Talk:Cyclops (Marvel Comics)

message: This section needs a complete reordering. Surely it should be chronological? It also clearly needs a clean up, I'll happily do this soon, but if any regular contributors have strong views, I'll refrain.CrazyFoolMrT (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional character biography

message: Does Astonishing count as canon? If so, can we add to this article that it appears Whedon has killed Scott off as of the latest issue of Astonishing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.206.179 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in my opinion... we don't know for sure if he is dead, even emma herself says that he IS in love with her, not WAS... and there's a common theory shared by many online that he and emma are using unorthodox methods to combat danger... and yes, astonishing is canon... (Pr1983) 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's alive - read the most upto date solicits "ASTONISHING X-MEN #23 “UNSTOPPABLE” The end is near. The situation is dire. The outlook is bleak. But Cyclops has a plan. Part 5 (of 6)". So unless that's a zombie cyclops... --Fredrick day 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is he dead?

message: The following text was at Summers Family Tree (comics). Most of it is already in this article. Possibly soem of the rest should be incorporated. I am coverting Summers Family Tree (comics) to a redirect to this page. DES 18:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to X-Men: Deadly Genesis, Vulcan is the third Summers brother.  I was hoping for Black Vulcan myself...ka1iban 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information 

message: I've rewritten the section on the metaphorical nature of his condition, fleshing out the major points and trying to get a fuller text out of it (not dimensionwise, contentwise). I've also removed the Doom Patrol reference;
:" The early X-Men paralleled DC Comics' Doom Patrol in many ways; Doom Patrol was the story of a group of outsiders, cursed with their powers.";
As it seems irrelevant to me, or at least not made very good use of... The article is on Cyclops, the section on Cyclops's thematic undercurrents; to make a reference to an entirely different group to relate it to the X-Men seems out of place here; probably more appropriate on the X-Men's main page, possibly in a portion of text about the X-Men's themes.
I've just noticed after publishing that, stupidly enough, I've still left some mistakes and I do need to link up to some other stuff (sorry for this, my pc isn't in the best condition, in that it stops working rather randomly, so I wanted to get the text up fast enough not to lose it a third time). I'll get to correcting it now, if I can.
Finally: I'm sorry if I've made a glaring error here, but is "Cyclops's" the correct form? English isn't my native language (Portuguese as I am), so I'm not entirely sure, and trying to google the form didn't help. If it needs to be corrected, well, there you have it: I apologize. Zeppocity 23:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I LOVE the "Metaphorical nature and condition" section!  Great insights.  That said, it DOES NOT belong on a Wikipedia page as it is totally original research.  It's a good section, just not for a reference article.ka1iban 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Metaphor" rewrite 

message: 'Cyclops is a dynamite pool hustler'!!!! - Has anyone ever seen any evidence of this?
In several comics, including the X-MEN/TEEN TITANS crossover from the early 1980s, we see Cyclops clear a pool table by making an absurd shot at the cue-ball using his optic blasts.  I think "dynamite pool hustler" is a fair characterization. 63.249.68.89 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also does it in his lost years after Jean dies and he makes out with a sailor. He thinks about using geometry (Stay in school!) and his perfect aim. --Chris Griswold 22:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclops - the pool hustler 

message: The current information on "Ultimate Cyclops" is poorly written and incredibly sparse. I've done what I can to polish things off, but further information and organization may be necessary. --AWF
:Agreed. Tends to be running through a lot of the Ultimate X-men.  Ultimate Nightcrawler is equally sparse, as are Ultimate Shadowcat, Ultimate Iceman, Ultimate Dazzler, Ultimate Beast, and others.  Psyphics 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate Edition

message: Ok I do not know enough to add this myself yet. I was flipping through comics a couple of weeks back, and in Astonishing Emma Frost basically went inside Scott's head to analyze why he couldn't control his power...and fixed it. Any have the issue or anything after? because if he really does have control now I think that should be added. Onikage725 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is also an issue about the Marvel U handbook entry as to the scope and range of Cyclops powers unaided.  In the Gifted storyarch of Astonishing X-Men, it shows that Cyclops is able to take off his glasses and fill the entire visible horizon with crimson optic enrgy, blowing a Sentinel back dozens of feet.  This said, i don't believe the Marvel u handbook represents up to date info, or does not assume Cyclops' potential without his visor. CapoCastillo 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the latest Astonishing X-Men issues, but the fact that it is right in the middle of a story arc makes me think that any alterations should be made after the arc ends, when it is confirmed as to whether he can or cannot control his blasts. Regarding his power itself, a section with several notes about his showings in comics wouldn't go amiss in my opinion. Pr1983 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in Civil War: X-Men, that particular arc discusses that Cyclops' potential, and the ammount of energies he holds back are much greater than previously thought.  We may want to keep powers a little open-ended as Cyclops' status after Astonishing and Civil War may be different than previously mentioned in Marvel publications CapoCastillo 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, especially since as of the current issue of Astonishing, Cyclops is still comatose and has yet to display any conscious control of his optic blasts; for all we readers know, Emma's psychic "therapy session" with Scott was a front for negating his powers in some other way while knocking him out; there certainly wasn't much time for his teammates to examine him before the Hellfire Club went after them. -- Pennyforth 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perfection was the name of the person he shot, not that "he shot perfectly" TehPhil 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control of power 

message: The article quotes "It has been remarked that Cyclops is incapable of sharing true romance with women however, judging by the outcome of most of his relationships."  While I agree Cyclops has had a good deal of bad luck with the significant relationships in his comics career, this statement seems like pure postulation.  There's no soruce or citation indicating Cyclops is incapable of pulling off a successfull relationship. CapoCastilloCapoCastillo
:I agree. I mean look at Jean. Sure, there were bumps, and the way it ended was kinda sucky and might support that statement...but it also disregards that they were one of comics' power couples for DECADES. I mean, to newer or younger fans, sure it might look like that. Marvel's gone through plenty of changes in recent years. But try to keep in mind these characters have been around (real time, not comic time) for 43 years. Scott and Jean fell in love in the Uncanny days back in the 60's. And remember X-Men #30, when they tied the not? That was a major event. And it was in 1994. There were bumps *coughPhoenixSagacough* but they were a strong pair, and "soulmates" for a very long percentage of X-history. Onikage725 10:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a message board. Citations, examples, keeping track of the history...it's par for the course. And I just mean that the comment was speculative. For the majority of the character's exisence he was involved in one of the most well known relationships in comics history. So saying he's incapable of sharing romance is someone's point of view, not an unbiased fact. Onikage725 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If somebody is added a tag, then obviously somebody cares. CovenantD 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the point of Wikipedia if it's not accurate? And how can accuracy be judged, except by citation? People make their way to these articles because they want information about the characters, not speculation.
Very good point, and the previous statement about Scott not having so much bad luck is also correct. After all who's to say that any relationship in comics doesn't have its bumps. Mrwednesday 24:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion that line should be removed from the article. Emma is obviously in love with him, as was Jean for years, and so far they both seem to be relatively fulfilled. The fact that they are both telepaths, to me says that he is capable of romance, but he only displays it on the inside. Pr1983 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Relationships Section Dispute 

message: In regard to the section detailing Cyclops’ powers, would a sub section (or follow-on section) of that entitled something along the lines of ‘Prominent examples’ be useful/appropriate? Say, a list of impressive feats he’s performed using his powers? I have a list of said feats, and I can back them all up with scans if need be. I think it would really help people who read the page to get a better account of his abilities, which are generally underestimated by the average comic book fan. Pr1983 06:16, 14 August (UTC)
:You know what? Go ahead and add what you want, and maybe we can work it in. Cyclops is a character that uses his power very creatively, such as in playing pool with it. --Chris Griswold 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do... I'll just do a text list for now, then if need be i can link to the images... EDIT: Added section, and tested all the links. If one is wrong, let me know. Pr1983 07:48, 15 August (UTC) Edited at 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers Section Additions? 

message: Per the WP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article. --Newt ΨΦ 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: *Support --Newt ΨΦ 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Should we move the alternate universe versions to the bottom?  I think it makes for a bit of a confusing read when I get to the alternate versions before i get to powers and abilities.  I also think it should bear mentioning that Ultimate Cyclops should be merged with alternate versions as Ultimate Cyclops is indeed, an alternate version.CapoCastillo 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But I do think we need to take it easy on this "fairytales" stuff. These are one-issue stories and hardly wort mention. Chris Griswold 09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i'll second that opinion as well.  The fairytales story, while very cyclops-centric, gets a lot more mention than I would guess that a one shot would get.CapoCastillo 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. So yeah, move it... Pr1983 09:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Alternate Versions to the bottom?

message: "Uncanny X-Men #93: Cyclops battles Quicksilver, and Quicksilver himself remarks that only his speed saved him from being hit by Cyclops. This alone demonstrates an impressive combination of quick reflexes and incredible accuracy."
So... he didn't hit quicksilver? and quicksilver said his speed saved him... and he's a speedster. mmkayyyy, that all seems kind of obvious and not worthy of putting in the section meant for great feats!!— ChocolateRoses talk
::The fact that Quicksilver is a speedster makes it even more impressive in my opinion. Quicksilver was going as fast as he possibly could, even a little slower and he would have been hit. He does get hit eventually due to Cyclops rebounding his blast off several surfaces, though it is as much down to luck as anything. Pr1983 18:09, 25 August, 2006
:::I don't know.  Quicksilver uses his speed to avoid getting hit from any particular adversary.  And if he hadn't been using his superspeed, then it logically follows whoever was trying to attack him would hit.  I don't think that the speed by which Cyclops' blast travels is so much a feat as the ammounts of damage he can cause and the reflectability of the blasts.CapoCastillo 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quicksilver is fast, so fast he can run faster than the human eye can percieve... cyclops has eye powers. Although there are a ton of cool things cyke can do, this is probably the weakest "impressive feat" in the lot. TehPhil 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, some1 can delete my comments then if they want:)-A101
In addition, he's also sometimes been depicted as having energy absorption abilities beyond sunlight or Havok's blasts, namely when he channeled one of Storm's lightning bolts into a massively powerful blast (Uncanny X-Men Annual #3). He's also capable in martial arts and a pilot. Interesting comics and tv shows have been made on less. JetGoodson 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Makes little sense

message: Listed are his continuous occular energy beams, his immunity to havok's powers, but then there's hand to hand combat training.  I don't think this should b listed as notable.  Cyclops, while trained to deal with matters hand to hand, is by no means a superior martial artist in the sense that melee combatants Captain America and Shang-Chi are.  Cyclops rarely even resorts to fisticuffs in combat.  I think that noting his training as a power per se starts drawing comparisons to actual hand to hand type heroes like Daredevil and Iron Fist.  I think we should remove this from notable powers and leave it as a blurb in the skills section where it belongs CapoCastillo 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'd like to see Cyclops punch and kick more. We should put it to a vote.--Chris Griswold  (☏) 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Powers?

message: It's very title seems POV. Impressive to whom? I've tagged it hoping to stir some discussion. CovenantD 04:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think taking it down is a good idea.  Its a good refrence tool for back issues.  But a name change from "impressive feats" may be in order.  something less, POV. I'll think of something and change it, to cause some discussion.TehPhil 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressive Feats 

message: I have the marvel handbook on my comp, and it stated that Cyclops absorbs ambient energy such as sunlight, not that he only absorb sunlight.
He'd pretty much have to put out as much power as he does. JetGoodson 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. A lot of super-powered characters generate massive amounts of energy with no known source. Sometimes there is  a handwaving excuse like solar energy absorbtion or a highly efficient metabolism, but the math doesn't add up in most cases; the total amount of energy in sunlight, a known quantity, is inadequate -- especially since he doesn't absorb the visible light frequencies. Even assuming 100% efficiency in absorbtion, conversion, and storage, the total amount of energy demonstrated in Cyclops' strongest blasts is far more than he could be getting from solar sources even if he was an all-day nude sunbather. (And Superman? Forget about it!) So there is most likely a comic-book rubber science answer, like extracting energy from another "dimension" (if Giant-Man can absorb matter from another dimension, why not energy?) Noclevername 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does absorb other energy, although apparently not as efficiently. For instance in one of the X-Men annuals Storm hits him with a lightning bolt to charge him up to be extra powerful (at the time they're on Arkon's homeworld and the sun is obscured). Absorbing the lightning is apparently painful, but not harmful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.14.101 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: source of power

message: A mutant, Cyclops produces powerful "optic blasts" from his eyes, forcing him to wear specialized glasses at all times and a specialized visor in combat. His powers may have led to his inhibited, meticulous character. These same qualities, however, make him an ideal field leader for the X-Men and even teammates such as Wolverine, who has deemed him an 'overgrown Boy Scout', admire his leadership skills.
What same qulities ? The articles talks about his powers and then leadership doesnt make sense (Gnevin 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership 

message: How can Cyclops have an Affiliations to the X-Men and the X school for higher learning (X-Mansion). You can't have an Affiliation with the base of operations of the team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.62.8 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliations needs to be changed. 

message: "Cyclops' optic force blasts contain a marked physical improbability: according to Newton's third law (of reciprocal actions), when Scott releases his optic blasts his neck should be thrust backward with equal force, which would be enough to snap his neck several times over. However Cyclops is completely immune to the effects of his own powers. An equal force against his head by his optic blast's concussive force would simply reabsorb into his body."
Why would a beam of light cause any sort of recoil or kickback? That doesn't make much sense to me. Even high powered lasers in real life wouldn't have this effect. --Machriderx
It's not a laser or a beam of light (although some writers don't get this and treat it as a laser) that Cyclop shoots out of his eyes - it's a forceblast - it pushes things - which means that unless he's braced he should fall over or be pushed back.  --Fredrick day 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  other disagree and anyway Wikipedia should discuss things in terms of the real-world, so it seems entirely legitimate to me for someone to discuss how the physics works/doesn't work. --Fredrick day 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; an encyclopedia is about the real world and we shouldn't get lost in the fiction. Ignoring real-world physics is something they might do in an X-men story, but in Wikipedia real-world physics is an appropriate topic. It is even more appropriate than the details in the fictional character biography, despite how entertaining those are. -- Lilwik 20:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait... what? 

message: :Image:ASTX022 cov col2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ASTX022 cov col2.jpg

message: :Image:Xmen1.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) 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Xmen1.jpg

message: This article needs a complete re-write - anyone want to have a go before I do? What about one of my stalkers? you want to have a go? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a complete rewrite 

message: We need a picture of Cyke in a brighter blue costume, with one of his big yellow and red visors. That's how he's better known IMHO. Lots42 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I've added tags disputing the neutrality of the sections involving New X-Men and his assumption of the role of Headmaster.  Most notably, the sections involving his relationship with Emma and his involvement with Jean seem biased toward the traditional Scott/Jean relationship.  For example, Scott doesn't "beg for forgiveness" nor does he "admit that he's wrong about hurting Jean." Essentially, he apologizes for hurting her and in no way acknowledges that he intended to hurt her or that he needs forgiveness for his involvement from Emma.  Additionally, the sections have questionable neutrality.  No doubt his relationship with Emma was looked down upon by several long-standing characters, but the amount of detail is unnecessary (ex. Wolverine's quote from Astonishing X-Men).  We only need to know that characters disapproved.
As well, the areas I read may be too casually written and out of line with the encyclopedic style of Wikipedia.
Feel free to discuss this here.Luminum (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole deal probably needs some work, but the areas you point out definitely do. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality/Quality

message: Should this section mention other codenames that Scott uses in alternate continuities?
The Harry Osborn article lists an alias as Hobgoblin, used in Ultimate Marvel, and I was just wondering if Captain America should be on Summers' list, as he used this alias in a future timeline of the Ultimate continuity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.163.105 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codenames 

message: Could someone who knows about uploading images please add this image http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/981/87374-8781-cyclops_super.jpg to the Cyclops_(comics)#Powers_and_abilities section of this article? It seems relevant, as it depicts how his visor actually works in the comics. Such information about how the character's equipment was designed by his creators seems like it could help contribute to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.150.129 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visor 

message: The powers section of the article states, in the last paragraph, that the ruby quartz glasses Scott Summers wears were created for him by Xavier. In X-Men Legacy #208, Xavier states that he believes Scott had "possible prior contact" with another mutant, as when Xavier found him at the orphanage, someone had already fitted Scott with the ruby quartz glasses. It is later established, can't remember the issue number, but could find it, in X-Men Legacy, that Sinister ran the orphanage and was, in fact, most of the staff and children there thanks to his cloning procedures.
Should the entry be changed to reflect Mister Sinister as the creator of the ruby quartz glasses? 71.45.138.201 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruby Quartz glasses 

message: The biography for this character is either way too long or split into too many different sections. This article needs a clean up. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: To avoid a revert war, I'd like to explain why a third-party source that establishes a subject's notability should remain on this subject page. First, all subjects on Wikipedia must establish Notablity; that is, the subject must demonstrate some true real world relevance, which is typically exhibited through coverage in third party sources (e.g. a newspaper article, an academic journal, a magazine article, a media outlet publication). Subjects are not notable in and of themselves, unless they are of the categories that meet general notability guidelines. Fictional comic book characters are not in one of those general notability categories and must therefore demonstrate notability through sources like those.
For example, it is not enough to have an article talking about all the characteristics of Cyclops or Magneto, because that information is primarily derived from primary sources (i.e. information from the comics themselves). An article should describe a character from an out-of-universe perspective, rather than an in-universe perspective. So when describing Cyclops, it should talk about the character based on his creation and publication from Marvel, generally what he does, and how the character is received or viewed in the context of the actual world, with much less emphasis on what the character is in the in-universe world of the Marvel universe. That is why Featured comic book character articles (and other fictional character articles) such as Batman or Superman devote the majority of the article's space to discussing the characters from real world context: How the character was created, influences in the character's writing, reception and impact of the character, analysis and larger legacy of the character in society.
For this article, of the 132 sources listed, only five are non-primary sources, and even then, a few of them only go toward citing in-universe information. The value of a citation that discusses the subject in terms of the character's real-word relevance from a third-party—not how popular Cyclops is to other Marvel characters, not how popular Cyclops is according to a Marvel press release, but how popular Cyclops is to audiences in an article that passes through editors before being published) establishes out-of-universe perspective. It doesn't matter if one disagrees (the same as any citation of a critic's review of a movie or show), or if being on some magazine's list provides insight into the character. What it provides is evidence that the character is recognized and relevant enough to even be discussed. An academic article that discusses the literary themes exhibited by Cyclops would be an example of a third-party source that both establishes notability and insight into the character. (Finding one would be great.)
As it stands, this article, for lack of the requirements it needs to establish notability, would probably be a candidate for deletion (hence the multiple issue tags at the top). It is obvious that a a character like Cyclops has notability in the real world, but for lack of any sources provided or any description of it in the article, it lacks notability. (That is probably why it has yet to be deleted, despite lacking much established notability; editors likely know the character has it, but no one has taken the work to make the article demonstrate it.) A source like IGN's ranking of characters or CBR's audience vote of best characters isn't much, but as far as the article right now goes, it's the most appropriate citation to have on the page. It is one of the only ones that establishes the subject's notability at all: that the character is even recognized and received and talked about by anyone. Even a largely insignificant character like Maggot derives WP:Notability from the fact that the character is repeatedly listed in third party sources as an example of a silly or weird comic book character (though the article also lacks for establishing character notability through any of those sources). Wikipedia is not primarily about knowing what the character is like within the comics. It's about knowing what the character is as a real world subject.
Were this a better article, we would have much more information on the character's comic debut, what went into the character's creation and continued portrayal, and how the character was received or discussed by audiences and media (the citation in question would likely be in the "Reception" subsection of "Cultural impact", if any), and, ideally, as extrapolated from third party sources. Right now, what we have is a glut of in-universe description (way too much) and no out-of-universe information except for the date and issue of when the character debuted and the character's ranking in popularity. Were the character popular enough, a citation like IGN or CBR's comic rankings would actually be the least relevant of the kinds of sources on public impact that could be out there (again, compare the content and citations in Superman or Batman). But for now, this is apparently the best thing on the page. My suggestion is to assist by finding other, more extensive third party sources to contribute to establishing the article's notability. Let me know if that helps to clarify the issue. I'm happy to keep working on this with you. Luminum (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of secondary reliable sources in the article 

message: Should there be a separate section or maybe even a separate article for the time-displaced Original 5 Cyclops from the All New X-men? He even has his own series. Rachelskit (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  O5 Cyclops 

message: I want to start adding a relatives part to each comic book characters relatives on there tab thing starting with the X-Men since they will be the easiest. I will experiment with the best look but, I want it to be just like how famous peoples relatives are listed so why not for fictional characters as well. I will also experiment with names and codenamed and maybe a slash so both can be shown.
Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Relatives

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cyclops (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713004756/http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/708/708826p5.html to http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/708/708826p5.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=41813
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=42092
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclops (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GYSNtXOp?url=http://marvel.com/news/story/19161/marvel_now_qa_all-new_x-men to http://marvel.com/news/story/19161/marvel_now_qa_all-new_x-men
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209184439/http://www.mutanthigh.com/trees/summerstree.html to http://www.mutanthigh.com/trees/summerstree.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC). 
You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.
You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 30. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.
Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion nomination(s)