Talk:Strength level (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
??? This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

I guess I'm a little late on this discussion, but I've something to say. I found Wikipedia accidently, while searching for...gasp...character stats. I understand that these stats aren't exactly typical for an encyclopedia entry, however, neither are their inclusion in the first place. Anywho, I feel like the people who are searching out these articles would like to see vital character stats (even height and weight). I have noticed, for example, that a character's strength level will be described as "superhuman: class A". That is not, in any way, related to any sort of RPG. It is simple comic book jargon. I realize that most people wouldn't understand what that meant... but hey, that's why we're all here! Good times...

Even if there was some way to measure these characteristics in a vaguely objective and widely-recognized way, the problem would still remain of how to deal with the fact that most comic book characters have their relative strength levels portrayed differently over time and in different media. Sometimes this is due to "natural" changes that occur within the universe, and sometimes it's plain old inconsistency brought on by varying authors and plot requirements over the decades. Who gets to pick which particular version of each character is given in the statistics? Bryan 09:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's really not that difficult, though, to lay out the stats, point out that this is the official version of character X's strength/powers/whatever, and add that the writers usually feel free to mess with traits y/z/etc. In fact, since that could lead quite smoothly into brief discussion of different trends over the years (probably linked to character history in the real world) in terms of level of abilities, personality, etc., I would think keeping stats would strengthen the articles, not weaken them. As for "which particular version," as I've already implied there usually is only one version of the statistics - it's just how writers interpret or rely on those statistics that changes. Rabican 18:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe you're over thinking this... or maybe I am. So then, your point is that these stats have no place in a typical encyclopedia of general knowledge? That I can except. However, I don't think Wikipedia is typical, to say the least. Entries and articles can be updated so easily. All of the stats that I've surfed (mostly X-Men related) seem to be restated versions of official Marvel and X-Men guides and encyclopedias. I know, because I've got them all. "Who gets to pick which particular version of each character is given in the statistics?" I guess... Marvel and their writers, and you. Anywho, it's not really important to me where the information is at, article or discussion, as long as it's there. Thankie Sai. 9/19/04 Cassandra

What you are doing is VANDALISM. Hundreds of people enjoy reading the vital statistics on those pages. A search on Google usually turns up one of those entries when you look up something like "Sabretooth's Strength Level". I don't know where you get off thinking that you have the right to decied was is irrelevent and what isn't. Comic book writers do pay attention to them as they created them. I have friends who write comicbooks. OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT. Does it really hurt that much to investigate before you come to a conclusion? Lizard King 21:06, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Scifiter X, myself, and a few others came up with most of that information for all of those characters. I really don't appreciate you arbirarily deleting half of the information just because you can get away with it. But I guess some people think that the only way they can contribute to wiki is by deleting it. Lizard King 21:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The reason I "get off thinking I have the right to decide what is irrelevant and what isn't" is the same reason you get off thinking the same thing. We each did what we did because we think it improves the article. I have explained in detail why I thought it was a bad idea to include those strength level listings, I may be incorrect but I was hardly arbitrary. Could you please address some of the specific concerns I raised in the discussion below? Specifically, I'd like to know where that information came from, and how it can be reconciled with the sometimes quite drastic changes in the apparent abilities of these characters over time and across different media. Bryan 01:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't get off thinking what you do. I don't think what you do or like you do. I start with a strong premise and build an objective argument and from that I draw conclusions as soundly as I am able. If we were thinking alike in any way some element of your argument would correlate logically with my own and we could determine what it is in our experience that gives us different positions and possibly come to a better understanding and make a better decision. However, this is not the case. At the foundation up nothing that you have said, nor the manner in which you have contructed your argument to support your conclusion even remotely resembles the way I approach solving a problem or conversing. I don't agree with you, because you are wrong. However, obviously you have much more time on your hands than Scifiter and I and you can delete whatever you wish. The premis in your argument against me is flawed and the argument to support the premis is even worse. What it amounts to is that you as a sysop have the "pull" to do whatever you wish within reason regardless of the negative effect it has or the wiki contributers it alienates. Lizard King 03:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the above paragraph that actually addressed any of the issues that have been raised below, so I don't really have much to say in response. However, I should point out that sysops don't have any special "pull," and I haven't used any of my "sysop powers" in any way on this matter. Just about the only thing sysops can do that's special is lock and unlock articles, which I certainly haven't done here. All I did was state my case in talk: and do regular old editing. Bryan 06:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be complete crap, but who knew? pretty interesting! Triptych 04:25, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To User:65.35.69.180 (talk): Please stop reverting my changes. They are not vandalism, as you suggest in a commit comment, and I think they are important to provide significant points of view on the subject. -mhr 22:43, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Discussion

I've started going around to all the comic character pages that have "vital statistics" sections, since I don't think that RPG stats are a good idea in encyclopedia articles like this. Especially since it's not like comic writers pay attention to them. But there's rather a lot, more than I expected when I started out, so I'm going to make a list here so I (and everyone else) can keep track. Also, if anyone thinks these stats are worth keeping in the articles for any reason, then by all means let me know. Bryan 08:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree; they don't really belong in an encyclopedia. In general, superhero powers are not quantifiable, although some observations from actual stories (e.g., "Spider-Man is strong enough to lift a car, and has occasionally lifted even heavier objects") are worth including. -mhr 17:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just responded to a question about my removals over in talk:Dazzler, and am placing a copy of my response here for reference.

(duplicate copy of my posting removed; UtherSRG brought in another copy when he imported further discussion from Dazzler's page, below. Bryan 01:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC))
Looks like the conversation's going to continue over on Talk:Dazzler, instead of here. Bryan 04:23, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have no fear! I moved it here! - UtherSRG 04:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Some people want to know basic information about the characters, such as powers and how they're used. I can understand removing height, weight, etc, but I think the description of the powers is very useful and encyclopediac (Sp?) If I wanted to know who a character was, I'd certainly want to know what exactly she could do with her powers. PMC 00:58, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The major problem I have with these stats blocks is that they're based on information from a roleplaying game. Even if that game was "official", it's not like it's particularly binding on the authors of the comic or any other derivative works; they don't have to "roll for success" or anything like that when they have their characters do stuff. As such, trying to create some sort of objective ranking of what these characters can do is quite futile - all one can do is come up with a subjective opinion of how strong they are, at some particular time. Consider for example how Superman's abilities have changed over time; originally he couldn't fly, had no special vision powers, etc. Later on, all kinds of wacky abilities got added and subtracted and changed over time. He's died, split into four versions, ressurrected, been retconned multiple times... Superman isn't consistent within his own comic, and he isn't consistent across media; various cartoon, movie, and television show versions of him all have different levels of strength and different abilities. It all depends very heavily on who's writing the story and what the plot requires.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea in general to describe a character's powers in the article on them. However, trying to reduce it all to a single stat block like this is misleading at best; it's only a snapshot of a particular person's opinion of the character at a particular point in time. That's why I didn't simply delete the stat blocks, but instead moved them to talk:. Some of the information from them can be incorporated into the text of the article. Bryan 03:07, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This isn't from an RPG, this is derieved straight from the comic. I don't even know if there are any X-Men RPG's. As well, your comparison to Superman is fairly worthless - Superman is a DC Comics character; Dazzler is a Marvel Comics mutant, and Marvel characters are generally consistent in their powers. As far as I know, the Dazzler has always been posessed of the powers listed here; there have been no major changes. The same goes for most Marvel characters - Wolverine has always had a healing factor and claws, Spider-Man has always had webs and wall-crawling, and Storm has always been a weather-witch.
A power stated in a Marvel book is likely to remain, and thus it makes sense to include such information in quick blocks - what if someone didn't really care about the character's life history and only wanted a quick reference to what a particular character was capable of? Much easier to give them a quick summary at the bottom of the page. One of the main things people want to know is what a character can do with their abilities. They usually don't want a full life history, and certainly don't want to dig through a whole article just to find tidbits on the powers. Giving a quick, concise definition of abilities is very useful, and should be retained. PMC 03:57, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean "derived straight from the comic"? Derived how, and by whom? Marvel characters do change too, for example Wolverine got the adamantium ripped out of him a while back, and Angel/Archangel had his wings amputated and replaced. I used Superman as an example simply because everyone knows him and how he's changed over the years. Bryan 04:22, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Derived how, and by whom? Derived by the writers who created the characters and are writing the stories. How do they do it? With thier word processors. Next question?Lizard King 3 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
These are not adequate answers, IMO. I was asking for the process by which these people came up with these numbers in the first place, not how they wrote them down once they had them. And even if the creators of these characters were involved in coming up with the numbers, many of them are still inconsistently used over the run of the comics (as mentioned elsewhere in this talk page). Bryan 3 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
I agree; Marvel has not been consistent in handling its characters' powers. That's not a bad thing, it's just the nature of writing episodic fiction, and passing it among many writers over time. Some examples:
Marvel is consistant. Those changes were not unexplained changes and inconsistancies as happened in DC necessitating the "Crisis on Infinite Earth's story line". Those are examples below demonstrate the evolution in story telling. Events happen they change characters. Action and consequence. That is very logical and consistant. If I take a picture of you when you are five and you fit on a tricycle and 10 years later I take a picture of you and you don't fit anymore and I write a story about it, that doesn't mean that my story telling is inconsistant.Lizard King 3 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
"inconsistent" in this case doesn't mean just that the characters changed for no reason, it just means that the characters have changed. As a result, giving just one set of stats is misleading. Bryan 3 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
  • Giant-Man/Goliath's growth powers have fluctuated greatly over time, from being able to grow to 10 feet to 25 feet to not being able to use them anymore at all to having them again.

That was explained by the writers. First he was 10 feet then as he mastered his powers 25+, then he learned that it was making him sick.

  • The Scarlet Witch's powers have ranged from simple probability manipulation to outright magic.

As time passed she excelled in the mastery of her powers and reached into new forms of energy

  • As Peter David once observed, The Incredible Hulk originally could wear a business suit and travel on an airplane - coach! Today he'd have a hard time fitting through the door of an airplane.When he first appeared he was the smaller grey version. Later as he was depicted as green he became larger. The grey version was a transitional Hulk, not quite Bruce, not quite Hulk.
  • Spider-Man has been described as being able to lift a car, but then again he once knocked out Firelord, a herald of Galactus, who possesses the Power Cosmic and can travel through outer space wearing only spandex.Firelord didn't have the power cosmic at the time and could only lift 50 tons, meaning Spider-Man had a decent chance of knocking him out, even though he was significantly eaker.
  • Hercules sometimes is portrayed as being merely very strong, but on one occasion (which has been voted by some as the worst comics story ever) he managed to tow Long Island (or was it Manhattan?) back into place. Hercules has always been depicted with Hulk level strength, meaning he can lift far in excess of 100 tons.
  • Wolverine was originally simply strong, fast, and tough. Over time he exhibited uncanny senses, an amazing healing factor, an adamantium skeleton which (as was previously noted) is somehow not tough enough to withstand Magneto's powers (which defies the very definition of Adamantium as originally conceived), and also had lived/will live for centuries. That is called character development and it was all explained. None of the earlier development precluded the latter.
Overall, I don't think a "quick block" of character attributes makes much sense. It also doesn't make for good prose. It would be better to describe, in prose, what the character has been observed to accomplish.

None of your examples hold water.Lizard King 3 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there's in-comic explanations for these changes in strength levels, the fact remains that the strength levels changed and that's the root of the problem. Bryan 3 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
I definitely think that describing attributes of a character which are not remarkable should not be included. Don't describe their eye color, or hair. Don't describe how strong or well-trained they are if it's not an intrinsic part of their character (Cyclops, for instance). I think these "vital statistics" sections make for less-interested, less-well-written, and even misleading articles. No one writes such stuff in, for instance, Mohandas Gandhi, and I don't think we should do so in articles about fictional characters, either. -mhr 06:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did a major re-write of The Flash the other day, and although there are still a few bits to fill out, the format is what I presently consider to be a good one for comic book characters: Publication history, Fictional biography, then Powers and/or Abilities. Overall I see little point in mentioning (for instance) that Flash has human-level strength and is a trained athlete, because in the grand scheme of things those details don't really matter. It's the powers that set him apart from other heroes that should be mentioned.

I think we should adopt this sort of format for other comics characters (to a greater or lesser degree; some, such as Superman or Batman, might require a different format due to their importance in American culture generally). -mhr 19:09, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I'm fairly against the 'vital statistics' sections as they now stand. However, I was just adding a taxobox to Krill and thought, "Gee... why not a standardised table that could be hung on the side of an article in place of a 'vital stats' section." I much prefer sections of articles to be fairly factual but prose. Raw data should be tabularized.

What info should go in a 'vital statistics' table, and what shouldn't? some possibilities:

  • Name
  • Alias(es)
  • publisher
  • first appearance
  • universe
  • Group Affiliations
  • image (need to check fair usage guidelines)
  • powers & weaknesses
    • source? type?
  • Notes

More? Less?

- UtherSRG 04:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If powers are listed, I think they should be phrased only in very general terms and leave it to the article to describe the details. Also, the publisher that owns the rights to the character and possibly the "universe" the character is in should be listed. "Notes" is a very broad category name, what sort of notes did you have in mind? Bryan 05:09, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, publisher & universe are good. I've added them to the list. First appearance, too. Notes is intended to be broad and would be for something short that doesn't rightfully belong in the text but should be noted, or even something significant that should be highlighted by the table. For Beast it might be something about his change in looks - which would be something transient but long lasting. For Captain Marvel (Marvel comics), there might be two statoboxes, and one would point to the other in the note. shrug It's just often good to have a scratch area planned. - UtherSRG 05:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This seems like overkill to me. That list strikes me as quite long, especially for characters with many attributes (Superman, Wolverine, Spider-Man). Can't we just write good, well-structured articles? -mhr 06:59, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm leaning toward this view myself. Standardized tables work best when the information they present is very standardized, IMO, and comic book characters tend to be quite variable. The information that is totally uniform from character to character - name, alias, publisher, and first appearance - can all fit into one or two straightforward sentences at the beginning of the article. Better IMO to have somewhat standardized section headers (powers, history, etc.) rather than a table or list. Bryan 07:48, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Suits me fine. I was just trying to see if there was a way to salvage the work. - UtherSRG 13:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that some of the data from these lists can indeed be salvaged, that's why I've been moving them to their respective articles' talk: pages. It's mainly the presentation I've got problems with. Bryan 16:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I've now gone back through all the articles I removed vital stats from and integrated information about powers into the article text, where it was not already covered. Bryan 02:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Work List

[edit] Dragon Ball

The so-called unmeasurable level is meaningless in Dragon Ball Z. Almost all leading characters can destroy a planet in a single blow, yet there are still differences in power level among themselves. Many HK and Japanese comic books make use of concept of strength levels of the characters. wshun 07:44, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just added this caveat to the "immeasurable" level's description, hope that helps. Bryan 16:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion

Bryan, why can't you have a hobby beside trampling peoples First Amendment Rights. And why am I not surprised to see that you are involved in promoting this type of vandalism Uther. The data being posted is fairly constant with what is in the Marvel Universe Comics/Encyclopedia and in the marvel comics themselves. This true, despite the fact that, yes, the authors write can and at times do adjust characters abilities to suit the purposes of the story. The authors are usually consistant in the fact that despite the fact a character will often show less than there full strength they rarely show more. And on those occasions they do raise or lower the bar, they do so with an explanation of why this has occur, at least in the context of the story (mutation, sickness, etc...). ScifiterX 8:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You do not have a right to have your particular edits to Wikipedia preserved against other people's editing (update to comment: see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles) . I've explained at length above why I removed those vital stats lists, and have gone to more than enough effort IMO to preserve the useful information that was contained within them. The Marvel Universe Comics/Encyclopedia is not the be-all and end-all of information on these characters. Bryan 23:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No but it is a valid framework of information the can be used supplement complemented and even augmented ScifiterX
Well, yes. After I removed the lists, I went back through them and incorporated some of the information about superpowers back into the article text. I don't think they work very well as lists, though, and attempting to give objective relative values to the various attributes of these characters is futile at best, misleading at worst (see the discussion and proposal above on this subject). Bryan 02:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think the lists are rather interesting, maybe we could add something like "Official Vital Statistics according to Marvel Comics" or something to the lists, with a link to a page showing how the system works.
They'd need to be properly cited, IMO, including the timeframe they're valid in. ScifiterX et al never provided any solid source for their lists of stats so I don't particularly trust the information that was previously provided. Bryan 06:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In part they came from the most recent Marvel Universe at that time. At that time it was the Marvel Universe Master Edition which started being published in 1991. At this point I do agree that a simple paragraph suffices to explain powers, but that is my source. Though I do somtimes make mistakes, I have thoroughly researched what I write about and have actually corresponded with some marvel writers in the past, simply on a fan basis. One of the things that has been brought to my attention is that the Marvel Universe in its various editions were all written by a small handfull of overworked and underpaid editors scrambling to meet a dead-line. They are well written but alot of times its clear that Sanderson was just talking out of his ass and didn't care about the character he was writing about. You often have go back and look at the issues cited to make sure everything is really cosher. As far as you not trusting what I wrote how do you think I got the hieght and wieght of all those characters exacly the same as they were in the Universes? By guessing?ScifiterX 3 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
You said that "The data being posted is fairly constant with what is in the Marvel Universe Comics/Encyclopedia and in the marvel comics themselves", which suggests that you weren't just taking information straight from there. That implies either an additional source or original research, and not knowing where it was ultimately coming from I naturally distrusted it. That's why I think it was vital that detailed references and qualifiers on the validity of the information be included. When dealing with a complicated and possibly dodgy source like this, perhaps a good approach would be to write an article about the source itself (Marvel Universe Encyclopedia? I don't know its official title) and this will give other editors more of a basis for determining whether information from there is valid. Bryan 3 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
Bryan, you are absolutely correct. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if is matters, by the character reference sheets the writers use do list itemized stats for each character. Not in that particular format, but it does have a little paragraph on each stats roughly corresponding to the Marvel Encyclopedia entries for the stats. Writers generally try to stick to the guidelines. (i.e. You don't want to see Shadowcat lifting up a schoolbus). I think the stats do have merit, but with more objective descriptions so they can apply to non-Marvel characters as well --GaidinBDJ 13:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It would seem the units are messed up and non-standard. I would suggest reading the wikipedia "rules" regarding standard units and trying to present somewhat real information either primarily or as a consistent secondary entry. If there are other more odd measures or different non-standard units, they could of course be mentioned on the side. Someone can probably figure out what kind of reality the units are supposed to fit.

[edit] Typos

"Regarded" was spelled wrong throughout the article. I corrected that and "supported"

Okay, the specific characters can be removed but the list of the strength levels and the different classes is directly from the Marvel Universe. This nonsense of regarding any information from the Marvel Universe as "fan cruft" is ridiculous. So is the idea that these characters, sense they are fictional, can have any powers the writers want them to from issue to issue. That just doesn't happen. These characters do have certain abilities, and most of their abilities haven't changed for 20 or 30 years. Also, talking about Superman is irrelevant. The problems with DC comics continuity were fixed with the "Crisis on Infinite Earth" storyline in which the entire history of the DC Universe was retconned and the abilities of the characters were finally made finite and basically tentatively set in stone. Further, I thought this was an entry on Marvel characters?Space Monkey 2010 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. The title's "Strength level (comics)", ergo people wouldn't be out of line bringing in manga let alone DC characters.
  2. There's been a consensus for ages (since the beginning of 2004, apparently) that copying the strength levels into articles from the Handbooks etc is Bad. Removing them from this article only goes with that
  3. The Strength levels in question, even if they weren't highly dubious (and no, powers don't tend to change issue-to-issue, but levels often do) are Marvel-only and thus inappropriate for a general discussion.
  4. You think Crisis... lol. Firstly, the WP comics articles aren't exclusively about the present day. Secondly, there was a general depowerment of the DC heroes around Crisis time, but since most have been powered back up again incrementally since to the point where many are verging on pre-Crisis levels. Thirdly, if you can sort out DC continuity for me in a logical manner, please do so. - SoM 17:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that SoM . . . "DC continuity" is an oxymoron . . . Might I just add that you can break down comic book characters abilities with minimal margin for error. They don't change that dramatically! In most cases they are simply “revealed”. Keep that in mind. Therefore, Superman (even though I hate him as a character) could technically always fly since he possessed the ability to, he simply did not know how to do so till later or did not reveal that he could. Emma Frost could always turn into her nearly impervious crystal form but at one point did not know how to, or she did not reveal that she could. See a trend? Powers don’t change per say, they are revealed. That is mostly the case with Marvel Comics at least. JPhish 10:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/r/Talk%7EStrength_level_%28comics%29_b250.html"