Talk:Abomination (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abomination (comics) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Maybe add this?

It might be helpful to mention the fact that the abomination's strength doesn't increase with his anger the way the Hulk's does. Zongalt 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up

Added a cover from the first two-part story in which the Abomination appeared, and moved the other image further down to the Powers and Abilities section. Removed the "tell the story" component of the Video Game section as a blow by blow account of what happens in the game isn't appropriate. The first paragraph - which is quite good - tells a new reader all they require.

Asgardian 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the main pic per Comics Project guidelines, which calls for certain criteria about the character's pose and positioning (and not just the cover of their first appearance). What's there now isn't perfect, but it shows the character much better. CovenantD 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is fine for now and clearer than the darkened image.

Asgardian 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained why your prefered image is better under the guidelines adopted by the Comics Project. And once again you've reintroduced elements of the SHB that are no longer used. Revert. CovenantD 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The new image is fine. It is clearer and an actual cover that places the Abomination in context. The other image is too dark, and while a nice shot is not suitable as the main image. Text also tidied up - all spelling errors and incorrect tenses removed, as was the "tell the story" aspect of the video game.

Asgardian 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD - your reverts seems to be "just for the sake of it." Some added text in the SHB is fine - as is an original cover for that matter - and use of past tense is also acceptable as this is history. It happened, as opposed to happening. You are also not reading text before reverting as it is much improved and far more succinct. Try and be more objective and less obsessive. If you intend to simply follow me and try and undo all edits - completed and yet to come - you will need to quit your job and forgo sleep! Hardly worth it given no one owns these boards, yes? Your history on your Talk page indicates that you perhaps get a little too involved. Relax.

Asgardian 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring many, many guidelines to have your own way. That's not how Wikipedia works. I suggest, AGAIN, that you read some of the style guides, talk page discussions, exemplars, and other resources that many editors have steered you towards before you edit Wikipedia any further. And worry about your own life and not mine. CovenantD 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate version - image?

Anyone got a panel of the Ultimate Abomination that we can use to illustrate that section? We don't need to repeat the superhero box etc but since he looks a bit different, it might be useful to have a picture? --Mrph 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cover

Please do not use the cover with both the Abomination and Hulk. Not everybody can identify which is which, we have to consider non-comics reader. T-1000 17:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The top left hand corner has an image of the Hulk!

Asgardian 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And how will a non-comics reader tell that the Hulk? And the image with abomination is outdated. He has a much darker shade of green. The characters positioning is also violating image guildlines. T-1000 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power and abilities

Fixed power and abilities section. The abomination is not constantly twice the strength of the calm Hulk. It varies with comics writers.

Unsubstantiated POV.

Asgardian 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Different writers write the abomination differently. It can be verified. T-1000 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, The abomination's strength does increase while he is angered, even normal humans do this. T-1000 17:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated POV.

Asgardian 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a scientific fact. Adrenaline causes people to become stronger. T-1000 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anger and Adrenaline are two very different things. Adrenaline is a body chemical, anger is an emotion. It's a scientific fact. Humans don't get "stronger" when they get "angry." 162.84.229.161 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] controversy over superiority of angry hulk continues

I undid the last editor of the article because that edit removed relevant information from the article. I see that this is a controversial topic. Apparently the hulk gets stronger when he is angry (significantly stronger) and The Abomination (for most writers) may only get a little stronger (adrenilated) or not at all when angry. This is an important aspect of The Hulks powers versus The Abomination's powers, so I undid the edit.--Markisgreen 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Navbox

The table with all the links to various characters in the "Hulk" universe is not appropriate. It smacks of ownership of article and POV as to what is a priority. A similar Cosmic list was culled because Wikipedia articles are not a series of lists (and for the same reasons - ownership and POV.) It is also odd to have this on a villain's page - by that logic EVERY villain should have a table linking them to a primary hero. Obviously, this won't happen and so we have to go with established Wikipedia practice, and at present that is a linked mention in the article.

Such matters also need consensus, rather than unilateral change.

Asgardian (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The template is not the same as the case of Cosmic characters, as the qualification of what equates into a cosmic character is a bit subjective and changes throughout storylines. The Abomination is a character that is fully integrated into the Hulk mythos and appears exclusively in conjunction with other Hulk characters. The navbox serves not only as a quick reference, but also to point to other basic characters in the Hulk mythos. I agree that most characters cannot be exclusive to one character; however, this is not an all or nothing argument. This is equally not a question of ownership, as all the edits in regards to this matter have been made by two editors (the two having this discussion to date), and simply I don't agree with your choice of style in this circumstance. The Navbox itself increases accessiblity to a focused group of similar characters and should remain. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it is a subjective decision as to which "Hulk" characters are featured in the nav box. Even if you had consensus, there is still the question of how to decide on which "major" characters are featured, and which are not? How do you decide on who is "major" and "minor"? Will this be consistent across ALL the articles as they would then have to feature on each page? Maintaining the nav boxes could also be a logistical nightmare as the Marvel Universe changes. More and more questions arise. Such things really are best left to a fan site. Sorry.

Asgardian (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have transferred the argument of from the appropriateness of a Hulk table on the Abomination page to the appropriateness of a Hulk table. My argument is simply that the Abomination is an intregral part of the Hulk mythology, and a navbox points to various aspects of that mythology (the current navbox does in part include characters, but not exclusively). With an information medium as massive as Wikipedia, the ability to create accessible means to navigate to various related topics is essential, templates are an easy source to provide that; this is regardless, as the question of a Hulk tag seem to be a clear and logical in regards to approriateness. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reread that paragraph. You are using definate terms such as "integral", "essential" and "clear and logical" to enforce a personal point of view. You have no consensus, and again, have failed to address the question of subjectivity. I have different views of what and whom should go in a nav box (not that such a tool has been ratified), as I'm sure will others. What do you say to that? Any more attempts at this will be considered vandalism and I will notify a moderator. You require a request for comment at the very least before introducing such a tool. In the downtime, the nav box stays out until the matter is resolved.

Asgardian (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to reread my previous statement. If your concern is of content of the navebox, that argument does not cover the inclusion of a navbox on character page. In addition, with precidence of Lex Luthor, Joker, and Green Goblin amongst others, it is clear that my edits neither require a request for comment nor are acts of vandalism. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

You are still falling down on the fact that for the sake of consistency, there needs to be a mandate for an "all or nothing" approach on navigation boxes, AND there are still the issues of who decides what characters etc feature and the upkeep. None of this has been thrashed out. This is why the Cosmic List was pulled.

Asgardian (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the simple point that navboxes are not simply character lists. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC).

But what goes in them is a subjective decision. That's what you miss.

Asgardian (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Quality rating

I was wondering if improving this article to B or GA before the movie comes out would be worth it. I'm thinking that a review of the fictional character bio is needed ,with some trimmings, though it's certainly not an awful bloated blow by blow litany as is. I'd like to find and add some real-world commentaries and criticisms, perhaps citations about the balance of Blonksy and Banner? Any thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I reverted this edit in four parts, each explaining some of the problems. Again, here they are:

  • A parenthetical notation is not needed, and is better handled by regular prose, which I cleaned up.
  • The issue number/date problem is not resolved by deleting notation of the problem, nor by just fudging the data. Find a citation. I tried a while ago, and couldn't.
  • The director's commentary about the character in other media belongs in the article about that character. The fuller production information is included in the relevant film article, but a specific selection about the character's nature is fully appropriate to this article.

ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

An odd action. The dates were fixed. Also, how can it be fudging? If in doubt, count the issue dates on your fingers or use Ebay or an issue archive. The last to issues are from 1976 - vol. 1 was monthly. Fact. Again, odd. I'll address the other mistakes later.

Asgardian (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it. I didn't write that section, although I did add the initial date conflict notation. I tried to find citations, but couldn't, though I agree on the math, because it could have occurred in the 1976 issues, OR in issue 183. I'm not going to argue the change any further, but I still feel I had the right idea here. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Have also placed statement about Blonky's employment upfront as an aside to clarify, as the old statement broke the tense and flipped out of universe. Also trimmed a sentence of "tell the story" that does not pertain to the Abomination and is too in-universe.

Asgardian (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a parenthetical has been added. That's poor writing, plain and simple. it's far easier and smoother to simply note that marvel updated the origin. As such, I've yet again done so. Stop adding parentheticals. ThuranX (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK...birth date is culled. For reason, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandman_%28Marvel_Comics%29

Bottom line is that the OHOTMU is flawed, and as such is not recognised. Tidied up own text, and removed list format from P & A. Some sources missing, and with rewritten sentences that is where the revamped origin statement will be.

Asgardian (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also added a new image that as per Wikipedia policy is a full frontal shot. Also have the character performing an act of strength which suits. If there's a better shot, I'll insert that. Open to suggestions.

Asgardian (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ONce again, I'ver reveted most of what you've done. This all comes down to you having a childish fit. I keep incorporating text you think ought to be in a parenthetical form, despite that being downright shitty writing, and you're upset by it, so now it's 'if I can't have my way, i'll take my ball and go home'. bye bye, have fun alone with your ball. Further, the new image is significantly worse than the old. It's a smaller image of the character and obscured by another character. Increasing image size won't fix that. ThuranX (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you:

1. Be civil. There is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

2. Do not act as though you have ownership of the article. There is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

3. Keep adding a birthdate sourced from the OHOTMU. It is not an acknowledged source. There has been discussion re: this at the above-mentioned link and there is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

4. Change the SHB image when one image matches requirements and another does not. There is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

Asgardian (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet again. Birth PLACE and Birth DATE are different. There exists a GUIDELINE in the WP:COMICS project about The OHOTMU and Birth dates, not places, and there is no formal Wiki-policy. As for the image, there is a policy, and it requires taht characters not be obscured by other characters, as well. Finally, I remind you that content based edits which are reverted should be discussed, not shouted down. ThuranX (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your comments to date have been of more of a shouting nature. I am simply stating the facts. Firstly, the OHOTMU is not a recognised Wikipedia source due to the high level of inaccuracy. As such, it is not quoted. Once again - not quoted. As to place of birth, it is to all intents and purposes irrelevant and not used unless the place of birth factors as part of the character's ongoing motivations. Orion; Superman and Thor are all excellent examples. Blonsky's DOB is irrelevant - it never factors into the FCB or any issue. You could claim the character was born in Kentucky and it would be just as irrelevant. As to writing and style, the Marvel claim does not belong there as the prose then flips from in to out of universe. Consistency is required.

Asgardian (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a shouting match, iv'e tried to explain this, but you don't want to hear. There is now a new source for the information, from another editor. As for importance, Hulk is a character built in part around cold war fears of nuclear bombs; for his nemesis to be a soviet bloc spy spawned of the same radiation origin is relevant. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletions

For a while now, IP editors have been blanking the image in the infobox. I'm opening a talk page section for them to explain their edit. Otherwise, it will continue to be reverted. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much hulk?

Any reason why the biography section only covers his history with Hulk and She-Hulk, but not any of the encounters with other Marvel Characters such as the Silver Surfer?

perfectblue (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

a few reasons come to mind: the biography should not be an issue by issue recap; not all appearances are equally notable; the character is primarily a villian for the hulk, and not a wider ranging enemy overall. ThuranX (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)