stay on the old one. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What happened that caused the image to be on the left as opposed to the center, like it was before? -- DrBat 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I came across this template on the Batman page, and see that the bottom half goes under the unlikely heading "Statistics". May I ask you to please think of another heading, guys? The word statistic (and its plural) have several distinct meanings; under none of them can "real name" or "special powers" be considered examples. I do appreciate that popularly (and erroneously), the word is sometimes employed in this way, but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Thanks! — Encephalon 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Me and User:Lesfer think it would be a good idea, both practically (saves space) and aesthetically (less white space, especially since we want short powers descriptions in the Infobox), to change the template's Notable Powers section from a vertical list (with all the <br>s in it) to a not-vertical list. We wanna reach consensus on it, too. Also, I believe most manuals of style state there's no need for punctuation at the end of a list such as this. dfg 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
i remember there being an official line on alternate reality relatives and teams here but can't find it. relatives (in continuity) are listed and "notable" if they have a page on wikipedia. but what about batman, who lists several of his alternate reality children, plus several out of continuity WWII teams.
his relatives look like this:
Thomas Wayne (father, deceased), Martha Wayne (mother, deceased), Phillip Wayne (uncle and foster father, deceased), Alfred Pennyworth (butler and foster father), Dick Grayson (adopted son), Jason Todd (adopted son), Helena Wayne (alternate reality daughter, deceased), Ibn al Xu'ffasch (alternate reality son), Terry McGinnis (alternate reality biological son)
Not only, is there Earth-Two, and Kingdom Come info, there's continuity from television.
What's the deal? Opinions anyone? --- Exvicious 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to rough out a page for Mister Fear, who's had 4 different people wear the costume. None of these had particularly different powers or interpretations of the character, but had different identities/debuts/relatives. I can't personally justify splitting the character into 4 separate articles, but if I put in 4 superboxes it doesn't look pretty. I'm not aware of a way to make the superboxes line up with the content subsections.
For another example, consider the Serpent Squad article. Are we going to put a bunch of superboxes in there? How?
-- El benito 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Declaring that a character "is" alive, dead, inactive, etc., contradicts the MoS guidelines for writing about fiction—fictional stories exist in a perpetual present. The complete lack of context for this description renders it nonsensical as well; a fictional character is depicted as deceased in X work, not actually deceased. I think a much better use of this would be to convert it to stating whether the character is currently being published—is there an ongoing comic book series that features this character? If not ongoing, the last appearance can be given, or perhaps just a statement like "occasionally appearing in JLA." Thoughts? Postdlf 06:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The status may be relavant (and yeah, it really is in a lot of ways), but it's also damned hard to come to a consensus as to what it should be. Depowered, active, inactive, retired, kind of retired, missing, dead, resurrected ... the list of what you can put in is nearly endless, and at that point it ceases to be useful and just gets messy. Unless we can come up with a strict list of what belongs there, it's dead useless. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why should "Species" be optional? It should not be that way.
I think it would be great if a character's Universe of Origin could be listed in the box. This would be very useful for the DC entries to show where a character is originally from(Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-4, Earth-8, Earth-S, Earth-X), especially since many of them have had memories from these universes returned after Infinite Crisis. This could also be helpful for Marvel characters, though much less needed than DC. 69.182.118.34 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
While I would like to think that this field can function as navigational tool, but I can't really think of a time I have used it. And it tends to lead to arguments over whether characters are related or how, and it's just fan BS that should be dealt with in the article (or talk page). I have seen a number of other arguments, too, including whether alternate-reality relatives, characters without entries, or clones should be involved. And then there's the discussion about how to phrase " clones of alternate-future versions of children of clones".
A Man In Bl♟ck said on the WP:COMICS talk page, "I'm really tempted to remove the relatives field because of this, this, this, and let's not forget this. 95% of the time, this field is listing either wholly unimportant supporting characters (huh, Wiccan's parents are named Jeff and Rebecca), is insane fanon (Vision II is Wonder Man's nephew? WTF?), or requires the article to actually explain it (making the quick reference useless and indeed often misleading or confusing - e.g. Stryfe's convoluted backstory). It also encourages that sort of nonsense in other infoboxes, since the SHB is so visible and widely used; I've seen relatives fields in everything up to and including Mega Man infoboxes."
The SHB's repurposing as Template:WBToonChar has unfortunately led to this argument, about whether Plucky Duck is Daffy Duck's son.
We should really remove this unnecessary, trouble-making, cruft-encouraging field from the Superherobox template. -- Chris Griswold 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've amended the real name field to display secret identity, although you can input the field using either real name= or secret identity= at present. Eventually I'll look at migrating them all over. Steve block Talk 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I support the first two, and I'd be willing to support a style change on Affiliations. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No "previous" in any infobox fields; remember the rule of the eternal present in writing about fiction. I support all the above changes, except I still wish "status" could be refactored into real-life publishing status, with such descriptives as "supporting character in three monthly ongoing series," "infrequently used villain," "last published as a backup feature in 1940," something like that. I know this may seem like something that should just be explained in the article text, but I think we might be able to come up with some accurate and concise ways to use such a field, and the extent to which a character is or isn't being used is a central fact of the article. Postdlf 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I totaly speak against the disabling of the Status field. The Relatives are ok, go and disable it, but please put the Status field back. Answer under this comment as soon as possible and tell if you will enable the Status field or not and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.121.118 ( talk • contribs) 12:58 July 26, 2006
Now why don't we delete the relatives now since you're not using it. now it's worthless information since you "disabled" it. it doesn't make sense that we keep it there when it's not being used. -- Brian Boru is awesome 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh good grief. Check some recent edits, people are still adding to the relatives and status lines. The only reason you haven't been getting more complaints is because it's tricky for less experienced users to find this page. It took me quite some time to find the right place. Put back the relatives and status sections, for heavens' sakes. It was useful information. Pretty much every user affected by the change had no idea a debate was going on. D1Puck1T 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks notice? I had then no idea what was going on. per what puck said. Airwave and Green Lantern II are related., You click on them and they give you more information. wikipedia is a encyclopedia. at list give external links the name of their relatives. -- Brian Boru is awesome 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
We could cram all sorts of trivia into the infobox. At some point, we need to choose to exclude information that won't be relevant for most characters (many characters have boring relatives only referred to in passing) or will be too complicated to fit into an infobox (the Summers family tree, the Richards/Storm family tree), sometimes even shading into fanon (someone created an elaborate family tree for Henry Pym, Vision, Ultron, Wonder Man, and others). Oftentimes putting minor characters alongside major ones is misleading (Havok has been Cyclops's brother for decades, Vulcan was introduced in one miniseries and hasn't appeared since). Any cases where the relatives are actually important (Ras and Talia, Cyclops and Havok) will be mentioned in the article, with a mention proportionate to its importance to the character. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so how do we address the affiliations field? Past and present should be lumped together, but I don't think I can just go in and make that happen.-- Chris Griswold 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, shouldn't we apply the same changes to Template:Supersupportingbox? I would if I knew how to make such edits. — Lesfer (talk/ @) 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if more interested editors would join the discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox so we can create an actual concensus and decide what to do about the fields there. -- Chris Griswold 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I'm going to delete some stuff in the superobox that's been diasbled. it's of no use if it doesn't appear on the dang article. -- Brian Boru is awesome 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the SHB in the X-Men article. It lists every current active X-Men member. -- Chris Griswold 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that this box has been popping up alot, specifically in entries about cartoon characters. The problem is the box seems to be for comics, and the "Publisher" field seems to furthers that. Is there some other term that can be used, so it dosen't sound so akward on those pages? Or it should it just be scrapped on those pages? Pacific Coast Highway ( blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hal Jordan, Jay Garrick, and Rick Tyler all have their superhero names in their SHBs; however, I know that at least Carol Danvers does not. I haven't seen anything to indicate that one way or the other is right. Should the name used in the SHB be based on the depiction in the SHB image? Should it be based on the title of the article? Or, as in the case of Donna Troy, should we update the character's name/title every time it changes (She's labeled as Wonder Woman). Personally, I think that if the article is called Hal Jordan, the SHB should use the same name. -- Chris Griswold 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Moon Knight has dissociative identity disorder and thus his "aliases" Marc Spector, Jake Lockley and Steven Grant, could be considered alternate egos (personalities) and so qualify, I would think, as fodder for the Alter Ego field. Thoughts? -- Newt ΨΦ 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This template is showing a little bit of age; it can probably be picked up a bit using parser functions. Additionally, there's really no reason for {{ Supersupportingbox}}; all of its functions can be combined here and used with parser functions to turn them off when not needed.
I'm volunteering to do the work on SHB, if nobody minds, as I know tasks have been piling up.
I've got a preliminary list of things that need doing...
If it's got a question mark, I'm not going to do it without outside encouragement. If it doesn't, I'm doing it unless someone asks otherwise. The numbers are for easy reference, so you can yell at me for #2 without having to type out "The SSB merge idea" every time.
Any suggestions? Criticisms? Requests? Cease-and-desist orders? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus on how to distinguish between old and current affilations. They cannot be removed as it invalidates some arguments for removal of team navboxes. -- Jamdav86 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Some relevant discussion: WT:CMC#Alien/Cosmic Races box - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the color codes are on the way out. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, would anyone object to me also merging {{ Comiccharacterbox}} here, also, to make this a Grand Unified Comic Character Box? It'd be easy to include all the functionality of that infobox, as well, and its name might be better as the most inclusive name. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Supersupportingbox is merged and redirected. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've combined alliances and previous_alliances into one field. You can move everything from previous_alliances to alliances, but for the time being it's unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I merged {{ Comiccharacterbox}} here. The only outstanding issues are how to deal with alternate superhero names (is this even an issue?) and dealing with alignment issues (purely superficial, and I'll deal with that when I get around to it ¬_¬). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion about how to deal with characters who have had multiple superhero names (Hal Jordan or Jean Grey, for example). I think a field with all the superhero names a character has used might be a good idea; does anyone have any suggestions on how it should be named or used? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Readd info like Relatives and Status. For remove Notable powers and add Powers/abilities (Not all Superhero have Superpowers). For relatives make it Marriage and Kids.-- Brown Shoes22 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Why were the colors for their comicbook company and their alliance (hero/villain/neutral) removed? -- DrBat 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Good question. See the "Kill company color codes?" discussion. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Because they are meaningless to readers and rather tacky-looking. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance of "Notable Powers" being changed to "Abilities"? It takes up less space and covers more, right now notable powers takes up two lines. -- Basique 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it could be just a little bit smaller? Just like in {{ Superteambox}}? — Lesfer (t/ c/ @) 05:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when is the invsable woman a picture of some man? Lego3400: The Sage of Time 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we please have a singular colour where there used to be alliance colours, as it is not as good-looking without it? -- Jamdav86 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
So far most votes seem to go for blue. Please feel free to add your vote Dizzy D 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the field "Real name" was deprecated due to some editors feeling the field could be redundant sometimes, since several heroes and villains (eg: Zauriel) perform their customed activities using their real names. It was immediately replaced by "Secret identity", which was deprecated almost immediately after inception due to the civilian identities of many superheroes not being secret. However, for reasons that I'm about to state, I feel that "Alter ego", while a better replacement than "Secret identity", has some major flaws which indicate that we should probably revert the field's name back to "Real name", and I hope the majority of editors will agree with me. Well, here goes my rant:
The American Heritage dictionary defines "Alter ego" as "Another side of oneself; a second self". How does this apply to say, Darkseid (birth name: Uxas)? There aren't two sides to the personality of Uxas. Uxas is always Darkseid, and Darkseid is always Uxas. Therefore, the name Uxas doesn't belong under a field called "alter ego". I know that when a field does not apply to a certain character, we are supposed to leave it blank, but isn't the fact that Uxas is Darkseid's birth name important enough to be included in the box? Koriand'r, Stephen Strange, Samael and Hank McCoy are not the respective alter egos of Starfire, Dr. Strange, Lucifer and Beast, because they act and sometimes even dress exactly the same when being referred to by the former names as they do when being referred to by the latter ones. Should " Diana Prince" and "Kory Anders" (a name Starfire shortly used while she completed Earth studies, and the closest thing she has to anything which could be considered an alter ego) take precedence over "Princess Diana" and "Koriand'r"? I think not. With the name of the field being "Alter ego", the line between what should be considered an alter ego and what should be considered a "Notable Alias" is effectively blurry. Matches Malone is as much an alter ego to Batman as Bruce Wayne is. What should we do then? While some editors have been encouraged to move Moon Knight's disassociated personalities from the Alias field to the Alter ego field, determining what belongs under what will inevitably lead to arguments where subjectivity and biased opinions have a lot of weight, for example: "Was enough of Wolverine's true personality shining through during his time as Death that it can be considered more of an alias than an alter ego?". And I'm the only one who thinks that while "Real name: Kal-El (adopted as Clark Kent)" sounds OK, "Alter ego: Carl Lucas (legally changed to Luke Cage)" sounds like hell? Wrapping up, also consider that a casual reader without much comic book knowledge might be confused by the fact that, Adam Strange's article (for example) doesn't seem to list his real name, which the reader could easily not be aware is the same as his superhero name.
If no one posts anything opposing my proposed change in two days time, I will make the change myself. I anyone disagrees with the change after that, we can still discuss it here and/or leave it as it was until a compromise is reached. Whew. That took long. -- Ace ETP 23:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer real name. I'm really not sure if it was changed to alter ego from "real name" or "secret identity." But there are some weird cases like Moon Knight, or people who use their real name as a super-name and then make something up for civilian life... but that can be handled by aliases. On the other hand... sometimes the field is used for the character's full name, as was the old field on the supersupportingbox (which is gone)-- which might be a problem. --HKMarks CANDY IS A FOOD GROUP TALK♦ CONTRIBS 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting alter ego back to real name. Brian Boru is awesome 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please resolve this disagreement before changing the template again. The parameter ends up broken every time someone edits it, and I've had to made the code rather complex to deal with everyone changing the name of this parameter and because of a similar-but-different parameter from {{ Comiccharacterbox}}, which was merged here. Every time someone fiddles with it, they just break it, instead of changing it, and I just finally got it working again. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Should the name in the SHB be different from the character name used in the title? Examples: Carol Danvers, Kyle Rayner. It just seems strange to have an infobox at the top of the article with a different name from the article. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 09:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Anyone actually watching the template these days? No? Feh. Seems we have another problem. A user is trying to re-add at least one field removed with consensus and add an undiscussed field such as "voice actor." The user doesn't seem to realize others would probably want off these changes or that the former in made in opposition of a consensus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Readd info like Relatives and Status. For relatives make it Marriage and Kids. For the Superhero's Status isn't that much of a porilm to add -- Brown Shoes22 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We've been over relatives over and over again. One of three things happens:
There's little reason to have a relatives field, and many possible headaches.
As for status, every single superhero who has ever been alive in a fictional work is alive. Any hero who has ever been active in a fictional work is active, every hero who has been retired in a fictional work is retired. Spider-Man is alive in some comics, dead in others, active in some, retired in others. All comics are present, because works of fiction, even serial works of fiction, are eternally present. WP:WAF has more on this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)