Talk:Vision (Marvel 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. See comments.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vision (Marvel Comics) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Minor image issue

{{editprotected}}

Neither image has a fair use rationale. Doesn't that mean that neither of them should be on this page? I've made a bit of a hobby of writing fair use rationales, but it sometimes seems like I'm the only one. I never expect to find a fair use rationale for any image; it is almost always left to me to make it. It isn't difficult; every image should at least have a brief one. Help:Image page explains how to do it, including a great template that makes it nice and easy. I'm not saying that we should remove every image that has no fair use rationale; I'm saying that we should give every image a fair use rationale. -- Lilwik 05:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And that brings up a slightly touchy point... A FUR is easy for the image with this article, it's the characters first appearance so the image is used in conjunction with discussing that. A FUR is next to impossible for a use in the Thomas article where the jpg is currently used. He's a writer, so at best it would have to be in conjunction with discussing his significant creation or work (it isn't), what he worked on at that time (it isn't), who he worked with (nope), or an example of how he contributed to the art (again, nope).
Looking at it, it may almost be a case where I should put the FUR on the png, re-size it for rez issues, and strike the image entirely from the Thomas article.
And in general I agree with you, the FUR should be added, if a valid one exists, for each article the image is used in.
- J Greb 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer and I have no confidence in my opinions about what makes a valid fair use rationale, but I am fairly certain that all images that need fair use rationales should have fair use rationales. If there is no valid fair use rationale for an image, then it should at least have an invalid fair use rationale. In other words, just give the best rationale you can and then let others decide if it is valid. If someone decides that it is invalid, hopefully it will be improved. -- Lilwik 09:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I commented out the image on the page. Once you all figure out the fair use issue, feel free to uncomment or change to another image, or whatever the resolution is. - jc37 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this one is a discussion all its' own on the Exemplars. You could argue either way. Asgardian 09:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What discussion are you refering to? I don't see what topic has been brought up that someone might argue over, but if there is a relevant discussion, I'd like to read it. -- Lilwik 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Think "big picture". Someone could raise and discuss this.Asgardian 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is no longer protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe

The sections detailing the fictional biographies are overly long, at conflict with Wikipedia not being a plot summary resource, and are written in an in-universe style. The information should be sourced in real world detail and migrated to the publication history section, in accordance with the manual of style. The information as currently presented is more suited to a more in-universe based resource, such as the Marvel Database. Hiding Talk 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit war

It seems that a new edit war has begun. I think it is important that we don't revert serious contributions without taking the time to offer some reasons for the reversion. DrBat created an improved introduction to this article and gave reasons for the changes in an edit summary. I agree that it is better. Asgardian reverted it without any clear explanation, then an edit war began, flipping back and forth. I want to put my support behind DrBat's version of the introduction, as follows:

The Vision is a fictional character who appears in the comic books published by Marvel Comics, most notably as a member of the superhero team, the Avengers. He is an android, referred to in the comics as a "synthezoid."
Created by writer Roy Thomas and artist John Buscema, the Vision first appeared in The Avengers, volume 1, #57 (October 1968).
After the Vision's destruction in the "Avengers Disassembled" story-arc, a new Vision was introduced in Young Avengers by Allan Heinberg and Jim Cheung in 2005.

Asgardian's version is like this:

The Vision is the name of three fictional comic book characters that appear in the Marvel Universe. The original is a superhero who first appears in the 1940s period referred to as the Golden Age of Comic Books. The second is an android associated with the team the Avengers, while the third is a futuristic successor version that appears with the team Young Avengers.

The only discussion that I've seen about these two versions was a brief comment in an edit summary by DrBat, and I haven't seen Asgardian give any support at all for the version he's edit warring for. I think that the second version puts inappropriate emphasis upon the 40s character, who is really off-topic in this article. I also agree with DrBat that the Young Avengers version of Vision should not be considered as much a separate character as the second version suggests. -- Lilwik 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
Anyway, I'll be gone until the 9th.--DrBat 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's edits

Before we get into another edit war and have to call for a RfC or bring an admin in to mediate, I'd like to state that today's PH edits are in keeping not only with WPC MOS regarding issue dates, etc., but follows the format used by admin User:Hiding as noted at Talk:Blood Brothers (comics) 15:19, 28 June 2007, and all other editors here save one, which indicates consensus.

I cannot imagine anyone reverting the FCB change to, as even tagged, an in-universe present tense; additionally, I changed the vague passive voice ("It was later learned that") to the responsible active voice. ("The Avengers later learn that").

I would assume it's not problematic to have moved a discussion of the Vision's synthetic organs from the historical biography to the section discussing his powers, abilities and physiology.

I've given, here and in the edit summaries, rationales for each edit. Before getting into yet another war of one editor versus the rest, let's please give rationales, as I have, for edits. --Tenebrae 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful when using the present tense. Think carefully about when the present tense is appropriate and what sorts of things you can correctly say in the present tense. It is not a trivial thing such that you can flip from past tense to present tense like you were translating from one dialect to another. Take a look at the Present tense article; it has a clear listing of when the present tense is appropriate. Specifically, the very first sentence of the FCB is the most important because it sets the tone for the entire FCB. Even if we must make tense errors, let's avoid putting them right up front. Just look at how the FCB begins after your edits:
The robot Ultron creates the Vision.
That's not correct English. The only way it could be correct would be if Ultron were presently in the process of creating the Vision, but since we are talking about fiction that is nonsense. Fortunately, it is simple enough to correct. We could say it like this: The robot Ultron is the creator of the Vision. In that case we are expressing a state of being, which can be correctly said in the present tense. Another option would be to say, In issue #57, the robot Ultron creates the Vision, so we are making it a statement about the present content of that particular issue. (However, I'm not sure if that is the issue in which that happened.) -- Lilwik 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As a professional journalist and editor, I certainly appreciate anyone who cares about grammar and language.
I'm not sure I'd have used such a loaded and unnecessarily harsh term as "mangle[d] present tense English", particularly when one doesn't hyph the compound modifier. But that's OK; heaven knows I've been intemperate at times — and don't think I haven't heard about it! :- )
First things first. We can't say "In issue #57, the robot Ultron creates the Vision," since editorial guidelines state the FCBs are to be written in-universe; in other words, the reference to issue #57 would have to be in a footnote.
Second, let me give an analogy, also utilizing a birth that's referred to but does not occur in the original text:
"Kal-el is born to Jor-el and Lara on the planet Krypton. During his infancy, his parents place him in a rocket that escapes their disintegrating world. Sometime later, the ship lands in a field outside Smallville, Kansas. There, farmers John and Martha Kent discover the child."
It's all I'm saying. In any case, feel free to edit anything you like. Other editors may polish it, tweak it, revert it, streamline it, add to it, or otherwise edit it. That's the Wiki way. The only caveat is, we follow the consensus guidelines. And seriously, it's good to see people with an interest in clear communication and proper English. --Tenebrae 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "mangle" is a bit of a strong word, but I've seen this sort of thing in disturbingly large quantities and I was hoping to draw attention to the problem with eye-catching language in the summary, so that people would read my actual comment. The Superman example is interesting for a couple of reasons: It's first sentence shows the exact same problem that we're dealing with here, a problem that seems to pop up quite frequently, but the rest of the paragraph is nicely correct because it qualifies itself with references to specific times, rather than talking about the present. "During his infancy, his parents place him in a rocket." That is a fine statement about Kal-el's infancy. If it had just said, "His parents place him in a rocket," that would have been awkward and incorrect. I'm not bringing this up because I am fond of good grammar; I just think that when you write a past tense statement using present tense words it sticks out like a sore thumb and I wince every time I see it in an article as the opening statement to a FCB. -- Lilwik 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Tidied up intro so consistent with others; PH leads with date with all other information present; updated v (volume) in referencing. Kept sourced examples in Powers/Abilities as used in other articles (really like opening re: Vision's body). Culled unnecessary and weak image (also begs the question - who are the background characters? Not a good choice) and extra SHB. Information on second Vision now tighter with far less "tell the story" - blow by blow accounts are not needed. Asgardian 09:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Image is relevant; it illustrates his relationship with the Scarlet Witch. --DrBat 15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Tidied up Young Vision as still some POV and clunky sentences. Moved the cover of #57 to the right as tidier, and had to cull other image as simply too many and looked cluttered.Asgardian 11:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the reason you are removing that image. Maybe the article is better without the image, I'm really not sure, but the image does not make the article look cluttered. Also, be careful about overstating your case, because it tends to make people disagree with you. You certainly did not have to remove that image; you merely thought the article looked better without it. -- Lilwik 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The Young Avengers Vision article was mostly fine. Stripping it down to the bare bones is not the solution (and the only description or background given to Iron Lad and Kang is that Iron Lad is a "teen adventurer" and that Kang is a "master villain"? What?) --DrBat 01:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, mostly fine isn't quite good enough. It is too coversational and once again uses subjective terms and speculation. Asgardian 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Mostly fine means that you don't need to do anything radical to it. Just improve the bits that aren't fine and leave most of it alone. -- Lilwik 05:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Revised the new Vision text. Pulled the term "teen" since there as an objection, although that is simple opinion. Preceding a character's name with a term that describes them is helpful to a new reader, hence "master villain" precedes Kang (as he IS a master villain. Fact). Also avoid subjective terms such as "vast" and "quite different". POV and too conversational. Also tidied up the blurb on the Ultimate Vision's adventure. Asgardian 10:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Kang is a villain or that Iron Lad is a teen, but referring to them as "teen adventurer" and "master villain" is cheesy and stupid.
Furthermore, their relationship to the Young Avengers Vision is more complex than that. Iron Lad is a younger version of Kang (the reason why he went back to the present in the first place). Amd stop referring to the YA Vision as the "futuristic" Vision; while he may be based on future technology, he became sentient in the present and he operates in the present. --DrBat 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheesy or stupid, but I do prefer staying away from "teen adventurer" and "master villain". I think we can safely call Kang a villain, but "master villian" seems like needless POV. Similarly, "futuristic" is a needless POV adjective. -- Lilwik 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, please stop doing your indiscriminant reverts. Your last revert undid the link modification to the corresponding page on French Wikipedia. Do you have something against French Wikipedia, or do you just revert any change that isn't your own? Your revert didn't actually break anything, but it resulted in the French link going to a redirect page instead of the right page for no reason. Thank you, DrBat, for standing up against Asgardian. I would do it myself, but for a personal policy against edit warring. -- Lilwik 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Asgardian becomes aware of what he's doing if it is pointed out on the talk page. I can't imagine why he is unaware of his own actions otherwise, but it seems to be so. Ultimate Galactus is being called Gah Lak Tus, not Gak Lak Tus. It appears to be a typo, but no matter how many times we try to correct it, Asgardian puts it back. If you think Gak Lak Tus is correct, then at least make it consistent through the article. Also, I thought we all agreed that the new Vision should not be called futuristic, but every time we try to remove that word, Asgardian puts it back. Perhaps he is not aware of what he is doing, so I am drawing these issues to his attention. -- Lilwik 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The future issue has been corrected, as has the small "Gah" slip (one of three were incorrect). FCB for New Vision - Removed subjective terms such as "quite different" ; "something of a leader" and "vast" pulled. Lead now with statement about what he is, then how he came to be in a non-conversational style. Also tidied up the Ultimate Marvel bio as it smacks of "tell the story" and is not well worded. Succinctness is always best.

Asgardian 10:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with this latest edit war? If anyone feels strongly about one edit over an other, then use the talk page to explain the merits of the edit. Do it in detail so it is put forward for debate with the strongest support that you can make for it. Include quotes showing how much better your version is. That's the only way to end this. It's clear that reverting will never solve anything. -- Lilwik 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Asgardian's style of editing. CovenantD 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that you've openly called me an "asshole" on another page, I think we'll just ignore you and move on.

Asgardian 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DrBat, here it is. With Wikipedia, we try as much as possible to keep things simple and not use subjective terms, past tense etc and keep things simple. This means not using terms such as "vast" which is very POV and opt for terms such as "are" instead of "were". We also avoid terms such as "eponymous" as it is ponderous (and little pretentitious) and is in this case unnecessary. Whenever possible, keep it simple.

Also, remember to use Talk to discuss these things - Lilwik's quite right!

Asgardian 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to Talk again, Asgardian. We need more discussion to settle this. I think an issue is that your edits are doing far more than just fixing a few words. If you don't like those words, then edit them out and leave the rest alone. The version you are pushing is far more radically different than your talk comments would suggest. You have more to justify than just the removal of "vast" and "eponymous." I think "eponymous" is a great, concise way to say that the comic is named after the character. -- Lilwik 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but not everyone will know what it means. We have to try for simpler terms. It is also subjective.

Asgardian 04:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, "eponymous" is used very frequently on Wikipedia. I think it may even be so commonly used that it is a standard term. How is it subjective? I'm pretty sure that there is nothing subjective about it. It's her eponymous series because it's named after her; that is an objective fact. (However, I don't see a reference to that series, so maybe it's not a fact after all.)
Also, don't forget to justify some of your other changes. You are doing more than fiddling with a few words. If you want controversial changes to stick, you should support them. -- Lilwik 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Right. I have protected the article, no doubt on the wrong version, and would like a compromise to be arrived at, here on the talk page, before I unprotect it. Please tell me - here - what is wrong / lacking in the current version. Thanks. Neil ╦ 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fairly straightforward. Just trying to get the article up to Wiki-standard and looking less like a fan entry.

Examples:

The added sentence re: the Vision's genatalia is unnecessary and makes no sense. It is also inference.

Asgardian 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FCB for the New Vision:

Some is acceptable, but other portions of DrBat's version smack of POV and are too conversational. The opening paragraph should simply state what the new Vision is, and then elaborate on the origin. Use of past tense is also incorrect, as is the use of a subjective term such as "vast". See my version for an alternative approach.

Asgardian 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is how a section of the Ultimate Marvel section should read:

After successfully repelling the invader, the Vision leaves Earth but en route is tricked and disabled by A.I.M. The Vision later escapes and manages to stop a Gah Lak Tus module that A.I.M intended to use for their own purposes. [1]

Succinct, and to the point.

Not like this:

In her own eponymous (prententious, redundant and unnecessary term) series (statement irrelevant as sourced at end of entry), after successfully repelling the invader, the Vision leaves Earth but en route is tricked and disabled by A.I.M. They hold a damaged Gah Lak Tus module within their satellite, which they eventually reawakens and plummets to Earth (clumsy sentence with grammatical and spelling errors) Vision teams up with the Falcon to stop it from accomplishing what the rest of the Gah Lak Tus swarm did not. (clumsy finish) [2]

I hope this helps. DrBat once claimed that apart from one small cosmetic change the article was fine. This is clearly not the case.

Asgardian 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As nobody else has replied, I have unprotected the article. One note, though I won't edit the article myself - "eponymous" isn't pretentious - it's a useful word, and can be wikilinked (it has an article) to enable understanding for any who don't know what it means. Neil ╦ 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's also not redundant. I don't know how Asgardian would figure out that the series was eponymous with that word removed, but as a casual reader I would never have guessed. Similarly, it's not irrelevant because of the given source, since the source does not seem to point to an eponymous series. (It might be irrelevant for other reasons, but I don't think so.) The sentence that is marked as clumsy doesn't seem clumsy to me, and what does Asgardian think is misspelled? I disagree with Asgardian's opinion that various parts of the paragraph are clumsy, since I see no clumsiness. -- Lilwik 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"they eventually reawakens" Neil ╦ 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So I see. I should have noticed that. Even so, there is no reason to complain about spelling and grammar errors. Those things should simply be fixed rather than fighting over them. Let it say "which they eventually reawaken and allow to plummet to Earth." We don't have to remove a sentence for such trivial reasons; you wouldn't throw out dirty dishes instead of washing them. -- Lilwik 01:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian talks about "my" version and his version. Here's the difference; my version is taking the pre-existing version and cleaning it up (fixing sentences, adding sources, ect). His version is taking almost everything down and replacing it with his own version.
No one's arguing that the article's perfect; but it's not in so dire a condition that it needs to be torn down and replaced. --DrBat 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is "tearing it down" but it does need work as you still do not grasp some of the intricacies of Wikipedia. The sentence structure and formatting are now correct for most of the article, with those little POV tidbits removed. The FCB will next need to be reworked as it is sloppy and does not follow a linear line.

Asgardian 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When will you understand you're the only one here who wants your version?
And stop removing the important information about the connection between Kang and Iron Lad. --DrBat 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-warring redux

Again, please discuss any contentious changes here. Any edit someone else reverts is, by its very nature, contentious. If you are unwilling to achieve a consensus, then one of two things will happen - one, you seek further opinion (via such venues as WP:RFC or WP:3O), or two, people start getting blocked for tendentious editing. I do not want to see people blocked, so please start discussing your issues. Neil ム 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Things have greatly improved since the previous edit war, I think. Now Asgardian is only fighting with the rest of the editors over a rather few changes. I think the article is not at all improved by Asgardian's changes, but if he feels very strongly about them then the way to make them stick and avoid an edit war is to deliberately justify each one individually on the talk page. That way we can reach a compromise where some changes can proceed unopposed and some can be dropped and in the end we will have a more stable article. It seems that Asgardian enjoys edit-warring, but surely he still has the best interest of the article at heart and would prefer a resolution to this. -- Lilwik 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would note that at least two editors have now reverted Asgardian's change to the second Vision's subhead. And, to concur with Lilwik, I don't know about his enjoying it, but Asgardian does has indeed left a record trail of contentiousness and edit-warring. --Tenebrae 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
By "enjoys" I only meant that he does a very large amount of it. I have no idea how he really feels about it and I meant no offense. In contrast, I never make an edit that I think might be reverted, so I can't participate in this edit war. If I were to participate, I would certainly fight against Asgardian. The article that he is pushing on us seems inferior. If we could start a discussion about which changes he feels are most important, I'm sure we could reach a compromise. -- Lilwik 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Enjoys? As in enjoys having to tell people who should know better that a shot of a model in a SHB isn't going to cut it? Or that OHOTMU references are invalid? Or that huge recaps of video games are best left to a fan site? That kind of enjoys?

Hmmm...

Asgardian 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. If you spent more time telling people things instead of edit warring you'd probably accomplish more but as it is you seem far more active in the article than in the talk page. If you're having a hard time making controversial changes stick in the article, the solution is to convince people that your changes are the right ones. -- Lilwik 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

Is there any way to get rid of the redundancy of have the article title used as the primary text for 3 of the article sections?

Looking at it "Character introduced in yyyy" is more appropriate since there isn't a alternate identity that could be used as with other characters.

- J Greb 06:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could use the dates alone as section titles. However, in that case it might be less clear that these numbers are meant to represent dates. -- Lilwik 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If the article were dealing with either a periodical or on a single, continuous character, I can see just a year range working, to a point.
In this particular case we've got 3 different "styles" of dates: a decade (1940s) since there's zip in the article to clarify portion of the 10 year period is actually covered†, a range (1968-2004), and an open ended range. It's hard to bring those into a consistent format, the first section can be corrected, but the last one would remain a minor case of "recentism" since it's a variation of "Current version".
Just using the intro year, with the clarifying statement, removes that issue.
†Slight side issue: The first section looks to need a capsule summary of the article the section is directing the reader to. - J Greb 09:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We could name the sections after the publications that feature The Vision. The first could be called Marvel Mystery Comics, the second could be The Avengers, and the third could be Young Avengers. I agree about the capsule summary. -- Lilwik 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the second Vision wasn't limited to appearances only in The Avengers and the third one appeared outside of Young Avengers. Using a series title in the header implies that is the only place the character appeared. Thinking about it, since the first one has been incorporated in various other titles in cameos and minor roles, even Marvel Mystery Comics has problems.
Teams would work, if we had a Golden Age team that the first Vision was a member of when originally published.
About all we have for real consistency is the use of years, either the start point or the spans. - J Greb 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you may be looking at this from the wrong angle. Those section titles would be appropriate if the Vision from The Avengers never appears in Young Avengers in any meaningful way, and vice-versa. The point is that The Vision of the third section is The Vision of Young Avengers, whether or not he has appeared in another series, he is still uniquely associated with Young Avengers and no other version of Vision can be confused that way. -- Lilwik 08:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I think for the general-reader audience that we're writing for that the year(s) might be more meaningful. If, say, I were looking up the new Vision for some reason, and only had a vague idea about him, I'd find it more helpful to see the years in the subhead and think, "Oh, that's the latest one," rather than seeing "Young Avengers", which wouldn't tell a non-fan very much. --Tenebrae 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely we will include both the series and the years. The years alone just seems a bit sparse for section titles. -- Lilwik 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure that "sparseness" is a factor. One-word subheads ("Biography") and two-word subheads ("Publication history") abound. Subheads actually should be succinct. --Tenebrae 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I chose the wrong word. I mean that it would be sparse in meaning, not sparse in words. If the section title is just a number, it might not be clear what that number is supposed to represent. "Biography" has a lot more implicit meaning than "1968-2004." That's why I suggest, "The Avengers (1968-2004)". -- Lilwik 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) That results in the same problem, especially if a literal minded editor comes along. Think about it, that implies that the should be a section for the two Vision and Scarlet Witch series, the Vision min, West Coast Avengers, and anything else the character has appeared in.

I still think, in this case, "Character introduced in yyyy" or "Version introduced in yyyy" are the best way to go. - J Greb 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I might have been unclear as well. I wasn't suggesting just the year(s). I was suggesting "The Vision (1968-2006)" "The Vision (1940s)" "The Vision (2007- )" (or whatever the years). --Tenebrae 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. But that gets back to my original concerns: redundancy and consistency. Using "The Vision" in the heads is very redundant since, both across the heads and with the article title. And there is an inherent inconsistency with using a decade, which is a rough time frame, and a definite time frame. - J Greb 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that using The Vision in a section title is redundant and undesirable. I disagree that using the series title as a section title is a problem, since it nicely identifies the Vision that we are talking about. Even if The Avengers Vision also appears in West Coast Avengers, that doesn't mean that he is not still The Avengers Vision. We can't hope to control what misguided editors might do.
If we are going to use "1940s Version" or something similar for a section title, then I should point out that the 1940s Vision was not a version of the more modern Vision, he was a completely different character who happens to have the same name. -- Lilwik 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that to the general-audience reader we're writing for, giving "The Avengers" or "Young Avengers", etc., in the subhead will be meaningless to them — or, worse, confusing. We need to find some way of giving a subhead that supplies an immediate and easily graspable distinction for someone who has never read comics. --Tenebrae 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume total ignorance on the reader. It requires very minimal research to know what The Avengers is. Even if you didn't know it, reading the content of the section would make it clear very quickly. I can't see how it would be confusing. -- Lilwik 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Our mothers don't know who the Avengers are. The principal of your kid's school doesn;'t know who the Avengers are. It's not a matter of "total ignorance". The guy on the street might know Superman, Batman and Spider-Man, but he won't know who the Avengers or the Young Avengers are. You and I do, but honest-to-god, the average person has no idea who the Avengers are. --Tenebrae 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Tenebrae, that's a bit OTT. "Avengers" is a brand Marvel has been active in promoting outside the comic book shop. They may not have gone to the level of the X-Men push, but there is a some recognition in places you wouldn't expect it.
Right now, I can see that "Title (Year-Year)" is likely the best compromise we're going to come up with. If it results in repeated negative comments and edits, we can revisit the issue at that time. - J Greb 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point, but does the section title really need to be totally self-explanatory? The meaning of "The Avengers (1968-2004)" is made very clear by the first paragraph of the section even to a general audience. Once you understand the meaning of it, that title seems very appropriate. Other options that I've seen are either no more self-explanatory or seem clumsy by comparison. -- Lilwik 07:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As J Greb rightly suggests, we need to find a compromise. I can back off the idea of just the name and years, even though that to me is the most effective way to go, and perhaps we can back off the idea of the team name in the same spirit. How about "First modern-day Vision" for the 1968 guy, and "Second modern-day Vision" for the new one?--Tenebrae 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If we go that route, "Golden Age", "Silver Age", and "Modern Age" are better options. The last may have "dated" issues, but it works until there is a commonly used hobbyist term 10-15 years from now. And this avoids conflict with the naming guidelines which frowns on sequential numbering of characters. - J Greb 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a good compromise to me, so long as we also include the dates. Plus, we can always use Postmodern to describe future versions of Vision, should any arise. -- Lilwik 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So it'd be "Golden Age Vision" (1940-43), "Silver Age Vision (1968-2004)" and "Modern-Age [or Modern-day] Vision" (2005- )? --Tenebrae 04:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are trying to get away from redundantly naming Vision in each section title. This whole article is about The Vision, so there is no doubt that every section is about the Vision. Instead, we might go with "Golden Age (1940-43)", "Silver Age (1968-2004)", "Modern (2005-)". On the other hand, that makes the dates look as if we are specifying the extent of these ages, not the extent of The Vision within the ages. -- Lilwik 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. - J Greb 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually was thinking that, but I was afraid of seeming argumentative by bringing it up! Funny.
Maybe we ought for models at similar pages. What can we glean from Flash (comics) or Spectre (comics), aside from the fact that the latter needs a PH? I know the Flash has civilian names, but both of these seem to just use "Golden Age", "Silver Age" and "Modern Age", sans years. --Tenebrae 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think the argument with specter is that, if anything, it would need a FCB. The article reads as a very good syntheses of a PH and FCB, heavily leaning to real world context. Thinking about it, the article seems a good candidate for GA review.
That aside both articles you cite aren't trying to hit a small portion of the Ages they call, the topic of the sections seem to fill the entire span. Here we have two that fall way short and one that runs over two or three, since the 2nd Vision starts in the Silver, runs through the "Bronze", and is "killed" in the "Modern". - J Greb 05:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, let's see. I'm thinking out loud as I type here. We call the Barry Allen Flash the Silver Age Flash, and that's always differentiated him from the Golden Age Flash. He died in the Modern Age as well ... Gentleman, we may have a winner: Golden Age, Silver Age, Modern Age? --Tenebrae 22:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That seems to be the best solution, just as it is used for the Flash. -- Lilwik 00:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a little frustrating. I tried to implement our consensus and it got quickly reverted by someone who hasn't even made a comment on this issue. How can we come to a consensus with someone who isn't discussing this? -- Lilwik 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I dunno. Perhaps mention this to the person, rather than spouting "to the air" about them? Perhaps the person in question missed this active discussion, and was thinking of a myriad discussions in the past in which usage of the "age" references was considered a bad idea. Perhaps J Greb did the awesomely right thing by a revert, and a note to the talk page, which is (of course) what led me here. Anyway, my (very mild) annoyance about someone commenting about rather than to, aside... I honestly have no personal preference, except that I think "age" usage in articles should follow a uniform standard. Considering that this one has had so many controversies of late, being uniform might be helpful? : )
(I await a barrage of links/references/citations and all those other wonderful things that being involved with an encyclopedia brings : ) - jc37 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I didn't mean to give offense; I should have thought of writing something on your personal talk page. As it was, I thought that this was the best and only place I could write something in the hope of attracting your attention. I assumed that any editor of this article probably also reads the talk page, but in the future I will remember that I can also use user talk pages. After reading this discussion, what do you feel is the best alternative to using "ages"? I still lean towards using series names. -- Lilwik 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh posting to this page is fine. But if you re-read the post, you may see that it was not to me, but rather in disdain about "someone" (presumably me). One of the reasons I made the point to bring it up (rather than not worrying about it, since it really wasn't that big a deal to me) is that it's been an issue in how some other users have been dealing with User:Asgardian, which has created more issues than just attempting to work things out with him. (Which has, in the past, admittedly, had its own set of issues...)
Anyway, dropping that, to answer your question: I really don't have much of an issue with it, except that it's been a contentious issue in the past, and one of the concerns was in that the "borders" of the ages were blurry at best. That aside, I'm not sure whats wrong with just giving actual years. What do you think? - jc37 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I worry that numbers alone wouldn't make very meaningful section titles. I suppose there is no mistaking 1940 for anything but a year, but still it seems like a bad habit. -- Lilwik 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this collection of characters is atypical in that there are no "secret identities" to use in the headers. Any decision reached here will, at best, be held up as an example for those few, similar problem cases.
"Just" the date ranges is a workable solution, but it is sparse.
The "Ages" work here because they are being applied as the section of comic book publishing history that each version is associated with. As long as dates aren't attached to the headers with the "Age", I don't think we run into the problem of "We are defining the Golden Age as...". - J Greb 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Jc37 could have missed that there was a discussion on here. Let's give it a bit. - J Greb 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There is that distinct possibility : )
And thank you : ) - jc37 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So after giving it a day, what do we think? Is there a consensus? And if so, is there enough of a consensus to suggest this on the WikiProject Comics talk page as a model format for non-secret-identity characters with multiple incarnations? It could save future editors a lot of time.... --Tenebrae 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In reading the above, I think the "ages" headers are probably fine for now. I don't think we should use this specific discussion as "precedent" though. In this case, I think we should look over a larger chunk of character articles to get a sense of trend. (My head still spins when thinking back to the Whizzer discussions : ) - jc37 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, this as an example is and "at best" situation. I don't think it can easily template across the board, but it does point out lines of reasoning that can be used. - J Greb 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asgardian

There's nothing to talk about when several editors have all reverted your same edit. --Tenebrae 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, do not claim professionalism. At least three editors have told you to be more detached before now. Some of your edits do border on the obsessive. Facing the issues here is an important part of learning on Wikipedia. I do not want to see any more blanket refusals to discuss from you. Be accountable and cooperate please.

Asgardian 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, we are here talking about how to improve this article. If you have reasons for undoing our work, then why don't you express them? If you want us to "take it to talk", then the least you can do is contribute something to talk yourself. I'm responding to your edit summary because I don't have anything to respond to on the talk page. Every edit that might be controversial should have a corresponding explanation on the talk page, or else it should be reverted. Your edits are ones that should be reverted because you don't explain yourself on talk. -- Lilwik 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The PH has been tidied up ever so slightly. It is hardly earth-shaking, but comment is invited. Also lead with a statement in the NV's FCB as to exactly what he is, which is par for the course. I also culled the POV. Again, not huge changes.

Asgardian 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian is simply making the same edits as always that at least three different editors are reverting in consensus. It's more with sorrow than frustration that I wonder why he can't understand the concept of consensus and getting along with others. His tendentious editing is endless. --Tenebrae 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What Asgardian is calling a tidying seems to me to be transforming the publication history into a list of publications rather than a prose explanation of the publication history. It's a small change, I agree, but it's certainly not an improvement. -- Lilwik 10:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, User:Asgardian appears to be User:75.81.222.145, judging from this Vision (Timely Comics) edit, which uses the same odd phrase "So-and-so also featured in...." --Tenebrae 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, please stop reinserting your version. --DrBat (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not for you to revert an article that is now very Wiki-correct and has been for some weeks. Your version of the FCB is weak and lacks structure, chronology and is missing vital information. There are also several unsourced statements and sentences that smack of POV. Asgardian (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There are still the same problems that were there the first time you did this.
Instead of completely replacing the article with your own version (like you did on November 7[1]), fix the problems with the preexisting article. --DrBat (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done so. The FCB now reads in a coherent fashion with the correct tenses, accurate and sourced chronology and statements that provide insight into the impact on other characters, without the POV and factual gaps (eg. nothing on the events of #235 - 251) that is dotted through the other version. Have a close read and you'll see what I mean. Nothing there needs to be pulled - it is all necessary.

Asgardian (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you replaced the current version with your own version. If the current version has problems, then just fix the problems. As Likwik said back in July, "Mostly fine means that you don't need to do anything radical to it. Just improve the bits that aren't fine and leave most of it alone." This has already been discussed. --DrBat (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the basics of structure and more explanation will be required.

Asgardian (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. Everyone has already told you to cut it out. --DrBat (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you restricted to only reverting an article once a week? --DrBat (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie...Vision?

Vision makes an appereance in the horde of zombies in Ultimate Fantastic Four #23. Since it's such a perplexing appereance (he's a robot, not human) I'm wondering if it's even worth noting. Lots42 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If he was just pictured once as a face in a crowd and had no impact on the story, then I don't think it is worth mentioning. -- Lilwik 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. --Tenebrae 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)