Talk:Civil War (comics)/Archive 2

message: Because every current Marvel character has been listed and then re-listed on the opposing side, for the purposes of accuracy and out-of-world perspective, the characters on the lists should be grouped by the issue in which they are clearly shown to support or oppose the act.--Chris Griswold 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I started to re-organize tonight and realized it was a bad idea. I have some new ideas, however: See beliow. --Chris Griswold 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing by issue 

message: I believe that it would be a good idea to include separate page listing what happened in each of the Cival War comics. I saw this on the Planet Hulk page and I think it would work well here, too. --71.118.168.253 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. WP:CMC tries to avoid drawn-out plot summaries. Please sign your comments. --Chris Griswold 08:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Chris, definitely bad idea.  Not only is it consensus at WP:CMC, it's also against WP policy to have articles solely dedicated to summarizing plot. --Newt ΨΦ 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline 

message: While Marvel is being nice this way and letting the readers escape having to buy every single book in the entire crossover, it would be handy if we can list the comics in more or less chonological order. Obviously Civil War 1 - 4 goes like that, but all the other comics take place at various times and should be listed in such an order. Much handier methinks. -Krawnight 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, I can tell this one's going to be a headache to compile, but I agree, it should exist (not necessarily as a "read order" but more as an "order of events"). Thankfully Marvel is keeping their continuity, such as it is, fairly tight in the Civil War refrences, at least they were. Darquis 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been arranging my tie-ins by each Civil War issue. Since they all overlap, it's impossible to be 100% accurate, but this is as close as it gets:
Issue One - 
Amazing Spider-Man #532
Frontline #1
New Avengers #21
She-Hulk #8
Wolverine #42
Issue 2 - 
Amazing Spider-Man #533
Frontline #2
New Avengers #22
Cable & Deadpool #30
Thunderbolts #103
Wolverine #43
Wolverine #44
X-Factor #8
X-Factor #9
Issue 3 - 
Frontline #3
Frontline #4
Civil War: X-Men #1
Thunderbolts #104
Young Avengers & Runaways #1
Issue 4 - 
Amazing Spider-Man #534
However, because there is so much overlapping and not strict timeline, I would advise 'against' putting one in the article some time soon.--Goldenboy 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sort of a reading order 

message: I think the information on the Hulk (listed under the Neutral section) should not be included.  They didn't send the Hulk away because he'd be a danger to the Act, they sent him away because he was a danger to everyone in general.  He has absolutely not role in Civil War (at least not at the moment). So I feel we shouldn't even included him at all. Jedispyder 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was removed for that reason on an editorial level. --Chris Griswold 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either I changed Hulk from being neutral, or I created a header for the headerless Hulk by making him under Uninvolved, since he technically isn't neutral becuase he knows nothing about it.Jedispyder 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on Hulk - really necessary? 

message: Black Panther is indeed neutral, he is not pro nor anti-registration.  Just look at his dialogue in CW#3:
"A super police force covering all fifty states?  And me helping him (Iron Man) hunt down the super heroes who disagree with it?  I don't think so, Reed.  We (Wakanda) don't like it when America interferes in Wakandan affairs, and I can only assume the feeling is reciprocated".
He feels that this is something America needs to deal with on its own, and he should not be part of it at all.--Jedispyder 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to see what he thinks of it when it fucks up his wedding. He paid a lot of money for that ice sculpture. Storm will be so upset that she'll be in the attic for days taking magic showers. --Chris Griswold 06:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wedding is over and done with, only problem was one drunken "fight" and Cap and Iron Man walking away from the wedding after Black Panther tried to get the two to talk about what is going on.  That usually would mean he is neutral if he's trying to get both parties to think about what is going on without forcing his views about it).--Jedispyder 06:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Panther is neutral 

message: We have him under opposed and neutral? He seemed pretty nutral to me, refusing to enter into the fighting. MaxusDarte 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have merged the two threads.--Chris Griswold 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No. I believe that is supposed to be an illustration of the fight at the Stark company in issue #3. Much like other illustrations we've seen for this series (CW:FL#1), it's not supposed to be taken as canon, however: That Daily Bugle issue is supposed to be out around the time of #3 (It's already been seen in several of the comics), but it shows lots of characters who were not involved in that fight or the fighting in general, including Wolverine, Namor, and the runaways. Any use of this as reference material is flawed. --Chris Griswold 04:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Thing

message: From what I have read, the Illuminati broke up and they were a secret. So why doese it say that the world is waiting for their response as stated in the Synopsis.--Phoenix741 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Illuminati?

message: We need to make some indication of in which issue events in the "synopsis" section are depicted. I just realized right now that after actually visually scanning each panel of the limited series so far, I could probably do it myself, but if anyone else wants to do it, please do. --Chris Griswold 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreferenced tag 

message: I noticed we had over 40 references, but most of them were duplicates. Check out Wikipedia:Footnotes for info on how to use one footnotes for multiple references. I've cleaned up all the ones that are already there, and created these ref names in case anyone needs them:
civilwar1pg7pn4 - Civil War 1, page 7, panel 4
civilwar1pg33pn1 - Civil War 1, page 33, panel 1
civilwar2pg3pn3 - Civil War 2, page 3, panel 3
civilwar2pg17pn1 - Civil War 2, page 17, panel 1
civilwar3pg3pn2 - Civil War 3, page 3, panel 2
civilwarfrontline4 - Civil War: Frontline 4
civilwarxmen1pg19pn3-7 - Civil War: X-Men 1, page 10, panels 3 and 7
nytimesfeb2006 - NYtimes article from february 20, 2006
shehulk8 - She Hulk 8
thunderbolts103 - Thunderbolts 103
thunderbolts104 - Thunderbolts 104
wolverine43 = Wolverine 43
You can see the naming conventions I'm using, if you want to start adding some yourself. Note: I did not check sources that had already been put into the article, I trusted them and just changed them into footnotes.
:Again, thanks for doing this. I just wanted to get them down; I'm just glad you came by to tidy up. --Chris Griswold 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I included panels is that characters keep being moved from list to list; now, you actually have to look at what is being cited and provide your own citation to refute it. --Chris Griswold 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My concern is that with all the complex referencing, it's much more difficult to edit and add characters to the various lists. I.E, I'd love to be able to add citations for Jane Foster and Night Nurse, but frankly, I have no idea how. --Goldenboy 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's way easier than it seems, the wiki software does a lot of the work. Check out the Wikipedia:Footnotes section I mentioned before, or look at the article as it is to learn by example. The complexity involved in citing individual pages and panels makes it more difficult, that's why I suggested just referencing issues so that someone can use ref names. Bradtcordeiro 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do add them. I saw two tiny, nondescript women in CW#2, panel 1, but they weren't clear enough to state that's who they are. Where is it clearly stated that they are with the hooligans? --Chris Griswold 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh: And the Civil War solicitations and covers. They're not accurate at all. One CW:FL #1, two anti-reg heroes are standing on the pro-reg side. To take any of these solicitations is pure folly, sir, and I will not see good men such as yourself be made the victim of such treachery. --Chris Griswold 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I Believe The Refrences has really made the article more complex. It seemes easier just looking for the characcter's name and fllowed by the issue in which they were describe as wether they were for and against the act was much simplier. Simply adding the exact panel would had improved it enough,IMO. This I believe will make it harder for other editors to add to the list as more releases will tell us more.--RedBugz007 05:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, it's easy just to copy the template and change whatever info you need, and I or another editor will certainly come along and make sure it is all proper. --Chris Griswold 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help Bradtcordeiro, definately easier than it seems. And yeah Chris, those 2 non-descript women are Night Nurse and Jane Foster. Newsarama had a "Civil War Room" shortly after issue #2, where Tom Beveroot did indeed confirmed their identities - Goldenboy 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then actually, that's what we should cite; incidentally, great use of those two characters. They're going wonderfully obscure. And "Beveroot" sounds like an Australian soft drink. --Chris Griswold 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, actually, I should have said "Brevoort"! Incidently, I've linked the first 3 "Civil War Rooms" at the bottom of the article, just above the other external links, since they're a "Director's Commentary" of sorts. Goldenboy 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that. Great work. It definitely improves the article.--Chris Griswold 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping Footnotes Clean 

message: Per Markeer's suggestion, we will have a formal survey to last 2-3 days. Should the Civil War character lists stay or go? Please make your case below.
*Remove - The lists cannot properly convey the information they are intending to convey, which, if anywhere, should go in a plot synopsis. As I have said, such information should be cited; otherwise, the characters will continue to be moved from list to list as they have been, and that has proven problematic as well. --Chris Griswold 07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Chris Griswoldspan>|</span> contribs </span>  05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Chris Griswoldspan>|</span> contribs </span> 11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, which is is why I was against the straw poll in the first place.  They usually close w/out consensus and there's very little discussion.  People state their viewpoints and leave it.  --Newt ΨΦ 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I count the consensus as 8-5 in favor of removal of the lists, with Kusonaga a possible ninth. I'm not sure how to continue this conversation. Would you like to lead it? --Chris Griswold 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: True, and dealling with something of this weight to the article would require some commited discussion. JQF 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Where did this listing in the Tie-Ins come from? I don't remember hearing anything about it, does anyone have a source? Brad T. Cordeiro 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have been mentioned during Con Season, but Newsarama has a feature on it today. From what I can tell, it's a set of three One-Shots. One on the Winter Soldier, one on Kingpin, and one on Iron Man & Cap's last meeting. - Goldenboy|talk|contribs 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see the story now. I couldn't trace when/who it was added and wanted to make sure it wasn't just a piece of hearsay, Newsarama is legit. Brad T. Cordeiro 00:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War: War Crimes 

message: This is a poll on whose side you would join in the Civil War. Would it be Iron Man's team or Captain America's team? That is for you to decide. Both teams have their qualities and reasons to be on. Since I'm the founder, I'll go first. I would choose Tony Stark, the amazing Iron Man. My reason? Stark's choice to find the rebel superheroes and help them be a part of the government is a very nice choice for me. Plus, he's got a lot of good guys on his team, such as Spider-Man, Mr. Fantastic, and Doc Samson. Anyone else who has a choice, sign below me. Cheers! 71.38.19.176 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this is an appropriate topic for this talk page, although I agree it's a fun subject.  As it mentions in the box at the top of this page "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Civil War (comics) article.  Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." -Markeer 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Fun subject, but that is absolutely not what these article discussion pages are about. Doczilla 05:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whose side would you choose?

message: So I posted on the talk page of Civil War: Front Line how the article is blatant copyright infringement as it's a highly detailed issue-by-issue summary of the series.  The question is, has it already been discussed whether CW:FL should be part of this article?  Almost all of it could be removed or at least significantly condensed.  I didn't want to start a redundant merge discussion by tagging the articles if it's already been discussed.  If it's not already been discussed, then I guess use this as the start of the discussion. Also, if it's decided to keep it separate, can we get someone to condense CW:FL and maybe some more people to patrol it to help it from growing? I'd do it myself, but more and more I'm just finding enough time to discuss problem articles than actually do major edits.  --Newt ΨΦ 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already disscussed when it was proposed that all Civil War mini-series be mergered with this page, but it was decided that this page would get too long and clutered, that each series should have it's own article, and that this article should for the most part focus on the main Civil War series. JQF 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me where this was discussed?  Regardless, anyone want to condense the Civil War: Front Line article?  I mean Jesus!  That is so very not fair use.  We are not here to act as substitutes for the comic or keep people up to date on what's happening in the comic.  --Newt ΨΦ 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It evolved out of the Merger with Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways discussion, near the end. JQF 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, it was brought up as a red herring and never discussed on its own.  Its separateness was assumed by your comments and then not questioned as it was not part of the discussion at hand (i.e. whether CW:YA/RA should be merged).  The fact that its existence had not yet been questioned is not reason enough for it to exist.  Right now, it only exists (though I do like the lead) as a repository for plot summary.  The fifth issue summary alone is longer than the summary of X-Men: The Last Stand.  Anyway, I think it's time to question the need for CW:FL as a separate article. --Newt ΨΦ 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a series comprising upwards of 80 issues. I think it's OK to cover 10 of the important issues (CW:FL) here. --Chris Griswold 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Civil War: Front Line 

message: Since my "whose side would you join" poll was somewhat a large failure, I'll open up a new topic that's less forumish.
I think that Iron Man's decision to bring the rebel superheroes is very generous. Considering that Captain America was unwilling to join the registration act, you'd think no one would care to help him face to society. The problem is, Captian America is a superhero, but by refusing to let the superheroes say their part, his stubborness is seperating him more from the public.
I apologize if I have offended any Captain America fans or done the same mistake twice. If you wish me to remove this, I shall gladly do so. 75.58.211.220
:This is not a fan forum.  If it has no business in the article (and POV statements rarely do), then discussion of it has no business here.  --Newt ΨΦ 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, keep it cool Newt =] anyways, dude im sure youre eager to express your thoughts with the civil war arch, i suggest you visit http://superherohype.com/forums, you can also try http://newsrama.com, btw, im also a pro-registration =p   †Bloodpack†   argh!  00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I fear that regardless of whichever side a person chooses, the whole thing is still racist. --Chris Griswold 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eh? what does race has to do with law implementation?  †Bloodpack†   argh!  22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Jim Crow laws for race and law implementation (one instance), but keep in mind that Chris has a very dry sense of humor.  As for my earlier comment, I wasn't trying to come off as mean, just frank.  Sorry.  --Newt ΨΦ 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the link, didnt know theres such thing as Jim Crow laws, US is really rich in history  †Bloodpack†   argh!  22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice way to put it. --Newt ΨΦ 22:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Yes, I was being silly about the racism thing. Although I haqve found it very interesting to see that all the African American characters appear to be joining Captain America - all the ones that aren't crazy dudes from the future. In recent issues of Black Panther, Luke Cage is enthused about the idea of the Black Avengers after he teams up with Falcon, Black Panther, Blade, Brother Voodoo, and Monica Rambeau. I hope someone writes an article about how race is being factored into this series. --Chris Griswold 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad thing is, it'd fall foul of original research on Wikipedia.  Hiding Talk 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I meant someone should write an article for the even-handed, middle-of-the-road comics magazine that doesn't exist.--Chris Griswold 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew exactly what you meant, hence my comment. I meant Wikipedia is the only place such an article would likely get published. Hiding Talk 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: no problem buddy, but i dont understand why you restrict yourself from joining a forum just because of age  †Bloodpack†   argh!  07:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be under 13 years of age and subject to the COPPA act. 68.249.2.213 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions on Capt. America and Iron Man

message: Should one of these be renamed?  They seem like almost redundant headings for differing information.  --NewtΨΦ 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plot" and "Synopsis" 

message: http://www.newsarama.com/WW_Chicago_06/Marvel/IlluminatiMini.html
I wonder, however, if this really ties in to Civil War. It mostly covers the Illuminati's actions prior to the war (such as the Kree-Skrull War and Hulk's exile). Substatic 13:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Illuminati mini 

message: Is this really necessary? If we don't know who they are, then is this notable enough to be included? I don't think it necessary to list every person who appears in every panel, if we don't know who they are. I feel the same way about the "Many citizens of Harlem, New York" under opponents. Brad T. Cordeiro 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal is a good idea.-Chris Griswold  (☏) 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But without the unidentified tag, it looks like the underground resistance is made up of just those five guys, when in reality it was much more than that. --71.7.134.247 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unidentified" Super-Humans 

message: Is it fair to classify Bishop as anti-registration, perhaps under SHIELD agents?
Arti1337 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Bishop ever mentioned his feelings on or fought for the Act? He's concerned instead with the 198. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It'd be better to put him under "Government Enforcers" since the Government has given him permission to sort of "police" the mutant population, notably the 198, during this event, along with Sabra and Micromax and the Sentinel Force, which is government owned, so I think that's the best way to describe his involvement here.172.166.249.171 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop 

message: Is this article meant to cover the entire event or just the Civil War comic? --NewtΨΦ 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article covers all the goings-on of the event. The character list, certainly, and the list of related comics. Additionally, the event has received the press, in both the comics and mainstream media. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 18:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event or comic book? 

message: As a result of the changes in Civil War #4, I have changed the lists, moving Nighthawk, Cable and Stature to the list of Unregistered heroes, because they abandonned the Secret Avengers, but have not registered, as of yet. I also put Black Goliath on the list of casualties and taken Wiccan from the Secret Avengers roster, although I see someone has already put him on the Aprrehended Opponent's list. I have not included referances, and it'd be nice if someone else wanted to, or at least put 'citation needed'.
Atreyu1075 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, Cable did not leave the Anti-Registration side, since we know from Cable & Deadpool #31 he came back from the fight in which he saw a good man die.  Therefore, Cable left the Anti-Registration to go pick up Deadpool and go to the White House to argue about the Fifty State Initiative, and at the end the President ask Deadpool (a.k.a., a government agent) to attack Cable (a.k.a., Secret Avenger).  Nighthawk is somehow working for the Grandmaster anyway, and is probably a spy (but that's only speculation).  Stature is the only one really abandoning her post. --142.167.151.10 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War #4 Changes