Talk:Ultimates/Archive 1

message: Can't found info on it, online !
Help !--Brown Shoes22 18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding info regarding a second film should be done using SOME level of citation. thanks. ThuranX 06:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate Avengers Movie 

message: I'm not as keen to spotting old Marvel characters as some, so if someone who has issue nine could please loosely identify the unnamed five other members of the anti-Ultimates team? I'm sure someone can recognize the center character from Captain America history, but remember, he was addressed as "Colonel". Crimson Dynamo was also named, and even though the Abomination wasn't, it's a safe bet by appearances. --Godhumanmonster 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. the Red Guardian was killed in a battle with Captain America in Russia when they went to retrieve The Vision. He'd sewn his suit from Human skins, but that was clearly the Ultimate Red Guardian.ThuranX 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's possible to have multiple characters with the same name. Marvel has done that before. Also, the Ultimate Red Guardian encountered in Ultimate Nightmare was an experiment that was never finished and that was abandoned when the soviet employers stopped paying the bills. It is not unthinkable that they would start up a new project capable of destroying Captain America after he was found alive. The fact that they have already encountered one Red Guardian does not rule out the chance of them encountering another. (Remember that S.H.I.E.L.D. is also trying to build more Captain America's) Robje 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough. Please start signing your posts though?ThuranX 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coalition members" in Ultimates 2 #9 

message: Shouldent Deathlok be on the list of people held in Triskelion? They fought and overpowered him in Ultimate Spiderman #70 and he was taken into custody. --Robje 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathlok 

message: So I was reading the comic earlier... And I noticed that Thors hammer is no longer a hammer but an axe now. Whats with that?
:It's still a hammer, but with an axe attachment on the other side of the hammer head so it can be used as both. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, having an axe blad officially makes it an axe, although I forget the exact name for the type of axe. - SoM 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ultimate universe version is much more faithful to the style Mjolnir was in the legends. It's a battlehammer, as opposed to a mallet, which is basically a block of stone or metal used for smithing, etc. Basically, they went with a more traditional look, instead of the mallet version which has been popularized by the mainstream comic. Cybertooth85 03:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thor's "hammer". 

message: I'd like to suggest that essentially this entire section be expunged. It's talking about characters and events from other comics, which can only serve to further clutter this already lenghty article. --InShaneee 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: I move to add Falcon to this. We've seen Sam Wilson and his wing-pack deployed repeatedly on missions by Fury and workign in conjunction with the team. Whether or not there's been a clear in-panel 'you're an ultimate now' or not, it's clear he's got some status within the team. ThuranX 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded--TylerXKJ 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ironically, I did this a couple days ago, just before i finally got a seconding on this. decided to 'be bold'.ThuranX 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserves 

message: Wasnt she killed by longshot when he escaped? Also, may i suggest we move all the topics about who is or isnt held in Triskelion under one heading? It should clear this place up a bit. --Robje 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Deathstrike 

message: Seems to be a needless split to provide more detail on the story arcs. CovenantD 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already cut the story arcs back quite a bit before the merge. I would think that the Relationship to other Ultimate Marvel characters section would be the most obvious candidate for a cut back. --Iron Ghost 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Story arc section needs to be cut down tremendously still.  I removed most of the trivia, leaving only the notable bits as they pertain to the Ultimates or Ultimates.  Agreed that the relationship section could be cut down as well.  --Newt ΨΦ 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah ok I said cut down the Trivia but you did kind of do a wee bit of over kill there. ≈ Seraph 31 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overkill?  Not really.  Trivia is trivial information, which means it's not notable.  Most of these things like Jarvis calling Stark "Master Bruce" is cute or clever to fans, but not really informative or necessary for understanding the subject, and thus not part of this project.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to give a real world perspective on fictional works, not list everything that happens in the books down to the clever little fan easter eggs.  The edit I made was reasonable. --Newt ΨΦ 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All I would say is that just because story arcs is the longest section, doesn't mean that it needs the most cutting back. After all, along with the characters section, story arcs should be the core of the article; whereas sections like trivia and relationships with other Ultimate Marvel characters are far more peripheral and should probably be cut back in preference to the more important sections. --Iron Ghost 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story arcs section needs to be cut down because it's against Wikipedia policy (see #7), as the summary offers no secondary analysis nor real world perspective and merely serves to treat the character as a real person, not a phenomenon. It also is not transformative, keeping the copyrighted fiction in nearly the same form (though admittedly without pictures) and thus breaking copyright or at the very least making fair use difficult to argue. --Newt ΨΦ 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really clear on why all of the Ultimates articles have these "relationships with other characters" sections. It just doesn't seem that necessary, and it belongs in the Ultimate Marvel Universe article if anywhere. --Chris Griswold 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there in the start because the Ultimate Marvel wasn't very big (compared with 616 it's still really small) but over time it's grew and has pretty much took on a life of it's own. I do agree that for the most part the "relationships with other characters" could bescraped. Rather than the four paragraphs for Spider-man it could simply read, "The Ultimates have helped Spider-man out on ocation. Fury has made it clear that Peter will have to join the Ultimates when he comes of age." What more needs to be said? ≈ Seraph 31 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TRUTH! --Chris Griswold 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from List of Ultimates story arcs 

message: *Keep Seperate but cut down some for relevance. --InShaneee 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I've made some fairly substantial cuts to the Annual and Grand Thief America sections. The Annual section in particular was far to long for a single issue summary. In my opinion, the summaries for the first three arcs are pretty concise and should probably not be cut back to much. --Iron Ghost 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already cut the story arcs back quite a bit before the merge. I would think that the Relationship to other Ultimate Marvel characters section would be the most obvious candidate for a cut back. --Iron Ghost 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Story arc section needs to be cut down tremendously still.  I removed most of the trivia, leaving only the notable bits as they pertain to the Ultimates or Ultimates.  Agreed that the relationship section could be cut down as well.  --Newt ΨΦ 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah ok I said cut down the Trivia but you did kind of do a wee bit of over kill there. ≈ Seraph 31 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overkill?  Not really.  Trivia is trivial information, which means it's not notable.  Most of these things like Jarvis calling Stark "Master Bruce" is cute or clever to fans, but not really informative or necessary for understanding the subject, and thus not part of this project.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to give a real world perspective on fictional works, not list everything that happens in the books down to the clever little fan easter eggs.  The edit I made was reasonable. --Newt ΨΦ 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All I would say is that just because story arcs is the longest section, doesn't mean that it needs the most cutting back. After all, along with the characters section, story arcs should be the core of the article; whereas sections like trivia and relationships with other Ultimate Marvel characters are far more peripheral and should probably be cut back in preference to the more important sections. --Iron Ghost 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story arcs section needs to be cut down because it's against Wikipedia policy (see #7), as the summary offers no secondary analysis nor real world perspective and merely serves to treat the character as a real person, not a phenomenon. It also is not transformative, keeping the copyrighted fiction in nearly the same form (though admittedly without pictures) and thus breaking copyright or at the very least making fair use difficult to argue. --Newt ΨΦ 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really clear on why all of the Ultimates articles have these "relationships with other characters" sections. It just doesn't seem that necessary, and it belongs in the Ultimate Marvel Universe article if anywhere. --Chris Griswold 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there in the start because the Ultimate Marvel wasn't very big (compared with 616 it's still really small) but over time it's grew and has pretty much took on a life of it's own. I do agree that for the most part the "relationships with other characters" could bescraped. Rather than the four paragraphs for Spider-man it could simply read, "The Ultimates have helped Spider-man out on ocation. Fury has made it clear that Peter will have to join the Ultimates when he comes of age." What more needs to be said? ≈ Seraph 31 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TRUTH! --Chris Griswold 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox Guidelines

message: There seems to be some confusion as to how to classify the Ultimates. I say yes, The Ultimates are a divison of SHIELD under the command of the head of SHIELD just like PSY-Ops, Black Ops and Weapon X was. Fury mentions moving Hawk-Eye and Widow from black ops(probably an informal name) to the public team(The Ultimates)Bushido Brown 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimates a division of SHIELD? 

message: I am planning to heavily edit this article. Based on the WP:CMC editorial guidelines, the overly detailed character biographies and the plot summary should be condensed, partially because no outside sources have been cited to examine the copyrighted material being discussed in-depth. This among the things I will be working on, in addition to copy editing and fixing the tense. I didn't want to do it and then have an edit war. Make any comments you'd like here. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare character bios agaisnt 'ultimate so-and-so' subsectiosn at the character pages, and port over any data here which is not there as you go. Otherwise, about time this got shortened. ThuranX 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a lot of editing to the wording and flow of this article, if you don't like it change it back, but it think it makes more sense now. Captaincanuck65 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YOu don't need to reinforce the Out of Universe style by using phrases like "They 'exist'", or by recapping the Ultimate Marvel Universe, right after its' link. you linked a lot fo stuff that didn't need it, and spent a lot of time resummarizing linked things, which could be jsut clicked on. A lot of what you added was fluff, extra words that aren't needed. As such, I re-reverted it.  ThuranX 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intended cleanup 

message: This article appears to be about the Ultimates series rather than just the team, right? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, a few months ago, there was a merge of the story arcs into the main article. I think, given that, that we should keep the page about both the team and their exploits. I think we can, however, ease back the bios on the characters, shunting most of the material about their powers and abilities and differences from the 616 to their character pages. We can keep a brief character summary, as well as any relevant info about their participation and influence with the team (Iron man no longer funds as much, shield does; Thor's more detached nature; Hawkeye's revised origins, so on.)ThuranX 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: I noticed that the article refers to Thor as possessing "a degree of omniscience". I'd rather not change the article directly but propose that this be changed to "prescience" or "clairvoyance". Omniscience, etymologically, means "knowledge of everything". "All-knowing" and "Omniscient" are synonymous. "A degree of omniscience" seems to me a contradiction in terms. Babel2675 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your're right: It is. Please makre corrections where appropriate. Thanks. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on "Omniscience" 

message: Isn't it important to note that The Triskelion has been breached multiple times in its short history despite being the S.H.I.E.L.D. and Ultimates H.Q.? I count at least five times. Once in Ultimate War, Ultimate Six, Ultimate Extinction, in Ultimate X-Men's Magnetic North arc, and in the last arc of Ultimates 2.
:Not necessarily.  Not unless the Triskelion is purported to be impregnable.  Also, that would be considered a synthesis of information that, without reference to a reputable source making the claim, would constitute original research. Also, please sign your comments. --NewtΨΦ 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The instances can be cited to the individual issues, but I see the point. However, it seems as though most of the information in the article concerns only the events of the Ultimates' namesake series. That's entirely appropriate, but the Ultimates frequently appear in other Ultimate Marvel titles, sometimes taking starring roles in limited series. Shouldn't those events be mentioned in the article somewhere?CovertSomnophore 02:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Triskelion 

message: Whoever thought Loki was wearing a trenchoat in Ultimates 2 #1 was wrong. I have the issue, and he's clearly wearing a green suit over a light green shirt and gray pants. He's not grinning, either, because his mouth is almost flat and you can't see his teeth.
For the record, Loki isn't a member of the super-human task force that excelled in the super-terror trials, codenamed the Liberators. If the statment concerning the climactic final battle in New York is supposed to be current, I must point out that Perun was missing in action during issue #12 of Ultimates 2, and all the other official Liberators have been killed (with the possible exception of the Schizoid Man, because I'm not really sure if Cap actually killed all those duplicates.) CovertSomnophore 03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What can you cite stating his is NOT a member? He makes a comment about assembling the group, and speaking out of storyline, there's a clear matching of ultimate to liberator, except loki, who would, in theory, shift the balance to tthe liberators. I can't see that we should accept that he assembled and led that team, yet conswider him not a part of it. ThuranX 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the burden of proof lies with stating what Loki IS a member of, not of all the things he is not. I must point out the in issue #10 of Volume 2, there is a summary of each Liberator's history and benefits to the group, and Loki is not mentioned at all either during the briefing. In issue #12, Loki isn't sure what the Crimson Dynamo's name is. Loki's stated mission is simply to cause mayhem; he needn't join any group, such as the Liberators, in order to do so, as he said he has already been using his powers "behind-the-scenes." I have seen no such comment about Loki actually assembling the Liberators. Issue #10 makes it clear the Liberators were assembled by a plethora of nations. The only thing that implies Loki is a Liberator is his companionship to the group during the invasion, and the Colonel's obediance to Loki's order to execute the U.S. superhumans. Still, these things do not certify Loki is a Liberator.CovertSomnophore 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loki 

message: Hi, I was just lost there when i read U_v2_12. I mean in earlier issues they were the baddest thing to hit the comic timelines and in few issues they are all dead? and just like that? i mean they have kept red skull for 50 years and almost every other villian is kept alive for future's sake. now we were given really nasty villian guys and then we waited for three months or so and then they just died? 
i mean it was a set up. like they were killed like an excuse for delay. I bet mark had been viewing the net for comments thats why he added the light saber comment as a reply of the fans.
i don't know, man, I am just .... actually waiting for THOR to kick LOKI's a$$!!!
Danraz 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your interest in this article, however please limit your comments to issues pertaining specifically to the article.  --NewtΨΦ 14:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weren't Librators easy? 

message: I combed through the Grand Theft America arc and noticed someone went through and injected their own opinions into the story. I fixed it, and hope it isn't reverted back. I own the comics, and nowhere in Ultimates 12 does anyone mention aything about fights and dogs. Let this be a reminder not to chronicle anything that isn't in the material itself.
Also, along similar lines, whoever added that Stark's brain tumor may be a major plot element in Ultimates 3 seriously needs to source that statement before putting it in. And while I'm questioning people's information, I'd like to ask everyone where is it said Quicksilver and Wanda are mutant supremacists? I've seen them in Ultimates, Ultimate War, and Magnetic North, and they didn't say anything about mutant supremacy there. From what I've read, they reigned in the Brotherhood's extremism. I'd like more evidence than Pietro's "primates" comment in Ultimates 2 #2.CovertSomnophore 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing 

message: I hacked out the part because it was not only bloated, but also an obvious violation of WP:WAF and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a plot summary). It can be remerged in the "publication history" section, if you add concrete real-life data (publishing dates, artists, other sourced info) -Onomatopoeia 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright infringement is a pretty big deal here, and standalone articles that do nothing but regurgitate plot are something we are now trying to weed out. I truly do not intend to cause you offense here; instead, I would like to offer my assistance whenever you have a question about something on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to comics-related articles. I know you're new, so you may want to read the WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Plot_summaries:
In order to justify the fair use of copyrighted material, plot discussions must be concise summaries, not detailed abridgments that can serve as a substitute for the reading of the actual story...Editors should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries, annotated or otherwise...Plot summaries should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles. WP:NOT states: 'Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series.' In general, articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources."
I am going to delete the plot summaries article now. I hope you will understand this situation, and if not, please do ask any questions you might have. This is not to spite you at all; this is to preserve the project by observing its guidelines.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story arcs need to be reworked 

message: Ever since Ant-Man appeared in Ultimate Fantastic Four #25 to battle Namor with the rest of the Ultimates, (albeit as a virtual manifestation,) I've been wondering if that meant Hank would be back on the team. I'm a little fuzzy with the continuity between Ultimate FF and Ultimates. I've just read Ultimate Power #2, and Ant-Man drops in with the Ultimates to fight the Sqaudron. Does this mean Hank will be back on the team following Ultimates 2? It seems that way. Maybe his section should be edited to reflect this?CovertSomnophore 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ant-Man 

message: Why are they considered a parody/doppleganger of the Ultimates as opposed to the Avengers? Spiderman and Wolverine have never been members of the Ultimates but have been members of the Avengers. Shouldn't the mention of Maximums be removed from this article and perhaps added to the Avengers (comics) article. --Bushido Brown 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is a very strong parody of the Ultimates. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain --Bushido Brown 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a source on either comparison? --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If nothing else, the Maximums speak in the lower-case text that the Ultimate comic line uses. Plus there's the minor thing that "maximum" and "ultimate" mean similar things, whereas "maximum" and "avenge" don't. Kelvingreen 16:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Ultimate lines uses lowercase letters; most other comics use only uppercase. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While i can see and appreciate that Maximum and Ultimate mean the same thing, while avenge does not I think you forgetting that "Supreme" can also be seen as meaning the same thing as Maximum and Ultimate. Name wise "Maximum"s still seems like a play on Squadron "Supreme" both being dopplegangers of established jealously defended teams with frequent character rotations from the rival company. Team roster wise Maximums resembles New Avengers far more than it resembles the Ultimates Bushido Brown 08:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read it, it's clear who they are mocking. The characters more closely match their 616 counterparts physically, but clearly have their Ultimate Universe version attitudes. ThuranX 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximums 

message: Does anyone know when the next issue (volume 2, issue 13) is gonna come out?82.36.74.12 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue 13