Talk:Eddie Brock/Archive 1

message: The article, as is, needs some heavy copy editing. It is far too long, with many unneccessary details. Unfortunately, there are far too few details in the character history section. Important events such as the birth of Carnage and the other symbiote spawn are missing.
The section on the creator controversy is only tangentially relevent to the character information and would be much more suited for a separate article. There are already articles in existence about the Spider-Man movies, so we don't need to discuss them in depth here. Etc.--66.188.137.248 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to this article

message: Stop changing my corrections.  Now maybe I haven't put enought info on Ultimate Venom, Carnage, and Rhino, but instead of deleting my corrections, add stuff I haven't added.  I think wikipedia works better if most of these articles are as precise as possible.
:Who are you and what are your "corrections"?  --Newt ΨΦ 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, though I agree with the action.  Please sign your comments.  Actually, please register and sign your comments.  --Newt ΨΦ 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sign your comments by adding ~~~~ after them.  Consensus among editors of comic book articles is to keep ultimate articles in their main continuity counterparts' articles.  If you'd like to change that, this is not the place.  Go to the WP:COMIC talk page and bring it up there.  If you want to understand more about editing comic book articles, read Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance and WP:WAF.  That will set you in the right direction. --Newt ΨΦ 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Four Villains, including Sandman, Venom, Goblin, and someone else. Avi Arad said that. --Kozmik Pariah 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spider Man 3

message: Most every source says that the first appearance of Venom is Amazing #299.  But the info box on the Venom (Eddie Brock) page says that it's #298, and I have heard that a few other places also.  The page here shows the frame from 299 which to my knowledge was the first real appearance.  What happened in 298?  Andrewdoane 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also Web of Spider-Man #18, in which an unseen stranger pushes Peter onto subway tracks without setting off the spider-sense. This was intended to be the cameo appearance before the first appearance of the female Venom character in the next issue. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which comic had first appearance?

message: It is perhaps not coincidental that this dispute arose at a time when artists such as McFarlane and Larsen were enjoying a great deal of popularity and clout with readers, and exploiting their popularity by publishing creator-owned books with their new company, Image Comics, and it is possible that this issue was a subtext of the greater debate over the importance of writers versus artists that was being waged in the industry at the time.
This seems grossly inadequate.  The only reason John Bryne is involved in this discussion at all is that there was a vicious Bryne/McFarlane feud at the time.  I'm starting to wish I kept issues of Wizard from the early 90s, but John Byrne would write angry responses to McFarlane's column in Wizard.  McFarlane would put thinly veiled jabs at Bryne in the note from the author section of Spawn.  It's irresponsible to bring Bryne into the discussion at all without explaining the situation.
:In the introduction to (at least) the current edition of the Secret Wars trade paperback, Jim Shooter claims that at least some of the idea for Spider-Man's costume came from a fan who had written in years earlier with what struck him as a good idea so he brought it. However it should be noted that Shooter is particularly hostile to Byrne - the same introduction also brings up the story of Byrne using a scene in an issue of Fantastic Four to retcon a prominent Chris Claremont X-Men story featuring Doctor Doom to explain it was really a robot (using some extremely petty "the real Doom wouldn't have done that in that panel" reasoning), though he doesn't actually name the two writers.
:And another confusing bit:
:Writer Peter David corroborated this notion in his But I Digress column in the June 4, 1993 Comics Buyer’s Guide, in which he related that Michelinie discussed the ideas behind the character with David, since at the time, David was the writer on The Spectacular Spider-Man who wrote the Sin Eater story from which Eddie Brock's back story would be derived, long before McFarlane was assigned to the art duties on Amazing. 
:Brock doesn't actually appear in the Sin-Eater storyline itself so I reckon this is either a "do you mind if I add to your story" consultation or a Spidey writers' conference. I'm also not sure which title David was on at the time Venom arrived - by the time of publication I tink he'd left Spectacular and was being courted as a regular writer for Web. Of more note is that in Web #18 and #24 there are moments when Peter Parker is attacked by an unseen opponent who hasn't set off his Spider-sense and who is later revealed as Venom - clearly a sign that Michelinie (then writing that book - almost every regular Spidey writer seems to have shuffled round the titles!) had something in the pipeline at the time, clearly before McFarlane was given the Amazing asignment. Timrollpickering 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creator of Venom 

message: Before, this idea was knocked out as "vandalism" or being "stupid." However, whether it was stupid or not, it was still a major feature of the character's development.
The drug that the symbiote needed was phenethylamine, which is a real chemical really found in both animals (though I haven't done research to see if it was speicifically in brain tissue) and in chocolate. It's quite common, actually, which is a bend in the reality for Marvel.
However, since this particular quirk was an issue for all the miniseries appearances of Venom after The Hunger, (in Lethal Protector he is given chocolate by the government as part of the arrangement), it seems a bit ignorant and/or petty to remove it from the front wiki.
Just my two bits.
===Agreed.===
I was talking it out with SoM (the remover) and he says it lacked sources. I've since found numerous people confirming the Hunger miniseries fact, and thing it can be added back now, maybe with the provision that it says that the point rarely appeared afterwards.
This is not a major feature of Venom. It was brought up once only during The Hunger, addressed (he's fine as long he eats chocolate) and hasn't been used again. It's not pivotal, and its exclusion wouldn not be missed. QuestionMark 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chocolate/Brains issue, revisited 

message: I was talking it out with SoM (the remover) and he says it lacked sources. I've since found numerous people confirming the Hunger miniseries fact, and thing it can be added back now, maybe with the provision that it says that the point rarely appeared afterwards.
This is not a major feature of Venom. It was brought up once only during The Hunger, addressed (he's fine as long he eats chocolate) and hasn't been used again. It's not pivotal, and its exclusion wouldn not be missed. QuestionMark 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed.

message: Does anyone else see the irony in this statement (regarding IMDb listing Topher Grace as Venom in Spiderman 3):
...this cannot be taken as fact since IMDB is a free-access site that can be edited by various sources.
--Don Don 06:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fairly hypocritical for someone editing a wiki. --Viridis 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that we cannot rely on other wikis/free-access sites for verifiable facts. That's why we ask for reputable sources, cross-referencing, etc. We do it internally/informally all the time, but we're not allowed to reference Wikicities, pbWiki, etc... -- nae'blis (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic 

message: I've asked User:24.228.52.76 not to revert through my copyediting and to discuss his issues with the substantive text on the Talk page before reimplementing it. He ignored this request and reverted with no discussion on the Talk page, with me, or (as far as I know) with T-1000. He has also included no explanation in his edit summaries. I propose a policy of reverting similar changes on sight unless some discussion is attempted. Please note I have no knowledge of the dispute nor interest in it beyond the fact that User:24.228.52.76 reverted twice through basic copyediting, which I find rude. I invite editor comment and consensus. --MikeJ9919 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. As I said, I have no knowledge about the actual source material behind the dispute. I just ask that you be more selective in your reversion. If the other editors believe your version is more accurate, I'd be happy to copyedit the text for you. Please try to be more civil, though. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, and we assume that other editors are trying to include the most accurate information possible. --MikeJ9919 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I forgotten about the 3RR rule, but User:24.228.52.76 has revert again very soon after his ban expired and has continued to try to push for his point of view. Something needs to be done about this. T-1000 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: even so, the non canon stuff about Superman needs to be removed. Also needs to mention Venom was mutated. T-1000 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: I'd like to move the discussion down here for a final consensus, so we can avoid having two discussions ongoing in the "Powers" section and the "Reverting" section above. I'd like to thank Viridis for his compromise, and endorse it along with T-1000's  minor changes. I've made some very slight flow changes, as well as adding the actual name of the additional symbiote / sentient toxic waste, the Mercurial Virus. I would not mind a mention of the Superman / Venom fight, as long as it's made clear that there is no evidence that this crossover is considered canon. Otherwise, I endorse this version as a consensus compromise. Anyone else? --MikeJ9919 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I'm always surprised by how quickly these things seem to resolve themselves. Apparently everyone's happy with this version.--MikeJ9919 04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers and Abilities Consensus 

message: Per WP:CMC, Ultimate character articles should be merged into the articles of their Marvel U. counterparts.
===Survey===
*Merge --Chris Griswold 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nagotiater, never delete comments from talk pages.  See WP:TPG --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: *Merge --Chris Griswold 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Nowhere near enough information yet for a new article. --Newt ΨΦ 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nagotiater, never delete comments from talk pages.  See WP:TPG --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm trying to edit it a bit but I'm having trouble since I can't tell if its for Brock, the Symbiote, the combination that creates Venom or what.  The symbiote itself isn't called Venom I don't think, but the combination of Brock and the symbiote is.  Its worse because other characters are being called Venom because they are using the symbiote so then do you follow the symbiotes progress or Brocks? Darkwarriorblake 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is this article for

message: Theres a lot of family info on eddie brock.  Now personally I think its kind of important but I also think its out of place where it is, does anyone have any advice?  Perhaps an article should be created for Eddie Brock.  His existence is basically as Venom but Venoms history is possibly TOO full to contain info on the human side of the host.Darkwarriorblake 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. Eddie Brock is pointless without Venom and does not deserve its own article. --Chris Griswold  (☏) 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supporting characters and characters using a title of succession have their own article. Which's the difference, exactly? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a lot of characters (minor and supporting) have articles that don't need them.  It's kinda spiraled out of control.  Regardless.  Who's been Venom other than Eddie Brock that doesn't have their own article already?  Fortunato?  There's not enough about him for an article.  Scorpion and Spider-Man already have their own articles.  --NewtΨΦ 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't think there's enough material to have a Venom article, an Eddie Brock article and a Symbiote article.  Can anyone think of a good way to combine them or separate them to minimize overlap? --NewtΨΦ 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean there already is a symbiote article.  Maybe the Brock stuff can just be moved somewhere else in the section to make more sense.  Its just where it is, between Bio and Venom 2 and 3 it looks out of place.Darkwarriorblake 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the symbiote article is about the species. This is about one symbiote and its hosts. I definitely don't think rich boy needs his own article, but Eddie's got the history to make it work. We could make this article more focused on the symbiote and give Eddie a separate article. Whatever the case, I agree that something should be done to make things clearer. Also, for the record, the symbiote is a separate entity and thus a separate character. I wouldn't propose the same thing for, say, Toxin, but eddie and the symbiote are somewhat like Nightmare and Siegfried Schtauffen. Other continuity appearances might get tricky, though I'd take a note from The Goblin named Harold and list them in the proposed Eddie article. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbiotes share traits though, personality and natural instincts so the symbiote article covers it fairly well and what it does as 'Venom' is covered well and adequately here.  Fortunato certainly doesn't need an article.  Eddie may not even need one if someone can just think of a better way to work him into this one.  There's no template that I've seen in the comic project that shows how to deal with two entities that make up a singular character.Darkwarriorblake 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my point was if we had an Eddie Brock article, it would be too much.  We already have a Venom and a Symbiote article.  There should be some way to work this out so that no new article is needed.  --NewtΨΦ 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that a little unreasonable? The symbiote (comics) article is about the whole species. Yes, admittedly it focuses on this article's symbiote to an extant, but that can be blamed on Venom being the first and most notible. In the case of Venom, we don't need to do a complete revamp/rewrite for this article; we'd just be moving large, separate but related content onto its own page. Look, what happens when a section gets too big? You make a separate article. This is the same deal. You see, to me, this might actually make it simpler. We could do this article like Robin (comics) and move all the Eddie-specific content to him. Yes, we'd have to clarify that "Venom" no longer refers to both and may change some links for consistancy, but I really think it could work. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really unreasonable.  I think that one other character without his own article has worn this particular symbiote doesn't necessarily merit the Venom symbiote having an article separate from Eddie Brock.  I could see separate articles, but I don't see them as necessary. --NewtΨΦ 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I know. It's just that the subject is complicated. Let me suggest something different a bit less radical. What if we kept this article as Venom, but made it devoted solely to Eddie Brock & the symbiote. Then, we move all the other hosts and stuff to a separate article ala She-Venom. How about..."History and hosts the Venom symbiote or...Other versions and hosts of Venom? We could keep this article largely the same, but remove all the excess stuff that isn't related to eddie. Ultimate Venom and other media appearances would stay here. Spidey's time with the symbiote would probably have to be in the new article rather than this one, but I'm insistant on that. What do you all think? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eddie

message: I changed the UV pic because you couldn't see anything but teeth and eyes.  If you disagree with the current picture I found/edited these two also.  IMO, I like the current one but I could understand complaints that you can't see the top of his face properly.  It does showcase his whole body though which I think is more beneficial for a picture.  Shows off the purple hue he seems to have in Ultimate.:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Ultimatevenom1002.jpg/180px-Ultimatevenom1002.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Ultimatevenom1002.jpg/180px-Ultimatevenom1003.jpg
Darkwarriorblake 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. Might be better to readd the other image, though, at least to compare his pre- and post-symbolized forms. Also, try not to upload images in excess. This isn't photobucket. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a matter of bandwidth. BTW, making them external links doesn't help much anyway. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate Venom

message: How did we go from Controversy over creator credit to Venom creator credit dispute.  Tell me which one makes more sense there from an English language stand-point.  You're also supposed to discuss/poll moves.  Again  Venom : Controversy Over Creator Credit makes more sense and sounds better than Venom creator credit dispute.  One sounds like its an addition to the Venom article, which it is.  The other...well just sounds lame.Darkwarriorblake 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to respect your POV on the matter, but an over capitalized title was inappropriate. Furthermore, "controversy" is a bit extreme. I don't recall cited claims of outcry. Further, I doubt either side is even still upset about it. "Dispute" is what it is. While I appreciate your attempts to help, I must disagree with some of your choices. As for polling, that's more of a last resort or at least something reserved for a very big decision, like...merging or deletion. Wikipedia is not a democrasy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creator credit

message: Nix one, no need for two at all.  My vote goes for keeping the newest one, looks cleaner, no logos and displays more of Venny.Darkwarriorblake 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Television Pictures

message: There's already a Venom (DC Comics), so the simple disambiguation (comics) in this pages title is inaccurate. I propose it be moved to Venom (Marvel). Any objections? --tjstrf 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll move it then. The "What links here?" is going to be a total pain to fix though. My original idea was that the Venom (comics) page be made a redirect to Venom (disambiguation) after fixing the links, but there are over 100 links. Meh, I guess I'll start on it and then redirect that after I finish. --tjstrf 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except you f@#*ed it up. Naming conventions say it should go to Venom (Marvel Comics). Next time try waiting more than 13 minutes between offering an idea and implementing it. CovenantD 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have required a requested move, as Venom (Marvel comics) was a redirect to this page already. Thanks for the eminently civil reply, btw. --tjstrf 00:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A redirect with only edit in it's history can still be moved to. I had to learn that the hard way. You made the mistake by "correcting" the link, thus giving the redirect a true history with two edits. Anyway, the character is far more notible than the drug. I mean...have you seen the Venom (DC Comics) article? Anyway, at best, we could just provide some dab stuff at the top of the article. Feh. Don't be too hard on them, Cap'n. I would have made similar mistakes last week if I felt as motivated to move the page.
Now then, I propose we leave things as they are for the time and discuss things further. (I know. I'm surprised I'd be the one saying that, too.) ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Chris. I agree. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: Please stop adding it, it's uneeded, basically just the same info as 616. UnDeRsCoRe 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: uLTIMATE cHARACTER Box

message: i don't think venom appeared in this game.69.148.51.254 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: enter electro

message: The attempt to paint Venom as having incalculable high superstrength borders on non-NOPV. He has rarely shown these strength levels. There is also no proof and Juggeruant being weaker than Superman, so it is not needed to mention both characters. Mentioning Superman in this article will also cause confusion that Superman and Venom are published by the same company.T-1000 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching this little war. Seems like you're the one with the biased POV. "Jug's not weak! He's not! Whaaaa!!" As Thanos stated, it was a company wide-crossover. And flucuating strength levels are a staple of comics, get used to it. The more characters mentioned the better, I'd say. Fighting one character who billed as "unstoppable" shouldn't be enough to prove Venom is strong. Now, state you want to clarify the statement, but if you want a ruling, Superman's name stays. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this statement is confusing to non-comics fans because it implies that Superman and Venom are published by the same company (The fact that is was a crossover was never mentioned in the article). Second, fighting Superman does not imply Flucuating strength-levels, because Superman always hold back. Third, Classic Juggy is listed as having "incalculably high" strength on the Marvel Handbook, so it is redundant to name another character who also has incalculalbly high strength. T-1000 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah, blah. I told you how to handle it. If you won't, I will. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said before, fighting Superman does not imply anything about the Character's strength, because he holds back. Also, fighting a super-strong character does not make you super-strong. T-1000 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall the fight, wasn't Superman being hurt by Venom's punches?  Kal-El can't "hold back" his durability. Thanos6 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Venom was trying to strangle Superman with his symbiote, and Superman was holding back because he didn't blast Venom. If you have proof of Venom actually hurting Superman with his punches, post it. T-1000 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superman

message: It would perhaps be nice to refocus the comics section of this away from fictional biography and towards a publishing history of the character - tracing his meteroric popularity in the 90s, the explosion of miniseries, etc. Phil Sandifer 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refocusing

message: It looks like it should really be part of this article - Venom (comics) doesn't have a "publication history" section yet, but if it had, that'd be the ideal place for this? --Mrph 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal - merge "[[Venom creator credit dispute]]" into this article

message: *Merge - --Mrph 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There was already one discussion about splitting it in the first place and it was done because it was a lot of text and a big chunk in the middle of a page, it is ok where it is and isn't harming anyone, I think bringing it back would make the article too big for a start and ugly for another Darkwarriorblake 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Discussion closed. Result was MERGE --Mrph 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: Seriously?  Alternate versions had sources for a start, were on this page for a second.  Jeez people, it was fine as it was weeks ago and its been totally boned in such a short time.  Whoever decided to edit the alternate versions and remove its sources don't ever edit anything ever again.  Put it back on this page also, don't know why you think you can just split it that way, especially when its unecessary but you can't.Darkwarriorblake 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill, man. You can't go around saying users should have their editting privilages revoked over something like this. Now, it's being discussed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Venom", if you're interested. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats been going on here?

message: I have a theory on how Venom changed from his TAS appearance to his Unlimited appearance. I think he was either fused with Carnage, hence both their dramatic changes in appearance, or it came around as some sort of side-effect of the time portal they were stuck in. The former might explain why Venom has powers like Carnage's own, and why Carnage now refers to himself as 'we' instead of 'I'.
Also I think it a little odd that Venom wanted to destroy Carnage in the TAS, but because the TAS and Spider-Man Unlimited remained unbridged, there is no explaination as to why Venom sides with Carnage, especially since Venom sees Carnage as a threat against the revenge Venom plans against Spidey. It is strangeand it goes against all other incarnations of the character! Ggctuk 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved discussion to the talk page of Spider-Man Unlimited. Ggctuk 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venom Unlimited 

message: Apparently, the Ultimate Venom article has returned, I think it is quite a shock, but so far no one is saying anything. 201.141.212.132 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on top of the article, thanks. Eddie Brock, jr. is gaining notibility from his appearance in Spider-Man 3. Plus, it's a lot better written now, I think. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Allowed" me? Before you do anything more, I'd recommend looking at Wikipedia's ownership policy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I notice you've just begun edit warring based on your POV rather than, say, addressing the similarities I mentioned above. Let me give it to you like this: one might disagree with the gay section of the Batman article, but several discussions on that talk page say it shouldn't be removed. Chill and don't worry. The article isn't damaged by having factual, verifible content. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're referring to. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's referring to the SHB he added that was subsequently removed per consensus by CovenantD. Saliere, you are mistaken, Ultimate Carnage does not have a superhero box, and shouldn't. --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate removal

message: Why have you deleted my info about the cybercomics?
  
- Venom appeares in the Spider-Man CyberComic Storyline #11 called "Venom Saga", where he frames Spider-Man for a murder.
:It's a fairly irrelevant, mundane, non-canon inhouse use of the character. It wasn't really other media, as it was in webcomic form. It also read like some sloppenly added "coming appearance" when it should be a fleshed out summary of any relevant events. (The arc concluded long before those webcomics died six years ago.) And like before, it just seem irrelevant. You're welcome to try again, but at least make it informative. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CyberComic

message: :Image:Venomoviepic7.png 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 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Venomoviepic7.png

message: Ultimate Venom's portion of this article has become quite long.  Like Ultimate Nick Fury and Ultimate Thor, Ultimate Venom is a vastly different character than it's 616 counterpart, so I think it would be best to create a new article for Ultimate Venom and just put a link from this think this is put into action.  134.68.177.127 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an idea isn't unreasonable - one thing to check before splitting is if it can be trimmed down first. If the size isn't due to unnecessary bloat then a split could be in order. (Emperor 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If the Ultimate Universe was some limited series, I'd agree.  But as it is, Venom is a reoccurring character in the Ultimate Universe and will only have more history added to it.  And as for there already being too many Venom articles, that's a different discussion altogether.  A clean up of all Venom articles would help, and a separate Ultimate Venom article would help, not hinder. 
In the effort of full disclosure, I was the one from the IP who originally proposed the split.
Notthegoatseguy 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a long established convention that Ultimate charactes do not recieve their own pages. The Thor example above should probably be merged into the main page or renamed to Alternate versions of Thor but thats another discussion.  An Alternate versions of Venom page would be ideal here as it could serve as a sub-page for both Venom (Eddie Brock) and Venom (comics). -- 69.182.73.240 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also established that Ultimate characters who diverge signifigantly from their 616 counterpart get their own pages too, as long as their role is signifigant enough to warrant it.  Thor, Nick Fury, and Venom all diverge greatly from the 616 character they are based on, similar to why Hulk 2099 and Spider-Man 2099 have their own pages.  Even after cleaning up this article and the Ultimate part, it will only get longer with Ultimates 3 set to be published soon.  You can look at the merge debates of Thor and Nick Fury on their respective talk pages as presedence of this.  Notthegoatseguy 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel you have a strong enough reason to split Ultimate Venom off you should bring it up on the Project talk board :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics so that other have a chance to engage in the discussion.  Established conventions shouldn't be broken on a per article basis. -- 69.182.73.240 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading one of your prior discussions on a massive merger (one was Dark Beast into Beast) and many editors said that the proper place is the individual talk pages, so the editors who have worked on the article can voice their opinions.  There is no need to seek elsewhere, since it's clear many That being said, creating a new Ultimate character page will attract some attention, so maybe I will put up a discussion there instead of going ahead with the split and then have an edit war start.  Notthegoatseguy 11:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often a good idea to post a note on the Comics Project talk page pointing people here to get more input on this as it can help avoid wasting your time if the broader consensus is not to split (because if so it'll only be merged back in). (14:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Venom 

message: I noticed someone tagged this article as a possible merge back to the main Venom article, but didn't say anything on the talk page.  It'd be nice to hear from them.
:That being said, the Ultimate Venom split debate has bought up that this article needs some cleaning up.  I honestly think the Fictional Character Biography section is a good length and should mostly be left alone.  However, the Personality section and Powers and Abilities can definately be trimmed down, along with the Spider-Man 3 section, the video game section (maybe cut entirely and just redirect to a List Of article?) and the Early Bibliography section should get cut entirely too.  That said, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks before deleting stuff entirely, but will start cleaning up the Powers and Personality section sometime later in the week.  Notthegoatseguy 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: :Image:Firstvenom.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 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Firstvenom.jpg

message: Discussion closed with consensus of no merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to Venom (comics)

message: Does anyone else really think this article is too long? It looks like a good length to me, especially for such a major character in comics. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat too long, but I'd wager most of that could be fixed with simple tightening and streamlining of language and removing vios, without cutting down on the factual material. Big job, though.... --Tenebrae (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright then. I'll try to trim down the Spidey 3 section and then I'm removing the too long tag, as once the Spidey 3 info is trimmed down, the article will be at about the right length for a character of this importance. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: Today Darkwarriorblake went and shortened the section on Spider-Man 3, as was discussed here. Then Alexfusco5 called these edits "vandalism?" Has this been sorted out? The section as Darkwarriorblake edited makes it concise and actually relevant. Before, it contained a lot of extra plot points and explanations from the movie which had NOTHING to do with Eddie Brock (this articles subject). To then call the edits vandalism when there is a tag on the article being too long. Danleary25 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it vandalism too shorten article? 

message: I'm not arguing with you, I apologise if you intrpret it that way.  The picture you're replacing it with was replaced with the current and has been that way for a considerably, very considerably long time, mainly because the one you're replacing it with is cluttered with other imagery and it doesn't clearly display Venom.  I've bettered the fair use for the other pic.  If you do want to use it, it might be more sensible to do so within the document itself particularly the start of his bio or publication history.
As for the intro, the intro is like an abstract from my understanding and should give a reader an overview of the document so that they can make a decision to read further and get more detail.  
EDIT: I am compromising with you, I did like a few of your last edits and kept them in and in some cases merged them with previous versions.  He is not a Junior though.  Never was.  You're confusing him with Ultimate Brock or movie Brock.  Either way its incorrect.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I wasn't aware that it said "junior" in the intro. DCincarnate (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dc

message: :Image:Ultimate venom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate venom.jpg

message: It's called Venom: Dark Origins, and it's coming out in August.  That'll add a few reference points to this article and/or help clear things up. :D 142.26.133.248 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Venom gets his own Comic

message: Is the 616 Eddie actually Eddie Brock Jr or is this someone confusing ultimate marvel with mainstream continuity?  Because I've never heard of Eddie being Eddie Brock Jr in 616.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Junior

message: There is someone who keeps removing the word 'fictional' in the lead for no reason at all. DCincarnate (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen that sort of thing happen with a lot of fictional articles. Just revert. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional character