Talk:Abomination (character)

message: I copied and pasted the bio on Blonsky and i added it. It needed a more intimate approach to a good character. Sorry to upset some of you. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you went back to before the overhaul, and brought all that back, on top of the overhaul? that's worse than either version alone. I'm reverting it. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Jeez. Sorry dude. Everybody needs to relax. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

text: yes, well, any attempt to alter it meets with a temper tantrum. Good luck. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character bio 

message: The addition of a sourced real world critical assessment of the character should be kept in the intro. While not substantive enough to start a full section of the article with, it immediately highlights the real-world notability of the character, which is required for any article on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it should be added to a "Reception" type section with refs and some information from those source(s), which should then be summarized in the lead. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Without such others ,it's better to leave it establishing notability in the lead. When, and if, we get more such content, then it certainly should be incorporated into the body of the article, but as it's currently the only such information, the rest having been exsanguinated months long, long ago, we have to use it in the best way we can. That would be establishing some aspects of real-world context and notability in the lead, so that new readers understand that he character has been noticed outside the in-universe. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro. 

message: Although two editors have worked to clean up the film section, Asgardian is reverting without any justification beyond the usual  he's right, everyone else should get off his page attitude. Asgardian, bring any problems HERE, or stop edit warring, which is what you are doing. Proof of that is in the fact that your last few reverts are so blanket in nature that you reintroduce spelling errors into the article, just to go back to your own earlier versions without examining the diffs between to find actual, completely non-objectionable, edits which should be retained. ThuranX (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are over-reacting. And to judge by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThuranX&action=edit§ion=95
Not getting any better at being civil.
Asgardian (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, linking to a guy who's in the process of getting a topic ban lashing out is your way of 'proving' anything about me? Instead of dealing with your edit warring, which you've been to the admins before about? Stop edit warring. discuss. BRD. two editors support a wording that you didn't write. Live with it. ThuranX (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: One, you may not in fact be supporting a great version. Two, the link shows, and does this conversation, your lack of Wiki-etiquette and civility. "Live with it" is not an acceptable response. Asgardian (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Civility threats aren't the same as addressing the issues behind the edits. Strawmen are good in farmer's fields, so please go outside and build them there. Otherwise, the content of the edits is what should be addressed here. That you are unable to do so after two requests says to me that you can't, so I think this topic is over. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Not a case of "can't", just don't wish to because you can't be civil. Asgardian (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't. Got it. Moving on now. ThuranX (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits. 

message: Would anyone mind if I added a subsection, within history, for the paragraph about the death of the character? I feel it is a very important detail in the history of the character, and as such, should be separated.
In addition, the bit about ign is most definitely not information about the fictional history of the character, and should be moved to the Media section, in an Internet subsection. If there are no objections, I will make these changes at the end of the day.
My apologies for making the changes without consensus. --Darktower 12345 20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there has been concern over the potentially low placement of the ign rating. If it is very significant, it could be placed at the top of the media section. --Darktower 12345 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with ThuranX on both points. Suggestions are always good, but we have to keep an out of universe perspective, and remember that these are fictional characters. Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Reorganization 

message: OK, in the interests of peace, I've tried to separate some components for a clearer article, and hopefully clarify some points. There is now a PH - complete with a short Origin - if we can find such information, and the Biography as I've called it cites the most significant stories with all sources relegated to footnotes. The addition of a third-party source tag is unnecessary as frankly, we all know they need such things. All comic articles. Spelling out the obvious with a tag just makes the article look unsightly.
In addition, not sold on clumping all the media together in one paragraph as it reads like a bit of a muddle. This section is supposed to be broken into sub-sections for easy reference. The opening statement is also unnecessary as it is repetitive and overstating what the lead paragraph claims. Such a change would need strong consensus, rather than an experiment here.
The same applies to the Other Versions sentence - we already know this and it is repetitive, not to mention problematic as by that logic all the articles have to have this sentence, which the very sub-title spells out. It was a nice try, but comes across as unnecessary padding. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot simply remove cleanup tags without addressing the issues. Also, you split the publication section in two without moving the bit about the Wizard poll ranking at the bottom of the new "biography" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Done. Again, note all the articles could use 3rd party sources. Are you going to tag them all, from A to Z? Also, note that Alternates are now sourced as footnotes, as per the rest of the article. Asgardian (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, in thinking about it, fewer sub-titles would be a good thing. So long as the information is separated when there is a large amount, fine. The 3rd party argument still needs debate, as some like myself opposed tags in the last discussion. Asgardian (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Can anyone fine the link to the discussion that was had a few months ago re: notability?
Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits 

message: Abomination's fictional character biography starts off after he turns into Abomination and battles Hulk, that should be edited to include his origin story and the character's early life (if revealed).--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional Character Biography incomplete

message: I added the Abomination's reappearance in the 2014 Hulk series, but I wasn't sure what volume number to cite for this series, as (aside from the 2013-14 Indestructible title) the various reboots and resets for the Hulk books over the years have bounced back and forth between The Incredible Hulk and simply Hulk so many times.  So, I just cited it as Hulk #1-2, April-May 2014.  If anyone has a a definitive idea of which volume number it should be identified as, please add it to the citation. -- Pennyforth (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing new ''Hulk'' series 

message: I am sorry if it's not a recommended way to address this, but I've just noticed that link of some of the articles are broken. For example article 1 which tells about the IGN ranking of supervillains is gone. IGN currently have a new ranking. The second source link is broken too. I'll try to update the ranking and article links later. In the meantime, can someone experienced can fix it up, I am kinda a newbie and do not want to vandalize a popular page.
Abhi347 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Source Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abomination (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511133106/http://comics.ign.com:80/top-100-villains/54.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/54.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013230843/http://www.kcra.com/entertainment/16574962/detail.html to http://www.kcra.com/entertainment/16574962/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC). 
You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.
You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 30. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.
Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion nomination(s)