Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics)

message: Too many cleanup issues to be a b class article, although it is certainly a start.  The Vision is not a global icon, nor a top tier Marvel character, so the importance of the character is not great. Hiding Talk  21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The sections detailing the fictional biographies are overly long, at conflict with Wikipedia not being a plot summary resource, and are written in an in-universe style.  The information should be sourced in real world detail and migrated to the publication history section, in accordance with the manual of style.  The information as currently presented is more suited to a more in-universe based resource, such as the Marvel Database. Hiding Talk  21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

message: Again, please discuss any contentious changes here.  Any edit someone else reverts is, by its very nature, contentious.  If you are unwilling to achieve a consensus, then one of two things will happen - one, you seek further opinion (via such venues as WP:RFC or WP:3O), or two, people start getting blocked for tendentious editing.  I do not want to see people blocked, so please start discussing your issues. Neil ム 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things have greatly improved since the previous edit war, I think. Now Asgardian is only fighting with the rest of the editors over a rather few changes. I think the article is not at all improved by Asgardian's changes, but if he feels very strongly about them then the way to make them stick and avoid an edit war is to deliberately justify each one individually on the talk page. That way we can reach a compromise where some changes can proceed unopposed and some can be dropped and in the end we will have a more stable article. It seems that Asgardian enjoys edit-warring, but surely he still has the best interest of the article at heart and would prefer a resolution to this. -- Lilwik 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that at least two editors have now reverted Asgardian's change to the second Vision's subhead. And, to concur with Lilwik, I don't know about his enjoying it, but Asgardian does has indeed left a record trail of contentiousness and edit-warring. --Tenebrae 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "enjoys" I only meant that he does a very large amount of it. I have no idea how he really feels about it and I meant no offense. In contrast, I never make an edit that I think might be reverted, so I can't participate in this edit war. If I were to participate, I would certainly fight against Asgardian. The article that he is pushing on us seems inferior. If we could start a discussion about which changes he feels are most important, I'm sure we could reach a compromise. -- Lilwik 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Enjoys? As in enjoys having to tell people who should know better that a shot of a model in a SHB isn't going to cut it? Or that OHOTMU references are invalid? Or that huge recaps of video games are best left to a fan site? That kind of enjoys? 
Hmmm...
Asgardian 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. If you spent more time telling people things instead of edit warring you'd probably accomplish more but as it is you seem far more active in the article than in the talk page. If you're having a hard time making controversial changes stick in the article, the solution is to convince people that your changes are the right ones. -- Lilwik 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-warring redux 

message: Vision makes an appereance in the horde of zombies in Ultimate Fantastic Four #23. Since it's such a perplexing appereance (he's a robot, not human) I'm wondering if it's even worth noting. Lots42 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was just pictured once as a face in a crowd and had no impact on the story, then I don't think it is worth mentioning. -- Lilwik 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --Tenebrae 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points all, but in the 'Marvel Zombies Vs. Army of Darkness', Ash mentions seeing a zombie cyborg. I know, I know, not much more impact. Lots42 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if he specifically mentions a cyborg and not a robot, a cyborg has organic components so I guess theoretically it could become a zombie.207.237.208.153 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zombie...Vision? 

message: : Since it has been agreed on that 3/4 shots do not cut the mustard, I would like to propose something such as this: http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/avengers/4
It is a lovely cover with full body; the Vision using his solar jewel; objects clearly passiong through him and a statement from the character that he is not human  - all perfect for the layman. Also tidied up lead; trimmed Last Avengers Story mention as it "tells the story" and the lengthy description in the SHB's as all this is in the P & A sections. 
Asgardian (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, in thinking about it the Last Avengers Story is really just a possible future, not a set Alternate version.
Asgardian (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is an alternate future, it should be included as it depicts an alternate version of the character.  Unless you plan on removing all instances of, for example, X-Men from possible futures ("What If...?", Age of Apocalypse, Days of Future Past, X-Men: The End, Here Comes Tomorrow, etc.) this stays, otherwise it would be an anomaly in comparison to possible future depictions and entries of other Marvel characters.Luminum (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Not all Alternate versions for ever character are listed, as that becomes far too problematic. A sentence or two is adequate as we are just citing the fact that the story exists, not retelling it in verbose fashion.
Asgardian (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Glad you felt it was "verbose." *sighLuminum (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There are multiple shots of the Vision in "full body" mode available. What we now need to do is select one for use in the SHB. You cannot find fault with this, having supported such a view on the Sandman page, and having just backed a similar action on the Quicksilver page. It doesn't necessarily have to be the cover of Avengers #194 - although near perfect (transparency a non-issue) - but it is reasonable to push for a full body shot. Otherwise, I can only assume that your actions will reflect attempted ownership. Now, just as the SHB box for Quicksilver was left blank whilst discussions were underway, I think it fair that the same happen here. 
Asgardian (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you want to use this image?--DrBat (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Whoa...that's eerie. I was looking at that and thought it was a very good shot. I also know where that comes from.
Asgardian (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, especially if one of you have the sourcing for it. Sadly another good one in the thumbs there isn't usable - the full body statuette. - J Greb (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SHB and other matters 

message: In this section, as with Games etc, all that is required is the mention that they exist and there was an appearance. That is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. A mini-synopisis of a film, game etc can get very fannish quickly and in most cases usually is. These efforts also often contain POV as the editor focuses on what they feel is important.
If someone were to delete an entire appearance, I would have issue with it, as they need to be cited and categorised. Hope that helps. 
Asgardian (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Details of a character's actual role in a film, cartoon, and video game is within the article on the work itself or one of its subpages. DCincarnate (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD 

message: The Vision's design looks strikingly similar to the Timely version. Does someone have any better info about the inspiration than my Original Research, that could be added to the article? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspiration or tribute?

message: I think there should be a mention of the Vision's role in the Earth X series in the "Other Versions" section. He plays a pivotal part in the events of the first Earth X comic and survives a fight where most of the other Avengers were killed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.103.94 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth X

message: Since there has been much speculation by fans about whether Agent Coulson is going to become the Vision, I was wondering whether this should be included in this article's film section since it has been abuzz on the internet. Especially since Marvel Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada has commented on it.
:article
:original source Ωphois 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agent Coulson 

message: Okay, I'm not going to risk editing this page because I know nothing about comics and I'm assuming people have strong feelings about this article, but at a glance it doesn't seem to make any sense for this article to talk about the Timely character. There's no connection between them except the same name and the fact they were both published by Marvel several decades apart, right? This is exactly what hatnotes are for, so you can say "If you're looking for this other character, go to this other article." You don't have to include paragraphs in this article about a completely separate and unrelated topic, simply because someone could come to the wrong article looking for that topic. (I'm not going to watch this posting, so if you need to address me please let me know on my Talk page.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timely version 

message: I went ahead and replaced this image as it has been digitally altered from its original without the author's permission. Also cover art is less intrusive on copyrights as they are prominently displayed for marketing purposes without having to purchase the product.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Vision- Marvel.jpg]] 

message: This article seems to suggest that there were 2 Visions around at the same time (the Iron Lad version and the original).  Is this true?Coemgenv (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two visions 

message: Is it worth adding a couple sentences about the Vision's role in AoU? There have been a couple revisions, and while I agree that what was written was overlong, I think a smaller blurb would be clarifying. ACB Smith (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Film Description

message: So I found out the hard way I can't use other wikis as citations and that's understandable, however, since the games in question are defunct, they seem to be the only sources available to site the information beyond their own Wikipedia entries, whose own respective references are all broken links at this point. I wouldn't want to delete the entries entirely since there's no reason to believe any of them aren't true, I'm just not sure how I would go about putting any citations there now. StuOnThis (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Citations 

message: In Tales to Astonish #61 (Nov 1964), Egghead makes an android to fight Giant Man (Henry Pym). It can be light enough to float or heavy as lead and strong as metal. Just like the Vision Pym later made.(185.239.56.131 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: An early android

message: The publication history contains a lot of stuff about the fictional history and the fictional history is way too long. -- Beardo (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication history / fictional history