Talk:Avengers Disassembled

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Surplus Issues

On marvel.com, the only issues of A Disassembled are · Avengers #500-503 · Captain America and the Falcon #5-7 · Captain America #29-32 · Iron Man #86-89 · Avengers #500 Director’s Cut · Thor #82-85 · Official Handbook of Marvel

       Universe: Avengers 2004

· Spectacular Spider-Man #17-20 · Fantastic Four #517-519 Where do all the other issues come from?

[edit] Spectacular Spider-Man my ass.

I read those Spectacular Spider-Man Issues, and i can assure you that despite their having the "dissisembled" logo on the covers, they had nothing to do with the Avengers Dissesembling. This should be noted in the article.

[edit] Parodies

No I'm not 'jealous' (saying that someone is jealous of adding something before you has to be the most moronic thing I've ever heard) nor do I have personal disdain for it. But its irrevelant. Yes, other sections have parodies, and yes I find those superfluous and fancruft as well. Adding pop culture references adds nothing to the understanding of the article and more often that not it clogs it. Some obscure parodies is not notable enough to be featured in an encyclopedia article.--CyberGhostface 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But, while it's not distain, it is still a personal opinion. Which again is not grounds for deletion. If the section was a violation, then wouldn't it have been removed months ago? Just don't think that being a long term Wikipedian makes everything you do right. 71.115.231.16 05:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it might have been better for CyberGhostface to bring this up on the talk page first. When he deleted that selection, I didn't necessarily agree with him, but he has at least made a reasonable argument for its removal. You have made personal accusations. Drop the "long-term Wikipedian" and jealousy accusations; they are not becoming, and it comes across as edit count envy. Talk about the content, not the user, so we can actually discuss this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe I would be more civil if people would approach me on my edits rather than deleting right away. But everytime some deletes my contributions, they don't even tell me about it. Kind of like they hope I won't find out about the deletion. I guess being a newbie makes it ok for other to dump on me Yes, I'm still new, but for some reason this computer I'm on mixed me onto someones profile). You want to delete a contribution I make fine, but talk to me about it rather than hoping I won't notice. Still think no one is malicius towards me?65.54.155.43 04:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


  • The section should be removed. The first one is original research until you cite sources where it is stated it is a parody. If you can source it, then introduce it into the text, not as a separate section. The second can simply be introduced into the text, along the lines of in the aftermath section, which could be retitled legacy, and discuss other impacts it made within comics. Are there any references that it inspired any other crossovers from other publishers? Has anyone cited it as a shift back to event based crossovers? That sort of thing. But a section entitled parodies is a bad thing. These should be dealt with in the publishing history if nowhere else, they are a part of the publishing history, for example the series was held in regard by other creators and companies to the point that events were parodied in other books. In blah blah blah... That's my take. We're writing an encyclopedia, let's present in an encyclopedic manner. Hiding Talk 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. So far no one has made an effort to explain why the parodies should be included. All I've gotten was either personal accusations or claims that its not violating the rules, and therefore it should stay. Even if thats true, we should make Wikipedia the best it can be, not just the bare minimum of quality.--CyberGhostface 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologize for my behavior, it's just that I feel at times I'm being pushed around here. I mean I understand why deletions occur, but shouldn't it be a last resort. It's just that in most cases Chris, that when reversing edits it's shoot first ask questions never. Don't you agree that if something is out of place, then you should try to find a more appropriate place than just outright getting rid of it.

As for why I'm caught up in keeping the parody section, as someone who was once new to comics whenever I've taken interest in a storyline/crossover I like to look for comics that tie into it (Like issues of What If? What The? One shots, etc). Granted it goes against keeping a neutral view policy, but sometimes you need to think outside the box.

As for the of both parodies, there's no interview listing it, but it's pretty obvious due to the story and title. And while I understand the need for sources, how do you determine which needs a source and which doesn't? I mean, do you give someone a citation if they state that Bananas contain potassium, or if they state that H20 is the chemical compound for water? Sometimes you need to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

As for the long time Wikipedian crack, and for CyberGhostface's statement Even if thats true, we should make Wikipedia the best it can be, not just the bare minimum of quality. Maybe I was out of line, but it seems you're too obssessed with achieving perfection that you forget why you're contributing/editing information, to help provide info whether it's common knowledge or obscurities. 65.54.98.101 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see someone obsessed, I would suggest you go to the Fair Use Inquisitors whose main goal on Wikipedia is and nothing but removing fair use images. Wanting to remove an irrevelant section on an article that adds nothing to the understanding of the storyline does not count as obsessed.--CyberGhostface 03:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but it provide information nonetheless. When I said obssessed, I meant in more of a neat freak way, not psychotic. Second, I was hoping you would respond to every comment I typed and take it into consideration. It seems like you skimmed through and ignore other points I was trying to make. 65.54.155.43 04:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We require sources for most everything. Finding sources for whether bananas contain potassium or that H2O is the chemical formula for water is relatively easy, but if someone asks, we should do it. The Neutral point of view policy is a founding principle and is the only non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned. That you find something to be a parody does not make it a parody, and if someone questions it the onus is on you to source it, not me. It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. If it is so obvious, you should be able to source somewhere where it has been commented upon. To me, it could just as easily be a parody of the "Avengers Assembled" rallying cry. Hiding Talk 09:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it help to provide a cover image for GLA:Misassembled #1, which is a parody of the first Avengers Disassembled cover, or would that be overkill in an article that only has one article? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No, just cite that as the source, noting that the cover is part of the parody in the text. For example, The cover to GLA:Misassembled #1 parodies or pays homage to the Avengers Disassembled series, the cover (insert what the similarities are). It was also announced (insert where this was announced) that a character would die in each GLA issue, mirroring events in Avengers Disassembled. Or whatever. That's why I asked for a source. Just keep the language neutral and remember, a parody could be a homage or a mirroring or something else. Don't run with the obvious, try and present all interpretations. We have to give the reader as much information as we can, succinctly as possible, to allow them to make their own minds up, not force our interpretation on them. If you can tell it's a parody by looking at it, it's a parody. If you think it's a parody because of what you read into it, then it's original research. Hiding Talk 13:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll be as civil as possible. It should be obivous that it's a parody of Disassemble, because:
    • It's simply replacing the D with M in Disassembled.
    • It has the same concept (killing off team member, but in a comical matter).
  • There one thing I would like answered. How do you determine whether or not an entry needs a source. Because there's quite a bit of articles that have major info, but without citation notices and/or sources listed. 71.115.231.16 09:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not every article is edited to the same standards at the moment, but for an idea of how we like our articles to look, see our featured articles, hopefully that will show you what needs to be referenced. You have to remember, though, that what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to other people. Now I'm fairly convinced about the issue, but it's much better to be prepared to discuss these issues than simply assert you are right. Whether you are right or not is incidental as to whether we can show you are right. That's why a source is required. The next step is to work out if this information is of encyclopedic value to the article. Hiding Talk 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Drew

Why must it be assumed that Drew showing up was a mistake? Drew the character would not turn down a chance to help out.

Lots42 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)