Talk:Civil War (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article may need general cleanup. Please see below for details.
This article has been marked as discussing comics which are currently unpublished.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil War (comics) article.
Archive
Archives
  1. April 24, 2006 — July 26, 2006
  2. July 26, 2006 — October 15, 2006

Contents

[edit] No More Speculation

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

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

But were you deleting comments here on the talk page?69.221.32.164 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)MD
Doing a quick glance at the history of this talk page for the past two months User: ChrisGriswold has made no deletions to this page, only additions/replies. Just mentioning to put that line of conversation to rest so people can focus on the article.
Regarding the topic he brings up, I would agree that speculation has no real place in a wikipedia article. This is emphatically not a fansite, This article (like all wiki-articles) aspires to be the official encyclopedic entry regarding this work of popular fiction. As such, verifiable facts are the only items of interest. -Markeer 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To add something more to this topic - even if you HAVE read the issue but it has not been distributed yet, do not add new information. I've seen people who claim to have advance copies of issues justifying their edits, but that doesn't change the fact that officially that comic has not seen print yet. - Kevingarcia 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage Control

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

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

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

Exactly. Declun clearly planned it, adn the fact that Damage Control was ready and prepared to move on the contracts so rapidly as to get the major clean up contracts, etc., etc., combined with his comments about making things happen show he's complicit in the event and knew what giving Nitro MGH would result in. Although it has yet to be stated overtly, I think it's not unreasonable to expect to see that the 'anonymous tip' that hte new warriors got came from Damage Control as well, directly or through hirelings. ThuranX 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we place Damage Control in the Pro-Registration side? They get the contracts for superhuman evaluation and training and whatnot.--Gonzalo84 23:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Avengers

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

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

[edit] "Changing Sides" section

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

No, we don't need that. It is more cruft. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't need such a section, although to avoid confusion and reduce edit conflicts (oh, yeah, like people could ever reduce those in this article), you might need a parenthetical note like "(changed sides)" after the character's name. I wouldn't be keen on seeing it, but it might help. Maybe. Sorta. Kinda. And if so, it should be something even shorter than that. Doczilla 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Either way... the Punisher's a Secret Avenger now, right? For that matter, shouldn't there be a Secret Avengers article? -- Nick Begovich 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Clone of Thor" to "Cyborg Clone of Thor" because that more accurately describes him. It. You know what I mean. -- Nick Begovich 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-man HAS changed sides

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need your help. I'm in a great depression here. At first, I was supportive of the Super-human Registration Act because Spider-Man, who happens to be my favorite superhero, was on it. Plus, Tony Stark is a friend of Spidey, so that totally fitted me in the side of the act. But now that Spidey has changed sides, I don't know what to do. Should I root for the superhero I've always rooted for? Or should I stay loyal to the side I chose to support? 70.58.211.220

This isn't a discussion forum. The purpose of the discussion pages attached to Wikipedia articles is to discuss the article, how it can be improved, what to add to it, what not to add to it, etc. Getting into fanboy discussions like that isn't what it's intended for. I'm not saying fanboy in a negative way or anything like that. But, let's be honest, lots of editors purposely try and turn these types of articles in particular into a haven for fanboys. That isn't the intention of some editors, it happens sometimes by sheer accident. Try www.superherohype.com if you're looking for a good discussion forum to go over this kind of stuff. Odin's Beard 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my God. I feel so bad for Spidey. Oh, well, can't be helped. At any rate, how do we list him? Is he counted as a Secret Avenger now, or just Unregistered? Because, technically, he is registered, although he's had a change of heart. Any ideas, or should we wait until next week's Amazing Spider-Man #536 for more information? -- Nick Begovich 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 Why don't you just put that he is against registration for the time being?  -J. Agamemnon

Why don't you just stop typing in a box? But I totally called it. It says in Amazing that Spidey is, in fact, a Secret Avenger. I'm pretty sure good ol' Mr. Castle is, as well. -- Nick Begovich 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the synopsis format

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

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

I think the synopsis needs to return to its previous format. For an issue-by-issue analysis, it sure doesn't provide much information. Thor? -- Nick Begovich 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xavin Dead

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

You're absolutely right that a shapeshifter should not easily be listed among the dead. For a Skrull, a snapped neck is not a confirmed death. Everyone warring over assumptions should re-read WP:NOT and the Wikiproject Comics guidelines periodically. They stress that articles should not include assumptions, speculations, or the like. In light of other issues that come up in the editing of this article, I particularly recommend that people carefully read the section about how information should not be based on solicitations, including examples (Green Lantern, Sentry) of when such extrapolations would have been flatly wrong. Doczilla 07:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. You should sign in with a username. Your opinions' credibility will go up that way. Doczilla 07:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he is very much alive. -- Nick Begovich 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registration Acts

I note that Bill Black, in his comic series The Armageddon Factor starring the Femforce among others, also made reference to a similar superhuman registration act. Not sure if it is sufficiently important for mention here or not, though. Badbilltucker 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty common theme in American comics: The JSA were forced to disband by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the characters in Watchmen were forced to register or quit in the 1970s. It's like how OMACs are almost exactly like Prime Sentinels and House of M is startingly similar to JLA: Midsummer's Nightmare. It's a pretty recycled idea. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
looks like the comic book publishers are just borrowing ideas from one another Bloodpack 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
See Registration acts (comics). Doczilla 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War: Choosing Sides merge

Civil War: Choosing Sides was recently created with what looks like promotional text for a one-shot related to the crossover that is the subject of this article. The article should be merged because it is relevent to this article alone. A one-shot that is wholly based on a crossover should be part of the crossover's article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

  • Merge - Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Mrph 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge See below for reason. 164.107.218.14 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Front Line would be a reasonable fork, but a one-shot (especially one that isn't out yet!) isn't. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and eliminate solicitation information regarding story details (which means cut almost every word). Doczilla 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge After the comic's released, just add the details onto the main story section. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 16:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge, this article is primarily about the comic called Civil War and secondly about the event. If you suggest to merge one book under the Civil War banner, then all of them are going to asked to be merged, which would make for one heck of a big article (which has been discussed before). I suggest if you are really intent on merging it, wait until the event is over and all the info is in the respective articles, then we can see about dealling with the lesser articles. JQF 22:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Choosing Sides should be two sentences within the main Civil War article. We should discuss merging other tie-ins when those series are finished. One-shots don't deserve their own articles. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - We have articles for each part of the crossover. We could have a Civil War One-Shots to gather Choosing Sides, War Crimes and Civil War Files.--Gonzalo84 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • tComment' - The way it's looking, those articles will be folded in as well. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - ...and trim down Bloodpack 07:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge It's a seperate title, so deserves it's own page, one-shot or not. Cactusrob 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - ...And I agree with the majority, since the upcoming stories are all Civil War related.... PaxHouse 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to suspend voting until the issue is actually out. Since no one has heard my call for this below, I'm putting this here. The issue is not out, and since the main argument with this is that it will only deal with Civil War and no other books, even though I've provided sources that say otherwise, there is no way for people to vote objectively yet until they have the book in their hands. I'm calling the for vote to be suspended until then and for people to have the chance to rethink and change their votes if neccessary once it's out.164.107.218.14 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to suspend voting until the issue is actually out. I agree with this idea, cause it might just be a recap of the Civil War through these other people's eyes. But if it is a seperate story compleaty then Don't Merge would be my vote.Phoenix741 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed. I am merging this article. Additionally, the "wait and see" argument does not work with merge discussions; it does, however, work with discussions concerning the creation of new articles. The article's need does not satisfy WP:CMC guidelines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 18:06, October 23, 2006.

    • You couldn't wait two more days to perform a simple request? For someone who pushes the whole ideal of not making a decision of an issue until it's released, you're a total hypocrite. Way to be a total Wiki-nazi. 164.107.218.14 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I love you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Very mature. Really showing your true colors of how selfish you really are. Anyway, I was right in the fact that this was also clearly a lead in for other titles, and since that was your only argument for merging this, it never should have happened, so you jumped the gun and violated your own "Not a crystal ball" policy you're so fond of pushing. Way to make yourself a complete hypocrite. Hope you've lost all your credibility. 164.107.218.14 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

As I said above, don't merge, because while right now it only appears to only deal with Civil War, that won't be the case for at least a couple of the stories. Several of the stories will be lead ins to other books that are upcoming and spinning out of Civil War, (Venom for Thunderbolts, Iron Fist for Immortal Iron Fist, Ant-Man for Irredeemable Ant Man, and it's believe US Agent for Omega Flight), so there will be much more to this book that it looks like on the surface. It even says so right in the article that it will be the lead in for several new books. Plus, once the issue come out, the article can be expanded so it will be big enough to stand on its own as well. So, again, don't merge. 164.107.218.14 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It has Civil War in its name. There is no reason to guess "that won't be the case" for any of them. We have numerous Wikipedia style guides and policies telling us not to speculate and not to trust solicitation information. Doczilla 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And if it was just solicitation information saying this, you'd have a case, but Tom Brevoort has confirmed all that stuff as happening as well in which he says that these stories will lead to future happenings with these characters. [[1]] Here's another that says it leads to other books as well. [2] And I don't know why having "Civil War in its name" is a reason to merge it since several books have Civil War in their names and they have their own articles. So really, there is no reason to merge them. 164.107.218.14 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
All we can really go on at this moment is that "Civil War" is in the title. You haven't read it. It is part of the crossover, and while some details about specific characters may make their way into those characters' articles, the bulk of the information should go here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? The bulk of all those other Civil War tie-ins get their own pages, there's no reason this shouldn't. Again, read the links. It's not a some details "may make their way" in speculation, it's straight up confirmed by the editors and creators in those links that they will. Just because it's not out doesn't mean that there aren't details confirmed by other sources than solicitations, which is another argument that I've shown proof against, that show that it does not need to be merged. And the whole argument for this merger in the first place is it will only tie in to Civil War, when that's clearly not the case. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What Tom B. has confirmed is beside the point. Comics creators have often released false information. At one early, early point, DC people said Infinite Crisis would have nothing to do with Crisis on Infinite Earths. Also, there have been times that a comic got prepared, then got changed before it saw print. Did you know Jean Grey/Phoenix originally wasn't going to die way back in the X-Men "Fate of the Phoenix" story? Byrne even drew the pages where she survived before their bosses say no way, she has to die. Last week, Paul Levitz commented in a conference call about times they had to make changes after a comic went to print, when they had to decide whether or not to reprint an entire run or at least a specific page. So . . . until it's in print and in our hands, the story event does not exist. Besides which, the whole Civil War storyline is complicated enough without describing stuff that hasn't even come out yet. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Doczilla 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the links that I put up? The comic is done and going to print at the point of that interview. I don't care what happened in the past, it's what's happening now that counts, and, again, if you'd read the interviews, they're not giving out false information. Tom is the editor, not one of the creators, so yeah, his word deserves to be taken over all others. And if you're going to give that argument, then there's no reason for that page to even exist at all, because by the time you get done nitpicking over it, there will be nothing left to merge, and the article should have just waited to be started until the issue was out. Why is this really even being brought up now? The issues comes out in a little over the week, if anything, this should be suspended until then, and then people will have a reason to give a real judgement as to whether these should be merged. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't care "what has happened in the past"? Why would someone who doesn't care what has happened in the past bother looking at an encyclopedia? You're discounting the examples used in the explanation of Wikipedia policy. Have you read WP:NOT and WP:CMC/EG? Wryspy 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Good lord, people on this site need to stop taking things out of context. Yes I have read those and they say not to listen to the creators, not the editors. Again, read what I linked. This is not "creating hype", this is the editor of the book giving the basic facts of what will be happening. The issue deals with more books than just Civil War, and yet again, this should not even be up for discussion until the damn thing is out so people can make a real decision over it. 164.107.218.14 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That is hype. That he was not using a lot of exclamation points does not make it any less so. It was promotional material. You are right, though: This shouldn't be up for discussion because the book is not out now. That's also why it ought not to have an article or assumptions made on it until Wikipedians can actually get their grubby, sweaty paws on the books. --19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Go to the lower part of this Comic Urban Legends page [3] if you want to see how drastically solicited material can differ from what finally comes out (re:Emerald Twilight). Doczilla 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War Files merge

I'd suggest we merge Civil War Files into Civil War (comics). --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

  • Merge --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Doczilla 20:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Goldenboy|talk|contribs 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I'ts not a comic in essence, but a fact file, so merge it. Cactusrob 10:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge †Bloodpack† 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge PaxHouse 17:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision is to merge Brian Boru is awesome 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Not directly linked to the other merge proposal, but along similar lines - Civil War Files is just an "Info Within the Files" list, a cast list stating which character is on which side - there's not much additional text or background. The "Choosing Sides" section of this article already lists who's on which side (and my understanding is that the Files - like the Annihilation Nova Corps files - are mostly there as a reference for people who may not have gathered all this info from other places), so there doesn't seem much point in keeping it as a second article. --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • i merged them, thought i shoudl be the one to do it, since i made the page.Phoenix741 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • since the article is merged do we still need this topic, or is it a waste of space, same goes Civil War:Choosing Sides

[edit] Status of Wiccan

Just thought I'd add this here, as to why Wiccan isn't incarcerated, and should be listed under the Secret Avengers.

  • Wiccan is known to be captured after the fight in Civil War #4.
  • Tom Brevoort's blog confirms the timeline of several events, including the fact that Wiccan (And possibly Hulkling and Hercules) were the ones being transported in the "Battle of Yancy Street" issues.
  • In the above issues, Dagger says that "All the prisoners escaped".

Hence, Wiccan, is infact, a free man. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link directly to the post about the timeline of events: http://www.marvel.com/blogs/Tom_Brevoort/entry/480 - Brad T. Cordeiro 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War Files: Creators / writers / artists?

This was an actual comic issue, right?

Who were the writers/artists? I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article. (Sorry, this is in reference to the Civil War Files article)

152.130.15.14 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Unregistered

Good question. I don't feel like hunting these down. (What? I'm in college. I have just enough time to speculate.) If someone wants to go to Marvel or Newsarama or whatever and dig this info up, it would be a good thing, I think. -- Nick Begovich 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a comic as such - It was a collection of fact files and art taken from previously-published comics (Even the cover was the original promo artwork for the series, from months before the first issue launched). I couldn't tell you who the writers of the fact files were, offhand.

[edit] Buying the series

Once it's all out, is there any word on whether casual Marvel fans without the time on their hands to order all of the issues of the various titles involved will be able to buy them in one set? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.209.169 (talk • contribs).

Most if not all will be collected in trade paperbacks--virtually everything Marvel prints these days is. The one exception might be one-shots (such as Civil War files), but lately a few one-shots have been included in trades, too. (There will be a Civil War tpb, a Frontline tpb, an Amazing Spidey Civil War tpb, etc.) So, probably, but it's possible they'd have to hunt down a couple of issues here and there. The trades most likely won't be sold as a set. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release Dates

I don't know how firm they are considering the delays, but the release dates for the remaining issues would be useful. Anybody have them? --Happylobster 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question Regarding the Registration

I heard that part of the Act was that everyone who had to gegister, even if they were not a superhero, had to do missions for the governemtn without question when asked. Is that true, and if it is, should it be put in the article, or maybe the registration article?--Mullon 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that no, they are merely required to go throught training regarding their abilities, lest they end up hurting someone by accident. There is a fear among many heroes that the Government may call them to duty, however, but this isn't necessarily the case. Further information on the Act should definitely be placed in the article. And does any one know anything about the Fifty-State Initiative? At all? -- Nick Begovich 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather it is a plan to send heroes(that agree to work for the gov) to all 50 states. I believe this is because of the Mass quantities of heroes that center around New York. Kinda like a spread the wealth sorta thing.Phoenix741 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So it really is just an invasion of privacy issue and not a draft issue. Thats kind of a disappointment.--Mullon 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well not really. They could go togeather. If the goverenment knew who you were they could blackmail you into doing something. Like with wonderman and his tax problems.Phoenix741 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That all makes sense. At least Tony laid the Fifty-State Initiative out pretty well, however briefly, to DareDevil. (That is supposed to be camel text, right?) Somebody should mention that in the article, if it's not already there. -- Nick Begovich 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War 5 spoilers?

I was under the impression new information was not to be posted until the day the new issue was officially out. While browsing this article I was EXTREMELY annoyed to have a spoiler for Civil War #5 occur in the 'Deaths' section. At the very least, it should have spoiler tags. I removed the piece in question but I just wanted to clarify- Spoilers CAN only be printed after the comic in question is released and even then should be spoiler tagged, correct?

There is a spoilers tag where the spoilers begin, in the synopsis section. There's an end of spoilers tag after the deaths section. Brad T. Cordeiro 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No spoilers in the article until the issue hits the stands. Please remove any details about #5. Will this article ever stop being a disgusting embarrassment? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, never........ well not until everything comes out and the facts are straight.Phoenix741 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, ouch. But no, I don't see this article looking really good until mid-February, when the series ends and the "Post-Civil War" Marvel begins. In the mean time, hang tight and don't get too pissed. Haha... thirty-one pieces, punk! -- Nick Begovich 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Not really in line with the last question, but also about issue #5, are we really sure that Danny Rand was captured and not the genuine Daredevil? In the panel immediately previous to Daredevil's capture, they show a Daredevil also in the Secret Avengers' current hideout. The timeframe isn't directly stated, but I'd assume from the sequence of events of the rest of the comic that it's either right after or at the same time, which would leave some ambiguity as to who was wearing the costume. Also, Daredevil presented Stark with a silver coin and a Bible reference, which seemed to me to indicate it was in fact Matt Murdock, unless Iron Fist is a much better actor than I'm giving him credit for. Just thought I'd ask. 192.251.125.85 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also thinking that, if Iron Fist was captured it bet it would of been shown in at least 1 panel. So yea I think it is the real Daredevil.Phoenix741 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It was Iron Fist in issue one with the Silver Dollar. I think it'd be him then. It's almost 100% likely he got caught on purpose though.Goldenboy|talk|contribs 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Also, Daredevil does not want his identity to be public info - the past 12 years of his title have been about that - and so he would not want to be caught and processed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Mark Millar specifically stated on his site that it was Danny Rand
Uh... reference? I can't find it. -- Nick Begovich 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
CW5 confuses me, in regard to daredevil. we see him sitting besides the secret avengers when the punisher arrives then on the last pages, he got caught by SHIELDS? †Bloodpack† 10:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
that gets back to the idea that it might be THE daredevil caught, and not iron fist.Phoenix741 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
well at least in my opinion, time differences. If they would show Daredevil being in custody, they should have at least like 1 page where he(danny) gets captured since he has been a semi-big part of the story, but if it was the regular daredevil then they could show that they got him no questions asked since it would be the first time we would see him in this story. Also wouldn't the mention somewhere in the story that iron man figured it out like him saying "SO where is the real daredevil", or "so your not daredevil" something like that. Or mabey i am just wrong and this is just really bad story telling, I don't knowPhoenix741 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's mainstream comics storytelling that's part of a crossover, so yes, there are a lot of examples of poor writing attributable to linwide shenanigans. None of what you posted above says that that is Matt Murdock. Millar most likely had SuperFist playing with the coin in the earlier issue so you would know it was him in this one. But again, these are guesses unless confirmed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
ok then so we need to find profPhoenix741 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And a spelchek program. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's Rand, due to the whole silver dollar thing. I'm not very helpful, am I? At any rate, it's probably explained somewhere else in explicit detail (the next Daredevil, maybe?), but for now, I guess we can say, "a Daredevil." I don't know! -- Nick Begovich 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disparity between ASM and main Civil War title

OK, so I just finished editing the synopsis of Civil War #5 last night, today I go and pick up Amazing Spider-Man #536 and...in ASM the fight between Stark and Parker is completely different! Specifically, in the Civil War title, Stark tries to convince Peter not to leave, Peter says they've gone too far and that locking people up in the Negative Zone isn't right, Stark tells him that the Negative Zone Prison is just a temporary measure until something more suitable can be arranged (despite him stating in ASM #535, after Peter says the prison might be acceptable as an interim solution, "This isn't temporary, Peter. This isn't interim. This is permanent. Get with the program."), Peter wants to leave, Stark asks him what's gonna happen to MJ and Aunt May if he does this, Peter hits him and says they're as far away as possible, fight ensues, Peter tries to break through the window but it's shatter-proof so he merely crashes into it and falls down, then a buttload of SHIELD jerks arrive and unload a couple dozen clips of ammo at Peter and the window, breaking the window and causing Peter to fall outside (albeit with several bullet wounds). How's THAT for a run-on sentence?

Now, in ASM #535-536, Peter makes a decision and tells Aunt May and MJ to run away. Then alarms start going off in Stark Tower, and he begins moving down the corridors before he gets blindsided by Iron Man. That's how #535 ends. #536 begins with Peter falling several stories onto a hot dog cart (apparently uninjured before the fall) followed by a very angry Iron Man, who rages that he trusted Peter and asks if this is how Peter repays him. Peter punches Stark and lunges at him, but Stark utters a command word and Peter's suit (which Stark built) shuts down. Stark tells him that he wouldn't have given Parker a suit as powerful as that one if it didn't have safeguards to prevent it from being used against him, Stark. But it turns out Peter is playing possum just long enough to lure Stark close enough to clobber him with a sucker punch, that he anticipated Stark's precautions and personally disabled the override command on his suit. By the time Stark recovers, Peter is nowhere to be found, having fled into the sewer.

So here's the question: since Millar and Straczynski can't stay on the same page (no pun intended), which version of events belongs here?--Fingerknöchelkopf 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If it is in Civil War, then it belongs in civil war, granted it is kinda confusing how it is set up, but I think that the fight it civil war and the fight in ASM are completely different, mabey the one in ASM came first, then they fight again in Civil War #5. Anyway back to my point, anything that happened in the Civil War series should be here, anything tie-in related should be be on the series's page.Phoenix741 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The fight in ASM 536 takes place right after Peter falls out the window in the Civil War. Civil War picks up after Peter heads into the sewers. --Thegtype 08:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was stated somewhere by someone that it is to be assumed that the Iron Spider armor mostly protected Pete from the bullet wounds. Just sayin'. -- Nick Begovich 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally read ASM so I could join this conversation. I don't understand how these two issues would not fit together. In ASM535, Spider-Man tells his family to leave. He and Iron Man exchange words. In CW5, the two exchange more words and Spider-Man's suit gets ripped and he gets to ground leve. In ASM 536, Spider-Man fights Iron Man at ground level and goes into the sewers. In CW5, Spider-Man in the sewers fights a bunch of obscure villain, is beat up, and is taken the the Secret Avengers. In ASM536, he mentions that he has joined the Avengers. None of it contradicts; each issue shows you different pieces of the same chain of events. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thats so true, but the question is (since this article is mainly about the civil war comic book), should we also include in the synopsis the events that took place in the tie-in titles? or is the synopsis we have here is solely focused in the civil war comic book? †Bloodpack† 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Truthfully I think we should have a little bit of info for all the tie-ins(Fantastic Four, Spider-man, Black Panther, and so on) but the way the synopis is being set up as of now, it is only the story in the main Civil War series.Phoenix741 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article was at one time agreed upon to be about the crossover. Therefore, I am sure the related limited series and tie-ins will all be summed up here once the thing is over. In fact, that's probably when the lists of characters and other bad sections will go as well, and the article can begin to be halfway decent. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Everything gels (so quit your whining, you damn hacks), and isn't an issue. The biggest disparity I noticed was in Punisher War Journal, where Punisher shoots Prankster a few times in the chest, as opposed to the single bullet to the head (the fact that he was using a S.H.I.E.L.D.-issue rifle might come into play in the future, for those of you keeping score) in Civil War. Boo-hoo. One of the problems, arguably, with this crossover is that so much is being filled in by tie-in issues, so it is important to include those. It'll be hard to create a comprehensive plot summary, but it is a crossover. So quit complaining. Goodness. -- Nick Begovich 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So what happens when this is all over?

I'm in favor of a "list" of who's one what side, but it frustrates me that people feel the need to constantly update it and give special qualifications as to how they are associated with that side. Honestly, but the time this is all over, there will be no sides. It's been said time and again that there will be a "winner" and a "loser," and I doubt the losing side will maintain their position once there is nothing left to fight over. From an encyclopedic sense however, it would be nice to have a resource that stated "this is what the story was about, these are the characters involved, this is where they stood." From that perspective, Spider-man might be best left with one side and not changed over, because looking at the story as a whole, Spider-man was not soley associated with a single side. Another option might be a list of involved characters with a reference to which issue they "joined a side" or "switched sides" in. The list of deceased characters is also useful, and should include those believed dead as a result of the series (Xavin). What do you guys think about changing the format? - Kevingarcia 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mabey we could show a list of the oringal lineup(from like civil war 1 or 2) then just show issue by issue, who switched sides and who died and stuff. I think this is what your suggesting. Am I right?Phoenix741 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Show how it is from the start, or at least from each character's entry into the "war." - Kevingarcia 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't need an autistic recounting of rosters and roster changes. How about we dsescribe the story; team membership is incidental in this article unless a character plays a part in the story. Whether Aaron Stack is in the Secret Avengers is a detail for the Aaron Stack and Secret Avengers articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The lists need to be reduced, with minor details removed. It may also be more appropriate as paragraphs. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderbolt Army (merge)

1. Merge --> Seems kinda useless to me.Phoenix741 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Merge. Unencyclopedic article. This would be more useful as a category for character pages than a separate article. Brad T. Cordeiro 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment See List of Thunderbolts members for almost identical information. CovenantD 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Merge or Delete - What the hell? -- Nick Begovich 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow that pretty much sums it up,lol. Phoenix741 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/v/Talk%7ECivil_War_%28comics%29_af4e.html"