Talk:Awesome Android

Request for Comments (RfC)

Editors User:Tenebrae and User:Asgardian dispute two versions of the article. Tenebrae's version is here and Asgardian's most recent version is here. At issue is adherence to WPC Style Guidelines. Editors are asked for comments regarding the two versions.--Tenebrae (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See the comments at the bottom of the page. Extra material has been added, and changes made as per discussions here and at [1]. Still no real rationale presented for the reversion of legitimate material. Asgardian (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments [2] still stand, although I would add that there is no such thing as a "character and publication history" and it is not a way you can workaround mashing together out-of-universe and in-universe material.

My suggests for the way forward is to let this article develop naturally as others do - I don't feel it is in anyway suitable for major rewriting to purge all out-of-universe material, which seems better suited for more mature articles on higher importance characters. So expand the PH and slowly rework the article including what secondary sources you can find. Then somewhere down the line we can possibly think about reworking. In the meantime there are dozens of articles that do need rewriting, like a lot of the x-Men articles that hover at a C because they are overburdened with plot and there should be plenty of material to draw on.

I'd also query why this was taken to RFC so quickly - I think this could have been dealt with by getting members of the Comics Project to comment (as we had been). There are perhaps half a dozen discussions on similar problems around on user talk pages, articles talk pages and WT:CMC and opening up such a discussion for one article seems like trying to call out the fire brigade to deal with one small fire when you'd be better advised to address the causes in one place, otherwise we are wasting our time r=ushing around trying to deal with it an outbreak at a time. (Emperor (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

I take responsibility for calling it. Asgardian and I contended on this article in the past (see here, and for this and other things eventually went into an Arbitration that led to Asgardian's being blocked from Wikipedia for an extended period. I think that's an objective indicator of his history of edit warring and of justifying controversial actions as "bold moves". I requested RfC to shorten a repeat of the same lengthy, enervating, debilitating process that Asgardian's action precipitated last time. We all though Arbitration had concluded this issue settled then. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I did suggest contiuing the discussion here [3], as this is where we can reach some kind of consensus. A RfC was unnecessary and some assumptions have been made. I note with irony that some fought for the inclusion of a PH, which I then improved upon. Over the past few months things have moved in an organic fashion away from the FCB. The point I continue to object to are the blind reversions and removal of legitimate information. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is your opinion an RfC was unnecessary. It's not necessarily fact. My opinion is that it was a viable alternative to the edit-war that seemed inevitable, if history is any indication.

The majority of those commenting throughout WPC do not, in fact, seem to saying "things have moved ... away from the FCB". That appears to be almost solely your own desire, which you seem to be implementing unilaterally.

In the interest of avoiding scattered discussions, we can certainly speak at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Style_guidance#Section_titles. For this particular article's RfC, however, two of the three editors commenting want the WPC MOS status quo.-- Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't necessary, and hasn't really achieved anything as the discussion is at another page. It has unfortunately stalled as we never seem to get a significant number of people contributing and making changes. I'd like to see "27 of 30" agree on something as opposed to "2 out of 3" regulars". Asgardian (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Powers and abilities

This needs a Powers and Abilities section. If a fan comes along please do it! I want to know more! 88.108.112.8

Publication History needs to be fixed up. 71.127.205.76 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There actually used to be a lot more information on this page, including one section dedicated to his newfound personality and powers and abilities. I'm gonna check history... Toquinha 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion reasoning

OK, it's hard to keep an even keel sometimes when you try to work with people and they don't bother to look up the basic guidelines of Wikipedia and of WikiProject Comics. Reverting and explaining takes up a lot of time that could be put to better use.

Among other things, the WikiProject Comics exemplars and editorial guidelines give specific, consensus-derived structures for comics-character articles. These prominently include "Publication history" as the first thing after the lead, and ideally for the superherobox "a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best," as opposed to a cover.

And one of my personal bugaboos, simply because it's so easy to do it right, is violating WP:DATED, which says not to use terms like "recently" and "now" because the general reader won't know when something was written and so who knows when "recently" and "now" even were? Say "in the mid-2000s", or "in 2006 comics", or any of a thousand similar phrases.

Use an encyclopedic tone, not a conversational tone. That's another Wiki guideline.

I could go on, but maybe I should just make this a template message!  :-)   —Tenebrae 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, why does this version remove references, put in punctuation errors like hyphens in place of m-dashes, etc., and subheads with no content beneath them? Please don't make reversions that take out information and put in errors. —Tenebrae 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• What happened to meeting people half way? I put back the image of the Android as Andy and revised the text to cover the developements in his personality. I believe the title needs to still reflect that it was the Awesome Android first, and the name change came later, so as not to confuse. There's also a bit of "tell the story" that could probably be culled to one sentence (I'm tough on this as verbosity is rife on Wikipedia). It also looks a tad clunky to be referencing comics in-text when they can be listed at the end. I believe the actual reference can be reduced in size for Wiki.

Thanks for the tip about archiving. I was told it was optional.

Asgardian 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• The backslash separating the names is good, but you've still got a dead link in the artist's name and a chopped off paragraph. Also see my comments above.

Asgardian 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to reiterate, I didn't touch the article title that reflected Awesome Android first. You unilaterally merged the two articles that way, and I left that choice as it was. As for Wiki etiquette, I never said it was mandatory. I said you'd have more credibility if you adhered to etiquette. See also Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines.

I respect your opinion that listing comics in-text is clunky. Consensus disagrees, however, in that WikiComics Project exemplar and editorial guidelines state that "Publication history" is the section that immediately follows the lead. I respect your right to disagree, and if you want to change this guideline, just go the Comics Project Noticeboard and start a thread to rally consensus toward your position.

I'm all for streamlining text. Please just respect your fellow editors and do it in chunks rather than wholesale — that makes it easier to see specifically what's being done. And please, I beg you, check your spellling and punctuation. Please stop using hyphens where it needs an m-dash, please spelling "microcomputer" correctly, please stop removing the wikilink from solar power, etc.

I can tell you I personally used all the References listed. Leave them. Finally, please just make edits and not wholesale reversions. --Tenebrae 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dead link. It's a red link. I didn't put it there, but a redlink is perfectly legitimate. I'm looking for the chopped-off paragraph you mention. -- Tenebrae 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

CC of posting at User talk:Asgardian

A collegial plea

Re: The same, continual reverts you've made to Awesome Android (here and here): I don't get it, dude. You know the WikiProject Comics exemplar. Why do you keep reverting Awesome Android to a format at odds with it? Reverting stylistically correct changes that several editors have made, in favor of changes that don't follow guidelines?

Together with the Galactus difficulties you're having, and the way you keep deleting posts [on your own talk page] that bring up important issues about which fellow editors should be aware, I'm really wondering why you stay and cause yourself and others of us so much tsuris and agita. This can't be fun for you. It's not fun or productive for us.

Please: Let's discuss this before anything escalates even further. You have knowledge and passion for this pop-cultural field, and speaking just for myself, I'd like to see you continue here contributing. Talk to us. Explain the going-against-exemplar thing. Let's work this out together. --Tenebrae 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, all the information is still there, just in a tidier format. The Publication History isn't necessary for a character with such a brief biography, especially since the references support the text nicely. If it's a major character (eg. our friend Thor) or a team (eg. The Avengers), then a PH is definately mandatory. Many of the other low-appearance types also lack a PH. Good references as end notes seem to be where it's at.

Asgardian 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's what I and other editors have helped to preserve. I don't believe you're correct in say that "Publication history" isn't necessary for a character with a brief biography. I can't find anything in WikiProject Comics to support that, and I don't see where having less information or inconsistent formatting helps the Project.

Please leave the properly formatted edits as both I and CovenantD have both had to bring back after you callously continued to ignore consensus and add inaccurate and misformatted changes, along with your contention that your personal opinion overrides the consensus-dervied exemplar.

You have been asked nicely on your talk page to please stop these destructive actions, and why. I'm not going to continue to reiterate the reasons; I'd invite interested parties to read other editors' comments about your continual, and by now vandalistic, reversions, but you make that difficult because you erase all comments — meaning other editors have to tediously click through your Talk-page History. You even did so with my collegial plea on your page, which I'd also posted above on this page. If you revert this article once more, I'm afraid we'll need to take this to the next level.

You can see from my above "collegial plea" posting how much I valued your knowledge and genuinely wanted to work with you as a fellow contributor, but you've rebuffed attempts by me and others. I'm sorry it's come to this. --Tenebrae 06:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Is this character a favourite of yours?

Asgardian 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No. And I find the implication a breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your question I believe shows a misunderstanding of the respect your fellow editors have for the consensus-dervied policies and guidelines. --Tenebrae 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. This happens all the time with comic characters. T-1000 was obviously a somewhat obsessed Gladiator fan, while Dcincarnate was very hot for Galactus. I'm not saying you are obsessed, but we all feel a little more passionately about some characters than others. With myself, it's Thor. I could care less that the Deadpool entry is a mess, but want to see the Thor entry be the best it can be. That's why I asked. Not personal or a misunderstanding. We're on the same page.

Asgardian 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While that may be true for you, I know many editors within the Comics WikiProject who spend a lot of time on articles whose subjects they have no interest in whatsoever. I have been working on the articles about pretty minor American actors, teen pop groups, and some FDNY opera singer because the articles needed work. Hiding, I know, has been spending much more work on than he had probably planned on a Pittsburgh public school article that he probably saw me working on than he ever had planned, and he lives in the UK. I know Tenebrae also has worked on articles he had no prior interest in. There are many comics characters I really don't care about, but I would like their articles to be good because I have pride in Wikipedia, the WikiProject, and my connection to both. Implying that someone's interest in an article is because of some fanaticism is not assuming good faith, and is not a little insulting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Inserting a PH on character that has not even had a series of any kind is a tad pointless, given the limited no. of appearances that said character has had, and the complete ABSENCE of a PH on many, many other characters of similar status. The FCB covers everything that was mentioned - with references - quite nicely. Why should this minor character be the exception to the rule?

Asgardian 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering that a recent issue of She-Hulk detailed his origin (information I added, which was subsequently removed), which included Awesome Andy absorbing his goodness and self-awareness from Thor, I felt it was notable. It's probably those that have a particular preference towards the character, which is why we would expect to see them have a little more detail. As long as we're listing merely facts and established canon, the fact that editors who are fans of the character are adding the most material shouldn't matter that much, should it? Toquinha 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Thor information has been added to the FCB, which is the correct place for it. It is also referenced.

Asgardian 07:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The notes on PH at Exemplars applies to characters that have had actual series. Statements such as "what series they've had" and "This section should focus mainly on the comic" prove as much. The AA has never had a series, be it limited or ongoing. A PH, therefore, becomes irrelevant as the FCB and References cover all the necessary ground. Finally, there are hundreds of other comicbook characters listed on Wikipedia that DO NOT feature a PH on their entries as it is simply not applicable. The AA should be no different. On the strength of this alone, there should be no more reverts.

Asgardian 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The exemplars may need to be re-worded, then. Publication history is at least as important as fictional character history with all comics characters. Real facts are more important than fictional facts. Additionally, please do not use the "These articles are bad or need work, so this article should as well" argument. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• To really hit home the point, does the villain the Radioactive Man, who also appeared in June of 1963 have a PH? No, because the FCB covers his scattered appearances over the years nicely. The RM has never had a title of his own.

Asgardian 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Okay, the page is protected until this low level edit war over the publication history section is sorted out, following the dispute resolution process. Generate discussion and build a consensus. One point I want to address above: The guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars does not specifically apply only to characters who have only had their own series. Now, I suggest a consensus is built as to whether the section is to remain in the article or not. When one is demonstrated around either position I will unprotect the page. Hiding Talk 16:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting postings from User:Asgardian on my Talk page, where rather than address issues he prefers to attack me, calling me "melodramatic" and other things, while simultaneously using terms like "you know who" and "C*******D" to refer to fellow editor User:CovenantD. To see such behavior at this stage is troubling, and I want to let the rest of us know what we're dealing with. --Tenebrae 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you are being melodramatic. You also made an ultimatum, which I didn't care for and subsequently removed (something that CovenantD also does. A fact which you have now blown out of proportion). You have also brought this over from your Talk page, which is inappropriate. I'd like you to now stop and focus on the issue at hand. The Awesome Android.

Asgardian 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, I have presented my reasons above. It makes little sense for one sole entry to have a PH when hundreds of other character entries do not (what about all the other characters that appeared in the same month and year?). I also interpreted the Exemplars passage as referring to those characters that have at least had a mini-series. In the case of the AA, everything in the PH is covered and referenced in the FCB and References. A reference to the "team" Heavy Metal (it was a very loose association) can also be made in this section, which would then remove the need for the PH, which is out of place and does not flow. In short, I believe the PH here to be superfluous for no other reason than consistency - which is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia.

Asgardian 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian, stop calling me names. I have not called you any of the dozen things that I could have. The fact that you are stooping so low as to hurl personal invective says in and of itself that your argument cannot stand on its own. If it could, you wouldn't have any need to disparage the other party as "melodramatic" or anything else. --Tenebrae 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Publication History Inclusion

Comment: I'm looking at this article and debate for the first time so forgive me if I'm missing nuances in the development process of this article that is not mentioned in this discussion. I would say that there is certainly some grey area here regarding inclusion of the publication history section as Asgardian has pointed out, as this character has been a minor and rarely used one. Even taking into account exemplars (and leaving aside that those are guidelines, not rules), there's clearly an argument that the 'spirit of the law' of those exemplar suggestions do not make a pub. history mandatory, since that guideline specifies the section is to be focused on "the comic, not the character" and in this case, there really is no one specific "comic" that is being referenced (instead being a random collection of comics with generally brief appearances).

Given all of that I would say to err on the side of inclusion of a publication history mostly BECAUSE this is a minor and occassional character. In other words, the recitation of the occassional appearances of Awesome Android over the past 35 years would demonstrate to the casual reader the limited significance of the character, and better conform to writing about a fiction character from an out-of-world perspective. Short articles in which the majority of the text is character biography suffer from not making clear the relative significance of the character to first time readers, so should be avoided as much as possible.

If put to a straw poll, I would therefore suggest Weak Keep on the publication history, and mention to both Asgardian and Tenebrae that you both seem to have decent and justifiable arguments for your respective points of view, so please don't get in the mindset of "I'm right, he's wrong" (not that either of you seems to have been particularly uncivil or anything). This appears to be more of a judgement call than a strong mandate in either direction.

Just my 2 cents in the hope it helps build consensus, and apologies for wordiness - Markeer 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep on the publication history. I believe the spirit of "the comic, not the character" is to fight a problem that plagues comic-related articles on Wikipedia: They should be written as histories of publications, and not as biographies treating these characters as real people. My reading of this article sees the publication history as the most informative section of the article, identifying the era this character was created in, and the important appearences thereafter. As someone with a background in studying literature, I'm somewhat of a purist in regard to this issue, and believe that even "Fictional character biography" sections should be written with publication issues fully referenced and the prose written with critical distance, focusing on creators, publication years, and historical perspective, not on biography. I feel that eliminating the publication history section of this article seriously degrades its quality, eliminating pertinent information, and setting a tone that aids in clarity that the character is fiction. ~CS 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As User:ChrisGriswold has pointed out, real-world facts are more important than fictional facts, which are highly changeable. The very fact that this character has made few appearances makes a roadmap of them all the more important. Otherwise, for anyone interested, be it a fan or a comics historian, it'd be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And a pub. hist. section provides perspective and context that a list could not.--Tenebrae 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

CS - when you say that the removal of a PH would seriously degrade the article, I'm guessing you are speaking in general terms as in the case of the AA it is not very well written (how is what a character did to the AA relevant to the PH? That is an event and a matter for the FCB).

The inclusion of a PH would be setting a problematic precendent as by that logic ALL the entries would require such a header for the sake of consistency (just like the FCB). This is something of a stretch when many characters - such as the AA - have not even had a mini-series. Also, the PH would also have to be strictly monitored to ensure that it did not clash with the FCB (as it does in the case of the AA), which is the narrative that deals with events. A PH for characters with series (past or present) deals with appearances and NOT events. The next question would then be what role the Reference section then plays, which has always been adequate for citing appearances. There would be unnecessary duplication of information. It isn't feasible to have a PH, FBC and Reference section.

In short, I believe that this is not a case of "light tinkering" and the debate needs to be moved to a wider forum as there are larger consequences for the overall entry format. Asgardian 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are many areas in which this article requires a lot of work. However, I don't believe that this reason to eliminate the publication history section. Additionally, if other articles fail to achieve critical distance and "out-of-universe" perspective, then I believe that is cause to improve those articles, not to make mistakes here for the sake of consistency. I also think that it is perfectly acceptable to discuss this here, as this is the article in question. If the issue needs to be raised more broadly elsewhere, go ahead, but there is no reason to abandon the discussion about this article when there is a specific item up for debate.

I see where you are coming from, however. Your stance is that "publication history" is a term which applies only to magazine titles. I (and others) disagree, and feel that "publication history" applies to any fictional character which appears in serial publications.

Your position would make sense to me if the changes you are proposing did not result in the elimination of the information in the publication history section, and put a "biography" in its stead. The footnotes in the biography section do cite which issues the character appeared in, however this needs to be expressed inline as well. Doing so elevates the tone of the article from a fan-constructed chronology to a more professional and encyclopedic history. Suffice to say: these articles should not be "narrative[s] that [deal] with events", as you put it. These are not events -- they are fantasies and fiction, and should be approached as fantasies and fiction. The only events and the actions of the creators and publishers. ~CS 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

CS - On your last point, while the entries are obviously about fictitious characters, they exist within an established universe (which Wikipedia acknowledges) in which time passes (albeit not at a normal rate). Each character has had experiences which have served to shape them and make them more three-dimensional - something that definately holds true in the angst-driven Marvel Universe. Yes, Spiderman is fictional - as is the universe he occupies - but the deaths of his Uncle Ben and later still Gwen Stacy are significant events within his life, even if it a fictional one. This is a point made by writers time and time again. This is also something that the FCB achieves - it tracks the fictional events within the context of the fictional character's life. This holds true in every comic character entry on Wikipedia.

If you study my version of the entry for AA, you can see that a PH isn't really necessary as all the vital information is still present in the FBC and is also sourced to the References. I don't believe there is a need for a third section that simply rehashes what the other two sections have acheived. The entries then become cluttered and then may well start to look like they are fan site entries. That is something I want to avoid. Maintaining the integrity of the FCB on many character entries is difficult enough. I truly believe that this has the potential to become a fiasco if adopted on a widespread scale. There are dozens and dozens of entries that are already far too long. Adding another section - with information that is already presented in other sections - will only exascerbate matters.

Asgardian 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian, please stop clogging and cluttering this page with more of your opinions and arguments. Editors were requested to make a comment -- a single comment -- and not wind up in an endless, circular debate with one editor being fanatic about a point. Let the process happen without further attempts to circumvent the system by trying to wear down other editors.

~CS made a comment, and you had to argue with him about it rather than just make your own comment. All you're doing is rehashing your same old arguments over and over again, and that does not help the process go forward.--Tenebrae 14:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you let the moderators decide what is and isn't appropriate. And for the record, everything here is an opinion put forward in the shape of an argument.

Asgardian 21:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep on the Publication history. The exemplar isn't, or shouldn't be, optional. You can change the exemplar, but you can't not use it. --Jamdav86 14:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I see absolutely no problem in having a publication history for minor characters. Just because some other articles on minor comics characters don't have publication histories is not a valid argument for its removal from this one. Rather, publication histories ought to be added to those articles. That said, in this particular case, I think that the PH section could be improved. There really isn't much in it that couldn't be combined with the "Fictional Character Biography" section. What is lacking and what would help to differentiate these sections is real world information regarding the authors who have shaped the character and changed him over the years. By providing this "out of universe" perspective (or, as Asgardian likes to say, less "tell the story" perspective), the PH section would justify its existence. --GentlemanGhost 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks GG. If a PH was to be included, it would in the case of the AA have to rewritten and presented in a clinical fashion, as at present it is a weaker version of the FCB. This would be the biggest hurdle - unnecessary replication of the same information.

Asgardian 07:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Asgardian, you write "If a PH was to be included". Are you suggesting that there is currently no consensus to keep the publication history. I believe that such a consensus has indeed been demonstrated. In fact, I think you are the only person involved in this debate who wishes to see it removed. I'm going to remove the protection and suggest people keep an eye on the article to ensure the consensus is respected. Any violations of WP:3RR will be dealt with appropriately. Hiding Talk 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I did say "if" as a final decision had not been made. Since the consensus has gone with a PH, so be it. I do, however, stand by the fact that the PH will need to be rewritten. Assuming I'm just going revert, however, shows a lack of good faith.

Asgardian 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I made no such assumption, and I am sorry you have misread my words to infer one. Happy editing. Hiding Talk 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most recent edits

Okay, with all of that silliness out of the way, I went ahead and made a few changes to fictional biography (which got deleted during the edit wars, and I can't figure out for the life of me why), while editing personality so it's not redundant. That I way, I think I got it fulfilled...we have multiple headers in this article, and information is not repeated. What do you guys think? It's still a little rough, but this is all collaborative, so I'm always open to suggests. -Toquinha 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I've just moved this article from Awesome Android (comics) to Awesome Android, because there's no need for the parenthetical disambiguation — we have no other article called "Awesome Android". This was done per WP:DAB and per a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Awesome

Has it ever been clearly established that the Ultimate android was ever actually Bobby Burchill, or does Rhona just like to call it by his name? Noclevername 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Darn good question. --Tenebrae 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oct. 26 rv

The edit summary lists just those specific grammatical/syntactical points, MOS violations, etc. that could fit in the summary. There were too many altogether to fix them individually. --Tenebrae 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See edit summary for compromise rationale. --Tenebrae 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest changes

For articles of this size, one image is actually best. Have culled many extra images that I originally added in some articles as it doesn't work. Given the Android's current status, Avengers #286 is actually the best image available. Also removed the Thor statement -the Android was able to lift Mjolnir because it was an artifical lifeform (another example is the Air Walker robot in Thor #306).

Asgardian 13:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion only, as are almost all your other declarations.

As another user said about you at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) — the latest of a number of articles admins have made protected because of you —

Do you realize how strongly a statement like that reeks of WP:OWN? Saying that you'll address something in a few days and "we'll go from there" comes across as saying that you get to decide when and how everybody else has to edit this one. Wryspy 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please realize, your comments about me to other editors notwithstanding, that the reason you yourself say there is "bandwagon" against you is because a host of other editors disagree with a great deal of your edits, your edit-warring, and your disruptiveness. You ignored my question at Talk:Speed Demon (Marvel Comics): "[H]ow anyone can willfully disregard so many like opinions by so many experienced editors both working and speaking in good faith. How can everyone be wrong and you right?" --Tenebrae 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Address the issues please. You yourself did not believe an image of the first incarnation of the Abomination was suitable, hence a modern image. Fine, but with such articles one image is the norm. Check out the Abomoination for a refresher, or Black Bolt, the Destroyer or many, many others.

Also, artifical lifeforms are exempt from Odin's enchantment. This is fact. The statement re: worthiness is no accurate and reads as POV anyway. I'm reverting as it is a correct change.

Asgardian 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember anything about the Abomination, and just went through the edit history and talk-page edit history there; please refresh my memory of what you're speaking about. In any event, I'm in complete agreement that if we can find a clear full-frontal image of the Android, of course let's use that. But if one cannot be found, we have to go with the best available alternative.

And I think most editors would agree that an image of the introductory is at the least appropriate, if not necessary.

The enchantment thing must have gotten lost in the miasma of edits. That's fine.

Restoring image. If you still object, I propose we take it to RfC and ask for a consensus from fellow editors.--Tenebrae 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AA-14.jpg

Image:AA-14.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Asgardian, and why

It seems like deja vu all over again. After long-ago back-and-forth on this and other articles resulted in an Arbitrarion ruling against him well over a year ago, User:Asgardian — whom by now I had considered a true colleague and collaborator who has saved many an article from francruft — has made wholesale changes involving the elimination of an established section without any discussion. I know the MOS for sections evolves, but given the contentious history of this article, I believe it was not the most responsible and collegial course to make such sweeping changes unilaterally and without discussion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Well, you've been away for a while and many, many articles are now written in the style presented here. I was convinced by discussions with Cameron Scott many months ago that FCB's were flawed as it was all fictional padding. What was needed, and what is now presented here and in many other articles, are tight, sourced PH's with an out of universe perspective. No one has had any real issues with this style. With regards to this particular article, I've culled some weak and unnecessary language; added links where needed and provided more appearances with sources. The model we are working on refining is closer to be "encyclopedia standard" than the old models with FCB's (I also wrote many of these, but realized that Wikipedia was evolving). I hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

By the by, we've actually taken this [4] to the logical conclusion as it has become all important. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome. I read up and tried to catch up before editing again, and I have not seen any consensus for changing the form of PH, and nothing about any changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. With all due respect to fellow editor [User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]], he cannot unilaterally change Project guidelines. In fact, the topic was debated recently here, and no consensus for change was reached.

Also, a much smaller thing: "The Android features on the cover" is not standard English; it would be "is featured." And it's not necessary to say even that, since the title of the article says who we're talking about; all that's needed is "On the cover of."

We can go back to our past Arbitration on this, but without any changes to Project policy, I'm not sure how anything would be different today. Or we can go into RfC, and then Mediation, and then Arbitration again, if you want. At the very least, we should not be making wholesale changes to the extant article without an RfC. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the SHB comment and inserted some past tense comments to the PH. That was easy enough. The rest I have retained as the language was tightened and is now far less colloquial; and more appearances and sources were added. The FCB dropped by the way side sometime ago, and many articles now feature just a tight out of universe PH. Dozens, in fact. There have been a number of discussions and the general feeling is less is more. After all, arguing the fictional merits of who did what is like arguing the merits of an equation that multiplies a numeral by zero - pointless, as the result will always be zero. As I said, you've been away for some time and the comic book articles seem to have evolved beyond needing a FCB (which only repeats what the PH states anyway). Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I supplied links to the relevant pages of WikiProject Comics MOS. Your interpretation of PH & FCB is your own "seems to have" interpretation. It is not policy, not Manual of Style. Once again, please do not make wholesale changes that contradict the MOS. If you want to call for an RfC, do so. Otherwise, we have been through this before, and the Arbitration went against you.

If you disagree with my wanting to adhere to policy before making wholesale changes, please call for an RfC. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I disagree with is the fact that you apparently didn't even look before reverting and have kept weak and colloquial language; omitted new information and sources and have failed to take to take into account that things have chnaged since you were last an editor(not to mention the fact that you didn't acknowledge my taking your note on board and subsequently changing the article) The language and information is a no brainer, so why the reversion? Also, as noted abiove, you have the expanded PH you originally argued for. You also need to read the latest here this for starters: [5]

In short, I don't mind reversions per se, but not when they weaken an article. Asgardian (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion that your edits improve the article. It is not an objective fact. What is an objective fact is that you're going against WPC MOS. I'm calling for an RfC, so please leave the article as it. -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of quick thoughts:

• Just removing the FCB doesn't necessarily improve an article, in fact just removing it (as in this) mashes the two together and leaves large chunks still written in an in-universe style.
• As I've said before I don't feel these articles on smaller characters should be converted in this way as there isn't enough material to produce a readable and well-rounded article. The reduction in FCB in favour of expanding PH happens organically as articles progress on from a B towards GA (with WP:WAF as one of our guidelines). So it is one thing to be doing this on articles pushing on for such a grade but it is less useful to try on lower quality and importance articles. If you are interested in such work then there are A LOT of important Marvel characters that need work of this type, I'd leave this kind of thing until much later when it might have had a chance to develop and mature.
• Removing the Marvel Universe link is being discussed at WT:CMC (specifically because Asgradian keep removing it from articles) and the emerging consensus seems to be it should be left in.

Now play nice you hear. (Emperor (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

Link to last Asgardian/Tenebrae decision about this article

In which Asgardian's edit warring resulted in a rebuke: See here. I post this to save everyone the time and effort of repeating old and settled points.-- Tenebrae (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not playing your cards too well here. The above was then, and this is now. As I've stated twice, the PH is a fine and now very necessary addition, but not a repetitive FCB that comes complete with some weak writing and is missing sources. Rather than trying for a RfC, what you need to do is keep contributing here [6], as I have hope that a working model on how to proceed will emerge. Now, also please note that once again you have removed additions that the previous version lacks. This is important information, and needs to stay. I even removed the PH title until the matter at WikiProjects is resolved. Heck, it might even be an all-new title that replaces both the PH and the FCB.

That said, I am going to make some more additions to the article, and would ask you to be reasonable. We're trying for an out of universe, sourced and succinct piece of prose. Work with me on this. Emperor, the Marvel link is fine so long as folks realize that the power grids used over there are for perusal, but not for use on Wikipedia. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to adding some material in the lead, I had a small brainstorm and created the title Character and publication history which is actually still correct and a nice compromise. All the extra, sourced material with extra links (note the Alternate section) are still included. Beyond this, I'm not seeing what more can be done with such a minor character. We now have a model that avoids repetition, and I have extended the olive branch and made concessions in the SHB and the title, which is actually a good compromise. Once again, the extra information on appearances fills out the picture, and to not include them would only deprive the layman. Hope that helps. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian has been an editor long enough to know that once a Request for Comment has been called that we do not edit the article until other editors have commented and reached a consensus. He knows that very well, and this attempt to unilaterally impose his edits and circumvent a very common, standard policy is inexcusable. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing, but predictable. A kneejerk reaction with no acknowledgement of any of the points. If it is anything, it is a bold edit, nothing more. The same applies to many other articles. Asgardian (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed long ago, "bold edit" is not a blanket rationale for doing whatever one wants to do regardless of consensus, policy or other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one else seems very interested, and it is a minor character. I'm still not seeing the issue as more information is present (with no repetition), with recent concessions, and the format is now replicated in dozens of articles. Regards. Asgardian (talk)

Well, that's the thing: With all due respect, you don't seem particularly capable of seeing your own edits as anything other than the best and only way to do things. That is your opinion, and I respect it as such. Your opinion is not fact, however, and other editors can and do often disagree with you. One editor recently suggested having an WP:RfC about you as an editor in general, in response to what even you honestly would concede is your frequent contentiousness; I actually advocated against that, because I personally believe in your work. But working collaboratively with other editors is just as big a part of this encyclopedia. I think we've known each other long enough that we can speak frankly. -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I take requests for WP:RfC's comment with a grain of salt, as people almost always have the wrong end of the stick. I've seen a number of very poor calls made, with regards to both myself and others. That aside, what is the issue here? Asgardian (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just been looking back over my list of contributions, and after the Arb went again you in 2008, we actually began working together quite well, supporting each other in issues of trimming fancruft. The issues we are having now are from before that — they're about following guidelines and MOS, since standardization of key elements provide an easy-to-digest consistency from one comics article to another. And that means we all can't go making wholesale changes that contravent policy or consistency simple because "I'm right and the policy/guideline is wrong." Following Hiding's calm, patient consensus-building if you want policies to change. If they're valuable changes, don't worry — the rest of us will pick up on them. Throwing them at us as a fair accompli and acting as if that's not what happened is not an effective way to go. Systemic changes need to be discussed first beofre we implement them, or we have inconsistency and chaos. That is what the issue here is: You work as a team, or a loose cannon. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no "us", just a handful of diligent editors. And we have chaos now. Thousands of articles are in a disastrous state. And that's before the unhelpful and fannish edits, the vandalism etc etc. Back on track, no one is advocating FCB's. I've given the PH a new name, which Hiding likes. I think that's fair. Again, omitting valuable and extra information is the mystery. Asgardian (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to say I like it in this instance based upon the conversation we had somewhere else. If you wanted my opinion on this article, you should have asked for it, rather than taking a reply from its context. Please don;t drag me into this. And note Emperor doesn't like it. Can I make a suggestion. Have both of you considered not editing this article for, say, 6 weeks, and seeing what the effect is? Hiding T 09:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Peace. I had no intention of dragging you into anything. I simply wanted to show Tenebrae that someone voiced an opinion where we should be discussing all this. Yes, I also noted Emperor didn't care for it, hence I responded with suggestions. Please also note that I haven't made any blind reverts, but rather added to the article. Anyway, I think I have a solution. Asgardian (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest round

In response to Asgardian notifying me on my Talk page that he had unilaterally declared his and my RfC null and void — which is not his choice to do — I have chosen not to continue and bring in an admin to deal with his continued questionable conduct.

I have also chosen not to revert the large number of changes he made, although having to make all the many tiny changes detailed below is much harder and I do not plan on doing that again when he behaves this way. It is my hope that these details will have some effect on his future editing. I am trying to be constructive, though I note that Asgardian has been reminded of Wikipedia policies many times in the past.:

• Character names like Iron Man are not titles and are not ital.

• Once more: "features" is not used that way in US English. We don't write "humourous" and we don't say "the character features in" – it's "is featured in" or "appears in" or "stars in". It's not "the group are," but "the group is." Why you persist in Britishisms when you, like other presumably British WPC editors, knows that Wikipedia style is to use US English terms for US companies and characters seems, after all these years of your knowing this, puzzling.

• It is not POV to say that the word "perennial" does not apply. Perennial, when not speaking of plants, means continuing without interruption or regularly repeated and renewed. A character with a gap in appearance from the 1960s to the 1980s is not perennial. By your definition, virtually every Marvel hero or villain is perennial, making the word meaningless in this context.

• FCB is written in-universe. That means we don't refer to "the character" from an out-of-universe perspective.

• If we say someone is an antagonist of a Marvel heroes, we it's not necessary to say "in Captain America he battles Captain America" ("self-same hero"). In the FF 28 mentions it's done to differentiate between that FF and the X-Men, but, rightly, you did not do it in the FF 15 mention. It's unnecessarily wordy.

• Watch out for passive-voice construction. In most cases, a phrase such as "The Android is created by the Mad Thinker" is better rendered as "The Mad Thinker creates the Android." Writing 101.

• The Style guide shows the long months abbreviated in cover dates. You spell them out and abbreviate "June" as "Jun.", "March" as "Mar." and "April" a "April." – why? Minor corrections: You used single hyphens where m-dashes go. Watch pronoun use – in one sentence, "his" could have referred to the Mad Thinker, the Android or Tony Stark. Adverbs ending in "-ly" aren't followed by a hyphen in compound modifiers.

I don't want to get in another edit war with Asgardian, who is currently blocked from editing the Rhno and Abomination articles for such conduct. If this continues, and if he refuses to try to work with other editors' RfC consensus, then that is an option to request for this article as well. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a degree of overreaction here. I still believe the RfC was not necessary, and there have been almost no responses in over a fortnight which shows it was something of a storm in a teacup. If anything, it has brought Tenebrae and I together in discussion about this issue. Now, this is not hard. I have accommodate every request that Tenebrae has made, and am happy to also implement the suggestions made above. I am not from the US, so my spelling of certain words is different, and have no objection to changes. I will try to adhere to US spelling, just as I have taken on board the suggestion about dates.

In fact, it would have been good to have all this pointed out a tad earlier, as the extra information is still valid. There is a PH and a FCB, and with the changes suggested that will hopefully be the end of this matter and we can move on. There has been, however, no edit warring. I have accommodated all suggestions, and will continue to do so after the next minor revamp. Asgardian (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

There is a confusing sentence in the Fictional Character biography. It reads: "After battles with the superhero teams the Thunderbolts,[10] and the Heroes For Hire,[11] and two more encounters with the Fantastic Four,[12] the Android is reclaimed by the Thinker."

My question is, did Andy's encounters with the Thunderbolts and Heroes for Hire happen at the same time, or were they separate events. Should either read, " ... Thunderbolts, Heroes for Hire, and two ..." or "Thunderbolts and Heroes for Hire, and two ..." depending on the answer to my question. Lead Paint (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Both the footnotes and the Publication history give the specific, separate issues. Hope that helps. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)