Talk:Thor in comics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name(s)[edit]

People, people. This article has been around for ages now, and there has been absolutely nothing added about the period where Thor operated under the alias Sigurd, nor his banishment, and absolutely no mention of Eric Masterson and his time with Thor!

Secondly, there is a HUGE gap between the Surtur War and Ragnarok that needs fixing. I'd normally do this myself, but not being all that knowledgable on the Asgardian, it's necessary for others to do so. C'mon, Thor fans! Kusonaga

It might be an embarrassment of riches, but these sections are now waaaaay too long. This article is 50K -- that's almost twice as much as Wikipedia prefers. I'm sure some of the intense detail can be whittled down. -- Tenebrae 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we change it back to Thor (Marvel comics)? I mean there are loads of other Thors around in Comic and as we are speaking about a deity used in comics, the title should not head an article about the version of ONE company. ThW5 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of "Thor (Marvel Comics)". It's accurate and precise. -- Tenebrae 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'd like to say this is what happens when you weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid and undescriptive titles. I don't blame Tenebrae——You meant "Marvel", right?——or ThW5, it's just a bad title in general. Anyway...

For starters, Name another comic "Thor". No. No. I don't want to insult you. Name another comic "Thor" with a wikipedia article. Wait...that's...impossiblé. Okay, name a comic "Thor" as notible as this one. Yeah. That's the ticket. Ace Class Shadow 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my typo (since corrected). In that same vein, "First off, I'd like to say this is what happens when you weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid and undescriptive titles." isn't a sentence. And "notable" is misspelled.
Calling other editors' points "weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid" is just not a good or practical way to speak to others, in addition to violating Wikipedia policy about civility. Let's please keep the discussion on a civil level. Thanks.
The character of Thor exsists in the DC universe (as seen in 1999's All-Star Comics 80-Page Giant #1, 1997's Jack Kirby's Fourth World miniseries and elsewhere, including as a recurring character in Neil Gaiman's widely seen Sandman), there's another in the very notable Alan Moore's Glory from Avatar Press (2001), another in Bardic Press' Mythography miniseries, the mythological Thor in at least one issue of Classics Illustrated, there are the similarly named Kid Thor (Image Comics) and Dynamite Thor (Fox Comics), as well as the recurring character Thor in Bill (Fables) Willingham's Comico series The Elementals, another Thor in Hand of Doom Pubs.' Peter Pan and the Warlords of Oz, there was the recurring character Thor in the pre-Marvelo Atlas sieres Venus, and another in the extremely popular, best-selling Image title Savage Dragon, and finally, there have been numerous Thors in standalone, anthological fantasy stories from a variety of publishers.
It's just a matter of accuracy to specify Thor (Marvel Comics), and there's Wikipedia precdent with Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and others. -- Tenebrae 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, He's been moved back and no other Thor articles exist. Ace Class Shadow 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, This one for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_(comic). There was one in a Donald Duck story, of course Gyro's Helper became a Thor once, there is Thor de Holbewoner (=the caveman), the first newspaper comics of the creator of the dominant series in Dutch language comics, Thor is used as either at least an extra or an object of worship in almost any comic dealing with the Nordic gods or the cultures they were worshipped in, so what's your point? Wikipedia should bring balanced articles about the topic, and this article about Thor in comics is just a stub, with lots of information about one version, OK, he might be comercially more interesting, but he is only one of the tens of Thors, so either the article has to change a lot or a word with an M has to be added to the tirle. 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be serious, if this article was about Jesus(comics)

Not sure what the "Jesus (comics)" unsigned post means, but the 26 April 2006 one above (and taking into account that English doesn't appear to the unsigned user's first language), it seems to validate that there is more than one Thor in comics, and that it's more accurate to say Thor (Marvel Comics) when referring to, well, Marvel Comics' Thor. -- Tenebrae 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a Disambiguation link to the top of the article. With that in place, under Wikipedia Comics project naming conventions, Thor (comics) is specific enough for this article. CovenantD 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is it? What do you think of these Thors in comics.

Willy Vandersteen’s Thor

Thor de Holbewoner (Thor the Caveman) AKA Tor. 1941. Willy Vandersteen’s first published newspaper strip (the Tor-version), returned in the newspapers as Thor the Caveman. (Belgian comics)

Karel Biddeloo’s Thor In “De Rode Ridder” series the existence of the thundergod Thor is shown in #45, (The Hammer of Thor,1970) and the Thunderer has a role in #63 (The Valkyrie, 1974), in which the Rode/Red Knight has been chosen by Odin to complete a mission the gods cannot do themselves without causing Ragnarok. Unlike the Marvel Thor, Biddeloo’s Thor is more or less a country boy, with enormous powers but bound by responsibility. He wasn’t even angry about Johan throwing the Hammer in the Rhine to keep it out of the hands of mortals. (Belgian comics)

Carl Barks’ Thor

The Thor Scrooge McDuck met after being blown to Valhalla in Mythic Mystery(1960), is not the mythic deity. (US-comics)

Weird Thors

In issue 1-5 of the Golden Age anthology Weird Comics, a scientist given the powers of the Thundergod by lightning strike is active as Thor, while in issue 6-8 Dynamite Thor’s adventures were shown. (US comics)

Adventure Thor In adventure comics #78 Sandman and Sandy fought somebody claiming to be the thundergod Thor. (US comics)

Vertigo Thor

In the much later Vertigo Sandman series (another Sandman) the actual Thundergod is featured as well. (US comics)

Thor Tumb

Thor Tumb is at least modelled and named after the thundergod. (UK comics)

Valhalla Thor

Madsen’s version may well be the best comic (in both senses of the word) adaptation of the Elder Edda. Thor is one of the main heroes from the Valhalla series. (Danish comics)

Comico Thor

In Elementals #23 (1984) Comico’s Thor made its first appearance. (US comics)

Of course this is far from complete, but as starter it could sufficient. There are many Thors in comics, versions of the god and just folks and animals with that name. So either you should give them all attention in this article or you should rename the article.

ThW5 17:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those even have an article. If and when they do, it can be listed on the disambiguation page. CovenantD 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly. And this Thor will still have both names. Specifying, I'm afraid, isn't about respect or instint clarification. It's obviously stated in the article which company he's with. Until another Thor article is made, that's all we need to do.

Like...living people. Take "Jason Alexander". Now, there's an actor and an unrelated nobody friend of britney spears. Before the Vegas thing, we wouldn't need to specific which one is which, right? But he exists. As far as I'm concerned, these characters getting articles should come before an otherwise unnecessary specification. Articles first! The Anti-Gnome 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the title for a disambiguation page concerned with the COMICS section of wikipedia, telling things about who was the first to come up with a superhero called Thor and the like is taken overflowing with stuff about that Marvel character, the article with the name Thor(comics) should be about Thor in Comics, not just about the characters called Thor published by Marvel. At least 4 of the Thors mentioned predate the Mighty Thor. 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)~
Is it? I showed there are lots of Thors in comics, in itself already enough information to start an article about that. Don't you see that this is like creating an article New York City (comics) and only talking about New York City as it is shown by DC? 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why should those characters get articles first??? An overview of the characters named Thor, their relationship to the Thundergod as known from historical sources etc, and so on is the right way to handle it. Thor is a name and a concept as free for use as Washington, and the name of an article should cover the contents, something this one does NOT. ThW5 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First, don't separate my comment link that. It's confusing, inpolite and worst of all, unnecessary. Second, if you want to make some new page about the various lesser Thors in comics, go ahead. When you're done, perhaps a name change for this Thor might be in order. Oh and don't forget to cite your sources. The Anti-Gnome 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aed, idiotic or otherwose stupid" is just not a good or practical way to speak to others, in addition to violating Wikipedia policy about civility. Let's please keep the discussion on a civil level. Thanks.

In addition, it's a question of notability - if someone is looking for a comic character called "Thor", which character are they likely to be looking for? At least seven - probably more - times out of ten, they'll be looking for THIS Thor, as the one with a 40-year history and his own title for most of that time.
In regard to this, I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. - SoM 03:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and calling this article Thor (comics) is not following the Be Precise When Necessary guideline. This article is about Thors of just one publisher, while other Thors may be less well known, but are not less noteworthy for an encyclopedia, as they existed as well and are referred to sometimes, somebody may be looking for THEM in an encyclopedia, rather than the one easily found using google. People would expect them here, look at Starfire (comics)or look at Nightwing, a name that is used for different characters in comics, should not be claimed as has happened here for the one by coincidence the most popular. No, I do not deny that the Avenger should have its own position, but as the name Thor refers to a god, and is a rather common name as well, it has been used many in comics, Thor (comics) should try to give an overview of that, pointing out differences and giving indications which Thor can be expected to be found where. ThW5 16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThW5, I'd suggest that you add those versions of Thor to both the Other uses of Thor in comics section of the main article and Thor (disambiguation) until you get full articles written on them. CovenantD 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I don't see the point, putting all Thors from comics in disambiguation would just clutter that, I propose to radically change this set up, and make this article a sort of comics disambiguation page, listing every Thor shortly and giving links to all those Thors, (I mean not just those of other publishers, but Thor 2099, Ultimate Thor, Red etc, as well), should get their own articles, or at least entries on the page dealing with Thor(comics), but I am not gonna do all that work myself to have it reversed by some Marvel zombie, who has not even read a kiddy's version of the Elder Edda and is unable to tell what Marvel character Madsen's Thor's disguise was based on. This should be an encyclopedia, not a Marvel promotion site. Perhaps Hercules (comics) gives the best exanple of what I think the article should become. ThW5 10:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with ThW5. This article is far, far longer than Wikipedia policy prefers, and the policy itself even suggests what to do in such cases: If a section is significant enough to be here and also of great length, policy says to spin it off into its own entry. I propose helping ThW5 do as he suggests, which also has the value of consistency with Wikipedia's similar Hercules entry. Overall, we need to remember that this encyclopedia entry is to inform people who don't know about the character, who don't know there is more than one Thor in comics, etc. WE all know it, which is great. But this is for people who don't know --Tenebrae 18:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, ThW5? You've convinced me. You've obviously done some research and come up with enough different comics versions to justify what you propose. After experimenting with Hercules (comics) and Hercules (Marvel Comics), since there seemed to be agreement on that split, I agree that it seems logical enough to do the same here. CovenantD 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, before we start the big overhaul we should make a plan what to do, some points I have in mind:
1. The main Thor of Marvel, co-founder of the Avengers,the one in the Secret Wars should get its own page.
2. How do we organize the rest of the characters? Most of them are just called Thor, so alphabetically is about impossible. Chronological order is possible, but will give rather chaotic results, I'm afraid. We could split the group up in versions of the actual thundergod, pretenders and folks who just happen to be named Thor, with a few words for the part Thor worship has in series in which the Nordic gods themselves are not featured, but their worship is. What has actually my preference is that we could order them by their makers (artist, publisher,writer), with, in the case of several Thors belonging to the same "owner", a secondary real world chronolgy order.

ThW5 20:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By makers, then. Keep in mind that you're not likely to get the title "Thor (comics)" for your article, so don't worry about what happens to this guy. In the rare cases you find where someone actually meant to wikify a disambig page, do your thing. Now, enough talk. Don't keep us in suspense, dude. GOOOOOO for it! The Anti-Gnome 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, if I don't get Thor (comics), there is no reason to write anything, so will you be so good to move all this stuff about the Marvel types away? ThW5 08:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This new page ThW5 proposes for the myriad characters named Thor in comics can only be called "Thor (comics)". I can't think of anything else it could be called. Can anyone? Which means the entry for Marvel Comics' Thor would need to be "Thor (Marvel Comics)". -- Tenebrae 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel comics' Thor could be moved to "Mighty Thor" as well, but in that case types like Thor 2099 should not be included on that page.ThW5 14:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure most users would look it up that way, since the format throughout Comics Project is not to have the adjectives. This is useful since it distinguishes between, say, Spider-Man the character and The Amazing Spider-Man the series. The entries for Hulk, Iron Man, X-Men, etc., aren't "Incredible Hulk", "Invincible Iron Man" or "Uncanny X-Men". -- Tenebrae 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Thor in comics" anyone? "Thor (comics disambiguated)"? "Thor (various comics)". Instead of all this "I want the title!" stuff—which, you've gotta admit, could come off as pretty immature—just make up a title and get the ball rolling. The more time you waste debating how to do every little thing and what title(s) to use, the less serious and well intentioned you look (to me). This is to be fair and help inform, right? It's not meant to put out people who intentionally linked to marvel's thor when wikifying—99.9, I'd wager—or done out of spite or something, yes? Then for goodness sake, JUST DO IT! and worry about naming later. Both "Thor (marvel comics)" and "Thor (comics)" are this page. Accept that, make the new page and let's try to work things out from there. The Anti-Gnome 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome, as long as you are so impolite to post every response as if it were a new statement, you do not deserve that people would follow your recommendations, I try to improve Wikipedia and to help to create a uniform format for the discussion of characters with names used many times in completely different series. If you had shown a little interest, you would have known now that I am using my page to form the page that Thor (comics) should become. 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ThW5

<.< Uh, First off, it's not "Gnome". Talk about not paying attention. I'm the Anti-Gnome. As in, "opposite of" or "opposer of".

Anyway, it's nice that you're working on it, I guess, but...isn't that contradictory to...well...a ton of Wikimedia policies. It's your userpsge and you're writing an actual article in it. I never meant to be rude, dude. I actually agree with you, partially. I never stopped. You should make the page. More power to you. However, don't you see the negative results of getting this name, if you get it?

It's basically a Disambig for various Thors in comics. You'll be sending various people who clicked on a link meant for this Thor to a page that could be quite confusing. Futhermore, since this whole thing was brought up fairly recently and not acknowledged by everyone in the comics wikiproject, that will be no small number of links. We're talking the vast majority of all links meant for this page.

Meanwhile, you're kind of...well...suppressing information until you get what you want. You're writing, and that's great, but...as a real article.

Don't you see that if you just make the article first, it'd be much easier? Then everyone can look at, understand it, correct i, and then, perhaps, decide whether it would be better off with the name "Thor (comics)".

I'm not an administrator or programmer or anything, I think we all know that. Still, I know a little bit about names on wikipedia. We cannot just switch this to "Thor (marvel comics)" and give the new article "Thor (comics)". Aren't double redirects or something a concern? Besides, I was serious about those other titles.

Oh and thanks for the "headsup" about my reply style, but I think people will manage to survive and acknowledge one guy who doesn't use the "colon system" on talk pages. BTW, whilst you were all hot and bothered, you forget to sign your comment. Have you tried using tildes? Ace Class Shadow 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speaking with my admin hat on, there will be no double redirect problems with the proposed move that aren't easily fixed by someone who knows what they are doing. Taking the admin hat off, I would say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) would state we use Thor (Marvel Comics), given it says Follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Love and Rockets (comics)) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case ... use the publisher (e.g. Captain Marvel (DC Comics)), and that in its listing of publisher disambiguations it states are to be used only when the disambiguation phrase "(comics)" by itself is not sufficient; that is, in the case of multiple characters of the same name published by different companies. Given that there are multiple characters being published here, that gives the nod that the page should move to Thor (Marvel Comics) unless a clear consensus exists otherwise. Hiding The wikipedian meme 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People "will manage to survive", but why make your comments less readable or potentially irksome to fellow editors? Doesn't seem to be much percentage in that.
To have an article titled "Thor (comics)" and another titled "Thor in comics" or "Thor (various comics)" will create confusion. Given the outright refusal 0f some editors' to even consider "Thor (Marvel Comics)" makes me inclined to think we need to ask for mediation. Given that an Admin would pretty much say that any article about the various comics characters called Thor would be called "Thor (comics)", it seems like it might be a waste of time and energy to do that. It's beginning to look like we might have to, though, given what seems to be a logjam -- Tenebrae 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only irksome to froods. Newest comment? Bottom of the page. Simple and easier for the reader. I guess I can agree with the move, in terms of difficulty (or lack thereof) and naming conventions, but 1: links meant for this article would then lead to an effective disambig page. That's the exact opposite of cool. 2: we've tried changing this thor's name to "Thor (Marvel comics)" it didn't stick. (Probably because it there was no article that needed the title "Thor (comics)" or any other Thors in comics, period.)

So, I recommend that the new "Thor (*blank*)" article be made. Then, change this ones name. Then, try to change any links we find to "Thor (marvel comics)". Then, and only then, change the new article's name to fix naming comventions. Agree? Ace Class Shadow 20:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong way round, slightly, and would reqwire admin help. The way to go if you do it that way, is to write the new page at Thor (comics)/Temp, and when that's done, an admin like myself would move Thor (comics) to Thor (Marvel Comics) and Thor (comics)/Temp to Thor (comics), deleting Thor (comics)/Temp after, and then the links would be fixed, hopefully by someone who runs that AWB thing, which would automate it somewhat, I believe. Otherwise, there's not a huge amount that links here as opposed to Thor (Marvel Comics), I can't see it wouldn't take a dedicated group of people more than ten minutes. Of course the other way is to do the move and then write the page here, that doesn't need admin help. If there are concerns the pages might be swapped around, I can protect the page from being moved back once the move is done until the new page is written. Hiding The wikipedian meme 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That last idea might help. Now, where'd everyone else go? Ace Class Shadow 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna do a quick and dirty split, then work on cleaning up the links. I'll leave it to others to make both pages look pretty. Hiding, maybe you could keep an eye on this to make sure it stays put until people get used to the idea. CovenantD 21:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. Shout me if needed, but bear in mind I'm on British time. Hiding The wikipedian meme 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shout-outs to you, Hiding and CovenantD. Some good work and great teamwork.
RE: "It's only irksome to froods." You know, Ace Class Shadow, there's no need for geeky name-calling. Virtually every other Wikipedia editor finds the indent convention useful. I hope you're not suggesting that all those people are wrong, stupid or "froods." Please can ths sarcasm and the anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-[add insult here]." Act like a civil person. -- Tenebrae 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norse Thor vs. other Thors[edit]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between characters based on the Norse god, and characters just bearing the same name? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes probably. Some of the mentions aren't too clear but perhaps start a section called "Other Thors" and move the non-myhtological characters into it. (Emperor 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Should require some splitting of the Willy Vandersteen characters, but still makes sense. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolt Jaxon[edit]

Is it worth mentioning Thunderbolt Jaxon here, as he's essentially Thor by another name? 195.195.237.10 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie[edit]

Apparently Marvel is planning a June 4th 2010 release for the Thor movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.141.110 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvel Thor article is here: Thor (Marvel Comics). (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]