Talk:Jacob Black

message: Could someone please make a Personality and Traits section for Jacob Black? I would myself, like I have with Bella, Edward, Carlisle, Emmett and Rosalie, but I don't know alot about Jacob and truth be told, I don't really like him. I'm too scared that someone will delete it (like they did to the section I made about Edward!) and I haven't even read Eclipse yet, even though I know what happens, but I don't think I have any authority to make the section, although I think the article really needs it.
Coud a more experienced Twilighter make the section? Please? Princess Rebel (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality and Traits Section? 

message: Heytaytay99 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob - Stephenie's Brother 

message: "Werewolves can 'imprint' on a certain person once they begin phasing. Jacob describes imprinting to be stronger than love at first sight. This is, according to the legends, very rare, but. . ."
This section doesn't really describe the ability or explain what it involves. This should be expanded with an explanation. 207.69.137.21 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprinting 

message: This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan? 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Twilight'' Task Force

message: I CANT EDIT THE JACOB BLACK PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by DoodiisthebestEVER (talk • contribs) 20:32, Jan 12, 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, the page is currently protected. Please only use  if you have a specific request for a change to be made to the page. Thanks. Andrea (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: Not to be rude, but I removed some sections under Twilight and New Moon because someone was typing these really long paragraphs, with bad grammer might I add, and not really making any sense with them. I'm a retired User and rather than rewrite it, I removed it because I don't know weather they should be there or not. If they are suppose to be, then will someone be so kind as to rewrite it so it makes sense. Thanks in advance, and I'm sorry for any trouble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.26.184 (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: I have tried to add Renesmee under the "Spouse" section of the infobox as "Renesmee Cullen (imprintee)". However, I have met some opposition, so I decided to discuss it here. Fictional characters often include relationships other than just strict spouses under the Spouse field, including, as I mentioned in my edit, girlfriends. Now, User:Sergay says that "imprintee" and "girlfriend" are not the same; of course they are not, imprintee is a much more significant relationship and if girlfriend should be included, imprintee should definitely be included. It is a major relationship that, if what the books imply means anything, will result in marriage. For instance, Edward talks about in the future welcoming Jacob as a son-in-law. It seems to me that a marriage will at some point happen. But either way, the relationship is definitely significant, and being that of imprinter/imprintee, a lifelong one, and therefore warrants placement in the box, IMO. What do you think? --Zoeydahling (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Imprintee" is an incredibly in-universe term that requires explanation, and so is not something that should be listed in the infobox. Also, as you mentioned, I disagree that "imprintee" should even be equated to girlfriend/spouse anyways. We cannot speculate that Jacob and Renesmee will be married in the future. At the end of the series they were not married, and not even "dating", and so we should not pretend that they were or assume that they ever will be (I also disagree that the books even imply this will happen. Remember Nahuel? Seems like a set-up for love triangle if anything). Andrea (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If "imprintee" is too in-universe, perhaps another term would be better then. How about "soul mate"? Even if they don't legally marry, Meyer has made it quite clear that the imprinter/imprintee relationship is a lifelong one, leading from a friend in childhood to a romantic relationship in adulthood that is permanent. She talks about how Leah Clearwater was left because Sam Uley imprinted on someone else, and how he and his imprintee, Emily Young are now together. She also talks about how the pack cannot kill an imprintee because of the anguish the imprinter would feel at losing their soul mate. She includes many other details that make it perfectly clear that the two will be together forever. So even if we cannot technically say they will be legally married, Meyer made it clear that they will be together, and thus I think a mention is merited. Again, I am fine with a different term if necessary. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While the series makes it clear that Renesmee and Jacob's relationship is significant, I still don't agree that it should be included in this category. The spouse parameter is meant for romantic relationships (specifically, marriage), which this one is not. Whether it is likely to become romantic in the future or not is irrelevant (again, because it is speculation). The term "spouse" is also very clear, and not really open to interpretation. But in this case, the relationship is not clearly defined. For example, the books say that the imprinter act as an older sibling, or friend, or protector, etc. to their imprintee; none of these would qualify for the spouse category. At the end of the series, Jacob is moreso one of these to Renesmee than he is a romantic partner. It seems very misleading for her to be included in the infobox in this way, even with a term like "soul mate" along with it. If their relationship is significant, then it is included in the text of the article anyways where it can be more properly explained. Andrea (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renesmee as "Spouse" 

message: This might be a little picky, but Jacob and his pack are not technically werewolves - it wouldn't matter so much but the beginning of the article refers to them as shapeshifters, and later on are called werewolves. I'm not keen on making changes without approval, so if anyone else agrees with me, they can fix it or I will Naynay104 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Werewolf' 

message: Is it explicitly mentioned in the books that the shapeshifters (a.k.a "werewolves") do not age as long as they phase frequently ? I'm pretty sure that has never been mentioned in the movies. BTW, I'm curious: if the wolves do not age and are therefore virtually "immortal" (pretty much like the vampires), why aren't there any 100-year-old or so wolves around in Jacob's tribe ? 200.168.20.203 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's assume that, after "imprinting" on Renesmee, Jake eventually becomes her "husband". Since Renesmee is a half-vampire and is also a Cullen, I would believe that, as long as Jake stays with her, he will be close to vampires and, by your theory, will keep phasing. Does that mean he will never age and, therefore, could be with Renesmee forever ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aging 

message: Hi.
I have added two small sentences about werewolves abilities according to the book and the film. I noticed someone reverted the edit so I'd appreciate a discussion as to why it has been removed. Thank you. []  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conficutus (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, would you like me to include my references. I was just going by the descriptions found both in the book and the Twilight Saga. Would anyone care to point out where I have gone wrong in the follwoing three sentences? [] Apparently, it is WP:OR which doesn't make much sense to me. The heading is personality and abilities. It talks about the abilities of not only Jacob, but also Werewolves as a whole. Conficutus (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They are a few other things worth mentioning. In a later book, werewolves pursued and caught a rogue vampire on foot. They can run faster than vampires who move at superspeed. They don't age around vampires as it kicks in their werewolf gene and the Quilette tribe can change in to a werewolf at will, they are not dependent on the lunar cycles. Oh and thanks to Ephraim Black, Jacobs grandfather, the Cullens and the Werewolves are supposed to co-exist so long as they do not suck on any humans. I think that might be worth mentioning elsewhere. Conficutus (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is irrelevant here, this article is about Black, not his roots (at least in that section). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what I wrote and you reverted it based on WP:OR "Werewolves skins are extremely hard too, even in human form. Further, he is able to  free run off buildings and jump from high elevations without being hurt, both in human form. Their teeth and paws are able to easily tear the hard skin of a vampire and break limbs and their sense of smell enables them to track and hunt others from miles away." . What statement would you like verification on? His free running ability came through the film Twilight:  Ecclipse, when he sneaked in to Bella's house and jumped out the window, and off the tree to the ground. He also managed to jump up through the window in the first place when he sneaked in. The tracking ability was demonstrated both in the book and the film when Jacob was able to track down Laurent and later Victoria, saving Bella in Twillight: Ecclipse. And werewolves skins are extremely tough  demonstrated when Bella punched Jacob and broke her hand. Also, they are clear examples in the film wherby the wolves were able to pierce, break and kill vampires by their paws and teeth. One example is that of Laurent, another is demonstrated in the fight against the Newborns and when Jacob saves Emmett from a Newborn . I thought all this was known? How is this WP:OR? Conficutus (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we mention that Jacob imprint on Edward and Bella's daughter Renesmee in Breaking Dawn has sparked speculation that Jacob and Renesmee may have a relationship together in the future?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conficutus (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: In each one of those statements made, it is tied in to Jacob. We only know about most of these abilities through Jacob. Each statement I have written comes from what Jacob can do. Conficutus (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now User:Sergay no longer says it's too crufty but that he is reverting the edits because "they are not relevant, that info is far too detailed- plot summaries should be brief, and you are just adding more plot; this article is already tagged as in-universe and you are adding more in-universe details". Firstly, it isn't a plot summary WP:PLOTSUMNOT. If you like I can reduce the descriptions but then you're going to claim it's WP:OR as has already been done. If I don't add descriptions, you claim WP:OR, if I do add descriptions, you claim its too long. I can eradicate the in-universe details and see if I can reduce the descriptions later. Please note what was mentioned by User:Princess_Rebel "Could someone please make a Personality and Traits section for Jacob Black?...Coud a more experienced Twilighter make the section? Please? Princess Rebel (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't still crufty— that goes along with what I said about it being too detailed. You are doing exactly what should not be done on Wikipedia, but instead what would be more suitable on a fan wiki. And yes, what you are adding is plot even if it's not in a section called "Plot summary". Your information is just a detailed recount of many aspects of the plot. Another user requesting a "Personality and Traits" section does not mean that adding such a section is necessary or proper for the article. The article is already tagged as in-universe, and adding to this problem and then "reducing the descriptions" is not going to help. Everything you are adding is in-universe. Andrea (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a real-world perspective (see WP:real_world by my "Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative" here  but then I reversed this on the basis of you saying it was "too detailed" and before that, too crufty here making it in to easier-to-read and simplified points here []. Researching other characters of superheroes, most are far more detailed than the one for Jacob Black. For example: Superman [] and contains approximately 28 lines. Likewise with the Incredible Hulk [], Thor [], Wolverine [] etc. Clearly, these articles have detailed power and ability sections far more crufty than what I have written. The one that I have created is succinct and easy to understand for non-twilight fans, which is what we should be trying to address. I am sure anyone would agree that the list here is a vast improvement to the article [] and likewise the descriptions found therein. Although I agree, a couple of sentences should be removed, ultimatly it is a vast improvement and falls in line with other articles about characters with special abilities.  Conficutus (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing with a real-world perspective requires talking about Jacob Black as a book character and not a real person, and should be referenced using secondary sources; your detailed description did not follow this guideline at all. Superman and the other heroes you mentioned have long histories and multiple reboots/reincarnations that need to be covered in their articles, and are hardly comparable to a character like Jacob who is from a single book series (with film adaptations). You may also notice that these sections are very well-sourced (the "Powers and abilities" section in Superman's article contains about 10 different sources) using secondary sources, whereas everything you added was a detail directly from the books. Superman's abilities are not simply described or listed, they are commented on from reliable sources and are explained in terms of the writers who created him. Andrea (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been very careful to refer to Jacob as a book character and use terms like in the Twilight universe, in the book, in this series etc. Secondary sources isn't really the issue as even without my edits, they are no secondary sources mentioned in the section I have edited. I take your point about the superheroes. However, I think we need some different opinions as to which version is preferred from a non-twilight perspective. I feel that prior to the edits I made, the article had WP:UNDUE problems and simply tried to squeeze in two sentences about 8 different abilities, which is wrong. Isn't there a better way how we can get all the abilities in for non-twilight fans. Personally, I feel my version does that. Conficutus (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I have added a sentence and a few words. Hopefully, this will be enough to satisfy both of us. Conficutus (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality and abilities  

message: Someone keeps reverting the edits [] claiming it is too crufty. Above someone asked to add to this section if anyone knew of any abilities that Jacob Black has in the book and film and I added them in a very simplified fashion but these edits are being reversed on the basis that these are too crufty. I think this is wrong. Conficutus (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In each one of those statements made, it is tied in to Jacob. We only know about most of these abilities through Jacob. Each statement I have written comes from what Jacob can do. Conficutus (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now User:Sergay no longer says it's too crufty but that he is reverting the edits because "they are not relevant, that info is far too detailed- plot summaries should be brief, and you are just adding more plot; this article is already tagged as in-universe and you are adding more in-universe details". Firstly, it isn't a plot summary WP:PLOTSUMNOT. If you like I can reduce the descriptions but then you're going to claim it's WP:OR as has already been done. If I don't add descriptions, you claim WP:OR, if I do add descriptions, you claim its too long. I can eradicate the in-universe details and see if I can reduce the descriptions later. Please note what was mentioned by User:Princess_Rebel "Could someone please make a Personality and Traits section for Jacob Black?...Coud a more experienced Twilighter make the section? Please? Princess Rebel (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't still crufty— that goes along with what I said about it being too detailed. You are doing exactly what should not be done on Wikipedia, but instead what would be more suitable on a fan wiki. And yes, what you are adding is plot even if it's not in a section called "Plot summary". Your information is just a detailed recount of many aspects of the plot. Another user requesting a "Personality and Traits" section does not mean that adding such a section is necessary or proper for the article. The article is already tagged as in-universe, and adding to this problem and then "reducing the descriptions" is not going to help. Everything you are adding is in-universe. Andrea (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I used a real-world perspective (see WP:real_world by my "Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative" here  but then I reversed this on the basis of you saying it was "too detailed" and before that, too crufty here making it in to easier-to-read and simplified points here []. Researching other characters of superheroes, most are far more detailed than the one for Jacob Black. For example: Superman [] and contains approximately 28 lines. Likewise with the Incredible Hulk [], Thor [], Wolverine [] etc. Clearly, these articles have detailed power and ability sections far more crufty than what I have written. The one that I have created is succinct and easy to understand for non-twilight fans, which is what we should be trying to address. I am sure anyone would agree that the list here is a vast improvement to the article [] and likewise the descriptions found therein. Although I agree, a couple of sentences should be removed, ultimatly it is a vast improvement and falls in line with other articles about characters with special abilities.  Conficutus (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing with a real-world perspective requires talking about Jacob Black as a book character and not a real person, and should be referenced using secondary sources; your detailed description did not follow this guideline at all. Superman and the other heroes you mentioned have long histories and multiple reboots/reincarnations that need to be covered in their articles, and are hardly comparable to a character like Jacob who is from a single book series (with film adaptations). You may also notice that these sections are very well-sourced (the "Powers and abilities" section in Superman's article contains about 10 different sources) using secondary sources, whereas everything you added was a detail directly from the books. Superman's abilities are not simply described or listed, they are commented on from reliable sources and are explained in terms of the writers who created him. Andrea (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been very careful to refer to Jacob as a book character and use terms like in the Twilight universe, in the book, in this series etc. Secondary sources isn't really the issue as even without my edits, they are no secondary sources mentioned in the section I have edited. I take your point about the superheroes. However, I think we need some different opinions as to which version is preferred from a non-twilight perspective. I feel that prior to the edits I made, the article had WP:UNDUE problems and simply tried to squeeze in two sentences about 8 different abilities, which is wrong. Isn't there a better way how we can get all the abilities in for non-twilight fans. Personally, I feel my version does that. Conficutus (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I have added a sentence and a few words. Hopefully, this will be enough to satisfy both of us. Conficutus (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A few other abilities

message: According to Carlisle, the werewolves have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans of course have 23. Since they belong therefore to a different species, how come wolves can have children with human mates ?
BTW, the same applies to vampires, who have 25 pairs of chromosomes according to Carlisle. Biologically, it would be impossible for Bella and Edward to have children. 187.34.77.175 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reproduction

message: Substituted at 19:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Do we really need this much detail about the plot of the books? I understand that the Twilight fandom might appreciate it, but I don't see how this much detail helps anyone else. Antrogh (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacob Black. 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/20110712164332/http://top7.com/top/219/Twilight-Characters to http://top7.com/top/219/Twilight-Characters
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why in this article Jacobs name is Martin Šebok? I have never heard this name and havent found any info about it? Malingoxxx (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Šebok