Talk:Hulk/Archive 3

message: What is all this talk about gamma radiation? 
I seem to remember that Dr. Bruce Banner was experimenting with reverse gamma radiation when something went horribly wrong, or horribly right, and he became the Incredible Hulk.
This is an important point because many people have been exposed to gamma radiation and there is only one Incredible Hulk. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Bruce Banner is the only person to have been exposed to reverse gamma radiation, and, hence, is the only person to have become the Incredible Hulk. I am probably wrong about that last item, but my point is that reverse gamma rays are extremely rare. Otherwise, there would be lots of Incredible Hulks running around. 
Substituting gamma rays for reverse gamma rays in the Hulk story is not cute like substituting a recombinant DNA spider for a radioactive spider in the Spiderman movie. It would be a sacrilege like substituting copper for kryptonite in the Superman story.Captain Phoenix 00:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse Gamma Rays 

message: Can ANYONE tell me when Hulk is going to reach it's 500th issue?
Technically speaking, the Hulk has already reached its 500th issue a while back. Before they relaunched the Hulk title, there had been somewhere around 470 issues of the Incredible Hulk already printed since 1962.Odin's Beard 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for future posts refrain from using the talk page for anything but discussions about the article. This is not a forum. Also dont forget to sign your posts. Thefro552 02:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This SHOULD be in the Article. To Odin's Beard: when Marvel rebooted Incredible Hulk at Issue #474... it was technically only issue #376. Here's why. After the first six issues of Incredible Hulk in 1962, Marvel canceled the series. Six years later, "Tales to Astonish" was renamed into "The Incredible Hulk" starting at issue #102. Therefore, if you do the math, Hulk is technically at issue #484. pvegeta 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very interesting and all, but I fail to see how it could be important to the article. It's an itneresting bit of trivia, but that's about it. If there were a trivia section, it'd be an ideal addition I believe. However, since the article is, currently, almost the same size as the Wolverine article, last thing it needs really is another section.Odin's Beard 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #500 

message: Per Wikipedia Manual of Style:
Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
    * On images with extreme aspect ratios
    * When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
    * When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region
    * On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.
--Tenebrae 04:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image size

message: The section describing Bruce Banner's appearance in Marvel Ultimate Alliance is unclear. It says who voiced him in the Xbox, PS3 and Wii versions and also says he was a playable character in the downloadable add-on to the Xbox 360 version. There is no mention of the PS2, PSP and PC versions of the game. Does Bruce Banner appear in them at all? 218.215.128.29 04:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not unclear, it's incomplete. feel free to research that and report back. ThuranX 05:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulk in Marvel Ultimate Alliance 

message: The mountain lifitng feet is a huge misconception spread across net that needs to be clarified for an enclyopedia. Just saying on cover "he's under billions of tons of rock" doesn't translate to "he alone is supporting 150 billion tons." just because there are "two miles of rock above them" doesn't mean "he alone is supporting 150 billion tons." he's holding a lot of weight, i'll give him that much. but he isn't holding/bracing/pushing against 150 billion tons. The planes of the top half of the mountain and the bottom half of the mountain weren't separated. hulk wasn't the only point of connection between, thus, he was not bracing the entire weight of the mountain. the vast majority of the "bottom half" on which the "top half" was resting was holding the majority of the weight.  If that much weight was pressing down directly onto the hulk, the rock wall would be shattering and grinding every hero in their to dust as it takes over the "empty" area in an attempt to relieve the pressure. This is pretty easy to see in issue.
You're substituting personal interpretation and opinion for what the official stance is. If Marvel Comics says that the guy supported or can support 150 billion tons, that's what goes into the article.  Granted, it was written on the cover of the issue but the amount of weight is still clearly written. Everything you said makes sense in the real world, but  you're fighting a losing battle when it comes to applying logic to comic book articles. If anyone has ever read a comic book, it's obvious that what's logical isn't always what applies. Even the laws of science and nature don't apply in comic books, as they're routinely broken on a regular basis. Odin's Beard 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read the actual issue. I've got the paperback of all 12 issues, which features the cover of each individual issue inside. I'm looking at the cover of #4 right this second and it says, and I quote, "Beneath one hundred and fifty billion tons, stands the Hulk -- And he's not Happy!" You really need to get your facts straight before you post. Also, please sign your posts next time.Odin's Beard 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulk in Secret Wars 

message: The planet hulk section had excess detail in it and I have cut it down to two paragraphs. How it stands now explains the key bits for a general reader.  --Fredrick day 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I posted on this anon-IP user's talk page, WPC prohibits overdetailed, issue-by-issue synopses, and in this case, the information doesn't even go here but in the main article, World War Hulk. I don't know how old 24.90.196.182 is, and justing from "him meating with the x-men" I imagine it's a kid and I don't want to be harsh, but this detailed information about one story arc doesn't belong on  the general Hulk page that has a "see main" link. I'm sorry. --Tenebrae 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if you'll look again at the Spider-Man article, you'll see that the "Fictional character biography" is just one paragraph, with a link to Fictional history of Spider-Man. And if you go to that sub-article, you'll find the the "Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline is also just one paragraph, with a link to The Night Gwen Stacy Died. Honestly, there's no bias here. --Tenebrae 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line here folks, is that additional detail on the World War Hulk events should be posted at the World War Hulk main article not here. Here, it becomes clutter. Kontar 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess detail in description of Planet Hulk 

message: This article is quite long. I propose that we make the 'Other versions' section into its own article. Both Spider-Man and Wolverine have their own article about their other versions. (Wolverine's; Spider-Man's) This was done to shorten the main article, and I think it should be done here. -Freak104 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article is getting long and we should probably break that section off onto another page specifically designed for "Other Versions," especially if there continues to be developments for those other versions such as Ultimate Hulk.--Kontar 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to move 'Other versions' to a new article 

message: This is in relation to the Hulk articles in general. I can't find any that have incorporated the nature of the retcons established in "Tempest Fugit" and "Hulk: Destruction". The former completely wipes Bruce Jones' run out of continuity; the latter confirms this and also rewrites the background of the Abomination so it fits into a contemporary continuity (as opposed to one where the US is at war with Russia). This needs improvement. MultipleTom 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to provide citation stating that the stories are accepted retcons which were intended as such by Marvel. After such, you could add the revisions to the article, but not in place of the current info. Rather it would need to be presented in the Out-of-Universe style that Marvel had story A, but in year X retconned story B into the character history. ThuranX 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be simpler to just excise the "offending" (I use the term loosely) content? The relevant issues are Hulk #81 (wherein Nightmare reveals that the Hulk has been living on his fantasy island for a while) and Hulk: Destruction #4 (wherein the Abomination does not recall their previous "encounter" involving his wife and Hulk remembers that it was Nightmare's doing). Together, this conclusively established that none of the events of Bruce Jones' run past #50 (and, presumably, prior to that as well, as it was all part of the same storyline) actually happened anywhere other than in Bruce Banner's mind. MultipleTom 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. The retcon was easily explicit enough to negate any claims of speculation, as long as we note down that it may not be final. (That goes for Black Panther as well btw) However, while the Bruce Jones run may be out (or at least partially out, as this was the point of the 'Dream and Reality meshing together' comment, the Paul Jenkins stuff still seems valid, given that Ryker has shown up in 'Gamma Corps'. Dave 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to chime in here. Beyond the Hulk: Destruction story the retcons were confirmed in the recent World War Hulk #3, where Betty was stated as dead by General Ross. So the Devil Hulk, the ooc Absorbing Man story, and most of Bruce Jones' run, i.e. Betty's resurrection, Nadia and the Abomination, seem to be out going by the images above Nightmare when he explained his scheme. Although the Leader's two 'deaths' were simply noted as confusing ruses he had manufactured himself in She-Hulk #18. Dave 10:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not citable information, that's your judgement based on different writers' stories, and is explained under WP:SYNTH. You need to find an interview with the writers, or a sstatement by one of marvel's Hulk editors, stating that it's all retconned out. That Marvel chose to turn it all into the Bobby Ewing ending is not indicative, on it's own, of a 'retcon'. It's indicative of one group of writers being hired to 'fix' a plot ending that was unacceptable to the readers or editorial staff or both. That it all was built into and explained by the Nightmare story means that it all still happened, even if most of it was really in his head. ThuranX 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. it was all in the Hulk's head, and/or tangible illusions created by Nightmare. That's the point of the retcon. It was more elegant than simply saýing "it was all a dream", more like "much of it was a scheme". In any case I do remember a Peter David/Paul Jenkins panel where David said that he considered most of what happened after he first left as out of continuity, so if someone could find that for further backup that would be an idea. However the only retcons explicitly shown were those mentioned above, so we'll have to restrict ourselves to mentioning that, rather than scrap everything 1998-2004 or so. Dave 14:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's STILL not a retcon. A retcon is a real world, non-in-universe editorial decision to alter or remove prior events in the character's personal history. Without any editorial commentary to cite, the entire event that occured counts as 'Nightmare began a long and subtle attack against the Hulk, manipulating him in dreams to believe her was being pursued by a giant faceless organzation. Within the fantasy Nightmare created, Hulk was tricked into killing the abomination, running from the government, seeing betty come back to life, and on and on." It's all legit and real. Your continued insistence that the 'it was all a dream' equals' it's a retconning' is groundless without citation. That David decided that nothing that happened since he quit counted and used the Dream device to get around all that is his way of saying, I don't want to deal with any of this stuff, I want it how I left it, so everything since I left was in a dream. It might be Peter David's retcon, in that he doesn't have to acknowledge all that stuff, but to call it such would need a citation. (and frankly, it's a good sign of why Peter David never should have come back to the comic, since he refused to accept anything not his. Big ownership issues.) ThuranX 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So to boil it down we agree of what happened (Some of the Jenkins and most of the Jones run were definitely 'hallucinations' crated by Nightmare, or at least the 'no Nadia' and 'dead Betty' bits were confirmed in other stories) but use different words to describe it? The definition that explicit editorially passed happenings within the comics are not enough to warrant the retcon word itself is new information to me, but if you have a better term I have no problem with using that instead. As for PD, I agree that he seemed too possessive, but several things later on, including 'the professor' and Nadia's portrayal, directly contradicted what he had established as well, alternately made no sense, like the Absorbing Man being a creepy serial-killer or the formerly dead/stuck in a polar bear Leader twice showing up mutated just to die again, so it's at least partially understandable. Dave 15:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tempest Fugit retcon 

message: Please note that the "Savage" title is a point of view of wiki editors, not the official titling of the Marvel character. We should not use fan-based editing. Marvel titles the character "Rampaging" to the point of it being the actual name of the series devoted to this personality: Rampaging Hulk#1. There are other references current day as well, including the Marvel Adventures series "Avengers" #4, where this version of the Hulk is still dominant and even still wears purple pants. And in this issue, he is referred to as "the Rampaging Hulk." Please refrain from adding POV edits, regardless of how emotionally attached you may be to that titling. "Savage" is not canon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2007
:WHy it took this long to get an explanation from you and your friend at 193.    is beyond me. Further, I'm not the only one who has bothered to revert the change. Accusations of POV and 'fan-based editing' are personal attacks. Learn wiki's etiquette, refrain from  personal attacks, and learn to use talk pages sooner. Finally, use four Tildes ~~~~ to ign your posts, even with an IP and no account. Thank you. ThuranX 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, guys, guys, could you please take this discussion of wiki etiquette elsewhere? Like maybe ThuranX's talk page since 24.9.20.149 apparently doesn't have one. This talk page should be devoted to the Hulk, not slamming each other. Thanks guys. Oh and for my part, "Rampaging" is much better in terms of accuracy. --Kontar 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. He's been officially called the rampaging Hulk in the past, but they've apparently changed it now. Not that either makes much sense. If anything the Joe Fixit version was far more savage, (cheerfully watching a well-intended screwball be condemned to Hell pretty much makes him pure evil) and the mindless versions were the automatically rampaging. Dave 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampaging vs. Savage 

message: I basically agree with the reverts in the general article text, and can see how the friends&enemies sections take too much room, even if I think they're concise and informative. If you wish to shorten the texts there or cut away some of the less important foes like Psyklop, that would be understandable, but I really don't think the powers section is overloaded. The Hulk has performed a lot of feats over the years, and I've strictly kept to very concisely describing the most relevant circumstances. It's also not standard wikipedia policy to cut away concise explicit references. It's understandable if you personally take the time to improve the flow of the text while keeping all of them, but simple cut&paste reverts just seem like vandalism, or at least laziness. Dave 11:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now made an attempt to cut down the f&e and improve the flow of the powers section. Dave 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this has turned really silly. JJonz doesn't listen to reason, gives no actual talk arguments, and resorts to crude insults when logic fails him. He's going against every wikipedia philosophy out there. In any case I've genuinely tried to improve the page, and generally try to be reasonable, but it's pretty hard when the other party doesn't take any time to actually improve the possibly inaccurate points, rather than lazily reverting everything, doesn't gives any point-by point arguments of why he think it's 'POV'/why unfounded sweeping censorship somehow isn't, and resorts to bratty obnoxious insults instead of reason or using the Talk page. I'm bored of this now, but hopefully we can get some editor to mediate. Dave 12:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed that JJonz had been banned for 1 day due to his vandalism, but then Fredrick day immediately did the same thing. Is there any chance we could talk about what we should keep or rephrase about the added material instead of this pointless non-argument? Dave 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually you will note that I immediately reverted my revert as I decided I didn't actually want to become involved in this situation. that's the start,middle and end of my involvement in the matter --Fredrick day 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. My apologies for mentioning you then. I'm also pretty much done with it now, but if anyone would like to browse through the edits and re-insert the ones that are relevant with non-flowery language (which is the way I always write) that would be nice. I tried to be as thorough, concise and factual as I could. Dave 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We can ,but I'd suggest EITHER talking things out here, or reverting over and over to your version, which it seems guarantees reversion back and escalation of hostilities. There's enough criticism of your edits on this talk page already, I'd suggest you picking up the ball and moving it forward here, instead of out there. ThuranX 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm completely bored of re-editing, so I'd much rather talk about it and then see what comes out of that, but think a lot of the powers section additions are very relevant references as such, even if the language was inappropriate. Please bring up the inserts I got wrong, that should be reworded, or you think should be kept. At least I think I managed to shorten down the friends & enemies section pretty well, and also put them in alphabetic order. Dave 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the JJOnz reverts 

message: Does anyone know why the article still has a improper tense tag associated with it? If so, can we fix the problem and get that thing off of here? I'm not the best at grammar, or else I'd do it myself. Kontar 03:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense and Style 

message: Building upon Kontar's suggestion to create a separate Hulk Feats page, moving overcrowded sections seemed to work great for "Friends & Enemies", and would follow the precedent of Powers and abilities of Superman. 
This would allow the space to create a brief additional 'Oddball/Unusual/One-time Powers' section listing the gills, nexus, homing sense, gamma-blast reflection, and dark magic sponge seemingly temporary abilities, as well as the suggested feats section, without running the risk of each separate part being too short to warrant a page on their own. 
The incarnations section is also in need of a certain expansion, since the 'Heroes Reborn Hulks', and the states in-between 'Merged Hulk' and 'Green Scar' aren' covered. Although the current version seems to be a maturing of the HR and Tempest Fugit/House of M personality, which both incorporate characteristics from 'rampaging' and 'grey' Hulk, so perhaps mentioning that would be enough? Dave 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving of "Power & Abilities" and "Incarnations" to separate sub-section pages?

message: This has been confirmed by Xavier, Dr.Strange, reed and Iron Man. Current Greyvage Hulk or green Scare would wipe the floor with Savage Hulk like a green tissue paper on his bottom. Savage hulk is NOT the strongest version of Hulk. Stop putting on page people!
:We know that, but so could Bannerless Heroes Reborn Hulk, and the other 2-3 occasions mentioned above briefly put Hulk way past the current version. I think you'd agree that he's currently couldn't take Galactus' lunch money, as in the Onslaught case. We solved that argument by agreeing that these were too brief to count as actual incarnations. Dave 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I may have to eat that statement. Hulk is currently set to slug it out with Zom, who is more powerful than Dormammu, who is more powerful than Mephisto, who is equal to Galactus. It took the Living Tribunal to stop him, so we've got another Onslaught-level fight brewing. Dave 10:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is complete WP:OR. You'd need some fairly neutral sources to back all that up. This is getting tiresome, reminding everyone that the page is NOT a fanboy reserve. Find the writers and editors discussing this stuff. Get quotes. Stop analyzing the in-universe stories for clues. Since each writer primarily writes for the quality of the story, each writer's version and interpretation of the capabilities changes. Get some neutral souces, please. ThuranX 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the stories themselves just as neutral as writer making an open statement through interview rather than his work? That said, I think Zom being more powerful than Dormammu was covered in the old Marvel Universe handbook, beyond being too much to handle within a comic. Dave 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMIC's got a standing opposition to citing the OHTTMU. I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring me. Find good citation. Find editors making statements. Find books where the character is analyzed. Do the research, don't just point to panels and say, well, it takes X strength to do what the hulk does here, so this version is XYZ strong. The moment you personally go make the comparisons between real world measures of the force exertions needed to achieve certain effects and tie those to the actions of hte Hulk, it's OR. The moment you start a continuum of strongest to weakest based on feats occuring in different comic, indiffering titles and/or under different writers, you're getting into OR again. Find a neutral source. Find a Reliable Source. Or jsut do not add the information. ThuranX 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I just keep thinking that it doesn't make any sense that stories checked and passed by editors, or a handbook scrutinised by, and with stats written by, the executive editor, somehow should 'count less' than an interview in this case. Or that a writer should automatically be correct in the most extreme cases of contradiction. I.e. a character barely manages to lift an automobile and the writer says he's the strongest ever, even though he/she clearly lifted a house in an earlier occasion. Or Zom defeats Dormammu and is listed as more powerful than Dormammu, but an explicit interview has never been done about it. Alternately an independent book is automatically counted as more verifiable than what the editors themselves have written. It's two extremes, and I can't quite synch up to either one of them. Can you understand why I find this policy rather odd under these particular circumstances? In any case I have no intents to add the Zom reference on the Hulk pages themselves. Dave 08:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I misremembered. Zom was listed as far more powerful than Dormammu's sister Umar, who is almost his equal. I'll check it up. Dave 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but it doesn't really matter. Citation and reliable sources count. Assumptions don't. I recognize that in extreme contradictions, notign the discrepancy is allowed, per the ideas behnd critiques of sources. Further, sources which dismiss all opposing evidence aren't often 'Reliable Sources'. Further, editors foul up all the time. I'm asking you to go find interviews and stuff, OUT-Of-Universe content, to back up the edits you'd like to make. if it really is so simply obvious that this Hulk's the strongest, then it should be easy to demonstrate that via articles about the change. Old CSNs might have interviewed the writers, look into it. Wizard might've covered it. but check into it. a guy who lifted a mountain and split planets before is hard to top. That this new hulk punches giant asteroids into bits is good, but not like splitting a planet, which I believe was earlier attributed to one ofthe other versions of Hulk. Without citation, this talk page will go round and round, with many dismissing any non-Peter david contentas dbious, and others insisting that Peter david's a hack, and some OTHER writer made him stronger. Further complicating this is the fact taht IF David's return means that all the stuff since his left was retconned out (A separate but now related section), that has bearing on the strength issue, as any feats done in those stories which was potentially greater no longer'counts', but should be noted as having been retconned out. that means there might be more, earlier articles about those arcs. GOod Luck. ThuranX 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh. I like you, you're funny. Pretending to switch between two extremes. Dave 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the trolls, thank you. ThuranX 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if laughing at the non-malicious ones qualifies, but point taken. Dave 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we move on to more pressing topics- like how to improve the page? Yes, there are many FANS who love purple pants and illiteracy, but the bottom line is that Marvel (in-Universe and out) have stated repeatedly that the Green Scar is the most powerful. Period. The text has relayed it, the editors in interviews have relayed it, response letters to fans from Marvel staff have relayed it, and several Marvel characters have stated the fact over and over again. There have been several verifications and citations listed. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Sorry to sound so abrupt, but the talk page is wasting space now. 24.9.20.149 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since we're basically all in agreement. ;) Dave 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Savage Hulk NO LONGER strongest version

message: The article says, "The Hulk (real name Dr. Bruce Banner in the comics but Dr. Robert Bruce Banner in the Television Show),"
This is not true.  In the comic his name is Robert Bruce Banner (But he goes by "Bruce").  In the TV show his name was David Banner.
66.134.65.66 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THen why dont you change it?Phoenix741 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innaccuracy in the article about the Hulk (comics) 

message: Particularly due to myself I'm afraid. Shouldn't we severely cut down on the less relevant topics? Dave 09:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like make an archive?Phoenix741(Talk Page) 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what alternatives that are available, but they would be stored in previous edits. I just though it might get a bit hard for readers to navigate the page. Dave 11:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who knows how (i.e. not me) should set up a bot to archive the page, or do it themselves. That's what should be done. Gscshoyru 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, then you want an archive page, I am not sure what the "offcial" way to make it is, but I just make a page called (in this case) (Redlink removed by ThuranX, Links at top of page) and then just cut and paste the discussions that are not taking part anymore. I am sure there is a bot somewhere that you can sign up for that does it automatically, let me look into itPhoenix741(Talk Page) 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. Dave 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived through June, which reduces things somewhat. After WWH is over, we can archive all the jjuly through end of WWH in archive 4. I also removed the redlink Phoenix put in, because there are already archives at the top of the page, and they should all be handled in one format, for ease of finding ,etc., etc. Thanks. ThuranX 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The talk is getting a bit long 

message: It's been a common misconception among the Hulk's readers that the Green/Savage/Rampaging Hulk was "child-like." Anyone reading the stories featuring this version will see that this version of the Hulk did not act like a child at all. He is more accurately described as a simpleton. This version of the Hulk was mature enough to have a relationship with Jarella, for example. This version of the Hulk often displayed wisdom and the sophistication of insight, like in Hulk Annual #8 when he explained to Sasquatch how selfish he was for disturbing the Hulk just to see who was the stronger of the two. Even a recent story written by Paul Jenkins featured this version of the Hulk attempting to find a mate... not what I would call a "child-like" desire. The Hulk has been described as "child-like" by his enemies and by characters who have never particularly cared for him, like Iron Man. This is part of one of the Hulk's central themes, that he is a misunderstood monster. Darin Wagner 12:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has been referred to as the child or "id" aspect of Bruce Banner's full character, and was generally behaved and was treated like a child by the Defenders. I sort of see your point about Jarella, but it was Banner in Hulk's body, or as himself, who actually romanced her, the rampaging Hulk had a similar puppy-love relationship as that of Atalanta and Ajax. In any case, I've now reworded it to "temperemental and naive simpleton" with an additional "id"/"child" mention. That should work. Dave 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Paul Jenkins' "horny gorilla out to date his cousin" bit and contradictory psychological retcons rubbed me the wrong way as well. The man has stated outright in an interview (about Captain Marvel I believe) that he has zero respect for continuity, and used Civil War as a platform to state that instigating wars with foreign countries by assassinating a few dozens of their citizens is a good and laudable thing to handle conflicts within. Essentially turning Iron Man from the worlds greatest philantropist (and somebody I completely agreed with about the registration justification, in the respect of handling superhumans as accountable police officers, rather than enforced drafts of innocent teenagers to kill for the government) into an "ends justify the means" war criminal, and later mentioned that anybody who disagrees with these methods is automatically "uninformed". Can you say severely OOC? That said, I very much liked the Ryker arc, as well as the Abomination story. In any case some of his retcons have been put into serious question, possibly including the "professor". Dave 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This entire conversation is forumish in nature, does not contribute to the article, and relies upon your own interpretations with a severe dearth of citable sources. Please remember to focus on the article, not on how cool various writers and issues are or are not. Thank you. ThuranX 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the current "temperemental and naive simpleton" with an additional "id"/"child" mention is balanced enough. Different writers have approached him differently. Both the child and simpleton aspects have come into play depending on perspective. However I'm pretty sure we don't need to insert a horny gorilla addition. ;) (Kidding, kidding) Dave 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Savage/Rampaging Hulk is not "child-like" 

message: *Intro is partly in-universe and its 1st line is totally confusing.
*Too many subsections of the "Behaviour" lack citations to comics and are totally in-universe.
*2 sections are empty.
*Other media has too small 1 or 2 line subsections.  Vikrant Phadkay 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail