Talk:Wolverine (comics)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Fictional atheists 2 Error in "Costumes" Section? 3 Page Protection 4 moving forward 5 additional abilities 6 Working towards an end to this 6.1 Step 1 6.2 Step 2 6.2.1 Step 2a 6.2.2 Step 2b 6.2.3 Step 2c 6.2.4 Step 2d 6.2.5 Step 2e 6.3 Step 3 6.3.1 Step 3a 6.3.2 Step 3b 6.3.3 Step 3c 6.4 Step 4 7 About advocating our own point of view 8 "Consensus" 9 Right-O... 10 Section listings 11 Healing factor page 12 The Crossovers/Allies/Enemies lists 13 Wolverine box image 14 Age of Apoc Wolverine 15 image 16 Powers section 17 outfit 18 Wolverine vs Odin 19 Thomas Logan 20 Early Life 21 Which image do you prefer? 22 "Fictional atheists" 23 CITATIONS!?

Fictional atheists

For what it's worth, I was hoping a source would be included to verify his placement in said category. I don't doubt that it applies, but a reference would certainly be appropriate. I've asked the question before, but gained no response. A reply would be appreciated. --AWF

Error in "Costumes" Section?

The caption under Uncanny X-Men #133 reads From his second appearance, when he joined the X-Men, his cowl was redesigned by Dave Cockrum. What are we trying to say here? Uncanny X-Men #133 isn't his second appearnace in comics (Incredible Hulk #181), nor his second appearance in X-Men (Uncanny X-Men #94). I'm confused. Help please? AriGold 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your taking it too literally. Cockrum redesigned the cowl that you see in X-Men #94, from the cowl you see in Hulk 181, and you really don't see Wolvie but in one panel of 180. The comic #133 was just an example. It isn't saying that is the first appearance of the Cockrum mask.ScifiterX 04:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I think the caption needs to be reworded. AriGold 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. I take an "appearance" as a story arc, not an individual issue. So Hulk 180-181 is his first appearance and Giant-Size X-Men #1, with the first appearance of his "classic" mask is his second. And, like SX said, the picture is just an example of the mask rather than trying to say UXM133 was his second appearance. - SoM 17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I go by the Overstreet definition of "appearance", whish is by individual issue. Hulk 180 is his first appearance, but 181 is his first full appearance. It's not by story arc, like you go by. AriGold 14:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Marvel website officially lists Hulk 181 as Wolverine's first appearance and maybe 180 as a cameo. Maybe what we're trying to say here is that Cockrum redesigned the mask in his third appearance rather than his second or fourth. Take another Marvel character, Spider-Man's Venom. His first appearance was in Amazing Spider-Man 300, but you could say it was as early as Secret Wars. The character appeared as Venom in Amazing 299 as a cameo. To officially be considered an appearance, the character has to take an active role in the story, therefore his cameo in Hulk 180 really doesn't count.

Wolverine's first appearance is, without a doubt, Hulk 180, though it is only in the last panel. 181 is often credited as his first appearance simply because it is for the issue, not just one panel. He spoke his first line in 180 and was shown for the first time ever in 180. But 181 is worth about 5 times as much because it was more than just a brief showing of the character. It's a unique circumstance in this case I think. Comparing it to an alien entity that has takes a host and has taken diiferent forms is a little different, wouldn't you say? Anyway, saying "his second appearance" just doesn't make sense when it is not his second appearance in a comic, nor in the costume. AriGold 15:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection

I've requested page protection. This page needs to be protected until the issue of why edits are constantly reverted is decided one way or the other. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Let us not lose sight of that. Hiding talk 08:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page - it appears there is some agreement on that at least. Thryduulf 09:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

moving forward

In an attempt to understand what this dispute is about, please can someone summarise in 100 words or less what the objections are about - i.e. who objects to what and why. Thryduulf 09:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I, and several others, object to Nightscream trying to introduce a lot of, IMO, crufty minutia which is applicable to only one of the five major (i.e., widely viewed and/or many stories) continuities - Marvel Universe, Ultimate Marvel, X-Men (movie) and X2 (movie), X-Men (animated series) and X-Men: Evolution - which are broadly consistant but vary in the minor details, that the page mentions into the Powers section. - SoM 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically I agree with SoM, though I would also like to point out that alot of Nightscream's crufy minutia consists of Nightscream's opinion disguised as an objective evaluation of the character's abilities. So it's actually even less valid than mere fan cruft which is nebulous to begin with. The way he states the information is not NPOV. ScifiterX 21:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't edited this article, but I have reviewed the problems. As I see it, Nightscream did update the article with a fairly long "Powers and abilities" addition/replacement. All of it seems factual, if lengthy, and the language could certainly use some work. That being said, Nightscream's additions have been subjected to full reverts each time he posts its. Rather than fix the problems through editing, retaining the factual additions, they were just removed. He's also been subject to taunting and name-calling, both on this talk page and in the edit summaries, almost like reverting him is a sport. All sides of this have acted badly, but I think it would have been much better if it were not for the ownership attitude of User:SoM, ScifiterX, and others. The editors should have taken one powers aspect at a time, and reduced or re-worded it until a compromise was reached. Instead, they all largely spun their wheels in an edit war. -- Netoholic @ 01:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have spent trying to help with this problem. However, I completely disagree with you. As far as his information seeming factual there is actually proof on this very page that it was not. Most of his editions were not factual (considering this is serial fiction we are talking about her that doesn't even sound right). He was not the subject to name calling and insults. He did most of the insulting and name calling and every once and awhile someone would understandably slip and respond to him in kind. You are being completely unfair and biased toward Nightscream and I haven't a clue why. What you are suggesting that we should have done is exactly what we actually did. I am at a loss here. One party in this situation has broken rules, repeatedly insulted other users, and essentially been extremely manipulative. That was Nightscream. He is the one that got himself temporarilly banned. He is the one that cooperated very little with the discussion process. I really don't see your evaluation as being consistant with fact or objective at all. Please take the time to look a little closer at the dialogue. ScifiterX 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see, someone accidentally called you a pillock, not Nightscream. That was innapropriate, but it doesn't change the facts. Again, I appreciate the time and effort you have spent in this and I apologize that you were insulted for having involved yourself. If I have the facts right, I don't think Hiding meant anything by it at all and it was just a case where he slipped and some person who was watching everything that he was doing very closely reported it. Oh, I don't know someone who was blocked from contributing at the time?.... Anyway, If you look at the facts Nightscream was treated very fairly. We did look at his edit and even posted his version on this page so that others could critique it and hope that we could possibly come to a consensus. And what did he do? Ignored it and posted the whole thing anyway. 7 times. Not real cool. Nightscream often has some valid ideas and is fairly intelligent, but he totally disregards the democractic process inherent in a site like this at times. Again, no one's honest evaluation of you, least of all my own, is that you are stupid. Someone just vented in the wrong direction. ScifiterX 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your statement that I was not subject to name-calling and insults is an utter lie. You and others have attacked my supposed motives/intentions by calling me a troll and accusing me of attempting to deliberately antagonize others, without explaining how you know my intents, or providing any evidence that my contributions have not been made in good faith and sincerity. I'm proud of the contributions I've made to this article and others, which obviously isn't going to remain if I antagonize someone. I have also been called a vandal, when this is really a content dispute. You have also called me pretentious because I supposedly use words you think I can only understand with a dictionary. You accused me today of lying when I stated that I didn't see all the different sections on the pages in which the discussion was being held--without providing evidence, since you were just believing what you felt like believing. Those are all insults, and none of them were provoked by any similar behavior by me. The statement that I have did most of the insulting and name-calling is simply a lie, and you cannot provide a single bit of evidence to this effect, because obviously, there exists not a single instance that you can cite. When I've challenged you on these points, you've stonewalled. The closest you came to indicating what you thought was an insult to you or others are my statements in which I point out that you employ logical fallacies and paralogia in your arguments, which you do. That is clearly not an insult, but a refutation of your statements. You even later asked, in response to the charge that you were insulting me, how refuting someone is an insult (which should be my question, not yours), when no one said any refutation on your part was an insult, but the name-calling was. Your attempt to claim that your insults are somehow a response to similar behavior by me isn't reflected in the content on the pages. Your view of the history of our exchanges is lopsided and just plain dishonest. If I insulted you, then fine: Show me one example of where I insulted you, let alone "repeatedly." As disassociated as you may be from the reality of the situation, Netoholic sees that I haven't called anyone names, and that you have, a point you know that you can't refute. Nightscream 7.21.05. 1:00am EST

Its frustrating how when I talk about the state of an article in the past and why certain things were done I am accused of "bringing up the past" and here where Nightscream does precisely that and is clearly attempting engage in senseless bickering, Netoholic says nothing about it. SoM had the right idea about this situation. As far as Nightscream, believe whatever you want. I was mistaken in calling Nightscream's acts vandalism. They were actually acts of non NPOV editing. I read up on that in the rules of Wikipedia regarding vandalism. However there is a difference between a semantic error and an insult. Nightscream, you need to realize that at this point I am the only person outside of your pal, Netoholic, even trying to cooperate with you. Others, such as SoM are totally fed up with this. You serve no purpose by trying to antagonize me. You are just spinning your own wheels and alienating yourself. So get back to the issue at hand.ScifiterX 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read the date stamp of his message? He posted this days ago, so you're out of line, and not heeding my general advice of not re-opening old wounds. You all made mistakes here. Now let's move on. -- Netoholic @ 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, I see that the block of text I am referring to is actually dated two days old. However, I have no memory of it ever bieng there before today. It is possible that my memory failed or that there was a glitch and that the statement wasn't shown on my browser for some strange reason until today (this has been known to happen). If it is my error, I apologize to both you and Nightscream. ScifiterX 03:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

additional abilities

Wolverine possesses the mutant ability to morph his body, specifically his height and facial features, similar to the mutant Mystique. We can clearly assume this because in Arthur Adam's run on Fantastic Four (The New Fantastic Four) he is clearly two feet shorter then Spiderman, however he is the same height as Spiderman in the New Avengers. It is possible, however, that this radical change in height is due to his metal skeleton shrinking and expanding with the temperature, and not to a mutational ability to polymorph.

Wolverine has never been seen using the restroom for any purpose other then bathing or regurgitating, so it is obviously clear he has the ability to proccess and break down all nutrients he ingests without the need to expell waste. It is safe to assume Wolverine's body will use these additional proteins to heal damaged tissues. -unkiedev, 7/15/05

You got it. We got to add that. ScifiterX 04:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. Is it not simply that the artists, bieng human, made simple mistakes? I have never come across any mention of Wolverine being about to morph his body-not in any Marvel website, its comics, or in any of Marvel's paraphernalia-I own various "ability" cards, and this "shape shifting" ability is not mentioned at all-
• ON another note, I have never seen Captain America or Spidey or even that Dr from Muir Island using the toilet-does that mean that they also recycle their waste? No-it does not. It is simply that the artists are sticking to what is necessary to the plot-I do not particularly wish to know any details about Cyclop's toilet habits.

Let us stick to known published facts, please, and not to assume or ascribe any abilities which the authors of the comics themselves have not stated. Greencrystal 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it was a joke :).

And, funnily enough, we have seen Wolverine going to the toilet in New X-Men #144 (or thereabouts - the first Bachalo issue) - SoM 19:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Working towards an end to this

OK, the bickering about who did what is getting old. Meanwhile, this page is protected.

Here's how I propose we go forward.

1. Nightscream - post what you feel is the most agreeable version of the "Powers and abilities" section on Wolverine (comics)/Temp. This should be cleaned-up as much as you feel you can, and take into account the feedback you've gotten so far on it. Specifically, you should describe the most commonly-held understandings of Wolverine's abilities. Remember, comics are damn inconsistent.
2. SoM, ScifiterX, others - after Nightscream has posted it, you should review it and post comments on this talk page.
3. Nightscream - you'll be given one more chance to make changes to it. Take all their comments into account.
4. SoM, ScifiterX, others - will then edit the Temp page, revising anything you feel was not completed in Nightscream's edits.
5. Nightscream - after the others have has posted it, you should review it and post comments on this talk page.
6. SoM, ScifiterX, others - Taking any of NS's last comments into account, make one more series of edits.
7. All - We'll participate in a short cleanup. Grammar, spelling, formatting changes only. Then we'll post it onto the main page and get it unprotected.

Ground rules going forward:

• No reverts. If you don't like how someone has worded it, reword it yourself without putting it back exactly as you had it before. Take the other editors' views into account. If you feel like you're going back and forth, stop and discuss.
• Use full edit summaries describing your changes.
• No negative personal comments - describe the text you disagree with, don't comment on the editor.

Does this sound agreeable? -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, we actually already tried this and he jumped the gun and completely reverted the article to his version. That is why he got blocked. And sometimes an honest evaluation is going to have a negative connotation. If I deleted this whole page and put up a picture a monkey sticking his middle finger up, other editors would rightly describe it as vandalism. Negative evaluation, yes. But honest also. If one doesn't want to be negatively evaluated, its best that one not do negative things. I will say that I won't say demeaning and antagonistic things, granted (obviously) that such statements are not directed at myself or other editors. However, that doesn't mean that I am giving up my right to advocate my own point of view. If someone wants to twist the context of "a person standing up for thier own ideas" into "attacking other people" there really isn't anything I can do about it. I can't make people honest.

I was the one who put Nightscream's edit on this page so that other editors would have a chance to evaluate it. They did. There was a result. He didn't agree with it. And if memory serves some of his ideas were added, such as the point about Wolverine's claws being bone and not keratin. Although another editor pointed it out, I am fairly sure the point originated from Nightscream's edit. The statements that there was some degree of contradiction concerning his healing factor and his exact level of strength were also compromises with Nightscream. Other additions he made were also added, although not to the powers and abilities section.

But to answer your question, Yes, I would be amenable to having his edit back up (in the discussion page) and evaluating it with other editors. The negative personal comments is a bit too wide and vague for me to agree to (as negative is a subjective evaluation). I will say that I will not say things that are cruel and demeaning. But if something is wrong I will point it out regardless of whether or not it hurts someone's feelings. However, if someone makes an addition that is entirely innapropriate to any entry there is no logical basis for attempting to absorb that innapropriate addition into the article just so the editor's feelings don't get hurt. That just isn't practical. No one was singling Nightscream out in a hostile way. We were just standing up for quality in the article that we had collaborated on. The article, as it was, was a compromise with him to begin with. ScifiterX 09:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

See my note below. -- Netoholic @ 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

ScrifterX and everone else - please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you wish to retain editing priveledges at Wikipedia you must abide by the rules and guidelines we have. The ultimate penalty for engaging in personal attacks of any sort is a lengthy ban by the arbitration committee. Thryduulf 12:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic, I will attempt to make another edit. I will completely remove the comment on Wolvie's hair, since that was arguably an external quirk of Silvestri's drawing of the scene, and I will see if I can condense some of other material without sacrificing specificity or citations. As for ScifiterX comparing my edits to deleting a page and posting a pic of a monkey displaying his finger, or the idea that being called a "troll," a "vandal," or "pretentious", being accused without evidence of lying or being accused of deliberately antagonizing others constitutes merely "standing up for their ideas," well, I think you know what I think of that sort of sophistry. Nightscream 7.21.05. 10:21am EST

It is going to be counter-productive at this point to engage an any more negative personal comments - at all. From this point, unless you have a compliment, please do not talk about the other editors. The sniping has to stop for this to go forward. Nightscream - please let us know when you've posted your version to the temp page. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 1

Done. Nightscream 7.21.05. 11:39am EST

Step 2

SoM, ScifiterX, others - Please review Wolverine (comics)/Temp and provide any comments on the content here. After we have some comments, we'll ask Nightscream to implement the feedback and then we'll move on to the next step. -- Netoholic @ 16:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've made a, completely new, version representing what I think the section should amount to. I was only defending the prior version in the name of consensus. Like I said, I thought it was too long. - SoM 17:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• (SoM's version is visible here) - Please, during this step you should restrict yourself to describing your concerns of Nightscream's version. I would suggest you not be concerned at all about length. If it gets too long to be practical, it can be moved to a separate article. Now then, understanding that most people seem to want more detail than you prefer, please give ideas for hwo to improve Nightscream's version. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Here's the thing - I think Nightscream's version is completely unsalvagable - it's the just the consensus version with a ton of pointless stuff added to it. I could go through it sentence-by-sentence, but I'd end up describing more than three-quarters of it as useless and getting angry, and I have enough stress in my "real" life. I come on here to relax. Get someone neutral (i.e., who hasn't edited this article and doesn't have preconcieved ideas) to merge my version and Nightscream's and I'll discuss the merged version, but as it stands, I find even Nightscream's revised version unreadable, amounting as it does to taking ten paragraphs where less than a quarter of it should do.

• Right now, my main regret is pushing the consensus version rather than the version I just posted. Clearly, I'm losing out now in comparison to NS because I compromised earlier, since I'm being asked to compromise on a compromise which I wasn't particuarly happy with to start with. - SoM 18:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Here are my suggestions. In general, I would keep each special power to one paragraph each (noticably the healing factor). I would also largely reverse the order of the section, placing his most notable feature - the claws - first. I would order things as - claws, adamantium, healing factor, senses/animalistic features, then strength and agility. The skills section seems just fine. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  Ummm... you very nearly described the consensus version - just with a slight reordering and minor changes. My thoughts on that are - why should adamantium get anything more than a wikilink when it has it's own article? And why should the stuff - especially strength/agility - get detailed when they vary hugely from comic to comic, and even more in comic to cartoon or comic to movie - when the source material has no consensus, how can individual examples be notable? - SoM 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  I said it before - stop talking about the past. This is day one. The "consensus version" was obviously not, since there was this conflict.

  Obviously, adamantium should not be a large part of the section. Just brief one-sentence explanation for context, and a description of how it applies to Wolverine. Wolverine's strength, especially with the explanation that it is more to do with the adamantium than a real super-power, is good information. I would not dwell on it too much, but it would be helpful to explain just in those terms. -- Netoholic @ 19:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  Now obviously we are going to have to talk about the article the way it was in the past and the way Nightscreams edit was (also in the past) in order to re-evaluate the situation and try to work his material in. If every time we tell you why didn't think something was appropriate you tell us we can't talk about the past, it is a little counter productive. I am committed to cooperating with you on this, but you have to cut us more slack than that.ScifiterX 20:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  Look, just do a merger on Wolverine (comics)/Powers temp, so I can see what you mean. - SoM 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  The point of this Step 2 (see my first post up above) is to provide feedback for Nightscream so he can make one more pass at the text on Wolverine (comics)/Temp. -- Netoholic @ 20:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  And I can't see anything worth keeping that wasn't already there. If he takes another pass and hacks out all the specific examples (which are mostly exceptions rather than real examples) and trims his excess verbage, I might look at it. All reading his current version does is increase my stress levels. And I thought that Wikipedia was not a bureaucracy. You seem to be dead-set on following not just the letter of the rules, but the punctuation too. - SoM 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am with you all the way. I am trying really hard to be cool here and it is just getting harder and harder.ScifiterX 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

And, re: strength he's clearly not superstrong in the movies, and I don't think there's any evidence at all that he is in the Ultimate comics (I'd have to check the cartoons). I don't think a power is notable unless it's clearly shown on a regular basis in all media the character appears in in a form otherwise reasonably consistant with the comics. Spider-Man leaps from building to building in single bounds on regular basis. Superman and the Hulk are obvious. Wolverine... emmm.. there's this panel from a 20-year old comic with him lifting several people that keeps getting brought up... and.... emm..... any evidence from more recent comics that aren't one-offs? He appears in 50+ comics a year, there shouldn't be any room for doubt if he's superstrong or not in the Earth-616 comics. If there's any doubt with that volume of appearances, he isn't. - SoM 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first this is a fictional character and all of Nightscream's sources really aren't necessary. If you go to Spiderman's powers and abilities (or the Green Goblins, Or the King Pins, or Daredevils) you don't see sources on it for the same reason.

Next, that 20 year old panel you are referring to, SoM, is the one from the first issue of the main series that Chris Claremont himself wrote. He is probably the greatest contributer to the character there is and you are going to find that most of the comics he writes with Wolverine in them depict Wolverine with moderately enhanced strength, entailing that he is slightly stronger than a normal human, but not superstrong like spiderman who can lift 20,000 pounds. I still feel that his strength level is close enough to normal, irrelevent enough due to his being a martial arts master, and depicted inconsistantly enough in the comics, that we should just state that Due to his constant cellular regeneration and the additional wieght and tensile strength of his skeleton, Wolverine has great physical strength.. If someone wants to add a sentence stating that his exact level of strength is depicted with some contradiction based on the writer, wonderful. But we don't need the pros and cons arguments of for and against in the powers section. ScifiterX 20:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 2a

Okay, I am just going to focus on this one paragraph at this point. I am going to put what I discern is necessary in bold, what I would add in italics and bold and every thing not necessary or relevant will be left as it is.

Wolverine is a mutant with a number of both natural and artificial enhancements to his physiology.

The cells of Wolverine’s body regenerate many times faster than those of normal humans, allowing him to heal from injuries at a speed far beyond that of normal humans'. This “healing factor,” as it’s called, is automatic, and not subject to Wolverine’s will, and has enabled him to completely recover within minutes or even seconds from injuries usually fatal to most humans, such as stabbings, gunshot wounds, vehicular impacts, and severe burns. This ability extends fully to his nervous system, which is largely not the case for normal human beings, and is so advanced that his body can even expel foreign objects, such as the parasitic eggs of the alien race known as the Brood, as seen in Uncanny X-Men #162 (Oct. 1982) and Uncanny X-Men #234 (Late Sept. 1988). Extremely severe injuries, however, have taken longer periods of time for him to recover. For example, in Uncanny X-Men #225 (Jan. 1988) he took what appeared to be several minutes to an hour to heal from several laser blasts, during which he could barely move. However, in Wolverine #39 (May 1991), his body repaired itself from severe burns covering his entire body within what appeared to be a few minutes or less, during which his mobility wasn’t affected. In another book, all the tissue on his face was blown away by a gunshot blast, leaving only his hair, eyes, and skull, which appeared to take longer to heal. It took almost two months to recover from his duel with Shingen Harada in the first Wolverine miniseries (1983), in which a sword went all the way through his trunk. His longest convalescence period depicted may have been that which followed the beating and torture received in Uncanny X-Men #251 (Nov. 1989) from Donald Pierce, Lady Deathstrike and the Reavers, which involved multiple harpoonings, whippings, and crucifixion in the Australian desert. This period lasted at least a couple of years (reader's time, though it is unclear how much time it took within the comic book), during which he was slower and weaker, and his body's ability to tolerate his cigar habit was compromised. He has recovered completely from injuries that would have killed ordinary humans, even those with superhuman abilities. He can regenerate organs such as eyes and large portions of flesh, but hypothetically not completely severed limbs or entire major organs such as his heart. He can also regenerate nervous tissue which is not possible for ordinary human adults. His healing factor has been depicted with some degree of contradiction, depending on the writer.

Note: according to writers at Marvel Wolverine cannot regenerate entire limbs. Due to his skeleton its hard to completely sever his limbs so this is not much of a problem for him, but the fictional principle is that his healing factor is only developed to a certain degree and that degree does not include being able to completely regenerate an entire limb. That is why in the Age of Apocalypse story Wolverine only has one hand. However, as he hasn't yet lost a limb or a major internal organ and he is a fictional character and at any time a writer can decide his healing factor just became developed to the next level its best to word it as hypothetically he can't heal this or that. Tidies it up nicely.

His healing factor can regenerate some internal organs, such as his eyes, but not larger ones such as his heart, as established in Uncanny X-Men Annual #11 (1986). It is unknown whether he can regenerate entire limbs that have been completely severed, though it is thought to be unlikely.

His healing factor makes him immune to most diseases, poisons, or drugs (except in massive doses), and limited immunity to the fatigue poisons generated by bodily activity, resulting in enhanced stamina. Because of his cellular regeneration, Wolverine ages far more slowly than humans, as he was born in the late 1800s, and, from photos has aged little since World War II.

His stamina is not "enhanced" it is officially "metahuman", meaning beyond even the superhuman range. Enhanced stamina entails being able to perform at peak levels for nearly half a day; like a body builder who can continually lift 500 pounds over and over again without being tired. Superhuman would be the same thing to the extent that the character could do it for at least a day or two. Metahuman is where a character can push his body to its absolute limit for several days or even indefinately. That is where Wolverine is at. Now, if he is injured or something that is naturally going to affect his stamina, but under optimal conditions his stamina is beyond the enhanced range. So saying "enhanced" isn't really the right term. ScifiterX 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

We also don't need to say that he was born in the 1800's if we just state he is over 100 years old. The origin story line (although I personally accept it) is still a subject of contention among Marvel writers and editors even today. So specific date times for his beginning should probably be avoided.

This "healing factor" also grants immunity to most toxins and diseases, gives him enough stamina to exert himself at peak levels for days, and retards aging to an unknown degree. He is well over 100 years old, yet his appearance and physique are unchanged since the peak years of his life (apparently over a century ago). Photos taken of him during the World War II that have survived up until modern times substantiate this. However, writers have suggested that the healing factor is also the cause of his amnesia.

So if you read just the bold. That is how I would word it. Everything else isn't necessary. However, many of Nightscream's details have been absorbed into the new text if you look closely. Such as photos of Wolverine taken during WWII, the point about his limbs regenerating being reworked more carefully. Now I am going to go have a beer and take a nap. YAAAWWWNNNN. ScifiterX 21:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 2b

Wolverine has also displayed apparent acts of superhuman strength, such as breaking free of chains, and lifting several men over his head during brawls, but it is unclear whether Chris Claremont, the writer who guided him for most of the characters first two decades, intended these as instances of superhuman strength, or as the result of the adrenaline surge accompanying his “berserker rages.” It is also possible that having a adamantium-reinforced skeleton grants him heightened strength. The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe initially indicated that he merely had the normal strength of a human who engages in intensive regular exercise, but more recent editions indicate that his strength is enhanced, and some of the comics themselves have stated or implied this. It is possible that he was initially not conceived as having superhuman strength by Claremont, but that subsequent writers decided otherwise, or that if Claremont intended him to have superhuman strength, that it was not obvious because Wolverine usually relies on a combination of sheer ferocity and skill rather than brute strength.

Okay, Wolverine's strength level is

• 1) depicted inconsistantly in comics
• 2) not what makes the character powerful. He is a martial arts expert with claws that can cut throw almost anything. His enhanced strength is merely a by-product of his healing factor.
• 3) his enhanced strength is of a low level at best; lifting about 900 to 2000 pounds at the most.
• 4) Most of the comics that most clearly depicted Wolverine with enhanced strength were in fact written by Claremont and Byrne so it isn't accurate to say it wasn't there intention. Sanderson and Claremont obviously do not see eye to eye on the abilities of characters that Claremont has created or heavily influenced. Sanderson's strength levels in the original and deluxe marvel universes were dubious and inconsistant. Characters that can lift 1000's of tons were said to be Superhuman Class 75. Characters said to be superhuman in the original edition were later said to be merely in really good shape in the deluxe edition (with no change in the characters during the interim).

The best way to avoid this is to simply state that:

The tensile strength and additional weight of his skeleton combined with his constant cellular regeneration grants him great physical strength as his body is able to withstand higher levels physical pressure than a normal human. His exact level of physical strength has been depicted with some degree of contradiction, depending on the writer. His blows are weighted (similar to using brass knuckles) due to the presence of this metal.

Its all strength related so if you have to make it a seperate paragraph that should be about the size of it.

Step 2c

It is also possible he has superhuman agility, insofar as he has held his own in fights against others who do, such as Spider-Man.

Wolverine also possesses superhumanly acute senses enabling him to see and hear distant objects more clearly than a normal human, and identify and track someone purely by scent over great distances. Wolverine's senses are often compared to that of Daredevil. The former has a slightly greater sense of smell while the latter has a slightly more developed sense of hearing. that are comparable to those of certain animals, enabling him to see and hear distant objects more clearly than a normal human (though it is not known if he can perceive objects in the infrared or ultraviolet portions of the spectrum), and identify and track someone purely by scent. His sense of smell has been developed to such a level that he is able to tell the miniscule chemical difference between items of different brands, such as deodorants, cigarettes, alcohol, etc, despite being advertised as having the same scent. According to the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, his hearing is only slightly less developed than that of Daredevil, and with concentration, allows him to detect the rhythm of a normal heartbeat within a distance of 200 feet. It is not known if his sense of taste or touch are similarly enhanced. Although his elevated senses may be thought of as a separate ability, the Handbook indicates that they are actually a result of his heightened cellular regeneration. These animal-like senses are not a seperate ability but are actually a result of his constant cellular regeneration as are his agility and reflexes.

Step 2d

Wolverine's physical appearance also displays number of animal-like mutations, including shaper-than-normal teeth with two pronounced canines (fangs) among his teeth, and six slightly curved retractable claws housed within his forearms, which he can release from beneath his knuckles (causing bleeding that is rapidly healed.) by his healing factor). The claws lie beneath the skin and muscle of his forearms, and are connected directly to his skeleton and nervous system. He can unsheathe any number of his claws at once. The claws are made of bone, unlike the claws of normal mammals, which are made of keratin. Although claws in the animal kingdom are made of keratin, Wolverine's are made of bone. The claws are never inside his wrist, as they are always either completely inside his forearms when not in use, or his hands when in use. This allows him to bend his wrists freely in either mode, but requires him to keep them straight when unsheathing or retracting them. The Handbook describes the claws as being a foot in length (though it is unlikely that a man 5’ 3” in height would have arms long enough to hold objects of this length).

Okay stating that the claws are curved is a problem because all artists don't depict them that way. Whether they are a foot long is also irrelevant. They are roughly a foot long.

The wording of the claws being keratin needed to be more precise and less flowery. It was stated in such a way that almost sounds as if his fingernails (a human's claws) were made of bone as well. Its only the claws housed in his forearms that are bone.

Step 2e

Wolverine's skeleton, including his claws, has been completely coated in the nigh-indestructible metal adamantium. Adamantium can be cut with a special subatomic particle beam; otherwise, to all intents and purposes it is virtually indestructible, and by extension, so are his bones and claws. Due to the adamantium coating (which also maintains the cutting edge), the limiting factor on what he can cut through is based upon his own strength, rather than the resiliency of the claws. The adamantium coating on his skeleton interferes with his bones' ability to produce red blood cells, but is compensated by his accelerated cellular regeneration, as established in Uncanny X-Men #237 (Early Nov. 1988).

Wolverine's claws and skeleton have been molecularly laced with nigh-indestructible metal Adamantium. The adamantium composition keeps the claws sharp and mean that his ability to cut through things is limited by his strength, not the claws.

Adamantium has its own entry so it does not need to be described in depth here beyond the fact that it is nigh indestructable.

Laced is a better way to phrase it. Blood is created in the body within the marrow of the bones. If a person's bones are all coated with metal they would die regardless of any healing factor. Also when he was shown to be given the adamantium it was pumped into his blood stream, thus lacing the bones. His bones were not taken out and spray painted with adamantium and then put back into his skeleton. Basically his bones would appear to be completely coated with adamantium until you looked at them under a microscope. Then you would see that there were holes allowing blood corpuscles to get through. Having metal all over your bones that shouldn't be there would undoubtably make the production and circulation of blood from the marrow to the rest of the body less effectient. But, provided there is at least some mechanism for allowing the marrow to exist and produce blood and then to transmit that blood to the rest of the body, it wouldn't kill him.

Now Bullseye actually has an entire adamantium spine and then has adamantium reinforcement throughout his skeleton. But most of his bones are still normal and able to produce red blood cells. He would just have strips of adamantium (like coathanger thin) reinforcing all of his major bones. Making it basically impossible to break the bones (compound fracture wise), but most of them can still be pulverized. So Bullseye can get away with having an all adamantium or adamantium coated spine because he still has a source of red blood cells in his other major bones like his femurs.

ScifiterX 09:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 3

Step 3a

Nightscream, would you now please take another look at Wolverine (comics)/Temp, and please incorporate the suggestions which SoM, ScifiterX, and myself have given. Let us know when you're satisfied with it. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've shortened Nightscream's version a bit, removing most of the "for example, in this comic, this happened" bits, just keeping the text as descriptive as possible, without the specific examples, which just clog the text, and go to the references listing. Still, I'm not happy with this, I feel the text could be even shorter than it is now. --Pc13 14:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think PC13’s edit isn’t bad. Some changes I made to it are thus:

• Several important details the healing factor were left out, like the fact that healing factor is automatic, the fact that it can expel foreign objects, and the fact that it extends fully to his nervous system. I restored the latter two, thinking perhaps a reader can surmise the first point.

• I do believe that some level of elaboration on the limits of his healing factor should be included for interested parties, since it’s the most signature power of his, but as a compromise, when restoring them, I left out two of the ones I originally listed, and edited some of the text out.

• Since ScifiterX pointed out the AoA storyline involving a Wolvie with a severed hand, I dropped the “unknown/unlikely” wording in order to state that Wolvie flat-out cannot do this.

• I restored three details about his senses: The comparison with Daredevil’s, the distance his hearing works at, and the bit about his touch and taste.

• I restored the bit about the adamantium interfering with his red blood cells, and how his h.f. compensates (though chopped out a couple of redundant words).

• I have no opinion on the “Seemingly brutish” part under Skills, but since PC omitted it, I’m leaving it at that. I also don’t mind the inclusion of the two photographs one way or the other, and I left them in, but I’ll leave that up to others to decide.

• I’m hoping the point on which we may be able to agree is on the sources. Wikipedia flat-out states that we have to provide sources for the information, but perhaps the conflict arises from the fact that I included them in the text instead of at the end. Rather than restore all references to specific issues and the Handbooks, I listed them at the bottom of the powers section (though not all of the ones in my prior edit). Is this acceptable? Also, is there a way to turn these into footnotes? Someone did this with sources I listed in another article, but I forget which one, and I’m not sure how to do it. Nightscream 7.25.05. 11:16am EST

For the sources, I agree they should be documented. I think that inline parenthetical citation is fine (Uncanny X-Men #162), with the more detailed publication information (date, etc.) in the References section. Perhaps even the system of numbered references could be used, like in Wikipedia:Footnote3. -- Netoholic @ 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Not happy. The text is back to the same size. You just moved the references to the bottom (yes, they should become footnotes) and ommited a couple of sentences.

For starters, style - "Healing factor" does not need to be inside inverted commas. Now, the real stuff. Let's assume I understand I don't know Wolverine, but understood how the healing factor works. Now, what are "parasitic eggs from the alien race known as the Brood"? "Expel foreign objects" is explanative on its own. If I needed to illustrate, I'd include something more worldly, like "bullets". Next, the examples in the ammount of time it takes to recover. I'd keep only the Reavers reference, but trimmed to something like "His longest convalescence period happened after he was massively beaten and tortured by the mutant-hating cyborgs called The Reavers, who then left him to die in the Australian desert. For a while, his regenerating ability operated at a much lower efficiency."

On the senses description. If you include the hearing distance as an example, no need to compare it to Daredevil's. Since taste and touch have never been depicted as superhuman in the stories, no need to assume they are or to mention them at all. He possesses the instincts of a wild hunting animal, so hearing and smell are more important to him than taste and touch.

I don't understand how the adamantium interferes with his red blood cell production at all. Bone marrow is connected to the cardiovascular system. The only way there could be intereference was if the adamantium had completely covered the bones and severed their contact to the blood circulation - in which case his body wouldn't replace red blood cells and he would die in about four months. Otherwise, this process should work just fine.

Finally, the skills. Mentioning his knowledge of Japanese martial arts (an important part of his personality) is way more important than his computer-hacking. If it was shown in a story Wolverine is a great cook, that wouldn't need to be mentioned here. Neither does the use of "several other foreign languages". The examples already shown should tell people his level of language skills is very advanced.

Your latest change has 5300 characters (compared to the 6100 of your previous edit). Mine had 3700 characters. I feel this section should have around 2500-3000. -- Pc13 16:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that setting any arbitrary "limit" to the number of characters is what is going to make this a good article. Go read a few Featured articles and see what I mean. That being said, I think the rest of Pc13's suggestions are good. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I object to this edit because:

1. The details (and, by extension, sources) refer to exceptions. In 99% of the comics he has appeared in, he can't/hasn't done the stuff you say. It's like picking the top fifth-percentile and claiming it's a representative sample of results.
2. The whole thing is STILL 616-centric. Most of the detail only applies in any way shape or form to the Marvel Universe comics, and not to the Ultimate Marvel comics, the X-Movies (X-Men (movie) and X2 (movie)), and the cartoons (X-Men (animated series) and X-Men Evolution).
3. It's still too long (I think PC13 is being a bit generous in fact in suggesting 2500-3000 characters... I'd rather see it below 2000 chars)
4. And I don't think any of the changes NS mentions above are worthwile (seriously, to pick two at random... healing NOT being automatic would be noteworthy - that it is isn't; and the numbers are meaningless since no comics actually follow them explicitly) - SoM 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 3b

I really don't understand why there is a general belief that this section should fit within any set size limit. Wikipedia is not paper and we're in the business of creating articles with a lot of detail. In the case of this article, and other comic heroes, the most fascinating aspect is the super powers. This is what makes each character unique. A short summary is already included in the introduction section of this page. Why not allow the Powers section to have more detail? -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you on the powers being "the most fascinating aspect" of comic heroes. As visuals on paper (or on screen, for those who have made the leap to cartoons/live action), they're interesting. As topics for inordinate discussion of minute details, there's nothing more boring or unreadable in the whole of comics.

And it doesn't make "each character unique." If you want to count all the superstrong heroes, I'll wait for you next year. The animalistic-anti-hero-with-claws isn't quite as prevalent, but it's a definite archetype. - SoM 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I placed “healing factor” in quotes because it is an esoteric jargon commonly used with the character.
• Providing an example of the Brood eggs in relation to his body’s expulsion of objects is a good idea, especially since it’s happened twice. I don’t know if expulsion of bullets has ever been depicted in the comics (though it was in the second movie), so let me know.
• Giving more than one example on the injuries that tested his healing factor better illustrates the point to a newbie. Your sentence on the Reavers omitted Pierce and Deathstrike, who also participated in that instance.
• The distance mention and Daredevil comparison do not overlap in function, and so are not redundant. One provides a specific figure, and the other provides a point of comparison with another well-known Marvel character. Again this creates a more detailed picture.
• The Handbooks mentioned the touch and taste bit, perhaps because Marvel thought it an interesting question some might ask, and so I mentioned it too.
• How the adamantium interferes with his red blood cells is beside the point that it does so, which was explicitly established.
• I had nothing to do with the section on martial arts, computer hacking or language skills, as someone else added those details some time ago. Similarly, someone on this page referred to the bit about WWII photos of Wolvie establishing his physical age as one of my details, but I had nothing to do with that comment either.
• I see no objective criteria by which 2500-3000 characters can judged a more appropriate length for the entry than 5300 or 6100, or for that matter, why characters are even the unit of measurement to begin with, when most of the literary word uses words or pages.
• Of course the instances are exceptions, SoM. That’s the point. Statistics like this are quantified by the upper or lower limits of something, which is why those instances in which his healing factor or senses were tested to their limit are apt to illustrate their extent. That these things didn’t happen in 99% of his comics is beside the point, as it is not the role of an encyclopedia to do that. When you describe a weightlifter’s ability, you describe the most he’s lifted. Not the average or middle number he’s lifted.
• Yes, the entry is 616-centric, and it’s supposed to be. It’s the entry for the Wolverine comics character. Not an amalgam of the character as it has appeared in the adapted media. The entry, which has the word “Comics” right next to it in its title, is about the character in the medium in which it originated, and in which it appears the most. Hence, incarnations of the character in the adapted media will be given smaller mention, and made in reference or comparison to the source material. It’s this way on all the other articles for comics characters I’ve seen on WP, such as Batman, Superman, Spidey, etc. Nightscream 7.25.05. 6:55pm EST

Brood Eggs. I don't remember it happening in the comics either (then again, I haven't read Wolverine since Larry Hama was writing), but Brood eggs is an example that might be unfamiliar with non-comics readers (the Brood never appeared in the cartoon, for example). And since their organic material, they're not so much expelled as attacked and destroyed by white blood cells.

Healing Factor Limits. To be honest, I don't see the point of having illustration at all - "more severe injuries tax the healing factor to the maximum and may take several weeks or months to fully heal" is descriptive enough. And Pierce and Deathstrike were leader and second in command of the Reavers.

Hearing. This provide duplicated information.

Touch and Taste Not shown in the comics, therefore irrelevant and speculative. The Handbooks were an attempt at using real science to explain powers and strength, but failed because of inconsistent portrayals in the stories and conservative numbers.

Red Blood Cells. Where? Like I said, I haven't read Wolverine since Larry Hama.

Martial Arts/Computers. Yet, you removed the martial arts and put the computer hacking back in.

Section Length. I'm a journalist. One page --> many articles, article size is important to me. Remember we're not talking about the entire article, but merely a section. At your size, depending on picture illustrations, the powers section could take up as much as a full tabloid newspaper page, or two magazine pages.

Stats & Exceptions. Disagree, as we're talking about story points, where exception might be seen as contradictory to a character's continuous portrayal. Replies by Pc13 08:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for having to move your answers, PC, but I found it hard to delineate each comment and rebuttal, and keeping that format when offering my newest comments made keeping that format even more impossible.

• Brood Eggs. Of course n.c. readers may be unfamiliar with the Brood. That’s why I described them as an alien race. If you have an example that would be familiar to newbies that took place in the comics, then please point to one. The entry is about the comics. Not the movie, and not the cartoon.

• Healing Factor Limits. On this, we’ll have to disagree. Illustrating how something operates with elaboration and some amount of details may be useful to readers who have questions about it. The very fact that readers often asked such questions in letter pages (back when they had them) is one reason for encyclopedias, and entries like this.

• Pierce & Deathstrike. Yes, Pierce was the leader (though I don’t know if Deathstrike second in command). Your version omits any mention that they were there. That’s why I restored it. Pierce was the one who planned and drove the attack, after all.

• Hearing. It does not provide duplicated information. "Duplicated" means the same, or identical. Mentioning the distance at which his hearing operates, and comparing it with another superhero with super senses is not the same thing. They are two different means by which the limits of his hearing are illustrated. Saying that two different means used synergistically in accomplishing the same thing is not what the word "duplication" means. It's akin to saying that you shouldn't use detail and color in an illustation because you've already used perspective and shadow. Using different tools helps create a more detailed picture.

• Touch and Taste. It is not irrelevant, because some people may have questions about it. The fact that Marvel chose to mention this point in its Handbooks means that they themselves do not think it irrelevant. The entry does not “speculate” on the issue, it merely says it is unknown. Saying something is unknown is not what “speculation” means. The comment on the Handbooks “failing” because it was the writers who did not keep things is consistent, is also highly subjective.

• Red Blood Cells. I mentioned in my prior edits that Chris Claremont established that the adamantium interferes with Wolvie’s red blood cells, and even provided the issue of Uncanny during his first run on the book in which he did so. This is one reason I argue for citation of sources (the other being the fact WP flat-out prescribes it).

• Martial Arts/Computers. When looking over the different versions, I thought I retained everything in that section, particularly when I saw “hand-to-hand combat.” I apologize if I left out something else you thought important, so I have now restored the martial arts bit. But incidentally, why remove the computer hacking bit? You say the martial arts are more important than the hacking, but not that the hacking is not important at all. I don’t want to exclude information that someone else has added, so I’m just leaving the hacking thing in, and if someone else wants to argue to remove it, let them do so in a separate argument; I am not familiar with his hacking abilities one way or the other.

The computer hacking has been shown a few times. It is important because anyone who does anything in real espionage is going to have to have knowledge of computers. Being a spy is not just about hitting people if they catch you. Example: He broke into the baxter building. How? He hacked his way in. He also was able to hack into the computer on a satellite to look at details of his past in another story arc. This isn't something new. Hacking is quite a bit more relevant than cooking in the world of covert operations and tactical warfare. Last time I checked.ScifiterX 07:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Section Length. My comment above didn’t say anything about size not being important. What I said was A. There is no objective criteria by which one number can be deemed one number of characters is more appropriate than another, and B. The units used in the literary world are either words or pages, not characters. As for how big a newspaper page my edit would be, it’s irrelevant, since, as Netoholic has pointed out, WP is not paper, and since it hardly is much bigger than your edit. I believe there is a recommended size limit for WP articles; does my version exceed it?

• Stats & Exceptions. And indeed, if a given exceptional instance does contradict a prior-set limit, simply point it out, and the entry will reflect that. Wasn’t that the whole business with the strength issue? Wasn’t that resolved by briefly mentioning the contradiction? In the absence of such contradiction, illustrating his h.f.’s upper limits is precisely what an encyclopedic entry should do when explaining it. Nightscream 7.27.05. 12:24pm EST

Step 3c

Only going to point out one thing here, since I think the current edit is still far, far, far too unwieldy to be kept anything like it is - why use the present tense when all but one of your "sources" dates from before he lost his adamantium in the first place? - SoM 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're saying there's been indications that the given stats and upper limits I've given were changed following the removal and replacement of his adamantium? Nightscream 7.27.05. 8:58pm EST

I'm saying that, since he had his adamantium ripped out, had his healing factor first weakened and then supercharged, had his claws broken, had new adamantium implanted and rejected it - mutating into a were-beast with serrated claws, mutated back from a were-beast in a still-unclear sequence of events, broke his claws again, went through an "I feel so old/weak without the metal" period in the run up to the adamantium return, had new adamantium bonded for good this this time (and we might as well even toss the "no powers" arc into the mix for the hell of it...), I don't think it's saying too much that maybe, just maybe, the old examples should not be used in a present-tense situation, and that some examples from the past ten years might be an idea if you feel the need to clutter up the section so. - SoM 15:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there any indication that his healing factor is currently back to "normal"? If not, and it's unclear, then perhaps making mention of the events you describe, and considering whether to change the tense, would be appropriate. Nightscream 7.28.05. 11:47pm EST

Well, considering that Wolverine isn't a real person and within certain bounds the writers can decide that he can heal whatever they want him to, its best just to say that "he has a superhuman regenerative healing factor that allows him to heal from wounds far faster than an ordinary human." The more detail you get into with a fictional character the more trouble you can get yourself into because of the inconsistancies inherent in serial fiction. ScifiterX 07:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - SoM 17:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why the fact that he's a fictional character means that details or examples of his signature powers cannot be given. Someone might come along and heighten or lower his healing ability, for example, but it's not like someone's going to come along and somehow establish that what happened with the Reavers, for example, was "incorrect," or "never happened," and if heaven forbid they do, the entry will simply reflect that point, as it does when mentioning DC characters' pre and post-Crisis character traits, John Byrne's revamp of Superman, the fact that Batman used to carry a gun and kill criminals, etc. Nightscream 7.29.05. 4:03pm EST

The Reavers incident is more notable for him meeting Jubilee and the halluinations that eventually "turned" the Mandarinised Psylocke around than it is for the fact that he was sicker than normal. Stick it in the bio section, yes; in the powers section, no. - SoM 21:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The incident is notable because it represents one of the rare instances in which his healing factor was severely tested (not simply because he was "sicker than normal"), which is why I made mention of it. Whether any of the examples I mentioned in the Powers section were noteworthy for biographical reasons is beside the point. Nightscream 7.30.05. 10:30pm EST

No it isn't. SoM is right. If you included every "so-called" notable depiction of some variation of Wolverine's healing factor you would have enough room to write a small novel in the Powers and Abilities section. Not gonna happen. Nightscream, why don't you just start your own website or something and put all of your information on that? You can then make it as long as you want and state your own opinions with out having to worry about it being edited by anyone else. And for the record, I am not being sarcastic nor am I suggesting Nightscream's contributions are unwelcome. ScifiterX 16:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To each his own, Scifiter. I think it is notable. Since I haven't included "every" depicton, and have eliminated many of the ones I initially did include, so the issue of how long the entry would be if we did is moot. And I suggest we try and focus on this entry, and not other websites. Nightscream 8.2.05. 2:22pm EST

Step 4

This is getting nowhere very fast. The page has now been locked for a fortnight. I don't even want to think about how many rules that fact alone is breaking, and as far as I can see we're no closer in opinion than we were at the start of this absurd process.

I've chopped down Wolverine (comics)/Temp into something that... well... frankly I'm not at all happy with, but it's as close to comfortable as I can get with something based on Nightscream's edit. We need to get this page unprotected ASAP now. - SoM 20:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need to move this forward, as Netoholic has not been participating of late, and has not answered my messages on his Talk page for the past two weeks. Either we need someone else to step in, or bring this to arbitration. Nightscream 8.8.05. 4:08pm EST

About advocating our own point of view

Look, Netoholic, so far I have given you the benefit of the doubt. But, you just came on my talk page and told me what I could and could not say in this discussion. That is an attempt to compromise my right to advocate my own point of view. If we are having a discussion about a dispute, naturally I am going to have to describe the subject in order to analyze and evaluate it to come to a resolution. Your commanding me to silence is hardly going to solve anything. And yes, the consensus version was a consensus version. Nightscream was one single dissenter who refused to obey the rules or cooperate with the democratic process. That was why he got blocked, that is why the page was locked. I just spelled it out for you earlier that I would be ammenable to cooperating with him and looking at his edit to see if we could re-evaluate it and try to work some of his material in and you absolutely ignored my post. This is beyond frustrating. ScifiterX 20:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I asked you to please refrain from commenting on the other editors. It does not help your position at all. If you have concerns about Nightscreams current version, please make constructive criticism in the section above. Dwelling on the past and any previous bad behavior is counter-productive. If you are too frustrated to work on this, then by all means take a break. No one wants to supress your point of view, but you need to express that view in a better way without resorting to incivility. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, yes I will refrain from saying hurtful things to Nightscream. Unless hurtful is defined as constructively evaluating his edit. In which case no I will not. ScifiterX 20:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is my last post on this matter for the night, since I am definately frustrated over this right now. Netoholic, while I don't share SX's... exuberance... towards Nightscream himself, I do feel strongly that both in form, with him being the sole party attempting to push his version against reverts from six or seven other users acting in consensus, and in the content of his version, it sets a bad precendent to let him and his version dictate the form the section in question should take, as you seem to desire. Now, since you intervened on this matter in active support of Nightscream in the RFC on him (on which I would rather have signed in support rather than as a formal seconder, and deliberately didn't type a statement, but since I was party to the edit war in question I was forced to second it or not at all), you are not the right person to try and mediate, formally or informally, in this dispute. While my tone above was perhaps out of line (although I maintain my hatred for buraucracy, which is why I let this simmer for so long until Nightscream himself brought it up on the village pump, which was certainly a mistake), since you came in in support of Nightscream I have no confidence in you as a neutral observer, and no feeling that you are someone who can pour cold water on this fire, rather than more petrol.

Thus endeth my comment on this matter until no earlier than 1800 hours UK time tomorrow. - SoM 20:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The village pump thing might have been my "fault" since I did post there after Nightscream requested assistance from me. The goal being to bring in people with comic book backgrounds to help mediate, decide and build consensus on this issue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus"

PC13 has just chopped down the temp powers thing while still noting it's too long. That makes it seven or eight people who have reverted or significantly objected to Nightscream's version, against only Nightscream pushing it.

Why is this even an issue? Really - if it was me vs. Nightscream, or even me & SX vs. Nightscream, I could get why there was this big thing here. But as things stand, even Netoholic who's pushing for Nightscream to have the final say on the shape of the powers section for some reason admits Nightscream's current version - to say nothing of the original version which he pushed for months - is too long by half. I mean really, over 90% of the people who have by word or action expressed any interest in this matter say Nightscream's version is unacceptable, and some have gone as far as to label it outright vandalism. The word is "consensus", not "unanimity". Why the hell do we have to have Netoholic's big letter-of-the-law process, when the numbers suggest that we're going to end up back where we started. - SoM 14:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm right in there with you SoM, but try to settle down a little. I appreciate your equity but there's no use letting this bug you. You stopped me from saying some things that otherwise might have put me at a disadvantage so I'm just returning the favor. So far you have made the most sense out of any one in this discussion that I can see and I appreciate the fact that you haven't allowed yourself to be intimidated like some of the others who disappeared never to be heard from again. Most of all I appreciate that you have been fair. But when you get worked up you play right into certain people's hands (that is a general statement of common sense, not an accusation aimed at at a particular person). ScifiterX 20:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, made the mistake of posting about something which irritates me while annoyed about something in RL. Bad combination. - SoM 19:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Up above in my first post under #Working towards an end to this, where does it say Nightscream has "final say". In fact, the process was designed so that you kids can learn to work together better, not about deciding who's version was final. It is so arrogant to think that one person's edit is final. You guys wasted a lot of time just doing knee-jerk reverts of each other, it never seemed to occur to you to actually work as a team. -- Netoholic @ 15:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as it not occuring to anyone that we shouldn't work as a team.... This discussion page has 3 archives full of text of people trying to sort out thier differences on various aspects of this page. Working as a team does not entail submitting to the whimsy of one editor in a way that will compromise the quality of an article. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the time you have put into this, but once again I completely disagree with you, Netoholic. ScifiterX 21:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was angry, like I said above, and misread the bit at the top. At the same time, like I said, I wasn't happy with the consensus edit, where I went as far as I was prepared to go, and Nightscream's version was everything that annoyed me about that version magnified to the limit. I thought, and still think, that all the additions he has attempted to make to this section were and are beyond worthless. "Beyond," because worthless additions neither make something better nor worse. Nightscream's edits made the section worse. - SoM 19:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Right-O...

Right-O! All right then, Nightscream should be warned via personal E-mail, and If he doesn't get the message, well, maybe he has to learn a lesson the hard way... I have to say. Also, I agree that this should be a massive cooperative effort, not a group of individual efforts that get knee jerk reactions and hard feelings...

Michael 18:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Section listings

My thought was that the Marvel version is the root version, and as such the powers and so on should be a section of the root version. The other media and Ultimate versions should be at the bottom of the article, and only exist to differentiate between those versions and the main version. That's why i structured the article as I did. The other versions should have subsections on powers only when differences are large enough to have their own subsections, at which point I'd suggest splitting them off to another article. Here's my structure thoughts:

• Fictional biography discusses the root version, with subsections on powers etc.
• Other media discusses the differences between this version and the root version.
• Ultimate version discusses the differences between this version and the root version.

Thoughts. Hiding talk 09:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Default_article_sectioning - SoM 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I moved the Powers and Skills subsection up to the Root Section. I added details, but kept the link to the Healing Factor article. Nightscream 9.2.05. 8:52pm EST.

Most of the details you add isn't unique to Wolverine, and should go into the healing factor article. T-1000 14:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

And what of those details that are unique to him? Why did you remove those as well? Wolvie's healing factor is way more pronounced than Spider-Man's recuperative abilities, yet far less so than Hulk's ability to almost instantly regenerate most of his flesh after it's been torn away. The details I added help illustrate the level at which Wolvie's h.f. operates. And if some of those details are not unique to him and belong in the healing factor article, then why haven't they been placed there? And why move the entire section back down again, when it was perfectly fine listed above? Nightscream 9.3.05. 11:25am EST

Started Wolverine section on healing factor page. Placed the info there. Also, there are no powers unique to Wolverine.T-1000 18:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do you always react this way when people disagree with you? I'd say that it was perfectly fine listed below. "Perfectly fine" is not an argument.

And Wolverine has regenerated huge amounts of flesh in seconds. He's also spent long periods of time recovering from far smaller injuries. It's not consistant enough to make any comments as to the detail. - SoM 15:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

there are no powers unique to Wolverine.

I didn't say that there were any powers unique to him. I said "what of those details that are unique to him." That is, how powerful his healing factor is. I made that clear. By now switching it to "powers," you engaging in a Straw Man argument.

It is not a straw man. I simply misread you the first time. Like I said, the info is now in the Healing factor page. By the way, your info is a bit outdated. In a lot of recent comics, the Injuries he received at the hands of Deathstrike and the other would not be anything other than minor annoyances and he heals them in seconds. He even survives nukes at ground zero now. T-1000 16:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do you always react this way when people disagree with you?

I do not know what you're reffering to. What way? What have I said or done other than merely disagreeing in turn? My only reaction to your statements is the same "disagreeing" that you yourself have engaged in, nothing more. But if you can point to something other than that, please do so.

"Perfectly fine" is not an argument.

I didn't say it was. It was a question. Why did you move the powers section when it was fine where it was, and consistent with the practice of listing powers as part of the root section?

It's not consistant enough to make any comments as to the detail.

The comments can point to the details in order to make the point that it's inconsistent. That's why I mentioned some of the instances of his major injuries. The idea that inconsistency = not mentioning anything is fallacious. We can simply mention the inconsistencies, and some of the examples that illustrate it. Nightscream 9.4.05. 11:55am

Healing factor page

Instead of putting so much info in the Wolverine's power and abilities section, we should start a page just talking about healing factor's in the Marvel universe.

The Crossovers/Allies/Enemies lists

Are these helpful? Even besides the fact that lists in general are frowned upon where prose will serve on WP, there are people he's fought once, obscure characters, characters whose meetings with Wolverine are obscure, and characters who are general X-Men foes/allies rather than notable Wolverine foes/allies. Whether they were ever helpful or not, now they've reached a stage where they're just messy text dumps rather than helpful information. - SoM 00:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine box image

The reason I replaced the Dell'otto (sp?) image with the Coipel one is that we get a far better look at most of his costume (especially the mask) in the Coipel one. The lighting and pose are too extreme in the AXM1 cover to be a good box picture - SoM 19:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Age of Apoc Wolverine

I think we need a section on the AoA Wolverine, since he is very different from the main Version. T-1000 01:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

image

Does anyone think we need a better image? The Avengers image cuts off the side of Wolverine and has Cap's shield in it. --DrBat 12:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The costume's symmetrical, so cutting off one knee's no great shakes.

And, hey, the Steranko-homage image you put in had Elektra, Nick Fury's face, the SHIELD logo, the Helicarrier and the Statue of Liberty. Especially by comparison, having Cap's shoulder in the background is no great shakes :). (And look at that pose - he looks like he's about to go to the toilet. Greg Land's really lost it in the past few years, since he went to photo-referencing everything...) - SoM 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind if I modified the image so the background would be black and white? (or you could do something like you did with the Captain Britain images). --DrBat 15:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Not if you do it well (Altho use the original upload and retrim rather than the trimmed version I uploaded the other day). The reason I didn't do it in the first place tho is that, unlike the CB images, there's no defining blackline to give a margin for error. - SoM 15:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Powers section

Why is the powers section last? T-1000 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Simplicity. Listing the various versions of the character together makes most sense. - SoM 22:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

However, the Other media section should be last so the pics doesn't cross into other section as well as not looking so ugly. Also, the general marvel vesion is often titled Character History. This is consistant with most other pages. T-1000 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The other media section being heavily over-imaged is a matter in and of itself - you should NEVER have two images directly opposite each other on the same page. And the character history thing is being (very) gradually sorted on the applicable pages - the standard's new. - SoM 20:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, althought I think we do need one example of Wolvie in games. It's a small pic anyway. T-1000 00:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

outfit

Wolverine did wear the leather jacket outside of NXM, such as in issues of Wolverine and Uncanny. Also, I think he wore it longer (in the 616 universe) than he did the inverted outfit, which I only recall being worn in Austen's Holy War arc. I do recall Marvel having his hair slicked back and a goatee added to tie-in with Ultimate X-Men, though. --DrBat 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He wore a shirt and/or zipped the jacket up elsewhere, which when you look at a full-body picture is a significant change (Also, in his own comic, he was mostly wearing plain clothes at the time, IIRC). The design of the jacket often varied significantly elsewhere too. - SoM 22:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine vs Odin

What's wrong with the Wolverine vs. Odin pic? I think it sums up his powers nicely.T-1000 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

1. It isn't Odin. If you're going to make a FU argument, it helps to have the right characters (for reference, it's Thor. In an alternate future 20 or so years down the line from a time when his comic time-jumped a couple of hundred years forward. This was revealing how he lost his arm and eye).
2. All it actually does is show you that he's got claws (which almost every pic on the page already shows) and can be flayed to the bone by a mystical blast (for reference, it actually killed him).

And while we're here, where the hell was he called "Agent Ten," since you reinstated that? - SoM 00:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In the "Minus One" issue of Untold Tales of Spider-Man. -Sean Curtin 05:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ta. Somehow, that doesn't feel notable to me. - SoM 10:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? How is "patch" notable if "Agent Ten" is not? T-1000 16:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Because he used that identity for the first 35 issues of his own title, plus something like 60 issues of Marvel Comics Presents and various references in other books both at the time and since. Slightly different from a one-shot ID that'll never be referenced again. - SoM 17:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a reference to him being called Weapon Ten by Fantomex in the Ultimate Marvel line? V1rtue 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Logan

First, I would like a source on where Bill Jemas said that Thomas Logan is not the father of Wolverine. Second, I have already pointed out the Jemas no longer works for Marvel, so his opinion should no longer be valid. This is directed towards the user who removed the information from Wolverine Profile. To the best of my knowledge, Joey Q. has never commented on these aspects. This user:205.188.116.67 has also vandalized pages in the past.T-1000 04:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Early Life

I cleaned up the atrocious writing and grammar in the Early Life section. I did my best to maintain the original intended integrity though, so I hope I didn't mess anything up.

But the writing there was horrible and made as little sense as Wolverine's past.

Which image do you prefer?

SOM does not like the Turner Image so he reverts to the New Avengers #3 cover.

I posted the turner cover (in restored Tan suit) because it will be the current costume in Wolverine's Solo books.

Which do you prefer since we are going by a concensous? Dstorres

Not as simple as that:

1. We're four months away (at least) from the first reappearance of the brown'n'tan in-comic.
2. New Avengers and Astonishing X-Men both sell considerably more than the solo Wolverine book. In addition, all licencing of Wolverine currently uses the ReLoad variation of the yellow suit.
3. Here's a rough sketch of the anatomy of that Turner image:
   
4. The Civil War (next year's Big Marvel Event) promo image shows Wolverine in the ReLoad costume. Consequently, we can presume that, in the Civil War mini itself and in the tie-ins to Civil War in the main Wolverine solo book, he will be wearing the yellow suit.
5. [Ent] Don't be hasty [/Ent] - SoM 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually it is that simple.

1) The entry is WOLVERINE, not New Avengers, not Astonishing X-Men. Wolverine Singular. presumably Dstorres (talk • contribs)

Wolverine AS A CHARACTER. Not the comic bearing his name. - SoM 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

2) Sales of the team books have no bearing on this SOLO character. presumably Dstorres (talk • contribs)

Why do you think he's IN New Avengers in the first place - to boost sales. - SoM 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

3) Team events have no effect on the solo character either. You wanted a concensous, I'm gonna get you one and I will abide by it (should I lose).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.7.7.47 (talk • contribs) . presumably Dstorres (talk • contribs)

If you look at Wolverine's history, at least as many significant events relating to him have happened outside his solo book as in it (the current "Wolverine's memories" plot started in House of M even)

And, see, you're thinking of it as winning and losing. That's bad. SoM 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

4) As for civil war, I never assume anything where marvel is concerned, I get disappointed that way. presumably Dstorres (talk • contribs)

Art's by the series artist, I'd call it a big clue. - SoM 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

5) Guess what, time goes by awefully quickly. Four months will go by really quick. presumably Dstorres (talk • contribs)

And we'll see in four months, rather than altering the article now, no? - SoM 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional atheists"

For what it's worth, I was hoping a source would be included to verify his placement in said category. I don't doubt that it applies, but a reference would certainly be appropriate. --AWF

CITATIONS!?

Why are you people getting your knickers in a twist! You want to put citations for a comic character! The fact that should be a concern, its' frivelous and pointless. And the fact that comics have rectons whenever, who knows what citation would be rendered useless. And don't worry, its not like a University Professor is going to see one minor mistake of continiuty on this Wolverine profile,and then castrate the website. Just fix it if it has a mistake, and that will be that. Don't overcomplicate matters. Mrwednesday 24:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Who needs proof? [rolleyes]