Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Archive 1

message: A few things we might want to add to the Marvel section:
* Eric Masterton's period as a substitute for Thor will the real one was banished.
* The subsequent history of Thor with Jake Olsen and the Lord of Asgard stuff (I haven't followed it in recent years though).
* The latest position on "was Donald Blake a real person" - this last I heard he was but was split off from Thor, who ran around the world thinking he was Blake, and later destroyed and replaced by an artificial magical construct which soon collapsed upon itself. Or something like that.
Anyone knowledgable enough to try?
Timrollpickering 19:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: * In the classical Norse Stories, only Thor and his son Magni can lift Mjolnir. In Marvel, only those worthy can lift it, which is a list of people that includes Captain America, USAgent, Beta Ray Bill, Odin, etc.  In the crossover Superman in Avengers/JLA #4 (2003) and Wonder Woman in Marvel vs. DC #3 (1996) were worthy to lift Mjolnir.
When did the USAgent lift it? He doesn't strike me as worthy. This may be someone confusing him with Steve Roger's identity of "The Captain", which he used when he first wielded Thor's hammer (and which was later copied as USAgent's first costume). Timrollpickering 01:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought crossovers in which the charecters reside in separate universes are considered canon, albeit events that rarely get referenced to again. Timrollpickering 22:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who are worthy 

message: I can only think of one instance where this statement is actually applicable to Thor:
Thor is also has a high-regard for his personal pride; many times he has been defeated by a foe but after which he dismisses this fact as 'underestimating' his foe.  As he puts it "I have thy measure now", implying he merely miscalculated.  This, of course, does not explain the number of times he has been defeated by the Hulk in their history.
Thor, to my knowledge, has never said that about any opponent other than Superman.  Indeed, Thor tends to admit defeat when he is defeated and give credit where it is due.  If I am incorrect, then please state the issue number where Thor has said this or acted to the contrary.
Thanks.
Lochdale
He does say it in several instances.  The most recent on the top of my head is during Busiek/Perez run referring to Lord Templar "I have thy measure now and I find thee lacking!" as well as during Ultron Unlimited.  In neither instance was Thor "victorious", simply the upper hand in Templar's case and Ultron waxed him in the latter.  I'm not entirely sure, but I believe I recall him saying that about Hercules and Surtur, among others.
Regardless, Thor does have a thing about acknowledeging being soundly beaten and makes passing note that essentially means "I lost because I underestimated..."  ^_^
GeoffB
He does?  Can you provide some examples of this please. Specific comic issues would help.  Thanks.
Lochdale
Geez!  Go look at Avengers Vol. 2 Issue 7.  The fight's not even over, and Thor's already saying he's going to win.
Also read the Ultron Unlimited storyline when a powered up Ultron catches Mjolnir-swinging-Thor and blasts him.  Of course both were written by Busiek.
GeoffB
Reading both right now.  Let's be clear, there is no example of your statement in any Thor issue ever published.
Secondly, Thor routinely holds back when he's with the Avengers (much like Superman with the JLA) because if he unleashed his full powers he would kill or injure both friend and foe.  Indeed, being over-confident is not the same as Thor making a back-handed comment that he would have won but for underestimating his foe.  That goes against Thor's fundamental character which is that of an honorable warrior.  
In the fight with Ultron Thor notes how he has underestimated Ultron due to Ultron's new armor and his increased powers.  It isn't an arrogant comment at all but an acknowledgement by Thor of just how powerful Ultron had then become.  That is, Thor isn't saying "well I would have won but for holding back".  What he's saying is that Ultron is much deadlier than before.
To be sure, Thor can be arrogant but that does not mean he is dishonorable.  In fact, Thor's sense of honor is the cornerstone of his character.  To suggest that he would cheapen an opponent by saying "I could have beaten him if I tried" is both factually incorrect and a direct contradiction to the character of Thor himself.
Indeed, in his most recent ongoing mini-series, Bloodoath, Thor admits that Hercules is a better hand-to-hand fighter.  Thor may be arrogant but he isn't petty.  There's a big difference.
Lochdale
Ok now you're putting words in my mouth.  Where did I ever say Thor is dishonorable?  Or petty? I point to the fact that many times Thor underestimates his foes and overestimates himself.  He values his pride highly, to the point that he sometimes denies his own limitations.  And we're not only referring to Thor issues... otherwise you are implying if it isn't a Thor issue it's not valid.
Let's take a look at Marvel Team-up # 70 where he fights the Monolith with Spider-Man.  Obviously, Thor acknowledges the Monolith's power (and note that I never said Thor doesn't acknowledge a foe's prowess) but always has to say in essence "I'm still holding back".  And that's just one instance.  And that's where we go back to the flaws.  Thor can be proud to the point of self-denial.  And that's no contradiction.  That's part of what makes him tick and endearing.
And then there's his temper.  When he's miffed he can even go so far as to brandishing his hammer on mere mortals...as in the case of reporters hounding him for an interview.
GeoffB
What you were originally saying (which I quoted for you) is that when Thor loses a fight he suggests that he would not have lost but for his underestimating his opponent.  That is what you were saying.  Thor has never said or done anything like that.  He is cocky, arrogant and often over-confident but that does not mean he is petty.  When Thor loses he admits that he has lost.  The Superman incident was the writer's acknowledgement that the fight could go either way.  It was not, and is not, a character flaw. 
Lochdale
During the crossover Thor was talking to Aquaman (of all people) and stated that he now know Superman abilities and that another confrontation would be a different outcome from Thor and Superman's first. Thor lost and admitted it, BUT he KICKED Superman's ass for a minute. hiiyah, heeeyah heh, heh, heh!!!!
moshun11
moultrie11@hotmail.com
============ Ultimate Thor ==============
Someone should make note that ultimate Thor and normal Thors personalities are nothing alike.
Also being that they are essentially different characters I think ultimate Thor should be split from the normal Thor page like they did with the hulk page.
Leon Evelake 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thor's Personality 

message: Someone should make note that ultimate Thor and normal Thors personalities are nothing alike.
Also being that they are essentially different characters I think ultimate Thor should be split from the normal Thor page like they did with the hulk page.
Leon Evelake 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ====== Ultimate Thor ========

message: Was it always originally golden or was this a retcon to cover up the difference with Norse mythology? Timrollpickering 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sif's hair 

message: Does anyone find it rather strange that in the TV movie The Incredible Hulk Returns, Thor is not Blake's alter ego, but is a seperate character who is Blake's "servant"? Scorpionman 03:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thor in ''Incredible Hulk'' 

message: No, I didn't.  That is just another sad example of Hollywood Directors not getting a darn thing right when it comes to making a Large Budget Hollywood movie from a Comic Book.
Michael 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thor in The Incredible Hulk Movie- 

message: The point has been made that this article doesn't cover enough of Thor's history. I'm of the opinion that it covers too much. I'm all for keeping it a functional coverage of the topic. If we detail every event, then we have to cover every major plotline in every decade. This is quite a chore. AS a basis of comparison, I would point to the Superman Wiki entry. It covers every functional point that I would dream of about a superhero w/o going into detail of every plotline. 
AlGorup 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we do every little bit of history, but the Eric Masterson piece is vital to the character's history and identity. It would not need such a large piece. One of the reasons the Superman article works so well, is because large pieces are contained in sub-articles! Kusonaga 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article truly needs to be cut down. It's 50K, and the level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything. -- Tenebrae 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't just destroy the information.  Spin it off into a separate section 'History of Thor(comics) if you must, but don't do that. Toptomcat 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to go with Tenebrae here, this article still after several edits contains far too much detail for an encyclopedia article, as mentioned below (for reference: Guidelines of Article Size).  Look at the "Thor" subcategory under "Character Biography".  I never read those issues (so didn't edit the section) but just from the written summary I can see that this section details the plot of about a year or two of issues in the 90s, at the end of which no substantive changes to the character had happened.  There was a battle (one of the 5+ false 'Ragnaroks' that have happened over the decades), he is sent to the Heroes Reborn universe, then he comes back.  While I'm sure there were some very interesting issues of the comic then, this section doesn't add to an encyclopedia entry for the character.  It's a synopsis of one specific storyline out of hundreds, with a level of detail implying this story is more important somehow than the entirety of, say, the Lee-Kirby run of the character.  And this section is then followed by the far longer Jake Olsen/"Ragnarok" sections, which admittedly are of more recent events but couldn't possibly be so vitally important to an understanding of the character in that detail.  Yes, he fights villains, he always will.  This article doesn't need to give a blow by blow of each fight, since most of those battles will never make an overwhelming change to the essential character.  Just my opinion Markeer 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article evolution 

message: Odinson? Does the name appear in any Norse source, or did Marvel just make that up? Also, one comment, when Thor reads "Modern Bride", could that be a reference to the Þrymskviða? Maybe it's just me, but I think that that reading is very funny. 惑乱 分からん 13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not in the Norse sources, my guess is that Marvel made it up using the typical Norse naming convention.  Son of Odin = Odinson.  Magni's called Magni Thorson for the same reason.  I don't know if the Modern Bride thing was intended that way, but it is pretty funny. --TheCorpulent1 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points 

message: Some of the statements on Thor's deviation from classical Norse mythology are not entirely accurate based upon current knowledge.  For instance, the ability to bear Mjolnir is stated to be exclusive to Thor and his son Magni.  Logically speaking, the ability to use Mjolnir is predicated upon bearing magical iron gloves (which protect from Mjolnir's heat) and a magical belt of strength (which is required even for Thor to carry the hammer).  Also, the spelling of Mjolnir (as Mjollnir) is somewhat irrelevant since it is often up to an English translator or writer to decide which sounds better.  Translator consensus actually says that "mjolnir" is the correct spelling.  I removed the Mjollnir part, but left the Thor and Magni part since they are technically the only ones to ever wield Mjolnir.  However, I can find no information as to the exclusivity of its use. Bsaark 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norse Innacuracies 

message: Since this is a long Discussion page, and since my other two mentions of this point where specific responses to others' concerns, I'm adding this as its own topic here.
This article is immense and unwieldly, and filled with so many small, fannish details that it has reached 50K -- with Wikipedia policy is to keep all but the most complex topics down to 32K or less. If something is so significant that a subhead is the size of an article itself, then the general policy is to make it its own article, and have a couple of sentences of a short paragraph about it here and use the template
:
as in this example from Marvel Comics:
===Timely Comics===
Paragraph here about Timely Comics that gives
enough description to let a layperson understand
where it fits into the hsitory of Marvel, and links
readers directly to the full article.
The level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything.
Most of these sections are, as well, heavily weighted toward recent years' events, which throws the article's proportionality out of balance, making it, ironically, non-encyclopedic. If you had a history of the United States, and most of the article was taken up by, the last 10 years, that would destroy any sense of perspective, significance, etc. I hope we can talk about some of these things  -- Tenebrae 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with the above.  This article has rested on the comics wikiproject 'to do' list for months and it is still noticeably unwieldy.  I'm willing to do a few passes at parts of it for readability but I'm not 100% familiar with the character history so would ask that someone look to see what can be removed or shortened. -Markeer 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Update:  I've done a revision of the article as best I can, breaking it into chapters and attempting to summarize (and in the case of Eric Masterson, split).  I've reached the limits of my knowledge of the character's history having never read it past early Masterson days, so would encourage a more knowledgeable person to edit/summarize the two sections after him (which I've titled "Thor" and "Jake Olsen").  Hope this helps as this is still a fairly lengthy article even with what paring down I was capable of. -Markeer 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size and detail 

message: Paragraph here about Timely Comics that gives
enough description to let a layperson understand
where it fits into the hsitory of Marvel, and links
readers directly to the full article.
</blockquote>
The level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything.
Most of these sections are, as well, heavily weighted toward recent years' events, which throws the article's proportionality out of balance, making it, ironically, non-encyclopedic. If you had a history of the United States, and most of the article was taken up by, the last 10 years, that would destroy any sense of perspective, significance, etc. I hope we can talk about some of these things  -- Tenebrae 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with the above.  This article has rested on the comics wikiproject 'to do' list for months and it is still noticeably unwieldy.  I'm willing to do a few passes at parts of it for readability but I'm not 100% familiar with the character history so would ask that someone look to see what can be removed or shortened. -Markeer 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Update:  I've done a revision of the article as best I can, breaking it into chapters and attempting to summarize (and in the case of Eric Masterson, split).  I've reached the limits of my knowledge of the character's history having never read it past early Masterson days, so would encourage a more knowledgeable person to edit/summarize the two sections after him (which I've titled "Thor" and "Jake Olsen").  Hope this helps as this is still a fairly lengthy article even with what paring down I was capable of. -Markeer 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timely Comics

message: I think now that mjolnir has landed on earth we can safely assume that he's dead. 83.226.148.184 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? This article needs to remain objective. We can't just say "deceased" now, if that's what you're suggesting. Ace Class Shadow 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it didn't really fall to Earth, but fell to Hell, I believe. Because they haven't had a dodgy plot point for a while... Satan's Rubber Duck 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead 

message: Am I going insane, or was a female version of Thor running around for a bit, too? I don't see that mentioned. Toptomcat 01:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarene/Designate/Thorgirl. Around in the Jurgens run. - SoM 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female version 

message: Most of the remainder of this article seems much in need of streamling — the same pertinent points can be made without such florid, non-encyclopedic writing as "This idyllic life was not to last." Wasn't it cleaned up once already some time back? -- 69.22.254.111 14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous version hammered out (so to speak) by editorial consensus in April 2006 has been reinserted for the following three section: "Origin," "Personality" and "Protector of Midgard". Please see previous archived Discussions and the History pages before making substantive changes, and please discuss any such changes. The reinserted text below was the result of many editors working together to keep this extremely lengthy article within Wikipedia guidelines. -- 69.22.254.111 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the most recent editor to significantly alter the Donald Blake period of the character's history (and yes, I did discuss it friend, in the section above marked Article Size and Detail).  That said, I certainly like the Origin/Personality/Midgard sections you've reverted to, as they provide a better encyclopedic overview of the character than the minutia-level detail of his history that has marked this article in recent months.  Personally I would be more than happy to reduce the character history subsections currently marked "Eric Masterson", "Thor", "Jake Olsen" and "Ragnarok" to either 2-3 sentence synopses, or else merged into two new sections simply marked "Later Alter Egos" and "Recent Events" (no more than a paragraph each).  I don't believe this encyclopedia entry needs more than the assertion that the character has had a variety of alter-egos and that's about it.  However, I feel I'm in the minority of editors who feel that way. -Markeer 17:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template 

message: The version of the artocle from marvel.com looks a lot better, and less messy than this version. So why do you keep changing it? —(this unsigned comment was posted by User:Soujaboy)
:Well, it was originally pared back because of the unencyclopedic lengthy size, un-wiki lack of section breaks, un-wiki style (e.g. double spacing on paragraphs and run-on sentences) and a great deal of NPOV text, as well as questions about why a few modern storylines were given extensive detail while early Thor stories were not. But NOW after your question, I see that a large part (maybe most) of this article was copied and pasted from [here] on marvel.com, which means that it's extremely likely that it's a copyright violation on top of being bad wikipedia style.  Now I need to go through what's left of that earlier text and remove what appears to be outright plagerism.  Sigh.
:Please read the wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.  In the meantime I have to figure out what needs to be done here.  Now we may need to blank the entire article out and start from scratch.  I'll bring it up on the notice board. -Markeer 11:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the wikipedia guidelines, I haven't touched the text but instead tagged the article. with a copyvio box and reported it.  If I understand the guidelines correctly (I might not, this is the first time I've tagged a page with this), we'll need to start this article over, but I believe it's up to the administrators now. -Markeer 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it looks like the Marvel page is a copyvio. The Marvel wiki hasn't been around that long, and with use of the wiki history, it can easily be traced. I'll admit that the current article is completely a blatant copyvio (it even has the double spacing between paragraphs etc. etc.) but before that... Kusonaga 12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, at this point I have no idea what's fresh wikipedia and what's not, which is why I slapped the tag instead of trying to go through and edit out the copyvio.  Just at a glance I can see that most of the text under "Eric Masterson", "Thor", "Ragnarok" subsections (pre-Soujaboy revert) are identical to the marvel.com text, so I decided to err on the side of assuming that the character owner (marvel) was probably the copyright holder of any text on their site.  To be honest, I don't know for sure of course, but either way it's tainting the wiki-article. -Markeer 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, I'm not sure (although I very much appreciate you pointing to the marvel site's edit history).  On the marvel page there is only one edit [  listed in the history], a change of one word.  Back here on wikipedia, the main body of questioned text (the double spaced "all one long wordy section" version) seems to have been added on June 3rd by User:Soujaboy, which I suppose simply makes me question why he refers to it as "The version of the artocle from marvel.com" in the first comment of this section.  Seems to imply that was his source.  My suspicion (and I realize I could be wrong) is that the marvel.com wiki just has problems with listing article history, e.g. if you look up contribs by the user who changed that one word, it actually shows [ zero contribs] (even though we obviously can see the one he made to the marvel.com Thor article). -Markeer 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Doing research on character details is fine, as long as you cite it as a source.  Copying and pasting text and formatting directly is not, especially considering you didn't even footnote them.  Please see the guidelines a couple of us have linked on your talk page Soujaboy. -Markeer 03:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh...people have been editting it...repeatedly. Perhaps that protection is in order. ACS (Wikipedian) 07:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, admin's call of course, but I doubt we need protection yet.  We're at 8 days since the copyvio tag first went up (although only 5 from when admin Hiding officially reverted it) so I'm assuming one way or another this will open up in a couple days.  In the meantime, people have been reverting the inappropriate edits quick enough and we can get back to real business soon.  I'd worry about all the anon IP edits if they weren't all such small things that won't really be missed in the long run. -Markeer 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, but just look at the [history]. One edit and one revert on the eleveth. Two edits on the twelveth. Three reverts and two edits on the thirteenth. I could go on, but it just steadily increased. And I think the fact that we're eight/five days in should prove how slow this is could and how long it could tack. CovenantD himself just recently asked for this to be protected already and he's the most prominent reverter. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of reverts and dedicated Wikipedians. Sure, it might seem "excessive", but how is the alternative any better? Just protect the page and unprotect it when this thing is settled. Simple. Protection is wholly justifible, so I honestly don't see why this is even be debated. ACS (Wikipedian) 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, and you're of course right that the frequency is increasing rather than decreasing. -Markeer 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  which version of The Article? 

message: Okay, this page has to be listed as a copyright violation for seven days before it can be deleted, so please direct any edits you wish to make to Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Temp.  Please take care not to introduce copyrighted text. If people do edit the main Thor page I will have to consider protection. Hiding Talk 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...people have been editting it...repeatedly. Perhaps that protection is in order. ACS (Wikipedian) 07:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, admin's call of course, but I doubt we need protection yet.  We're at 8 days since the copyvio tag first went up (although only 5 from when admin Hiding officially reverted it) so I'm assuming one way or another this will open up in a couple days.  In the meantime, people have been reverting the inappropriate edits quick enough and we can get back to real business soon.  I'd worry about all the anon IP edits if they weren't all such small things that won't really be missed in the long run. -Markeer 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, but just look at the [history]. One edit and one revert on the eleveth. Two edits on the twelveth. Three reverts and two edits on the thirteenth. I could go on, but it just steadily increased. And I think the fact that we're eight/five days in should prove how slow this is could and how long it could tack. CovenantD himself just recently asked for this to be protected already and he's the most prominent reverter. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of reverts and dedicated Wikipedians. Sure, it might seem "excessive", but how is the alternative any better? Just protect the page and unprotect it when this thing is settled. Simple. Protection is wholly justifible, so I honestly don't see why this is even be debated. ACS (Wikipedian) 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, and you're of course right that the frequency is increasing rather than decreasing. -Markeer 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use the temp page

message: Deleting per WikiComics policy and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#The use of in-universe statistics and  Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars.--Tenebrae 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, a week later.  Who is the cretin who keeps putting that back???--Eric TF Bat 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 24.74.50.252. After his edit of 06:27, 1 August 2006, I made a report here reequestion admininstrator intervention, and left a notice at User talk:24.74.50.252 that I did so. Fingers crossed. -- Tenebrae 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#The use of in-universe statistics and chronology.  "Class 100" is meaningless to anyone but a fan of the comics, and even to some fans.  Depending on where you get that determination, it's possibly either original research or copyright violation.  It's best to leave the numbers out. --Newt ΨΦ 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, got that. What about the comparison with The Hulk then? I don't get why it shouldn't be mentioned that Thor and The Hulk have the same stenght level. The Hulk is a very famous character, so it would be meaningful to anyone, not only hardcore Marvel fans.--Cosmic Camel Clash 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still wouldn't really be accurate because nobody knows exactly what the limits of each of their respective strengths are. Marvel uses 100 tons as a rough figure to give readers a mere indication of what some of their characters are capable of. While enraged, the Hulk has supported the weight of a 150 billion ton mountain and I believe there is an issue where Thor moved an entire island. Thor's strength doesn't fluccuate like the Hulk's. He's physically stronger, at least while the Hulk is "calm". The fairest way I can think of would be to say that Thor is physically strong enough to go toe to toe with the Hulk or the Juggernaut, or whoever. Odin's Beard 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Able to lift (press) 100 tons" 

message: Per WP:CMC, Ultimate character articles should be merged into those of their Marvel Universe counterparts. --Chris Griswold 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would say the answers are, respectively "not yet" and "yes."  "What's going on with the Ultimate Marvel stuff?" is a bit too general of a question to ask.  If you mean "What's a play-by-play of everything that's happening with Ultimate Marvel characters so I can catch up without reading the comics?" then go to Marvel.com or read the trades, we can't do that without infringing on copyright.  If you mean "What's the purpose/goal of Ultimate Marvel?" I'd say you could check the Ultimate Marvel article for an overview.  If you mean "What's the difference between Ultimate Thor and Thor?" that could be covered in this article in a few lines.  Our job is not to summarize plot; our job is to give a real-world perspective on comic book characters and comic books.  --Newt ΨΦ 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: * Merge -- Chris Griswold 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I remember when Ultimate Thor was first separated. There was a need. It wasn't hasty. There was enough information and differences between the two versions. I agree that an attempt should be made to avoid excess spliting. Believe me. However, there is a difference between condensation and simply removing data deemed "unimportant" based on POV. I honestly had no idea what was going on with the Ultimate Marvel stuff at first. Guess what? I learned. Certain Ultimate characters should be more than a section in the mainstream's article. Mergers should be done based on a clear need. Does this article properly inform the reader about Ultimate Thor? Should it? Both answers seem to be "No". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would say the answers are, respectively "not yet" and "yes."  "What's going on with the Ultimate Marvel stuff?" is a bit too general of a question to ask.  If you mean "What's a play-by-play of everything that's happening with Ultimate Marvel characters so I can catch up without reading the comics?" then go to Marvel.com or read the trades, we can't do that without infringing on copyright.  If you mean "What's the purpose/goal of Ultimate Marvel?" I'd say you could check the Ultimate Marvel article for an overview.  If you mean "What's the difference between Ultimate Thor and Thor?" that could be covered in this article in a few lines.  Our job is not to summarize plot; our job is to give a real-world perspective on comic book characters and comic books.  --Newt ΨΦ 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Okay. I can stand it no longer! Can we PLEASE switch the civil war images? The cover to issue four is far more representitive and panels—especially6 ones like the one currently in SHB—should generally be placed elsewhere within the article. I mean...really. This doesn't bother anyone else? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the Civil War cover (which had full Civil War logo and other characters besides Thor on it) with an image that will be used as a variant cover for Civil War #4. It is illustrated by Ed McGuinness and is superior in that it is just Thor. No logo or other characters to distract from the article character. --Darin Wagner 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think the article should mention that Thor's mother is Gaea, Marvel's 'motherearth'.  This might also explain his connection to, and protection of, earth.  Lochdale 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thor's Mother 

message: Ok, so the Turner variant was decided to not be used for the main SHB image because of the civil war titling on it.
What does everyone think of this image? Its the same Turner image, but its just the art. I haven't uploaded it yet, but if anyone thinks it would work? --DrBat 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: :"It might be an embarrassment of riches, but these sections are now waaaaay too long. This article is 50K -- that's almost twice as much as Wikipedia prefers. I'm sure some of the intense detail can be whittled down. -- Tenebrae 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composing Wiki Text 

message: It is important that we state in captions when an image is a solicitation cover, for fair use reasoning. Therefore please do not remove those phrases from captions. Also, why were the images reverted from standard size to strange sizes? Its looks messy and amateur. --Jamdav86 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: This is entirely POV and I have removed it, otherwise we will just end up with an ever increasing list of wikipedia editors adding their own favourites. I was going to have a go at editing the tenses but I've remember I actually have a meeting to get to.
--Charlesknight 10:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best of