Talk:Galactus/Archive 1

message: Since there seems to be misconceptions about the real name of Galactus I thought it was time to hear out the differing viewpoints. 
My position: Galactus' real name is Galactus, not Galan.  It is spelled out clearly in Super Villain Classics #1: The Origin of Galactus.  When the sentience of the previous universe embraced Galan it stated that they would both die at the universe's end but they would survive through an heir born of their union, that heir being Galactus.  Galactus is the result of a union between Galan and the sentience of the previous universe.  People seem to think Galactus is simply Galan empowered when in fact Galactus is a something different, Galan being one part of the whole that is Galactus.  Galactus isn't Galan granted the Power Cosmic like the Silver Surfer is Norrin Radd granted the Power Cosmic, there is a distinct difference.TheBalance 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see your point but this is too much blah blah blah. Galan, born in Taa, went through a transformation and became Galactus. Period. Keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone and anyone besides comic book readers and fanboys. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *If Marvel has been inconsistent on this - if some stories have suggested that Galactus isn't Galan whereas others have suggested that he is Galan empowered, that shouldn't be a problem. We can follow the general WP:WAF guidelines, state both and explain that most Marvel stories have adopted one version as the 'definitive' answer, etc. However, if there's no "Galactus is Galan" source to cite, this shouldn't be an issue... so, is there a source? --Mrph 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: T'was not very long ago... issue number escapes me, during Mark Waid's run... that Galactus had his powers stripped away, and turned back into Galen, fully aware of his existence as Galactus. Make of that what you will. - Chris McFeely 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Fantastic Four # 523. And here's a source, right from marvel.com. Read "real name" and "place of birth" fields. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic Four #523 doesn't support the idea that Galactus is Galan empowered at all.  In the story, Galan was seperated from the "Galactus-energy", while Galan was reduced to his mortal self the Galactus-energy was roaming the universe actively seeking him out.  This story only further proves that there are two distinct aspects that comprise Galactus, Galan is only one aspect.  However, I'm fine with the newest edit.  Also, Marvel.com is a wiki-like project that anyone can edit and is not a viable source. TheBalance 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Real Name of Galactus

message: I don't recall anyone ever calling Johnny Storm "Invisible Man" during that brief period that he possessed his sister's powers; the FF, Quasar, and Galactus were the major characters in that story, and all of them called him by variations of his real name, which is the norm for the FF anyway.  Seems silly to invent the name just for a wiki, so I'm changing the note. Manticore 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right in saying it wasn't in the comic, but it was in a solicit. I'm not too bothered though. - SoM 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Storm as herald of Galactus 

message: I'm a bit confused on this issue.  In his original appearance (FF #49), it is stated that Galactus only choses planets based on their chemical content, and that most of the planets he consumed were indeed uninhabited.  I know that subsequent reinterpretations of Galactus (eg Ultimate Marvel's Gah-Lak-Tus) have him specifically target living worlds, but is this currently the case with the 616 Galactus? Kurzon 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the only time this has been the case with 616 Galactus was during the Galactus: The Devourer mini.  In it he wasn't even consuming the energies of planets anymore, but rather only the life forces of sentient beings.  He somehow became addicted to them even though they offered him no sustenance (and going so long without a real feeding was killing him).  After the multiverse was remade during the Abraxas saga Galactus has been back to normal, targeting planets with the necessary forms of energies that he requires whether they are inhabited or not.  MrBigB 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Galactus specifically target inhabited worlds? 

message: I have read Silver Surfer: Annihilation # 1 - 3.  The current writeup states Galactus' history has been retconned, this may be a bit premature.  I have not read SS:Annihilation #4, but as of #3 we didn't have enough information about the "cosmic war", or Tenebrous or Aegis to determine if anything about Galactus has been retconned.  All we have are alot of questions with no answers.  TheBalance 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annihilation

message: The shortened version of the powers is better, no doubt. CovenantD 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shorter version needs to be reworded a bit for clarity.  Manssiere 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SHB

message: I don't totally agree that the old section was better. It made two unsubstantiated claims, for instance. On the other hand, the revised version was lacking some of the technical points that are vital for fictional characters, namely the assertion up front that they are, in fact, fictional. Also the template  (which expands to Marvel Comics Universe was created specifically for the lead section after discussion at the Project talk page. I like to see it used because it provides a link to both the out-of-universe comic book company (Marvel Comics) and the in-universe overview article (Marvel Universe) right up front. CovenantD 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see very little wrong with the original lead section.  A reference needs to be found for the "have them fight God" statement, but I've read about that in numerous interviews with Lee so it is true, it just needs a reference.  The finest Lee/Kirby collaboration is opinion, even if comic industry people will tell you that really is the case. Manssiere 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: :The Rebirth section needs to stay as is.  The rest could use sources and clean up.  Manssiere 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is irrelevant, the original writing is sourced, linked and far more informative than your rewrite.  Manssiere 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is gone, and the sourcing has some problems. From my understanding, Marvel.com is a wiki and the information from there should not be treated as authoratative. Secondarily, the source itself relies on the Handbooks and "corrections" of unknown origin. We should take the info directly from the stories. Asgardian's version is superior in that respect; on the other hand, it eliminates any mention of the Phoenix. CovenantD 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional character history

message: The previous version was way too verbose; the revised version is too brief. Some examples to illustrate the scope of his power is not inappropriate. CovenantD 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Powers and abilities

message: The shorter versions are better. The all link to more extensive articles anyway. CovenantD 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has objected to Asgardian's edits to this section, I've gone ahead and swapped them out (with a sentence or two added for clarity). CovenantD 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate realities

message: I remember that i saw a reference on The Tick
: Yeah, there was a parody of him on the Tick. The character was Omnipitus, who also ate planets. They stopped him, but he asked for a bite of the moon and they let him. Later episodes showed a chunk missing. Abrynkus 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearances in other media

message: Must go. Very unencyclopedic. CovenantD 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: While the article has reached considerable length, I personally find the edits of Asgardian to be insufficient as well as being utterly uninformative. The origin of Galactus is incomplete-there is no mention of Eternity or any other forces that played a role in the creation of Galactus, which is an ESSENTIAL part of his character and cannot be omitted. These “concise” edits glaringly omit such important facts as these. 
In general I see three broad issues regarding this:
-The article must be condensed. Yes. But wikipedia is a public access site. Asgardian, the entry for Galactus does not belong to you alone. Therefore you have repeatedly found your sweeping edits to be reverted time and time again simply because there are users here who disagree. Persistence in imposing your edits will simply get more reversions. If you wish to have drastic changes in the article then it should be discussed here. 
-Sentence structure. To be frank, I found the overall quality of the article to degrade with the sweeping. There is a fine line between an entry being verbose and an entry being encyclopedic in tone. You have focused so much on limiting the word count that the entire article now reads as a hastily compiled essay that is more quantity than quality.
-Content. You will find many entries in Wikipedia to be of an exhaustive and extensive character. Users come to this site to find information on a particular subject or topic, without having to do tedious and time-consuming research on the internet to get a good grasp of the topic in question. The entry for Galactus before your edits did a superb job of introducing a prospective reader on the history of the character, his origin, major storylines, capabilities, and the like. Your edits lose these traits and in general, the article is no longer as informative as is was, and the reader is left with only the vaguest idea of the subject matter, and is in fact compelled to do further investigative research simply to flesh out gray areas. 
Again, anyone can edit this article. Condense it if you like. But do not impose sweeping changes on the entire piece and expect others to adhere to them without question-you are not the only one that knows how to write well, as you assume. 
*::I agree 100% here.  Asgardian's edits may reduce the article length and provide references but those are it's only advantages.   The revised article as a whole is too brief and uninformative. TheBalance 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, well considering you've basically edited Galactus' origin to the point where it's saying: 'Galactus used to be this guy named Galan, then he died, then he was Galactus', I fail to see how your 'concise' edit helps any. You completely edit out the how and why he became Galactus. HalfShadow 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the sources cited for Galactus' origin are most certainly relevant and canon.  Super Villain Classics #1 was actually the retcon/expansion of the Galactus origin presented in the Thor issues.   SVC #1 is also the Galactus origin that has been adhered to and referenced in comic ever since.  TheBalance 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And the second I care about your opinion, I'll let you know. Until then, keep that to yourself as well. HalfShadow 06:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of the user Asgardian

message: someone vandalized his physical appearance paragraph.  I don't think he becomes a cunt on wednesdays...  I can't seem to edit this so if someone else could that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.107.210 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism