Talk:Wolverine (character)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Languages

As a Canadian (not necessarily French Canadian, but still) who seems comfortable speaking in French to Gambit (among others) on numerous occasions, would Wolverine not be "fluent" in French as opposed to "has some knowledge?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adamantium, Vibranium

The article states:

The only known exceptions are adamantium itself and vibranium, which is the only substance in the Marvel Universe known to be even more durable than adamantium.

That isn't correct. Captain America's shield is an unknown alloy containing vibranium that is more durable that either adamantium or vibranium.

Grim70.128.113.230 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wolverine does not have superhuman strength

Please refer to the 1988 King Sized Spider-Man Annual. This issue has an index in the back as a special feature showing the various strength levels of different heros. Wolverine is listed as normal human strength.

98.23.7.245 (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC) June 23, 2011

Support. Marvel does not list this among his powers on their official wiki. http://marvel.com/universe/Wolverine Padillah (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming article

Moving to Wolverine (character)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wolverine (comics) → Wolverine (character) – This title parenthesis is ambiguous with Wolverine (comic book). It should be moved to Wolverine (character) to follow WP:PRECISION and "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Diego (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the article is protected with pp-move-indef? There's no evidence of any move discussion at the talk archives. Diego (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be unprotected, the logs do not indicate any sort of movewar. Indeed, the only move vandalism occurred a full-year-and-1/2 before protection was added -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A very reasonable move request. The proposed title clearly defines the topic and there is no risk of confusion with the comic book series of the same name. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move back discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Wolverine (character) → Wolverine (comics) – Move it back to what it was before as that is the naming standard. Dream Focus 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vote struck per instructions at WP:RM/CM. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I am in agreement with Dream Focus. We have a clear standard to follow with respect to other comic book characters - why change? In regards to the issue brought up by Alpha Quadrant, I think the odds are slim that someone looking for the Wolverine comic book title would be confused when he came across this page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Support, for the simple reason of consistent nomenclature throughout WikiProject Comics. A hodgepodge of styles only makes things difficult for users.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per January 2013 move. Fictional characters use "(character)" as standard disambiguation. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS used by comic articles should be changed to the standardized version used by fictional characters. A fictional comic book character is still a fictional character, and there is no reason to separate comic book characters from the continuum of fictional character articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • One must point out that many names of comic characters are also used in other forms of fiction. "Ghost" is a comics character, as well as a character in the novel Lost Souls and a character in Enter the Matrix. "Tarantula" is both a comics character (several, in fact) and a cartoon character (in The Venture Bros. series). "Cyclops" is a comics character as well as a fictional character in the TV series Xiaolin Showdown and in the TV series Mahou Sentai Magiranger. "Beast" is a fictional comics character, a fictional Disney character and a fictional Doctor Who character. Indeed, the Wolverines are well-known fictional characters in the Red Dawn films. This stable WikiProject Comics convention hasn't been in place arbitrarily, as you seem to suggest. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • This convention should only be used when additional disambiguation is needed. If there is no need to distinguish between multiple fictional characters, there is no need for a more specific disambiguator. Many fictional characters have more specific disambiguators, but that occurs when multiple characters have the same name. If this is not the case, then the standard "(character)" should be used. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • And at the same time, it's preferable for a Project to be consistent within itself, and changing the countless number of entries from (comics) is both impractical and unhelpfully less specific. Having Wolverine stand out inconsistently from the rest of the WikiProject Comics flies in the faces of systematic logic. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Being consistent withing WikiProject Fictional Characters would use "(character)" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
            • There's no reason nor requirement that WikiProject Comics has to completely overhaul itself and change hundreds if not a couple, three thousand articles to accomodate a different project's MOS. Different media have different conventions, needs, details and specifics that best express them. WikiProject Comics uses those which has best suited the Project's purpose for several years and for good reason, as at least three registered editors have delineated above. This anon IP's only reason is, "Because that's how this over Project does it" — a blind adherence that completely ignoring the actual reasons this Project uses the conventions and style it does. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support existing standard for comic book characters seems quite reasonable.--Staberinde (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It's better to not stand out with the rest of the comic book character articles. If one thinks that all the comic book characters should have that name over (comics), then that's a topic that needs to be discussed in the WikiProject Comics page more than anything IMO. Jhenderson 777 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Herb Trimpe is not one of Wolverines creators

I have been arguing for some time with another user that Herb Trimpe does not belong under the section that says "Created by". Herb Trimpe had nothing to do with Wolverines creation. John Romita is the one who designed the character, but none of his drawings were published. Herb Trimpe drew exactly what John Romita had already drawn, Herb's were just the first to get published. If you are going to say that Trimpe is a co-creator of Wolverine, then you might as well say that John Romita is a co-creator of Spider-Man, after all he had published drawings of the character, but no, Spider-Man was designed by Steve Ditko. Exactly, it does not make sense to name Trimpe a co-creator since all he did was draw a character created by someone else for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.177.153 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Arguing" implies communication. You have been unilaterally, single mindedly, without explanation or attempt to communicate edit warring to remove content from the article. You have been reverted by multiple editors. Asked why and had it pointed out that an explanation is needed. It wasn't until the page was protected that you decided to actually provide one.
Taking into account your post above and here:
  • A reliable, verifiable source is needed to support the removal you are trying to make.
  • Generally the infobox is related to the writer(s) and penciller(s) involved with the characters initial appearance.
  • The text of the article does clarify the creation process in the lead, and it includes a ref.
  • Your personal interaction with any of named individuals is not a usable source for a Wikipedia article. That is original research and will be removed as such.
Spider-Man is a very, very bad example for you to use, since Ditko was the artist on that character's first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15, not Romita. Romita didn't handle Spider-Man until 1966, with a 2 part story in Daredevil and then taking over from Ditko on The Amazing Spider-Man with issue 39. (Kirby might have been a better choice given what his heirs filed, but even then it would need to be sourced to something other than you.)
- J Greb (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

mentioning new characters he was introduced with

[1] I believe it important to note that he was one of several new characters for the new X-men team. They recycled him, changing him into something new, and created four new characters, and adding in two previously established ones as well. He didn't just join the existing X-men, he was tossed in with a new bunch instead. Also why remove the part about them making him older than the other X-men? Dream Focus 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fictography

For many of the same reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (3rd nomination), WikiProject Comics does not do such incredibly over-detailed, in-universe Fictional character biographies. ("The team's first mission pitted them against a clone of the Red Skull who had grafted Professor X's brain onto his own.") It needs to be severely trimmed, with real-world sourcing added.

This has been standard at WPC for some time, and confirms to Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction. See Spider-Man and Superman as examples --Tenebrae (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with mentioning the new comic book series where the character is at now? Or mentioning in a single sentence who their first enemy was? Dream Focus 10:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Medical Skills

it is shown on a number of times that Wolverine at the very least has some Medical skills. Though I do not remember the said issues that they are shown in, Wolverine has shown that he has some degree of Medical training. Well, he is a master of the human anatomy. Knows how to cause hematomas to the brain and so forth.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with Storm?

I saw in the Animated Series of X-Men that Logan start a relationship with Storm; it really happens or it's only an invention for the cartoon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Hawks (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Much of what's in the animated series' has little to do with the "canon" in the comics. Ckruschke (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Aliases in infobox

First, we need to give these with citation in the body of the article or else cite them in the infobox — the infobox, like the rest of the article, isn't supposed to contain uncited claims. Second, since the header there says Notable aliases, I think we need to pare down what's there. How "notable" is "Revolto the Clown", for instance? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Wolverine (character). Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Wolverine (comics) → Wolverine (X-Men) – "Comics" sounds too generic. Unreal7 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Generic disambiguators are good. Generic disambiguators are easier to remember and are more standard. While Wolverine (X-Men) is bad, I am more neutral on Wolverine (character). tahc chat 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: terrible, as (X-Men) is too specific (disambigs are supposed to be general), and Wolverine has been a part of other groups as well as a solo character. Wolverine has been at Wolverine (character) in the past, and should be put back there—as Zzyzx11 says, (comics) could be confused with (comic book) (and Wolverine (comic book) does, in fact, exist); also, Wolverine has appeared in plenty of other media (film, video games, trading cards, roleplaying games), making (comics) far too specific. The article should be rewritten as an overview of the character and moved to Wolverine (character). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for further disambiguation, why not Wolverine (Marvel Comics character) (this would distinguish it from the comic book title Wolverine (comic book) ) ? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The consensus is that disambiguations are to be as general as reasonable; (Marvel Comics character) is far less general than (comics), which again is less general than (character). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "comics" is a different category of disambiguation from "character", since "comics" does not mean characters. It would be "comics characters" if it did so mean, so, the more general form would be Wolverine (comics character), as subsidiary disambiguation below "comics". -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Uh ... you wanna explain to everyone one more time how (comics character) is more general than (character)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't really see the confusion with "comics" and "comic book", maybe later could be changed into "comic book title"?BlisterD (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Outside of North America (in Britian for instance) "comic" means "comic book". (comic book) is unambiguous. (comics) is at the very least ambiguous, but more likely simply wrong since the article is (or should be) about the character as opposed to the comics specifically. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to '(X-Men)' as per other comments above; favour move to "(character)". -HidariMigi (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wolverine's Aliases, Codenames + Nicknames; Logan, Patch, Weapon X, Death, ETC

James Howlett - Wolverine's birth name and the one his parents called him by. Logan - The alias he kept the longest and the alias he believed was his real name. Weapon X (Weapon Plus) - The codename given to Logan when he became a test subject for a secret government program. Also known as Weapon Ten. Patch- The secret Alias he used after he lost his eye to Cyber. He is known by this name in Madripoor. The Ol' Canucklehead - Given this name by his close friends who he worked with in The X-Men and Alpha Flight. Black Dragon - The Title given to him in San Fransisco, China Town when he inherited it after killing the former Black Dragon. Fist of Legend -- I don't know this one can someone help? Weapon Chi - Another lesser known name from Weapon Plus Experiment X - what he was called during the Weapon X process Hand Of God - I believe this was given to him when he defeated Ba'al the powerful demon. Mai'Keth - From the 95-96 annuals. It's Mai'Keth the undying one which is given to Wolverine by enemies of the N'Garai the Ru'Tai Mutant #9601 - given on Genosha when he's held there. Emilio Garra - Given during his agent time when he was in Cuba with Sabes. Canada- The title given to him by other soldiers during World War II Agent Ten - Most like his undercover name during his secret agent days. Peter Richards - Fake identity given on a passport in the Spiderman vs Wolverine one shot. Shorty / Psycho / Furball - Various insults given by friends/ rivals/ enemies who are pushing Logan's buttons. Runt- Most commonly given to him by Sabretooth who see's him as inferior. Gaijin - Often what he is called in Japan and Madripoor. It's generally a given name for foreigners. Death - The idenity he was given by Apocalypse when he was brainwashed and turned into one of his disciples. Wolvie - Unless I am mistaken I believe Jubilee gave him this nickname. John Logan / Jim Logan - False identities given to police officers and various law officials. Wild Boy - What Logan envisions himself as when he is telling fairy tale to a little child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Page move back discussion, again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion is: no consensus to move.

This move request is supported by six editors (User:Dream Focus, as proposer, User:Gregkaye, User:Fortdj33, User:BOZ, User:TriiipleThreat, User:Rtkat3, User:Adamstom.97), and opposed by fifteen editors (User:Curly Turkey, User:Diego Moya, User:Unreal7, User:Matticusmadness, User:Steel1943, User:erachima, User:Nicknack009, User:BlisterD, User:SMcCandlish, Special:Contributions/65.94.169.222, User:King of all fruit, User:NatGertler, User:Masem, User:Herostratus, User:Argento Surfer, User:NukeofEarl). Although discussions are not merely an exercise in seeing who can get the most votes, the weight of community participation can not be ignored. With respect to the arguments put forth, supporters of the move have generally argued that the proposed usage conforms with local practice for comic book characters, and Wolverine unequivocally originates from and is associated with comic books. Opposers have generally argued that there are a large number of fictional characters titled with "(character)" as a disambiguator, including characters associated to some degree with comic books or similar media, and that "comics" is ambiguous with "comic books". Conformance to local project practices is a legitimate basis for a move, but also possible for a subject to reach broadly enough that it falls under the purview of several different projects, which necessarily has the effect of diminishing the need for titles relating to that subject to conform to the title standards of any one project. As for the proposed ambiguity, I find that to be of minimal import, since readers arriving at either title will not be surprised to find information about Wolverine, the comic book character, even if this is associated with information about Wolverine, the film character. Nevertheless, there is a substantial majority against moving the title, and no policy-based argument that is so strong that the move is mandated despite this strong majority. bd2412 T 00:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolverine (character) → Wolverine (comics) – Move it back to what it was before as that is the naming standard. The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character). Are there any other (character)s out there, or is the only article? Are we going to rename Batman to Batman (character) because people might think that article is about Batman (comic book)? I notice Hulk (character) redirects to Hulk (comics) and Superman (character) redirects to Superman. Are we going to change Cyclops (comics), Storm (Marvel Comics), Colossus (comics), Nightcrawler (comics) and the rest? They all had their own comic series for awhile to, and like Wolverine, those four have names that could mean something else. I honestly don't believe anyone would confuse Wolverine (comic) with the Wolverine (comic book) at all, since they will be used to seeing the word (comic) for characters, and (comic book) for their books in other articles. (note, this is word for word the same discussion I made in the previous discussion when we moved the name back. [2]) Dream Focus 12:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Note, you can look at Category:Comics characters and see that (character) is never used if they were created for a comic book, but instead when necessary to have anything at all (comics) is used except when more than one comic book character has that name, then it list the name of the comic book company publishing it such as (Marvel Comics). All related articles should follow the same naming conviction, and any change should be discussed at the appropriate wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Dream Focus 12:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for all the reasons I've given in the discussion above:
    • (comics) is too easily confused with (comic book) (Wolverine (comic book) exists), and Wolverine has appeared prominently in plenty of other media (film, video games, trading cards, roleplaying games), making (comics) far too specific.
    • as that is the naming standard: this is untrue.
    • Are there any other (character)s out there: Tintin (character), Kick-Ass (character), Dilbert (character), Garfield (character), Astro Boy (character), Asterix (character), and several other articles (such as Hulk (character)) have been at (character) before, and needlessly moved to the over-specific (comics).
    • since they will be used to seeing the word (comic) for characters, and (comic book): you're suggesting the average, casual reader (the vast majority of Wikipedia's readership) would just know that (comic) meant the character and not the series? I can't twist my mind hard enough to buy that.
  • Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Tintin, Dilber, and Garfield started as comic strip characters. Astro Boy was first introduced outside of Japan as a cartoon, so that what English speaking audiences know him for, there no translated comic book to go along with it for decades. Not sure if they have one now. Kick-Ass should be renamed (comic) of course in fitting with the rest. If we're going to rename one, we need to do all of them, for all of them to have the same naming standard. Dream Focus 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Dream Focus, you're going to tell us with a straight face that comic strips aren't comics? You're also going to tell us that the signature comics work of the God of Comics himself gets a pass because Americans first knew of it from the animation? What about the millions of fans Wolverine has from the films he's been in who have never read a comic book (that being most of them)? "If we're going to rename one, we need to do all of them": that's right, to conform with site-wide standards, we'll have to rename all of them---tedious, but it was tedious to move them to (comics) in the first place. Did you whine about it then? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I believe (comics) came first with most articles. If you don't see the difference between comic strips and comic books, then I'm not sure I can explain it to you. I don't know what you are going on about with this "God of Comics" nonsense, not do I care. Anyway, Wolverine was first introduced to an English speaking audience as a comic book character, long before they started putting him in cartoons and later films. Also far more people have seen him in comic books over the years than any of the films. I mention that all need to have the same naming conviction, to point out discussing it here, or at dozens of places one by one, is ridiculous. The discussion about be at the Wikiproject for comic books, and a decision made there. Dream Focus 03:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
            • "If you don't see the difference between comic strips and comic books": did you just say this out loud? Come on, Randy, spit it out: tell us again that comic books are comics, but comic strips are not comics.
            • "I don't know what you are going on about with this "God of Comics" nonsense": as a member of WP:COMICS, you don't know who Osamu Tezuka is?
            • "far more people have seen him in comic books over the years than any of the films": oh, say that again, please! Tell us again how more people read comics than watch movies!
            • "at the Wikiproject for comic books": there's a WikiProject for comic books? Link, please. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Dream Focus. There was no consensus to move this article again, the requested move above only proves that Wolverine (character) is preferable to Wolverine (X-Men). As I stated before, "(comics)" is sufficient disambiguation for all characters that originated in comics. Until there is a consensus to change the naming conventions in general for all comic book characters, this article should be titled Wolverine (comics), which is currently the standard per WP:NCC. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NCC was in violation of sitewide guidelines, as determined by this RFC. The article falls under WikiProject Fictional characters as much as WP:COMICS. WP:COMICS cannot claim OWNership of any article; statements such as "a consensus to change the naming conventions in general for all comic book characters" hold no weight, as WP:COMICS has no authority to override sitewide guidelines. It is not up to the community to convince WP:COMICS to change its mind—it is up to WP:COMICS to prove the legitimacy of its local consensus to the broader community. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, with all due respect, I am not claiming that WP:COMICS has ownership over this issue. I agree that this article falls just as much under the scope of {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}, but WP:Naming conventions (characters) defers to WP:NCC for the naming of comic book characters. Also, per WP:NCDAB, disambiguation in general should be "the subject or context to which the topic applies". WP:NCC follows this guideline by using "(comics)", because that is where the character originated from. And when I say that there hasn't been "a consensus to change the naming conventions in general for all comic book characters", I am not speaking for WP:COMICS, I am just pointing out that there is no consensus for "(character)" to take precedence over "(comics)". Just because you believe otherwise, does not mean that anyone else is calling for WP:NCC to conform to some "broader community" consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"does not mean that anyone else is calling for WP:NCC to conform to some "broader community" consensus": so, to paraphrase, you believe that WikiProjects have no obligation to consider sitewide consensus. You also believe that nobody other than me has ever brought up the issue, despite the fact that I was not the instigator of any of the calls to move this article either on this talk page or on WP:NCC. What response can one seriously give to someone who repeatedly tells one that black is white? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(Comics) as a disambiguator needs to conform to the Article titles policy, so it can only be used when there's no likely confusion between two articles. Even if there's no precedence between (comics) and (character), the second does not conflict with policy as there are no other articles about characters with this name. Diego (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact, reading Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(comics) in detail, it does support (character) taking precedence over (comics) "when comics is applicable to more than one article of the same name", which is exactly the situation here. So much for the idea that (Comics) is supported by the guideline. If I understand the guideline correctly, what is written would suggest moving the article to John Logan (comics), or maybe Wolverine (John Logan). Diego (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

" Informing editors who have previously engaged in this discussion: @Diego Moya:, @Nicknack009:, @Tenebrae:, @Jhenderson777:, @GRuban:, @KillerChihuahua:, @Matticusmadness:, @Unreal7:, @Zzyzx11:, @Tahc:, @BlisterD:, @HidariMigi:, @Ckruschke:, @Staberinde:, @Alpha Quadrant:, @Unreal7:, @Robsinden: ——— Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Informing editors who previously participated in the RFC: @Aircorn:, @TriiipleThreat:, @BDD:, @Favre1fan93:, @GentlemanGhost:, @Postdlf:, @In ictu oculi:, @NatGertler:, @SMcCandlish: - Fortdj33 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: "The RfC" Fortdj33 refers to here is the "rewording for instructions for disambiguation" RfC, not any Wolverine-related RfC. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Dream Focus. We have been here before, and the people (and closer) from the recent discussion were probably unaware of that. BOZ (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We have been here before indeed. Previous discussions don't support any title over the other, as there have been successful moves to either title. Diego (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Calm and firm Oppose per WP:PRECISION: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, and (Comics) is clearly not enough to distinguish this character article from the content of Wolverine (comic book), which is also about the name Wolverine in the context of comics. The RfC at the Manual of Style made it clear that using (Comics) as a universal disambiguator even for ambiguous titles did not have community support.
Also note the rationale at the move request is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument - those articles may be named with (Comics) as long as no other article covers those same names in comics, and if there are other articles that are named against WP:PRECISION they should be moved too. I concur that WikiProject Comics cannot override community guidelines per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Diego (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - some people might think that "Wolverine" is a type of comic book, as opposed to a fictional character. Unreal7 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I was already thinking of making an oppose on this given the result of 'Requested Move' above, but what Diego said about a title needing to correctly cover the scope properly convinced me this is a good vote.
  • Oppose purely on the fact that WP:NCC doesn't specifically state that the character article should have the "(comics)" disambiguator. In fact, unless WP:NCC gets updated, my belief is that the better option is to retarget Wolverine (comics) to Wolverine (disambiguation)#Marvel Comics media. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Since "Wolverine" is both the name of the character in comics and of comics about the character, Wolverine (comics) should be or route to the disambig page. c.f. Tintin. --erachima talk 15:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wolverine originated in comics, but is now also a prominent movie character. A more general disambiguator to cover both therefore seems appropriate. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think that both names are faulty so changing them back and forth doesn't solve anything and is a waste of time. What do I mean by saying that both names are faulty? Because Wolverine is media franchise first and only then he is a fictional character or comic book character. Ideally top level article should be called Wolverine (media franchise) with basic information about franchise and then separate articles for Wolverine (comics), Wolverine (film character), Wolverine (Toys) and so on. Big comic book characters likes Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and Wolverine had appeared and been referenced in so much stuff that its too simplistic to think about them as fictional characters. If someone would put an effort he could probably create dozens of well sourced articles about Wolverine focusing on different aspects of his franchise. BlisterD (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The editor below brought up Hannibal Lecter, which has two articles: one for the character, and one for the franchise (Hannibal Lecter (franchise)). The franchise article is little more than a listing of articles the character has starred in. That makes sense—and a reader searching for "Wolverine" is far more likely to intend the character and its fictional and nonfictional history, which should be found at (character), where the reader would expect it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • lol, we are in the ridiculous situation in which Wolverine (character) is in Category:Wolverine (comics) and both films The Wolverine (film) and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are in Category:Wolverine (comics) films...
Support. When beginning to read this I started to imagine how Hugh Jackman might respond if he were asked to describe Wolverine. I think he might say: he's a hero; perhaps a superhero; the word mutant would be sure to come up and I'd guess that comic book character might well get a mention. Fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter are defined by films. Characters like Wolverine are defined by comics. I must admit that WP:PRECISION only requires (character) but a clearer definition is supplied by (comics) Gregkaye (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wolverine (comics) films seems a bad name for a category. It doesn't conform to the parenthical disambiguations at WP:NATURALDIS that place the parenthesis at the end, and Wolverine films is not ambiguous with anything so it would make a better title. Wolverine (comics) is a valid name for the overarching category though; although there is no Wolverine category, it could be confused with a category for the Wolverine species so it makes sense to disambiguate it. Diego (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed but I would say that Wolverine (character) films was worse. Gregkaye (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Psst... Hannibal Lecter was originally from a series of popular novels... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Doffs cap! :) I'd still say he was better - - - more well known from films Gregkaye (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
ITS FUTILE - any change we make will just regenerate. Why did I even Logan ... on. Gregkaye (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose on the merits, as "(comics)" is needlessly over-specific, and not actually applicable to the content in the article, since it covers the character in many media other than comic books. The comics wikiproject really, really needs to get over itself. It does not set a "naming standard" or "naming convention" policy; WP:AT does that, and WP:DAB controls how we disambiguate pages. WP:NCCOMICS is an interpretation of AT and DAB (and MOS when it's issues are raised, and other site-wide policies and guidelines as their issues are raised), as they are applied to comics. It cannot make up conflicting rules on the fly, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy; NCCOMICS is not an "alternative" to standard operating procedure, it's supposed to be instructions on how to apply our SOP to comics. If it is failing in this in any way, it needs to be fixed. All that said, a strong argument can also be made for Speedy, procedural close, because the naming of this article, including the "(comics)" vs. "(character)" debate, was only just recently already had. Bringing it up again so soon can be interpreted as tendentious and dead-horse-beating.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: "(comics)" is a perfectly suitable disambiguation. The primary scope of this article is Wolverine's appearance in comic books (specifically the 616 universe). There is a separate article called Wolverine in other media that deals with his other appearances. At the very least Wolverine (character) should be a disambiguation page itself relaying readers to Wolverine (comics), Alternative versions of Wolverine (Ultimate Wolverine), and Wolverine in other media since they all deal with the character of Wolverine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • All three articles are chock full of excessive unsourced trivia that could easily be summarized and merged into one article—a veritable example of "How Not to Write a Wikipedia Article". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • They all can be improved without needing to be gutted. There are plenty of sources on these topics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • They won't be improved by making them longer. They are prime examples of the worst kind of Wikipedia article—long-winded trivia dumps. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Case in point: "Wolverine's second intended origin"—1124 bytes of fluff trivia about a fictional origin that was never used, made into an entire subsection. And then there's the 7348 bytes that is "Healing and defensive powers"—an attempt to cram in every trivial detail about this power that, with sensible editorial restraint, should not have been more than a single paragraph. Alternative versions of Wolverine—26 kB of readable prose (if "readable" is the right word for it)—has not one non-primary source cited, despite being tagged for this since 2011. And again, an interminable trivia dump. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • We all agree that the articles need improvement. I am just saying the articles can be improved. The present content can be replaced with suitable material. There are plenty of sources at our disposal. The overall length of the articles should be determined by the sources and not any preconceived notions about how long they should be. They could in fact be longer depending on the sources. Only time and editing can tell. Anyway, I've said my piece. Have fun, I'm out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Curly Turkey. WP:CRITERIA, the (comics) causes confusion between characters and their eponymous comic books, so fails to identify the scope of the article. It is also inconsistent with the naming of characters in the topic area of fictional characters which use "(character)". -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • NOTE this discussion may impact a similar move at Talk:Hit-Girl (character) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
      • If I were a more polite type of guy, I might say the timing of the request was suspect. Given the requester, it's oviously a disruptive, tendentious request, coming less than an hour after I pointed out Kick-Ass (character) (for those who don't know, Hit-Girl just happens to be a character in the Kick-Ass universe)—and proposed as an Uncontroversial technical request (permalink). Seriously, Fortdj33, pull this horseshit again and I'll take it straight to WP:ANI. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)I
        • First of all, dial it back a bit. More like a lot. Second of all, Fortdj33 did not make this requested move, Dream Focus did. BOZ (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Better yet, try paying attention to the discussion: Fortdj33 was the one who brought up the Wolverine move at WP:COMICS, and proposed the Hit-Girl move as an "Uncontroversial technical request" directly after I'd pointed out Kick-Ass (character). He's been caught with his pants down making disruptive bad-faith edits, and he's not going to get away with it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Curly Turkey, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, by using phrases such as "For what it's worth" and "With all due respect". But I do not appreciate you making threats against me, just because we have a difference of opinion. Any editor is welcome to make a move request, and contribute to the discussion if that request is found controversial. But being uncivil does not help the discussion, and doesn't get us any closer to forming a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Don't you try to muddy the waters here. This is not about a "difference of opinions"---it's about you being caught with you pants down making tendentious, bad-faith stealth edits with your Hit-Girl move request. You were perfectly well aware of how contentious the move request was, yet requested it as an "Uncontroversial technical request". Please tell the world how your tendentious, bad-faith stealth edits contribute to "forming a consensus". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
              • For the record: I did not initiate the discussion about moving the Wolverine article, I simply pointed out that the move to Wolverine (character) goes against the current naming conventions at WP:NCC [3]. I informed the editors who previously participated in the RFC on the MOS page about this discussion, because you specifically used Wolverine as an example in that discussion [4]. And yes, I proposed the move at Hit-Girl (character), but I was not trying to get away with anything, and I was hardly "caught with my pants down". I realized later that I had proposed it as an uncontroversial technical request out of habit, but anyone who believes otherwise is not assuming good faith. Regardless, all of these move requests are part of a larger issue, about whether "(comics)" or "(character)" is the proper disambiguation for articles about comic book characters. And that's what this discussion should be about, yet you continue to make personal attacks, by calling my edits "horseshit", and threatening to take me to ANI [5]. Such editing doesn't have anything to do with the discussion about the Wolverine article, it doesn't get us any closer to forming a consensus, the only purpose it serves is you deliberately trying to discredit me, because you don't like the way that I express my opinion. Believe what you want, but this discussion is supposed to be about how to improve the disambiguation of this article, and I have no desire to continue wasting my time arguing with someone, who is clearly not capable of remaining civil. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
                • For the record: I never called your opinions horseshit, I called your stealth contentious editing horseshit, and horseshit is what it is. You have demonstrated you were very well aware of how contentious the Hit-Girl move request was; you were fully well aware that the request would be contended whether it was posted as "Uncontested technical" or not, and your rationale citing NCC just after having it pointed out to you---more than once---that NCC has already been overturned for being in violation of sitewide guidelines. The move proposal was WP:POINTy and in bad faith from any angle one looks at it. You don't like my pottymouth? I don't like your dishonesty. Guess which matters at the end of the day. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Character" vs. "comic book" is a much clearer distinction than "comics" vs "comic book." I also think "character" is the better disambiguator in general, although we don't have to cross that bridge at this time. King of all fruit (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
  • Support - I think the page should be called "Wolverine (comics)" just like TriiipleThreat is right about what he said about his claims for the other superheroes. We need to make up our minds on what to call it because the page has been reverted back to "Wolverine (comics)" before. But if the decision is for the page to remain, perhaps "Wolverine (comics)" should be redirected to "the comic book page for Wolverine." Overall, I still support the page being called "Wolverine (comics)." --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
How would you handle the ambiguity with Wolverine (comic book) then? Diego (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Rtkat3: especially given that our British members tell us "comic" is the British word for "comic book". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The page for the comic books starring Wolverine would have the "Wolverine (comics)" redirecting to that page in the event that the final decision falls to not undo the page reversion. Then we would have to go to a lot of Marvel Comics pages to correct the links so that it would redirect to the page of the Marvel Comics character that this talk page is about. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, telling us what would you do with Wolverine ( comic book ) if this page about the character is finally moved to Wolverine ( comics ), which is the outcome you support. Diego (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The comic book would still detail about the comic issues is what I am trying to say. The Wolverine (comics) page would detail the character if the character page is moved back to there. If the page stays as it is when the discussion ends, then they can redirect the "Wolverine (comics)" to "Wolverine (comic book)." Rtkat3 (talk) 9:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You've misunderstood my question. If the article is moved to Wolverine (comics), how is a reader doing a search to realize that it's for the character and not the comic book, given that "comic" is the BrEng temr for AmEng "comic book"? It's terribly confusing, whereas (character) vs (comic book) is unambiguous. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nightscream (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Spidey104 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that J Greb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tenebrae (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Favre1fan93 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Use (comics). Whether the character has been adapted into other media not relevant, IMO, since it is in the comics medium that the character first appeared and achieved its popularity. As for the question of how readers will distinguish between the character and the series, placing a disambiguatory hat note atop those two articles will do this easily. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nightscream: placing a disambiguatory hat note atop those two articles will do this easily: Only after they've arrived at the page—it won't help them when typing in a search in the search box. But that's a side issue: Wolverine is not inherently "comics"—he is inherently a character. Compare to Harry Potter (character), who first achieved fame and popularity in one of the best-selling series of books in all of history. Do you propose moving that page to Harry Potter (novels)? If not, then please explain to us why this applies to the comics medium alone, and not any other medium—this is a question WP:COMICS folk have continued to avoid answering. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Only after they've arrived at the page—it won't help them when typing in a search in the search box.

So what? I often come across the wrong article when typing in a particular term, and then go to the right one when I see the hat note. That's what hat notes and dab pages are for. And sometimes, AutoSuggest will provide a list of possible choices that allows me to go to the right article directly.

Do you propose moving that page to Harry Potter (novels)?

If the WikiProject Novels community decides to enact that practice, then sure. Nightscream (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey, dabs are generalities and, for the most part, cannot be, for lack of a better term, idiot proofed. That's why hat notes are there. As I pointed out below, "comics" is a dab that has been in long-standing use. And on that covers a lot of territory. Given the forks we've seen in those articles, hat notes are inevitable on the most likely "top pick".
As for your demand - bluntly that's the way the people looking after the comics pages set it up and it's the way those pages have been consistently handled. Further, as mentioned below, there is a good chance that a (comics) article will, or should, cover more than just a character or a magazine. As such a mre general term is applied. If the article Harry Potter (character) was structure in such a way as to cover both the titulat character and the novel series, then a good argument for moving it to Harry Potter (novel) or some such would be valid. - J Greb (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow... just wow...

    (character) would be a wonderful option, if this wasn't so damn focused just on the fictionography of the the character from the comics. We've gone so heavy on the fan importing of plot both here and with Wolverine in other media, we'd need an impossible to get slash-and-burn edit drive on both to get an actual encyclopedic article on the character that is not something that should be at the Marvel Database.

    (comics) has pretty much sailed at this point since Wolverine (comic book) is in place. Someone looking for "Wolverine (comics)" is likely to be looking for either the character or the comic books series. For it to be valid for anything other than a redirect to the subsection of the dab we'd need a different impossible to get slash-and-burn edit drive to fold the character and comic book articles together. And a strong point here, "(comics)" has been the long standing default for articles dealing with characters, publications, settings, characters, stories, ect. related to printed story telling using both pictures and words without issue. Yes, Curly Turkey that means the general frame of references that has been used if that "comics" as a general topic includes British magazines and characters as well as American. And Australian, French, German, pretty much the whole kit-n-kabootle. To jump in at this late date with "But BrEng users will be confused." is more than a little insulting to those that have been using the current system perfectly well. It also comes close to "Screw AmEng terms." There may need to be a discussion elsewhere to deal with the dab term for articles that deal with comics related topics that cover both character(s) and publication(s), but this isn't it. Nor is that a good argument for not using the dab term on this article.

    Fine graining the dab with any variation of "Marvel" is a non-started - by Wolverine (disambiguation) the only individual character using the name is Marvels. Period. (comics character) may be useable given the IOM fork. However, as I point out above, I'd rather see the over-sized plots pruned and the two articles re-integrated.

    - J Greb (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • J Greb: Where did I say anything like "Screw AmEng terms"? Have you not read WP:COMMONALITY?
  • You haven't given any explanation for
    1. why (character) would cause any sort of problem whatsoever
    2. why WP:COMICS should be the only exception to the sitewide standards
  • so damn focused just on the fictionography of the the character from the comics: that's right, it's focused on the character from the comics, which is why it belongs at (character), as a character from any other medium would (e.g Harry Potter (character)). Any other medium. Please exlain what makes comics, and only comics, special in this regard. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • In response:
      1. My statement was "It also comes close to 'Screw AmEng terms.'" Please re-parse that for yourself. "Comes close" which could be replaced with "reads like", "sounds like", "comes off as", and a few others. No, you didn't eactly say it, but the manner in which you posed the issue raises that implication.
        • Nope, it had to do with nothing more than easy search comprehensibility and consideration of WP:COMMONALITY. If it "sounds like" "Screw AmEng" to you, then you should perhaps pause and ask yourself why. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      2. If I'm looking for information on the character from the films, this isn't the article for it. Nor is it for the characters that appeared in any of the animated shows, or the video games. It's strictly the (comics character).
      3. Long and Short: It's what was put in place when the dabs were being set up and there's been little friction arising from it. At this point there really hasn't been a proposed replacement for it for the articles where it should be used that hasn't raised a stink. Please keep this firmly in mind: there are a number of comics related articles that have been forked between character, magazine, and adaptations that shouldn't have been. Entrenching those splits is not a good thing. The comics section of Wikipedia at least has a way of saying "Maybe this is were the compiled article should be."
        • "there's been little friction arising from it": sorry, but how many times has this article's title been discussed on this talk page and at WP:NCC again? This article title has been nothing but friction. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      4. Clarification: I'm not saying your wrong, just that I find both dabs lacking given the current structure of the four related articles - character, comic book, "In Other Media", and alt versions. If this and IOM were trimmed and thinned to a lot less plot and merged, I'd agree with (character). Look at you example of Harry - that article covers the film character as well as the character from the books. It covers the character in full. This one does not do that. By the same token, if this had the plot reduced and the (comic book) article folded back in, the I'd agree with (comics) since it would be covering more than just the character.
        • You're arguing it's a poor article. Yes. Yes, it is. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • In all honesty I do not see the articles being cleaned up in a way that would facilitate merging any of them. (character) is the lesser "bad" choice ATM, but not by much. (comics character) is a better fit with (film character) and (television character) pointing to the relevant sections of the IOM.
      - J Greb (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Leaving the title at (character) where it is (and belongs) is at least one step towards focusing article on Wolverine the character, which is what is needed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - much of the goal of disambiguation is to have something that is clear for the user who may be looking for the article. The person who is interested in finding out more about the character Wolverine would be able to recognize "Wolverine (character)" as the likely article for what he's looking for even if he only knows Wolverine from his appearance on the screen (where he has a far larger audience than he does in the comics). It seems far more likely that someone looking for the article will know he's a character but not know that he's associated with comics than that he would know that it's something to do with comics but not know it's a character. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "(character)" is the proper disambigation for a fictional character across multiple forms of media where it also happens to share the name of one of the works they appear in (see Sonic the Hedgehog, for example); the comics project should not be dictating this for the rest of WP. Additionally, the arguments given that (comics) can be confused with (comic book) are completely right. The "(character)" designation makes the clearest disambiguation. (And the side issue about those other articles that focus outside the comics, the above points are right that they are too much fluff and can all be trimmed into this single article.) --MASEM (t) 03:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (comics) is too close to (comic book), plus he's a character in films now also. Herostratus (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone above - Since he's more known as a character it's more logical to leave it as it is. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was told by an admin that (character) was to be avoided "as much as absolutely possible" when I tried to DAB Power Ring (DC Comics) and Power ring (DC Comics). I defer to him. I also think this would open a large can of worms per all the other mentioned characters with (comics) after their names who have or have not appeared in other media. My suggestion would be to improve the Wolverine article(s), merge/split as appropriate, and then have this dicussion when there's actually a well written article to base consensus around. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    1. There are admins on both sides of the discussion here—it's irrelevant. Adminship is a role, not a rank.
    2. The discussion you link to was from two and a half years ago, based on what WP:NCC said at the time. It has since been shown that the wording of WP:NCC was a local consensus that contravened sitewide guidelines, and was thus invalid. The wording has since been altered. If a can of worms has been opened, it was by those WP:COMICS editors who decided there should be one set of guidelines for Wikipedia, and a separate set for WP:COMICS (even if an article is co-"owned" by other WikiProjects as well). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There may be admins on both sides, but that was the only time one has ever reversed a page name on me. Hence, that's the guideline I've been following for the last 2.5 years as I've created/DABed more pages.
    • I see your point on blaming the can of worms on comic editors, but RIGHT NOW, most comic articles have a consistent naming system. You just don't disagree with it. If THIS PAGE is renamed, then there will be confusion across the board until they're all fixed AND editors quit using the old system. That's the can of worms I'm talking about. Personally, I don't think this paricular issue is worth the effort to fix, especially considering the more important problems in the article's content. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I don't disagree with using (Comics) in general for articles where the content can be properly inferred from that disambiguation word, provided it doesn't conflict with more general guidelines that have been created to serve the readers before editors. Parenthesis disambiguation must be consistently defined between articles with the same base name, not between articles from the same wikiproject. There's no need that all comics articles use the same exact disambiguator when they reflect different circumstances (such as having or not separate articles for the character and the series); using (comics) may be advisable when there is no ambiguity of the content covered in the article, but is forbidden (even by the WP:NCC guideline) when it is ambiguous. And in any case, using (comics) everywhere doesn't achieve any higher degree of consistency, as it conflicts with the use of (character) at many other places. Diego (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As "_________ (comics)" is how it is done on Wikipedia, you are just asking for trouble by doing otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Adamstom.97: No, actually it's only done that way in WP:COMICS. The rest of Wikipedia prefers (character) (e.g Harry Potter (character)). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that's what I meant. There are a lot of pages based on comics characters, and "_________ (comics)" is the form that is used. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - I think Diego has articulated this issue best. There's no sense in making a disambiguation conform to a WikiProject norm when doing so leads to confusion with another article. The whole purpose of disambiguation is to disambiguate.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Note: User:Nightscream was also a supporter & should be added to the list. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wolverine (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wolverine (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Herb Trimpe

Since Herb did the original cover art for the first appearance of Wolverine, should he not be credited in the side-bar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.205 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As what? Creator? I don't believe he has any input on the character's likeness. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As co-creator. He was the first person to draw the character. He, therefore, had input in the design and likeness. This is no different than Ditko and Spider-Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.36.95 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you misread the article. He was the first person to draw the character for publication. JRSR designed him. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yet, there are tons of people/sites referring to Herb as "co-creator" of Wolverine. Even comicsvine refers to him as such. I'm not saying JRSR wasn't instrumental, but he's put on the same "co-creator" billing as Herb. I think "fair is fair," to include Herb in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.205 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
From the Herb Trimpe article: "Trimpe co-created nearly all of the characters introduced during his run on The Incredible Hulk, with Wolverine being a rare exception", sourced to Back Issue magazine. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wolverine (character). 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) 01:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Cultural impact and reception" section

We should write a foreword and abstract for this section at the beginning. I added the content but Tenebrae undid the edit over being 'hyperbolic'. Although this sentences are sourced and they're not a personal opinion I changed the words and normalize it but the user undid it again. Tenebrae also deleted some of the sources and called them 'trivia'. We're talking about a comic book character, being named as 5th most powerful superheroes among 100, by Entertainment Weekly is not 'trivia' or 'non-notable' because the aim is referring to the media coverage of an iconic comic character. That's what the whole section is about. CerberaOdollam (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree and say that "5th most powerful superhero" and "42nd sexiest male characters in comics" is trivia. Phrases like "garnered critical acclaim" and "one of the greatest and most iconic comic book characters and superheroes of all time" is incredibly hyperbolic, fannish language.
I would also note that this editor, who has been on only sporadically since July 2016, is essentially an SPA whose edits are virtually all Wolverine and Hugh Jackman-related. This does not strike me as someone here to help this altruistic free encyclopedia but only to add WP:PUFFERY to his fan objects.
Finally, I would note that the lead already contains this:

The character is highly rated in many comics best-of lists, ranked #1 in Wizard magazine's 2008 Top 200 Comic Book Characters;[5] 4th in Empire's 2008 Greatest Comic Characters;[6] and 4th on IGN's 2011 Top 100 Comic Book Heroes.[7]

...so I have to wonder about the propriety of an additional gushy paragraph.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that the section did sound puffery, I do think that there is use for a reception section, it's one thing to say that the character was ranked so and so on a bunch of lists but what exacty does that say about the character exactly? What is it that people like about him that put him on that list, why is he popular? That's the things that are worth including.★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@*Treker:, hi. My post, given my subhead, might not have been as clear as I meant it to be. The "Reception" section is still there. The issue was elevating "reception" to "Cultural impact"; the addition of multiple, WP:INDISCRIMINATE poll results, some of which resulted in placements as low as #42; and the hyperbolic language. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: Ok. I understand. I did change the "Cultural impact" section to "Reception", so I agree with you completely.
@Tenebrae: I think you are prejudging. If I seem a SPA It's because I don't have enough time to have extensive activity on WP and edit different various articles, I'm not a fan who's here to promote for a favourite celebrity and you're referring to my register date as a reason of your concern but I have to say just because I am a newcomer it does not mean that I'm not aware of wikipedia policies and procedures or have any kind of ill will. My only purpose is improving the article. As we have here (or other superheroes articles) it has been mentioned to these cases and lists although in most of those lists Batman is not even on top 5. and "garnered critical acclaim", "appearing as one of the greatest" is not hyperbolic I didn't write 'IS greatest' I said considered and perceived. When the character is highly rated in many comics best-of lists it means he has garnered critical acclaim and commercial success. Wikipedia has used these sentences (achieved commercial success and critical acclaim) on every Reception/Critical response/Reviews sections as an inference of analysis, quotes, viewpoints about that artwork or person. CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@CerberaOdollam:, other stuff exists, and if some other Wikipedia article is using hyperbolic, non-encyclopedic WP:TONE and including a laundry list of dubious accolades or poll results, we're supposed to improve the other article, not use it to say, "Well, they do it, so why can't I?" The lead already says:

The character is highly rated in many comics best-of lists, ranked #1 in Wizard magazine's 2008 Top 200 Comic Book Characters;[5] 4th in Empire's 2008 Greatest Comic Characters;[6] and 4th on IGN's 2011 Top 100 Comic Book Heroes.[7]

...and there's a "Reception" section with polls attesting to the character's popularity. And we don't include our personal inferences or WP:SYNTH statements. If you're adding actual "analysis, quotes, viewpoints" by authors and critics in a balanced way that includes criticism of the character's violence and cigar-smoking, for example, I think you'll agree that would be something entirely different from hagiographic gush. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I understand what you mean but as you can see the section starts with ' Wolverine topped Wizard magazine....' Can we say this as a foreword: Wolverine is a well-received comic book character and has garnered critical acclaim and commercial success (No "Greatest" or "Iconic") This statement is neutral It's based on 'highly rated in many comics best-of lists' just in other words. CerberaOdollam (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your understanding and your calm discussion.
"Critical acclaim" is hyperbolic, interpretive language, much less neutral than the current, strictly factual and non-interpretive existing phrase, "The character is highly rated in many comics best-of lists."
It's also not completely accurate, since the character per se isn't critically acclaimed but certain writer-artist treatments of the characters are. Some Wolverine stories and Wolverine-centric story arcs weren't well-received. As well, focusing on just the positive is undue weight: If we're going to talk about positive reviews, then we also need to talk about negative reviews. Are you prepared to comb through books and articles for a balanced section of Wolverine pro and con quotes by authoritative critics, authors and cultural historians? --Tenebrae (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: But this article is about the character of Wolverine not Wolverine 'stories', the character of Wolverine is well-received and It's sourced. This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF I'm talking about WP:FA and WP:GA as WP's superior articles so all of them can't be wrong. They used these phrases on every Reception/Critical response/Reviews sections, for example in movies the Metacritic score is not 100/100 which means some of the reviews weren't positive but they has used these words because most of the reviews are positive. Again as a featured article Brad Pitt#In the media seems trivia and non-encyclopedic, those lists (one of the 25 sexiest, No. 20 on Forbes list etc.) seems non-notable but they mentioned to them. Here we have Wolverine 5th among 50. 5 amongst 50 is notable compared to those listings. If we don't say that Wolverine is a successful or famous character then what's the difference between this character and those unknown and failed comic characters. There are thousands of comic book characters but are they as well-known and iconic as this one? It should be clarified to the reader who is not familiar with this character. CerberaOdollam (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Tenebrae. "5th most powerful superhero" and "42nd sexiest male characters in comics" are both highly subjective, and not at all comparative to ranking real people as "powerful" or "sexy". I'm unable to view the sources due to an internet filter, but do the sources explain how these rankings were made? Given the very real popularity of the character, I'm sure we can find better sources to describe his reception than random rankings on random lists. A basic google search turned up this article from Psychology Today that examines and explains why Wolverine appeals to people. There were over 2 million other results, although some minor effort would be required to remove the wheat from the chaff. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@CerberaOdollam:, let me just ask: What is it you feel about this that makes it insufficiently convey that Wolverine is "a successful or famous character"?

The character is highly rated in many comics best-of lists, ranked #1 in Wizard magazine's 2008 Top 200 Comic Book Characters;[5] 4th in Empire's 2008 Greatest Comic Characters;[6] and 4th on IGN's 2011 Top 100 Comic Book Heroes.[7]

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I only say that we should say This character garnered critical acclaim and commercial success at the beginning of this section because as you say The character is highly rated in many comics best-of lists, these listings are made by critics. According to critics he topped those lists so when we say garnered critical acclaim it is not hyperbolic, it's critics response and if we do not mention to the critics' positive responses while it's sourced, then there would be no difference between this character and unknown failed comic characters to the readers. CerberaOdollam (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@CerberaOdollam: I honesty apologize since I can't really follow what you're saying in the post above. I would note that the phrase "critical acclaim" generally isn't used in most articles, such as film articles, because it's unquantifiable and is generally considered WP:PUFFERY, so that has nothing to do with you or Wolverine specifically. Rather than use vague summations like that, Wikipedia likes to be specific, which the sentence beginning "The character is highly rated" is. I rather like Argento Surfer's idea to incorporate points from the Psychology Today article into an "Analysis" section that explains the popularity.
I'm also not sure we have to say "Wolverine is popular." The leads of Superman and Batman don't talk about their popularity, and I'm not sure we need to say, "This superhero is popular" in the lead of every one of dozens or even a couple hundred particularly popular superheroes. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course saying Wolverine is famous or popular is not encyclopedic I wasn't talking about that and I also agreed with you on 'one of the greatest and most iconic'. I though "garnered critical acclaim" would be appropriate because highly rated in many comics best-of list means garnered critical acclaim. CerberaOdollam (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Unnecessary addendum long after the fact: Exactly, CerberaOdollam -- so that means it's mentioned already. Anything more would be puffery. --CRConrad (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Abilities

*Treker as I mentioned in my edit summary, "animal-like attribute" is not an "ability" and according to reliable sources this character is also a martial arts master. CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"animal like attributes" is a shorthand for enhanced smell, sight and hearing, which is more than appropriate in this case since the character is often assosiated with animal like behaviour and feralness, which should be expanded on in the powers section in the main article, not he infobox.★Trekker (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We already have the "Superhuman senses" (Ability to see, smell, taste, feel and/or hear more than a normal human.) in the infobox. Again, "attribute" is not an ability/power. CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, we need a reliable source for the addition of superhuman strength. This one has been debated ad nauseum, with no consensus that he actually has superhuman strength. 2602:304:CE74:9630:F03C:849C:8450:BC5E (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Being animal like is a defining characteristic of the character. Next to his healing and claws the most well-known power, there is no reason to remove it. Superhuman strength may be added but Marvel.com should not be used as a source.★Trekker (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
What "reliable sources" exactly are you talking about that specify that he isn't a martial arts master? Would be nice if you would name any reliable source, because you haven't so far.★Trekker (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You know what, I've said my piece on this matter and if others want to change it so be it, I won't argue more, but I still think there is an utter failure here and in the general comics project to recognise and use reliable sources.★Trekker (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, We don't need to 'define characteristic of the character' in the infobox, the title is "Abilities", If you really want to refer to that you can add it on "Skills and personality" section. Secondly, What is your source that says "animal like attributes" is one of his "abilities/powers"? thirdly, how the official website of Marvel Comics cannot be used as a source? Which of the WP's policies and guidelines says this? CerberaOdollam (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 49#Abilities. The infobox should just include the characters most recognizable abilities. Wolverine is known for claws, animal senses, and healing factor. Not his karate skills or nun chuck skills. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Argento Surfer The title is "Ability" not attribute, trait or personality. 'Animal-like attribute' is not considered as an ability. CerberaOdollam (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. "Heightened sense of smell and sound" would be a better way to put it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: We already have Superhuman senses (Ability to see, smell, taste, feel & hear more than a normal human.) That's why I did that edit. He is widely known as an 'expert martial artist' and for his 'strength'. CerberaOdollam (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

ok Minar Kishore Joshi (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

anything else Minar Kishore Joshi (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Cold Lake, Alberta?

Which comic book title and issue number stated that Logan was specifically from Cold Lake in Alberta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.157.166 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The clone of Wolverine

Wolverine, like many others in the Marvel Universe is now a clone of his former self. From his first cameo appearance in Incredible Hulk #180 (October 1974) to his death in House of X #4 (October 2019), his many deaths and resurrections in between always involved some small part of his original body surviving the event and regenerating his being. The two most notable, or infamous, depending on your personal opinions of the writing, being his regeneration, Adamantium and all, from a single drop of blood that landed on the magical "Crystal of Ultimate Vision" which occurred in Uncanny X-Men Annual #11 (November 1987) and then being burned to nothing more than his Adamantium skeleton in Wolverine #43 (August 2006), which we learned later also involved supernatural forces to accomplish.

That being said, this time Wolverine was cloned. And cloned not from original genetic tissue samples, but from cultures artificially created using data stored on a computer of some kind. House of X even states that the possibility of creating more than one clone of Wolverine at a time is entirely possible, as he is now basically a data file to be drawn upon. We don't know if Mr. Sinister tampered with his genetic code before providing it to Xavier, and we don't know what the effects of any possible data transfer corruption from Cerebro's earth bound binary system to whatever alien code Shi'ar technology uses may have been on his psyche. I have no doubt future writers will elaborate on this.

Len Wein told us he was Weapon X. Grant Morrison told us he was Weapon 10. Now Johnathan Hickman tells us he's Weapon 1s and 0s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:4000:FEA7:A0E1:CF50:AA8D:CC24 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Snikt!

I came to this page because I needed to confirm the spelling of "Snikt!" I mention this because I am hardly a marvel aficionado, but I do think that this distinctive sound effect is closely associated with the character and is commonly associated with character both within fandom and among people like me with a more casual knowledge. At that time this article did not mention the sound effect so I found another source and added a sentence and citation ( Cronin, Brian (June 3, 2011). "When We First Met #5". CBR. Retrieved July 10, 2020) in the publication history in a paragraph already talking about other distinctive features of the character introduced in Giant-Size X-Men #1. My addition was removed as "very trivial". Is there a more appropriate place to mention this character's distinctive sound effect? Or a better source for it's close association with the character? Eldonkeyo (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is information better suited for the Marvel Wiki. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay that's fine. I think being popularly associated with a distinctive sound effect is more relevant to a general reader than most of the minutiae in this article. But again I'm not really a comic book type so I don't know what the editorial standards are for deciding what's trivial or not in this context. Eldonkeyo (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It's briefly mentioned at List of onomatopoeias#Sounds in fiction, so it might be reasonable to have something about the sound here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Right? It seems notable! I don't think that it's important to say when the sound first appeared necessarily other than that was the best source I could find on a simple google search and it slotted pretty well into that section of the article which was already talking about distinctive aspects of the character established in that issue. Eldonkeyo (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Claw sound

Where can we put the fact that to make his claw sound, they're a turkey apart? Tinka Hessenheffer (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Wolverine (character)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Wolverine (character)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CoreMiniseries#7":

  • From Betty Ross: Matt Fraction (w), Stuart Immonen (p), Wade Von Grawbadger (i). "Thor's Day" Fear Itself, vol. 1, no. 7 (December 2011). Marvel Comics.
  • From Fear Itself (comics): Fraction, Matt (w), Immonen, Stuart (p), Von Grawbadger, Wade (i). "Thor's Day" Fear Itself, vol. 1, no. 7 (December 2011). Marvel Comics.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Foom (magazine) #2

Apparently Wolverine was created as part of a contest in a Marvel Magazine (Foom) number 2. There is no mention of Foom in the article. 2600:6C67:837F:7564:693B:3863:377D:CD51 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the FOOM article. Appears to be just a coincidental naming, not an actual precursor to Wolverine. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Nightcrawler

The "queer appeal" section mentions Wolvie's suggested intimacy with Nightcrawler due to their shared history. I am a bit puzzled, as I don't remember them being particularly close to each other. I remember old stories where their relationship is antagonistic. See the following articles on Wolverine's history:https://www.cbr.com/when-did-wolverine-first-actually-cut-someone-with-his-claws/ and https://www.cbr.com/wolverine-nightcrawler-best-odd-couple-friends-moments/#4-the-uncanny-x-men-143

  • In X-Men #96, Nightcrawler laughs because Wolverine was easily defeated by Storm. Wolvie reacts by going berserk and trying to kill Nightcrawler.
  • In Amazing Spider-Man #161, Nightcrawler is reading a newspaper instead of training with his teammates. Wolverine cuts a rope to make him fall head-first to the ground.
  • In Uncanny X-Men #143, Nightcrawler attempts to kiss Mariko Yashida (Wolvie's girlfriend) under a mistletoe. Wolvie again goes berserk and tries to kill Nightcrawler. Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The CBR article you linked above has a number of Wolverine–Nightcrawler buddy plot lines. That said, the article section points heavily to Esad Ribić's Wolverine #6 artwork for the assertion. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an obvious agenda item, fueled by people like C.Fred, who has his “preferred pronouns” in his bio. He blocked me from editing Wolverine’s page, as well as Dazzler’s page, with the same fan fiction. If we want to toss these narratives into a separate article, topped by Bobby Drake’s storyline, it would make more sense. But we may not be able to get past administrator bias. Chiefmiz (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Chiefmiz The "obvious agenda" was from your edits. If you want to focus on what reliable sources say about the content, that's one thing. But if you're going to make claims of "an agenda" and assertions about a talk page discussion that isn't in the page history or archives, that's not constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Why do you only cite agenda based information, that is opinions not factual knowledge based on the creators and managers of the IP when regarding cultural impact. CBR and MTV do not contribute to the IPs offical historical influence. This is an echo chamber for you to validate your personal fantasy. There are countless sources citing Wolverine as a postive male role model without his sexual orientation being questioned, but those do not fit your agenda. You're sourcing things that someone has an opinion on and they dont have the actual authority to cement it to the factual history of the character. How can you not see this.. You're being very transparent with your motives when you lock out any opposition to your narrative. 2600:1011:B00C:D356:485D:7F9A:E564:8197 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I give the art piece this thread is referencing as an example. Asad Ribić, the artist contributed to the piece, has never stated any homoerotisim influencing this work. However the page in question is asserting that it is sexual in narute. Im am unware of your knowledge in art history, but art is defined by the observer. To affirm that one specific representation of an art piece is the only representation goes against what art is. The context of the piece with in the story is showing the vulnerability between two plotanic friends. Nightcawler coming to him nude (he is in a disguise as a clothed preist in the actual story btw) is allegorical of him exposing vulnerability in the situation. Wolverine just assisted in the death of a pregnant drug lord and is questioning his place after the recent disbandment of the xmen. Art is subjective. At the very least, get rid of the brash assertion that is just about sex.. 2600:1011:B00C:D356:485D:7F9A:E564:8197 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Correction: that drug lord was after this. He had just dealt with the sex trafficing cult. I find that ironic now.. 2600:1011:B00C:D356:485D:7F9A:E564:8197 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Your ruka reference is slanderous btw. Ribic as never gone on record stating this. Legitimate sources, remember? 2600:1011:B00C:D356:485D:7F9A:E564:8197 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is an actual source from an interview with ribic talking about the subjectivity of his art work, enforcing that great art allows the observer to have his own connection and experience.
http://www.multiversitycomics.com/interviews/artist-august-esad-ribic-interview/ 2600:1011:B00C:D356:485D:7F9A:E564:8197 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Cultural impact and legacy

The section has a "Queer appeal and fandom" subsection, and... where is the rest? With all due respect to the LGBT community, the "cultural impact and legacy" of Wolverine is way higher than just that. We are talking about one of the top 5 most popular superheroes EVER! There has to be a section with his global and general impact, before we detail the impact within specific fandoms. Even within comics, he was one of the most successful characters in the 1990s, appearing in several comics and cameos, and with many others being influenced by his characterization or even being blatant ripoffs. There's a lot of ground to cover in that aspect. Cambalachero (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, there's got to be a lot more we can include in this section. 2601:240:E200:3B60:FD38:1D0D:F603:DC9E (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean, you are right in your assessment, but what do you want others to do about it? Wikipedia is free. Editors aren't being paid to write content. And it's not my job or anyone in the LGBT community to fill in the rest of the section with info about how Wolverine is "one of the top 5 most popular superheroes EVER!" or "his global and general impact", because some people are getting pissy about it. If people think there should be a (sub-)section about all that, they're welcome to Do it themselves. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The book by Suzana Flores I mention below includes the necessary sources for this. I can add a lot more context when I am an established editor. Wrangler1981 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Book by Suzana E. Flores

A psychologist named Suzana Flores has written an entire book about Wolverine and his characteristics, as well as his historical and cultural significance. It's a wealth of information and interpretation and this page should include some of the info. I lost my password to my old Wikipedia account and had to make a new one, so I am waiting until I am an established editor to add the info from her book. I'm hoping to do this soon though. Wrangler1981 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolverine_(character)/Archive_7&oldid=1216516447"