Talk:Civil War (comics)/Archive 3

message: Following the events of the most recent Wolverine, should there be a section in this article regarding Damage Control's orchestration of the Stamford event, their manipulations of government policy, or their subsequent profiteering from the event? ThuranX 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Declun clearly planned it, adn the fact that Damage Control was ready and prepared to move on the contracts so rapidly as to get the major clean up contracts, etc., etc., combined with his comments about making things happen show he's complicit in the event and knew what giving Nitro MGH would result in. Although it has yet to be stated overtly, I think it's not unreasonable to expect to see that the 'anonymous tip' that hte new warriors got came from Damage Control as well, directly or through hirelings. ThuranX 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage Control 

message: Where does the term come from? and what's secret about them? --Charlesknight 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used in the comics as the name of Captain America's rogue team of superdudes. One of the newspapers named them that. What's secret about them is their recipe. The secret ingredient is Danny Rand. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: shhhh! this is a secret! =D Bloodpack 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Avengers 

message: Do we really need this?  If someone changes a side, it's recorded in the synopsis and we just move the character name to the appropriate section on the lists after.  Do we really need to record every change in its own section like that?164.107.218.14 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't need that. It is more cruft. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need such a section, although to avoid confusion and reduce edit conflicts (oh, yeah, like people could ever reduce those in this article), you might need a parenthetical note like "(changed sides)" after the character's name. I wouldn't be keen on seeing it, but it might help. Maybe. Sorta. Kinda. And if so, it should be something even shorter than that. Doczilla 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way... the Punisher's a Secret Avenger now, right? For that matter, shouldn't there be a Secret Avengers article? -- Nick Begovich 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Changing Sides" section 

message: Amazing Spider-man 535 is out, he said himself that he had made a mistake and was on the wrong side. He should be switched over to the the registered opponents side
:pls sign your post with 4 tildes and yes, most probably, until we see the next issue, btw, cable left together with stature and nighthawk, how come hes still in the secret avengers list? Bloodpack 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable didn't say he was leaving the Avengers. He also has a country to run. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazing Spider-Man #535 is not out yet. Until it is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: errr, yeah still isnt official, hes speaking his thoughts, what would be official is when we all see steven mcniven draws a comic book panel with spidey already fighting along side with the secret avengers against the government, but yeah, itll probably happen Bloodpack 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazing Spider-Man #535 is not out yet. Until it is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: well, you didnt say spiderman and iron man already had a conflict, if thats the case, then yes spiderman is officially screwed Bloodpack 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. We will not assume anything more in this article. See above. Until Spider-Man #535 is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thats what ive been telling this odin guy here, but he keeps on insisting and also, i read the synopsis for issue 4. someone put it saying its sue richards who stopped iron man's sonic weapon based on her previous actions. i enclosed it with a note in my edit but its reverted. isnt that also an assumption or one's personal POV?, stating that its sue, when in fact it should be left for the readers to decide. i feel its unencyclopedic Bloodpack 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY make ANY assumptions? WHY???????????? Just wait till we all have the opportunity to read the dadgum comic. What's your hurry, for Pete (Parker)'s sake? Doczilla 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a discussion forum. The purpose of the discussion pages attached to Wikipedia articles is to discuss the article, how it can be improved, what to add to it, what not to add to it, etc. Getting into fanboy discussions like that isn't what it's intended for. I'm not saying fanboy in a negative way or anything like that. But, let's be honest, lots of editors purposely try and turn these types of articles in particular into a haven for fanboys. That isn't the intention of some editors, it happens sometimes by sheer accident. Try www.superherohype.com if you're looking for a good discussion forum to go over this kind of stuff. Odin's Beard 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spider-man HAS changed sides 

message: ive been wondering, should we narrate each issue's synopsis by paragraph like what we have now (i.e. in civil war #1...in civil war #3...) or should it be as a "whole", compressing them all together into just one whole synopsis, summarizing the whole 1, 2, 3, and 4th issue into one? Bloodpack 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really ought to be condensed. After the event is over, this article will probably be a lot short than it is now. There's kind of a Doppler effect with these articles among editors: Every detail of a current comic seems so very important until after the series when it becomes obvious that those minor characters, etc. are minor. Current details appear to seem more important than old ones, or sections on Infinite Crisis and 52 wouldn't be as long or longer than the entire history of characters that have been around for 20 years (Booster Gold) or even 35 years (Elongated Man). --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for replying, i feel the summary for the 4th issue is still too long Bloodpack 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the synopsis format 

message: Is it right to be listing Xavin as dead?  We heard a crack, and the others speculate that Xav is dead, but we don't know anything for sure until they decide to bury him.  It is my own speculation that he couldn't possibly be dead, with one of those reasons being his life continues on in the main storyline (although clearly not taking place at the same time).  How should he be listed until he is confirmed, without a doubt, one way or another?  What about "presumed dead"? --142.167.151.10 01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Xavin Dead

message: I note that Bill Black, in his comic series The Armageddon Factor starring the Femforce among others, also made reference to a similar superhuman registration act.  Not sure if it is sufficiently important for mention here or not, though. Badbilltucker 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty common theme in American comics: The JSA were forced to disband by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the characters in Watchmen were forced to register or quit in the 1970s. It's like how OMACs are almost exactly like Prime Sentinels and House of M is startingly similar to JLA: Midsummer's Nightmare. It's a pretty recycled idea. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: looks like the comic book publishers are just borrowing ideas from one another Bloodpack 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Registration acts (comics). Doczilla 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registration Acts 

message: Civil War: Choosing Sides was recently created with what looks like promotional text for a one-shot related to the crossover that is the subject of this article. The article should be merged because it is relevent to this article alone. A one-shot that is wholly based on a crossover should be part of the crossover's article. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love you. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very mature. Really showing your true colors of how selfish you really are.  Anyway, I was right in the fact that this was also clearly a lead in for other titles, and since that was your only argument for merging this, it never should have happened, so you jumped the gun and violated your own "Not a crystal ball" policy you're so fond of pushing.  Way to make yourself a complete hypocrite.  Hope you've lost all your credibility. 164.107.218.14 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It has Civil War in its name. There is no reason to guess "that won't be the case" for any of them. We have numerous Wikipedia style guides and policies telling us not to speculate and not to trust solicitation information. Doczilla 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it was just solicitation information saying this, you'd have a case, but Tom Brevoort has confirmed all that stuff as happening as well in which he says that these stories will lead to future happenings with these characters. []  Here's another that says it leads to other books as well.   And I don't know why having "Civil War in its name" is a reason to merge it since several books have Civil War in their names and they have their own articles. So really, there is no reason to merge them. 164.107.218.14 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All we can really go on at this moment is that "Civil War" is in the title. You haven't read it. It is part of the crossover, and while some details about specific characters may make their way into those characters' articles, the bulk of the information should go here. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The bulk of all those other Civil War tie-ins get their own pages, there's no reason this shouldn't. Again, read the links. It's not a some details "may make their way" in speculation, it's straight up confirmed by the editors and creators in those links that they will. Just because it's not out doesn't mean that there aren't details confirmed by other sources than solicitations, which is another argument that I've shown proof against, that show that it does not need to be merged. And the whole argument for this merger in the first place is it will only tie in to Civil War, when that's clearly not the case. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What Tom B. has confirmed is beside the point. Comics creators have often released false information. At one early, early point, DC people said Infinite Crisis would have nothing to do with Crisis on Infinite Earths. Also, there have been times that a comic got prepared, then got changed before it saw print. Did you know Jean Grey/Phoenix originally wasn't going to die way back in the X-Men "Fate of the Phoenix" story? Byrne even drew the pages where she survived before their bosses say no way, she has to die. Last week, Paul Levitz commented in a conference call about times they had to make changes after a comic went to print, when they had to decide whether or not to reprint an entire run or at least a specific page. So . . . until it's in print and in our hands, the story event does not exist. Besides which, the whole Civil War storyline is complicated enough without describing stuff that hasn't even come out yet. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Doczilla 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the links that I put up? The comic is done and going to print at the point of that interview. I don't care what happened in the past, it's what's happening now that counts, and, again, if you'd read the interviews, they're not giving out false information.  Tom is the editor, not one of the creators, so yeah, his word deserves to be taken over all others.  And if you're going to give that argument, then there's no reason for that page to even exist at all, because by the time you get done nitpicking over it, there will be nothing left to merge, and the article should have just waited to be started until the issue was out.  Why is this really even being brought up now?  The issues comes out in a little over the week, if anything, this should be suspended until then, and then people will have a reason to give a real judgement as to whether these should be merged. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't care "what has happened in the past"? Why would someone who doesn't care what has happened in the past bother looking at an encyclopedia? You're discounting the examples used in the explanation of Wikipedia policy. Have you read WP:NOT and WP:CMC/EG? Wryspy 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, people on this site need to stop taking things out of context.  Yes I have read those and they say not to listen to the creators, not the editors.  Again, read what I linked.  This is not "creating hype", this is the editor of the book giving the basic facts of what will be happening.  The issue deals with more books than just Civil War, and yet again, this should not even be up for discussion until the damn thing is out so people can make a real decision over it. 164.107.218.14 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is hype. That he was not using a lot of exclamation points does not make it any less so. It was promotional material. You are right, though: This shouldn't be up for discussion because the book is not out now. That's also why it ought not to have an article or assumptions made on it until Wikipedians can actually get their grubby, sweaty paws on the books. --19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the lower part of this Comic Urban Legends page  if you want to see how drastically solicited material can differ from what finally comes out (re:Emerald Twilight). Doczilla 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War: Choosing Sides merge 

message: * Merge - Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love you. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very mature. Really showing your true colors of how selfish you really are.  Anyway, I was right in the fact that this was also clearly a lead in for other titles, and since that was your only argument for merging this, it never should have happened, so you jumped the gun and violated your own "Not a crystal ball" policy you're so fond of pushing.  Way to make yourself a complete hypocrite.  Hope you've lost all your credibility. 164.107.218.14 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: As I said above, don't merge, because while right now it only appears to only deal with Civil War, that won't be the case for at least a couple of the stories. Several of the stories will be lead ins to other books that are upcoming and spinning out of Civil War, (Venom for Thunderbolts, Iron Fist for Immortal Iron Fist, Ant-Man for Irredeemable Ant Man, and it's believe US Agent for Omega Flight), so there will be much more to this book that it looks like on the surface.  It even says so right in the article that it will be the lead in for several new books. Plus, once the issue come out, the article can be expanded so it will be big enough to stand on its own as well. So, again, don't merge. 164.107.218.14 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has Civil War in its name. There is no reason to guess "that won't be the case" for any of them. We have numerous Wikipedia style guides and policies telling us not to speculate and not to trust solicitation information. Doczilla 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it was just solicitation information saying this, you'd have a case, but Tom Brevoort has confirmed all that stuff as happening as well in which he says that these stories will lead to future happenings with these characters. []  Here's another that says it leads to other books as well.   And I don't know why having "Civil War in its name" is a reason to merge it since several books have Civil War in their names and they have their own articles. So really, there is no reason to merge them. 164.107.218.14 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All we can really go on at this moment is that "Civil War" is in the title. You haven't read it. It is part of the crossover, and while some details about specific characters may make their way into those characters' articles, the bulk of the information should go here. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The bulk of all those other Civil War tie-ins get their own pages, there's no reason this shouldn't. Again, read the links. It's not a some details "may make their way" in speculation, it's straight up confirmed by the editors and creators in those links that they will. Just because it's not out doesn't mean that there aren't details confirmed by other sources than solicitations, which is another argument that I've shown proof against, that show that it does not need to be merged. And the whole argument for this merger in the first place is it will only tie in to Civil War, when that's clearly not the case. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What Tom B. has confirmed is beside the point. Comics creators have often released false information. At one early, early point, DC people said Infinite Crisis would have nothing to do with Crisis on Infinite Earths. Also, there have been times that a comic got prepared, then got changed before it saw print. Did you know Jean Grey/Phoenix originally wasn't going to die way back in the X-Men "Fate of the Phoenix" story? Byrne even drew the pages where she survived before their bosses say no way, she has to die. Last week, Paul Levitz commented in a conference call about times they had to make changes after a comic went to print, when they had to decide whether or not to reprint an entire run or at least a specific page. So . . . until it's in print and in our hands, the story event does not exist. Besides which, the whole Civil War storyline is complicated enough without describing stuff that hasn't even come out yet. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Doczilla 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the links that I put up? The comic is done and going to print at the point of that interview. I don't care what happened in the past, it's what's happening now that counts, and, again, if you'd read the interviews, they're not giving out false information.  Tom is the editor, not one of the creators, so yeah, his word deserves to be taken over all others.  And if you're going to give that argument, then there's no reason for that page to even exist at all, because by the time you get done nitpicking over it, there will be nothing left to merge, and the article should have just waited to be started until the issue was out.  Why is this really even being brought up now?  The issues comes out in a little over the week, if anything, this should be suspended until then, and then people will have a reason to give a real judgement as to whether these should be merged. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't care "what has happened in the past"? Why would someone who doesn't care what has happened in the past bother looking at an encyclopedia? You're discounting the examples used in the explanation of Wikipedia policy. Have you read WP:NOT and WP:CMC/EG? Wryspy 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, people on this site need to stop taking things out of context.  Yes I have read those and they say not to listen to the creators, not the editors.  Again, read what I linked.  This is not "creating hype", this is the editor of the book giving the basic facts of what will be happening.  The issue deals with more books than just Civil War, and yet again, this should not even be up for discussion until the damn thing is out so people can make a real decision over it. 164.107.218.14 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is hype. That he was not using a lot of exclamation points does not make it any less so. It was promotional material. You are right, though: This shouldn't be up for discussion because the book is not out now. That's also why it ought not to have an article or assumptions made on it until Wikipedians can actually get their grubby, sweaty paws on the books. --19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the lower part of this Comic Urban Legends page  if you want to see how drastically solicited material can differ from what finally comes out (re:Emerald Twilight). Doczilla 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'd suggest we merge Civil War Files into Civil War (comics). --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War Files merge 

message: *Merge --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Not directly linked to the other merge proposal, but along similar lines - Civil War Files is just an "Info Within the Files" list, a cast list stating which character is on which side - there's not much additional text or background. The "Choosing Sides" section of this article already lists who's on which side (and my understanding is that the Files - like the Annihilation Nova Corps files - are mostly there as a reference for people who may not have gathered all this info from other places), so there doesn't seem much point in keeping it as a second article. --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Just thought I'd add this here, as to why Wiccan isn't incarcerated, and should be listed under the Secret Avengers.
*Wiccan is known to be captured after the fight in Civil War #4.
*Tom Brevoort's blog confirms the timeline of several events, including the fact that Wiccan (And possibly Hulkling and Hercules) were the ones being transported in the "Battle of Yancy Street" issues. 
*In the above issues, Dagger says that "All the prisoners escaped".
Hence, Wiccan, is infact, a free man. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link directly to the post about the timeline of events: http://www.marvel.com/blogs/Tom_Brevoort/entry/480 - Brad T. Cordeiro 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Wiccan

message: This was an actual comic issue, right?
Who were the writers/artists?  I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article. (Sorry, this is in reference to the Civil War Files article)
152.130.15.14 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War Files: Creators / writers / artists? 

message: Once it's all out, is there any word on whether casual Marvel fans without the time on their hands to order all of the issues of the various titles involved will be able to buy them in one set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.209.169 (talk • contribs) 
:Most if not all will be collected in trade paperbacks--virtually everything Marvel prints these days is.  The one exception might be one-shots (such as Civil War files), but lately a few one-shots have been included in trades, too.  (There will be a Civil War tpb, a Frontline tpb, an Amazing Spidey Civil War tpb, etc.)  So, probably, but it's possible they'd have to hunt down a couple of issues here and there.  The trades most likely won't be sold as a set. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buying the series 

message: I don't know how firm they are considering the delays, but the release dates for the remaining issues would be useful. Anybody have them? --Happylobster 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Dates 

message: I heard that part of the Act was that everyone who had to gegister, even if they were not a superhero, had to do missions for the governemtn without question when asked. Is that true, and if it is, should it be put in the article, or maybe the registration article?--Mullon 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Regarding the Registration 

message: OK, so I just finished editing the synopsis of Civil War #5 last night, today I go and pick up Amazing Spider-Man #536 and...in ASM the fight between Stark and Parker is completely different!  Specifically, in the Civil War title, Stark tries to convince Peter not to leave, Peter says they've gone too far and that locking people up in the Negative Zone isn't right, Stark tells him that the Negative Zone Prison is just a temporary measure until something more suitable can be arranged (despite him stating in ASM #535, after Peter says the prison might be acceptable as an interim solution, "This isn't temporary, Peter. This isn't interim. This is permanent. Get with the program."), Peter wants to leave, Stark asks him what's gonna happen to MJ and Aunt May if he does this, Peter hits him and says they're as far away as possible, fight ensues, Peter tries to break through the window but it's shatter-proof so he merely crashes into it and falls down, then a buttload of SHIELD jerks arrive and unload a couple dozen clips of ammo at Peter and the window, breaking the window and causing Peter to fall outside (albeit with several bullet wounds).  How's THAT for a run-on sentence?
Now, in ASM #535-536, Peter makes a decision and tells Aunt May and MJ to run away. Then alarms start going off in Stark Tower, and he begins moving down the corridors before he gets blindsided by Iron Man. That's how #535 ends. #536 begins with Peter falling several stories onto a hot dog cart (apparently uninjured before the fall) followed by a very angry Iron Man, who rages that he trusted Peter and asks if this is how Peter repays him. Peter punches Stark and lunges at him, but Stark utters a command word and Peter's suit (which Stark built) shuts down. Stark tells him that he wouldn't have given Parker a suit as powerful as that one if it didn't have safeguards to prevent it from being used against him, Stark. But it turns out Peter is playing possum just long enough to lure Stark close enough to clobber him with a sucker punch, that he anticipated Stark's precautions and personally disabled the override command on his suit.  By the time Stark recovers, Peter is nowhere to be found, having fled into the sewer.
So here's the question: since Millar and Straczynski can't stay on the same page (no pun intended), which version of events belongs here?--Fingerknöchelkopf 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally read ASM so I could join this conversation. I don't understand how these two issues would not fit together. In ASM535, Spider-Man tells his family to leave. He and Iron Man exchange words. In CW5, the two exchange more words and Spider-Man's suit gets ripped and he gets to ground leve. In ASM 536, Spider-Man fights Iron Man at ground level and goes into the sewers. In CW5, Spider-Man in the sewers fights a bunch of obscure villain, is beat up, and is taken the the Secret Avengers. In ASM536, he mentions that he has joined the Avengers. None of it contradicts; each issue shows you different pieces of the same chain of events. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thats so true, but the question is (since this article is mainly about the civil war comic book), should we also include in the synopsis the events that took place in the tie-in titles? or is the synopsis we have here is solely focused in the civil war comic book? †Bloodpack† 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truthfully I think we should have a little bit of info for all the tie-ins(Fantastic Four, Spider-man, Black Panther, and so on) but the way the synopis is being set up as of now, it is only the story in the main Civil War series.Phoenix741 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article was at one time agreed upon to be about the crossover. Therefore, I am sure the related limited series and tie-ins will all be summed up here once the thing is over. In fact, that's probably when the lists of characters and other bad sections will go as well, and the article can begin to be halfway decent. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Everything gels (so quit your whining, you damn hacks), and isn't an issue. The biggest disparity I noticed was in Punisher War Journal, where Punisher shoots Prankster a few times in the chest, as opposed to the single bullet to the head (the fact that he was using a S.H.I.E.L.D.-issue rifle might come into play in the future, for those of you keeping score) in Civil War. Boo-hoo. One of the problems, arguably, with this crossover is that so much is being filled in by tie-in issues, so it is important to include those. It'll be hard to create a comprehensive plot summary, but it is a crossover. So quit complaining. Goodness. -- Nick Begovich 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity between ASM and main Civil War title 

message: I'm in favor of a "list" of who's one what side, but it frustrates me that people feel the need to constantly update it and give special qualifications as to how they are associated with that side. Honestly, but the time this is all over, there will be no sides. It's been said time and again that there will be a "winner" and a "loser," and I doubt the losing side will maintain their position once there is nothing left to fight over. From an encyclopedic sense however, it would be nice to have a resource that stated "this is what the story was about, these are the characters involved, this is where they stood." From that perspective, Spider-man might be best left with one side and not changed over, because looking at the story as a whole, Spider-man was not soley associated with a single side. Another option might be a list of involved characters with a reference to which issue they "joined a side" or "switched sides" in. The list of deceased characters is also useful, and should include those believed dead as a result of the series (Xavin). What do you guys think about changing the format? - Kevingarcia 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabey we could show a list of the oringal lineup(from like civil war 1 or 2) then just show issue by issue, who switched sides and who died and stuff. I think this is what your suggesting. Am I right?Phoenix741 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Show how it is from the start, or at least from each character's entry into the "war." - Kevingarcia 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need an autistic recounting of rosters and roster changes. How about we dsescribe the story; team membership is incidental in this article unless a character plays a part in the story. Whether Aaron Stack is in the Secret Avengers is a detail for the Aaron Stack and Secret Avengers articles. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The lists need to be reduced, with minor details removed. It may also be more appropriate as paragraphs. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what happens when this is all over? 

message: 1. Merge --> Seems kinda useless to me.Phoenix741 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment See List of Thunderbolts members for almost identical information. CovenantD 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that pretty much sums it up,lol. Phoenix741 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunderbolt Army (merge) 

message: Why is Agent 13 (Sharon Carter) on Caps side? Just becuase she helped him get away from S.H.I.
E.L.D. once doesn't mean she's a Secret Avenger. IronMan54 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solicitations don't mean anything. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agent 13???

message: So, Batroc gets a panel in the latest Iron Man, depicted in training with Arana and Stature.  Since Arana is "Heroes in Training" and Stature is "Registered Heroes" and Batroc himself is "Thunderbolts Detainees" (or was he recruited?  More likely recruited), what's your take on summing up their new individual statuses?  Personally, I'd like to see Stature under training, since she is underage and the SHRA would probably state that she needs more training before employing her.  Batroc, however, is his own man and shouldn't even be categorized. --71.7.134.247 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Batroc the Leaper

message: Thunderbolts #110 is out with the new lineup. Should we list Green Goblin, Penance, Bullseye and Venom to the main Thunderbolts list and move the rest to their new status as registered heroes or members of the Commission on Superhuman Activities.--Gonzalo84 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thunderbolts

message: On the official Marvel website, Deadpool has been listed as anti-registration.  Should he be moved to registered opponents? ToJPhantom 09:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadpool

message: I'm removing all the stuff from related pages about this. Civil War 7 is not even out yet. Cactusrob 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron Man/Cap

message: Where should we place characters like Kingpin, Underworld and Hammerhead?--Gonzalo84 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Villains from ''Civil War: War Crimes''

message: In the Subsequent Casualties list, we see "Happy Hogan; put in a coma by Spymaster; killed in an act of euthanasia by Tony Stark". Thing is, this is just suggested. We do see Happy Hogan getting flatlined, but whether Stark killed him or not, we will probably never know for sure. I think that part should be reworded.--Kaonashi 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Happy Hogan page it claims "Tony Stark digitally interfaced with and shut down Hogan's life support (Iron Man vol. 4 #14)". I have not read it, so someone with first hand knowledge would be useful, but that sounds like decent grounds for the statement you mentioned Cactusrob 13:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How is that a Civil War death? The injuries, yes, but unless/until it's definitively stated that he died directly of those injuries it's speculation. The above comments by Mackeriv seem to cast some doubt on the actual cause of death. If Tony did kill him, that's a separate reason. CovenantD 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right to me. I think it should be removed. Cactusrob 16:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, it also seems that the Happy Hogan article should be reworded to reflect the actual events depicted, rather than definitively state that Tony killed him. CovenantD 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler removed (Hap)

message: Do not use spoilers in subject heads. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: Why remove him from the opponents?  He was opposed to it, and was going to join the Secret Avengers until, um, you know...just because he's a villain is no reason to remove him. Thanos6 11:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was removed because he's dead, and put under the deaths category, where he belongs.76.214.174.71 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plunderer 

message: I started the discussion for it over at Talk:Superhuman Restraint Unit. Just thought I would let you all know.Phoenix741 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the Superhuman Restraint Unit should be merged  in the Registration acts (comics) article, not here †Bloodpack† 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge for the SRU 

message: Over at [url=http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg]LITG[/url] a list has been compiled featuring all the contradictions in the Civil War series. Should it be featured here?
600 died at Stamford, mostly children
OR
900 died at Stamford, 60 children.
Sue Richard leaves the Fantastic Four quietly, slipping away after giving Reed a seeing to and a nice meal, leaving a note.
OR
Sue Richards has a big barney, smashes the Baxter Building up and storms out. No note is referred to.
Iron Man tells Spider-Man that the Negative Zone prison is temporary.
OR
Iron Man tells Spider-Man that the Negative Zone prison is not temporary.
Iron Man and Captain America have a Final Meeting.
OR
Iron Man and Captain America have a Totally Different, Superfluous and Contradictory Final Meeting.
The Black Panther has the Ebony Sword
OR
The Black Knight has the Ebony Sword
xx As I recall it, BOTH are true.  There are TWO Ebony Swords...
Solo is in Prison
OR
Solo is in the Six Pack
Spiderman escapes from Iron Man, get chased down and attacked by Jack O'Lantern until he is rescued by the Punisher and carried to the Anti-Reg HQ.
OR
Spiderman escapes from Iron Man, goes on Matt Lauer's show, making a speech about how he's changed his view on the Registration Act, and then joins the Anti-Reg group after meeting Captain America on a rooftop.
xx Again, BOTH are true.  Spider Man escapes from Iron Man, gets chased down, attack by Jack O'Lantern and rescyed by Punisher and carrier to Anti-Reg.  Joins the group and goes home to see his wife (he talks to MJ and she says 'You're okay unless you do something crazy like join them.  Wait, you already did, didn't you?' and he just nods), goes on Matt Lauer's show, makes a big speech then joins Cap's ATTACK on the Baxter building.
GW Bridge is pulled out of retirement to hunt down the Punisher
OR
GW Bridge is in the Six Pack
Captain America gets codes for the Negative Zone Prison from Ryker Island
OR
Captain America gets a key for the Negative Zone Prison from Baron Zemo
Typeface gets sent to prison.
OR
Typeface gets killed.
xx Again, BOTH.  He gets sent to prison, he gets freed by Cap (seen in a group shot in Civil War 6), big fight with Anti-Reg group spills into the streets (seen in Frontlines) and Typeface dies.
Captain America doesn't try to make a deal with villains before the Punisher shoots them
OR
Captain America makes a deal with villains before the Punisher shoots them
Cable leaves Captain America's side
OR
Cable stays on Captain America's side
Later, Sue Richards begs Namor to join Captain America's side and is rebuffed
OR
Earlier, Namor begs Black Panther to join Captain America's side
Scarecrow and Molten Man are working for the Government
OR
Scarecrow and Molten Man are working for The Chameleon.
Marcantony 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Innnteresting... and further proof (it'd seem) that there are no working Editors at Marvel.  --Dr Archeville 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies? 

message: Ok, I'm reading about this Summer and Winter event in 2008 on the Civil War Wiki. Doesn't this just provide a big arse spoiler right here as to what's up with Mr Fantastic and Iron Man, that they're really Skrulls in disguise??Shin-Goji
ok um can i get a link to that, o and there is no prof so we can't say that.Phoenix741 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skrull Spoiler?? 

message: What should be done about overlapping in the lists?
For example, Black Panther and Storm are both listed under "Foreign Opponents" AND Secret Avengers. Now yes, technically they are both but surely it is more prudent to simply list them under "Secret Avengers", since they are now in the USA? Likewise, Namor is listed as an "opponent" but in the main civil war book itself- which is what this article is based on- he has definitely staked out his neutrality.
Likewise Vulture is under "Thunderbolts" AND apprehended- but surely it should only be under one or the other, otherwise every member of the Thunderbolts Army would be under Apprehended Criminals as well.
Finally, the "Expatriates" category comes beneath "Opponents of Registration." However, The Thing has clearly stated he neither supports nor opposes it- surely he should only be in the neutrals section? And I hardly feel Doctor Strange is an expatriate- firstly I'm not sure about  his American citizenship and secondly he's only in seclusion in his Arctic Lodge and is returning to America regardless of the victor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.100.107 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping? 

message: I was wondering if it would be appropriate to take the current list of Civil War comics on this article and rearrange them into a cronoligical order that they appear or they are supposed to occur, does anyone have a similar idea on this? - RVDDP2501 18:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War Comic List Entry 

message: this article needs major clean up, especially the repeated links of the artists given in the footnotes †Bloodpack† 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about those, but one way to clean them up would be to insert <ref name="fill in with a name"> to the first citation, and then  for all other citations from the same source. But, why I'm here is because citations 31 and 32 are dead links. They have no source, but have several common sources listed. Someone may have deleted the original. They need to be removed or corrected. Also, I don't see a need to have a citation for everyone that was in the comic, that's overly redundant. Common editors for the page are probably familiar with the comic and can verify if someone adds a wrong name. Bignole 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the reason why i brought this up because i repeatedly see red links for "mark morales", and then steven mcniven, dexter vines, etc...arent they already mentioned (and linked) in the first part (above) of the article? plus i dont want to touch the coding for cite/referencing, i dont know how to do them †Bloodpack† 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant linkages 

message: I propose that a page be created for all the Civil War One-Shots, such as The Return, War Crimes, and The Initiative, so that readers can catch up on the plot of these pivotal comics without having to go through multiple articles. It would also unclude New Avengers: Illuminati and Civil War: Opening Shot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:00, 22 January 2007 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 January 2007
:I'm not so sure. Once this article calms down, some of those might be better incorporated here, with the one-off titles added as redirects? --Mrph 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition

message: Is there really any reason to believe that Molten Man is a Thunderbolt recruit rather than a typical registeree? He hasn't been a criminal for some time, so it's not like he would have been arrested and forced into it.
I dunno - he was 'maimed' by the Punisher...SaliereTheFish 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more the fact that he was clearly said to be working with Scarecrow, who was a T-bolt recruit, and they've all been only working together with SHIELD soldiers.75.13.53.50 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Molten Man

message: Is this really what the comic has lsited? it seems a little out there, but, as I do not have access to the comics, I cannot say. Is that a joke, or actually what the storlyine has?TheGreenFaerae 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Number 42 

message: ok once again we see another edit war on wikipedia.
all the useless stuff on howard the duck has been removed at least 2 times(once by me and once by an IP address). So since this guy has  decided to change it back again, not to mention vandalize my user page(although i did get a quick laugh out of it). SO what do you all think, keep or remove?Phoenix741 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it off.  No one else has explainations like that on this page, and someone can visit the page of the character in question if they want to know the details, just like everyone else on the list.75.13.41.237 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All characters are Non Existent in the real world.  Howard has been judged non existent by the government.  Unless you clarify the title, all superheros should be listed under this category. James1961 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we say who is on which side we are talking about in the marvel U, so what we are saying when we put Non-existent is that he doese not exist in the marvel U(as stated by the amrvel U Gov), then when people see that they will wonder why that is, and then look up additional info.Phoenix741 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the context of a short explanation of a singular "non-existent" status, it becomes fannish "babble talk" which unfortunately, describes the majority of comicbook articles in Wikipedia. No one is going to click on the Howard link to read up on his status unless he/she is already a fan or is already familiar with the character. It all depends if you intend to write sort of Wikipedia articles (The Civil war (comics), 52 etc.) - walled garden type articles for fans OR for the general Wikipedia populace (Featured article status). Frankly, Howard is completely superfluous to the Civil War storyline (short of a surprise appearance in Civil War #7); you might as well remove him now rather than clutter up the article with obscure non-contextual fannish trivia. --Eqdoktor 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed him completely from the article just now. The very definition of "non-existent" indicates ZERO importance status to the Civil War storyline. --Eqdoktor 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having us argue about his status like this is very much in keeping with his character (laughs). I used to have some of his original comics from the 70s- the one in which he is in an insane asylum (and KISS shows up) and the appearance of Dr. Bong. Its been ages (I'm old). Cheers - looking forward to CW #7. --Eqdoktor 08:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: trust me, when this series is all over, all the "not so important" characters will be removed (not only howard duck for that matter). this article will get a major clean up, leaving only the main plot of the story. the rest will be removed and the associated external links will be the only main point of reference for additional reading if the readers would want further informations, because having too much details in this article and having multitude external links all at the same time seems kinda redundant and a waste of wikipedia space. amen †Bloodpack† 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: lol, uhm...yeah, i mean, those who really had "major" participation in the civil war should remain, and the rest who didnt do anything notable to the war shouldnt have a broad coverage †Bloodpack† 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. It's comics nerd minutiae and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It will most likely be deleted once this is over. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-existent" Howard the Duck 

message: Should the Final Battle of the CW get it's own article? Normally I would say no but "The Battle of Metropolis", the final battle of DC's Infinite Crisis, got it's own article despite changing a lot less. I think either the Battle of Metropolis article should be removed or one should be created after Civil War #7 for The Final Battle of Civil War, given it's massive importance to the future of the Marvel Universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.24.252 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right'; I will take a look at the Battle of Metropolis article and see if it actually should be an article. Good points. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I questioned the validity of the Battle of Metropolis article almost 9 months ago, so you have my support to remove any extraneous info and merge it into Infinite Crisis. I don't think any battle within a storyline deserves it's own article. CovenantD 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Final Battle

message: This is probably the dumbest question in the world but, please bear with me. Does does this entire conflict take place on Earth 616, the main Marvel continuity? Just curious. Please don't crucify me for not knowing. --- Me 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Unlike the House of M, where there is a bit of ambiguity (blame Exiles), the Civil War very definitely happened on 616. 80.176.4.125 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth 616? 

message: What is the importance of the Punisher picking up Captain America's soiled mask? If you cannot answer without a "maybe", it doesn't belong in the article. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that relevant to Civil War? CovenantD 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. Punisher is there for like two seconds. Nothing he does really affects the plot of the series. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't he save spider-man?Phoenix741 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but his involvement was so small that it could have been anyone without affecting the story much. His killing the villains and bringing Spider-Man is pretty inconsequential. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea well I don't think to writers would put it in there unless they were going to to do something with him. I know that is close to the line of "maybe" but it makes sense.Phoenix741 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the series is over and it never proved significant. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what if something happens that makes it significant, out of the series, like in the war journal or something? Then would it be added in, cause if that is the case then i will drop the disscussion till that happens.Phoenix741 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we eventually do a section about the series' lasting effects, then if that becomes important, it will go there. I think that a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of synopses; they are there to give a general explanation of the plot. Character moments, planning scenes, etc, do not belong in these, among other things. Any sort of detail deemed important that does not pertain to the actual plot of the series needs to go in another section for cited analysis. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okPhoenix741 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but t doesn't actually affect the storyline of this already published comic series. Like I said, if anything, it would go in an "effects" section. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punisher's new souvenir 

message: Is there going to be a section for reactions to Civil War?  There's one for House of M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.131.65 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whedonesque is a fansite, so no. I can tell you what Wizard will say: "Yay, Marvel! We love our advertisers! The Wizard Store has lots in stock, and our price guide says these are valuable, so you should buy them!"--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions

message: The current text reads: "After realizing the fortune Tony Stark is making from the armaments used to capture unregistered superhumans and realizing that unregistered heroes are being denied their rights"
However, this is msot definitely inaccurate. Firstly because he gives neither reason when telling Tony Stark while he's leaving in the main series (He cites the death of Goliath and the idea of keeping people in the Negative Zone) and secondly because it is based off a conversation in an issue of Amazing Spider-Man which has been retconned. The "fortune" Stark was making is contraversial since the entire war profiteer storyline has yet to be resolved, and did little to influence Peter. Also, the heroes are NOT denied their rights- since said conversation was the only source of this and it has been retconned. When I attempted to edit this, it was edited back.
I suggest text more like "After considering the implications of Goliath's death at the hands of the Thor Cyborg and keeping unregistered heroes in the Negative Zone..." since this is definitely true, is the reason he himself gives, and is not shaky in terms of whather or not it still holds after retconning.
:What do you mean it has been retconned? It just came out. Peter Parker reacts negatively to Stark's profits, the NZ prison, and the revoking of prisoners' rights ASM 535. Bill Foster is not mentioned. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean it has been retconned. When Spider-Man swaps sides in the MAIN SERIES, he definitely mentions Bill Foster and the NZ Prison. In this self-same issue, it is stated that the Negative Zone Prison is a very temporary measure, backed up by the editors and writer and confirmed in civil war #7. The latter is a direct contrast to Amazing Spider-Man #535, ergo at least some parts of that conversation have been retconned, throwing all of it into doubt. It is a safer option to go with the one given by the main book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.210.73 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for Spider-Man swapping sides

message: is this a one-shot or a mini-series? i noticed that this is also included in the civil war tie-in section †Bloodpack† 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a one-shot, and Avengers: The Initiative is a mini, don't quote me on that though.Phoenix741 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, so i guess its also part of the civil war article, right? but what about this upcoming "Initiative" arch and its tie-ins, should it be a separate article from the civil war? (i.e. Avengers Disassembled to Decimation to House of M) †Bloodpack† 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since it is not part of either Avengers title, i think it should get its own page, cause it is a big deal with that whole 50 state thing going into affect.Phoenix741 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea there is,  check April, May and June.Phoenix741 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only amazing if it happens, if it lasts and if it actually plays a major ongoing role in Marvel's comics instead of being discreetly ignored. There are all sorts of amazing features in the MU which don't get mentioned terribly often these days. All we can do is wait 'til it sees print, then judge its importance from there. The current storm of hype makes it relatively notable, as Marvel are putting a lot of effort into it - but whether it succeeds and/or lasts is another matter. --Mrph 21:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War: The Initiative 

message: Writer Mark Millar describing Civil War as "a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag is in chains as the people swap freedom for security"... opinions? It's a nice soundbite (as you'd expect from Millar) and I think it'd be very useful in summarising the author's perception of the crossover. --Mrph 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. A lot more relevant to out-of-universe perspective than the entire rest of the article. In fact, in looking the article over, I see that there is no mention of how it has any real world relevance - a big oversight for something this laden with themes. His work in the industry gives him a perspective that could be considered notable. CovenantD 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A quote we ought to use somewhere...

message: After the issue of Civil War #7, does this mean the civil war has come to an end or can we expect this to continue for a long, long time? - RVDDP2501 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well the main war itself is over (although there will still be some resistance as per New Avengers #28), but its effects will continue to span through the entire marveldom for the years to come †Bloodpack† 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Civil War over? 

message: Is there an article listing which characters are on what side and that kind of thing? The whole story is so messy, and complicated by the fact that you can't really follow all that's going on unless you get all the crossover comics involved, that such a recap would be welcome... Actually, I think I saw one once, but can't remember it it was in this article or another, related one. so, is there one? --Svartalf 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unreliable mess, and it's all spoilers, but yes, it's here. Check the history. How is it difficult to keep people clear? I felt McNiven did a good job of representing which characters were on which side. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's Who and genral recap

message: Now that the article has been trimmed, anybody want to put together a Publication history and Critical reaction section(s)? CovenantD 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be up for having a go at that. I know that this won't be an exact match for the WP:CMC/X format, as it's not really a single series, but would we want to put critical reaction under an Impact heading? That way we can put the things using Civil War as a model/springboard - Spider-Man's current woes, the upcoming Initiative crossover and the various new series - under that too. --Mrph 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just putting in something is a good start; the material that comes together will determine the exact wording of the header(s). Thanks. CovenantD 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication history/Critical reaction 

message: My contribution regarding the similarity between the Superhuman registration act and the cards therein with those of City of Heroes/Villains is valid. Please do not remove it in the future. Warwolf 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Civil War

message: correct me if im wrong but since the series is all over, should we remove the "spoiler" template? †Bloodpack† 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i understand, so when do we get to remove it? when i was browsing some films and comicbook related articles i noticed that they still have spoiler templates in them even when theyre 3 already years over (pardon my english) †Bloodpack† 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: well think of it this way, even if it is 10 years old, people still may not of read it, and there fore when they read the article it will be a spoiler to them. I have not read the Maximum Caranage Storyline, so what ever i saw about it on here would be a spoiler.Phoenix741 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gotcha ;) no wonder its called "spoil"; in foods when its 10 years older its definitely "spoiled" =D †Bloodpack† 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: well yea, but the difference between comics and food is, good food goes bad after 10 years, good comics after 10 years are worth over 200$ 8-P.Phoenix741 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and Watchmen (last issue published in Oct 87) still has spoiler warnings in place, for example. Things to consider for this include whether or not the spoiler leads into other things, I'd imagine. Watchmen stands alone - whereas the new status quo at the end of Civil War will be repeatedly mentioned throughout Marvel's books for the next few months (at least) and will be an essential part of the background for some stories. --Mrph 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis "spoiler" template 

message: ...does this really belong under the Bibliography heading with the full list of issues, or should it be covered as part of the History section? Or some mix of the two? --Mrph 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it does.Phoenix741 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Variant covers and second printings

message: * Merge  --Mrph 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Discussion closed, with a decision to Keep No Consensus to merge. --Mrph 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops - sorry about that. With votes so evenly split, I think 'No Consensus' is the more appropriate summary. --Mrph 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: I suggest the spoiler tag be extended... There was info, particularly about Captain America, that some people may not be aware of yet. 24.159.210.124 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler tag extended. 134.29.6.7 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: I noticed a couple of new Ghost Rider comics have a Civil War banner on the top of the cover, but after reading the comic I have no idea if it actually had anything to do with the Civil War storyline. Is there any good reason for there to be a Civil War logo on there? Did this happen for other Marvel titles too? 24.159.210.124 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he fights Jack O'Lantern, who was killed by the Punisher in CW. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost Rider?

message: i discovered this text:
A new group of New Warriors emerges, however it bears little resemblance to the original group and will likely be another subpar Marvel title released for the sole purpose of flooding the market with unimagitive storylines so they can take more money from gullible comic book fans who enjoy having their intelligence insulted. (Weaponbb7 01:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found that this entry, for some reason it doesn't display when I try and edit it, it reverts to the older one when I try and change it. After the publication of Civil War #7, Mark Millar was interviewed by Newsarama and described the event as "a story where I took a giant piss over everything that the superheroes in the Marvel universe have ever stood for." ",[15] agreeing that a "certain amount of political allegory"[15] was present but that the real focus of the book was on superheroes fighting each other. Contrasting it with The Ultimates, Millar stated that Civil War was "accidentally political because I just cannot help myself".208.248.33.30 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been removed a couple of times now. Hopefully it won't be changed back again. --Mrph 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: dang, i thought that word "piss" is part of millar's statement thats why i didnt remove it †Bloodpack† 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: didn't we agree to get rid of this?Phoenix741 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yup, should we remove it again? †Bloodpack† 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed, too.--Galliaz 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: a concensus has been reached --->  †Bloodpack† 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't know that.  Which section on that page is it?  Thanks. Nightscream 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SHRA status of major characters 

message: I've removed the following recent addition:
"Though a success financially for Marvel, Civil War generally received overwhelmingly negative reaction from top to bottom. The book was criticized from top to bottom, from the senseless deaths of the New Warriors, to the outright villainous transformations of Mr. Fantastic and Iron Man, the countless delays in publication of the main mini-series (leading in turn to several of the main tie-in books, most notably "Amazing Spider-Man", "Punisher War Journal", and "Fantastic Four" being delayed due in order to prevent the tie-ins from spoiling the main book), ignorance of past continuity (most notably Mr. Fantastic supporting super-hero registration, which directly contradicted a previous storyline in Fantastic Four, where Reed Richards outright states his disdain for the concept of forced registration, citing the fact that it was both impossible to carry out and to impliment), to the fact that Millar's main script for the storyline featured numerous plotholes and omitted scenes (most notably, the series turning scene where Spider-Man decides to betray Iron Man) from the main mini-series that made reading the storyline outright impossible without having to read the tie-in stories."
The paragraph is unsourced (for example, providing no citations to the "overwhelmingly negative reaction"), is subjective, and contains statements of personal opinion pretending to be  substantiatable facts.  (For example, "ignorance of past continuity" and "plotholes".)--Galliaz 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: Millar's already in ass-covering mode regarding Civil War and his comments should be ammended with the truth, IE not only did he write Stark in a manner that was universally considered villainous to everyone reading the book but that also that Millar wrote the Civil War with so many plot holes that writers like JMS had to use their tie-in issues to fill in major holes in the narrative, making Millar's excuse redundant since he wasn't doing his job as writer and had to have others do his work for him.
:1) Post new comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. 2) Sign your comments. 3) No personal attacks. 4) The talk page is for discussing the article and how to improve it: it is not a bulletin board for posting your opinions about the subject of the article. Your post is almost vandalism. Richard75 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what you wrote is totally POV.  I mean, considering I know at least one fan who was on the Tony Stark side of the issue the whole way through the series (me), I'd say "universally considered villainous" is a very POV statement.HXcGeek 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like most (though not all) people who read the whole series do find it difficult to believe that Millar thought he was giving the pro-reg side a "better rep."  I think this is relevant information and should be included, if an NPOV source can be found.  Do any surveys of fan reactions to comics actually exist?Jefepato 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Millar the bold face liar

message: The Synopsis section needs cleaning up.  It's really long and wordy and disorganized and is just a retelling of it all, and is not encyclopedic.  I'm putting on a cleanup tag.  --zandperl 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and this is *after* I spent a half hour reading the section and fixing a billion copyedits.  Many more still need to be done.  --
zandperl 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole dang Synopsis section should be wiped clean and rewritten, if that made sense. The synopsis as it is, is uneditable in my opinion.
Lots42 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the synopsis down by cutting out info from the ancillary titles: this follows the example the entry for DC's Infinite Crisis.--Galliaz 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis Cleanup 

message: There seems to be quite a number of duplicate entries scattered around, for example, Civil War Files, which appears in #3 and #5.  Does anyone have a more up-to-date list so that list can be arranged better?  Marvel did a checklist by month, before they gave up on it due to being late with books, although they've released a trade paperback checklist, which doesn't really help with individual issues...  Sera404 13:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War tie-ins list 

message: Should we add something about the Civil War on that page seeing how important it is, like add in to the triva section or something?Phoenix741 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what are we going to add? †Bloodpack† 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like "Stamford was also used in the fictional marvel universe as the start of the civil war, during which the super vilian nitro belw it up" or something like that.Phoenix741 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: err...well in that case, it should go to the stamford article †Bloodpack† 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I was asking? If it would be ok to do that.Phoenix741 22:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think its ok, feel free to add a trivia section to the stamford article, lets just hope editors there wont bombard you with so many blah blahs †Bloodp</shpan>ack† 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like some one already beat me to the punch, o well.Phoenix741 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stamford, Connecticut]] 

message: The collections list looks stupid, there is far too much information there and it's listed with the author first. I know for normal novels author comes first but this is a comic book series, it would be much more aesthetic to have the title of the book listed first. Also there seems to be so much information there, if it is all necessary wouldn't a grid make it easier on the eye so that all the information is broken up nicely. Tony2Times 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collections List is ugly

message: In late November, Marvel announced another delay:Civil War' Yanni Papas' #6, originally scheduled for release in December 20, was pushed back two weeks and released in January 4. Unlike the previous instance, only The Punisher War Journal #2 was delayed.
If someone could edit that because, as far as I know, there is no Yanni Papas book.  And yes, I've read the "Be Bold," but I haven't familiarized myself with everything yet, so I'd rather not edit it myself.  134.68.175.249 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "The end of Civil War had a polarizing effect on Marvel's readers with the majority expressing severe displeasure with the rather anti-climactic way it was presented."
This is followed by a citation link that actualy goes to site where information on the Tom Suprgon quote is from. Since this seems to be highly speculatory and contains Weasel Words, I'm going to excise it till we can find the source.MaxusDarte 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited Information

message: <I>Although the series can be read as allegorical commentary in the wake of 9/11 and The Patriot Act, </I>
Point of View text that should be deleted, yes or no?
And why does Spurgeon get his own section to criticize the story?
Wasn't there something about a lot of civillains dying in Civil War #7? If so, can someone detail it? Lots42 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Deaths 

message: As I've been reading Civil War and the tie-in comics I've been taking notes of events and placing the comic issues in a timeline.  I've been searching everywhere for read orders and only found half complete read orders, guesses, and conflicting Marvel checklists...  Would it be worth while for me to add a section for a read order followed by a section of small summaries (under a spoiler label) to explain the reasoning for the ordering?
Derekofminnesota 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno,but placing your own read order would violate NOT a guide rule and your original research. †Bloodpack† 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks, that makes sense.  I'm new to adding to wikipedia and didn't know there was a guide page. From what I've read, making a time line would make more sense and would follow wikipedia's rules, but the Marvel Civil War's tie-ins have some discrepancies that I've noticed and would make creating a time line a lengthly, difficult, and probably disputed amount of work. Derekofminnesota 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read Order of Civil War + tie-ins 

message: :Image:CIVILWAR-07.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 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CIVILWAR-07.jpg

message: This is a simple one, I've been away from comics for about ten years which i can handle but I want to get into the Civil War era and subsequent stories. So I would really appreciate a list of the graphic novels in 'Read first to last' order. Maybe also including some of the stories that were happening on the periphery...Snowboy 1976 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the "Road to Civil War". Then the core series "Civil War" then you can read all of the other series in any order you want.(i recommend "Civil War: Spider-Man" great writing by JMS). Also, this is not a forum, the Marvel.com site has plenty of forums for this kind of thing. Rau's talk 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War: Graphic Novels  

message: Introducing the character as Iron Man and then suddenly switching to referring to him as Stark without explanation the hero:secret identity relationship there makes this article rather confusing. As I'm not a comic book fan I'll leave it someone else to figure out how to fix this. :) --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Man/Tony Stark 

message: Now unless there was some sort of retcon I missed, poor ol' Captain America was -not- killed by a sniper. Lots42 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial attack was a sniper, which led to his death at Sharon's hands. Rau's Speak Page 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! Lots42 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The version in the article is right, but it is misleading. I'll rewrite it. Rau's Speak Page 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain America and a Sniper 

message: Do we need a checklist? It seems like something that belongs on Marvel.com, not on Wikipedia? I'm removing it, if you object, revert and bring it up here. Rau's Speak Page 01:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed "Collections" and "Involved but not listed". Again, if you have problems, revert and bring them up here. Rau's Speak Page 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I, for one, find such checklists highly useful as a reference, and don't really see any logic behind your removal of this one. I'd like to see the checklist added back - rst20xx (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Though I would agree that it needs a tidy-up, and should be presented more like this - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. Like I said in my first post, this seems like something that belongs on Marvel.com, or perhaps a fanwiki. Rau's Speak Page 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is designed to stop people from adding giant lists of facts which whilst being true are otherwise useless. I would call this list highly useful, and I don't see why you think it should be "relegated" to somewhere else - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivial. Devoting that much space just to say that book was involved doesn't make sense to me. And if there is an official checklist, we can have an external link to it. Rau's Speak Page 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is that really what you think should happen? Then why when you first deleted the list did you not replace it with such a link? rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I did not know there was an official check list, but your section title leads me to believe that there is. Otherwise it could not be official. Rau's Speak Page 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: .....Okay, I propose this compromise: If you can find sources for the 3 lists (I *think* there is an official checklist, but you might need separate sources for "Involved but not listed" and for the paperbacks), then I won't object to you swapping the lists out for the sources. But if you can't find lists for any of them, I'd like them left in the article. And also let me point out that Avengers Disassembled, House of M, Secret Invasion, Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, Crisis on Infinite Earths and Final Crisis all contain similar lists, so it seems to me to be more standard practice to INCLUDE such lists - rst20xx (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check List