Talk:Aquaman

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] OYL Aquaman

I've started a paragraph about the "New Aquaman" It's just a placeholder with the current information on "Sword of Atlantis". In time I think we can have, like on the Superboy page, an herobox, and if the page grows two separated pages. For now if anyone knows any previous appearence of the Dweller in the depths could spare them. DrTofu83 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm glad you did that, BUT...

...Where Kurt Busiek has stated that the Dweller is indeed Orin, the original Aquaman? Personally, I wasn't aware of that interview.

FlavioTerceiro 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally didn't add that info to the OYL Aquaman Section. I found it, then I only "rearranged" the given info between the Orin and the Arthur section of the article. So, I think I too must ask to a confirm. I didn't remove the info 'cause it seemed to me possibile.

After reading it I found two possible traces

[[1]] Busiek talking about a "brand new role for Orin"

[[2]] Fans complaining for the new role

DrTofu83 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. But it's not certain.
Personally, i think we should remove it, or tag that section with something similar to the Civil War article:
This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain tentative information and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available. Image:Wordballoon.png
Because, well, until Dweller says "I'm the original Aquaman", it's especulation. =D
FlavioTerceiro 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

This article desperately needs to be reduced (WP:SIZE). There are too many unencyclopedic (useless) and repeated info. Take a look at sections "Modern Age" and "Modern origin and history". —Lesfer (talk/@) 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One section should eventually be broken off into a separate article, which will cut down the size: the Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis section. The "Modern origin and history" section should really be broken up and merged with both the "Silver Age" and "Modern Age" sections following Aquaman's publishing chronology as a guide, and presenting the "Modern Age" origin in that section to note how different it is from the Silver Age one. Other than the origin, there really isn't much difference between the Silver Age and Modern Age histories of Aquaman. Kaijan 14:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've integrated the "Modern origin and history" section with the "Silver Age" and "Modern Age" sections to remove some of the repeated information, but it still needs work. Kaijan 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've created a sub-article (Cultural impact of Aquaman) based on a Chris Griswold idea on Wonder Woman's talk page. I think it's a nice solution in order to reduce the article. —Lesfer (talk/@) 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I moved the reference to it into a "see also" category... maybe a subarticle about history can be made... check back with me in 10 minutes. EDIT: Nevermind, instead I moved the characters section. Vellocet_Malchickawick

What about the extreme detail presented in the Golden, Silver, and Modern Age sections? It seems like these parts are awfully long, and too descriptive for a character article. Is there any desire to condense/stream-line these sections? That would reduce the size considerably.

Bhissong 18:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Agreed! —Lesfer (talk/@) 14:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article should not be too long, however, it is important that the main article gives a complete overview of Aquaman. We can't just split off characters and pop culture articles have have them in a "See also" section. The characters section is pretty short, so I merged in back in. The pop culture scetion is great, but it still has to be mentioned in the main Aqua article, which is now done. The characters section is far too small to break away. If anything, break away "Character history" and write an overview in its place with a link to the sub article. Davey4 08:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, the introduction is excessively long as well. Davey4 08:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of undoing things already decided and done, don't you think you could help in some other way? For instance, trying to reduce the excessively long introduction? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "decided and done" - What does that mean? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, as I did, and I explained my actions which make perfect sense. You cannot just break off articles like Characters, as it is an important part of the Aquaman article. There are ways to deal with long articles, and that was not the right way to go about it. If you break away sections like Pop culture and Characters, don't just leave the information for dead on the main page - that does not help anyone. Davey4 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dweller in the Depths

Assuming that (reading at what Busiek said) the Aquaman mantle has passed on, and if we're not sure if the whole Dweller in the Dephts thing is permanent, at least we knows it will be long-lasting, why don't we put a redirect from Dweller in the Depths to Aquaman page? Eventually, if we decide to divide Aquaman between Aquaman and Aquaman:Sword of Atlantis, the Dweller Page can point to the First Aquaman, as a significant alias, like Vox (comics) to Mal Duncan DrTofu83 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have a redirect: Dweller of the Depths. —Lesfer (talk/@) 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long?

Does anyone else think this article is a bit lengthy? It's listed as one that needs to be condensed, and I have to agree. After all, this is meant to be a wiki. character article, not "the definite analysis of Aquaman and all things Aquaman." Anyone of the same mind? And if so, any ideas on what can go? Bhissong 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Bhissong

We've been talking about it. Take a look at Article size -- two headers above. ;) —Lesfer (talk/@) 17:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I skimmed right past it. I'll post there. Thanks.

Bhissong 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

[edit] Entourage?

Someone is taking it upon themselves to delete every piece of information relating to the Entourage/Aquaman link. I find this to be frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.94.13 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The information about Aquaman's connection to Entourage hasn't been removed from Wikipedia altogether, it's just in a different place. It is located in the subsidiary article Cultural impact of Aquaman. It's always a good idea to check the history list of article changes; in this case, the person who removed your edit from the main article noted his reason and provided a link to this separate article in his edit summary. Hopefully, that lessens your frustration. Cheers, --GentlemanGhost 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think having separate linked articles like this is convenient. Unless each section that exceeds a certain length is referenced elsewhere, it seems to be a confusing layout. It means you have to follow a bunch of links to get all the currently relevant information about the topic. And a current pop-culture reference is surely a big reason that this article gets hits. --24.151.131.65 06:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is convenient either, but we have rules and recommendations to follow. And there's not a bunch of links. This is about one single link: Cultural impact of Aquaman. —Lesfer (talk/@) 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I am not talking about this article specifically. If you read what I wrote, that is pretty obvious. Please point out where there is a rule that declares that it must be this way. The Batman article, for example, has a section with actual information in it called 'In Other Media' which gives information without forcing a link-out.24.151.131.65 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked info on "Other media" that would've to be added in here? Have you checked how this would affect this article size? And please, do not compare this article with Batman. That is a featured article, while this one is not. —Lesfer (talk/@) 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no worthwhile debate here, I see...plenty of attitude though. Obviously Batman is a better article because it is better in almost every way. Especially the fact that it has information in each section and not just a link-out when it comes to something like the character's importance in "Other Media".

The Cultural impact of Aquaman article (which doesn't come up in a search if you forget to capitalize the "A" in Aquaman or if you *do* captalize the "I" in "impact", by the way) has too much information in it anyways. For example, it contains too much about the Aquaman plotline of Season 2/3 Entourage, which could easily be found by following an Entourage (TV series) link in an "Other Media"-style section. 24.151.131.65 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some points:
  1. Batman is a featured article.
  2. All capitalized. Check Cultural Impact of Aquaman. Good point! Done.
  3. You think there's too much info in there? So work on it! Go over there and edit it in a way it gets better! ;) Cheers —Lesfer (t/c/@) 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"You think there's too much info in there? So work on it!" I am so tired of seeing this arguement. The person commenting isn't the one who put the articel together. YOU DID! You "WORK" here, not us! If you don't want to put in the time just say so.

[edit] Orin/Dweller

Because this has been questioned since May and no evidence has been provided to support it, I am removing all references to Orin being the Dweller. If you want it in the article, find a citation. Otherwise, it's out. No speculation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages 08 and 18 from Aquaman 45. Is there any doubt now?
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1119/aquaman45p08vc8.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4083/aquaman45p18qa9.jpg

[edit] Split

I'm not entirely clear on how or why this article is being split. NetK, please explain your work here so everyone can understand. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, the golden age Aquaman was distinguished as a completely separate individual from the silver age version according to DC Comics publication references, specifically in All-Star Squadron and Who's Who. On 17 June 2006 UltimatePyro created an entry for Kal-L as a separate entry from the main Superman entry without contest, and this split works under a similar principal. Additionally, after events in the Crisis on Infinite Universe, the origin and much of the core persona of the silver age Aquaman was stripped away as the character was rebooted to his modern day version. Hope that helps. NetK 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I must point out this in an in-story split. In actuality, Aquaman stories were written under the assumption that they were writing the same guy the entire time when they were originally published. It's basically an editorial No-Prize to account for the actually new versions of guys like Flash and Green Lantern. It can also be argued that the reason Kal-L is a seperate page is because DC has used the character ever since Crisis as a tool whenever they wish to write stories about big events (the Kingdom, Crisis). From a promotional standpoint, he's notable, so he gets his own article. Of course that article should only cover the character from when he was first introduced as a different individual from the main Superman (an issue of Justice League, if I recall correctly) and the changes to his past incorporated later with issue citations. WesleyDodds 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The weight should always be on real world publishing history rather than fictional character history. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Chris and Wesley, I definitely agree that delineating between the two Aquamen is far more difficult than Flash. However, within the real world publishing history was at least a handful of appearences by a golden age Aquaman. As significant as Kal-L? Not hardly. But lacking merit? This is a slippery slope...at what point do we determine this? One perspective is not universally shared where this is concerned.NetK 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I think a probable and concise solution would be to make an "Earth-Two" article. Not separate pages would exist, but the earth two-versions of the characters can be mentioned on that page. WesleyDodds 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a really good idea.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Imo the External links section needs a little clean up. Is 12 websites really needed here? How many are notable/needed?Davey4

[edit] Article should be more like Superman

Superman is a featured article, and from what I can see, is the way a comics character should be layed out. I don't like it how Aquaman is just one massive in-universe biography, and stuff like supporting characters and pop culture and thrown out as See also links. There should be a section on creation and publiction in the Aquaman article, and a SMALL fictional biography. If all that info is really encyclepedic, then a History of Aquaman may be in order, but a huge in-universe bio should not dominate the main Aquaman article. What is most frustating is that Characters of Aquaman is only a See also link, whereas it should be like Superman#Supporting_cast. Sections like Superman#Adaptations_in_other_media and Superman#Musical_references.2C_parodies_and_homages are also good examples of what the Aquaman article could be. Davey4 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Split Between Orin and Arhur

Shouldn't Orin's Page and the New Aquaman Have different pages, because they are different characters? Also to free up room from this cluttered page. RyuKlinge 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not.
First step would be to run over all sections of the article to make sure it's nice and tight, no cruft, no redundancy, clear and cornice.
In doing that, care will need to be taken to proportionately weight all three characters.
After that, if it's still overly long, propose the split, but a reasonable one.
— J Greb 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Before think about a split, an article resize should be considered. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/q/u/Talk%7EAquaman_beb0.html"