Talk:List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-15. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Clone Saga

This six armed Spider-Man clone mentioned in the Ultimate Clone Saga article, I've been wondering if this unamed Spidey clone could be a reference to the Doppelganger. -- Lord Crayak

It's supposed to be Ultimate Tarantula. -- Comiclover420

Either way, it needs to be substantiated in a reputable source that the character appearing in the comic book is, in fact, Ultimate Tarantula or Ultimate Doppelganger before adding it to the article. --NewtΨΦ 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Bendis stated that by issue #100 we would see ultimate tarantula. what more proof do you need?
Not one character in the comic said that the character you mention is Ultimate Tarantula, nor do any secondary sources. Until they do, it's either original research or speculation, both of which are against Wikipedia policy. --NewtΨΦ 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Bendis stated that it was him. im not disagreeing with you on adding it or not but it IS him. also why does it matter? this page is about to get deleted by the admins even though alot of people put their heart and ssoul into it myself included. i think its the best page on wikipedia comic book wise. Comiclover 420
If Bendis said that the character that has six arms and wears a black costume in issue #100 is Ultimate Tarantula, provide a link or source for that information and it can be added to the Tarantula (comics) article. As for this article being deleted, it will more than likely be merged into Ultimate Spider-Man if anything happens to it at all. --NewtΨΦ 02:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bendis said in Wizard Magazine [1] that we would see: Scorpion, Spider-Woman, Tarantula, Spider-Girl, and one character we'd never expect to see again. I hink that since we knew Carnage would return and wanted Doc Ock to, the 'unexpected' was Peters Father. Scorpion and Spider-Woman have already made publicised appearances; and so, we can presume it's Tarantula for the fact that he isn't female (Therefore not Spider-Girl - who is possibly MJ), Doppelganger is a far too obscure and forgotten character to have n ultimate version - and hey, Pete and a few others have themselves possessed Six Arms in 616 - and no other character has even vaguley resembled a Taranula up to this Point. I rest my case.

Presumption is inference and speculation. Inference is independent analysis. Wikipedia editors report, we do not analyze nor speculate. Please read policy and understand the goal of this project before arguing further. Understand I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, they seem well-founded. However, they are your conclusions, and as a Wikipedia editor, you cannot add those to an article unless you find a reputable source for them. --NewtΨΦ 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing its probably a combination of Tarantula and Doppelganger, taking elements from both characters, like Doppelganger the guy is a Spider-Man clone and has six arms, can't think of any similarities to Tarantula though. But since Wikipedia isn't for theorys don't take this into consideration -- Lord Crayak

If you look at the costume, it looks based on one iteration of Tarantula's. That's the only similarity. --NewtΨΦ 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't tell me I'm 'Presuming' things when you're judging a character identity based only on the fact that he has 6 arms. Note: Doppelganger had claws, insectoid eyes, teeth, and a tendence for unmeasured, blind killing; this Character seems to have none of those, wanting to protect Mary-Jane Wtason from harm like the Spider-Men before him. I think perhaps the 6 arms thing may be a reference to the 616 Tarantula's eventual mutation (he grew four weird tentacle-limblets), the fact that in Amazing Spider-man 100 Peter grew the extra arms trying to rid himself of his powers - as Ultimate Nick Fury has expresed a wish to - and his costume may hav a few similarities wih those of the far stronger 616 character, The Black Tarantula.

[edit] The seminar

Throuought many comics Peter's class ahd to write a paper on a super hero they chose. It was kibnd of a sub arc. It ended In Ultimate spider-man super spetial edition where Peter presented his presentation.

Anybody gonna put it in the aticle or should I do it?

I don't think so - it didn't really have an effect on the plot or the characters, except for the fact that we yet again got to see that Ultimate Liz Allan is a Xenophobe.

[edit] the game

should someone put this?

I think Not. The game seems to have had no real effect on Canon Comics, nor any signficance - Peter does not remember havign Seen Venom, Silver Sable has never seen Spider-Man. Therefore, we can presume the little 'Game is Canon' Experiment didn't work out.

[edit] Captured by Oscorp...

It said under Clone Saga that MJ was captured by Oscorp. However she is in the abandon Oscorp building, and with Norman and Harry absent Oscorp is, well, dead. She is in the Oscorp building, but not by Oscorp. Justr thought I'd mention why I changed it...

[edit] Super Special

Should this be part of the Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs)? It's not a part of the Ultimate Spider-Man books but it has the character in it. ≈ Seraph 31 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it in at one time but some jerk wad deleted it -- comiclover420

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. --NewtΨΦ 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite

After narrowly surviving the VfD (see above), I thought it was a good idea to rewrite this thing, reducing the in-universe part and extending the out-of-universe perspective as per WP:WAF (Push an out of universe POV, In-universe POV is bad) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, especially not a collection of pure plot summaries). I reduced the plots to the bare bones and tried to bring in some real world info. Note that I wrote quite a bit on the old version myself (esp. issues 1-80), so this is also a good bit of rectifying some old errors of mine, IMHO. Also note Ultimate Spider-Man on www.spiderfan.org, a dedicated site on Spidey, offers much better and deeper info on the story arcs than Wikipedia (by its definition of being an encyclopaedia for everyone, not just comic fans like us) could ever have. Onomatopoeia 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. However, I think consensus is to keep this information in paragraph form. I may be wrong. If I'm not, I can help convert it. --PsyphicsΨΦ 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I didn't know whether it was also agreed to keep it in paragraph form, but if yes, ok. I just want to avoid this being a pure in-universe plot parrot. Onomatopoeia 14:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I applaud you for that. I'll drop a line at WP:CMC's talk page. -PsyphicsΨΦ 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I have no problem with blanking this article and making it a empty redirection page to Ultimate Spider-Man#History of Ultimate Spider-Man. Thoughts? Onomatopoeia 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd support that, but I think since "consensus" of the AfD was to keep the article, we should probably keep this separate. --PsyphicsΨΦ 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah, don't sweat it. If someone from the AFD objects to a redirect, they can come and explain why here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You did the wrong thing. You made people angry.
Change it back.

[edit] THANKS!

Thanks to the kind user who restored this article - the consensus was Keep, and the consensus will stay that way! SaliereTheFish

[edit] Death of a goblin

is immonens first arc i put it but some one keeps erasing it. so however it is needs to leave it as it is the next thing after knights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrestlinglover420 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

  • This is just a little note after the 'Death of the Goblin' Feud; as Marvel itself has released no Official Announcement on when 'Death of the Goblin' turns up, this arc may become subject to rescheduling or be moved; this has happened before, when 'Clone Saga' was announced by Bednis to be 'The Parker Legacy', running from 98-103 and followed by 'Mysterio'. Until Marvel releases some sort of Promotion for 'Death of the Goblin', this article remains without it. Period.SaliereTheFish 08:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bendis stated in Wizard #147 that D.O.G. is the next story so it is. Wrestlinglover420

This has been resolved as solicitations for issue #112 show the Green Goblin escaped from the Triskelion. Yay!

No title, no Arc, my unsigned friend. SaliereTheFish 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


http://www.marvel.com/catalog/?id=7169 Title. Arc. My signed friend.

[edit] Request for protection

This page is getting hit big time by a vandal and while i wont say who it is im requesting for protection Wrestlinglover420

Please try not to be so dense. The only vandalism is yours, and you're only posting this here because you were told to by Century0. Just leave this page alone, as you seem to want to do nothing to it but ruin it. SaliereTheFish 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

O thats real funny because the vandal is you. I'm trying to make the article better by adding a arc that is confirmed by the writer. you are trying to ruin the page because it dont "fit the solicitations" But when a writer AND a artist both state that they are doing this arc you refuse to accept it. I put this on here before the intervention and ill delete that crap you keep putting everytime because i dont care. Wrestlinglover420

The writer has never stated that that arc is next, nor has the illustrator. 'Ultimate Knights' has been confirmed and previewed on Marvel.com. Check your facts.SaliereTheFish 15:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually both have but appearently you only go by marvel.com so you check youre facts boy because youre wrong. Goblin is next but im not gonna put it. but youre not gonna put that crap about knights either so haha.


1) Stop throwing abuse around. You may think it makes you look 'big', but coupled with your calling me 'boy' and refusing to use proper grammar makes you resemble a whining child. How old are you really? Eight?

2) This is not about who is 'wrong' or 'right', as if either actually meant anything. Marvel - the publisher of Ultimate Spider-Man - has confirmed all the information I've put down. It has confirmed none of the info you have. Therefore, my information on 'Ultimate Knights' must be kept becaus eit is proven to be true, whereas yours isn't. I don't know how many different ways I can state this before you realise you're wrong.SaliereTheFish 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

you cant ever state it enough because youre not right i dont care if marvel has it or not the source isnt in dispute the spoilers are. so dont put it until it is published im not arguing with you anymore you dont it again im reporting you. Wrestlinglover420

My two cents. Spoilers are fail. BuyAMountain 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I've reported you for Violation of the Three Revertion Rule. Any further reverts will be added to the report. Prepare to be banned frome diting this page. SaliereTheFish 16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

do youre research youre the one in violation of the 3rr rule so go ahead report me theyll agree with me that u shouldnt put spoilers Wrestlinglover420

You made the three reverts first, therefore you're the guilty one. SaliereTheFish 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

actually you did you constantly are putting in spoilers for it and even though u have a source they are still spoilers. So have a nice day not. Wrestlinglover420

There is a spoiler tag for them. Readers can choose to read or not read them.

I dont care its not staying. Wrestlinglover420

If you don't care, you don't belong on Wikipedia. SaliereTheFish 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

o dont even try that holier than though attitude with me i belong on wikipedia because i refuse to back down and i know alot of facts. im not gonna argue with you no more its not staying. period.

I like your line of thinking. It stays. Period. Wkipedia is not about 'backing down', or about how many facts you know. It's about distributing information to other people. You, and your ego, don't come into it. You've violated the 3RR rule nine times, now. Don't you think you should stop? a tenth time, you'll get banned from Wiki outright. SaliereTheFish

hey do you not realise that youre breaking the same rule and in fact have broken it more than me? im not gonna stop because this info shouldnt be there im looking out for the good of wikipedia not yours Wrestlinglover420

1) You have broken the rule at least three more times than me,

2) You're looking to boost your own ego, and thinly veling it behind this 'good of Wikipedia' proclamation. Someone who was looking out for the good of wiki would not continually proclaim 'I'm right' at every opportunity.SaliereTheFish 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not about my ego it is about wikipedia now why dont you stop before you get us both banned? Wrestlinglover420

Who is it who isn't stopping? SaliereTheFish 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, you've seen sense. I hope you don't do this sort of thing again, young person. Be careful in future. SaliereTheFish 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Spot ark

Should we add Ultimate Spot's ark to the list, as there are solicitations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.102.6 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Nope. There's no confirmation of what the Arc name is - and we can't just call it 'Ultimate Spot One-Shot story'. 212.219.57.77 09:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At Last! REAL Confirmation!

Right Here.

Should we put the Arc up? SaliereTheFish 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was confirmed by bendis SEVERAL months agoTheManWhoLaughs 20:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we didn't get a specific link. did you miss the Internet Feud? The Arc kept getting added and removed because there was no proof, i.e. a specific article to link to. Now, there is.

....bull

[edit] protection

I think this page needs protection i keep getting alot of ips coming in and messing with it ive had to revert a bunch thanks.TheManWhoLaughs 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion discussion

I vote that this article shouldnt be deleted. I work hard at keeping this thing accurate and I think its one of the best articles on here.BlueShrek 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to express your opinion at the deletion discussion. (Emperor 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed move

Assuming that this article survives AfD, I'd like to propose moving it to List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs. I feel that being properly framed as a list will make it more clear what this page's place is in Wikipedia, as well as bringing it in line with similar television pages, like List of Lost episodes.

I'm proposing similar moves on the other (story arc) pages.-Chunky Rice 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK this is making sense to me and might fix some problems with too much plot in the main entry (see my current comments on the vote). While it avoids copy violation issues with only a small plot summary it does also run into the fact that it shouldn't be only plot and need more information. See for example the discussion on the Comics Project [2]. I've been doing some work on TV show episodes and what helps raise the bar are things like critical analysis and continuity (how this specific arc influenced the broader story elements). Silver Bullet Comic Books are a good source for reviews of the issues [3] and trades [4] and it should be possible to drop a paragraph in on the reaction to the particular arc (without resorting to fan opinions ;) ). Hope that helps to move things forward. (Emperor 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
OK, due to lack of objection, I'm going ahead with it. Once I'm done cleaning up re-directs and whatnot, I'll do my best to integrate the information from the USM article and delete it from that one. -Chunky Rice 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
OK good stuff. Hopefully the changes should help avoid such a tight vote in future AfDs. (Emperor 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Reformat

I was thinking that it might be good to drop this into a table, much like the episode lists do.

Title Issues Published Collected Writer Artist
Power and Responsibility 1-7 October 2000 - April 2001 TPB-Vol. 1
Hardcover-Vol. 1		 Brian Michael Bendis Mark Bagley
In a modernised retelling of the classic Amazing Fantasy #15 story (1961), Peter gets bitten by genetically altered spider and gets super powers; fights as a wrestler to pay off family debts; refuses to stop burglar who later kills Uncle Ben; becomes Spider-Man out of guilt; fights Norman Osborn / Green Goblin
Notes: First comic of the entire Ultimate Marvel line; first Bendis / Bagley collaboration. Originally, Bagley was only going to illustrate the first six issues; since then, he and Bendis have broken the record for longest continual run by a creative team in Marvel history.[2]

Something like this. Looks a lot cleaner. I dropped the first appearances/deaths information because it seemed a bit... trivalike to me. What do people think? -Chunky Rice 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a "reactions"/"reviews" as you really need to inject more "real-world" material in their to satisfy WP:F. I;d go with the former as this could include interviews or some such. Perhaps also a continuity section which decribes the new elements to the story arc (first appearance of such and such, someone reveals they are something, etc.). Should add more meat to it. (Emperor 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
Did you link to the wrong guideline/policy? I'm not sure what non-free content has to do with this. -Chunky Rice 02:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)