Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Thor, Cap and Iron Man reunited in Siege

To end the edit war regarding this section:

In the 2010 crossover event 'Siege', Thor will reunite with the rest of the Avengers when Asgard is invaded by Norman Osborn's Dark Avengers and H.A.M.M.E.R.

I have added citations and reworded it slightly to read...

According to ComicBookMovie[27] and ComicVine[28], in the 2010 crossover event 'Siege', Thor will reunite with the rest of the Avengers when Asgard is invaded by Norman Osborn's Dark Avengers and H.A.M.M.E.R.


And no, I am not the person who originally added it. Just figured since they seemed intent on re-adding it without any citations, I might as well try to confirm a source of some sort and add it. So, since I found some sources to cite, I added them instead of removing the text.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

24.172.64.66 has removed the references I put in the text (he was the person who originally posted it, re posted it when it was removed twice by another editor because it wasnt citable, and now has removed the citations and reverted it back to his original).
I have undone his changes on this and reverted it back to my edit (also see below for additional reasons*).
You will find he seems to be going on such edit wars elsewhere as well and cannot seem to stop and read that he simply needs to put citations.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


And yet again! LoL! Left him/her a message on their Talk page. Doubt it will help. He's already been banned from editing other pages or anywhere on Wikipedia in the past it seems, and given explanations as to why. Didnt do much good.


Visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.172.64.66 for more...
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Another note, in him reverting back to his first change, he removed a bunch of other edits that no one else seems to have had problems with. My revert should have restored them to how the page was before he jumped back into this tonight.
And at this point, I must exit from dealing with this to avoid entering an edit war (I believe I am one revert away from reaching the limit, and one more to pass it - already too close to make me happy, and doesnt seem it will solve anything anyway).
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


To hopefully end the above user's re-editing, I have changed the edit to have the references inline, thus restoring his text to it's original format, but still providing references so the other editors that removed his text will hopefully find this compromise suitable.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Character Biography

Currently ends with issue #602, the series is now at issue #607. I am not condoning an issue by issue recanting of the story but there have been pretty signifanct changes that should be addressed in an encyclopedic fashion. First and foremost is that series has completed the Latverian/Doom story arc and we should bring this to a close in the article as well in a concise manner because as it stands now it is incomplete.

As far the events of Seige we should refrain from including that info until that story arc has been complete as well. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TriiipleThreat, and thanks for initiating discussion. I believe what we need to ask ourselves is, would a general-audience reader — not a comics fan — who wants to learn about this Marvel Comics character care about whether "The Latverian/Doom story arc" is complete? There are lots and lots of three- and four-issue story arcs during the classic Lee-Kirby run, but we're not detailing every one of them, either. The biography is overlong as it is, and nothing major changed for this franchise in this particular arc. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
True not every story arc is discussed in the article but the start of this particular story arc is present here, we might as well finish it. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually see where that story arc starts. I see that he sacrifices the Wasp, which is a status quo changer; kills his grandfather, ditto; and develops a symbiotic relationship with Mjolnir, also ditto. I'm a little unclear on the great significance of his rescuing Sif -- just sounds like business as usual compared to those three other things. I don't see any here about Doom and Latveria. It's just Thor battling a supervillain. There's nothing special about it -- can you see how it doesn't compare to killing an Avenger or his grandfather, or a sea change in his relationship with his weapon? -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Also the Asgardians returning to Oklahoman from Latveria is pretty significant becuase it leads into Seige which from all accounts will have far reaching effects in the Marvel Universe. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"Which from all accounts will have...." Let's wait and see what happens: WP:CRYSTAL. Whether Thor's visit to Latveria and battling a supervillain will have any significant impact or repercussions with "Siege," we have no way of knowing. Right now, at this moment, not predicting the future, it's just a superhero fighting a supervillain. That's all. That's not encyclopedically significant. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I could've sworn the section mentioned Loki manipulating Blader into moving the populace to Latveria. No matter then all is well. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New SHB

A change like that requires discussion, particularly when placing a second image in the box. The information is also not clear as uses the disallowed "vol. 1" and makes no clear distinction between JIM and Thor, just counting them as one run which is not technically true. Asgardian (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point it is technically different runs but still considered within the same volume. Also as for justification for the second inforbox it is for the Comic book Thor not the character Thor, see Green Lantern as an example of its use. The infobox was created for articles for comic book characters with their own seelf titled series. Theres currently a discussion going on about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#New infobox. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Readded the infobox with changes to show focus solely on Thor at my userspace for review. How does it fair now? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Update Current History

Added edit rearding Dr. doom and expulsion from Asgard and then how that led onto Siege. This is to update history that had stopped at June 2009. (9 months ago) Lets sehow long that will last on here before the overlord removes it. The biggest Marvel storyline this year has been removed several times which is rubbish. —Preceding comment added by echobase 91.107.81.198 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Third-party-sourcing tag

While WikiProject Comics has long had a guidelines against purely in-universe synopses, the Project is now moving to more actively follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), as can be seen in the deletion of Fictional history of Wolverine, the deletion of Fictional history of Green Goblin, and the deletion of Fictional history of Spider-Man. The plot elements here at Thor similarly need to be integrated with real-world background. It's a long process, with a lot of articles that need to be upgraded to Wikipedia's writing-about-fiction standard, but as per the months of discussion and these three articles deletion, that is the Project's current consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not the tag you posted. The tag you posted is for Third-party references. What you are talking about is in-universe prose. Those are different concepts. I believe the tag you are looking for is
...not the one currently heading the section. I fully support the Projects movement, but posting incorrect tags isn't going to help as much as you might think. Padillah (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you. I see that the third-party tag already appears under "Fictional character biography," so you're right, the in-universe tag should go up. I'll go ahead and do that. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want my opinion on this. We need more than just tagging. Tags are annoying for me. I am all ears on how to improve this article for real. Let's face it this is probably going to be a popular searched article after the movie and we need to do what we can to fix it. Let's focus on the problems and try to fix them and yes I know that's harder than it sounds, that's why I think us discussing it might help. − Jhenderson 777 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, we're in total agreement. The tags are just a way to let other editors (as well as readers) know that proper sourcing is needed. It's not mutually exclusive. I'm certainly volunteering to help — it's just a matter of squeezing in the time. I was just asked to help on Chaos War, which still needs more work, and now I've promised to help with Siege. But you're right, it does need work, and I know I'm not the only WPC member with books about comics!   : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I would be happy with fixing it along with a whole lot of fictional comic book character articles. It's just not easy figuring where to start at. I need just some recommendations to get motivated on and giving me some external links to read would help as well. I feel like there hasn't been enough of fictional comic book character article that hasn't reach featured or good article quality yet ;) − Jhenderson 777 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I might humbly suggest the FCB (or history, or whatever they're calling it) at Spider-Man. It's got refs from some the main Marvel books out there (Peter Sanderson, Steve Saffel, Les Daniels), plus the single best book so far putting comics in a cultural and sociological context, Bradford Wright's Comic Book Nation. Check it out! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So you suggest some books. Yikes. That's doable. Although I am not a big expert on knowing where to read it. And I never figured out citing books. I read a little bit of Comic book Nation on Amazon though. Nice read but I haven't signed up for Amazon so I couldn't read everything. − Jhenderson 777 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Libraries, pulling up a chair at Barnes & Noble, and honestly, a lot of these are available for cheap online. As well, there are comics magazines like Back Issue, Alter Ego, Comic Book Artist, and the mostly indie/alt The Comics Journal, which are perfectly professionally. Of course, there are also online zines such as The Comics Reporter and Newsarama, although with the Web stuff you really have to sift through interviews to get past all the promotional hype that comics creators spew in order to get to the one or two nuggets of actual information. The online zines don't really do reporting so much as just provide publishers a promotional forum, which is a shame. I celebrate the exceptions, and I've often found Matt Brady at Newsarama a good resource. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will see with what I can do. Though I warn you, I am more of a Superhero film contributor than the characters themselves. So this ain't my main expertise. Although I do love reading them. I am mainly just tired of seeing Superman and Batman the only articles done right. Jhenderson 777 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Loosely

I qualified that the movie is only loosely based on the comic however my edit was reverted as POV. This is obviously nonsense since the movie has an almost entirely different back story (where is Donald Blake?). Efficacious (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

i can't tell if you're serious or not. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure am. Some movie adaptations are relatively faithful to the original material. Thor and Green Lantern are certainly not. I appear to be arguing against consensus so I'll drop it (grumble grumble). Efficacious (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a citation to make such a qualification? If not it is considered original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The film is an amalgamation of many different storylines involving the character. Not all of the storylines involving the character involve the character of Donald Blake. It is an adaptation, the exclusion of one aspect of a character's origin does not quantity it as a loose adaptation. Iron Man's origin was moved to Afghanistan, Captain America uses guns, and Wolverine is not short. These films are not loose adaptations, they are adaptations. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
In who's opinion? Yours? That's either original research or weaseling. Or can you point to reliable, verifiable secondary sources that characterize these unreleased films that way? - J Greb (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Efficacious, for coming to the talk page. I would say that calling fellow editors' position "obviously nonsense" is not a constructive way to begin.
The question is, who defines "loosely"? Another reasonable person could look at this and say that it contains all the major Asgardian characters, plus Jane Foster, and their relationship to each other, and involves antagonists from the comics. I also believe it follows the major outlines of the story. Some details are different. A character may be missing. There is never going to be an exact adaptation of a book or a comic books or a video game, etc., so by your definition, every adaptation would be a loose adaptation, thereby robbing the word of its meaning.
We can all agree that it's based on the comic book. That is concrete and stated in the movie's indicia, marketing, advertising, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment re nonsense was in relation to the edit summary suggesting my edit was POV. I accept that clarifying the distance between the comic and the movie would be varyingly applicable to most movies so not a good precedent to set. No doubt reviews will discuss the differences exhaustively. Efficacious (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect for Thor Odionson?

I just wanted to point out that Thor Odinson does not redirect here. I don't know how to make a redirect anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.122.182 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of bizarre how these pages are written.

The superhero pages, I mean. The entire Walt Simonson run (the defining run on the character and his universe, IMO, or at least right there with the Lee/Kirby stuff) is covered in a very short paragraph. Yet below this there is relatively in-depth coverage of the ups and downs of Thor, in-story, over the years.

Shouldn't these pages be more about the progression of a character, not in-story, but as a published character? Long-lived (and even newer) comic characters aren't real people - what's important isn't what they do, but how they're depicted. Take a character such as Daredevil or Deadpool - these were completely different characters, and their worlds were completely different worlds, prior to the arrival of a particular writer in each case. The "history" of the X-Men is pretty much just Chris Claremont and a succession of artists with whom he worked more or less well over the years. And once he left those books became unreadable.

Comics is the history of the writers and artists, not a history of the characters. DC actually seems to understand this better due to their constant re-booting of characters, and their more frequent out-of-continuity stories. The history of, say, Batman, is the history of his depictions, both in the books and in various media.

I just think the superhero "biographies" being so long while the "publication histories" tend to be so short is - missing the point. A guy can write a comic for 100 issues, for a decade, and there will be tons of things to add to the "biography" of the character - but there may be nothing of interest to add to the publication history - the writer may not be very good or add much of value to the character or his world, or do anything interesting with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say is absolutely true, and this page has been in vio of WikiProject Comics and Wikipedia writing-about-fiction guidelines for some time. I will take a meat cleaver to it in a few days when I get the time. I'm hoping other editors can help in this condensing job, and in adding real-world perspective as done at Spider-Man and Superman. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps a mention of Crusher Creel ?

Considering he was one of Thor's most dangerous foes (able to absorb his strength, and even the power of the uru-metal)? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Family Tree Needs to be Updated

Can someone add Odin's brother Cul, also known as The Serpent, to the family tree? I don't know how to do it myself. The character appeared in the 2011 storyline Fear Itself, and his relationship to Odin was established in the following two books, which I cited in the Fear Itself article:

<ref>{{Cite comic|writer=Fraction, Matt|penciller=[[Immonen, Stuart]]|inker=von Grawbadger, Wade|story=Worlds on Fire|title=Fear Itself|volume=1|issue=4|date=September 2011|publisher=Marvel Comics}}</ref>


<ref>{{Cite comic|writer=Fraction, Matt|artist=[[Ferry, Pasqual]]|story=Fear Itself: In the Beginning|title=Thor|volume=1|issue=7|date=December 2011|publisher=Marvel Comics}}</ref>

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The family tree itself is cited to issue #500 so I just made a note for Cul underneath.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been nearly two weeks with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

thor is now a women

this article must be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.237.48 (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The information you are looking for has already been added to the publication history. The fictional character biography will be updated with respect to the comic book once it is released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dual numbering

"As of issue #36, the title used dual numbering in a tribute to the original Thor series, and the caption box for said issue became #36 / #538 (June 2001)"

How come it wasn't #36/ #557? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.68.246 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External link request

Add http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Thor_Comic_Books, http://www.comicvine.com/thor/4005-2268/? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.37.131 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Superhuman Speed

Added superhuman speed to the description of his powers in line with the content of the article of the character displayed superhuman speed (blocking bullets, catching tank shells etc.). Lochdale (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Thor (Marvel Comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Replacing historical mythology with popular media reference?

Thor was first (and by far for the longest time) the Norse god of thunder, upon which the comic book character is based.

IMHO, the original (and historically more significant) profile should be the primary description, with the Marvel interpretation being a separate referenced description.

I realize this is bigger than just one page, but I think this would have historians and story-tellers turning in their graves. Daraghfi (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

APOLOGIES. I'm reading Wikipedia on my phone. It was Google that directed me to the Thor (Marvel) page, and my mistake not to see the main reference.

Faith in Wikipedia is restored - as you were!

Cheers. Daraghfi (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

An Edit War is happening here?

Not much certain, but I had to ask, I was searching for this page for some reason, and I gladly saw it had extensive information on the publication dates and artists and writers, but I saw that the "Abilities" section was a bit incomplete and/or outdated, in comparison to other characters profile pages, which can easily confuse anyone looking for information about this character if he then would compare it to the profiles of other characters.

I know Wikipedia is not about being "The Truth", but I just wanted to make it more complete and better formated, so I maybe went beyond bold on it, but my edits got undone in less than a day, with the excuse of being a super large unsourced list, I haven't seen this section ever needing sourcing on other profiles, so this time I created an user to dig into why and make my edit more official (I didn't fully knew Wikipedia pillars or rules then).

But the point is, that I could now see the list of edits and noticed other people tried the same in the past and the results were the same, "unsourced" was given as an excuse to revert what I deemed as well-intended edits, after all I just tried to embellish the page a little and didn't put anything this character haven't shown in comics or so controversial for him.

After all, it is a fictional character, so I may ask the editors that seemingly want his abilities described less amazingly, incomplete or weaker, if we can come to terms and settle this up, because I feel it is only matter of time before some of them comes again and revert my last attempt at painting Thor's abilities in a more possitive light than what they were.

I also added two major aliases he has received, which are core fundamental to the character, but that's it, I didn't knew I had to give source for every single ability this character has shown that I've mentioned.

If I get reverted once more I'll be upset, but if these editors would keep reverting any attempt anyone does at embellishing this page or enhancing this character abilities, then I guess it is all, after all, this is just Wikipedia, but it would be a serious shame and I would prefer to have the edits reviewed here in this talk section by an admin if possible and then have them allowed in the page and I would request the page gets protected from vandalism.

So I honestly ask, can we come to terms and settle this once and for all or we will keep nonsensically edit warring on this? Because I don't see why care too much to keep things ugly and incomplete and not even allow the slightless change or attempt at describing this character abilities better.—
Zesdek (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox box is not meant to be an exhaustive list, just a summation of the character’s key features for quick reference. A more comprehensive description is detailed in prose in the powers and abilities section of the article.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat That is not what I've intended, precisely, I just wanted to give a nice and more coherent summation of the character's abilities, which is mostly explained in prose in that section, but compared to other profiles, this list section is lacking, and a real lot, maybe I just put too much at first, so even a minor update would come in handy, don't you think? Zesdek (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that is basically what I was thinking. The infobox powers list is long enough already without basically doubling it. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Anon, I don't think the power list section is long enough, hell, it is not even long, it is even shorter than Spiderman's for example. I mean, there are some abilities he can do without any paraphernalia, but this section doesn't makes real justice to that, also, what you mean by "unsourced"? Is there a way we could come to agreement on how to update this profile accordingly without hurting anybody sensibilities? Zesdek (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Without getting into the specifics of this particular page, I find the infoboxes are popular places for trivial clutter. Last time this came up, it was because the list of Spider-Man's allies didn't include everyone.
Here's my general rule - if the ability isn't specifically mentioned in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the infobox. If it isn't defining (meaning virtually every incarnation of the character features them), it doesn't belong in the infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I find that rule a bit iffy, the list in the infobox is just a list, or so I tend to regard it as such, so to add something in the infobox I should also mention it in the body of the article? And there are not many incarnations of this particular character, other than him with some kind of external amplifyer, but the base character having these abilities makes illogical any greater version of himself not already being able of it. I just want to embellish this profile, and to make justice to the list of his abilities in comparison to other profiles, so how can we do something about it? ~~ Zesdek (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jake Olson (gridiron football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thor_(Marvel_Comics)/Archive_3&oldid=1023933152"