Talk:Venom (Eddie Brock)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venom (Eddie Brock) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Venom (Eddie Brock) was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 17, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Venomoviepic7.png

Image:Venomoviepic7.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ultimate Venom

Ultimate Venom's portion of this article has become quite long. Like Ultimate Nick Fury and Ultimate Thor, Ultimate Venom is a vastly different character than it's 616 counterpart, so I think it would be best to create a new article for Ultimate Venom and just put a link from this article to the new one. Even if others don't think it's too long right now, it will get longer once Ultimates 3 is published and if Bendis ever uses him again. But I'd like some consensus before this is put into action. 134.68.177.127 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Such an idea isn't unreasonable - one thing to check before splitting is if it can be trimmed down first. If the size isn't due to unnecessary bloat then a split could be in order. (Emperor 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

No Split - there are already enough Venom articles on WIkipedia. This page just needs some trimming as a whole, not just the Ultimate section. The "Early Appearances" sections seems particularly useless. If the page is ever split off it should be done as per the Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters convention. -- 69.182.73.240 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Ultimate Universe was some limited series, I'd agree. But as it is, Venom is a reoccurring character in the Ultimate Universe and will only have more history added to it. And as for there already being too many Venom articles, that's a different discussion altogether. A clean up of all Venom articles would help, and a separate Ultimate Venom article would help, not hinder.

In the effort of full disclosure, I was the one from the IP who originally proposed the split. Notthegoatseguy 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a long established convention that Ultimate charactes do not recieve their own pages. The Thor example above should probably be merged into the main page or renamed to Alternate versions of Thor but thats another discussion. An Alternate versions of Venom page would be ideal here as it could serve as a sub-page for both Venom (Eddie Brock) and Venom (comics). -- 69.182.73.240 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also established that Ultimate characters who diverge signifigantly from their 616 counterpart get their own pages too, as long as their role is signifigant enough to warrant it. Thor, Nick Fury, and Venom all diverge greatly from the 616 character they are based on, similar to why Hulk 2099 and Spider-Man 2099 have their own pages. Even after cleaning up this article and the Ultimate part, it will only get longer with Ultimates 3 set to be published soon. You can look at the merge debates of Thor and Nick Fury on their respective talk pages as presedence of this. Notthegoatseguy 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you have a strong enough reason to split Ultimate Venom off you should bring it up on the Project talk board Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics so that other have a chance to engage in the discussion. Established conventions shouldn't be broken on a per article basis. -- 69.182.73.240 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I was reading one of your prior discussions on a massive merger (one was Dark Beast into Beast) and many editors said that the proper place is the individual talk pages, so the editors who have worked on the article can voice their opinions. There is no need to seek elsewhere, since it's clear many alternate universe characters have their own pages because they have much information about them and are vastly different than their 616 counterparts (Hulk 2099, Ultimate Thor, Ultimate Nick Fury, Spider-Man 2099). That being said, creating a new Ultimate character page will attract some attention, so maybe I will put up a discussion there instead of going ahead with the split and then have an edit war start. Notthegoatseguy 11:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is often a good idea to post a note on the Comics Project talk page pointing people here to get more input on this as it can help avoid wasting your time if the broader consensus is not to split (because if so it'll only be merged back in). (14:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor (talk • contribs)

[edit] Article Cleanup

I noticed someone tagged this article as a possible merge back to the main Venom article, but didn't say anything on the talk page. It'd be nice to hear from them.

That being said, the Ultimate Venom split debate has bought up that this article needs some cleaning up. I honestly think the Fictional Character Biography section is a good length and should mostly be left alone. However, the Personality section and Powers and Abilities can definately be trimmed down, along with the Spider-Man 3 section, the video game section (maybe cut entirely and just redirect to a List Of article?) and the Early Bibliography section should get cut entirely too. That said, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks before deleting stuff entirely, but will start cleaning up the Powers and Personality section sometime later in the week. Notthegoatseguy 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] double double redirect

lol wut Bly1993 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Firstvenom.jpg

Image:Firstvenom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

Does anyone else really think this article is too long? It looks like a good length to me, especially for such a major character in comics. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat too long, but I'd wager most of that could be fixed with simple tightening and streamlining of language and removing vios, without cutting down on the factual material. Big job, though.... --Tenebrae (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres absolutely no need for the Spider-Man 3 section to be anywhere near as long as it is. Theres a separate article for that and I don't know who is so adamant about keeping it that they keep undoing the vast shortening that takes place. But it needs to go, along with a lot of fluff thats been added to the powers section.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with that last post that the Spider man 3 section on this character is far too long. But aside from that I do not think this article as a whole is "too long." as a reference I looked at the pages of Batman and the Joker and each is respectfully just as long as this Eddie Brock character page. The Joker has been in more media but has far less of a fictional history then Venom. I think the balance is fair. Eddie Brock is a relatively recent but incredibly popular, varied and eventful character. I would not consider this article too long at all.Danleary25 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll try to trim down the Spidey 3 section and then I'm removing the too long tag, as once the Spidey 3 info is trimmed down, the article will be at about the right length for a character of this importance. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It could still use a substantial check and possible re-write of sections to improve their quality even if nothing need be removed. I still think a great deal of the powers section is fluff.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it vandalism too shorten article?

Today Darkwarriorblake went and shortened the section on Spider-Man 3, as was discussed here. Then Alexfusco5 called these edits "vandalism?" Has this been sorted out? The section as Darkwarriorblake edited makes it concise and actually relevant. Before, it contained a lot of extra plot points and explanations from the movie which had NOTHING to do with Eddie Brock (this articles subject). To then call the edits vandalism when there is a tag on the article being too long. Danleary25 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Venom (comics)

Discussion closed with consensus of no merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Suggestions

1) Work on the past tense to present tense.

2) Chronological. Eddie does A, then does B. Not 'Eddie does B after doing A'.

3) Mention how Eddie fakes being nice to Aunt May in order to screw with Peter. Lots42 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any case of this in Venom's history, but concerning past tense, the only time past tense should be used is, for example "Spidey chases Venom to the hospital, where he learns that, prior to attacking the bank, Venom had taken a large amount of medicine." Something like that, where you find in the "present" something that happened in the past. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junior

Is the 616 Eddie actually Eddie Brock Jr or is this someone confusing ultimate marvel with mainstream continuity? Because I've never heard of Eddie being Eddie Brock Jr in 616.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dc

I'm not arguing with you, I apologise if you intrpret it that way. The picture you're replacing it with was replaced with the current and has been that way for a considerably, very considerably long time, mainly because the one you're replacing it with is cluttered with other imagery and it doesn't clearly display Venom. I've bettered the fair use for the other pic. If you do want to use it, it might be more sensible to do so within the document itself particularly the start of his bio or publication history.

As for the intro, the intro is like an abstract from my understanding and should give a reader an overview of the document so that they can make a decision to read further and get more detail.

EDIT: I am compromising with you, I did like a few of your last edits and kept them in and in some cases merged them with previous versions. He is not a Junior though. Never was. You're confusing him with Ultimate Brock or movie Brock. Either way its incorrect.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't aware that it said "junior" in the intro. DCincarnate (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

In this section it says that 'Allan' is also his middle name, is this right? and it also says he was born in San Francisco, but on marvel.com it says he was born in New York City. Have a look - http://www.marvel.com/universe/Venom_%28Eddie_Brock%29. Lee 20 January 2008, 12:51 (UTC).

Read Planet of the Symbiotes. That's where the Allan and San Francisco reference is. What is more canonical? A website or an issue of the comic from which it originated? Dark hyena (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah your right! thanx. Lee. 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.61.107 (talk)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate venom.jpg

Image:Ultimate venom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Eddie Brock first mentioned in Spider-Man (2002)?

In the first film, when J. Jonah Jameson and Robbie Robertson are discussing about Spider-Man, Roberston states that "Eddie" is having problem getting photos of Spider-Man. DCincarnate (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archenemy?

I don't think so - Green Goblin and Doc Ock are both much better qualified. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'll undo any mention of Venom being an arch-enemy. Gustave the Steel (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing's pretty much original research either way, but yeah, I'd have to say the Green Goblin fits the criteria more in terms of his role in ruining Spider-Man's life.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)