# Talk:War Machine

"Being an older, non-updated design grants War Machine an edge over informatical or cybernetical attacks aimed to shut down Starktech-based systems: War Machine now incorporates in his design several components derived from Obadiah Stane's reverse engineering of the oldest Iron Man armor."
Is this correct? When the Starktech fails in Avengers Initiative War Machine's systems go offline.  Von Blitzschlag powers his armor despite his protests ("I'd rather die than beg for help from a nazi."), and later when questioned about his armor being online Rhodes says "A backup system I didn't know was there: obsolete Stanetech.  It doesn't matter now." and later "Yeah, I don't...".  Isnt this implied to be a lie?  Or is there another source for the Stanetech information?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.25.229 (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 

Could there be an addition of the War Machine MAX series?

Yes I think there should be (The Chuck Dixon one?) because it was controversial, being so right-wing.
Actually,I think it was Chuck Austen.

It strikes me that when most people think of "war machine" they think of militarism or the military industrial complex or military in general. At the same time, this is the only article with the specific title War Machine, so I am not entirely comfortable changing this page's name to something like "War Machine (Comic Book)" and creating a redirect page for "War Machine" to collect the various uses. Does anyone here have any thoughts on what the correct solution to this problem might be? Thanks. Justinpwilsonadvocate 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Until there are other articles that actually use the name "War Machine" (proper noun), there's no reason to move this article and create a disambig page. As it is, "War Machine" isn't mentioned a single time on Military-industrial complex. As such, the comic book character is the dominant usage of the phrase, meaning that it can stay in its place. Not a bad question, though, and it is one that I would expect (and hope) will get revisited in the future to ensure that the phrase hasn't become more common. EVula 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that someone has recently edited the material of this article. I've re-edited it back to what I hope is the original format, but someone may want to cross-reference it with the original format just to be sure. The Chibi Kiriyama

The current image, as of 4/24/07, has War Machine upside-down.  Certainly a better, right-side up image exists. --24.249.108.133 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


### Rightside up v. Better Quality
The upside-down War Machine, however, showed a much more recent version of the character and his armor.  Would that compensate enough for its wrong direction?

Still, both are War Machine.  The time the image was used is pretty irrelevant to the main image of the article.  If it was talking about War Machine in history, then it'd be different; but this part is simply of War Machine.  BlueCanary9999 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999
In that case, perhaps we could include it once somebody adds more info on the more recent War Machine comics
I don't get your point.  It's still War Machine, new or not.  BlueCanary9999 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999
The point they are trying to make is, the current image has Rhodes wearing outdated and destroyed armour. The new model should be used to represent War Machine as he currently is. Kontar 04:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Ultimate War Machine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Iron170.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to anyone who can find a fair-use image from a comic book of Rhodes without the mask on.  --Doradus (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ironmanarmory.com/rhodesgetsWM.jpg How's that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.182.248 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

According to a July 25 article, War Machine is getting his own on-going series starting December 2008, coming from writer Greg Pak and artist Leonardo Manco. The information in that CBR article cements that the character is going in a new direction: [1]. Should this be addressed in the article as to the "future" of the character? Because even though the stories are not yet released, there are concrete documents about what has already been written with the material being in a "post-production" stage. Very informative and concerning the character, something people who would come to this page would definitely want to know. --74.235.39.116 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the PH with more information - this is the best place to discuss the title/character development. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - it needs more references. The PH also needs expanding and the bulk of the first paragraph is written in an in-universe so it could do with a solid rewrite (this isn't strictly speaking a hurdle to the B-class assessment but it will need doing if it is to go further - WP:WAF). (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

"I have The Crew #1 and while the prescription is there, it is not implied that he was addicted to drugs/alc. "
There really shouldn't be any question of what he's doing in that panel (even if the beer is in fact a badly drawn water bottle, he's still taking a prescription painkiller - why?) so it's still abuse - addiction is implied unless you like to think Rhodey only tries painkillers and alcohol once, first thing in the morning. So he's taking a painkiller because he needs it - which would hardly be surprising given the knocks we've seen him take, but would be unusual to depict in a comic, especially since he doesn't appear to have any serious injuries at this point. Or, he's taking a painkiller because he's at a low point in his life and gets a kick out of it. Since no other writers seem to have followed it up it's not terribly important to understanding his character, but given the Iron Man/Tony Stark connection, it seems like a nice parallel, given that the Stark didn't feel he was able to control his armor under the influence - Rhodes doesn't use his remaining armor elements until the final issue, by which point he doesn't appear to have been using drink or drugs for some time. 
The meeting with Josiah X in #4, I wasn't sure about myself. It's ambiguous, and it's really only the point where Rhodes says "I picked the mission because it'd make Danny easier to spot." to which Josiah replies "Among other things" (Priest's emphasis).
Not terribly important, but certainly questionable behaviour from a man down on his luck, and certainly in line with picking up prostitutes (the woman at the restaurant?) and trying to pawn the War Machine armor. Leave out or reinsert - I leave it up to you. 92.3.232.55 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies Return may continue from Marvel Zombies, however it is set in a completely different reality. A few zombies from one dimension cross over into a completely different universe, and infect completely different versions of the characters. Dead Days is set in the exact same universe as Marvel Zombies, featuring the exact same versions of the characters. Return. Is Not.
Alt versions of characters sections list the different versions of the character. The MZ War Machine is a completely different version as the MZR character, and as such has a separate section.
If you do not know the plot, then please leave the section alone, as you are completely unaware of what you are writing about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.150.129 (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 

I was one of the people who originally edited that section after reading the books in question along with adding references from those books. So I'm very aware of what I'm "writing" on considering that I put in a lot of work into this page. Second, you're mentioning things that are already known especially the plot and "The MZ War Machine is a completely different version as the MZR character". Both Rhodes characters are under "Marvel Zombies" because both came from the "Marvel Zombies" series. Dead Days, Return.....all of it is under the "Marvel Zombies" series/umbrella and there are not two separate sections covering the Dead Days Rhodes from the original zombie world and the Return Rhodes. So one section for the Zombies series in general covering both Rhodes characters from that series serves its purpose. --Stormshadows00 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been edits trying to remove mention of the name "War Machine" and the "War Machine armor" in the Iron Man 2 section so might as well discuss it. The name "War Machine" and the character is mentioned via interviews with the filmmakers (especially Favreau himself before filming, after filming, and currently), interviews with cast and crew (definitely Cheadle in particular), the official movie website (first thing you see is the armor being called War Machine and there is an interactive area that features the War Machine armor), Marvel.com's website with its coverage, press from Marvel and etc., official movie tie-in merchandise, the video game, the video game website, and others. All of the aforementioned refer to the character as "War Machine" or that Rhodes is using the War Machine armor. While Ivan Vanko is a special case because he is basically a new character made from two characters, that armor Rhodes is wearing is the former Iron Man Mark II armor upgraded to the War Machine armor and for all intents and purposes, it's clear that he is the movie version of War Machine and not "Rhodes in the upgraded Mark II". Same as Natasha Romanova being Black Widow for all intents. Should there be a note that he wasn't called War Machine by name in the movie but acknowledged (I did type a new edit mentioning that but erased it) or just leave it be? I think it's pretty clear who Rhodes is supposed to be in the movie just like the filmmakers know who he is supposed to be. --Stormshadows00 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Stormshadows00. It's good we're discussing this. This is an issue that goes far beyond Iron Man 2, and was particularly hashed out at X-Men: The Last Stand, where a character who appeared to be Quill to comics fans was called Kid Omega in the movie. This goes back even further, to a character who appeared to be Bruce Banner to comics fans being called David Banner in the 1970s Hulk live-action series. The consensus here and in Iron Man re: Iron Monger and in other movies is that in discussing the movie itself, we use the character names that the filmmakers chose, for whatever creative or legal reasons that they did so. In all these cases, we go with the movie's official character names.
It's not exclusive to comics — characters' names in books get changed for movies. But we can only go with the character names that the filmmakers themselves chose to use. While the filmmakers in interviews with fans may have used colloquial terms for our benefit, when push came to shove, they chose not to use those names in the movie, when they very well could have chosen to.
In any case, going back to several movies now, WikiProject Comics uses the character names as given in the object itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The first volume of a comics series is not stated in as "vol. 1, #--". WikiProject Comics MOS states here that, "An exception is made for volume 1 of any series, which should just be referred to as Title No." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an issue that's been recently put on the page and not discussed, might as well discuss it with other editors who have been working on the page in here. Should the biography part be trimmed down and if so, which areas need the most work done to it (not limited to one section of course)? Granted, everything in the biography part is completely cited with references backing everything up so far. But is the size an issue and should it be trimmed down a bit, a lot, or revamped? 
Reading through the article, I do think that the recent events like Weapon of S.H.I.E.L.D. or Dark Reign (biggest section in the article) could be trimmed and/or merged with "Return Of War Machine" to make a new compact section with what happened when he became a cyborg and etc. Maybe some elements from "Personal life" could also be added to the biography section. Basically, what works and what doesn't work? Stormshadows00 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed. I'd thought you might want it it confined to your page because of your blatant WP:OWN regarding this article, but since you insist, I'm now bringing it here, along with your defensive responses that ignore the Wikipedia guidelines about writing about fiction.
Removing other editors' tags
Please do not remove cleanup and other tags placed in an article by other editors, as you did at War Machine. I understand you are a fan of the character, and have made voluminousness edits to this article. However, removing a tag stating that the character biography is overlong and overdetailed — and in fact, seriously violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) — is improper and may constitute an WP:OWN violation. The biography needs to be cut down by a great deal and reflect a real-world perspective as per Wikipedia guidelines.  --Tenebrae (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that page was extensively worked on for a long period of time with a lot of research done (as in actual reading of the book and actual source material) to make the article just like other encyclopedic entries that are exactly like this one. Marvel's wiki article on War Machine has a lot of detail to the profile as well and many other encyclopedic sources like the Iron Manual and Marvel's own material is in detail as well. How am I violating when I'm doing the exact same work like other editors on comic pages and putting things that are actually full of fact and not original research? You even accused me of using OR when I went directly to the source for information on War Machine's movie armor AND provided a reference for it. I provided a huge amount of references and material for that page for a long period of time as well as a lot of reading for it on my part to get the article to match with the information given. You put the tag on there and for some reason decided that I'm breaking a guideline when I modeled my work after looking at other pages just like this one and came to the conclusion that it's overly detailed when I thought articles are supposed to be accurate and give encyclopedic information? Stormshadows00 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, and your great time and effort of work provide a strong, solid foundation. But because other editors are writing overdetailed synopses and character bios — which WikiProject MOS has disallowed for years, if they would only read it — does not make it OK. More troubling is the owernship issue you're exhibiting. Not even the most prolific contributor to an article can own it. The project recently banned User:Asgardian for a year because of ownership issues, partly.
Here's what the main Wikipedia MOS says at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): As exemplified in Superman, for example, a real-world perspective is paramount, meaning: At various points in the narrative, what do the creators have to say about what they did and why? A primarily in-universe approach, which we've done for most of the comics articles' FCB, "should not be used for Wikipedia articles." Indeed, the guideline even gives a word for what we should avoid: "Fictography – a fictional character article or section written as if it were a biography."
We need to work together to bring articles up to standard, and not to bring them down to what a few articles in a section run by fans rather than literary scholars (see the articles on Gulliver's Travels, Moby Dick and other books in comparison) are doing that has long been against both Wikipedia guidelines andWPC MOS. Also, what the Marvel wiki does is of no concern to Wikipedia, which strives to be a legitimate encyclopedia with higher standards.
See the Superman article, for instance, and compare it to War Machine. In the meantime, the tag has to stay — other editors have a right to weigh in on this. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Working together is one thing and something that I'm always down with. Accusing me of vandalism, ownership, and original research is another and that extreme is something that I am for sure going to speak out on. Just like when I joined and someone called me a "single purpose account" and "a sockpuppet" vandalizing a page (who actually did vandalism, ownership, and falsified information just to get ironically banned from Wikipedia) is another extreme that I don't take kindly to.
Lets get one thing straight. I don't claim to own anything and never have on here. Never have. I edited on something that I'm knowledgeable about and something I like just like every other page I have ever worked on. This is not "fan editing" or whatever type of negative connotation. My purpose of an edit is to put factual information on any subject to contribute, not own, the work and to make it accurate since too many pages do indeed have original research or "fan-fiction" or whatever. If someone edited "Earth has no oxygen", I'd edit based on Earth having oxygen and proof of it being there with references stating it. I put references to back up the statements, I double check to make sure what I put down is accurate and not false, and I used archived references or new references when the reference is expired. I revert when information is false and misleading, things that was never stated anywhere, redundant, or has multiple links pointing to the same article (like I just did before you reverted). I thoroughly research something, written or online, and shorten them down to get the full scope of something. I match my work with other work to make sure it is encyclopedic information with similar style to actual encyclopedia content or referenced material. And if it's a subject that I'm knowledgeable about, I will work on it since there are other articles that I have worked on. Last time that I checked, there was nothing sinister and vandalizing about what I do unless putting down accurate information and references is a serious offense. Yes, I've edited many a time on a page. There's nothing even wrong with that and there's no rule stating that I have to work on many articles (which I have) or working on one thing = ownership of a page. And I for sure have not brought an article down when I actually state things about a subject from the source material itself. Looking at all my edits, there is no way you can use something harsh like "vandalism", "original research", and "ownership" and I take legitimate offense to that when I'm not even close to being about that and worked for a long time on it by like many others.
You think the page is too overly detailed. I disagree and I, along with other editors who worked on it before you edited on that page, worked hard to make it accurate not based on ownership but to make it on standard of accuracy. If others feel the same way and the article should be streamlined without taking out referenced and cited material, then yeah compromise is a given. But accusing me of vandalism and etc. that I'm not even about. That is crossing the line to me. Stormshadows00 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
First, what you quoted in your edit summary is an essay, not Wikipedia policy. The purpose of tags is to alert other editors of problems that need improving, and common practice is we improve the article before removing any tags.
You are not a disinterested party -- much of the article is your own writing. You are not being objective: This article blatantly violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
If you want to remove the tag again, in light of this article's violation, fine. I'll alert an admin to the violation and see what he/she thinks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
First, did you even state what was the problem the way that you did in Talk:Iron Man when you left a tag? No. You left a tag and that was it. You called it fancruft without any type of explanation and been the only one saying that it's fancruft without any explanation or where it was. All of it was based on your opinion of it. Fancruft this, ownership that, and not showing any type of wanting to correct a page or actual work to correct the supposed "fancruft".
You use my response to you accusing me of owning a page, OR, and vandalism as "proof" of me owning a page? That's laughable considering that I'm still consistent in what the main point of that response was. "Working together is one thing and something that I'm always down with.", but I guess you didn't read that part since I'm owning the page and such. Last time I checked, Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively, yes? So how is it ownership when I actually asked people to help? In this very talk page, I put the issue up on the trimming. Not you. And when the discussion of what needed to be cut on the page was made, did you even state anything? No. It's not "conflict of interest" like you've been trying to spin it since many people have done edits to this page (Actually look at the revision page). It's "Where's the fancruft when you didn't say jack about it?". "What is the fancruft?". "Where to begin when you don't say anything?". That's MY words along with "What does work and what doesn't work?" and "which areas need the most work done to it (not limited to one section of course)" that you failed to read up there. And last I checked, Wikipedia isn't about one person's non-stated opinion prevailing.
Next time you want to use my words, read what I say.Stormshadows00 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear of what I said and didn't say. Stormshadows didn't say "Stormshadow says it's not fancruft since he put most of it here.". YOU wrote that along with " Aside from COI, why is so afraid of that tag, which is only to inspire edits to improve the article? Answer: WP:OWN". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_Machine&diff=370865183&oldid=370863425 .
Stormshadows said "Discuss it in the talk page instead of tagging something "fancruft" without any explanation". And "You put up this tag without discussing it at all. You feel a change should be made, talk page is there.". You never discussed it on the page and just tagged it without any discussion and it's in the revision history. You never stated what was or wasn't fancruft on the page so it could be dealt with on the page. At all. Your words were "fancruft tag" and that was it. Did you specify what was fancruft? Nope. You never stated anything but "fancruft tag". So I removed the tag based on that article Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags until you actually explained what is or isn't fancruft on the page so something could be done. But you decided to once again accuse me with this "ownership" garbage and start something.
As for quoting me, you accused me of OR when I used cited material about the Iron Man 2 movie, accused me of vandalizing a page because of a tag I removed that you never discussed in the page (like editors don't know what is or isn't vandalism), and now, this ownership thing again with no action reflecting ownership (and removing a tag of yours or working on a page at a time isn't OWN). You pushed a button with your accusations and it was all based on nothing substantial. So I did respond (and you can stop trying to spin my reaction as something else). But after I calmed, I did begin trimming the page and as you can see in this EXACT talk page, I asked editors working what "did work and what didn't work" to start something. Last time I checked, that showed a willingness to actually come to a consensus or be active to make the page up to standard and to see what needed to be done. And most of the cutting so far has been me cutting down the size of it to begin reworking it. OWN is when a person acts like they are in control of a page. And I have worked WITH editors to make something, not own it.Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

admin hat on
Gentlemen, please... don't edit war on this article.  Use the talk page to carry on your discussion, not the edit summaries.  If you are having trouble reaching an agreement, please seek out a third opinion instead.
Thank you. BOZ (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

admin hat off
Understood. No more editing. Stormshadows00 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's all your own writing. Of course you don't see a problem with it. That's conflict of interest.
Fine. You're clearly exhibiting WP:OWN by removing a tag that refers to your own writing. I'm seeking admin intervention.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Uh no. Already stated in the revision history. You never stated anything EXCEPT a tag. How is that even being productive when you don't even mention WHERE the fancruft is?! And I'm not exhibiting any single type of ownership so you can stop that (And that talk page cut/paste you made was not even about the fancruft tag at all. Dates say a lot.). Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
2¢... maybe a bit more...

The article as it stands still has an excess of plot. That needs to be addressed.
Yes, the article has shed ~10k in size over the past month. That still puts it on the "needs to trim or split" range. Trimming is preferable to splitting.
One of the things editors need to remember is that once they add material it is fair game for others to edit. Even heavily edited or removed.
If you've added or edited material and a second editor comes along and tags an issue - think very, very carefully about removing that tag. In most cases they may be seeing something more that needs to be done, up to and including what you've added. Removing the tag at that point can be seen as a conflict of interests.
In general terms, removing maintenance tags when the issue is not dealt with is at the least disruptive editing. Doing so repetitively or in conjunction with a conflict of interests can be seen as an ownership issue and eventually vandalism depending on the content in question.
If there is an ongoing conflict over the content of the article and the tags: Leave the tags in place and move to the talk page to work out what exactly needs to be done. There is zero excuse to [[WP:EW|edit war over the placement of the tags. If you are still at a deadlock, ask for an outside opinion or two, or more.
I think that about covers it...
- J Greb (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me address that.
I addressed that in this page to ask editors what needed to be cut in the article and what needed to stay to do exactly what you've stated. It's right above Tenebrae cut/pasting my words from my talk page.
I did begin trimming days ago and now it's from 82kb to 73kb. That's a significant cut but I know that more could be done. The Dark Reign section is the one I was trying to work on next because it's the biggest part of the page. My concern was trimming to make it at least concise or just have brief summaries with the references there.
Exactly. Even with "be bold", I do know that.
This is the problem right here. If "fancruft" was addressed in the talk page with what was "fancruft" in particular, this wouldn't even be an issue. Tenebrae never bothered to explain what the "fancruft" was and just put a tag there. Just a tag. What to edit when there's no starting point or no mention of where it is? It was just based on an opinion not stated at all.
The issue couldn't be dealt with because the issue was never discussed at all. If he had an opinion, whatever it may be, the talk page is there, yes? It shouldn't have even gotten ugly to begin with. But this talk of ownership (not from you) is garbage when you can see for yourself what I contributed to the page.
As I said in his cut/paste, "If others feel the same way and the article should be streamlined without taking out referenced and cited material, then yeah compromise is a given.". I make no bones about that and I rather would actually have someone point out the probs with solutions to correct it or actually correcting it instead of the mess that this has become. As I expressed to him, talking about it the talk page and actually working on fixing the problems do a lot more good than accusation and non-productive mess. And I did state that in this page and in the revision history.
Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
A few of more things then:
"Fancruft" is a catch all. Most broadly it could cover the bulk of this article. More generally though it gets leveled at one of two things: over detailed plot summaries and/or "trivia" sections. The best point of reference I've come across is that it's the material a fan thinks is essential even if it adds little or nothing to the substance of the article. Also note that {{Fancrufd}} redirects to {{Overdetailed}}.
IF you are working on cleaning up an article and intend to be at it for a protracted time, there are {{Under construction}} and {{In use}} that can be added to the top of the page. In use may not be the best choice since it is for short term use. Adding either at this point though wouldn't help matters.
For good or for ill tag do tend to get added without a laundry list of what exactly the tagger sees a problematic. In some cases it because the problems are self evident - either in reality or the opinion of the tagger. Both of the tags currently on the article are fairly clear. The over all one is pointing to the article aiming at a specific (readers of Marvel Comics) audience rather than a general audience. The sectional one is point to bloated plot summary in the character bio. Both cover a lot of ground. For me, I'd apply those if the article has multiple places that meet the criteria and I'm not going to be able to edit the article, for whatever reason.
Also for good or ill, the maintenance temples need to be on the article until the issue is worked out. It's always the hope that they won't be a permanent fixture.
Something to remember about cited and sourced information - primary sources should be kept to a minimum. That means any sourced information in a plot summary section can still be cut.
And a last thought or two:
Sniping at this point is going to do nothing but rub more nerves raw. The rattling on both sides needs to be put aside and an actual look at what needs to be done to this article started. The best way I can see for that is to start a new sections where work can be done in a polite, civil manner. It sounds like the "Dark Reign" section is a good place to start.
If one party or the other cannot work on this article - for whatever reason - and the other is going to work on stream lining it. Then lets let that process go forward with the following caveats:
The Complex and Plot tags stay until the work is done.
Under construction gets added to let others know what's going on and who is actively editing.
Any and all work done isn't set in stone. If there is a concern from the other party while the UC is up it is brought to the talk page, politely, by them with out reverting. Both sides would be expected to talk over what's been done and what changes would like to be seen. And once the UC and other tags come down, other editors may wind up further compressing and simplifying the information.
Personally, I'd like to see the first though be at least tried, but we need to see both parties are willing to try ans start "fresh".
- J Greb (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, and as usual, J Greb makes calm and collected sense. It seemed to me the text in the tag was self-evident. I'm happy to expand: The War Machine character biography violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) in that it uses primary sources, does not write about the character from a real-world perspective, and goes into such excessive detail that overall context is lost — the "forest for the trees" problem, where if everything is important, then nothing is important. (Like a line in The Incredibles: If everybody's special, then nobody's special.) As well, it suffers from what I've heard editors call recentism, where the last year of a character's published adventures take up as much as space as the first 10 or 15 years. It also suffers from what the WPC MOS explicitly prohibits:  "blow by blow" issue-by-issue or arc-by-arc synopses.
These are just off the top of my head. I could comb through for examples, but these are big-picture issues. These articles aren't meant to be fan sites, which go into minute detail of every aspect. Wikipedia policy is we write for general audience readers. A great deal of the material here is only of interest to fans, and would be meaningless, even useless, to a general audience reader. An analogy: If a general-audience reader has an encyclopedia article about a certain make of car, he or she wants a general overview, some history, and whatever extraordinary facts differentiate it from other cars. The reader doesn't need an owner's manual and a spec sheet covering every aspect of its suspension, its ignition system and how to open the trunk. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll address that too.
I'm aware that "fancruft" is also used in a negative sense and it was definitely used in that context in the revision history. And that is not cool along with the pejorative "fan" connotation that goes with it.
I did think about adding the "under construction" tag. The initial plan was for the "Dark Reign" section to be trimmed from five to two distinct paragraphs or lesser than that. Then joined with "Return" to do additional trimming to make it at least like other sections. That was going to bring the article down to at least the tail end of the 60kb or lower range with additional trimming on other parts of the biography above it to shorten the article down. The goal was cutting of parts not focused on character and eventually having all the biography compacted. Which is a reason why I brought it to the talk page. Additional parts were going to go in their own articles as Parnell Jacobs was created just days ago to put information about that character in there with another planned for additional text.
"What exactly is tailored to a certain audience?" is a valid question and not one of "COI". A over-all tag was placed, but what was the "fancruft" in particular? As in the "excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links"? All I see is a claim of "fancruft!" without a single starting point of discussion. The first part? Written like other introductions. The second? Brief summary of all appearances. Nothing "fancruftish" by definition. Bio? Big, yes. Being cut down. But "fancruft!"? The armor? If Iron Man's armor is covered without issue and detail in the article (which it is), why not Rhodes since it's a part of the character? Skills? It's an opinion by one person saying "fancruft!".
As far as the templates go, that "fancruft" tag does have a valid argument against placing that tag on there. The bio being trimmed? Brought it up on this page, asked for input, and I did begin work on that.
Most of the time, you type and you'll have an editor or two ask for a reference or put a cite tag. I add a cite to cover bases and yes, a lot of those cites did come from my work on certain parts. But I see what you are saying on primary sources.
On the final part.
The problem that I have is that when someone accuses "ownership" and "vandalism" with no grounds for it whatsoever and in the manner in this page etc., that's not cool. What went on in the revision summary.....talk of being "scared of a tag", "WP:OWN" accusations left and right, "MY fancruft" like I made the entire article, posting my talk page spinning it into "defensive responses" instead of discussing the actual fancruft tag that was never discussed (as I stated in that revision page) wasn't polite or civil and I reiterate that to me, that's crossing a line. It's hard to be willing when someone disrespects like that. But you coming at me with civility.....actually talking in a civil manner is something that I actually wanted to accomplish up there in "Trimming the article down". I do see the bigger picture and it should be about the article.
I rather have others look at it to see the prime issues. The bio is an issue, but I don't believe that parts in the article are as "fancruftish" as the tag is making it out to be. But I do agree that things should be handled in a civil manner like you stated at the last part. Talking about it improves articles. -Stormshadows00 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
We do agree on that — talking it out improves articles. I'd like to make a request: Would you look over Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and give us your thoughts on that policy? It would help the discussion if we're both on the same page and operating from the same frame of reference. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a comic article, obviously Wikipedia:Manual of Style (comics) applies here and it's very much a guideline like the parent Manual of Style guideline. But WP:MOS and WP:MOS (comics) are guidelines, not Wikipedia policies. There's a big difference last time I checked.
1. The article does not cover every scene and every moment save for "Dark Reign", which does cover all the issues of War Machine Vol. 2 in a lengthy way and should be cut down. Many other parts do not give "blow by blow" because they do not cover the ENTIRE War Machine Vol. 1 series or all issues of Iron Man, West Coast Avengers, etc. "The all new Iron Man" section does not cover all of what happened when Rhodes was Iron Man. Only beginning, who he fought, significant plotlines, and end. "Origins" does cover his first appearance, but not "blow by blow" of all his entire appearances in the book which spans more issues than the ones covered. "Post War Machine" has a brief summary of "The Crew" and not "blow by blow". The argument can be made for the "Dark Reign" section. The additional summaries are in order, which doesn't "violate" MOS or MOS:Comics and is basically his first appearance in Iron Man, how he became Iron Man and significant storylines/milestones, becoming War Machine with significant storylines/milestones, post War Machine with significant storylines, and return.
2. In WP:MOS, "Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes")". That can easily be applied in all but a few that need extensive rewrites like "Dark Reign" (already stated in the talk page). But "fictography" claim? The article isn't a combination of fiction and biography. In the most basic of definitions, it is a summary of the character with the events that happened to said character. A fictional character biography.
3. "Using primary sources".....WP:MOS:Comics: "References to individual issues and dates within the body of the text are encouraged, although editors are allowed discretion to choose whether they want to add specific issue numbers and/or dates in the text of articles or by way of citations" and also "The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research.". MOS states "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" with WP:PRIMARY states "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". And that's exactly what is done on the page. Making descriptive statements using the actual comics that the character comes from isn't breaking MOS or MOS:Comics guidelines and if that was the case, then a majority of articles on comics would be breaking MOS guidelines since comic cites are always found on pages describing a storyline or plot involving the character along with detailed plot synopsis. WP:NOR: "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." and "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material". No violation there. And this is not a case of misused priority sources. It's the fictional character biography. Of course storylines, milestones in the character's history, etc. is a focus since it's relevant to the character that the article is talking about. 
4. The question of "what is significant and what isn't?" to general audience readers. How Rhodes was introduced is significant and that can be defended. Rhodes becoming Iron Man and the events that lead to it beginning and ending are significant and that can defended. Rhodes becoming War Machine and his career is significant and that can be defended. The point is that while the article needs some trimming, information that is relevant to a character's history (as in the history from creation to the books themselves) shouldn't be dropped. And no, that's not from a "fan" perspective or whatever negative connotation. That's from a literary one. Makes no sense to look up an encyclopedia entry of Great Expectations and find one non-detailed, one note, two sentence reply on the plot. Or one clicks on a page like this or any other encyclopedia and doesn't want information on the character. MOS says "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source". And that's exactly what was done.
5. These two things...."Excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience" and "excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links". Argument can be applied for adding the biography tag on the size because it does need a cut, but overall article "fancruft" tag is a complete negative. The article isn't some "oh I wouldn't understand it if I never read a War Machine book!" or "this is some owner's guide/spec sheet!" or the "fan"/"fansite"/etc. It was made to BE accessible with many editors behind it who worked extensively on it to make it so. As in actually reading the material and tertiary sources to apply to the page so that a general audience can read on the character, not "only fans of Marvel" or whatever the tag is implying. I know that the parts that I worked on were meant to be accessible and I didn't get one single complaint about it. And also, where's the "praise" mentioned on the tag? Where's the "criticism"? Where's the "trivia"? The armor section list? MOS:Comics backs that section up. All in all, that tag is not even accurate.
5. The movie section. Covered exactly like other movie sections. Brief summary with information on the movie armor from verified websites and the movie itself. Not "breaking" MOS. Not original research.
6. While Superman and Batman are good articles and even featured articles, it is not a policy or even an official Wikipedia guideline that every single comic article on Wikipedia has to be modeled after those articles or followed to the letter as templates. Barbara Gordon's page, as an example, uses detailed plot in its fictional character biography. Same with some of the recent "good article" entries and "featured article" entries based on comic books like the Sinestro Corps War and other literary works. Plot is there, detailed, referenced, and no "fancruft!" accusation. The main thing is that adding information like concise plot, story, and character background isn't "ruining" a page or making it a "fansite".
Bottom line is that while the biography itself has some issues to work on in order to be concise, other areas do not apply to that tag. -Stormshadows00 (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not "the bottom line". That's your opinion. Other editors' opinions are different. To say that's "the bottom line" says you're right and everyone else is wrong. So, no. It's your opinion, but it's not the bottom line.
You say we're suggesting "one non-detailed, one note, two sentence reply on the plot." That's a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between overdetailed, issue-by-issue, arc-by-arc synopses and one sentence.
Saying "other articles don't follow MOS so why should this one" is just wrong.
I'm not sure what you're saying about WPC MOS. At WP:CMOS#PLOT it says, "plot discussions must be concise summaries," "Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries, annotated or otherwise," "Plot summaries should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles," "should only outline the plot rather than describe minor details" and most importantly, since it follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction),
plot descriptions must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources. Editors should approach the discussion of fictional concepts within a "real world context"; this means editors should describe fictional elements in terms of how they relate to the real world, as fictional characters  or topics.
Does the War Machine article do that? Because if the plot elements aren't in a real-world context, then it's not in the format that Wikipedia finds encyclopedic. I'm sorry you can't see that, and that you're refusing to use a real-world context.
Other editors will, and they will trim, and I'd hate to see you reverting everyone else's edits, including tags. That's as OWN as it gets. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
For all the talk you make of improving an article and being "civil", you're quick to come with what I allegedly meant by my own words and this "exhibiting WP:OWN" again for the umpteenth time. Here's the the correct definition of "the bottom line": "The main or essential point"  and not saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" in any dictionary entry or any form of what I said. What I stated is the bottom line, the main essential point, to my opinion of your fancruft tag/opinion that you placed in the article and why I object in the talk page for said article. That is what is clearly stated plain as day and not in any way that you stated.
I did not state anything close to "You say we're suggesting "one non-detailed, one note, two sentence reply on the plot.". You said that. I said "The point is that while the article needs some trimming, information that is relevant to a character's history (as in the history from creation to the books themselves) shouldn't be dropped." and compared removal of character story information with the "encyclopedia entry of Great Expectations" example. And I said "MOS says "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source". And that's exactly what was done.". I stated that. And who in the world is "we"? You represent yourself and you're the only one stating a "fancruft!" opinion so far.
I did not say "other articles don't follow MOS so why should this one". I stated, in plain English, articles featured on WP:GA and WP:FA that used concise plot with details and there are articles considered good by Wikipedia standards that have summaries with details (hence being a featured or good article to begin with). In comics, examples like Barbara Gordon and Sinestro Corps War has some detailed plot summary and covers story arcs in order. Even Batman covers story arcs in order with some detail present. The main thing is that a guideline is used with common sense says the MOS, but will have exceptions as stated in the ALL the MOS pages. Again, information like concise plot, story, and character background isn't "ruining" a page and even other "good articles" reflect this. And as far as you quoting MOS guidelines on "concise plot summaries" (which I quoted MOS on the SAME THING), #3 stated MOS:Comics  mentioning WP:PRIMARY's stance on sources along with issue cites being acceptable and the aforementioned original fiction as a source. Checking edits, it's 82kb to 73kb to 60kb with trimmed summaries to make them concise plot summaries in the article. And the work isn't even complete with finding additional secondary sources to add and adding more real world context that was started for the article already. Why? Because of what I clearly said up there in #2 on more real world context being applied to the page in tandem with the plot summaries like other articles. I didn't refuse anything at all on real world context and it would help a lot if you stop putting words in my mouth that I never said or stated at all. You're not showing any WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL at all.
And as far as you insinuating WP:OWN once again, me removing your tag before doesn't equal me removing "everyone else's edits, including tags". In fact, I told the admin up there "Understood. No more editing" in response to "Gentlemen, please... don't edit war on this article.". I didn't revert a single tag since then and planned not to until this issue was resolved. And in the interim, I trimmed the page following what JGreb said about Dark Reign being a good place to start. The focus is on the article. -Stormshadows00 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to address four points of disagreement, then move on to where we do agree.
You wrote, "Makes no sense to look up an encyclopedia entry of Great Expectations and find one non-detailed, one note, two sentence reply on the plot." So, yes, you wrote "one non-detailed, one note, two sentence reply on the plot."
Where I wrote "we" I was referring to myself and to the admin who reinserted the tag that you removed. Regarding OWN, you only retained the tag when an admin, rather than a regular editor, put it in.
RE: "I did not say 'other articles don't follow MOS so why should this one'". You wrote, "Barbara Gordon's page, as an example, uses detailed plot in its fictional character biography [as do] entries based on comic books like the Sinestro Corps War and other literary works." As a side note, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call Sinestro Corps War a "literary work". We might be operating from very different frameworks, which could help explain some of our points of disagreement.
In any event, I'd like to concentrate on where we agree.
For example: You say "information like concise plot, story, and character background isn't 'ruining' a page": We're 100 percent in agreement on that. I don't where you got the impression otherwise. Heck, I just spent over a month working with other editors on the plot history of Spider-Man. I think if you read that section of that article, you'll find we're not far apart.
I haven't seen any secondary or third-party sourcing in the FCB except for one footnote. If you're planning on adding them, or on letting other editors add them, that's great. I guess there being virtually no such citations there yet gave me the wrong impression. I'd be happy to help add some.
Ironically, I had come to this page today to give a fellow editor a compliment on the work he's been doing, specifically your most recent edits. I stand by that, our evident personal differences aside. I think you're making the article more encyclopedic. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't the War Machine involved in the Avengers movie? He was established in Iron Man 2. Did he just sit back and watch?108.23.147.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 

See here Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In iron man #49 Rhodey appear at page 2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.6.152.19 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 

It's confusing to state that War Machine appeared in the first Iron Man film when he didn't.   Rhodes did, but War Machine didn't.  It's inaccurate to state the Stark and Iron Man are referred to in the same article - that may be true, and indeed in many cases War Machine/Rhodes could be the same character, but not in this case when it specifically refers to only Rhodes - as the War Machine character makes no entrance.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing to who? There is no "could be" when the character has been stated, in this very article and in other references, as one and the same. There is no separate "War Machine" character when "James Rhodes" and "War Machine" are the same character. One is the civilian name and other is the superhero name. Just like Stark and Iron Man. The books says this. The media says this. Has there been another with the ID like Iron Man or Wolverine and so on? Yes in comics. A team even. But Rhodes and War Machine are one in the same according to Marvel and every other cite. The first to have the name. The first to be known in other media as that name. The only one consistently with that name. The same character and not two separate entities. Just like Stark and Iron Man. If you watched the films, the ARMOR didn't appear in the first. The SUPERHERO ID didn't appear in the first. But the CHARACTER did and that character, regardless if it's Howard or Cheadle or armored or unarmored, would still be the same character in the MCU and sequel films. Rhodes as a non superhero civilian appeared in the first and Rhodes adopting the superhero name happened later. That does not mean the character didn't appear in the first. It's the same dude since day one and many sources back this up.Stormshadows00 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Confusing to anybody who reads it.  I don't dispute that the two characters are the same, but they are not interchangeable, especially when dealing with situations that refer to events prior to the creation of War Machine.  I suggested a compromise that makes it clear that it is the character Rhodes that appears, not the character War Machine - that seems the best option.  The article states that War Machine was portrayed by Terrence in Iron Man.  The infobox picture is the armour, not Rhodes.  Please elucidate as to any point in the film where the term War Machine is mentioned.  Please enlighten me at any point where there is even any implication that Rhodes is going to portray War Machine in Iron Man - this takes place before the creation of War Machine.  We don't say that Two-face appeared in Batman (1989 film), even though Billy Dee Williams played Harvey Dent, because this was prior to Dent becoming Two Face.  Further to your initial comments I've looked through the articles, and although characters such as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Clark Kent/Superman and Tony Stark/Ironman refer to both characters within - they always refer to the specific persona in question and the two are not interchangeable:
Batman: The central fixed event in the Batman stories is the character's origin story. As a young boy, Bruce Wayne was horrified and traumatized when he watched his parents, the physician Dr. Thomas Wayne and his wife Martha, murdered with a gun by a mugger named Joe Chill. Batman refuses to utilize any sort of gun on the principle that a gun was used to murder his parents.
Both Bruce and Batman are used above, but each refers to a specific personalitiy - Batman the character, and Bruce Wayne the character
Iron Man: Some time later, a ruthless rival, Obadiah Stane, manipulates Stark emotionally into a serious relapse. As a result, Stark loses control of Stark International to Stane, becomes a homeless alcoholic vagrant and gives up his armored identity to Rhodes, who becomes the new Iron Man.
Refers to Stark personally - and indeed Rhodes personally, rather than saying "gives up his armored identity to War Machine, who becomes the new Iron Man"
The same is true here - the article in this instance should not refer to War Machine specifically, but to Rhodes.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

First off, that's not a true statement. Let's actually look at articles. This article, from bio to character history to other media, has been about War Machine AND Jim Rhodes since they're the same character. Just like other hero articles with costumed ID/civilian ID and this superhero ID has been around for several decades with other media appearances being primarily this the instances of Rhodes as WM outnumbering. Even in your examples, you're using characters that have two identities but the SAME character that is referred as such in their refs, links, and sources. They ARE interchangeable when other media and material out there verify that. Even Marvel themselves verify that (and they do the same as War Machine AND Rhodes are referred to as the same guy. Easily proven.). The pic in Iron Man article infobox is Tony Stark in his superhero persona of Iron Man. Not the "Iron Man armor". It's Stark in it. Pic in War Machine article infobox is Rhodes in his superhero persona of War Machine. It's not "the War Machine armor". It's Rhodes in it. Verified by the very comic book that picture came from and several refs. The article is talking about the character in both hero and civilian because they're the SAME CHARACTER. "Anybody" is a broad generalization and there has not been a single issue on WP about confusion. You are disputing that the character is one and the same when you state "Rhodes that appears, not the character War Machine". That is a contradiction. A superhero identity is not a separate character unless you have a Rick Jones/Captain Marvel deal in which they are two actual separate characters. This is clearly not the case here.
The superhero identity wasn't in Iron Man I. Only a "next time baby" in reference to the armor and a nod in the end credits done on purpose. Stated by the director. Stated in refs. Howard flat out said "depending on the success of the first one, War Machine [won't be in until] the second one". Doesn't mean the character wasn't in the film when James "Rhodey" Rhodes IS the character that IS War Machine. "James Rhodes as his superhero persona War Machine isn't in the first film" is a far more accurate statement. You even tried to use a "source" for your edit, previously on this page and in other media page that splintered from this article, that doesn't have a single thing in it that backs up your assertion that "War Machine the character" wasn't in Iron Man 1. It's the concept art link that shows that the PLANNING for the armor, not character (since the character IS Rhodes), being in Iron Man 1. It shows that there were concepts and plans for the superhero ID before Iron Man 1 was released. And going by both Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle in regards to Rhodes, it's wrong to state that "Cheadle as Rhodes" is a different character from "Howard as Rhodes" just because Cheadle has the superhero ID. It's pretty clear, if you actually read the article and refs, that Howard AND Cheadle played that character, the WP article IS about the same character, and actual sources back this. Stormshadows00 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Still no.  When Rhodes wears the armour he is referred to as War Machine.  When he does not wear the armour he is referred to as Rhodes.  This is true of all superheroes.  This is the distinction.  In IronMan he was only Rhodes.
The two names are not interchangeable, and never have been, not in any article.  When an article refers to the person, it uses the person name and when it refers to the superhero it uses the superhero name.  This is always the case, and is especially so when referring to events that happen before the superhero exists - such as origins or flashbacks.
You'll note that the two above paragraphs are essentially repeating themselves.  I feel that's necessary, because you don't get that even though a character can be both civilian and superhero there are times when it is necessary to distinguish between the two.
Following on from that, you also seem to be under the impression that I don't know that Rhodes and War Machine are the same character, or am unable to accept that.  I've repeatedly stated that I agree on this, but that there is a necessary distinction between which of the descriptions is the most accurate, especially when we are dealing with situations that arise before War Machine had been created.  This is where I have an issue - to say that War Machine appeared in Iron Man is deceptive, when as you even admit yourself according to Howard "depending on the success of the first one, War Machine [won't be in until] the second one" - so Rhodes was in the film, but War Machine wasn't.
There is a certain level of expertise present here in this discussion that will not be available to the average reader - and that is who we should aim the article at.  If a regular person from the street reads the article they will assume that the armoured figure of War Machine appears in the film - and that is not the case.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm "seem to be" when you're the one referring to War Machine as a separate character from the Rhodes character in the edit summary and in the very talk page. From "War Machine/Rhodes could be the same character, but not in this case when it specifically refers to only Rhodes - as the War Machine character makes no entrance" to "The infobox picture is the armour, not Rhodes."....like they are separate from each other when they're both the same representation of the comic book character in the films. You typed that. I'm the one that consistently referred to a single solitary character with a superhero ID and a civilian name. So let's not add a false narrative here. Let's again read replies. "James Rhodes as his superhero persona War Machine isn't in the first film"....if you read replies and edit history, I said that. "The superhero identity wasn't in Iron Man I."....again, I said that. "Rhodes as a non superhero civilian appeared in the first and Rhodes adopting the superhero name happened later.". "the ARMOR didn't appear in the first. The SUPERHERO ID didn't appear in the first." So what's the point of reiteration for my benefit in regards to the Iron Man film when there's comments that I actually made ad nauseum present? Not hard to read when they're blatant.
"The article states that War Machine was portrayed by Terrence in Iron Man.". Actually, the lead states that the topic of the article was played by Howard and Cheadle. True statement. Verified. Backed. Not a single solitary thing says that they didn't play the topic of the article. And other media, before you made that edit, stated the same thing and STATES that War Machine, the superhero ID, wasn't in the first one in the movie section. Did they have plans for Rhodes as War Machine in Iron Man I? Yes. Via concept art (link you used as a source when it expired a long time ago and the archived site doesn't match what you edited the page to.) and interviews from the cast and crew go into that. Did it happen? In the sequel. Howard's comment wasn't an "admittance" in regards to your assertion. It backs up the overall point....that the character is in the first film but in civilian identity and not the superhero identity. That does NOT warrant your removal of Terrence Howard's credit in the article about the character when he AND Cheadle still played the same character in the same universe as the other films in the trilogy and overall MCU films. If you actually read your Two Face example, Billy Dee Williams is still acknowledged as a part of "Two Face in other media" on the Two Face page even though he played just Dent, his civilian identity. It would be off to remove his credit just like it would be off to remove the other credits on Two-Face's page in which he's just Dent. Edward Nygma is not Riddler in "Gotham" and there are other villains who are not their villian IDs, but it would be off the remove credit when they are still representations of the character. Several instances such as the above, "Smallville" and so on in which the live action only used the civilian ID are counted as "in other media" and it would be off to remove the credit when they are still representations of that character. Difference between them and Rhodey in MCU? Rhodey is the same guy, the representation of the comic character, in the MCU films and GETS his superhero ID later. Not limited to a standalone film that magically made Howard's role separate compared to Cheadle (especially when it's still the same if Howard stayed on as Rhodey). If it's just Tony Stark in the first film like his role in The Incredible Hulk and he's Iron Man in the second, removing the credit for Iron Man 1 because the armored persona doesn't appear until Iron Man 2 would not even be remotely accurate. Stormshadows00 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Clearly we're not going to agree on this.  I've asked for 3O.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.  I've taken your advice - literally - and used your direct quote in the article.  As to your question about anybody other than Rhodes portraying War Machine, I think the answer is "No". In this respect (for a suit of armour) War Machine is a bit unusual in that Rhodes is the only person ever to wear it, with the exception that as it's one of Stark's "cast offs" Stark originally wore it, and in Iron Man 3 Killian wears it to infiltrate Air Force 1.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not really my quote.  I saw it in a previous version of the article and thought it did the trick. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The bone of contention was an editor removing Terrence Howard's credit from the lead when the actor(s) played the same exact role of the WP article topic (in a trilogy & a multiple movie franchise). Distinction doesn't mean wholesale removal of an acting credit but a mention of the civilian ID and superhero ID as they didn't play separate roles (per your suggestion and my stance). The lead stated that both actors played the character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is a true and verified statement. The "other media" page that spun off from the article goes into detail about Rhodes in Iron Man I. But something like "The character was portrayed by Terrence Howard, as James Rhodes, in Iron Man and Don Cheadle, taking the superhero identity, in.....". I did edit that with two references reiterating that the role is shared and not separate based on movie.
As far as another with the War Machine name, yes....there is one character, Parnell Jacobs, who masqueraded as Rhodes and took the War Machine name as a villain for Stark (for a few issues). The character later became a supporting character in the War Machine 2nd series (with Rhodes as the lead) and a supporting character in the Marvel MAX series "U.S. War Machine" (with Rhodes again as lead). There's also "Team War Machine" with Bethany Cabe and Jake Oh in War Machine armor (as War Machine Support 01 and 02), but Rhodes is still War Machine in the title. Rhodes is primarily War Machine for several decades in the comic books and is the only character known as War Machine in other media before and after the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Stark has had several others take over as Iron Man (Rhodes included), but the focus of the Iron Man article is rightfully Tony Stark. Same deal with Rhodey. Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not explicitly say "War Machine's alter ego, James Rhodes, is played by Terrence Howard in Iron Man, which takes place before Rhodes takes on the War Machine mantle"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
No argument here with that and your edit. We both have the same idea. My edit was that one was the first with his role as Rhodes without superhero ID and the other was same guy with the ID and movies listed in order. The previous edit still separated Howard from Cheadle with Iron Man I listed dead last. Listing the stages in which the character appeared and how they are still the same guy is accurate since that movie character is a representation of the character War Machine aka James Rhodes in other media. Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Question:  If "The bone of contention was an editor removing Terrence Howard's credit from the lead" why did you revert the edit here that did exactly that - "A pre-War Machine James Rhodes appeared in Iron Man, portrayed by Terrence Howard."
I posit that the bone of contention is that (as pointed out by Darkfrog24 the War Machine armour persona doesn't appear in the film, only the human character, and the human character at that time doesn't have the War Machine alter-ego either - and so we should distinguish between them to avoid giving the impression that the armour personal appears in the film.
And incidentally, neither of your two references support the claim that War Machine was in Iron Man 2008:
Howard refuses to answer the questions "Do we see the birth of war machine here?"
"Cheadle has an interesting slant on the whole Terrence Howard-shaped elephant in the room. “It looked different to what it was,” he explains of the passing of the torch, “- that I had moved Terrence Howard out of a seat. But that’s not what happened at all. He was not coming back and there was an open seat and I was asked to fill it."" - this supports the fact (that is never in doubt) that Howard had been replaced by Cheadle, but not that the War Machine armour appears in the film
And that is the distinction - whether the armour appears in the film.
I've just thought.  I assumed it was obvious, but perhaps not.  When I refer to "War Machine" I am referring only to the armour, and when I refer to "Rhodes" I am referring to the human character.  I understand that you think the two terms can be used interchangeably, but I don't - so you should take that into account when reading my comments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the definition of revert is to "return to a previous state, practice, topic, etc.". I didn't "revert" since I didn't roll back to the previous unaltered edit but made a NEW edit. I said exactly what I did, but since you missed it...."I did edit that with two references reiterating that the role is shared and not separate based on movie." Read the edit. I clearly edited with one playing the first stage without superhero id (represented by Iron Man I mentioned first and saying the character, AS RHODES, appeared first....unlike your edit which STILL tries to separates Howard's role from Cheadle) and one at a later stage WITH ID but still same guy. Added references saying this. So stop with that. The edit is different from previous and it still kept Howard's name.
Second, READ the article. War Machine/James Rhodes. One sole character with a civilian ID and superhero ID. None of your edits reflected that the actors played the same guy. Putting JUST Don Cheadle's name and removing Howard is your doing ("never in question" yet you removed Howard. Please.). Your language throughout this whole thing had nada to do with saying the character is the same when YOU said "War Machine/Rhodes could be the same character, but not in this case when it specifically refers to only Rhodes - as the War Machine character makes no entrance", you removed "Iron Man" from the movie list in the "other media" infobox, and you put edit notes for editors not to put Terrence Howard's name in the article lead (which doesn't say that the character of this topic is one and the same as Howard). THAT is the contention by your OWN WORDS. Not what you're saying now. You put the character as solely Cheadle! You even tried to use "The infobox picture is the armour, not Rhodes." when the infobox isn't just "the armour" but the character of the topic in question just like Iron Man's article. The "War Machine character" IS "the Rhodes character" per the flipping article (read), other articles (read), Marvel's own articles (read), and so on. And the lead, before you made edits, mentioned the live action version of the War Machine/James Rhodes character is shared by two guys (read). I didn't say anything about "War Machine the superhero ID is in Iron Man I", which anyone with common sense can read what I actually said. I said that the CHARACTER appeared but not in armor. I MADE the distinction and acknowledged the actors playing the same character in different stages (My own words are up there and I QUOTED myself ad nauseum.). Something you didn't do based on your edits. And uhm...if you actually look around, you have articles and references using both "Rhodey" and "War Machine" in regards to CHARACTER.
Third, you need to actually READ the references. Both references are that Rhodes was played by two actors. Both references say that Howard and Cheadle are the representation of the same character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe period. Not Howard being separate from Cheadle. Not Howard being removed with just Cheadle. And Howard DID answer the question if you read that AND the quote from earlier. Which doesn't go against what my stance has been since you started removing mentions of Howard in the lead.
Fourth, what I "think" isn't what you said. My words are there. Actually read them. Stormshadows00 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Stormshadows00, it sounds like your reasoning is, "1) Reliable sources that absolutely meet WP criteria say that Howard, who was in Iron Man, and Cheadle, who was in later movies, play the same character. 2) Other reliable sources TAMWC say that Cheadle plays War Machine. 3) Therefore Howard also played War Machine. 4) Therefore War Machine appeared in Iron Man." Is that accurate? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
To a degree. The article is about a comic character with two personas. There is no separate "War Machine character" or separate "Rhodes character" like the other editor said in the quoted text above. Just like there's no separate "Tony Stark character" and "Iron Man character" when both are two aspects of one character in the article. The War Machine article is about the comic book superhero character whose civilian identity is James Rhodes and his superhero ID is War Machine, right? I'm saying that the character is in the "Iron Man" film series but introduced as one persona (his civilian ID) in the first film.
Terrence Howard, for all intents and purposes, first played the character in live action form in the first of a trilogy. It is verified by reliable sources and the media itself that the character from the comic book, the topic of article, is in the first Iron Man film as a civilian. That is an legitimate adaptation of the comic book character in another media (the same as others in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and other superheroes in media that have similar circumstances). Using the example of roles that are just Harvey Dent or roles where it's just Edward Nygma, they are still credited on the Two-Face and Riddler pages as adaptations of the comic characters Two-Face and Riddler because that's what they are. Adaptations. Saying who they are in the media itself? Cool. Removing them? Not cool. Stormshadows00 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, for all intents and purposes (and verified by reliable sources and media itself), Cheadle's role is still the Air Force Colonel James Rhodes that was presented in Iron Man I by Howard. A succession of a role already established in a film series. Howard has stated many a time that this character would adopt his War Machine superhero identity and it's one of the reasons why he took on the role. This was proven correct in the sequel. Had Howard stayed on the role instead of his exit, we would still have Howard playing Rhodes and wearing the armor as War Machine in all subsequent films. But due to his exit, he's the character in one film and Cheadle takes over the same role. That is not grounds for an editor to scrub Howard's name completely from the lead, to say the actor didn't play the same role Cheadle did because he didn't have the superhero ID in the film, or to even straight up remove "Iron Man" film from the infobox of the "War Machine in other media" page like the editor did (where it lists all adaptations of the comic book character). And with the edit you suggested, listing it dead last instead of in order of the films is still insinuating that Howard isn't a part of Cheadle's deal in the MCU, which is what the editor has done before. Howard played an legitimate film adaptation of the comic character War Machine (as a civilian), Howard originated the role, and the character in said movie is detailed on "War Machine in other media page" as not having the War Machine identity (and not limiting Howard's character to just that movie when he shares that role with Cheadle). So all of what you said? Yes. The film adaptation of the comic book character was first in "Iron Man", but not in the superhero ID. The overall character, the topic of the article, is there in all the films in the trilogy and films in the MCU. Saying he played the role and shared that role with Cheadle is legit. Stormshadows00 (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
And yet despite the wall of text above, the fact remains that there are multiple occasions when it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two characters, and this is one of them.  You still haven't clarified why you felt it necessary to revert this edit, which did not "scrub Howard's name completely from the lead".  I have no issue with Howard appearing in the lede, so long as it is qualified that he appears as Rhodes, and not War Machine.  I wouldn't say I am ecstatic over the compromise currently in situ, as I feel it's a bit clunky and would prefer my version above - but it's certainly better than claiming that Howard portrayed the War Machine persona - when he didn't.
Also, with reference to War Machine in other media, I'm disappointed in your bullish refusal to follow WP:BRD, which is a poor attitude from an otherwise experienced editor.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok.....
1. "the fact remains that there are multiple occasions when it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two characters"....once again, there are no "two characters" in the article. One character. Two personas (insert distinction here....civilian and superhero). First sentence of article. Stated in article as one character. Repeated in article as one character. References in article as one character. It's only one character being talked about in this article and the role of that character in movies is shared by two actors. "Rhodes himself appears, but not as War Machine, which is the article" is incorrect. The article is War Machine a.k.a. James Rhodes, one character, and the role in the film represents THAT one single solitary character (Again, civilian in first. Superhero ID comes later.). If I seem to be under the impression that you don't know "that Rhodes and War Machine are the same character", you referring to Rhodes/WM as two characters yet again on here and in your edit summaries helps that assertion.
2. "You still haven't clarified why you felt it necessary to revert this edit, which did not "scrub Howard's name completely from the lead". Actually, I did. I didn't "revert" (See: H:REV) and explained in detail what I edited, how I edited, and why. Reading my words, I said other edit before mine removed Howard from the timeline of movies when listed last and separated Howard from Cheadle. And your edits since removing Howard did that. Howard isn't separate from Cheadle per media, sources, and references. And separating them is not making a necessary "distinction".
3. Speaking of which, "I have no issue with Howard appearing in the lede".  You removed Howard to begin with. Five times in the article. You kept removing Howard from other editor revisions when they rightfully corrected it. Eight times you removed per history of both War Machine pages combined. You removed the "Iron Man" film from the infobox of the other media page. You left notes telling editors not to add Howard on both pages and pushed your POV. "You have no issue", yet your actions betray your statement. And you still try to separate Howard's role so of course you prefer your edit.
4. And "claiming that Howard portrayed the War Machine persona - when he didn't.".....except, no one claimed that and the article never did that either. The one character was portrayed by two people in another media is what the lead said and claimed (verified). Same as "War Machine in other media". "He was portrayed by" and "the character is played successively by" is in regards to one single character. The topic of page. Where did I say that the superhero persona was played by Howard in "Iron Man"? Because I didn't. This is why it's clear that you don't read replies. I said the "The film adaptation of the comic book character was first in "Iron Man", but not in the superhero ID". That obviously means I'm saying "no War Machine armor in Iron Man I". Must be when I said that many a time here and never changed my stance on that. It's all in the "wall of text" and every other reply I made. Consistency.
5. You might want to actually read WP:BRD-NOT. "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing." "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes". Other editors have reverted your change or restored the material you removed back to the page showing general consensus among editors of your edit being inaccurate. Did you bring it to the talk page before? Did you follow WP:BRD (which isn't a policy)? No. You kept removing and reverting (by actual definition) and you're the sole one doing that. Please don't try to use that when I followed WP:3RR (which IS a policy). "Bullish" that is not. Stormshadows00 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you think you could possibly respond in a more succinct fashion - something less than 500 words per reply?  You run the risk of TLDR.
1.  Very well:  "the fact remains that there are multiple occasions when it is necessary to draw a distinction between the two personas"  This is one of them.  In this instance we are talking about the Rhodes persona, not the War Machine persona.  Do you agree about that?
2. Actually, you haven't.  Pointing me to an article is not the same as you explaining your personal rationale for removing my edit which did exactly what you wanted - kept Howard in the lede.  And don't be pedantic by splitting hairs over the distinction of "reversion" and "removal"  We all know what is meant, so don't bandy words.
3.  I have no issue with Howard appearing in the lede now that we've decided that his appearance is to be clarified as the Rhodes persona, and to be distinct from the War Machine persona.  You will notice I have not followed your example by constantly reverting to my preferred version.
4.  The lede stated that "He was portrayed by Terrence Howard in Iron Man".  At this point of the lede and this paragraph the "he" pronoun is specifically defined as War machine, taken from the beginning of the paragraph; "In 2012, War Machine..." ergo the article is defining Howard as portraying the War Machine persona.
5.  Prior to you getting involved every change I made was to an edit that made no attempt to justify or explain using edit summaries why the text was being re-inserted.  Every edit I made used an edit summary, and as you point out, even hidden text to try and explain to drive-by editors why Howard was not present.
The length of time between each edit discounts edit warring or the implication of 3RR.  If anything the length of time that my preferred version was in situ shows that there is no stable version.
I'm aware that BRD is not a policy, but it is polite, and a more conducive path to editing.  If you have no wish to be polite, and are ok what it says about you and your personal editing philosophy, that's up to you.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You know what, I can't be bothered with this anymore.  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part etc.  I see no point in continuing this discussion, especially when there hasn't been any change to the compromise phrasing since December 11.  Please feel free to get the last word in, secure in the knowledge I won't respond.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
So one of you said "character" when a more precise term might have been better and someone said they weren't okay with something and then made an edit that seemed to partially contradict that but maybe this person was just changing his or her mind a little.  That stuff happens all the time and it doesn't mean anyone's doing anything wrong.
I think you should both agree to a break.  Step away from all parts of this article and talk page; don't even read it.  The number of days doesn't matter so long as it's enough for you to forget these smaller details of what was or wasn't pissing you off about the other person's posts or edit summaries and remember only the meat of what you each believe is best for the article.  The specific improvements that everyone's suggested will still stick to the back of your mind.  Best case scenario: you won't remember who recommended what. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)