Talk:Black Bolt

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Copied?

Um, a lot of this page looks like it was copied from the Black bolt page on the marvel comics official website.

I know it's fan-edited, but I am not sure it if should be copied. FrozenPurpleCube 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of what's on Marvel.com's site is taken from the MarvelDirectory, which in turn was taken from the OHotMU, which was originally published by Marvel Comics. Dr Archeville 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after a long haul the entry - which was a direct lift from another site - has been revamped. All the POV and "tell the story" aspects have been culled and the relevant information has been padded out and where necessary reworded. All claims have been referenced and two new images of Black Bolt have been added.

Asgardian 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in general it looks good, but the fictional character bit needs to stay in the intro and the headers are unnecessary and boring. CovenantD 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help wondering why his face doesn't get blown off. Just saying, right? – AndyFielding (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Ok folks, I've seen a lot of reverts over a section title, instead of going over and over again, why not talk about it here? FrozenPurpleCube 18:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on to this one. I see Asgardian wants to make the subcat to break up the section, but I have to say, I don't think it's long enough to need it. It would clutter up the ToC too much. Keep it out. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as it makes for easier reading. But then, folks on Wiki don't seem to be too good at interpreting what entries may need a creative touch. No matter. We'll keep it out.

Asgardian 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Kings

Firstly, the term cannot be used in the FCB as it is Marvel's title and is not in-universe. Also, this is all still speculation. Future events can and will change, regardless of what a company promises. Once published, and actual fact, it can be included. This was explained previously on the Ultimates page.

Asgardian (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well on your points:

Do you have a guideline to support the complete exclusion of out-of-universe material from a FCB?

We can mention upcoming events - the problem with crystal balling is when people add the material when it is so far in advance there is no good information to go on. As it is a wiki we can always make adjustments and nothing is set in stone (we even have a template to make it easier to bring together an article ahead of its publication: {{Infobox future comics}}. There is no guideline that says we can't discuss future events until they appear in paper and we largely follow WP:CRYSTALBALL on this so it needs to satisfy the following criteria: "almost certain to take place" (the publicity machine has started rolling and, while there are always problems, making it to paper isn't a guarantee as Grant Morrison's Authority and Wildcats shows) and "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" (which it is - see the footnotes). Given the fact that it also has its own article (which satisfies the crystal ball criteria) I don't see anything premature about this.

So there appear to be no guidelines that even suggest such a strict interpretation is a good idea (and even then they are guidelines so allow for commonsense flexibility). (Emperor (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Asgardian, I already responded to this on your Talk Page yesterday. Here is the pasted post:

Regarding the Ultimates, Jeph Loeb stated his plans in an interview, which it was opined was not sufficient to pass WP:Crystal. This is not the case with Black Bolt's presence in "War of Kings". Marvel has not only confirmed this on its website, it did so in Marvel: Your Universe Saga, which is in print on in comic stores. Because of this, it certainly passes the following criteria listed for WP:CRYSTAL:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Because of the aforementioned confirmed info, it is certain to take place, and not even "almost".

2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. This does not apply to this situation.

3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. None of the information is extrapolation, speculation, or "future history". When a publisher flat-out states a given fact about an upcoming storyline, and advertises that fact in books released prior to it, and on its website, it is factually incorrect in terms of plain vocabulary to call it "speculation".

Thus, I already explained why it is not speculation, and why it is not analogous to the Ultimates matter, which did not involve published confirmation from the publisher. The next step, therefore, would be for you to explain how my arguments about the word "speculation", or WP:CRYSTAL, do not hold up. By simply repeating your "speculation" assertion, you're ignoring the fact that I already addressed it, which is hardly approrpiate. As for titles, there is no guideline or policy prohibiting titles or dates in the FCB. Regarding in-universe, it's not supposed to be. WP's policy on writing about serial fiction says that writing in-universe is frowned upon, in favor of out-universe, and that policy page specifically points, as an example of how to write about serial fiction, to the Captain Marvel (DC Comics) article, which presents the character's life integrated into the Publication History, and not with a separate FCB. Nightscream (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The upcoming series mention is retained, but without the out of universe tag, as this is a Marvel title and will not be mentioned in the story. If it is, then fine. What you also have to remember is that the guidelines are just that, guidelines. In almost all articles of quality, there is a distinct separation between the PH and FCB for clarity. In fact, the cited example of Captain Marvel (DC Comics) needs some reworking. If you don't believe me, try Tenebrae, who has been cleaning up some of this sort of thing. Finally, please, no more threats. Unfortunately when editing an article and trying to push a point of view, you are not in a position to be objective. As Jc37 indicated, seek advice from others.
Asgardian (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in thinking about it, we need a quorum on this. Edit wars are pointless, particularly over 5-6 words and their presence or lack thereof.
Asgardian (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am only arguing this to improve the article. I just see the inclusion of certain material as falling into the WP:CRYSTAL category, and smacking of something more suited to a fan page, as opposed to an encyclopedia article.
Asgardian (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Guidelines are just that, guidelines."Asgardian, no one argues that guidelines are anything other than guidelines. But at the same time, edits should not be arbitrary, nor should one imply guidelines that do not exist. You've been saying things in your Edit Summaries like "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH." and "No Marvel titles in FCB.", which sound like you're citing policies. How can one "remember" this, as if there has been some prior discussion? If there has been, why have you repeatedly ignored me when I asked you, flat-out, where these policies/guidelines/discussions are? Don't you think it's a bit odd to imply guidelines to support your edits, refuse to respond when asked about them, and then say, "guidelines are just guidelines"?
"In almost all articles of quality, there is a distinct separation between the PH and FCB for clarity." Not according to the page I cited. It instructs the opposite. Yes, guidelines are guidelines, but you should explain why going against that guideline would make for greater clarity. What is wrong with the Captain Marvel article? What needs to be changed about it?
"Finally, please, no more threats." Please stop referring to warnings as "threats". They are not. They are the legitimate recourse for administrators when attempting to speak politely to users about their disruptive editing fails. Do you deny that your responses to me when I tried to ask you about your edits were sporadic at best, preferring to repeatedly ignore me and simply revert the articles in question? Do you deny that this is disruptive? You keep trying to make this about me, through the condescending reference to warnings as "threats", through insulting me by saying that administrative warnings indicate that I am "emotional", and so forth. The truth is, I'm rather dispassionate such matters, as I and others have dealt with disruptive editing too often to be emotional over one more. The truth is, you have problems with this long before you encountered me, have had restrictions on you placed by Arb-com, and have been repeatedly admonished not only by me recently, but by Emperor, J Greb and Jc37 as well. The fact that you can't seem to restrain yourself from using personal insults in content discussions, as you did right after you were blocked the last time, and as you did today, and insisting that keeping things in line with policy and encouraging discussion somehow constitutes "pushing a point of view", isn't helping to reinforce the picture that I'm the one who's supposedly "emotional". Let's stick to content and policy, and not each other, okay? If you can refute my arguments/counterarguments, then please do so. You did this with the volume number issue, and because you were right, I conceded it. Please let's stick to that method. Agreed?
"I just see the inclusion of certain material as falling into the WP:CRYSTAL category..." I understand. Can you respond to my post above where I presented my counterargument as to why it does not fall into that category? Nightscream (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five days ago, Asgardian left this message on my Talk Page saying, "I am getting another opinion on Black Bolt." Does anyone know if the third opinion will be placed here? Because I haven't heard about this since. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emperor pointed out quite correctly on my Talk Page here that there is no reason why there should not be book titles in Fictional Character Biographies, in furtherance of my position here that WP policies on writing about fiction should emphasize out-universe, and not in. I did not post this here until now because Asgardian seemed to abandon this discussion in October, but now he is again deleting titles from the article, despite the fact that he has changed the FCB section title to Publication history, which is an even more out-universe context. Nightscream (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Ultimate couple.PNG
[edit]
The image Image:Ultimate couple.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.

That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image
[edit]
The SHB image needs to be replaced, per WPC MOS: It's cluttered, and does not show the character in a clear full-body shot. The Jack Kirby pinup in Fantastic Four Annual #5 would probably be perfect, if someone can scan it. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mask
[edit]
Has BB ever taken off his mask or been depicted without it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image
[edit]
We should have an image that focuses on just Black Bolt. No other characters. Lots42 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]