Talk:Civil War (comics)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Neutral?

Many of the so called "confirmed" names listed on Iron Man or Cap's side haven't actually chosen a side at all. As of Fantastic Four 538 Sue Richards is vocally opposed to the act even though she's complying with it and Ben Grimm is undecided. Spider-Man was against the act from the beginning and it's only through his association with Iron Man that he's become a supportor of it. Marvel isn't making any attempt to hide the fact that he'll be switching sides though. Many of the X-Factor members listed on both lists aren't really involved either. They've discussed their opinions about it but that's it. -- Charagon 7-7-06

For and Against

THOR is mislabeled. It doesnt even make sense. One side is completely destroying the other, and has them outnumbered and then in a flash some extra help shows thats probably the most powerful yet. Thor is beinging reintroduced to ballance powers. And he is clearly going to ally with the "Secret Avengers"

We don't know one way or the other. He hasn't been announced by name. I'm taking him off until it's clear. It's better to be accurate than to have it be up-to-the-date. This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look bad, like the Kenneth Lay article. --Chris Griswold 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough.

Civil War #3 Page 8, Panel 2 shows "Daredevil" clearly making eye contact with Goliath, and then in the second to last frame of the book he appears to be looking a Thor. With the knowledge that Murdock is in jail, and this evidence I see no reason why we cannot declare that it is the imposter Daredevil in Civil War.

But that's Matt Murdock in the diner with Captain America and the others; this takes place after he is out of prison. --Chris Griswold 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No it isnt. Its taking place in the same timeframe as Murdocks imprisonment, and Cable & Deadpool # 30 confirmed it. That is not Murdock in the diner, although he does have similar features.
While I believe it's confirmed the identity of "fake Daredevil", I've not seen conclusive statements from Marvel or their continuity to enforce this opinion. It's more than possible DD has broken out by then. As for "looking" and "making eye contact", let's not forget DD has enhanced senses, and him doing those things would seem to be natural actions for someone who wasn't blind. He could simply be using his other senses to compensate and as a means to perserve his new secret identity. Darquis 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I will submit that Matt Murdock could infact pass for a person with sight in trying to maintain a fake identity. But given his latest circumstances, and Deadpool's remarks (as well as captain cutting him short), along with Daredevil being on the Marvel Knights Banner (meaning its been able to avoid inclusion in major crossover events for the last 7 years). I think we have enough evidence to conclude that the Civil War daredevil is Daredevil's Imposter. And while id say confirmation is premature at this point, it seems very clear that the suggestion is that Danny Rand is the daredevil imposter (to my dismay, i was really hoping for either Fury or Hawkeye).

Thing is Misslabeled here, The Promo Art for FF539 Shows him participating in an Anti-registration protest. http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3342/thingantireg6bu.jpg That's A URL for my imageshack of the pic.also I don't have a link, but the preview pages on CBR show Tony arguing that the Illuminati should support the registraition act. the two main figures seem to be Tony for, and Cap against. in the same preview pages, BB seemingly indicated he's with Stark and Reed who'd just elected to support the registraition act. --Bustedbuddha 4/24/06

Are you sure that Iron Man is in favor of the act? On IGN, it talks about how he is opposed to it. --Radaar 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind. --Radaar 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading the Spider-Man comics tied into this, and both Stark and Parker are most definitely against the act. -Jim North April 18, 2006

I have removed names speculation and I'll keep removing until we have official info by Marvel or the comic book itself. —Lesfer (talk/@) 17:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...dude, you removed...like...nearly all the friggin' names. BTW, why leave the "Hero Hunters"? Ace Class Shadow 01:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I missed them. Actually Zemo and the Thunderbolts are the only ones confirmed. [1] —Lesfer (talk/@) 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Read the New Avengers: Illuminaty one-shot and "The Road to Civil War" comics. They clearly show whos one which side, and the promo art shows who suports them. I'll fix it in a sec. JQF 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"Clearly"? Pre-Civil War comics show Iron Man against the act. The Promo art shows him for the act. So far, there's nothing "clear" about Civil War. We should wait till the comic book is out. It won't hurt no one. On the other hand, adding speculations will hurt Wikipedia encyclopedic concept. —Lesfer (talk/@) 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If you read the Illuminaty One-Shot, you'd know that while he doesn't like it, he suports it because it will cause less damage, because he beleaves he is a role-model to other heros and it will be easier that way. That doesn't mean he isn't going to try to stop it, but if he doesn't stop it, he will support it. JQF 03:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm holding ASM #529 and #530 right here in my hands, and they show that Spider-Man is currently against the act. He may switch later if Iron Man switches . . . but that apparently hasn't happened yet. As long as Spider-Man is listed in this article for his stance in ASM #529, he should be moved over to "Against". Otherwise, someone needs to find a more recent comic wherein he's switched teams. --Jim North 05:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about... there's nothing *clear* about this. But people keep pushing their own POVs instead of waiting until the comic book is out and only then adding the right info. —Lesfer (talk/@) 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm going to ignore SoM's not-so-little addition and post here, 'kay? 'Kay. The friggin illuminaty article states it right. Iron Man obviously didn't come up with the act, but he's supporting it. He has his personal objections, but he's trying to be unbiased. As for Spidey, looks like he'll be switching sides early on, not costumes. At least, not yet. Iron Man's a bit of an elitist and sees Spiderman as his junior, so he thinks he needs to tell spidey which side he should be on because he doesn't know any better. As for the others...well... Ace Class Shadow 04:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What happens in the comic given as a source to why the Invisible Woman might be on Cap's side? If you think that Spiderman is against the act based on what he says in issue one(despite the promo at the top of this page) then you've got to consider who the person dissuading Spidey in that issue is, namely the Invisible Woman. It would definitely suck if those for the act were outnumbered by that much, especially considering most of us are probably rooting for the Cap's side... too easy. (though that's not the reason I'm wondering) - some guy 01:30, 08 May 2006

Why is Wolverine labeled as a proponent of the registration? He clearly states his stance against the registration in Wolverine v3 #42. The only reason he worked with Iron-Man and the Superhuman Restraint Unit is because they are both after Nitro. It can be also noted that Wolverine stated that the brief alliance was a good opportunity for him scope out Superhuman Restraint Unit's gear and abilities. Wolverine clearly shows his dislike towards the S.R.U and thier tatics as well in issue43. - metalman_zero 1:43 am 29 June 2006

True, Wolverine clearly states that he is opposed to the Registration Act and by showing cooperation with the supporters of the Act in order to go after a common foe doesn't mean that he's just suddenly switched sides. Odin's Beard 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i dont know what the hell you guyr are getting your info from Iron Man is clearly for the act so stfu about articles they dont mean anything its all about the comics. Malik1 15:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Malik1


HEY EVERYBODY!!!

"MM: Yeah I think so, and they are right to have problems, too. It’s one of those very confusing arguments where there is no one who’s right and no one who is wrong, which has made it very interesting to write. Tony and Cap are essentially the greatest heroes at Marvel, so no one is really the bad guy. Tony absolutely believes this is the right thing. He thinks the world will be safer as these teenagers are out there displaying these incredible powers are getting some kind of license and training. Whereas Cap points out that maybe it’s a good idea to have a secret identity and work out of pure altruism rather than getting paid by the government. That’s kind of the germ of what it’s all about as opposed to the secret identity thing which came out a little early and wasn’t quite right." Mark Millar on Civil War.

Oh, and "I think one of the big misconceptions with the series is this it all about superheroes giving up their secret identities. Obviously that’s part of the series, but it’s not the main thing." - SoM 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the main thing about the series is the civil liberties of certain individuals being stripped away and their privacy practically obliterated by the government. By forcing a superhero, whether or not he/she has any superhuman abilities, to reveal who they are puts them in even more jeopardy than they already are as well as pulling their friends and loved ones into the fire along with them. Some heroes, such as most of the former members of the Avengers and the Fantastic Four, are openly supported and endorced by the government because they allow themselves to be closely monitored by the government. Besides, many of their true identities are publicly known anyway. But, since they're openly praised by the government, the public is far more willing to accept them than a more secretive group like the X-Men. A good number of superheroes, however, are mutants and mutants have been the target of fear, hatred, and violence. The fear, if nothing else, is somewhat justified. After all, with the actions of beings such as Apocalypse, the Brotherhood, Magneto, etc. how could any regular joe with a 9 to 5 job not be a little fearful if nothing else. It seems that most, if not all, mutants seem to wear some sort of unusual clothing which would probably be labled as a "costume" of some sort, so they'd be forced to registar. Annonymity is a mutant's first, and sometimes only real, defense against a hostile world and the Superhuman Registration Act rips that protection away. Even though there are mutants that are deformed or disfigured due to the manifestation of their power, having their actual names not being available to practically the whole world does give them a little something. To them, it's probably better than nothing at all. Since the events of House Of M and there being less than 200 mutants left, as a whole, they're in even more danger than before. For mutants, the Superhuman Registration Act is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as the Mutant Registration Act. Odin's Beard

Black Bolt

It has not been confirmed that Black Bolt is for OR against the act. Untill we have some source, I am removing him.

Black Bolt Confirmed as against. Back on the list. MaxusDarte 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation for that please

First of all, people need to sign their messages.
As for Black Bolt, check out http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=df7083eb22d5185c94f7706dfb4c8cdd&threadid=66106 --DrBat 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about that, that is the source I was referring to for Black Bolt. the others that are marked as confirmed were revealed in the New Avengers ::Illuminati Special with the exception of Captain America who was confirmed in the offical Civil War Press Conference.
If he involves himself in civil war remains to be seen, but he is opposed to the act itself. Should there be a category for opposed, but ::remaining out of the fighting? Opposed-Neutral and In-Favor-Neutral? MaxusDarte 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Bendis interview, and think we should leave him off either list untill the story line makes it clear. it listed his description to the artists, and if anything it left me less sure of where bolt stood than when I was looking at the preview pages.--Bustedbuddha

Here is the description just so people don't have to look for it

IRON-MAN Well. I'm sorry you can't communicate with us, Black Bolt. I -

6- Black Bolt holds up a stern hand with stern pursed lips

7- Black Bolt gestures at him through with pursed lips.

8- Black Bolt points at them with disappointed, hateful eyes.

9- From Behind Reed Richards, Black Bolt flies away. Iron Man hangs his head as Reed gets up to leave.

The part that is highlighted shows that Black Bolt is angry and disappointed in Iron Man. If he agreed with Iron Man why would he be angry with him. Thus Black Bolt opposes the registration act and thus I am putting him back on the list.Thomas lyon 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the art and Iron Man's reaction (plus educated guesses based on Black Bolt's character) make it totally clear how Black Bolt feels. Also, there is no need to put him on any sort of 'unknown' list, as regardless of whether he acts in the civil war, he is still opposed to the SHR Act, which is what the list concerns. Jayunderscorezero 07:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Question. Black Bolt (and Namor) are on the "Un-Registered Heroes" list. As they aren't citizens of the United States, they don't actually need to register. By having both of them on this list, it seems to imply that they're resisting arrest like the other unregistered heroes and Secret Avengers. Perhaps maybe a new column like "Major Non-US Opposer" or something similiar could be put up, with both of them placed there? Sera404 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, although namor is in the U.S. in Wolverine, so he would have to register. That's trivial, though, so create that list! Yeah! --Chris Griswold 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am very new to wiki, and thus, all my skill extends to just placing comments. Would someone with more skill do it please?  :D Sera404 04:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold and Crimson Spiderman?

If not Spiderman, who's that guy in the Crimson and Gold on some of the Civil War images? Ace Class Shadow 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed spiderman, in a costume given to him by Tony Stark, thus the Iron Man colors MaxusDarte 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
How could you not think that that's Spider-Man? Unless you didn't read any of the recent Marvel history or the Spider-Man wikipedia page...Skilanky64 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

She-Hulk

I believe She-Hulk is with Iron Man, Spidey, The Thing, Mr. Fantastic and varios others on what i think is the side against the act. Shouldn't she be listed (though perhaps not confirmed)? Ace Class Shadow 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

we have been told that She-hulk and her alternate persona Jessica Walters will be on opposite sides in civil war, once we learn where one belongs both will be edited in MaxusDarte 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that that is what is going to happen (She-Hulk vs. Jennifer Walters), but how will it work? I was under the impression that, unlike Bruce Banner's Hulk, She-Hulk is essentially Jennifer Walters mind in a larger, hulkier body. --Radaar 21:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know how that conflict will end up, but I guess we'll find out in Civil War #3 and beyond. My guess is it'll be another internal conflict like Hulk v. Banner, but it'll definitely be different. I thought the same, that She-Hulk is Jennifer Walters in a Hulk body, but I believe the Savage She-Hulk from days of old and Avengers Disassembled will come back into play Skilanky64 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

           In She-Hulk #8, it looks like She-Hulk is on Cap's side. But in Amazing Spider-Man #533, sh's standing with Iron Man's enforcing party. Who's she with?
If this helps- she has been defending Speedball in Civil War: frontline. In issue #2 she was encouraging him to copoerate with the govt. (of course that may have been concern for her client not political stance)Palendrom 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Young Avengers

Do we not know which side Cassie Lang will be on? She isn't listed on the site, and she isn't in any of the artwork. Do you think this means she will die in YA #12? Please, only give your opinions; if you know spoilers for the final issue, don't ruin it for us. --Radaar 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We have not even gotten confermation that the YA's will be on the side they are show on on the cover. In fact the art we have seen has proven to be inaccurate based on what Marvel has told us. in this image http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=17321&sessionid=2ecae4fbf4ae6329529309c86ba5469a&sessionid=2ecae4fbf4ae6329529309c86ba5469a you can clearly see every member of the FF on "Iron Man's Side" of the page, where we have been told that they will be split on the issue. Likewise most covers put Spiderman on Iron Man's side whereas this one puts him on Cap's side. we can use the covers as a rough guide, but they have proven misleading at the best. MaxusDarte 04:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Cassie Lang, along with all of the other Young Avengers, has joined the resistance. This was revealed/cleared up in Civil War #2, in which the Young Avengers are all arrested for breaking up a mugging in costume after the Super-Human Registration Act is passed into law but are subsequently rescued by Captain America and Sam Wilson, disguised as S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. The YA's subsequently join the resistance. Skilanky64 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
se also: Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways Palendrom 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hero Hunters & Cable

http://comics.ign.com/articles/702/702078p2.html

Term used to describe the Thunderbolts, Deadpool; added to Taking Sides category. Cable is also having meetings with Captain America, implying he's on his side

But if they are hunting heros, would'nt that imply that they are supporting the SHRA? I agree we keep it a seperate category untill more information comes out, as there could be a whole new thing going on now, but Deadpool's past implys that if the goverment put out a contract on the Sups he'd probably take it.MaxusDarte 15:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the way i see it, being a "Hero Hunter" short of separates these characters from the others and their old roles. Before, Punisher was an anti-hero, a few too many justified, but illegal killings away from the noblity of say...Batman. Now, partially thanks to the scarlet bitc- I mean..."Witch", the world's going after superpowered beings at large and people like superman are going to be like the new mutants with people like the hero hunters being nothing but sentinels. Or perhaps...with all superpowered characters becoming anti-heros, of sorts (if they're against) and the hero hunters acting as bounty hunters. They're feelings toward the act are irrelavent, they're just doing "a job". Though, I see your point. Chances are, when this really gets underway, some hero hunters might "take sides", but we shouldn't assume anything yet.

Part of the it, tho', is that all of the hunters listed except Punisher are superhumans themselves. Pun's feelings towards the act may be irrelevant, but the Thunderbolts, Deadpool, and Baron Zemo are directly effected by it. I don't see that they'd be allowed to act as hero hunters for the government if they didn't submit themselves to registration. They wouldn't just be "doing a job", they'd be part of the job themselves unless they showed at least enough support to submit themselves to it. But yeh. Nothing certain either way. --Jim North 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be a nitpick, but isn't Punisher going to go after supervillains? That means he wouldn't technically be a hero hunter. - Gasface

Yeah, that's what he's doing, he's hunting down villains while the other heroes are arguing amound themselves. --Goldenboy 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Fantastic Four/The Thing

Several individuals have made reference to the Thing being placed on the Anti-SHRA side in the solicits. Do we have a link for it? the closest thing I can get is the solicit for FF #539-

FANTASTIC FOUR #539 Written by J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI Penciled by MIKE MCKONE Cover by AVI GRANOV CIVIL WAR Tie-in! Public protests over the Superhuman Registration Act threaten to tear Yancy Street apart! But those forces who seek to use the demonstrations for their own sinister ends haven’t reckoned with the rage of a fighting mad Thing!

The Image show is the Thing with his arms folded as anti-registration protesters scream around him. is this being used as an implication of Anti-SHRA sentiment? If so and the ff is split 2-2 as we have been told, dose that mean that It's Reed Richards and Johnny Storm Pro, and Susan Storm-Richards and Ben Grimm anti? Any Ideas?MaxusDarte 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time i checked, Invisi-female was against, as stated in the article. Not sure about thing and johnny, though i can see thing against, even though he's reed's friend. Johnny's hard to pin down, though. Might be for, but more likely against like his sister. The Anti-Gnome 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer lies in a few sources. On the cover of Civil War: Front Line, Human Torch is on Captain America's side facing off against Iron Man's side.
According to the cover of Amazing Spider-Man #536, Thing's hands are shown pulling Spider-Man, who is on a web and pictured in both costumes, Iron Spidey and Original costume, towards the "Pro-Registration Side." A few other sources have shown Thing as Anti-Registration.
Mr. Fantastic has been on board with Registration since the New Avengers: Illuminati Special, and has been an extremely large player on the Pro-Registration side. In fact, he seems extremely eager and excited about all the plans that himself, Tony Stark, and Hank Pym have been working on.
Inivisi-female, or as she is much more commonly known as INVISIBLE WOMAN (I've never heard her called Invisi-female), has been quite the enigma, however. Nothing is definite with her, but I think she may side with Johnny and Ben as one of the taglines to Civil War says, "...and marraiges will be divided..." She was never truly entusiastic about the registration, going as far to say to Mr. Fantastic in Civil War #2, "Yeah, well. Maybe I'd be excited too if his genius plan didn't mean jail for half our Christmas Card List." Of course, nothing is definite with her as of yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skilanky64 (talk • contribs) 15:22, June 23, 2006 (UTC)
I think Invisi-female and Johnny will be anti-, while Ben has shown already that he is pro-. --Chris Griswold 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

In order to get the facts straight, I think the new Casualties list should be noted as speculation. It could be said that Speedball has in fact died, but there is no mention of the other New Warriors who were at the fight. In fact, it has been stated that a part of Front Line will deal with a surviving New Warrior.

Newnovelist 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Marvel says they are dead. http://www.marvel.com/universe/Category:Civil_War - nobody

Marvel's pages are similar to Wiki's, and, thus, equally susceptible to rumor. Newnovelist 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Untill characters are specificly mentioned as dead in a cannon marvel source (IE a comic), They should be placed in the unconfirmed but probable section. Once we have a source, they can be moved up MaxusDarte 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Planet Hulk

The civil war trailer spends a lot of time on the Hulk and yet he isn't mentioned at all in the article. Chiok 19:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Planet Hulk ahs nothing todo with Civil War. THe trailer is describing previous events to the civil war. Mishy dishy 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Still though, Hulk should have something to do with Civil War. But that's mere speculation. I agree and disagree with the Hulk being mentioned with Civil War. Agree: He was a huge Marvel player and was banished by the same group judging the fate of the Registration Act. Disagree: He's millions of miles away on some planet nobody has ever heard of with the Silver Surfer. Skilanky64 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually in a letter column in several Planet Hulk comics, the writer has stated that Planet Hulk is to 1) Bring new life to Hulk 2) Get him away, so he is uninvolved in Civil War. The Intention of Planet Hulk is to get him out of Civil War, so how is he invovled? PH is just a major event. Mishy dishy 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

IGN August Covers

http://comics.ign.com/articles/708/708914p2.html

  • 1. On Wolverine #45 - Wolverine Vs. Namor...aren't these two supposed to be on the same side?
  • 2. On Fantastic Four #540, Falcon & Daredevil are onboard Captain America's side, Invisible Woman's still on Iron Man's side, and the Thing seems no longer involved with either side. (Human Torch is no where to be found on the cover, however)
  • 3. On Young Avengers & Runaways #2, it is described as Iron Man plotting to bring both the groups down, and alongside Kate Bishop showing on Captain America's side of the aforementioned FF cover, shows that both groups are together and against the act. Otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting Iron Man. Right?

Also on Cable & Deadpool #31, a group of what looks like (at least) a part of the Anti-HRA group, which includes the hero Hercules.

  • 4. Speaking of Deadpool, between the descriptions of that issue, Thunderbolts #105, and Heroes for Hire #1, the Hero Hunters seem to be basically hired guns, but this would still make then on the side of the HRA. Right?

Anything else I missed/misread from this? Blue Falcon 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

http://comics.ign.com/articles/708/708914p3.html - Hey, go figure, they decided to put one of the most important issues in another section. Spider-Man may very well join the fight against the act (cover is of Iron Man attacking Spider-Man) Blue Falcon 22:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Wolverene is persuing Nitro, who is responsible for Namorita's death, I'd assume that is why the two clash.Darquis 03:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways

Merger

Gezz, the guy wants to merge and doesn't even start a thread on the talk page to say why. Anyway, for the suggested merger between Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways and Civil War;

Keep, the article currently has more info that Civil War: Front Line, which isn't even being questioned, and the person who suggested the merger has in the past whitewashed the entire YA/R page to redirect to Civil War. JQF 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Adendum: Following the debate below, I'd like to add the the main reason for its notability is that it is to act as a bridge between Young Avengers and the relaunch of the title, and the 'politics' involved in that decision. If nothing else, that is worth noting. Second off, instead of having the summary in both articles, it would be much more economic to simply link a single page. -- Majin Gojira 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC), Edited by Majin Gojira 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Yet unpublished comic, the whole plot information will be able to fit into two paragraphs, and most of the space in the article will be occupied by the infobox. One paragaph is pure unsourced speculation. Similar articles about comic books need to be scaled down in size, as most of the "information" is fanboy obsession with unimportant details. Not all minor spin-offs need to have a separate page, especially a spin-off with a long name that is unlikely to be searched on that basis - and especially a comic book that hasn't been published. I don't get why people want to create articles about comic three months before they actually come out. Either it gets merged here, or it gets merged to both Runaways and Young Avengers. And I didn't blank the page. I moved the "contents" (whether they're informative at this stage is quite debatable) first. --Pc13 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- There are other yet unpublished comics that have pages (like a third of the Civil War comics), this comic is going to start publication this month, speculation comes from official sources (although the need to be cited) and will be removed/expanded according to their validity with the publication of the comic. Since this is a crossover, it deserves its own page just like other crossovers (like Amalgam). It is obvious you have some bias influencing your judgement, and it's not about people searching for it, but people being able to find the info easily from both the Runaways and Young Avengers pages without having to go between the two or having duplicate information on both page. That is counter productive to the function of Wikipedia. If you really have a problem with the page, wait until the vote comes to an end. If the result is Keep, then just leave it alone. JQF 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually... no, I won't. If this page exists after the mini-series is finished, and I don't find any reason why it should stand alone, I'll ask for admin intervention on the subject, or if need be, I'll propose WP:AFD. If one-shots in Amalgam have their own pages, most of them need to be merged as well. Same as the articles about Illuminati (Marvel Comics) and New Avengers: Illuminati. This comic does not deserve to be stand-alone simply because it's a crossover. Considering the title is a spin-off on a multi-part crossover, that the in-story events will be mostly related to the crossover, that the mini-series in itself will be short (4 issues) and therefore will have little character development, the useful information that can be told about the comic itself will be limited. This is a dead-end article, and will have little chance for growth after the Civil War crossover is finished. Having duplicate information in both Young Avengers and Runaways is not necessarily counter-productive, if it prevents spreading of information into hard-to-find articles. --Pc13 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, actually, you have to leave it alone if the result is keep. Wikipedia does the whole democracy thing. If you keep trying to have a page removed when the rest of the community wants to keep it, your credibility is lost and your actions may be interpreted as vandalism. If you hadn't whitewashed the article and explained what you wanted to do in the first place, maybe this could have gone better. As for the articles Illuminati (Marvel Comics) and New Avengers: Illuminati should be merged together, as they are pages about the same comic (which I've stated). However, if ALL of the Civil War comics are merged into one page, it will grow too big and have to be split into its separate comics. This would make this whole thing redundant. JQF 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. Last month I AFD'd a page that had survived a first deletion attempt, and got it deleted. And Wikipedia is not a democracy. So if I explain why something needs to be deleted, and all the community has going for it is strong, unexplained, feelings for keeping, democracy is out the window and replaced by common sense. It's quite easy to find the reason why some articles about comics grow too large: excess of detail. See Runaways (comics) and Araña for examples. If all the relevant information about a certain comic can be conveyed in two paragraphs or less, there's no reason to do it four or more. And if all the information can be conveyed in two paragraphs or less, there's no need for a separate article, no matter how large the illustrative picture is. It's quite appalling actually, because some articles about books are smaller than articles about four issue comic book mini-series. Why? Fanboys want to write the whole (and I am not exagerating when I use the word "whole") plot, which may actually constitute copyright infringement. --Pc13 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother to continue this conversation further until a decision is reached. It's obvious that we both think we're right, and that you have some bias on the subject (like the way you use the word fanboy). So, instead of turning this into some great, pointless debate, I'm just going to wait until a consensus is reached. And if you fell articles don't have enough info, add it. If you think it has too much, just trim it a little, and not remove it. One of things I dislike the most is the simple removal of information, especially without giving reason. That's what the "Edit Summary" bar is for. And remember, the contents and quality of an article on Wikipedia is directly influence by the number of fans it has. So thusly, Wikipedia is dominated by "fanboys". Ironic, huh? JQF 22:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Let the other comic have its own article, to keep this one from becoming a convoluted mess. Wryspy 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I agree, let's just leave the article how it is. Odin's Beard

Keep: Even though YA/Runaways is part of the Civil War story, it is a special subplot that is not required to understand the main events of the story. The 4-issue miniseries focuses on two groups who are only peripheral characters in the main arc.

Keep: 74 issues will give everyone enough information to overwhelm a page. Splitting off into subpages/daughter pages is okay. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge: What's in it to say?: Many fans called for a crossover, but Brian K. Vaughn and Bendis! said they couldn't. The YA may end up helping the Runaways. There, I just summarized the entire article. I'm merging it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mishy dishy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 June 2006.

Keep: YA/Runaways is a stand alone mimi-series!--Brown Shoes22 00:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those supporting the concept of a merger really need to bring up some good evidence that would lead to a merger--citations would be especially appreciated. Majin Gojira 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It's been two weeks, and the only ones in favour of the merger is User:Pc13 (the one who tagged the merge) and User:Mishy dishy, and those reasons have been refuted. After the comments Pc13 left above (and some other ones I've seen on other comic pages), I have little faith in the good nature of the suggestion. And I beleave the way it is set up is standard practice for this kind of thing. I think the outcome is keep. Somebody wanna call it officially? JQF 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Your kidding me, right? My resons are refuted? I'd like to refute your as best as I can point-by-point:
  • Civil War: Frontline – Red Herring fallacy. Civil War: Frontline is marginally more important to the event than this crossover.
  • Whitewash – Ad-Hominen fallacy. Just because his methods were not ethical doesn’t mean his arguments are illogical.
  • Bridge and politics – both are already listed in the YA article, without the need for the bridge itself to have it’s own article.
  • Speculation from official – Speculation is still speculation and wikipedia does not endorse speculation
  • It’s crossover or double information – the info that pertains to the YA will not be posted on the Runaways page. What’s your point?
  • Too big – Regardless, all of the info in a crossover does not have to be put onto the page. See Disassembled and House of M, which leave out many of the sub-plots of the events.
  • Special subplot/peripheral characters – Uh, no. Have you read Civil War? Both the YA and the Runaways will be featured heavily.
  • 74 issues – Do we honestly need to detail everything that happened in every issue of every subplot? Don’t detail the info into it’s own page. IF something big happens (like a member dying or being injured) put it into the RA/YA pages respectfully.
  • Stand-Alone – No. NO. IT is a part of civil war. IF it were, then why would it be posted on the checklist? Also, the YA/RA are important to CW, at least the YA are.

Mishy dishy 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first, I wasn't talking about your view on comics. Second, it's not about being stand alone, it's that it's a crossover in miniseries format. Third, I don't get what your trying to say with the YA being clearly important, unless your saying the comic is going to be important because the YA are in it. Fourth, there isn't much info cause the comic hasn't been released yet. You used the word currently, so that means you think it will grow. Fifth, most (if not all) Civil War miniseries already have their own page (like Civil War: Front Line, or a single page where that already focuses on that set of characters (like Heroes for Hire). JQF 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, let's try again. Point by point:
  • Miniseries - So? House of M: Fantastic Four was a miniseires and it doesn't have it's own page (and it shouldn't)
  • Importance - Have you read Civil War #2? They are a major plot point! (They got captured, Cap's side goes to rescue them.)
  • Front Line - Is marginally more important than YA/RA
  • Heroes... - Heroes for Hire has it's own page because it has a large history precieding CW.
  • Lack of info - As stated in Wikipedia rules, you shoudl only post information on a future event if it is garenteed that informtion is true. I don't think the whole "The YA may help the RA" is a true fact, as it is uncertian as a sentence (may).

This article is (a) Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article adn (b) duplicates information in some other article. Under wikipedia's deletion policy, the way to deal with this is to merge. See "Wikipedia: Deletion Policy" Mishy dishy 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Counter:
HoM: Fantastic Four deals with the FF specifically, and falls under "Alternate Versions". Plus, not many of the HoM miniseries had much relevance to the rest of the HoM Story. They were more or less comic versions of Were Are They Now?, and recognized as such.
Yes, I have read CW#2, and I'm not saying the YA aren’t important. I thing they will play a significant role in CW, which may be why they were reference in Illuminati (Marvel Comics), along with the Runaways. I'm saying if they are so important, then their cross over with the Runaways may be just as important to the whole CW story line as any other, as they are looked at as examples of what the SHA has to stop. They just probably got caught first because they opperate in New York with all the other heors, and had to deal with a larger military force.
Heroes: That's exactly what I was saying.
As for the lack of info, it hasn't been released yet (thus the reason it's tagged with "Future comic", and thus logically immune to the rule of lack of info), and everybody at Marvel is being tight-lipped about any comic involved with CW. So unless you work high-up at Marvel or directly on the comic, you have no idea (like me) of how important it will be and how much info will have to be put down. JQF 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Another Counter -- Miniseries format point brings nothing either pro or con to the discussion. Importance of the Runaways/Young Avengers is not addressed by your comment in the slightest (IE: The politics involved in the series' existence as a bridge between Season 1 and Season 2 of "Young Avengers" being the main bit of importance revealed so far. Such things, last time I checked, happen rarely in comics). The other points you bring up are largely irrelevant to the main position on notability. Everything else, I think, has been covered already. Adendum: Some of the arguments presented cannoy be applied until the series is released, so I suggest that it remain as such until the series is released, then it should be discussed further. Until then, we're essentially trying to figure out how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Majin Gojira 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merge; keep. --DrBat 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright. If an article fits the criteria for merging or deletion, then it must be merged or deleted, regardless of user opinions. Here a little table:
  • The article is (problem) - Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article. Solution - Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. Tag - Template:Mergeto¦article
  • The article is (problem) - Article duplicates information in some other article. Solution - Merge and redirect. Tag - Template:Merge¦article

Mishy dishy 13:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Rebuttle -- Please edit your entry to it is more easily readable. The first example works for your argument only partially, as the series has yet to be released, so it is difficult to reach a judgement one way or the other regarding its notability (aside from what I've already noted). The second argument fails completely in that there is no dulication last time I checked, at least. And such duplication can easily be spilt. Evidence: Failed. - Majin Gojira 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know it is important? Mishy dishy 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The politics involved in the series creation are notable. I've already stated as such. It is a midseries gap between two parts of a larger whole, and the reasons for the series existence are notworthy. Further infomration about its importance will reveal or deny itself when the series is released. I reiterate that no final statement should be reached until after the series has concluded. Majin Gojira 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: You said your self that the YA are important to Civil War (appearing in CW#2 in such prominence), and since they were both referenced directly in the Illuminati One-shot, I'd say the miniseries is important. It's all above this, so if you think it needs merging, re-read the arguments above. Already had this discussion with Pc13 (again, above), and he's stopped until the series comes out. JQF 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - merge per Pc13. --Chris Griswold 14:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - per Pc13. If the miniseries is integral to the plot of the main comic, it doesn't need a side article. --Newt ΨΦ 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - It's still a part of the Civil War event, which is what this article is all about. Avengers fan 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: By that logic, Civil War: Front Line should be merged into Civil War as well. But it's already been said that that would make this page to large. JQF 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You're attacking the wrong part of the argument. That Civil War: Front Line would make the page too large is why it gets its own article, regardless of whether it's integral to the plot of Civil War. Part of the contention of this deletion/merger is that YA/RA will/should not add significant length to the article to merit its own article, and especially does not right now as it has not even been released. The proverbial gun was jumped on creating this article, before it was determined that this article would be necessary apart from the main Civil War article. --Newt ΨΦ 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
C:Well it's importance has been marked on the page itself. It's to fill the gap between YA S1 and S2, which in itself is important to the YA, and the fact that they were both directly referenced by Stark in the Illuminati One-Shot concerning the SHA points to it being important. At the same time it has been said that while you don't have to read the series to appreciate Civil War, it really adds to the big picture, thus why it should be on its own page. JQF 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, then we shoudl give EVERY Civil War tie-in it's own page. THe thing is, it is not important enoguh to warrant it's own page. WHy was it mentioned? Becuase they're the easiest way out, not becuase they ar eimportant. 24.218.65.219 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Your logic isn't logical at all. The other series were not mentioned specifically in Iron Man's statement, which was the argument presented. Worse, I'm not sure I understand your phrasing of "They're the easiest way out", are you saying that they're the best example Iron Man could use? Furthermore, there has yet to be any proof of the series "unimportance" that is not based on opinion. I, for one, cannot be swayed with a well put opinion. Cold Data is what I strive for. The Cold Data involved in the production history of the comic has YET TO BE REFUTTED. Until it is refuted, it stands as the best reason to keep the article. However, I still hold that it is to early to make a fully informed choice. So I reiterate, let the series be published first--THEN make the decision. -- Majin Gojira 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Iron Man chose them becuase he thought that they were inexpierienced and would be the ones most likely to make a mistake. As we lern later, that title goes to the New Warriors. Just because he THOUGHT they were the ones who would screw up, DOESN'T mean they WOULD. Even if they were the ones, they wouldn't be featured that much. Where's Speedball? We don't know if the series is important. If it is, keep the page. If it isn't, delete the page. Deal? Also, the 'filling the gap' information is important to the YA not the YA/RA, so if the actual comic is merged, the inof goes to the YA article. Your response to say that it 'adds to the big picture' can be said about every tie-in. EVERY issue 'adds to the big picture', so the question is: HOW MUCH? 24.218.65.219 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So, your saying that the information regarding the history applies more to YA even though it takes place within YA/RA? That makes the kind of sense that really doesn't. As for "How much" it adds to the big picture, I reiterate that we cannot make a decision until it is published. Majin Gojira 12:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The info about the 'bridging the gap' applies more to the YA, because the info is about the YA. Lots of stuff happen in corssover issues and annuals. THat doesn't mean every crosover issue and annual deserve it's own page. Majin Gojira, I'm beginning to t hink that you were the one who created the page in the first place. IF WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THEN WHY WS THE PAGE EVEN CREATED SO EARLY!? 24.218.65.219 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
While I do agree that it the information so far applies more the YA than CIvil War, but feel that it is signifigant enough to warrent its own page (opnion, not fact) -- until shown that the circumstances have been repeated at least 5 times in the past, then I would conceed a merger. Furthermore, your point is absolutely tarnished by unneeded and childish slander. I did not create the article--and I have been a main proponent of the "Wait until all the information has been gathered" stance. Do not let me catch you in a blatant lie again, or you risk being dismissed entirely as an unrepententant, petulant child. Majin Gojira 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, here I go. Wikipedia endorses fact, not opinion. If you were basing your entire argument on opinion, then that is very bad. So far, you've said that because of the circumstances ("politics" of the crossover), it warrants it's own page. Second of all, you just suggested the "wait a little while" option, before you were in great favor of keeping an article with questionable importance. Thirdly, I never commited slander towards you. You've been defending with such furosity that I came to the (apparently incorrect) conclusion that you created the page in tthe first place. It appears you've taken this as an insult to your character to which you happen to reply with anger and the method of calling me names. Apparently, typing what you’re thinking, even if you don't state it as a fact is a "blatant lie" and causes you to be classified as an "unrepententant, petulant child". 24.218.65.219 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the change in opinion, that is a natural part of life when you look at the evidence objectively. New information and discussion leads to change. You accused me of "Majin Gojira, I'm beginning to t hink that you were the one who created the page in the first place." - Implying heavily that fault for this fiasco is on my head. And that, dir sir, IS Slanderous as it is a blatantly false accusation (as I have shown). Thirdly, I commented not on you, but your behavior. I applogise if you cannot make that distintion, even though I attempted to make it very obvious by stating that the repition of the behavior would cause your stance to appear as a "unrepentant (typoed) petulant child". It's your behavior being observed upon and little more than that. Majin Gojira 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you read a paper and find some arguable information, and a person constantly defends the paper, the average person may assume that the person arguing had, in some part, been involved in the paper. It happens all the time in schools (Parents write paper, teacher gives C, parents argues with teacher.) I must admit you and I are both being very stubborn on are stances, but while I have several, your is only "they must be important because they were referenced and the comic is going to bridge the gap between YA vol 1 and vol. 2!” Am I wrong to assume that when you say "you behave like an idiot" it's just a fancy way of saying "you are an idiot". My mistake. At least I am not resorting to the ad hominen fallacy. Mishy dishy 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My full position is thus: "So far, the crossover poses as it is a largely unpresidented bridge between two volumes of a comic series, a move that occurs rarely/has not occured before. However, if the crossover proves to be inconsiquential or the status surrounding its uniqueness removed (IE: it is not the first of its kind or one of many), then it should be merged with Young Avengers. The status of the story itself, as of the current situation, cannot be commented on due to lack of evidence." I again reiterate that commenting on a behavior is not the same as commenting on a person and I did not intend anything of the sort. -- Majin Gojira 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
For one, how do you know that the croosove ris a bridge in the first place? Second of all, the information pertains t the YA and should go onto the YA page, and not get it's own article just for that. That's like giving libel and slander seperate articles. Regardless, even if it is the first time it's been done, it is not importnat enoguh to wrrant it's own article, but is importnat engouh to have ti's own section on the YA page. Remeber, the info pertains to the YA, so why should it be on the YA/RA page? I'd like to guess your rebuttul: Becuase ti takes place in thecrossover. THat's like giving every story arc in every comic it's own page. Mishy dishy 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please properly format you posts, it's getting dificult to read through all the typographical errors. May I suggest writing it in a spellcheck-capable program first? The validity of the information regardsing the bridge comes from various interviews and articles (some of which, IIRC, are already linked) on the crossover. The placement in the original article originates, I reiterate, in the unprecedented (AFAIK) nature of the bridge. Your statement to the contrary is largely your opinion. The fact is that it IS rather unique and thus worthy of recognition. Again, I reiterate that not all of the data has been released yet, so a full judgement cannot be reached. Furthermore, since the article already exists, it is up to you to largely, support the accusation. The Slander and Libel citation IS a good example, but, again, until all the data is in, a judgement cannot and should not be reached. Finally, the second example is a HORRIBLE straw man argument, as I would say that since it occupies a strange place between both series (and is the first time the Runaways have been written by someone other by BKV), that, coupled with the previous uniqueness, would lead to the warrenting of its own article if the story within can enhance that noteworthy quality. Again, I am waiting for all the information to come in. Majin Gojira 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I do agree that the gun was jumped in part. Which is why I reiterate the need to hold ther vote until the series has concluded and the judge its merrit beyond the oddness of its existence. Calling for a deletion NOW, before all the data has come in, just creates more work as the article may or may not need to be re-created. Furthermore, as the article stands now, it would stand out far more than would be aestecically/visually/editorially acceptable. However, I hold that we wait until the series is published. Finally, do remember that if it would be merged with anything, it would make more sense to merge it with Young Avengers than Civil War, due to the importance it holds for that series (IE: The aformenetioned and often ignored "Politics" of it Majin Gojira 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to merge, but will vote for HOLD until the facts and importance of the story are better known. Wilfredo Martinez 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge: This is 4-issues written by an unknown with consulting by the creators. The Civil War article is enough, and should be the one-stop place for all concerning. In five years from now the Civil War article will be small time and therefore everything should be put in there. BiancaOfHell 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold

Right then, due to the recuring issue of not enough informationis know to make a decision, it has been argued that the discussion be halted until the series begins publication. All those in favour of holding the discussion until the comic has begun publication and more info is available, say so here:

  • Hold - Need to wait until comic is published to make a full decision. JQF 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold - Since I'm the one who suggested it (I so my total vote (including the above) is "Keep/Hold" Majin Gojira 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - There is nothing to wait and see. This is a four-issue fight-em-up crossover that is better served as a detail in 1-3 other articles than as an independent article. --Chris Griswold 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: So you work at Marvel? You've seen the comic? You know it's nothing but a "four-issue fight-em-up crossover"? If you didn't, I'd say that's your oppinion, and that you have no real idea what's going to happen. JQF 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I am so excited for the time I see you discuss something in less than a bombastic manner. You're right: I don't know the exact details of what will happen in the miniseries. But it's a four-issue miniseries whose title is made up of the titles of three other series currently running. It is secondary to all three of those works. There are very few four-issue limited series that really ought to have their own entries; Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is one of them. The difference is that DKR is a story devoted to one character, whereas CW:YA/R has a shared bill and is part of a cross-over. By its very nature, it works better as a part of those articles than as an independent article. I'm just expecting an overly detailed plot summary as long as the series itself like the one I had to reduce despite your opposition recently. --Chris Griswold 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
A minutely detailed plot summary is my worry as well. I don't know that there's enough that can happen in the series that would merit a separate article. --Newt ΨΦ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Then wait and see! If there isn't enough information, then it will be merged into the other articles. If there is enough, then it will stay. There is just no way of knowing which way it could go. It could be just a lame crossover, or it could be a great miniseries. It's obvious you think it will be "just another crossover", so why not wait until it's out to pass judgement? JQF 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That is what I have decided to do. I plan to organize the entire Civil War group of entries once the crossover is over; while I do not look forward to having to merge this article once people have put effort into it, I will attempt to do so should my expectations prove correct. --Chris Griswold 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if it does have a really detailed plot summary, that still doesn't it is important enoguh for it's own page. 24.218.65.219 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You;re preaching to choir, reverend. --Chris Griswold 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It very much should NOT have a really detailed plot summary. --Newt ΨΦ 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, IIRC, it's against the policy of the comic book wiki project of overrought summaries. Majin Gojira 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not every article can be pages and pages of information, and until it is published, it is best to not make the assumption one way or the other. -- Majin Gojira 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep If Civil War: Frontline and other comics in that line have their own pages, Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways should have their own. Skilanky64 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When it's all over, Frontline might also be merged here. It's light on plot so far, and the character moments can be summed up easily. And then there's the beautiful-looking but forgettable internment camp nonsense. --Chris Griswold 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge Can easily be cut down to pertinent facts, and will be more useful on the page of the main storyline. --InShaneee 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

At this time it seems there is NO CONSENSUS to merge. CovenantD 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiderman

At what point, other than the promo art, has spiderman been pro reg? Lisiecki 16:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Spider-Man #532, Thunderbolts #103 and Civil War #2. MaxusDarte 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hero Hunters

Is it nessicary for us to separate the Pro-Registration side with the Hero Hunters area? It's assumed that all Pro-Reg will be "Hunting Heros" at some point, so how are we defining the separation. In any case the discription dose not fit the Thunderbolts who are hunting villians (as seen in Thunderbolts 103). Should we scrap the Hero Hunter section and just put them into the normal Pro-Reg side? MaxusDarte 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. How about renaming it the "Inforcers", as they are inforcing the act, not just supporting it? JQF 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm gonna re-name them "Enforcers" (correct spelling), as fits better. JQF 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comic List and Tie-Ins

I think it is important to provide more details regarding each issue's printing status and variants. For example: Comic 1, Comic 1A (variant: Hero Cover), Comic 1C (2nd Print) , etcetera

I agree with the commenter below, Wikipedia should just cover the storyline, not necessarily the art. I think the variant covers are interesting but beyond the scope of the article. I've never seen another comic article talk about variants or reprints, just the story. Bradtcordeiro 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This should also be done for the precursors to the Civil War...House of M and others.

Please sign your comments. For one, wikipedia covers the plot, not the art. What are we supposed to do? "Oh, the cover shows thsi and htat witha picture of that and that color"? Remeber, we're not trying to make a "Marvel's Guide to: Civil War". THat's their job, not ours. 24.218.65.219 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Spotlight is on ongoing series that focuses on a new writer/artist team with each issue, the Millar/McNiven issue that ties in it Civil War was not a one shot. I'm changing it now, just don't want anyone caught off guard. Bradtcordeiro 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved?

Do we really need an "uninvolved" section. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of superhumans in the Marvel Universe. "Uninvolved" could grow very large, so what's the rule that allows a character to be added to it, because I just noticed someone added Nova and Quasar and I wouldn't even have guessed that either would have been involved. --Newt ΨΦ 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's needed in order to place people. If your listing the sides, people are going to ask something like "Well which side is the Hulk on?" and they can look down and go "Oh, he wasn't involved cause he got shot into space and got his own planet." Nova and Quasar could have been involved if they had been on Earth at the time, Nova being a member of the New Warriors, and could have been with them at the first shot. They should, however, be condensed into one line like "Several people whern't invovled with Civil War due to being involved in the events of "Annihilation" set out in space, including:...", and so on. Of course, they may come into play later when they return to Earth and find out whats happening. JQF 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, Nova is/was a New Warrior, but Quasar? Anyway, it might be a good idea to wait until the arc's complete before we condense the section, though right now it's not reading very encyclopedic. --Newt ΨΦ 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Quasar was an Avenger, so he might have gotten involved. And if you fell it's not up to snuff, fix it up until you fell it is. JQF 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Psyphics. I didn't even realize this section existed; I haven't looked at this article regularly in a month or so because I am reading the comics and the article mixes unpublished information in seamlessly with published information. I'm just not interested in being spoiled so much. This section is absurd, though. --Chris Griswold 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Another way to look at this I think is that by its own definition it deliberately includes characters unrelated to the topic of the article. I'm removing it, though I realize that it'll probably get reverted. Anyone that has a problem with this discuss it here. --Newt ΨΦ 16:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it should be noted that some character refuse to take a side. The list should only include characters that are both important (have something to do with it like Professor X and Strange) and have been in the Civil War related comics. For example, Namor is uninvolved. I don't know why he's in the against section. Then there are characters that comply but don't agree with it. Like Wolverine is probably registered but he has nothing to do with the argument. The Thing is against it or at least undecided but he's complying. These are important characters that are involved in some way but not actively involved in the debate. There should at least be an undecided section. --Brend0 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Wolverine did take a side in the argument. I don't know about The Thing, as he hasn't exactly been shown in Civil War proper as on either side that I can think of but he may in the related FF books. Namor said in Illuminati that he was against it, and so while he may not be actively involved, he would fit under the "against" section. I could see possibly an "Actively abstaining" for those who both do not choose a side and do not act, or something similar, but I don't know of any characters that are stated as doing so. The Uninvolved section was very loosely interpreted when it was around. --Newt ΨΦ 14:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Namor and Dr. Strange are both actively abstaining, but I guess you have a point on Namor being against it. The thing is, he's not against it for the same reasons. He doesn't care what's going on above ground and is against it because he doesn't care to comply to laws that don't involve his country. Also, why is Sentry under Pro Reg (Frontline 1)? I don't remember seeing him in Front line 1 at all, much less any actual storyline. --Brend0 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man Unmasked Story Arc

Should Sensational Spider-Man #28-32 (AKA Spider-Man Unmasked) be added to the list of Civil War comics? It's showing the reaction to Parker revealing his identity to the world, which he did in Civil War #2, and is kinda a sub-arc to the whole Civil War issue. JQF 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Marvel put out a checklist of all the Civil War comics and I think we should stick to that. The event will affect most series for the forseeable future and that would add dozens of issues. --waffle iron talk 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
So unless they release an "extended version" of the checklist, it should stay the way it is then. JQF 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
However, many of the comics in the House of M section are not on the Marvle checklist. Sometimes they forget (or just don't) put it on. Plus, if they did, it would've ruined the surprise. Also, only certian issues are actually billed as "Spider-Man Unmasked". Once again, some comics deal with events even when their not on their checklist. 24.218.65.219 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Hey all. Do you guys think that we should have a cover from the core Civil War series up on top as opposed to a cover from Front Line?--Radaar 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done - Changed it to the cover of issue 3. Seemed to fit better, and looked much more dynamic. Also, I moved the Front Line image to the "Comic" section, thought it was still relevent there.--Goldenboy 19:54, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Eternals

Is the line about the Eternals in the list of issues necessary/relevant?--Radaar 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to "Uninvolved" --Newt ΨΦ 20:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Question; is it worth adding the three heroes from the TV show in the comic to the pro-registration side? It's just we won't be seeing them again I don't think, and they're not really major or supporting characters. --Goldenboy 1958, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Nah, not notable. --Newt ΨΦ 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbolts #103

Just thinking - wouldn't it make more sense to add all the heroes on the computer screen to "Confirmed"? Iron Man makes it clear these are some of the heroes who've rejected the registration act by refusing to sign up. --Goldenboy 20:11, 24 June 2006 (BST)


Hey, the guy identified as Marston in that issue of Thunderbolts is Snake Marston of the Enforcers.

Civil War X-Men

Can it really be said that the X-Men are taking sides in this issue. I can understand how mutants like Wolverine and Emma Frost can be said to be taking sides because comics have shown them doing so. Caliban, Shatterstar, and Domino seem more interested in taking down the Sentinels and ONE than taking sides in the Civil War. Just because they are against the ONE dosen't mean that they are anti-registration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.240.130 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 June 2006.

While I can't say what their motives are for sure, they probably aren't for the Act, and those for the Act seem to be following the "If your not with us, your against us" mindset, essencially placing them on the against side. I say wait until the comic is released to find out exactly what's going on, but for now leave it as is. JQF 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why leave speculation in until it is addressed in the comics? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In fact, the whole "indicated" thing is a little POV/speculation itself. --Chris Griswold 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the X-Men seem to want to remain neutral. They might be against it in principle, but I'm not sure if we can put them on Cap's side yet.
The solicits for Civil War Xmen have Bishop at odds with what stance the X-Men have taken. I won't spoil what happened in today's edition, but whatever the X-Men's position is, Bishop is somehow opposed. Darquis 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitro and Iron Man Connection

Nitro's bio on Marvel.com has recently, rather conspicuously, been updated to reveal that Tony Stark has access to a frequency that can force Nitro to detonate. Seems somewhat notable. 24.62.27.66 04:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Marvel.com's wiki-based site is not really something to cite. I can go on there now and remove that statement in five minutes. It doesn't seem to have the same kind of organization or focus as the Comics Wikiproject. --Chris Griswold 06:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The recent issue of Wolverine had a hidden Stark-ish character who is apparently Nitro's backer. They may very well turn out to have a connection later in the series, or it may be a red herring, but at this point it's speculation. Ekchuah 13:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
And let's not forget IM isn't above paying one of his own rogues to attack either.Darquis 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Banners Meme

Has anyone else noticed that the attempt to make a unified Civil War banner by marvel has lead to a rather large internet meme? Do you think that information should be added to the article or no? -- Majin Gojira 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth thinking about. On Newsarama at least, it's a huge thing. -- Goldenboy 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
On 3 boards I frequent and several livejournals, there are massive entried devoted to it. -- Majin Gojira 19:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this an instance in which we can cite those? --Chris Griswold 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing but Webboards and LJs so far. No one has collected them in a webpage yet. -- Majin Gojira 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The only one I've seen is the Young Avengers/Runaways covers put side by side, but I don't doubt that that's how these covers will turn out. But I just keep them in a stack and read them cover to cover anyway :) 69.122.42.147 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally not what we're talking about...Here's what we're talkin' about [2] and [3]. -- Majin Gojira 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Super Villains

I know is may seem like a strage question but what are the various supervillains thoughts and feelings on the SHRA.... I can forsee atleast temporary some vlllains aligning them selves with the various sides

This has not appeared in print. --Chris Griswold 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it has, but not quite directly. Thunderbolts #103 alludes to it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The characters on this last have been added and removed and their affiliations changed arbitrarily. The issues in which each of these characters' affilitiations are made explicit need to be cited. I will be checking the citations over the next few days and removing any whose affiltiation is not explicit or very heavily implied. --Chris Griswold 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the characters whose affiliations are uncited or are speculated. Speculation includes "unconfirmed" characters; solicitation material, which has so far shifted characters back and forth on these lists; and people like Aunt May and Mary jane who are not proponents of the Act so much as proponents of Peter Parker. They aren't saying that it's a great idea; they are just supporting Peter. --Chris Griswold 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has restored most of the deleted characters and put the ones previously noted as unconfirmed under the "confirmed" catgeories. Would anyone else like to slog through these issues to see where it is clearly stated or shown that these character either oppose or support the act? I can do it within the next few days when I have a faster internet connection. --Chris Griswold 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean Grey

I'm reasonably sure Jean Grey is dead (well, sort of) at this point, thus is uninvolved with the events of Civil War. Substatic 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My friend once said Marvel Heaven has a revolving doorDr sean chronic RSX 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's unlikely she'll be back during the Civil War. Substatic 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti Registration Team Name

In the one shot "Daily Bugle Civil War" it is confirmed that the media has started to call the Anti-Registration side the "Secret Avengers". Should we place all these heros into a grouping like with the Young Avengers or should we create a seperate sub-section like for enforcers and retired? MaxusDarte 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, not sure, maybe if one of them calls themselves the Secret Avengers? JQF 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


While Cap is clearly running a secret avengers, id say you can be an anti registration hero and not be in the secret avengers. So while the core of the resistance is the secret avengers, the resistance exists outside of them.

Agreed. At this time, I'd say hold off because I'm sure this will be full of debate on who is and isn't a Secret Avenger, and I think that will be most easily resolved when you can look at the whole picture and decide how the team was defined (if it isn't already made clear within the event) Darquis 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear who is a Secret Avenger and who's on Iron Man's Team. Marvel listed the members of both sides in the Civil War Daily Bugle, which I'd take as an official list provided by Marvel. The only problem I'd have is with the formatting, would one create two lists (Secret Avengers and others who are also opposed to the act) or would one simply highlight members of the existing list?Jayunderscorezero 10:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We could format it like we formated the other teams on the list or like we separated Enforcers on the Pro Side. I'd be more in favor of separating them as a team (with the link headed to the section on the Secret Avengers in the Avengers Article) and doing the same with Iron Man's "Officaly Sanctioned Team" on the other side. MaxusDarte 14:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As Maxus pointed out, we could use the Enforcers (which would be anyone on Iron Man's team, plus the Thunderbolts, Deadpool, etc.). As for who is a "Secret Avenger", I'm not sure it's obvious. I certainly wouldn't take Marvel's word for it..comic companies have a history of misinforming (on purpose or otherwise) readers, as well as contradicting what they said, changing their minds, etc. That being said, if we can agree on who is and isn't a SA, I have no problem listing them. I think Herc, Daredevil (whoever he may be, let's not get into that), Falcon, Goliath and Cap are a good start.Darquis 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

X-Factor

X-Factor Investigations has, as noted, taken a public stance in defiance of the SHR Act, but aren't Rictor and "I've got nothing to hide" M in favour of the Act?

Good point. However, they took that stance without guidance from Madrox (their leader, I suppose) so they could change their minds (particularly Rictor if he ever becomes repowered). Another thing to consider, though, is that one can not personally have any problem registering voluntarily but oppose the forceful mandatory registration of others. Let's see what happens in the next month, and hopefully things will clear up a bit. Darquis 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thor

Whoes side is Thor on, he appears to be on the pro-registration side. I think that the person who edited the page meant to move the Thing to the other side, as was confirmed in an interview at the San Diego Comic-Con.

We don't know one way or the other. He hasn't been announced by name. I'm taking him off until it's clear. It's better to be accurate than to have it be up-to-the-date. This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look bad, like the Kenneth Lay article. --Chris Griswold 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there have been others who have displayed similar powers, and even those who have hefted Thor's hammer, so we should be sure that what wsa recently show was what we actually think it isDarquis 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)]

There really isn't a way to know right now which side he's on, I was thinking the same thing myself the other day but I didn't make anything out of it because I wanted to avoid some sort of debate from other editors since there is some evidence to show that Thor supports the registration act. But, who knows, it could be written that the character is confused or it might not even be Thor at all. Anything at this point is pure speculation, especially since Thor's only shown on the last page of the issue and doesn't say anything. Odin's Beard 00:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have Codename: Thunder, the fact that he attacked after Maria Hill gave Codename: Thunder the authorization to strike, the fact that the cover of the next issue has him breaking through captain america's sheild, and the variant cover of three has him standing with two anti-reg heros lying defeated as he raises his Hammer above them. I belive that's pretty clear evidance considering we've put people on the confirmed list with less. MaxusDarte 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, and once I get the chance to look at all of those issues, all the speculated characters are coming off. Besides, are we supposed to take everything Maria Hill does at face value? --Chris Griswold 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/v/Talk%7ECivil_War_%28comics%29_Archive_1_84ff.html"