Talk:Captain America/Archive 2

message: Shouldn't someone write something in here about his death?
Yes.  For example, he'll be back soon, Steve Rogers cannot be dead for too long.
i wrote about it the day they "killed him" on March 7th. but apparently someone reverted it back to its original state. --Mclover08 17:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the death is described in two sections in the entry: the Publication History, and the Character Biography.--Galliaz 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: I am going to do the hard work of reformatting the references using the:
==References==



& 

format. I hope nobody has problems with that. I am going to fix the Bibliography section and turn that into references, and the references into external links. I'll have to take a closer look. Anyone have comments or wants to help? (Narkstraws 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I am about to begin. I will save once per edit so it wont interfere with what other editors are doing, or as little as possible. If it ends up looking bad, we can always revert, but at least we'll have something to compare it too. This will go a long way to getting this article into featured status I hope. For more info check out WP:Footnotes. Also I am adding a template message saying major revisions are being done. (Narkstraws 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  afraid to edit the page while you're working on it, but in regards to your question about:
Current revision (22:21, 9 August 2006) (edit)
Btipling (Talk | contribs)
(→2000s - ref for ca 1 2002 - different comic?)
It's Cap Vol 4, issue 1 for nick fury recruiting cap.  cap reveals he's steve rogers in issue 3.  the prologue of issue 7 refers to him moving to Red Hook.  Impulse 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay thanks, I'll edit that now. I am going to take a break before I tackle alternate captain americas, because that's going to be a lot of work. I'll take the massive edit tag down while I rest.(Narkstraws 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While you're resting i'll see if i can supply any missing dates from my cap collection, i see some issues i have Impulse 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably either from the Tales of Suspense origin or the John Byrne retelling in the 1980s. I'll check those references up when I get home. -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Adventures of Cap'n A for now, i skimmed through it and it was a pretty modern origin retelling, but if you see any ToS issues that are better and earlier fits, by all means! =D Impulse 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I am ready to get started again, I'll just work on the alternate captain americas section, and not put one of those tags up again for the whole article. I don't really see many references for the TV sections and what goes after it. Thanks for all your help impulse, those dates look great, and yeah that was supposed to be civil war 1-7 not 77. Thank you also Khaosworks. I better get busy. (Narkstraws 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Btipling, let me be the first to say you've done an excellent (and lengthy!) job formatting the article too, before today I hadn't a firm idea on how to do citations, but all those referance links really make the article come together.  Impulse 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey no problem, I enjoy doing it. I appreciate your help. I wasn't sure people would like the changes, I am glad you do though. I really have a desire to see this article attain featured status. It probably has a way to go, but you guys have been doing great work on this article, I am just formatting it. I don't really have the specific knowledge of the character, I have just always liked it though. (Narkstraws 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also I wasn't sure I could use a self closing tag for second instances of references, or if that was smart if an earlier instance of a reference is later removed, but it did feel like duplication. (Narkstraws 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: looks very sharp, i look forward to tighting up specific referances in the days to come.  I was just looking at how Batman was a feature article the other day and thinking "hmmm, if that pointy eared guy is a FA, Cap should be an FA" =D Impulse 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, we can still beat Spider-Man, but wait a second, that article could use some reference section cleaning. I might have to jump in on that when I have some more time. (Narkstraws 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spidey is a lot more disorganized, but I suppose they are trying to work in a lot more storylines.  4-5 ongoing series will do that, cap's history is relatively uncluttered next to him.  I wouldn't mind seeing the Webhead get FA either though!  Maybe we could propose CA as the collabration of the month, might speed along the process Impulse 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Reference Section Revision 

message: I notice the size of the article is about 23kb higher than suggested, ideas how how to shorten it?  Maybe make Cap in other media a sub-article, as unlike other comic characters, Cap has always been more well known on the printed page than in movies.  other opinions?  Impulse 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's more of a recommendation, but I am not sure. I noticed that a few FA are pretty big, but I guess the ideal is to have it shorter. Changing passive voice sentences to active voice generally gets rid of a lot of extra words. It can probably be tightened up a bit more. (Narkstraws 05:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: An unregistered user changed the televison section to say the cap of the series was the son of the 1940's cap.  I'm not familar with it myself, but I just wanted to check that this was accurate.  Anyone know? 
In the first film, the new Captain America was the son of the original Captain America. In the second one, he was the original Captain America, released from his ice prison. Impulse 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to televison sections

message: * Fair use - all fair use image should have a Fair Use Rationale, see WP:FAIR for more information. To add a fair use rationale to an image, edit the page, and add , details of how to implement this template are on the talk page.
* Lead - The introduction should be 2-3 paragraphs long. Please see, WP:LEAD.
* Refs should be laid as such -
  [www.example.com Example title] Example.com. URL Accessed September 16, 2006.
  Example Magazine, pg (number). Example Publisher; Release date. ISBN example.
** Refs should be after the full stop, and commas, like this -
 . [..... 
 ,<ref> [..... 
** Not -
 . <ref> [.....  
 . 
 </ref>, 
* Other issues 
** There are no references from Novels to the end of the article
** All game and comic names should be italicized.
** "Appearances in other media"  is somewhat under referenced.
** As is "Alternate Captains America".
* Not a failable issue, now, but the article seems to have not enough third party neutral references, mainly since nearly all of the references are either comics or Marvel.com. It's not something I will fail it purely on, but people will bring it up at FAC. Just to warn you.
* The content overall, is good, but there are some stylistic errors, and some referencing issues in the later half of the article. Work on the points, then re-apply. Hppy editing, Highway Daytrippers 09:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay will work on it, thanks. (Narkstraws 06:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: Can we have a cite for Cap's Irish ancestry? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish people?

message: OK, three different editors presumably looking at the same comic are somehow reading (and writing) two different things. Can a couple of other editors pick up this issue and see what's going on? Is it:
1.(he was shown bench pressing 545 lb in Ultimates 2 #4)
or
2.(he was shown bicep curling 545 lb in Ultimates 2 #4)
or
3.(he was shown bench pressing 1245 lb in Ultimates 2 #4)
--Tenebrae 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate Cap weight debate

message: My understanding of the supersoldier formula was that it evolved Cap's abilites to peak human condition.  Does that also include his intelligence, as well?  Captain America is often referred to as one of the greatest tacticians in the Marvel Universe, this article cites due to his training, but have there been any references to a change in his mental prowess due to the serum?  The Protocide artice cites Rogers having his intelligence increased by the serum, I was wondering if there is any written material to back that claim. 
66.109.248.114 23:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence

message: Reverted the vandalism, as per the notice on the civil war talk page Cactusrob 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of civil war

message: Something that I feel is sorely missing is better coverage of Roger's alternate identities (Englehart's Nomad, Gruenwald's The Captain and Waid's Expatriate - I am not sure about this last one).  The Captain is a significative concept that somehow managed to avoid adequate description so far.  Nomad is better, but it still deserves some improvement.  And to the best of my knowledge there is no reference to Waid's concept at all.  BTW, the current version of the article makes it look like Jack Monroe got better and took over the Nomad identity about eight years earlier than the actually did... Luis Dantas 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomad, The Captain, "Expatriate"

message: I realize he has his own page, but can we get anything about Jack Flag on Cap's page? Could we also consider a list of Cap's sidekick's? Not that Cap's page needs to be added onto or anything. I also went onto Bucky's article, and it had two things involving him and 'sidekickiness'. Would one more thing hurt it? (The two things involving Bucky and 'sidekickiness' were a list of sidekicks, and a category saying, 'Fictional Sidekicks'.) So, just a thought. IronMan54 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack Flag

message: From what I have seen in recent new articles, Captain America died in the latest issue of the comic books. Can someone confirm this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.28.62 (talk • contribs) 
:It's nothing -- lead characters "die" all the time in comics. Remember "Superman's deathy"? Cap's been "shot and killed" at least once before -- there was even a memorial service with casket in Jack Kirby's classic #112 (April 1969). Companies don't throw away corporate assets. --Tenebrae 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmation at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17499797/ (RossF18 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he die? 

message: The 1602 Cap (Rojhaz) didn't suffer from amnesia.  He got dropped into the New World before the Europeans arrived and lived with the Native Americans because he didn't have another choice.  When the Roanoke colony was founded, he chose to keep his identity as a Native American in order to protect Virginia Dare while not revealing himself as a time traveler or directly interfering with the molding of the country.  He was quite aware of what had happened and what he was doing when he was confronted by Clea Strange on the deck of the Virginia Maid.  Dyinath 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1602 Cap 

message: seeing as that whole business is flagged as a spoiler, would it not be prudent to leave it without a spoiling image complete with spoiling caption? either that or just not have spoiler tags at all seeing as the news is all over everywhere anyone with eyes can see...80.47.8.246 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: er yeah, and if it's still in spoiler tags, isn't it even stupider to call it 'the assassination of steve rogers'?80.41.34.174 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture in the spoiler section 

message: I was disappointed to read this page right after reading a story on ABC news and recognize whole sentences lifted directly.  Article is here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2934283&page=1
And at the very least, this entire bit is lifted: "was gunned down by an assassin in "Captain America Vol. 5, No. 25." The "Sentinel of Liberty" was perhaps at his lowest point — he had become an outlaw while fighting and ultimately losing a war against his fellow superheroes to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. At the time of his death, he was facing a life sentence in prison."
There's perhaps more, but I'll leave it to the Wikipedia-addicts to find.  Still, I thought it was important to mention.
:The plagerized passages have been removed. CovenantD 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: With several news outlets responding to the "death" of Captian America, I think there should be a section dedicated to the mainstream media's reaction to this event. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.246.173.235 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea. Maybe a smattering of quotes, like in the "Reception" section of movies (e.g., X-Men: The Last Stand#Reception. --Tenebrae 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction to Death

message: The article says that captain America has no powers but is at peak physical condition, which is currently true but he originally had powers namely super strength it was not until the nineties ( I think) that he lost his superhuman abilities. The series avengers forever is the most recent mention of it I can think off.
63.3.21.1 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps powers 

message: A head's up. An article I created. Do with it what you wish. WikiNew 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fallen Son: The Death of Captain America]] 

message: Captain America's death is current, on going event. An encylopedia should report it dubiously, and leave wikinews to it.  Mathiastck 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but... it's not a real world event, it's a comic. Some version of the same problem, although usually without the media coverage, applies to many of Wikipedia's articles about ongoing comics and their characters. I'm sure that the same issue applies to many TV articles - especially anything dealing with current soap operas. Although we can't comment on the outcome, Captain America #25 has been published and isn't an ongoing event - I think we can certainly comment on that, on Marvel's statements regarding that, on the media coverage it's attracted and (with suitable caveats) on Marvel's announcements about what happens next. --Mrph 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: More to the point, we update real world people's bios when they croak, and tag them appropriately to reflect that it's a fluid situation. The media has been all over this (as you can see by my post at the bottom of this page). At the very least, the media's reaction should be documented. Jeffpw 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: I've reverted the "grammar and clarity" edits (which actually went a lot further than that) since saying that something "appears" to contract something else is an interpretation, and Marvel's statement that Ms. Marvel's comment "isn't exactly what it seems" (my emphasis) conversely says its partly what it seems. I think it might be better to just report the indisputable fact, that "dialogue between two characters in another Marvel comic released the same day...indicated that Captain America was still alive."
Ms. Marvel didn't seem to indicate that. That's precisely what she was indicating.  We don't know how true or not that is -- all we know, factually, is that Marvel's issue press statement in response and here's what it said. --Tenebrae 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Joe Quesada has already said it's not true, and it will be revealed in future issues of "The Initiative" that Ms. Marvel was lying to attempt to confuse and sway Spider-Woman.  However, until that's actually printed in an issue, it's not really something we should be throwing onto the page, I figure.  So we'll wait for her lie to be outed before we cite it. --Bishop2 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification, Tenebrae.  As I see it, the fact worth reporting in the entry is simply that Marvel issued a press release to clarify the ambiguity introduced by 2 characters talking about Captain America in a second title.  The sequence of what happened was that readers noticed the ambiguity, and Marvel reacted (almost immediately) by issuing an unambiguous statement.  I apologize if you perceived that my "grammar and clarity" edit went beyond it's advertised scope; it wasn't my intention to obfuscate or mislead.  One last stickler-ish grammatical point: a press release can't actually "say" anything.  A press release states something, or an individual comments in one (although quoting the one cited here is difficult, since the individual commenting is not identified).  A release clarifies something, conveys information, or contains certain information.--Galliaz 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, apparently people are going to keep on editing the article to add the "Ms. Marvel says that Cap isn't dead" information until we finally stop them from doing it permanently.  So in response, I've finally added my own version which cites the Quesada interview where he said it was a lie.  That should stop the madness for the time being. --Bishop2 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Bishop!  I actually think we ought to hold the line on this one.  However, I made the change before commenting here, though, so if you feel strongly the other way, let's replace the information.--Galliaz 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fear that without it, people are just going to keep on adding the bit about Ms. Marvel claiming he's alive.  However, we can wait and see.  If it happens again, I'll go ahead and re-add the info.  Until that occurs, however, I'll defer to your judgment and leave it out. --Bishop2 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for reversion

message: Sorry if I've missed a discussion of this, but with all the attention on Cap's latest death some mention of the previous one, facing Onslaught, would seem relevant. Granted it was undone not long after but was surely the most significant CA story of last few years prior to recent? Happy to put in but wanted to pitch first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravcasleygera (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes Reborn 

message: I just added a small edit to the description of Cap's skill with his shield, mentioning that he could also perform boomerang throws with it.  If it is deemed that this addition is unnecessary then kindly remove it with my apologies, but I thought I should mention the change here for completeness's sake, esp. with all the other talk going on here about the recent "death".  64.218.89.104 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield edit 

message: Should there not be mention in this article of the media storm that erupted upon the news of Captain America's death? It is not every comic book superhero who has his obituary published in the New York Times, and articles about the meaning of his life and death published in newspapers around the world. His death was even a newsflash on CNN. The media (and public) reaction to this tragedy (however manufactured) certainly seems worthy of mention in this article. Jeffpw 13:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media storm

message: The current description is:
:Orchestrated by the Red Skull, the assassination involves Crossbones deployed as a sniper.
:In addition, Dr. Faustus, posing as a S.H.I.E.L.D. psychiatrist, has manipulated Sharon Carter and implanted in her mind a hypnotic suggestion that she believes caused her to shoot Rogers at the crucial moment.
The first sentence seems unnecessarily non-direct.  Under orders from the Red Skull, Crossbones shot Cap.  Why not just say so?  Granted there was apparently more to the plan than just Crossbones shooting him, but why the soft "involves Crossbones deployed as a sniper"?  Makes it sound like maybe the sniper never actually fired.  He was just deployed.
In the second part, has it been established that Carter's shooting of Cap is just her belief?  As I read it in the latest issue of CA, after the assassination Carter remembers that she was the one who pulled the trigger.  Perhaps it will turn out that this memory is false, but from what we've seen so far Faustus manipulated Carter into shooting Cap, not into just thinking she did. -- Sean Martin 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph preceding the one you quote actually provides the info that CA has been shot and killed; the one you quote informs the reader who organized the plot, and who was deployed as the shooter.  So, I think the sentence works as it's constructed.  The Sharon Carter sentence construction is admittedly a bit awkward, with the "she believes" insertion breaking the flow of the sentence.   There's discussion of this point in the "Reason for the reversion" section of this Talk page.--Galliaz 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing the assassination 

message: As per Wikipedia dispute-resolution policy, User:Tenebrae is asking for a formal Request for Comment regarding rvs and returns of section created by 194.46.22.91 on March 27 in Trivia section, moved by Tenebrae to its own section on April 3.
;Statements by editors involved in dispute
*Numerous editors have created, maintained and agreed on the validity of this section, which adds historical subtext and necessary perspective to worldwide-reported news of Captain America's death. To general public unfamiliar with comics' stylistic conventions, this puts his death/"death" in context. Other editors who have worked on it include 69.156.48.250, User:UltimatePyro, User:Sean D Martin, and User:Galliaz. Only one editor has disagreed with this consensus. --Tenebrae 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause the majority of the people who voiced their thoughts wanted it to stay, if more people said to remove it, then it would be gone.Phoenix741 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment: "Purported deaths of CA" section

message: I've noticed that some of the information is referenced to the Captain America: Sentinel of Liberty mini-series. However, the Marvel Continuity Project, and many fans actually don't accept this series as within the general continuity of Captain America as it contradicts information found elsewhere (and yes so does Winter Soldier, and most accounts of how Cap got frozen, but that's by the by). So should this mini-series really be being cited for proof of things in the generally accepted continuity? 
82.35.186.27 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventures of Captain America 

message: A big part of cap's idea was that was was a scrawny art student who turned super solider. Also he did try to do art in the NA Civil War arc. And there were ideas that he drew his own comic book. Wouldn;t that mean he is a Fictional artist, and thus he needs to be in the cat?Phoenix741 00:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional artists 

message: Why is there no mention of Mego Captain America? If I'm not mistaken, this was the first toy of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haven13 (talk • contribs) 
:It's probably worth mentioning, but we'd need a citation. The character was popular for years before MEGOs though, and might not be the first. ThuranX 02:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toys 

message: This has annoyed me for awhile now, I'm not sure why a picture showing Ultimate Cap looking his most 616-like was chosen but is there any way we can get a new picture? Personaly I vote for a picture of Cap jumping out of that chopper to go beat up pym or perhaps a picture of Cap walking away from his fight with Pym victorius both of which are from Ultimates 1 vol. 2. Whatever replacement picture is chosen is perhaps an argument for another time but the current picture just wont do imo. I mean the picture thats up right now isn't even of the mask-helmet variety which is what we see him in most, its the plain mask variety. Aside from the missing head wings you would think your looking at a picture of the 616 cap, The picture thats up should better convey the visual differences between the two. I'll give it 3 or more days if no one objects im just going to change it myself. Bushido Brown 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Cap Picture 

message: The irony of the transformation of an art student into a Nordic Übermensch fighting Nazism and Fascism, may have not been obvious to 1940s readers.
While I agree that irony exists, I'd like a citation for demonstration that the creators knew it, and then we can avoid the specualtion about reader awareness. For now, I'll leave it in, but can we get to work on this? It's the sort of speculation WP avoids, and could help get this article up to GA. ThuranX 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony: 

message: I have the news that Captain America is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.  An issue of his funeral, called Fallen Son, will be released the day after the 4th of July.  To find out more, click on this link: Captain America to be buried at Arlington.  Man, it has taken a few months to come up with a burial scene not unlike the Anna Nicole Smith case, right? --Angeldeb82 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally laid to rest 

message: regarding the film:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=41910
ThuranX 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Tenebrae 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation for use 

message: I'm moving this here unless someone is able to properly intergrate this. This article is very good: let's not spoil it. Alientraveller 21:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I'd like to revert to the older image. It's a tightly rendered piece, with a good, iconic style, reflective of the patriotic nature of the character, and far more clearly shows the character's uniform in a very classic way. The new image instead obscures his star nad stripes, as well as the shield. Thoughts? ThuranX 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image change 

message: Bring together the creators instead of separating by title. We already have the chronology of the titles above. No ther charcater has that kind of overlong creators section. What's the cut-off point for a "regular" creator? There are a number of three issues run (John Warner, Tony Isabella, Mike Friedrich, Gil Kane) Is that enough? --Leocomix 08:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the Other versions section be placed back in the article that has been created for it, but has been nominated for speedy deletion. I also think that other pages like that could be created as well to help reduce the main article. The  suggests making a series of articles, and this is just the beginning. Wolverine and Spider-Man both have this set-up, and it works well. We should strive for that set-up with Captain America, and the first step would be to not delete that article. -Freak104 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion to reduce the article

message: I know its been discussed to death the issue of recentism vs iconicism (did I just invent two words?) but an issue that has been missed is the issue of accessibility in these articles. The simple fact is, if someone picks up an avengers book and looks at it and thinks 'hmm, i've heard of captain america but i know nothing about him' and they hit up wiki, they are instantly going to be confused. I'd just like to put an argument out there for an italicized comment at the top of the article (below or above the link to the disambiguation page) which states something like 'This article is about the original, and most frequent, holder of the title Captain America (Steve Rogers), for the current holder, see Bucky.'
Because at the moment, you have to read a fair bit into the article to even pick up on a link to bucky with reference to his role as cap, and skim reading really would leave you empty handed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.81.45 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Cap

message: Regular writers
*Joe Simon, 1941-1942
*Stan Lee, 1942-1949, 1953-1955, 1964-1971
*Otto Binder, 1942-1944
*Bill Finger, 1946?-?
*Gary Friedrich, 1971-1972
*Gerry Conway, 1972
*Steve Englehart, 1972-1975 
**(with Mike Friedrich, 1974)
*John Warner 1975
*Tony Isabella, 1975
*Jack Kirby, 1976-1977
*Don Glut, 1978
*Steve Gerber, 1978
*Roger McKenzie, 1978-1979
*Roger Stern & John Byrne, 1980-1981
*John Marc DeMatteis, 1981-1984
*Mike Carlin, 1985
*Mark Gruenwald, 1985-1995
*Mark Waid, 1995-1996, 1998-1999
*Rob Liefeld & Jeph Loeb, 1996-1997
*James Robinson, 1997
*Dan Jurgens, 1999-2002
*John Ney Reiber, 2002-2003
*Chuck Austen, 2003
*Dave Gibbons, 2003
*Robert Morales, 2004
*Robert Kirkman, 2004
*Ed Brubaker, 2005–present
Regular pencillers
*Jack Kirby, 1941-1942, 1964-1969, 1975-1977
*Al Avison, 1942-1943, 1946-1947
*Syd Shores, 1943-1944, 1946-1948
*Vince Alascia, 1944-1946
*Ken Bald, 1947-1949
*George Tuska, 1965-66
*Gil Kane, 1967, covers 1972-1975
*Jim Steranko, 1969
*Gene Colan, 1969-1971
*John Romita, 1953-1955, 1966, 1969, 1971
*Sal Buscema, 1972-1975, 1978-1979
*Frank Robbins, 1975
*John Byrne, 1980-1981
*Mike Zeck, 1981-1983
*Paul Neary, 1984-1987
*Tom Morgan, 1987
*Kieron Dwyer, 1988-1990
**Mark Bright, 1989 - (backup stories)
*Ron Lim, 1990-1991
**Mark Bagley, 1990-1991 - (backup stories)
*Richard Levins, 1991-1993
**Larry Alexander, 1991-1992 - (backup stories)
*Dave Hoover, 1994-1995
*Ron Garney, 1995-1996, 1998
*Rob Liefeld, 1996-1997
*Joe Bennett, 1997
*Ron Garney, 1998
*Andy Kubert, 1998-2000
*Dan Jurgens, 2000-2002
*John Cassaday, 2002
*Trevor Hairsine, 2003
*Jae Lee, 2003
*Lee Weeks, 2003
*Chris Bachalo, 2004
*Scot G. Eaton, 2004
*Michael Lark, 2005
*Steve Epting 2005-present
*Mike Perkins 2006–present
This list is put there while figuring what to do with it. Either create an article combining it with with the list of Captain America comics or omit it altogether as there are no such lists for other articles. --Leocomix 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with its removal from the article. Significant creator contributions should be kept in the Publication history and biography sections, or elsewhere as appropriate. That said, I do want to preserve the list here. It's useful to us editors, but crosses into triviality in it's holistic lengths. ThuranX 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both above. Better to keep the creators in context, in prose, rather than just do a laundry list that doesn't really provide for that. --Tenebrae 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creators

message: The one section dealing with powers and abilities seems to contradict itself.  Running at close to 60 mph (Cap can outrun a lion) and bench-pressing 1100 pounds (the current record, with bench-press shirts, is 1070 lbs) qualifies as "superhuman".
71.245.4.27 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trying to assert real world determinations of measuring physical capabilities with those of the fictional Marvel Universe. The various Marvel handbooks have always measured strength by how much weight a character can lift above his or her head, not how much they bench. Writers will occassionally take liberties and place him in situations now and then where he demonstrates superhuman attributes. However, Marvel's position is that, by their fictional standards of "superhuman", Steve Rogers doesn't qualify.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No superhuman abilities?

message: I support the removal of this list. It's entitles Alternate versions of cap, not of Steve Rogers. Thus, other who wore the star and bars could count, not just alternate versions of Rogers, like Rohjar, or however that was spelled in 1602. This allows us to shorten the article. It might be a valid point to link separately to the others under the cowl part of that page, and the other versions of Steve Rogers' on that page, though. ThuranX 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that the "Characters who have used the "Captain America" name" section be moved to the Alternate versions of Captain America article? If you are, then I support that idea. What do other people think? -Freak104 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it belongs to the main character and is a recurring theme of that particular character (there have been about 10 replacement Caps which is more than any other hero). But we can remove "In other media" as these are alternate versions also. Plus the unencyclopedic list of villains should be removed from the article. In general, I would prefer that we tyhink in terms of improving the article by getting rid of all the excess rather than splitting it. --Leocomix 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely yes, I have been pushing this for a long time, do it.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Leo, many FA articles on superheroes, like Superman and batman, use subarticles, and Cap should too, if needed. The alternate versions, specifically BECAUSE there are so many interpretations and variations, more, as you say than most other heroes, are notable enough for a good subarticle. as to the villians, I generally hate big character lists in comics articles, prefering to see good writing reference major ones and thus cross link around. Smaller villians, like say, Porcupine, can go into greater depth about his interactions with Cap on HIS page, but might only connect to cap through a paragraph about cap VS Scourge. And so on. ThuranX 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If needed is the point here. It depends also on how you split because frankly "alternate universe versions of Cap" is not notable and deserving of its own subject unless you throw Other media with it. Other media is notable. We could also add heroes inspired by Cap such as General Glory from DC. I consider that wikipedia articls are not for comics fans but for general public. (OHOTMU is for comics fans.) Cap already has an article on his shield by the way. I agree that the succession of Captain Americas would deserve an article in itself as it is a notable feature (and we could add back my comment about Mark Verheiden's The American in it). What exists currently in the article is a strict minimum though and should stay (see Calvin and Hobbes series of articles for what I think is a good way to go about this). Villains of Cap would be a valid sub-article, too and in this case, the list wouldn't even have to appear here. Still the article can be shortened. For instance, the amount of detail in the powers section is ridiculous and seems taken from an outside reference book or wiki. If an outside reference book goes into that much detail, let's reference it instead of copying or paraphrasing it. --Leocomix 08:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we title the page "Other Versions of Captain America"? I propose we do four sections, with subsectioning as needed: "Others who wore the cowl", thus speaking primarily to the Captain America identity, then Alternate versions of Steve Rogers, speaking to the most famous and most consistent man behind the mask, and shorter or ensemble appearances of a variant Steve, like Zombies, then alternate realities, such as Ultimates, 1602 and Marvel X series', where a long-term, consistent variation is presented as a major character in the narrative, and finally an 'Other media', discussing the 1940's serial, the 1970's reb brown movies, the 1991 film, and the animations and games. This would cover all the concerns above, and not need splitting later, because our title gives us a broader scope to work within. Thoughts? ThuranX 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. But just do not remove "Other people who were the cowl" from the main article as it's about the main continuity. Copy it to the other article. Then the same section in "Other versions" can be expanded. And there should be space devoted to characters from other publishers that are like Captain America: General Glory, The American, etc., i.e. a fifth section in what you propose. (I just wish there was someone willing to help summarise also the remaining main article as it is also needed. Sigh.) --Leocomix 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of other people who wore the cowl

message: Just to make this clear. Is this correct?
# (1945) Rogers fell from an experimental drone plane into the North Atlantic Ocean (Avengers #4)
# (1945) He was recovered by Lyle Dekker, taken to Newfoundland, escaped Dekker's base, and entered suspended animation (Captain America #220)
# (????) He was found by Namor who fought some nazis, at some atlantean ruines. Following an explusion, he was drifting in the water again (Captain America v4 #12)
# (1964) He was frozen and some eskimos worshiped him, Namor hurled the block of ice into the water (Avengers #4)
# (1964) He was found by a nazi u-boot in an alternate timeline, but he returned in the original timeline (Captain America v4 #17-20)
# (1964) He was found by the Avengers (Avengers #4)
So, what was retconed out? According to the Ice story arc in CA v4, it was the government who placed Rogers into suspended animation, but it was never mentioned again after that. Maybe the documents were truthless (like the documents found in CA #222), but Rogers remembered to meet the Interrogator earlier. 85.238.74.66 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice

message: Does anyone know if Captain America: The Chosen is canon or not?  SoulReaverDan 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one of many "The End" type of stories published under the Marvel Knights banner.  As any "future" story, it is only a possible future, not definite.  See other "The End" stories such as Silver Surfer's Requiem and Spider-Man: Reign.  They COULD be how the character ends his time, but it's not definite.  Notthegoatseguy 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Chosen?

message: :Image:CAtransformation.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 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CAtransformation.png

message: There's a pretty detailed writeup of Cap vol. 1, but the books after that barely have any description at all, save their title and publication dates. We need to know the creative teams, overall plotline/tone, general reception, sales, etc. Also talk about how Marvel changed the content after 9/11, stuff like that. --Marcg106 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and? Not to be brusque, but any editor can do that, including yourself. Would you like to take this on? There are other editors working on other projects. It'd be great to see this stuff, but many of us are otherwise engaged. Thanks. ThuranX 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand publication history 

message: Does he have superhuman strength? The article says he possesses no superpowers yet he is categorized in the super cat.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did have for a short period in the 1970s. --Fredrick day 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it WP:SOURCE that in the article? The category should be removed is this is unconfirmed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it was mentioned at one stage but then someone later removed it from the article - it's not difficult to source - as he had it from issue 158 of his series until issue issue 194. I'm crap at adding references so if someone else wants to do it .. --Fredrick day 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took off the category, hopefully somebody can reference it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super strength 

message: :Image:CAtransformation.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 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CAtransformation.png

message: Most of the description of Commie Smasher seems to come from the much later revisions of that story--the character biography  here accepts as 'true' the later explanations/revisions, which is fine for certain purposes (e.g., summarizing Marvel's current version of CA's bio).  But in addition, it would be really helpful to see someone do the plot summary of what actually took place in the 1950s story--as written the 1950s vs. as revised in the 1960s & later.  I make this request as a non-expert in CA who is very interested in the specific chronology of serial character revisions. This kind of detail would be a most valuable addition to this otherwise very informative entry.  Thank you.  (Troutfang 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commie Smasher--as written in 1950s vs. as revised later 

message: I deleted a paragraph that quoted Ed Brubaker's blog for several reasons. (Also, as  side note, it was  real-world PH in the in-universe FCB.) First, there was no citation for it, and Googling "Ed Brubaker" "blog" turned up 159,000 hits, the first several of which were not his. Second, it used the WP:WEASEL phrase "it was announced on Brubaker's web-blog" — so does that mean Brubaker said it, or that somebody in the comments section was claiming it? (It would be surprising if Brubaker released the information before Marvel OK'd this.) Finally, it contained extraneous "it should be noted" POV and WP:NOR fancruft about the Skrull Elektra and green blood and reverting form, etc. 
Let's please not WP:CRYSTAL. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nov. 16 paragraph deletion

message: User:Rtkat3 has been unilaterally dividing up articles without any discussion whatsoever on the articles' talk pages or on the WikiComics Noticeboard. He has been asked on his talk page to discuss splits and mergers there, and he so far refuses to do so. This split needs to be reversed so that a proper discussion can begin. --Tenebrae 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Captain America is listed as one of many articles that needs to be shortened. When the  tag is added to articles it suggest breaking articles into article series. Even with multiple sub-articles for the main Captain America page it is still considered too long, so this should not be merged back in. I can't speak directly for his actions, but I think he is just trying to help do exactly what the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics-page says needs to be done. -Freak104 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I have to say is this. I see no problem with his actions.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I second Phoenix, and I would say that Rtkat3 was not reckless in what he did. -Freak104 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Rtkat3 is doing something good for the articles.  134.68.177.185 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Bold is good, but you can still take time to cover you bases.  Speficily in this case, where Ficitional Character Biography is what overruns that page.  I pose that a new trend of breaking off the character bio's vs. alt versions or media is necessary. merge. --66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge.  It seems that the main problem is the length of the biography section.  That should have no effect on putting a section of this page in the correct place. DestradoZero 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion closed with no consensus. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Why do people keep deleteing my updates when I write that the new Cap carries a gun? It's important info, and has been mentioned in many interviews and showing a lot of promo art, so why not mention it? It's important because it highlights how the new cap is different from Rodgers. Wordforge (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it simply hasn't happened yet. It's not that important a difference until someone in the real world reports on it, and until the published work is released to the public, it violates WP:CRYSTAL, as well as guidelines of the WP:COMICS project, to include it. Once issue 34 hits the stands, it MAY be possible to include, but only if it's more than just sa cover image, and the gun is actually portrayed within the story, which may not actually happen.for all we know now, he might use the original outfit, and have an experience that leads him to improve it. YOu don't know, and neither does anyone else. And so, we wait. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cap's Gun

message: Brubaker spoke briefly on NPR this AM about Bucky in the suit, and how Cap is perceived, and how he writes the character. Anyone else hear it and think it's worth including? I'll try to find the web-feed of it later tonight. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, didn't he go over how Bucky sees Rogers, and how he is trying to be like him, that would be notable.--  Phoenix741(Talk Page) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: he mentioned that Bucky's reunion with Rogers left their relationship unresolved, but it was more interesting to hear his real world commentaries. He mentioned, in discussing Cap's audience appeal that both policital wings lay claim to him. The left thinks cap should lead the charge for impeachment of Bush, and the right thinks that he should be punching out Osama like 40's covers had him punching out Hitler, but that he tries to write apolitically and focus on the character in the suit, not the iconic nature of the costume. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Brubaker on NPR 

message: I'm new to this article, so to speak, and I was wondering if anybody though this was a good time to renominate this article? RC-0722 communicator/kills 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. First, find the old GA review and read it. Then, check the GA pages for new conditions the page would have to meet. Then make sure all points from those two steps have been repaired. Then we can worry about content cleanups, more real-world impact, nad so on. ThuranX (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's the link to the old review: Talk:Captain_America/Archive_2#GA_Failing. Hope that helps. checking the images is first, and shouldn't take more than half an hour, but it's tedious. I am glad to help you by reviewing your work and so on as yuo get stuff done. ThuranX (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: One thing I think this article REALLY needs before it gets GA or FA is a serious culture section. Captain America in American Culture, ideally, to distinguish from the unpopular 'pop culture' sections which are comprised of lists of comedic and movie references in off-hand ways. I'd like to see this section be about his invocation by political figures and serious authors and commentators. I've seen him referenced in magazines and such regarding political manners, often in the context of a perceived inability to pick the wrong moral or ethical course (usually, by extension, picking it for the nation). ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pursuant to GA topic above 

message: this should be split into two articles. Most of it should be at Steve Rogers (Marvel), and this article should be an overview article. As there is another Cap now... 70.55.84.89 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is discussion already on this page on the matter, i suggest you read it through before creating a new redundant section. ThuranX (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't create this section but, thanks for the note. I'll try to find the appropriate section and join in the discussion there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, confused this with the leading section above regarding general application of the article to wearers of the stars and bars. That said, I think we should maintain a focus here on Steve Rogers as CA. He's been the iconic version for 68 or so years, and we have little to base a long term Bucky premise on. Sales may drop, public reaction may fall out, and they may reinstate him 'toot sweet', to paraphrase. Until such time as we get a Barry Allen order, or we haver a real perspective of time, not recentism, to apply, focus on the SR version, esp. since it is to that version that most serious real world analysis will speak, with some media coverage of the recent character changes. the majority of character coverage concerns are based on InUniverse concerns, not real coverage nad analyisis. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking that perhaps that an article entitled Captain America needs to be about the publication history of the comic book and the various people that have held the name historically. Steve is definitely the "main" Captain America and is the most notable "person" to have that name but, there are at least 4 others that have also carried the name "officially". I'm not saying scrub the Steve stuff from here (heck I've got a tattoo of Cap's shield... that's how much I love the character and what Steve's version stood for(in my own mind). What I am saying is can't we shorten the biography section somewhat by including a just paragraph or two about Steve, William, Jeffery, John, and James with the appropriate "for more see" type tags. So you could have a main "Captain America (comics)" article with a disambulation page or appropriate in text links to each characters' main article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's reasonable because, as pointed out, there have been a variety of characters that've officially taken up the Captain America identity on behest of the government in various comics over the years. While Steve Rogers will always be remembered by fans of the character and comic book insiders alike as the definitive Captain America, Marvel has done storylines in which he's given up the persona, leaving the government to find replacements. These replacements, I believe, have been very brief, but they occurred nonetheless.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that most of those other heros are retconned in, making them only notable from an 'in-universe' perspective. little to nothing has been written in a scholarly or critical manner about them. When people talk about Captain America going from a scrawny 4F to a super patriotic fighting machine, or whatever, they clearly reference Steve Rogers' version. As I've said before, I'd really like to see this article, and frankly, numerous other character articles seriously focus on the real-world content, be it critical and cultural response, writers and artists talking about the how-to of making it, and so on. Cap's a particularly rich character for real world content, as hes' been mentioned in pro- and anti-american propaganda for decades, is alluded to in public speeches, and public speech by political and other public figures, and so on. Worrying about how much space to give to Naslund and Mace and other in-universe temporary wearers of the mantle is trivial, in the scope of what we could do with the character, and they can largely be dismissed by saying that "Marvel, in order to get the publication of cap through the postwar 40's and beyond to jibe with the Steve Rogers' story premise built for The Avengers, retconned in other similar patriotic heroes, saying the governemtn asked them to step into the lost Rogers' red boots". Wasting paragraphs and pages on those other characters, and the retconning, seems fannish, not encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In the multiple mediums that have show Cap (TV, movies, video games, novels) Roger's has been consistently been the man under the mask. The additional support of multiple mediums showing Rogers as Cap, provides additional support as Steve Rogers the Captain America.  This article is not about the comic's Cap exclusivly, but rather Cap as a whole, which reflects Steven Rogers behind the shield. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing my point. the academic materials, and real world context, is about Steve Rogers as Captain America. It's not about some lame story retcons that are not known to the politicians and public figures who have invoked the character, it's the basic rah-rah patriot who fights for American values that they grew up reading in the 40's and 50's, who was then Steve Rogers. Go look, it's not mace and Naslund when the costume comes off back then, it's Rogers. Marvel changed that in a retcon later. IF the real world context focuses on Rogers as cap, so should our article reflect that. We don't need to cruft up things with a page for each person who ever put on the stars and bars. And again, the urge to diverge is based firmly in recentism. A character with a 65 year history of being Steve Rogers, and a 1 year death, and 4 or 5 months of being Bucky is NOT balanced by splitting it off to talk about Bucky in this article. As for Walker, that entire set of stories was about Rogers being Cap at heart and Walker being a Gov't lackey, and the Hero's Journey back to his rightful place. It's a morality play with a fall from grace vibe, but at its' heart, it's still about Steve Rogers getting back his identity. The article should focus on the real world content, reference the retcon briefly in the publication history, explaining Marvel's storytelling decisions and how they reconciled that with the publication histories, and then move on. The death of Steve Rogers can be covered briefly, noting such things as Quesada speaking on NPR and Colbert about it, and so on. But to split things off is a bad idea, because eit's based on In Universe ideas. ThuranX (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: All the stuff you mention about the concept is what belongs here. All that stuff involves Steve Rogers. NONE of it involves Mace and Naslund and so on. That was all IN-UNIVERSE refitting of the story to allow Marvel to use the 'frozen at end of war; found by Avengers' narrative. They said, oh, it wasn't Rogers in the 40's and 50's, it was these other guys. But they made that revision decades after the issues were published. Thus, all the scholarly stuff is about the lengthy career of Steve Rogers, not about Naslund and Mace. When political folks drop comparisons to Captain America, they're not referencing Naslund or Mace, but rogers. The other Caps were short term, or relatively non-notable retcons. They hardly need lengthy articles, nor splittings. ALL that stuff about Naslund anad Mace is IN UNIVERSE stuff. It's completely non-notable to the real world. Frankly, I doubt there's particularly great amounts of coverage of Walker either, and Bucky only more so due to the more pervasive and 'any-news' hungry media. Unless sufficient real world notable content can be found for it, keep it all here. ThuranX (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Real world I've not heard reference to Steve Rogers. The reference is to the best of my knowledge always to Captain America. Captain America fought the Nazis, Captain America fought the Commies, Captain America would be for/against the War on Terror, etc. Maybe I missed the references to specifically to Steve somewhere (other than the Captain America is dead bit)and if so I apologise but, the references to Cap and not to Steve is what my thing about splitting the article down is about. I'm not saying give these others full blown pages of their own (though as I said I'm pretty sure they already have one) and I'm not saying lose all the Steve Rogers stuff. I'm just saying that we don't need to go as indepthly as we have with the Steve Rogers plot stuff and that some consensus needs to be reached on how articles of this nature should look (generally). Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That sounds good. That said, some mention of he album and movie belongs here too. Bradford WRight, in Comic Book Nation, points to Fonda's character as an example of counter-culture appropriation of the Marvel ideas and characters. But yes, you're getting my point now. Let's get to work! (That said, I may be making only smaller edits for the next couple weeks as real world eclipses onoline time). glad we've got a direction in mind now! ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ThuranX - was going to drop you a line on your talk page but, it doesn't seem to be editable (no tab at the top). I've started the subpage so if you want to help get the edits together just popon over. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Rogers 

message: overall the article looks solid as reworked, but I do notice a number of creative team citations are gone, let's find a way to reincorporate them, as those are a part of the real world context we're looking for. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revamp 

message: Is the Bucky thing really a "retcon" or just part of the story that wasn't told until recently? I think it is only really a retcon if it contradicts something that counted as canon earlier and I don't think the operative to do things Steve couldn't be seen to do fits. I'm asking here for consensus of somesort. Also, I'm thinking if the answer is yes it is definitely a retcon that we need to clean up the language a little. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the Winter Soldier, it's a ret-con, yes. Bucky was presented as dead for over 40 years, without any 'hints' otherwise. He used to be one of the big three, even. Barry Allen, Bucky Barnes, and Ben Parker were the three peopel they couldn't bring back. They've brought back two now; only Barry's still dead, though he does get used in flashbacks (sorry) occasionally. ThuranX (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the recasting of Bucky as this like... secret agent intended to do the stuff that America's Symbol couldn't? Yes, also retconning, designed to add a new and deeper backstory to what started out as a kid sidekick, and set up for WHY he was able to become the Winter Soldier. it's all a retcon. ThuranX (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The body wasn't found, but Bucky has appeared in some issues set in the afterlife (although quite a few such "dead" characters have been since revealed to have not been dead at all). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bucky "retcon" 

message: there is a link about gay guy named Arnold roth says issue dealed with homophobia. can someone write an article up about him? i know nothing about him so plz helpEdaldren (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article about him, but it was turned into a redirect, as the only Real World notability was that he was used in a story that touched on homophobia, and it was felt that the character lacked independent notability. As such, I've removed the link, since it just feeds back here. If you can find notable real world information about the character, you can access his page from an older version of this page, and then examine the edit history there, and build on what is there, but I recommend having good sources before you edit there, because you risk a quick Articles for deletion debate if you just tidy up grammar and try to start relinking it. ThuranX (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arnold Roth

message: I've removed a bit from the death and aftermath section. My reasoning is that the "current events" need not be covered (especially if it is just because someone in a costume happens to be about. This article is about Steve Rogers and nothing supports that the Captain America in any current comic other than Avengers/Invaders is actually THE Captain America that this article is about. I am more than open to discussion on this page with people that agree or disagree with my action. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current Events" 

message: Do we actually need an External Links section in this article? If so why? Thank you. Personally, I don't think we do as it doesn't add anything to the article and is very much open for spam and other nonsense additions but, thought it better to discuss here than to just BOLDLY remove the section. Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One's to another wiki, which is generally supported as an EL, another's to marvel's official character page. the other two i'd see no problem in dropping. ThuranX (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: ...got cut off, then when I went to insert a comma, I got a "file conflict" notice, so the progression of editing got confused. The full edit summary should have read, "Subbed 'the uniform's mask' for both 'Captain America's mask' (parallel construction, but word echo) or 'Steve Rogers' mask' (potentially confusing since it's part of the same uniform)." 
But I can see ThuranX's point that saying only "the uniform's mask" suggests it might not be real. 
The clearest thing, word echo or no, is "Captain America's mask."
Sorry for any "file conflict" confusion! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a big deal, however, Punisher got Steve's cowl, and his giving it was like him saying he was giving the legacy to someone he respected as being more worthy of it than himself, let's see if we can't get a bit mroe of that in. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you came up with a good phrase -- clears up any potential confusion, and avoids the word-echo. Nice! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My edit summary

message: How exacatly is "canon" the informations in this article - Weapon Plus#Weapon I? If it's canon, why it's not included in CA article, possibly in "origin" section? thanks :) --89.24.67.231 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly because it's a retcon which hasn't been much commented upon since the introduction of the idea. ThuranX (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  weapon plus 

message: This is what the article currently says: "Stark receives a letter containing Rogers' final requests: Stark should "save" Bucky, and that despite his demise the world still needs Captain America.[58]"
How are those 'requests'? I would fix it but I'm not a drooling superhero nerd fanboy so I didn't bother reading the teenage soap opera. Someone fix it please. Faethon Ghost (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "requests" because Steve wants Tony to both save Bucky and continue the mantle of Captain America... *SIGN* 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death and Aftermath