Talk:Thor (Marvel 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
  1. January 2004 – August 2006

Contents

[edit] Superspeed

According to many fans on superhero boards Thor does NOT have superspeed, so why is this isted as one of his powers? Is it in the Official handbook? — ChocolateRoses talk

And according to many other fans he does. For example, Thor has ran so fast as to be invisible. Thor has fought the Silver Surfer at speeds that even the Surfer (who ha fought at faster than Flash level speeds) commented on his speed. He doesn't use it that often but Thor has massive super-speed. And yes, it is in the handbook. Lochdale 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
During the Simonson run, Thor fought Hela and stated that, as the god of thunder and lightning, he possessed the speed of lightning (which essentially says that he does in fact have superspeed). I do not have the issue number, as I am here at work right now. Will contribute that a little later. --Darin Wagner 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thor is even listed in both the old and new versions of the OHOTMU as possessing superhuman speed. In the older version, his running speed was listed as "Superhuman". According to the older version, the top speed for someone of this level was about 114 or 115 mph. His flight speed was listed at either "Escape Velocity" or "Orbital Velocity". I can't remember which one, but I remember it was stated that he could fly faster than a space shuttle. The newer Handbooks don't list his running or flight speed seperately, it just labels his speed at being extremely high on the power ratings chart provided. I'm guessing that the writers just combined them into one speed category. So, canonically speaking, Thor does possess some degree of superhuman speed. I think the phrase about Thor having the speed of lightning during his battle with Hela sounds a bit like artistic exaggeration. Odin's Beard 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but when DOESN'T an Asgardian use artistic exaggeration? --Darin Wagner 12:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the writer in charge of the Thor comic book at the time. Odin's Beard 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but Walt Simonson didn't say that within the context of the story... Thor did. --Darin Wagner 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Which was written by Simonson. Thor flies at faster than light speed, catches things like missiles, bullets and rockets. He has superspeed. Lochdale 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a kind of an old conversation by now, but as far back as in Journey into Mystery #94 (which is a very early example, considering that Thor's first appearance was in Journey into Mystery #83), Donald Blake transforms into Thor and flies out of the window at superspeed. "I'm speeding so fast that I'm practically invisible! Nobody saw me leave Dr. Blake's office, nor can anyone spot me as I streak skywards," he thinks as he goes. That's pretty obvious superspeed, right there.
That said, it's worth noting that back then Thor's powers weren't yet terribly well-defined, and he pulled an extra trick or two that I think have been completely forgotten since then... and good thing, too. For example, in Journey into Mystery #89, Thor finds Jane Foster held at gunpoint and needs something to distract the bad guys, so he, uh, becomes a ventriloquist. "Using his super-developed vocal cords, he throws his voice across the room," says the caption. Earlier in the issue he also "exhales with the power of the hurricane" -- essentially using super-breath to toss bad guys around. Kind of pre-Crisis Supermanesque of him, all this. Back then, Thor also routinely threw lightning bolts from his fingers and whatnot; it wasn't until later that his control over weather was consistently tied to Mjolnir. -- Captain Disdain 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

Ok, so the Turner variant was decided to not be used for the main SHB image because of the civil war titling on it.
What does everyone think of this image? Its the same Turner image, but its just the art. I haven't uploaded it yet, but if anyone thinks it would work? --DrBat 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Composing Wiki Text

"It might be an embarrassment of riches, but these sections are now waaaaay too long. This article is 50K -- that's almost twice as much as Wikipedia prefers. I'm sure some of the intense detail can be whittled down. -- Tenebrae 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) "

- In keeping with the statement above, I've tidied up many of the paragraphs which featured poor spelling; bad grammar and superfluous sentences. There were also a couple of plot points without any context that made no sense. It is important to remember that entries on long-standing and constantly changing characters CANNOT feature everything. The reader simply requires the gist of the matter - a succinct and descriptive summary of the most important features and events. References can be provided if the reader wishes to do further research. The "Protector of Midgard" summary is a good example of how to collate the information in an informative way without it becoming unwieldy. Hope it helps. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asgardian (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Images

It is important that we state in captions when an image is a solicitation cover, for fair use reasoning. Therefore please do not remove those phrases from captions.
Also, why were the images reverted from standard size to strange sizes? Its looks messy and amateur. --Jamdav86 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Composing Wiki Text, Part 2

The profile is closer to what it should be, but everyone needs to be aware that these pages CANNOT feature blow by blow accounts of what some fans feel is the definative story. The introduction of a Recommended Reading section provides readers with a quick rundown of the more pertinent stories without becoming verbose. Also, the differences between a Marvel version of Thor and the mythical version will be obvious if one sources the link at the top of the page to Thor. A summary is unnecessary and again promotes verbosity. Once again, the entry must be succinct.

Recommended Reading lists are inherently POV. Do not replace huge chunks of existing text with this stuff. CovenantD 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Concur. CovenantD is correct. -- Tenebrae 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Recommended Reading List is acknowledged as being the cream of the Thor stories. Having a lengthy summary of one or two stories is verbose and in fact represents said "POV stance." - Asgardian

Acknowledged by who? And who is recommending? If you want to have an objective list of award-winning Thor issues, or Roger Ebert's list of top-10 Thor stories or whatever, that's fine. Your recommendations are only your recommendations. As fine as they may be, they are, in the end, your personal choices, and that's POV and disallowed. I'm sorry, but that's just how Wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia works. -- Tenebrae 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE -

The RRL represents the best of the Thor stories (evident given that many on said list have been reprinted) and are excellent reference points for first appearances or a display of Thor's powers. Once again, a verbose summary of one or two of someone's favourite stories (eg. Surtur War) is inappropriate and not suitable for Wikipedia. The entries should present the GIST of the matter - not a blow by blow analysis. By that logic there should be a detailed account of the Celestial Saga and every other Thor story of note - which is impractical as the entry would be impossibly long. Brief summaries are what are required here - not panel by panel commentaries on stories such as the entry for the Surtur War. The same goes for other characters. A good example is Iron Man: a blow by blow account of the Armour Wars would be inappropriate. Brevity is the key. Remember this.

Addendum:

Suggest that those still feeling strongly about certain stories create a separate page for them (eg. The Surtur War) and then link it to the Thor page. Other readers could still benefit and it would keep the character's home page at a reasonable length.

Go ahead and shorten the sections you find objectionably long, but do not replace them with some bogus "Recommended Reading" list. That is blatently POV, as explained to you above, and will be reverted as such every time. CovenantD 17:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a mature response? Have you read the comments made above? Including large summaries of one or two stories IS POV, and not appropriate. If the author, then your material can be kept via a link as suggested above. Finally, how is the list "bogus?" These are acknowledged as being the best Thor stories and feature many important details, such as first appearances. How are the Kirby issues "bogus" given that they feature the first appearances of many of Thor's foes? How is the Celestial Saga "bogus" given Roy Thomas' interpretation of Norse mythology, the use of the 2,000 foot Destroyer and the introduction of Thor's mother, Gaea? How is the Midgard arc "bogus" given it features the first battle with the Wrecking Crew as a team; important developments for two of Galactus' Heralds and laid the groundwork for the Thor/Mephisto feud? Have you read any of these issues? Simonson wasn't the only writer to contribute to the Thor mythos.

I'm done debating the point. You are creating strawman arguments and otherwise avoiding the key issue, which is the POV of the "Recommended Reading" list. CovenantD 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You haven't "debated" anything, and have failed to address the main point. I can only surmise that you wrote some of the text and feel territorial. It can remain, but as a link. Remember, one of the most elements of Wiki entries is succinctness. Also, the attempts to change entries on minor characters smacks of pettiness. Those listings ARE the appearances of said characters. How else will new readers know how to access the issues? More updates to follow - could be time consuming trying to undo all of them.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asgardian (talk • contribs) .
CovenantD isn't being any more territorial than I or any of the other editors reverting your willful disobeying of Wikipedia rules and creating needless disruptions and threats (which seems how the community is supposed to take "could be time consuming trying to undo all of them").
That's a serious escalation even beyond all the breaking.If you don't stop, you'll be blocked. If you don't stop then, you'll be banned. It's that simple. --Tenebrae 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you have just issued a threat yourself. There has also been a complete failure on the behalf of at least two posters to address the issues. There is no need to be territorial, as the added information enhances rather than detracts from the entries. It is not about who knows more about a certain topic. The information presented is for the benefit of everyone. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asgardian (talk • contribs) .
Call it what you will. You're a rogue editor who can't be bothered with following even the rules of signing your posts. This is a community. Nobody can force you to act responsibly, work well with others, and abide by the rules. But then the consequences of your actions are then your own and no one else's. --Tenebrae 02:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


A "rogue editor"? Three points:

1.

This is your second emotive statement. Be objective. If it came to a review these comments will not stand in your favour.

2.

If I were a "rogue editor" as you describe, the information posted would be both inflammatory and erroneous (eg. "It was recently revealed that G'nort was the true father of Thor"). This is clearly not the case - nothing posted has been incorrect or false. In fact, everything has been supported by references, which oddly enough seem to be the bone of contention. Since when is supportable evidence - the very backbone of Wiki - inappropriate?

3.

Given that this is a community - as you claim - several members of said seem very resistant to change given that many of the improvements have made the entries clearer, and above all, succinct. To date there has been no effort to address the previous points raised here.

User:Asgardian

I did address your point by encouraging you to shorten the sections you find overly long[1]. Hardly the words of a "territorial" editor. CovenantD 03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)



Which I did...but putting back paragraph after paragraph on 1-2 stories is not efficient, yes?

That act is POV, so once again, a link is suggested.

User:Asgardian


[edit] Best of

This is entirely POV and I have removed it, otherwise we will just end up with an ever increasing list of wikipedia editors adding their own favourites. I was going to have a go at editing the tenses but I've remember I actually have a meeting to get to.

--Charlesknight 10:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CC of post on User talk:Asgardian

...after the latest rv of material other editors, by consensus, have repeatedly deleted:

Thor (Marvel Comics)

Please do not continue to revert edits that several editors, by consensus, keep removing. To continue to do so at this point is vandalism, and you willbe blocked and possibly banned. -- Tenebrae 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How are they favourites? These are the significant issues. They DO feature first appearances and significant events.

PS - Tenebrae: you are still being emotive and resorting to threats. Nothing posted has been incorrect and in fact much of the article has now been made far more succinct. It is STILL too long, but much improved.

- Asgardian

No thanks to you, it must be pointed out - all of your edits have been undone by subsequent editors who use a bit of finesse instead of a hatchet. CovenantD 11:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- CovenantD:

You have committed the same offence. Your response was emotive and also erroneous. I have rewritten every passage in the Character Biography and Powers and Abilities sections to remove all spelling errors; poor grammar and factual errors. This was done to improve the overall quality of the entry and once again, make it more succinct. Many posters here are prone to citing irrelevant information (eg. all the quirks and in and outs of the title and who guest starred when) and/or focusing on subjective moments. This is POV. It is an entry on Thor, and while some of his life events are important milestones, it should not become a case of "tell the story." People are only trying to be helpful, but it is subjective nonetheless. I find it ironic, therefore, that you speak of "others" who use finesse when in fact most posters here are given to verbosity.

Apart from the fact that it is an insult and in breach of Wikipedia procedure, the hatchet metaphor is somewhat amusing given how many almost non-existant entries I have improved on lately. No false, inflammatory or misleading information has been posted. Rather, I have provided information (and quite a few covers) that many new readers may not be aware of. Hardly the act of a vandal. If you want to see vandals in action, try Final Fantasy (FFVII may be a good place to start). I am not your enemy.

Whoops! Signature: Asgardian

Your constant warring with other editors and your childish insistence on reinserting misspelled and gramatically poor trivial edits with POV must stop. I'm reqesting Admin intervention. --Tenebrae 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The bad edits include going against WikiProject Comics style on promotional art and on present-tense fictional history, but also use of POV (it's only opinion who his "greatest" foes are, or what his "greatest" battle was); of disallowed temporal references ("in more recent times"); and of OR speculation and vagueness ("quite possibly"). Many of these appear in the single paragraph below; examples abound throughout his edits.

Thor's other mortal foes include the Wrecking Crew and the Grey Gargoyle, but his greatest enemies have always been the Asgardian "monsters", which include Mangog; the Frost Giants; the Enchanters Three; the Midgard Serpent (comics) and arch fire-demon Surtur. Thor's gallery of mystical/cosmic Rogues also extends to beings such as Mephisto; and in more recent times the Dark Gods (comics); the Sh'iar Praetor Gladiator and the god-slayer Desak. Thor's greatest battle, however, was quite possibly against the combined might of the Celestials, when their Fourth Host arrived to judge Earth.

--Tenebrae 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have good intentions, Asgardian, but also a habit of feeling a bit overprotective of the article. Ease back a bit, and we won't have any more problems. :) --Jamdav86 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article expansion

This article needs a bit more detail in certain areas. The pub. history only has a bit of the beginning, and a few paragraphs on the relaunches, but nothing on the 30-odd years in between. Similarly, the biography contains a lot of info from v2, #40ish to the present, but nothing before. Folks more knowledgeable on Thor than me will need to add info in these areas.
Here is some text lost in Asgardian's laudable efforts of reducing useless info, but it may be useful in expanding the pub. history in particular.--Jamdav86 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the support Jamdav86. I think Tenebrae has been over-reacting and the request for intervention may go against him/her. Tenebrae's claim that there are multiple editors opposing edits is something of a smoke screen as only Covenant has engaged in repeated dialogue, and like Tenebrae is responding with emotion rather than logic. By the by, the references to Thor's foes are correct. The fact that I have read every Thor comic aside, there are widely accepted truths regarding Thor's Rogues Gallery. The Asgardian monsters ARE Thor's greatest foes, and have been since their introduction in the 60's. Also note that on the issue of Thor's greatest battle, I say "possibly", but the fact is that #300 was of enormous significance for several reasons (has everyone read it?)

Please also note that this should NOT be a competition (ie. case of who knows more about a subject) as the aim of Wikipedia is for everyone to benefit from the group's combined efforts. That said, I suspect at least two posters are feeling a little threatened and even "trumped", hence the reaction. Again, there is no need for this. If in doubt about something, ask, rather than attack.

Jam - agreed. I culled as much as I could from the latter portions of Thor's Biography to keep manageable, but it still smacks of telling the story. For the sake of consistency and succinctness, it may be prudent to expand the Midgard section and list foes by eras and mark definable highlights (eg. the Celestial Saga, first fight with the Wrecking Crew, introduction of Beta Ray Bill). This is the only way to track the history of long standing characters without the entry becoming unwieldy. Thoughts?

Asgardian

User:Jamdav86 made essentially the same changes as User:CovenantD and myself; see [this page].
You can't have "widely accepted truths". You can only have confirmable, verifiable references. They are verifiable, as per comic continuity, and to stick with the example, many of these issues feature first appearaces. Fact , canon etc. That's simply Wikipedia policy, like it or not. The last part of your statement is once again emotive and smacks of an ultimatum.
The article has suffered from so much over-detail that several editors and an Admin worked on bringing it down to a suitable length, even going so far as having the article locked for a time to prevent further editing. I can believe that. It still needs another 1/4 to culled. Perhaps the tail end.
Smokescreen? You've kept inserting a misspelling of J. Michael Straczynski.

I did not write that. You've changed the tense improperly from present to past. You you've temporal references contrary to WP:DATED. Yet you ignore the concrete examples given, and despite this solid, verifiable evidence declare that editors who disagree with you must have some personal motive. Assumptions. You are also projecting - see Straw man and the comments above re: your circular argument.

You've been presented with facts. What facts? It's not a matter of emotion,

Read what you've previously posted. and your inability to work well with the community by your constant defensiveness and inability to accept facts and to adhere to Wikipedia policies of WP:POV, WP:NOR and consensus is creating difficulties for all concerned. Again, what facts? Nothing I have posted is incorrect.

If three editors all change your edits, why can you not accept that? -- Tenebrae 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because two of said editors have a history of conflict with other posters, seem to be displaying some pettiness and territorial behaviour and have a general inability to determine good writing from not so good (a la some other entries I have changed for the better which appears objectionable and deemed vandalism. Surprising considering that many of said entries were almost non-existant prior to the changes).

CC of post at User talk:Asgardian

Per Wikipedia policy about Talk pages, please remove your insertions from MY posting, and assemble them in YOUR OWN posting. Also, all-boldface is considered uncivil shouting. Also, you are expected to sign your posts. --Tenebrae 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Okay, I've been asked to look at the editing of the page as there is felt to be a dispute over content. First up, I'll point people to the dispute resolution page, and also to the civility policy and the no personal attacks policy. That'll lay the ground rules for the following debate. Basically, I expect every participant to comment on the content, not the user. Steve block Talk 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute summary

Okay, having had a read of the talk page and the article, the disputed edits seem to me to be centring around our policy on adopting a neutral point of view. There appears to be confusion over whether a best of or recommended reading section is a biased viewpoint. What we have to remember is that such lists are matters of opinion, and are subject to dispute. Whilst we can certainly cite Simonson's run as critically well received, with a suitable cite to a reliable source, we cannot build a list of works considered to represent the best stories the character appeared in. What we can do is reference such stories within the article in a suitable manner, perhaps in a critical evaluations section which summarises any critical reviews of the Thor stories in reliable sources.

There is a also an issue surrounding terms such as "greatest". We do offer guidance on such terms at guidance on weasel words and avoid Peacock terms. Basically we should allow facts to speak for themselves. Rather than describe a foe as Thor's greatest, note the number of times they have fought. This will allow the point to be made through the facts. Rather than speak of Thor's greatest battle, note the repercussions of the battle and the impact it had on the work, again allowing the point to be made.

One last pointer, to guidance on page ownership. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Let's collaborate and improve the article. I note there is what appears to be an article expansion idea at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Article expansion. Perhaps we could look to improve this article and seek a peer review, looking towards a listing as a good article candidate? Please try to settle the dispute in a civil manner here on the talk page. Steve block Talk 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Minor Film Update

Yesterday, I added the reference of his "appearance" in Adventures in Babysitting. I was actually a little surprised it wasn't on there. Thestormofwar 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bloody shattered

I've been up since 5am and I'm bloody shattered, however this needs re-writing:


Thor appeared at the end of Civil War #3 in the midst of a heated battle between pro-registration and anti-registration super heroes and appeared to side with the pro-registration heroes. Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

In Civil War #4, Thor spared the Secret Avengers no mercy, killing Goliath during the battle. It was later revealed that this Thor was a clone, made from hair fragments taken many years ago during an original Avengers meeting (Reed Richards, Henry Pym and Tony Stark were behind it). His Mjolnir was also shown to be a technological duplicate.

The real Thor has yet to return.

If it's a clone, then Thor did NOT appear at the end of Civil War 3 and Thor spared the secret avengers plenty of mercy because he wasn't there! and so on and so on!

I'd do it but I really don't have the energy to think of good copy at the moment --Charlesknight 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at it at around 4 am, just now(mmm sweet night shift). I'm certain there are grammer and spelling mistakes, but take a peak and see what you think. Alsosprachmiyamoto 08:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I've removed the image that depicts Civil War #4 as it is in fact not Thor. I've put back the preceding image, but perhaps this could also be changed as it is technically incorrect as well. While on images, I think it important to note that the picture - particularly if depicting ONE character - should be as generic as possible without distractions. The cover to Civil War #4 was in fact not the best choice as it raised questions, such as why is Thor standing over the bodies of those heroes? Who are they? A new reader only needs a nice clean, generic shot of the character in heroic pose to "get it."

That said, what is the consensus on this image of Thor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thor-334.jpg

It is one of the few covers (I've checked them all) that feature Thor in a clean, striking pose without distractions. Donald Blake is also present, but given that he was part of Thor's origin and remained an integral part of the history so for many years, it could be deemed acceptable.

Thoughts?

Asgardian 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I quite like that it demonstrates the classical relationship quite well, we need to remove the logo and stuff right? --Charlesknight 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I think that it should be fine given that #337 was present in it's entirety and the copyright holder was acknowledged. There are quite a few comic covers on Wiki.

Asgardian 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As Asgardian points out, there are many covers used in this way, and it may actually be better to leave it on. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since the Thor in Civil War is just a clone, we need to have an image of the real Thor in the infobox. 71.203.209.0 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to have an image of the clone, as long as it is representative of the Thor character, and he doesn't normally stand on a pile of heroes' bodies. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, referring to incidents that don't have anything to do with you as a way to impugn another editor's reputation comes across as really dirty and not at all in the interest having good faith in other editors. So stop it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CC of posting at User talk:Asgardian

[edit] The phrase "in more recent times"

Hi. Don't mean to open up a can of words, just trying to clarify an edit. There's a Wikipedia policy about not using temporal terms (Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly) which includes: "Phrases to avoid include 'recently', 'in modern times', 'now considered', 'is soon to become' ...."

I've brought this up earlier, yet I noticed an edit today with the phrase "in more recent times". I'm genuinely trying to understand the rationale for that edit. --Tenebrae 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Minor culling

Dropped the precise on Journey Into Mystery again as it is better suited to an entry on the title, not Thor (the page is still too long). Tidied up some grammar and spelling, and "obviating" has been changed as many of the younger readers may not know what this means. Put back the list of foes as I've created pages for beings such as Perrikus and the Dark Gods, with one on the God Eater to follow. Removed "greatest" but still included the Celestial reference as it speaks for itself.

The new picture is also in - looks good!

Asgardian 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


CovenantD - you appear to be wasting a great deal of your own time fighting change purely for the sake of it. A good example is the image you replaced here, which is not even Thor. Do dopplegangers (irrespective of their nature) feature in place of the real character on entries? I think not. The image chosen (cover to Thor #334) is a nice, clean generic shot, which is needed (see above). The rationale "gonna call it vandalism" is rather telling as it indicates that you seem to have very little understanding of what the term is and how it applies to Wikipedia. See here for a refresher on the term vandalism and then how that applies to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Note the sentence re: undermining Wikipedia, which is what in fact is happening here. Also, I think you would be hard pressed to justify the constant reversions to past edits of minor characters such as Surtur, given that my updates provide new information and IMAGES. Useful items, yes?

Asgardian 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian, please stop impugning the motives of other editors whenever they they disagree with you. Please address the issues being discussed and leave your personal attacks out of it. --Tenebrae 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


You are assuming once again, and using a strawmanargument. There has been no effort to address the issues raised (did you see the posts above?). As for personal attacks, that would appear to be your forte - to judge by your past comments and own admission on your talk page.

Asgardian 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Asgardian, in regards to the bulk of the edits you make to other Thor related articles - you wipe out categories, revert to badly formatted links[2], take away superhero boxes[3] and return formatting for "appearances" that is different than any other comic book article[4]. You remove entire portions of a characters history[5] and often have too many images on a page and in places that are unattractive[6] compared to how it looked before your edits[7]. Your edits have been reverted by other editors[8]. So no, I disagree most strongly that you are improving the articles in question. CovenantD 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Actually you are the only - perhaps obsessively - thas has been editing my other contributions. If it is a formatting issue, address that, not the information. Again. information, both in text and image form, has been presented that was lacking in all entries.

On Thor, I've replaced the picture as the Civil War cover does NOT feature Thor. It is also not suitable for the reasons posted above. If deemed unsuitable, find another cover, but it MUST be Thor and free of unnecessary distractions.

Asgardian 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you can be bothered with honesty. Until then any dialogue with you is a waste of my time. CovenantD 07:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Convenant - is that a mature response for an editor? Or printing an assumption/snide comment when editing such as "all to prove a point"? You act as though you are above all criticism, and yet you have failed to address any of the issues presented since I began posting. Are you threatened by the fact that another poster has possibly more knowledge of the character? As I have said before, I am not your enemy, and this is not a competition. There is no need for hostility (and to judge by your talk page there would even less if you tempered your comments before posting). Now, I have placed several images within the superhero boxes and applied a few more labels. Meet this effort halfway and leave the Thor image (#334) in place, OR find another clean generic image of the character that does not raise still more questions (as again, the Civil War covers do not depict Thor). Onward.

Asgardian 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that CovenantD feels threatened by your knowing more about a character is absurd and a little nerdy. I've looked at your edits, and sometimes they are either sloppy or ignorant of how things work on Wikipedia and WP:CMC - links, article structure, proper language, getting along with other editors. You have only been a registered editor for two weeks at this point, so my advice is to calm down, slow down, and ask questions when you don't actually know how to do what you want to do. The editors you are arguing with here have more experience with you, and my past interactions with them tell me that they would gladly work on this article with you and answer any questions you might have. I'd rather not take any sides in this, but what it looks like to me is that an extremely new editor has decided he wants to completely overhaul a number of related articles, has difficulty working with other editors, and is verbally attacking and making accusations about editors who have proven themselves with their track record. I have faith that you want to work for the good of the project, but you don't have all the tools to do so yet. That will come with time, patience, and experience. Please try to have faith in the other editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really. The behaviour is right. Very territorial and threatened. Hence the condescending remarks. His history (see Talk Page) suggests this poster does not play well with others. They can't all be wrong, can they? Asgardian 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm learning re: structure, but have to object when it comes to has "difficulty working with other editors". Many points and suggestion were made (see above) and they were all ignored. In fact, what comments have come back smack of "I'm right - deal with it." Asgardian 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Read the comments above and you'll see who has been attacking whom. Also, given the track records of a certain two posters, I don't know how much they have "proven". Asgardian 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please adhere to Comics Project policies & style

Asgardian, please do not make the kinds of caption changes as you did here. It goes against the Wikipedia Comics Project's manual of style for uniform cover artwork crediting. I formally and respectfully request that you explain why you believe it's fine to continually revert captions in contradiction to Comics Project policy. --Tenebrae 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


I've found the artist and credited them. As for text, remember: succinctness is the key. the article is still too long.

Asgardian 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no it isn't. The article is now under 30kb. In fact sections like publishing history look like they could use some detail. WesleyDodds 11:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary - no mudslinging!

Right, in this section I want no mudslinging, no namecalling, no dredging up of old edits and no posting in the middle of other peoples comments. This section is to summarise problems with the Thor page as it stands in a civil manner.

  1. The publication history is too short. See Fantastic Four's publication history for an example of how this page should look.
  2. The character biography is too focused on recent events. It needs to expand back into the "past" a bit more.
    1. Is there text and images worth cannibalising from /Article expansion to expand these two sections?
  3. Is there a better non-Civil War picture of Thor for use in the superhero box?

Discuss. --Jamdav86 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


What is wrong with Thor #334? Does everyone realise how few Thor covers feature him in classic pose?

Asgardian 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Kept the JIM synopsis, and put back the berserker rage = ten-fold increase in strength. Mentioned in one of the old Marvel Handbooks and Thor #504.

Asgardian 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

what about Thor v2.41 as an image? -- Charlesknight 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Now there's a good suggestion. The supporting cast are also all in the background as well. As to the cover for the Reigning, we could just keep rotating a few covers from that era as they all encapsulate the situation perfectly. #55 is a very good example.

Asgardian 06:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


As per the suggestion by Charlesknight, I'm road testing the image for Thor #41, Volume 2, and have tidied up some of the sentences, particularly in the Civil War passage. The note by 201.37.237.135 - and I hope this isn't a sockpuppet - re: images doesn't really wash here as the image for cover #334, Volume 1, was even clearer and was the TRUE Thor. Once again, the Civil War #4 cover does not feature the real deal, and is therefore inapplicable. Would an image of a Hulk-bot created by Armim Zola to battle the Avengers be appropriate to use as the Hulk's main image? No - because it is not the Hulk. The same applies here. Please also note that the image should be as distraction free as possible - the bodies of fallen heroes who may be unknown to some readers does not help. Issues #334, Volume 1 and #41, Volume 2 are fine as any clarification needed is present in the article.

Hopefully we can now get past this and focus on the text, as there are some gaps that need work. Perhaps a template that lists decades, or perhaps uses labels that suit the mood (such as The Experimental Years). The key is brevity: it should not become a case of "tell the story" which is what the Beta Ray Bill/Surtur became and was worse for it.

Asgardian 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images guidelines

Read WikiPolicies.
Here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Superhero_box_images.
Read it before editing again. 201.37.237.135 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

See above


Asgardian 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Jam - good use of the Doom cover. Nice to see a few folks thinking outside the square. There are some good covers out there.

On speed - Thor has divine reflexes, which means he can base minimum see the blur as a speedster moves. Thor, however, does not have super speed in the sense that Quicksilver, the Flash or even Superman do. The term, therefore, is a misnomer and confusing for readers. Thor MIGHT have been described as moving at super speed in the old JIM days, but it is a case of early artistic licence more than anything else (another example is JIM #85, in which Thor projects lightning from his hands - he's never done it since). Asgardian 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though the Steve McNiven art for Civil War is only a promotional piece, the publisher must be acknowledged as it features their characters.

Asgardian 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that idea? CovenantD 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Publisher is acknowledged (or should be) in the embedded copyright information on the clickthrough upload-summary page. Per WikiComics examplar, no need to place it on the article page itself. --Tenebrae 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

A one line sentance isn't a good lead section. If it is going to be changed again, please make sure it enough information that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I'd suggest checking Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man to see what a good comic book character article looks like. Grey Shadow 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What about using the Lee quote (currently a Footnote) to pad out the introduction? In addition to being interesting it isn't a mere rehash of what is described in the Origin section. No point in saying something twice, after all.

Asgardian 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the exemplars, one line is all you need. --Jamdav86 10:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Thor title?

Does anyone know where this was announced?

Marvel announced in 2006 that Thor will receive a new solo title, to be written by J. Michael Straczynski, in 2007.

I'd like to add a ref to the article. Grey Shadow 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvel's Big Plans Announced at Baltimore Retailer Conference. It seems to have been always coupled with several big announcements, so it's hard to find a single article ref. Hope this helps. It has since been announced that Olivier Coipel will be doing the art, too. --Supercrazy99 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added the ref to the article. Grey Shadow 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cover

Does anyone like issue #457 better as a superbox image? --Jamdav86 11:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It is clearer than the current image. The colours are brighter also. Grey Shadow 12:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Powers and Abilities

Gladiator is the best example to be grouped with the Hulk and Hercules. Like Thor, Gladiator has beaten Hyperion, and provided Thor with much more of a challenge.

Asgardian 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hulk Should Be Removed From the Example Because unlike Thor The Hulk Keeps Getting Stronger and Stronger having no Limit of Strength even Talked About As Being Able To Move The Earth And In The Secret Wars Lifting a 150 billion ton Mountain

I don't really see why that means the Hulk should be removed since the exact upper limit of Thor's strength, or the actual strength limit of any of Marvel's physical powerhouse characters for that matter, is known. While many fans would agree that the Hulk is ultimately stronger, that's irrelevant because it's never actually been established as a fact within any of Marvel's canonical publications. The whole Class 100 thing, when applied to certain characters including Thor, the Hulk, Gladiator, Hyperion, Hercules, and numerous others, is used to give some indication of what these powerhouse characters are capable of, particularly since other writers came along later on and kept increasing the character's strengths, possibly, beyond the limits the creators of these characters had in mind. Odin's Beard 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word definition

What's "semi-invulnerability"? Is that like "semi-pregnant"? --Tenebrae 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more like semi-dead. Like Carey Elwes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There's not really anything like total invulnerability among comic book characters. At least when it comes to "mortal" characters and not abstract entities like Death, Eternity, Infinity, and that whole crowd. I usually substitute superhuman durability or resistance to injury in place of invulnerability. Invulnerability just seems to scream that a character can't be hurt to me. Superhuman durability just sorta says to me "yeah, the character is extremely tough, but that doesn't mean that he/she can't sustain injury at all." Odin's Beard 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"Superhuman durability" works for me. It's a nice parallel construction with "super stregnth," "superhuman hearing," etc. -- Tenebrae 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super speed?

I've just copy-edited an edit to that effect. Does Thor really have super speed? I'm unaware of him ever, like, racing the Flash. :-) My Marvel Universe handbook is in storage; can anyone clarify? --Tenebrae 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Thor's speed above. He doesn't use it that often but he does have superspeed. He flies at faster than light speed and has feats such as catching missiles and shells that put him in the superspeed catagory. Lochdale 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As per my comments above, Thor doesn't have super speed in the sense that the other speedsters do. Achieving light speed by flight is NOT the same as running across the ground at MACH 10. Superior reflexes, but still not Flash-fast. Ever seen Thor running so fast he could barely be seen? No.

Really, you have every issue? So when crosses New York (whilst running) in a "hearbeat" what exactly is he doing?
  • The days of Journey Into Mystery and sometimes horrrible artistic licence! Consider: has Thor EVER projected lightning from his hands since JIM #85? No, so given the history since (40 years worth), it can discounted.

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

His sword fight with Thialfi is at what speed exactly?

  • King Thor? Who hurls Mjolnir so hard that it takes the head off a Desak-occupied Destroyer?

See what I'm getting at?

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Thor's clearing a massive trench in his Marvel Team-Up with the Human Torch is all a fabrication? Lochdale 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You want to quote Marvel Team-Up? An issue from 1974 (no. #26) when Marvel was still experimenting? When Spiderman can modify circuit boards without equipment and undo an efefct by an artifact owned by the Watcher? When Spiderman somehow recovers from the Grey Gargoyle's touch early and makes glib comments as the villain is carried off by a rocket, apparently to his death? When Thor was convieniently sidelined by a villain in some way so that he didn't solve the problem in two panels? Oh, you mean that superspeed...

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. How about Thor 354 when he moves faster than lightning? In fact, he's so fast that the death goddess Hela comments on his speed and retreats from it. I guess he has done it enough that I think he has it as a power. Superman actually hasn't used his speed that often (post-crisis) particularly given the number of comics he is in!Lochdale 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian 10:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm the one with the question in the first place, but flying at super speed seems as if it would fall under, well, super speed. Heck, if you can fly at near light-speed, I'd say that's super speed. (I can't offhand recall Thor flying that fast, but there've been some 500 stories....). Maybe "super-speed flight" would be a good descriptor?--Tenebrae 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually Asgardian, yes. Please see Journey into the Mystery number 110 where Thor runs so fast as to be invisible to the human eye. Also, Journey into the Mystery 112 where Thor runs the entire length of New York in a "heartbeat". How about when Thor fights Thialfi at super speeds in the second volume of Thor? I will get the correct citations shortly as I am currently going by memory but your comment is not accurate. Lochdale 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What have I said below? Did you read it? Thor has superhuman reflexes - he's fast enough to see a speedster and snatch a weapon. He, has not, however, EVER moved at superspeed since the VERY early, experimental days of Journey Into Mystery? Have you ever seen Thor move at superspeed since, or shoot lightning from his hands? The answer is a definate NO. I have every issue of Thor and while he's been super-agile in combat, there's no super speed.

Asgardian 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


From above:

On speed - Thor has divine reflexes, which means he can base minimum see the blur as a speedster moves. Thor, however, does not have super speed in the sense that Quicksilver, the Flash or even Superman do. The term, therefore, is a misnomer and confusing for readers. Thor MIGHT have been described as moving at super speed in the old JIM days, but it is a case of early artistic licence more than anything else (another example is JIM #85, in which Thor projects lightning from his hands - he's never done it since). Asgardian 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If still needing proof, cite one issue in the last 30 years, in either Thor or Avengers, where Thor actually moved at superspeed. React quickly? Yes? Move like the Flash? No. Thor can attain velocity and light speed in flight, this is different. Another example - Iron Man can fly at supersonic speeds, but does not move at superspeed at ground level because he can't. Asgardian 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how you figure Iron Man can fly at super speed, but can't be considered as having super speed. No one's saying "super-speed running".
As for Thor, I do agree with you since Thor himself is not capable of flight at all, let alone super-speed flight; that's via Mjolnir, from which he just kinda drags behind.--Tenebrae 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, Iron Man can fly at supersonic speed (say MACH 3) but this is a feature of his armour that is possible during FLIGHT. He's not Quicksilver on the ground, and as such doesn't have superspeed. The old Marvel Handbooks made this distinction as well - another example being the Sub-Mariner. Namor can swim at incredible speeds as this is a natural ability to which he is suited: but can't move on land at the same rate (the Whizzer from the Squadron Sinister was zipping around him in the first Squadron/Defenders battle). I admit I'm splitting hairs but the company has always made this distinction.

Asgardian 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thor flies a lot faster than Iron Man. Indeed, Thor flies at faster than light speed and he is the navigator of Mjolnir (See Thor 400). Also, why not look to Thor's recent sword fight with Thialfi as an example of his speed? He managed to catch and fight Hermes who is Makkari's equal in speed. So Thor catching shells, missiles etc. is just dumb luck? Lochdale 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I do see Asgardian's distinction, which I hadn't realized was in the Marvel Handbooks, and which does dovetail with the phrase "super-speed flight". My God, can we get any geekier?  :-) -- Tenebrae 07:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And the coup de grace - name at least three instances where Thor has used his super speed in the Avengers? Or even two?

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He has used his godblast only four times does this mean he doesn't have it? He used his speed when he fought Nefaria and when he managed to take down a SPEEDING Gladiator. What else do you need? Lochdale 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thor has divine and therefore superior reflexes. He can see speedsters move and anticipate. That said, I've never, never seen Thor move at superspeed in the manner of others such as Quicksilver and the Whizzer. If Thor could move at superspeed, WHY has this NEVER been shown? Why isn't Thor zipping around the block at MACH 1 in his own title or the Avengers?

Because he can't. Sorry, the old JIM example is not valid for reasons already stated. Nor is an old Marvel make-your-own continuity-for-one-issue one-shot forgettable story.

Asgardian 08:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So his carving a trench at superhuman speed in Marvel Team-up is meaningless? How about his sword fight at superspeed with Thialfi? Neither where in JIM. Or when he catches Hermes (the god of speed) that shouldn't count either? It's fair to include superspeed. Lochdale 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

So, the trend has been to merge Ultimate articles with regular articles. Any support for this?

See [9]. Result was no merge. Sign your posts.Brian Boru is awesome 21:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Definately no merge. I think the Ultimates need to stay separate for reasons of length and quality control.

Asgardian 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon

I've noticed some back-and-forth in the superperhero box between "God blasts" and "force blasts." I'd suggest Wikipedia prefers the latter under its guidelines to not use insider jargon, and to make the text easily accessible to a general audience. --Tenebrae 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invulnerability

I keep noticing that the phrases "near-invulnerability" and "near-immortality" pop up int he superhero box. That sounds a bit confusing to me and somewhat inaccurate. Invulnerable is a word that get's tossed around a lot in comic books and isn't really applicable nowadayse since most comic characters are actually characters instead of a collection of superhuman powers. At one point or another, all of them have suffered some sort of physical ailment whether it be Howard The Duck or Galactus. I think that a term like "superhuman durability" fits more in line. Thor, after all, is much more resistant to injury than a human, and the force required to injure him would generably be much greater, but there are numerous examples of him being injured. According to Marvel, the Asgardians are unique among Earth's pantheons in the fact that they aged. They aged much slower than humans, but aged nonetheless. Thor could be classified as extremely long lived. I think I remember reading exactly that in the older versions of the OHOTMU. Odin's Beard 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The Golden Apples of Idun account for the Norse gods' longevity.

Asgardian 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it's not really an explanation about semi or near invulnerability and all that. Superhuman durability just seems to flow. As far as "near immortality", it's a phrase that could be used, unfortunately, with other characters. Wolverine, Sabretooth, The Hulk, The Abomination, basically every character that possesses some sort of accelerated healing that grants him/her comparable levels of resistance to drugs, toxins, illness, and aging that Thor possesses. Odin's Beard 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication history

I've returned the issue #s to the main body of pub history where they were originally before an editor just now moved them to footnotes. Publication history is not like the char biography, where issue #s are not part of the fictional reality. Pub history charts a series for a general-audience reader and is intended to have such information all in one place, rather than make the reader go constantly to footnotes. That editor has shown a distaste for publication history sections, and the change was reflective of that. --Tenebrae 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • An erroneous assumption. You inserted a PH on character that has not even had a series of any kind. Given the limited no. of appearances that said character has had, and the complete ABSENCE of a PH on many, many other characters it becomes unnecessary. The Thor entry, however, still has a PH section - it is simply the formatting that has been tidied up. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to read.

Asgardian 09:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

I hate to rattle this again, but has anyone noticed that in the main image, Thor looks like a friggin' maniac? Kusonaga 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes Reborn

Shouldn't there be a segment here about Thor in the Heroes Reborn world. Especially the fact that there is two of them?Phoenix741 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. every single appearance of the character, especially in a variant world that was a single promotional event, shouldn't impact the page much. YOu might add it to the 'other versions' section if you can source it. ThuranX 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well yea it would go in 'other versions' , my main concern is why there are two Thors (ie: look at the heroes reborn cover on the avengers page.)Phoenix741 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a single sentence type thing? Something like, 'In Marvel's Heroes Reborn Event, (there might be a page, have you checked?) there were two Thors, One a XYZ, the other an ABC.' I'll leave the research and addition to you. ThuranX 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that i have found about it ever, is from a fan site(not a reiable source) and it says that one is the Real(616) Thor while the other is the Reborn Thor.Phoenix741 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In light of that, I think it's only worth noting that he wa a part of the HR thingie. and nothing more without a good citation. ThuranX 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabethan Diction

I think the character's elevated and exaggerated way of speaking is a characteristic worth nothing ("I say thee nay!"). It is commonly noted that Marvel Asgardian's use of quasi-Elizabethan English is an odd choice for supposedly Norse characters. Clconway 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. My only concern is if it's commonly noted that we find a citation. --Tenebrae 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's commonly noted in the same sense as "Scooby and Shaggy are always high" is commonly noted. You're not going to find a NY Times article on the subject. But here's some random mentions from around the web (some of which include some vulgar language):

Clconway 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice list of sources. Unfortunately, most are blogs. The samcci.com cite might be legit, as it's expanded from a published piece... the rest only serve to show it's been noted by fans numerous times, but not that any particular dialect experts have touched on it. maybe it can be used to support a 'many fans have noted...', but those are often reverted because fans aren't citable and neither are forums or blogs. It would be good stuff to include though. ThuranX 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Here would be my suggested language (inspired by the barbelith link): "Characteristics that distinguish the Marvel comics Thor from his mythological forbear include: blond hair, a clean-shaven face, and an Olde English style of speech (with perhaps some typical examples inserted here)." Clconway 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the fact that Thor speaks in an Olde English or Elizabethan idiom is an extremely notable aspect of his character and hardly requires expert testimony from a linguist. Whether or not it's "commonly noted" that his manner of speaking is "odd" is neither here nor there. Clconway 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds workable. I'm not sure it's even necessary to state it's "extremely notable", which sounds like POV and doesn't really add to the fact -- which is that he speaks in faux-Elizabethan (or is it Biblical?) dialect.
Clconway actually makes a good case for not talking about what's commonly noted, with the example "Scooby and Shaggy are always high". First, that's an interpretation not everyone shares. Second, that's an inference that the creators themselves would say is false. But that's just part of the Wiki learning curve -- we're writing encyclopedically, which takes grad students and professional historians time to learn, so, yeah, it takes getting used to.
Glad to have a thoughtful new college aboard, Clconway! --Tenebrae 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely faux-Elizabethan or Shakespearean English (which would encompass King James Version "biblical"). Many fans call it "Olde English" (see above cites), but this has a specific technical meaning that would confuse the issue. (I think it is meant in the sense of "Ye Olde Shoppe" at the Renaissance Fair.) Clconway 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How about 'stylized form of archaic speech, including Shakepearean era english pronouns, and various other constructs, such as 'verily'. IN recent years, Marvel has further distinguished his speech by use of a distinctly different font.'??? ThuranX 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Uru Hammer"

The article currently reads:

One element Lieber created in Marvel's Thor mythos was the description of Thor's weapon as the "Uru Hammer". While the hammer was later named Mjolnir, in accordance with Norse mythology, Lieber's made-up "uru" was eventually retconned to be the metal from which it was forged.

It takes a while for the hammer to actually be named Mjolnir, but from reading this one gets the impression that the hammer was actually called "Uru" at some point, and "uru" was later retconned to mean the metal it was made of. Unless I'm missing something, calling this a "retcon" is pretty misleading, especially as I think the first time the hammer was ever referred to as the "uru hammer" was in Journey into Mystery #92, and in issue #93 it's already made explicitly clear that "uru" is the material the hammer is made of: "Thor's hammer is made of the same magic mineral as my chains... the metal uru!", Loki says. So where's the retcon? Am I missing something?

(Anyway, I think the first time it was actually referred to as Mjolnir (well, Mjolner, but anyway) was in The Mighty Thor #137 -- before that, it was always "my enchanted mallet", "the uru hammer" or something along those lines.) -- Captain Disdain 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be right -- I'm not sure Lieber ever meant to hammer to be named "Uru." I'm all for rewording the reference, particularly with the specifics you give. (Some of it might be in a footnote, to avoid clogging.) Nice catch. --Tenebrae 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm positive that he never wanted to name the hammer "Uru". (If he had, he wouldn't have been so quick to explicitly state that uru is a metal.) Hmm. Now that I think about it some more, I'm not sure that part is relevant to the article at all, particularly since there doesn't really appear to be any retcon. We could just clip that bit out entirely and move it elsewhere -- a mention of Lieber's contribution might be more appropriate at the actual article about uru. -- Captain Disdain 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Changes to "Publication history"

Okay. So, I removed the uru hammer bit, as discussed directly above, but I also made some other changes to the stuff there was. Namely, only Larry Lieber was mentioned as the early series scripter. He did script nine of the earliest issues, but Robert Bernstein scripted another five after that. From that point on, Lee took up the scripting reins for a pretty long and definitive run. I think not mentioning Bernstein would be a little misleading there, so I fixed that.

I also added a mention of Joe Sinnott to the bit about the artists -- Don Heck, who is already mentioned did draw three issues, but Sinnott did five. Al Hartley of Archie fame also did a single issue, and I mentioned this as well. Anyway, you can see the changes I did. (I'd also like to work in a mention of how dramatically you can see Jack Kirby's artwork develop from the first time he drew Thor to how Thor looked when he left the book some years later, but frankly, I can't work up the energy to phrase that in a suitable NPOV manner or hunt up a reference right now.)

From that point on, I wrote up new stuff: I pretty much fleshed out the main points of Thor's publication history, as far as the creative teams go, but I had to stop at 1996, because that's pretty much where my knowledge (i.e., access to the actual issues) of this stuff ends. I made a clean break at the end of DeFalco's run, because after that, it looks like the creative team changed every couple of issues.

If someone wants to butcher my stuff or anything, go right ahead and hack away! It just struck me as a little silly that the "publication history" bit included only a little bit of stuff about the very beginning, in the early 60's, and then pretty much jumped right to the "Heroes Reborn" stuff in the mid-90s! Comments are obviously welcome.

Oh, and for references about Simonson's run's critical acclaim, I used this review at popimage.com and this column at Silver Bullet Comics. We could do better for those, though -- I'm pretty sure the Comics Journal did a story on him back when he was doing Thor, for example. -- Captain Disdain 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I realize that the publication history bit is pretty bare bones right now. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more about the Lee/Kirby years, for example, as well as the long Buscema run. I decided to err on the side of brevity, however... -- Captain Disdain 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/o/Talk%7EThor_%28Marvel_Comics%29_344d.html"