Jump to content

Talk:Eddie Brock/Archive 1

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

Improvements to this article

The article, as is, needs some heavy copy editing. It is far too long, with many unneccessary details. Unfortunately, there are far too few details in the character history section. Important events such as the birth of Carnage and the other symbiote spawn are missing.

The section on the creator controversy is only tangentially relevent to the character information and would be much more suited for a separate article. There are already articles in existence about the Spider-Man movies, so we don't need to discuss them in depth here. Etc.--66.188.137.248 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The creator controversy does go on a tangent from the article, but I don't think there's enough to justify it being a separate article, unless there is more to add to the story. If more sources and more information can be provided, and some organization of the section, then I think having a separate article would be a good idea.--Undertow87 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

TOO LONG!!!! What the!!! Why, why why, what the heck happened!!?? This Wikipedia website is starting to SUCK!! This article was fine the way it is. It´s good there is a lot of info. A few people might want to read (what WAS here) this so that, incase they haven´t read the comics, they can read THIS!!!Hybrid 2 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Hybrid 2

Thankyou. It was great as it was, had a lot of info I'd personally gone away and referenced for other people. I lose net access for a few weeks and the main info has been butchered.Darkwarriorblake 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I know one improvement

You know the Ultimate Venom article? Before it was combined with the Venom article? Do you think you could bring the Ultimate Venom article back, but combined with the Venom Article? Or you can make it like how you make Wolverine, you know? There is a section with Ultimate Wolverine but a link leads to a seperate article. Can you do the same with Ultimate Venom please? If you do I'll stop changing the Ultimate Venom, Rhino pages. Answer Below As Soon As Possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.167.58 (talk • contribs) 13:13, August 21, 2006

It will be brought back when there is more to bring back than just a summary of plot and the entirety of what would be the Ultimate Venom article makes the Venom article unwieldy. The consensus among serious comic article editors was that we should keep the Ultimate characters in their main continuity counterparts' articles. --Newt ΨΦ 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Until then, why can't you bring back what was deleted, like the ultimate wolverine? Then you can add more info later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.167.58 (talk • contribs) 15:05, August 21, 2006

To answer your question you left on my userpage (not my talk page):
I have merged one article in my history as an editor, the Supremeverse article, and it was an article I created. However, I agree with the merging of many of these articles. There's been so little written outside of the actual comic books about these specific characters that these Ultimate character articles most often merely serve as repositories for plot. Please login when you sign your comments, that way you will have a talk page people can post comments to. --NewtΨΦ 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, really. The kid just wants Ultimate characters to have SHBs. Ultimate Namor, #Ultimate Deadpool|Ultimate Deadpool and Ultimate Giant-Man among others. Now, it's likely a universal decision that affects Ultimate character sections across the board needs to be reached, so, Kid GIPU, I recommend you take this up with the comics project. Oh and sign your comments.

Suggestion

Stop changing my corrections. Now maybe I haven't put enought info on Ultimate Venom, Carnage, and Rhino, but instead of deleting my corrections, add stuff I haven't added. I think wikipedia works better if most of these articles are as precise as possible.

Who are you and what are your "corrections"? --Newt ΨΦ 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Newt ΨΦ, are you the one who deleted the Ultimate Venom article and combined it with the Venom article?

No, though I agree with the action. Please sign your comments. Actually, please register and sign your comments. --Newt ΨΦ 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how do you sign your comments? Second of all, do you agree that we should or shouldn't delete the ultimate articles? I say we shouldn't.

Sign your comments by adding ~~~~ after them. Consensus among editors of comic book articles is to keep ultimate articles in their main continuity counterparts' articles. If you'd like to change that, this is not the place. Go to the WP:COMIC talk page and bring it up there. If you want to understand more about editing comic book articles, read Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance and WP:WAF. That will set you in the right direction. --Newt ΨΦ 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Spider Man 3

Four Villains, including Sandman, Venom, Goblin, and someone else. Avi Arad said that. --Kozmik Pariah 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Which comic had first appearance?

Most every source says that the first appearance of Venom is Amazing #299. But the info box on the Venom (Eddie Brock) page says that it's #298, and I have heard that a few other places also. The page here shows the frame from 299 which to my knowledge was the first real appearance. What happened in 298? Andrewdoane 13:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also Web of Spider-Man #18, in which an unseen stranger pushes Peter onto subway tracks without setting off the spider-sense. This was intended to be the cameo appearance before the first appearance of the female Venom character in the next issue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Creator of Venom

It is perhaps not coincidental that this dispute arose at a time when artists such as McFarlane and Larsen were enjoying a great deal of popularity and clout with readers, and exploiting their popularity by publishing creator-owned books with their new company, Image Comics, and it is possible that this issue was a subtext of the greater debate over the importance of writers versus artists that was being waged in the industry at the time.

This seems grossly inadequate. The only reason John Bryne is involved in this discussion at all is that there was a vicious Bryne/McFarlane feud at the time. I'm starting to wish I kept issues of Wizard from the early 90s, but John Byrne would write angry responses to McFarlane's column in Wizard. McFarlane would put thinly veiled jabs at Bryne in the note from the author section of Spawn. It's irresponsible to bring Bryne into the discussion at all without explaining the situation.

In the introduction to (at least) the current edition of the Secret Wars trade paperback, Jim Shooter claims that at least some of the idea for Spider-Man's costume came from a fan who had written in years earlier with what struck him as a good idea so he brought it. However it should be noted that Shooter is particularly hostile to Byrne - the same introduction also brings up the story of Byrne using a scene in an issue of Fantastic Four to retcon a prominent Chris Claremont X-Men story featuring Doctor Doom to explain it was really a robot (using some extremely petty "the real Doom wouldn't have done that in that panel" reasoning), though he doesn't actually name the two writers.
And another confusing bit:
Writer Peter David corroborated this notion in his But I Digress column in the June 4, 1993 Comics Buyer’s Guide, in which he related that Michelinie discussed the ideas behind the character with David, since at the time, David was the writer on The Spectacular Spider-Man who wrote the Sin Eater story from which Eddie Brock's back story would be derived, long before McFarlane was assigned to the art duties on Amazing.
Brock doesn't actually appear in the Sin-Eater storyline itself so I reckon this is either a "do you mind if I add to your story" consultation or a Spidey writers' conference. I'm also not sure which title David was on at the time Venom arrived - by the time of publication I tink he'd left Spectacular and was being courted as a regular writer for Web. Of more note is that in Web #18 and #24 there are moments when Peter Parker is attacked by an unseen opponent who hasn't set off his Spider-sense and who is later revealed as Venom - clearly a sign that Michelinie (then writing that book - almost every regular Spidey writer seems to have shuffled round the titles!) had something in the pipeline at the time, clearly before McFarlane was given the Amazing asignment. Timrollpickering 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Symbiote Spawns

I'm pretty sure of four out of the five names of Venom's children. Scream, Riot, Lasher, and Shriek, even though Shriek is already the name of another villian. I'm not sure about the black symbiote that looks like Venom. His human name is supposedly Carl, yet the symbiote name might be Phage or Hybrid or something else. Illusionz

The children of Venom I am familiar with are Carnage, Phage, Hybrid, Lasher Shriker, and Riot. Josh C.


Earth/Universe X Venom

I remember reading in the Earth X and Universe X series that in that future, Venom has joined with Peter Parker's daughter, May Parker, and they have become a crimefighter Venom. I believe this is an alternative-timeline future, but it seems important enough that it could deserve it's own section under "Other Versions of Venom". Anyone who knows this topic better than I want to tackle it?

The Chocolate/Brains issue, revisited

Before, this idea was knocked out as "vandalism" or being "stupid." However, whether it was stupid or not, it was still a major feature of the character's development.

The drug that the symbiote needed was phenethylamine, which is a real chemical really found in both animals (though I haven't done research to see if it was speicifically in brain tissue) and in chocolate. It's quite common, actually, which is a bend in the reality for Marvel.

However, since this particular quirk was an issue for all the miniseries appearances of Venom after The Hunger, (in Lethal Protector he is given chocolate by the government as part of the arrangement), it seems a bit ignorant and/or petty to remove it from the front wiki.

Just my two bits.

Agreed.

I was talking it out with SoM (the remover) and he says it lacked sources. I've since found numerous people confirming the Hunger miniseries fact, and thing it can be added back now, maybe with the provision that it says that the point rarely appeared afterwards.

This is not a major feature of Venom. It was brought up once only during The Hunger, addressed (he's fine as long he eats chocolate) and hasn't been used again. It's not pivotal, and its exclusion wouldn not be missed. QuestionMark 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironic

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement (regarding IMDb listing Topher Grace as Venom in Spiderman 3):

...this cannot be taken as fact since IMDB is a free-access site that can be edited by various sources.

--Don Don 06:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fairly hypocritical for someone editing a wiki. --Viridis 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is that we cannot rely on other wikis/free-access sites for verifiable facts. That's why we ask for reputable sources, cross-referencing, etc. We do it internally/informally all the time, but we're not allowed to reference Wikicities, pbWiki, etc... -- nae'blis (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To those who reverted the Angelo Fortunato/Wolverine edits...

In Mark Millar's 'Venomous' arc Angelo Fortunato did indeed possess the Venom suit before being splattered all over the street.

And while I hadn't read the Venom series, I do know that Venom did possess Wolverine. 'Half of Canada' I'm not so sure on.

Regarding healing factor

IF Venom has ALL the powers of Spider-Man, then he does have a healing factor. Peter Parker has always been able to heal fast. He's no Wolverine, but he's had broken bones heal in just a few days. So IF (notice the if) Eddie has all the same powers, then he does. Just wanting to mention that. Thanos6 21:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not powerful enough to be considered to be a healing factor, as Spidey obvious ages like a normal human. T-1000 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Not every healing factor has to work at Wolverine power for it to count. Thanos6 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Even those with a weak healing factor ages much slower than Normal, see Cyber. Then there's also the issue of Spider-Man catching colds.T-1000 05:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what do you call his "enhanced healing ability"? Thanos6 05:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That has to do with his durability being great than Humans, so he heals a little bit faster, but it's not an unique power. T-1000 05:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
How come he was healed from gun shot wounds in mintues. That was not durability. Eddie Brock did not have the symbiote on him when he was shot in the chest. The costume came around after that and healed him. Venom does have all of Spidey's powers and also has some powers of his own.
That's the Symbiote healing Eddie, which is not a healing factor. Just like a doctor healing you does not give you a healing factor. T-1000 03:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell me then is Venom fast? Is he strong? If Venom is only Eddie Brock and not the symbiote can I guess you can only consider him of normal human speed and strength. Venom is the combined sum of Brock and the symbiote. Since the coustume does have a healing factor then Venom does too. If Venom's bio went by what only Eddie had then he would just be a normal human. Do you even read Venom comics?

Didn't Venom use the symbiote to heal a wound on his ex-wife? And if he used the symbiote to perform surgery on himself to get a bomb out of his chest, I think it's safe to say the symbiote bestows a signifcant healing factor on its host if it can do that.

Learn how to sign your posts!!! 203.14.180.97 10:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Powers

User:24.228.52.76 is taking things out of context in the powers and abilities section. Hulk and Juggeruant were not hurt by Venom's punches, and Superman was very weak when he faught Venom. I also need proof the Venom/Superman is canon. T-1000 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Juggernaut was knocked around like a toy in The Madness 2 and 3 meaning Venom is a alot stronger than 11 ton range. He also almost killed Sandman who is at the 85 class and almost killed Thing. Superman was not weakend in the comic. It never said or even hinted at that. Fans came up with that for an explanation. Hulk was not hurt by Venom but Venom was not hurt by his punches either until his sonic clap.

I guess you don't know that Juggeruant is immune to physical damage? Also, what prove did you have that Superman/Venom is canon? The Hulk/Venom thing nothing to do with Venom's strength, but rather his durability. T-1000 03:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The symbiote bonds to Eddie and they become one. They share all their combined powers. It can be said if Venom does not have a healing factor then he only has normal human speed and strength since that too is from the symbiote. The point is still the same, the symbiote does have a healing factore of its own. Once bonded to Eddie then he has it too. He seems to not know that Venom is the combined entities of Eddie Brock and the symbiote. Juggeruant is not immune to all physical damage since there are comics that show he has taken damage from various beings ranging from Hulk to Apocalyspse. Also it does not matter if he is since I mentioned Venom was strong enough to have an affact on Juggy. He still knocked him around like a toy. Moving him alone is a big accomplishment. All marvel/dc crossovers are canon if the comic takes place in two seprate universes. Last durability or not it takes great strenght to face the Hulk and lets not forget Venom almost killed the Thing and Sandman who are both in the 85-90 ton range. The point of all this is that Venom has shown greater strength than his bio.

Do you even know how the Venom/Juggernaut fight went? I show you a link:

[1]

Here is what other people thought of your edits:

[2]

Venom bite the Sandman. This had nothing to do with strength. Same with the Thing. Fighting a Super strong guy does not make you super strong. It's simple logic. Wolverine has faught the Hulk to a standstill, yet he is not super strong.

Non of the comic crossovers are canon except JLA/Avengers. Certainly not Marvel vs. DC and all access.

People with healing factors healing themselves. The symbiote is healing the host. See the difference?

Also, the stuff you inserted clearly violates NPOV, hence it is to be removed.T-1000 03:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Try reading Venom the Madness 2 and 3 not just 1 to support your argument. Juggy got bitched slapped all around. Venom fought Sandman more that once. That was their third fight. I guess you know that since you appear to be a big Venom fan. The first time Venom went punch for punch with him and beat him down back in the early nineties. All Access is considered canon because it acknowledges that DC and Marvel are two seperate universes. Check that out for yourself. NPOV? What is that. How strong is She-Hulk? He also tossed her around too like she was nothing. Venom also has lifted a large tank. Do you know how many tons a small tank is let alone a large one? Now for the healing factor. The symbiote has one. Venom has one too because Venom is the combination of Eddie and the symbiote. Venom is the total of them two and not just Brock. You seemed to have forgotten that when I told you last. Why is that?

Don't throw around terms like "a large tank". You have no way of backing up how much that tank weights. There are tanks that are about 10 tons. T-1000
Guys, any chance I could provide an outside point of view here? First, User:24.228.52.76, NPOV is neutral point of view, a cardinal tenet of editing on Wikipedia. T-1000 seems to be of the opinion that your information is in violation of that rule. Now, while I think you are pushing some things without references (much of your edit is referenced, but the "canon" thing in particular is a glaring exception), I don't necessarily agree with him. I think the "healing factor" thing is a little ridiculous on both your parts. You're splitting hairs over a term most people won't understand. Is there really some sort of world-is-going-to-end difference between "healing factor" and "enhanced durability and healing" or something of that ilk? Finally, with regards to the strength difference, you both bring up good points. T-1000 is correct that beating a strong opponent does not make you strong, but User:24.228.52.76 gives concrete examples (lifting a tank) demonstrating enormous strength. I suggest writing a strength statement using only those examples. --

MikeJ9919 04:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.228.52.76 is violating NPOV because he is taking things out of context. He ignored the fact Venom was mutated (fell into chemical) during the latter encounters with Juggeruant. Crossover are not canon unless stated by the publishers, and the only one that fells into that category is JLA/Avengers. Lifting a tank is still nowhere enough to hurt Hulk and Juggeruant. Spider-Man lifted a train cart once, but he is still not strong enough. He is clearly pushing for favorism for Venom which violates NPOV. T-1000 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have already took care of Venom's strength with the following statement: " His strength has been depicted with some degree of contradiction, depending on the writer.", which basically saids Venom's strength isn't consistent.T-1000 04:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good core statement, but in order to address User:24.228.52.76's concerns, specific examples (with references) should be included. From NPOV:"Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." Referenced examples are an important part of this. I don't think every fight should be included, but certainly a range of strength is important. For example: "Venom has demonstrated strength ranging from slightly greater than that of Spider-Man to strength rivaling that of Juggernaut, though the former may have been the result of a temporary chemical mutation. This depiction seems contradictory and dependent on the writer, though Venom is not generally characterized with massive superstrength." As I said earlier, unless he can find a reference, I agree with you on the crossover canon issue. Can we settle on wording for the healing factor thing? User:24.228.52.76, can I get you to weigh in on this? --MikeJ9919 06:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, fighting Juggeruant does not give you Juggeruant like strength. Juggeruant's strength is incalculably high. Venom, mutated or not, does not have any where near this strength. User:24.228.52.76 is trying to implied that Venom has Juggeruant like strength, something that is not true and biased, and that is the part that is violating NPOV. For third party opinions, see my second link. T-1000 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that fighting Juggernaut does not give you like strength. When I said "rivaling", I was thinking Venom's overall fighting ability rivaled Juggy, but (1) it was a poorly constructed sentence and (2) I just read the first link above, and damn... Can we get some source on the Hulk fight? If Venom has indeed lifted a tank (again, does someone actually have the comic?), then is there any information on what tank it is? Yes, some of the lightest fast attack tanks are in the 10-ton range, but the M1A1 is almost 70 tons, and there are several that are heavier. User:24.228.52.76, I've tried to remain open to your point of view, but I'm inclined not to just "take your word" on things. I assume good faith, but in light of the Venom / Juggernaut evidence copied directly from the comic, the "knocked around like a toy" comment seems not just out of context, but blatantly untrue. --MikeJ9919 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That comic he copied was in the madness one not 2 or 3.

Okay, but it's the only reference provided. This page is the closest I've found to a summary on Madness 2 and 3, and it doesn't include any mention of Venom beating the Juggernaut, being stronger or even as strong as the Juggernaut, etc. I'm inclined to side with T-1000 unless you can provide some clear evidence. I'm also going to ask some other editors for help, as I don't want this to remain an isolated back-and-forth. I'd like clear editor consensus one way or the other. --MikeJ9919 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just read the Madness 2 and 3 for proof. Any comic store will have it.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the Venom was mutated, and we are talking about normal Venom on wikipedia? T-1000 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Being asked to weight in on this discussion, I have this to say: No series published more than five years ago accurately portrays what current writers or editors will consider the Venom symbiote's strength range. Not until the Marvel Handbook gets to Venom will we have an official listing, and even then, this is with the idea that individual writers will stick by these standards and not have grossly out of proportion performance levels in stories. Comic book heroes are notorious for not being consistent having changed hands from so many writers (see the comparison between pre-Crisis Superman and post-Crisis Superman currently happening in Infinite Crisis). At best, we can state that Venom has significant strength, superior to Spider-Man's, and what fluxuations can be charted (like taking on the Juggernaut). We can't say anything that happened in any one series or comic appearance is a constant of the character, but we can compare power differences in publishing history to inform the reader. Cybertooth85 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Normal Venom got utterly dominated against Juggeruant though, and there was a reason for The Madness 2 and 3. Like I said before, Venom was mutated. The fact that User:24.228.52.76 delibrately ignored this shows that he is biased and violating NPOV. T-1000 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For a pic of the mutated Venom: see below. This is NOT the normal Venom.
[3]
I've never disputed that. Nevertheless, this information should be included. As Cybertooth85 said, we should give baseline information, with some additional details on unusual fluctuations. For example, "Venom demonstrated substantially increased strength while fighting Juggernaut, due to infection by the Mercurial Virus."--MikeJ9919 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Also, I should note that both of you are in violation of 3RR, and I'm thus listing you both for whatever remedy an admin may deem appropriate. I hope this doesn't stifle discussion here, but regardless of what dispute may be ongoing, violating 3RR is inappropriate. --MikeJ9919 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote some parts of the Powers and abilities section, what do you guys think? T-1000 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it

Reverting

I've asked User:24.228.52.76 not to revert through my copyediting and to discuss his issues with the substantive text on the Talk page before reimplementing it. He ignored this request and reverted with no discussion on the Talk page, with me, or (as far as I know) with T-1000. He has also included no explanation in his edit summaries. I propose a policy of reverting similar changes on sight unless some discussion is attempted. Please note I have no knowledge of the dispute nor interest in it beyond the fact that User:24.228.52.76 reverted twice through basic copyediting, which I find rude. I invite editor comment and consensus. --MikeJ9919 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave explanations for my writings in the texts itself and I never new this was here. I did not know what the hell you meant when you asked me to talk.

Fair enough. As I said, I have no knowledge about the actual source material behind the dispute. I just ask that you be more selective in your reversion. If the other editors believe your version is more accurate, I'd be happy to copyedit the text for you. Please try to be more civil, though. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, and we assume that other editors are trying to include the most accurate information possible. --MikeJ9919 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike - thanks for your attempts at mediation. I've blocked both for 12h as a wake-up call to them. Hopefully they will come back more prepared to compromise and discuss William M. Connolley 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I forgotten about the 3RR rule, but User:24.228.52.76 has revert again very soon after his ban expired and has continued to try to push for his point of view. Something needs to be done about this. T-1000 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make a comprimise of the two. I'd like the last two paragraphs to STOP being removed, since they are not part of the Venom-strength debate. --Viridis 03:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

even so, the non canon stuff about Superman needs to be removed. Also needs to mention Venom was mutated. T-1000 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities Consensus

I'd like to move the discussion down here for a final consensus, so we can avoid having two discussions ongoing in the "Powers" section and the "Reverting" section above. I'd like to thank Viridis for his compromise, and endorse it along with T-1000's minor changes. I've made some very slight flow changes, as well as adding the actual name of the additional symbiote / sentient toxic waste, the Mercurial Virus. I would not mind a mention of the Superman / Venom fight, as long as it's made clear that there is no evidence that this crossover is considered canon. Otherwise, I endorse this version as a consensus compromise. Anyone else? --MikeJ9919 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm always surprised by how quickly these things seem to resolve themselves. Apparently everyone's happy with this version.--MikeJ9919 04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Powers and abilities

To User:193.216.91.133

"This indicates the symbiote doesn't have any inner organs or cells as we know it; it is a living and morphing mass made up of alien molecules. Finally, the symbiote is able to heal the host (a power that all the symbiotes share), and can protect its host in numerous ways. For example: by making sure the host gets enough oxygen even if they are one the bottom of the ocean. It is possible some of these powers evolved on the alien planet in Secret Wars. Because of the strange force the planet was loaded with, which among other things made it possible for Captain America to fuse the broken pieces from his shield together again as a whole by using nothing more than his will power and later made it possible for Ben Grimm to split into two different bodies (The Thing and an evil Ben Grimm), this could have had an effect on other Marvel characters too, even on a subconscious level (it was on this planet the Hulk started to change again). The minds and fusion of the symbiote and Peter Parker on this planet could then have resulted in some sort of transformation of the symbiote, giving it new abilities, like Peter Parker's need for a place to hide his camera, the need for a web and the fact that this symbiote was able to copy most of his powers. Venom is the only known symbiote that has been able to copy the powers of its host, and it only happened once (with Spider-Man). Since then, they have stayed with him on a permanent basis, also the spider symbol on his chest and the webbing. Even his offspring have inherited such things as the look, the power to climb on all surfaces and not activating the spider-sense. If they were able to copy the power of other superhumans just by touch or making them their hosts, they would probably have done this a long time ago to make themselves even more powerful. Venom himself appears to be unable to repeat the trick. Which is another indication that what happened on the alien planet in Secret Wars was only possible there and then. Peter Parker is the only host (his first?) that has become negative affected in the partnership with the symbiote, being constantly tired and taken over by the suit when sleeping, while all the other hosts has become stronger, including those of his offsprings. It seems like the almost complete fusion with Spider-Man was a little too successful, as he as mentioned since then have kept Spider-Man's powers (except the spider-sense), the general look of the black suit and been unable to adapt to or copy the genetic profile of other hosts in the same degree or fuse with them in the same way it tried with Parker. During the time it was a part of Peter Parker, it became permanently transformed, a transformation that has clearly passed on to the next generations, making them different from their relatives on their home planet. A little longer, and it would probably have been impossible to separate Peter Parker and the symbiote when the merging process were complete. Because of this, Spider-Man has a strong connection with Venom and the other symbiotes on earth. In a way they are a part of him, and his influence on their powers and abilities is clear. (Carnage is different with his more intimate connection between symbiote and host, as another process was involved in the creation of him, infecting his bloodstream rather than just covering his body surface. Still, he has inherited most of Venom's powers and limitations)."

All of the above are just your opinion. look at the word in bold. Do you have anything to back all of this up? Do you have info from the comic that proves that the symbiote's powers are not innate? The part about the strange planet affecting the symbiote is again your speculation/opinion, as is the info on Peter Parker and the symbiote. You use a lot of weasel words like "possible" and "probably" which means you have no edvidence at all. Your paragraph is too long and the writing leaves much to be desired. Your edit clearly violates NPOV and it is Original Research. T-1000 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is not my opinions, it is suggestions on how to explain existing elements about Venom that is not mentioned elsewhere. And unless someone can prove it is correct or incorrect, they will do just fine the way they are. It is also possible to think logic (for instance; even if it is not mentioned, we have to assume that a day still has 24 hours, the earth still has a moon, marsupials still exists in Australia and so on. This way of thinking also goes for characters in the Marvel universe). Even the writers of he Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe have used words as "possibly", "could" and "maybe". I also notice you are reverting everything I have written, not only my suggestions. For instance the parts about the mental powers and the example about providing oxygen to its host even if it is under water (as seen in a story where Venom thinks he has finally killed Spider-Man). Instead of just changing, you are removing everything, which is not the way to do it.

"Do you have anything to back all of this up?"

Amazing Spider-Man #258 and Peter Parker #96. There you can read that the parasite are trying to become a permanent part of Parker, and that it would probably have succeded if Reed Richards hadn't been able to remove it. Because the symbiote was captured and separated from Spider-Man, we will never know what would happened. Maybe it would have fused completely, and maybe it would have been possible to remove it after all. Based on the issues mentioned above, the word "probably" is what suits best in this case.

In Amazing Spider-Man, from #259 to #261, we also see that the symbiote communicates telepathic with a small flying machine from space and is trying to take mental control over Franklin Richards, even if the symbiote is still captured in the container.

And like I said, you are allowed to think logic. Since the symbiotes have never shown any signs to be able to copy someones powers, and no scientists have discovered any signs of this, and it only has happened once (on the alien planet in Secret Wars), it is not a bad suggestion that Venoms powers has something to do with what happened on that planet. He was different from the other symbiotes, but only because he wanted to fuse with the host instead of living as a pure parasite. So far there is nothing that indicates he had other powers. But some of his powers have never been found in any other symbiotes or in any other hosts than with Spider-Man. And there is one thing we can say for sure, which is that the spider symbol on his chest and the white areas where the web is coming from was not a part of the original look of the symbiote. Yet it has become a part of Venom. Just because there is no direct proves to be found in the comic books (yet), it doesn't mean assuming is wrong. In Spider-Man, fans claimed that it wasn't the fall from the bridge that killed Gwen Stacy, it Spider-Man who killed her when he stopped her using his web, causing her neck to crack. In issues years later, it turned out the fans were right. No matter how or why, when looking at Venom and the other symbiotes, it seems clear that the first contact between Spider-Man and the symbiote was something unique. All I did was to suggests an explanation.

"Do you have info from the comic that proves that the symbiote's powers are not innate?"

Well, do you have any info from the comic that they are? So just because neither I or you can prove it, it should not be mentioned at all even if there are a lot of indications about the nature of the character? This is one of those subjects which is an open question, and because if that, it is worth mentioning.

"Your edit clearly violates NPOV and it is Original Research."

Wikipedia includes such things as politics, science, history, religion and so on. So it is obvious that it is important not to allowe all kinds of people coming up with their own ideas and claims without any relieble sources. But in this case we are talking about a comic book character and its origin/powers, which has nothing to do with the real world at all. In the strange world of comic books, facts and data will often not exist until they are published. The past, future, present and characters are not always the same in the comic reality, it depends on who is the writer and editor for the moment. When some elements about a character are not clear or is unexplained, it is only natural for people to mention this in the article, and come up with (neutral) suggestions that explains these parts in a best possible way if the answear does not exist yet. This tells the readers the following things; there are some interesting and relevant elements that is still not explained, and that the explanation offered is not a claim but the best possible suggestions for the moment until some writer of the comic book gives us the full story and all the answears, leaving no doubt behind (in the world of comic books, the reality where the characters are living is shaped and built in front of our eyes, including the past, and no one knows what will happen next). Before this happens, it is important to show readers the difference between facts and explanations based on strong indications (but still not proven). When some proves does show up, all what is needed is to edit the article a bit. Or do you prefer the words "but nobody knows..." to all the unexplained parts?

If you don't like the way I write, then write it with your own words instead of just removing all of it. English is not my mother language, and I don't live and have never lived in an English speaking country, so I just have to do the best I can.

To User:193.216.91.133:
Suggestions fall under Original Research, as in "it introduces a theory or method of solution".
When something is unknown about a comic character, we just need to mention that it is unknown. It is not for us to speculate about the nature of the characters. Until Marvel comes out with new info confirming what you wrote, it should not be included in the article.
I will reinsert the part about the powers as well as a statement about the nature of the symbiote's powers. T-1000 17:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Venom Appearances

File:VeSpPu Bagley.jpg
Venom Spider-Man Punisher sketch

A sketch by Mark Bagley featuring Venom, Spider-Man and Punisher from mid '90 was not used for a comic yet.

Where does it come from?

Was there a backstory about this sketch?

Any info, please!

"We" Are Venom?

Does anyone want to add something about Venom's variably referring to himself as "we" and "I""? It seems to be thoroughly inconsistent in the comic books. When I was younger, I'd vehemntly defend that Venom was always "we" (Eddie Brock + alien symbiote), but, now, I think that this is just a moot point, perhaps deserving to be mentioned on Wikipedia's page.

(Commando303)

Merge

Per WP:CMC, Ultimate character articles should be merged into the articles of their Marvel U. counterparts.

Survey

Discussion closed with the result being Merge. --Chris Griswold 08:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Nowhere near enough information yet for a new article. --Newt ΨΦ 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree; Venom is an unusually popular character and there is more than sufficient information to validate a second page for the Ultimate version. QuestionMark
      • Most of the information can be condensed to a much more reasonably merged amount. --Newt ΨΦ 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree, although Ultimate Venom's article can be slimmed down, it would still appear obtuse in the main Venom article beyond reference.
  • When will the merge take place? Ultimate Spider man keeps getting its link redirected back to the Ultimate Venom page. ≈ Seraph 31 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Negotiater, I am now deleting all the other Ultimate Marvel articles and merging them to the original. Tell me if it's bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.83.150 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 September 2006

Stop using my name, anyway, who merged the Ultimate Venom and how do you work the Deletion Log? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nagotiater (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 September 2006

Nagotiater, never delete comments from talk pages. See WP:TPG --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Remember when I was whining for the Ultimate Venom article? Well, how the section is now is good if you let me add the characteristics, then I will feel fine, I won't whine again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nagotiater (talk • contribs)

We don't base the article revolving around how YOU feel. So suck it up, we don't need it. It's practicaly the same as the 616 box. UnDeRsCoRe 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Pork Grind

It would be awesome if in the alternate Venom section, an addition of Pork Grind, Venom from the Spider-Ham universe, could be added, especially with a picture.

Who is this article for

I'm trying to edit it a bit but I'm having trouble since I can't tell if its for Brock, the Symbiote, the combination that creates Venom or what. The symbiote itself isn't called Venom I don't think, but the combination of Brock and the symbiote is. Its worse because other characters are being called Venom because they are using the symbiote so then do you follow the symbiotes progress or Brocks? Darkwarriorblake 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Film?

I think that the Venom/Carnage film should still be made, albeit a few more years in the future.

Failed GA nomination

Venom is definitely one of the coolest characters in the Spider-Man universe, and I hate to fail the article, but it just doesn't quite make GA standards. I see that you guys have a lot of trouble with anonymous editors adding stuff that needs to be cited, but so far you've managed that well. The best section is "Ultimate Venom"; you should try to follow in the style of that section when writing the rest of the article.

  • The whole article needs a grammar run-through; some sentences run on too long, some sentences have comma errors, others aren't even full sentences.
  • The "Character History" section is very good, but I don't think you need that many headings. Also, make sure to sum up storyline events in the shortest terms possible. For example, instead of "Meanwhile, reporter Eddie Brock had been penning a number of articles in The Daily Globe on the recent Sin-Eater case. Following a false lead, he proceeded to write a series of columns identifying Emil Gregg as the perpetrator of the crimes. When Spider-Man caught the real criminal, policeman Stan Carter, Emil Gregg was discovered to be a compulsive confessor. The Globe became a laughing stock, Brock was fired and shunned by his peers. Brock took up weight lifting in the hopes of reducing his stress, but was unsuccessful in alleviating his obsessive hatred of Spider-Man", say "Reporter Eddie Brock began to hate Spider-Man after he ruined his reporting career by debunking one of his stories."
  • In the "Powers and abilities" section:
  • Drop the Eddie Brock section, as those are pretty normal abilities.
  • Make it all one section, even the weaknesses part.
  • "Appearance in other media" should be made primarily to prose. We don't need to know every single game or episode Venom was in; are people gonna care whether he was in a mobile phone game?
  • Put a one-paragraph summary of the "Controversy over creator credit" into the article.
  • Get some references. It sucks that people just add information of their own without citing it, I know. Use the comic books, and try to find some stuff online.
  • As for images:
  • Can you get a better infobox picture? The one now is a comic book cover, distracting because of all the various titles around his head.
  • Venom's first confrontation with Spider-Man could go.
  • Maybe a pic of Carnage and Venom fighting?
  • Enlarge the image of Venom's bulletproof ability; good use of the image here.
  • Take out all pictures below "Appearances in other media".

Don't forget to italicize comic book titles. Good luck. --Dark Kubrick 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


CHECKLIST

  • The whole article needs a grammar run-through; some sentences run on too long, some sentences have comma errors, others aren't even full sentences.
  • The "Character History" section is very good, but I don't think you need that many headings. Also, make sure to sum up storyline events in the shortest terms possible. For example, instead of "Meanwhile, reporter Eddie Brock had been penning a number of articles in The Daily Globe on the recent Sin-Eater case. Following a false lead, he proceeded to write a series of columns identifying Emil Gregg as the perpetrator of the crimes. When Spider-Man caught the real criminal, policeman Stan Carter, Emil Gregg was discovered to be a compulsive confessor. The Globe became a laughing stock, Brock was fired and shunned by his peers. Brock took up weight lifting in the hopes of reducing his stress, but was unsuccessful in alleviating his obsessive hatred of Spider-Man", say "Reporter Eddie Brock began to hate Spider-Man after he ruined his reporting career by debunking one of his stories."
  • In the "Powers and abilities" section:
  • Drop the Eddie Brock section, as those are pretty normal abilities.
  • Make it all one section, even the weaknesses part.
DONE
  • "Appearance in other media" should be made primarily to prose. We don't need to know every single game or episode Venom was in; are people gonna care whether he was in a mobile phone game?
DONE
  • Put a one-paragraph summary of the "Controversy over creator credit" into the article.
DONE
  • Get some references. It sucks that people just add information of their own without citing it, I know. Use the comic books, and try to find some stuff online.
  • As for images:
  • Can you get a better infobox picture? The one now is a comic book cover, distracting because of all the various titles around his head.
  • Venom's first confrontation with Spider-Man could go.
  • Maybe a pic of Carnage and Venom fighting?
  • Enlarge the image of Venom's bulletproof ability; good use of the image here.
  • Take out all pictures below "Appearances in other media".
DONE

Darkwarriorblake 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Eddie

Theres a lot of family info on eddie brock. Now personally I think its kind of important but I also think its out of place where it is, does anyone have any advice? Perhaps an article should be created for Eddie Brock. His existence is basically as Venom but Venoms history is possibly TOO full to contain info on the human side of the host.Darkwarriorblake 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. Eddie Brock is pointless without Venom and does not deserve its own article. --Chris Griswold (☏) 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Supporting characters and characters using a title of succession have their own article. Which's the difference, exactly? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, a lot of characters (minor and supporting) have articles that don't need them. It's kinda spiraled out of control. Regardless. Who's been Venom other than Eddie Brock that doesn't have their own article already? Fortunato? There's not enough about him for an article. Scorpion and Spider-Man already have their own articles. --NewtΨΦ 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm only asking because of the personality and family/relationships part. It seems out of place where it is and its a fairly huge chunk. But in some ways it seems important at least to Eddie's character and history and since we're trying to create a repository of knowledge, trimmed and neat though it may be, it seems to make sense to let readers know what Eddie himself is like and his history since theres a whole article on the symbiotes themselves to take care of their personalities and abilities. Anyone seen Senator Wards article? Now thats unecessary.Darkwarriorblake 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there's enough material to have a Venom article, an Eddie Brock article and a Symbiote article. Can anyone think of a good way to combine them or separate them to minimize overlap? --NewtΨΦ 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean there already is a symbiote article. Maybe the Brock stuff can just be moved somewhere else in the section to make more sense. Its just where it is, between Bio and Venom 2 and 3 it looks out of place.Darkwarriorblake 23:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the symbiote article is about the species. This is about one symbiote and its hosts. I definitely don't think rich boy needs his own article, but Eddie's got the history to make it work. We could make this article more focused on the symbiote and give Eddie a separate article. Whatever the case, I agree that something should be done to make things clearer. Also, for the record, the symbiote is a separate entity and thus a separate character. I wouldn't propose the same thing for, say, Toxin, but eddie and the symbiote are somewhat like Nightmare and Siegfried Schtauffen. Other continuity appearances might get tricky, though I'd take a note from The Goblin named Harold and list them in the proposed Eddie article. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The symbiotes share traits though, personality and natural instincts so the symbiote article covers it fairly well and what it does as 'Venom' is covered well and adequately here. Fortunato certainly doesn't need an article. Eddie may not even need one if someone can just think of a better way to work him into this one. There's no template that I've seen in the comic project that shows how to deal with two entities that make up a singular character.Darkwarriorblake 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, my point was if we had an Eddie Brock article, it would be too much. We already have a Venom and a Symbiote article. There should be some way to work this out so that no new article is needed. --NewtΨΦ 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a little unreasonable? The symbiote (comics) article is about the whole species. Yes, admittedly it focuses on this article's symbiote to an extant, but that can be blamed on Venom being the first and most notible. In the case of Venom, we don't need to do a complete revamp/rewrite for this article; we'd just be moving large, separate but related content onto its own page. Look, what happens when a section gets too big? You make a separate article. This is the same deal. You see, to me, this might actually make it simpler. We could do this article like Robin (comics) and move all the Eddie-specific content to him. Yes, we'd have to clarify that "Venom" no longer refers to both and may change some links for consistancy, but I really think it could work. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really unreasonable. I think that one other character without his own article has worn this particular symbiote doesn't necessarily merit the Venom symbiote having an article separate from Eddie Brock. I could see separate articles, but I don't see them as necessary. --NewtΨΦ 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The venom article should still be about the pairing, Brock and the Symbiote ARE Venom and every event has involved them, its really Brocks history thats the problem. We could always just remove it but it seems weird not to have that information here, like I said, its meant to be a place where if someone wants to know about Venom, they type Venom and bam, theres his detailed history, everything hes done, those are the games he was in, etc, etc. Darkwarriorblake 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. It's just that the subject is complicated. Let me suggest something different a bit less radical. What if we kept this article as Venom, but made it devoted solely to Eddie Brock & the symbiote. Then, we move all the other hosts and stuff to a separate article ala She-Venom. How about..."History and hosts the Venom symbiote or...Other versions and hosts of Venom? We could keep this article largely the same, but remove all the excess stuff that isn't related to eddie. Ultimate Venom and other media appearances would stay here. Spidey's time with the symbiote would probably have to be in the new article rather than this one, but I'm insistant on that. What do you all think? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Venom

I changed the UV pic because you couldn't see anything but teeth and eyes. If you disagree with the current picture I found/edited these two also. IMO, I like the current one but I could understand complaints that you can't see the top of his face properly. It does showcase his whole body though which I think is more beneficial for a picture. Shows off the purple hue he seems to have in Ultimate.:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Ultimatevenom1002.jpg/180px-Ultimatevenom1002.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Ultimatevenom1002.jpg/180px-Ultimatevenom1003.jpg Darkwarriorblake 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. Might be better to readd the other image, though, at least to compare his pre- and post-symbolized forms. Also, try not to upload images in excess. This isn't photobucket. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There thats better. If it ain't being seen it ain't using bandwidth. Shouldn't cause any harm.Darkwarriorblake 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of bandwidth. BTW, making them external links doesn't help much anyway. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know in the Ultimate Spider-Man video game, Electro says, "this guy's vulnerable to electricity!" but Venom's weakness to electricity is really up to debate for the time being. In the comics, when Peter wore the suit it apparently vaporized when he hit two telephone wires for an extended period of time, but Venom was only stunned for a moment when he hit power lines. Since he then survived a more massive voltage soon afterwards, it doesn't appear electricity is really all that powerful against the suit.

Better picture

Do you think we could get a better picture of Venom here? UnDeRsCoRe 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh god. I hope this doesn't turn into another Iceman type situation. Feh. What did you have in mind? Oh and BTW, topics at the bottom. No expections based on "importance". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know it was most recent at the bottom. (Most talk pages I've been to have it the other way around.) Well, I had in mind, a picture that depicts Venom's, rather rampant, character a bit more better. Possibly, a more recent deviation of him? UnDeRsCoRe 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, we had something like that a few months ago. I gotta admit, I don't like the currrent image much, either. It features another character, it's been retouched and some details are hard to make out. I think I'll put the full body image in the SHB for now. At least that gives the viewer a better idea. I'll re-add the cover to the article and move some stuff around. Your comments will be taken under consideration, but I hope you can recommend something more specific than "better" or "more recent". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT re-add the cover. It was removed for a reason.Darkwarriorblake 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Will you chill, Dark? What's your bag, man? Noone's "raping" your work. The cover is representitive of his personality and there ought to be some reference to his limited series in the article. I told you before that a image post-symbolization alone wouldn't cut it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we cannot add that cover, how about this: http://comicsmedia.ign.com/comics/image/article/620/620606/venom-20050531024229721.jpg It gives Venom a more realistic feel. While still showing his trademark long tounge and sharp teeth. UnDeRsCoRe 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. It seems like you're mostly just interested in showing off his face. Eh...thing is, this isn't Joker (comics). We have different standards. What's the status on that image, anyway? Who made it? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that current image looks pretty good, but It's a bit low quality. UnDeRsCoRe 13:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.inkietos.com/wp-content/200509/29/venom.jpg

How about that? Thats pretty cool.

Or http://www.samruby.com/Villains/Venom/Venom.gif Darkwarriorblake 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree but isn't that the clone venom? UnDeRsCoRe 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Wouldn't really matter would it? It's still a picture that represents Venom. Found a bigger version to. http://www.spyder-25.com/covers/venom/venom_12.jpg

Darkwarriorblake 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's great. It shows off Venom's full appearence and character. I think we should put it up. But who is the artisit? UnDeRsCoRe 22:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


er...give me a sec i had it before. Its from Marvels core site so we could probably just list its copyright as a comic panel. I don't think the artist was listed. Also

Again i don't know the exact artist, just that its from a comics panel. Considering the style though its most likely Mark Bagley. Darkwarriorblake 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Francisco Herrera. I saw it on Spider-Fan.org. Here [4] It's the cover to Venom #12 UnDeRsCoRe 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a more high resolution one of it and put it in the article. UnDeRsCoRe 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh...hello? It certainly does matter that it's the clone. Underscore was able to tell the difference. What's to say someone else won't? Further, That's not presentitive of his character and appearance. He does not dwell in sewers or usually have such over exaggerated Liefeld-style features. I've ver upset about what's going on with these images right now. I'm especially surprised at you, Dark. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know it was the clone, never read it just added info on it from summaries. And his proportions are like that dependant upon who the artist is. Sometimes hes tall/sleek but buff other times hes amazingly exaggerated. The last picture I added was fine, I mean it showed Venom and is representative of his characters obsession with Spider-Man. I know the sewers are't his main domain but still...hes probably been down there. What about the one with the white background and his arms outstretched grabbing loads of webbing? Thats the original Venom.Darkwarriorblake 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Ok, I regret ever even sugesting uploading a "better" image. We might as well just revert it back to that image it was in the first place. (With him attacking Spider-Man). Before someone just removes any images altogether (Which is invevitable if we cannot reach an agreement) UnDeRsCoRe 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, the only image I removed was the retouching of cover art. Obsession or not, it displayed two characters, which might be confusing. Now, before anyone does anything else, I want to iron out some details, facts and the status quo. First, here's what I know:
  • SHB image are meant to small, clear depictions of how the character generally looks.
  • Dark made several revisions to the images.
    • He removed the original cover image for unknown reasons.** He changed the SHB image to a retouching of the 300 cover, which unfortunately, just couldn't work out.
    • He changed the Ultimate Venom image.

Now, I'm stil curious about certain things:

  • Why can't the lethal protector image be re-added to the article outside of the SHB?
  • Why can't the original ultimate venom image remain?

ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Ace, I submitted the article for good article review and it failed. I changed the SHB as part of hte response to the articles criticism which was that the excess around Venom was distracting and not suitable for a SHB. The Ultimate Venom image is black essentially. You can make out eyes, teeth and a slightly lighter shade of background. It is, for all intents and purposes, a black background with eyes and teeth and thus not of any use. The new UV image clearly shows his body, the purple tint to the suit unlike the blue tint to the Symbiote of 616. Find a clear image of the early suit and feel free but that one that was being used was useless. What's wrong with the full body image with his arms outstretched and holding webbing? It shows his full body and it won't be that big in the SHB.Darkwarriorblake 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Great, good. Understood. Thing is, they were taking about the SHB. The image can and should still be added to the article as a note to his brief limited series. The ultimate venom? Dude, no offense, but the vision thing is relative. You're the only person who complained. Look at Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth. DrBat said he saw the same thing in the top/cover image. Now, of course, there's another cover I could add in its place or to accompany it, but that's not the point. A user's actions can rid an article of userful content. I'll upload the image to this talk page as for a third opinion, but I'm telling you that it's not like some cartoon scene where the lights go out. A figure is visible. I hope in the future you'll be more up front and ask for a second opinion if all you can't see the signifcance of an image. I'll also be re-adding the lethal cover outside of the SHB. As for the the image with the blue tones, tongue and several strings of webbing, I'm fine with it if you guys are. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ultimate venom.jpg

Ok. Done and done. Now, I can make out rain, Venom's tongue, what looks to be a statium in the background and Venom in the process of shapeshifting. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I totally agree. I'm re-adding this mother. 172.195.196.32 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
How about....http://www.sportsology.net/videogames/images/usm/venom.jpg Darkwarriorblake 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, we've gotten a secind opinion, albeit by a GIPU. Plus, I think the image does display that purple hue you;re talking about. Now, let's not go overboard with these ripped images when we aready have one. Oh and once again, I'd an see eye doc, no pun intended. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Creator credit

How did we go from Controversy over creator credit to Venom creator credit dispute. Tell me which one makes more sense there from an English language stand-point. You're also supposed to discuss/poll moves. Again Venom : Controversy Over Creator Credit makes more sense and sounds better than Venom creator credit dispute. One sounds like its an addition to the Venom article, which it is. The other...well just sounds lame.Darkwarriorblake 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to respect your POV on the matter, but an over capitalized title was inappropriate. Furthermore, "controversy" is a bit extreme. I don't recall cited claims of outcry. Further, I doubt either side is even still upset about it. "Dispute" is what it is. While I appreciate your attempts to help, I must disagree with some of your choices. As for polling, that's more of a last resort or at least something reserved for a very big decision, like...merging or deletion. Wikipedia is not a democrasy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My edits, removed personality

I removed the personality section after reading it and finding that if you take away the POV statements and the original research there was nothing salvageable. If someone could find a reputable source that discusses Venom's anti-hero nature, I would be for its addition, however there was far too much independent analysis and point of view to include it in a form close to what it was. There are a few questions I have, as someone that does not know much about Venom, I do not feel I know much more after editing as much as I did. All I can tell is that writers seem to enjoy separating Brock from the symbiote, as that seems to be how every story ends. Also

  1. Not much is said about the Life Foundation, no issue numbers discussing circumstances of the other symbiotes' births.
  2. The only notable thing under the "Venom returns" heading is Brock's wife's death.
  3. Unless "The Overreach Committee" is a major or recurring villain in the history of Venom, the whole section can probably go. I
  4. The family section, especially Brock's family, seems not to be notable, unless his childhood is a factor in the development of the character.

Please try to keep the summary brief and discuss only events notable to the character. Also try to keep this an out of universe discussion of the character as a phenomenon not a real person. Merely including that he is a fictional character in the heading does not mean that he is treated as one in the rest of the article. I've done a bit to try to abbreviate the fictional history of the character, but the actual history (development, effects of specific writers and artists on the character, etc) would be much more informative. --NewtΨΦ 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude I know it has to be brief but it doesn't have to be ultra short to the point it misses out facts which while minor are still notable or important. It doesn't have to be THAT brief. Just not paragraph after paragraph of waffle. Darkwarriorblake 11:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What did I cut out that was notable? The personality section aside (it was OR and NPOV), nothing I cut out seemed all that notable to the character as it has been written. If I cut something out that was important, I'd venture to say it was the original writer that didn't add the proper weight to it. The brief summary is not more important than the other information like publication history, development, and writers and artists that added their marks to the character and if the summary isn't giving a proper context to understand the character then it didn't before. We're writing for the uneducated, not for the fans. --NewtΨΦ 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall right now, you might want to make one big edit instead of 8-9 small ones because I have to visit each one to see and then remember them. It's mostly sentences that are either not sentences or small seemingly unimportant chunks of info which are removed which should be important. Like saying that Venom started hating Spidey again because his wife commited suicide. But that makes no sense. Its because she is afraid of the symbiote and sees Spider-Man in a black suit, then commits suicide. I know it didn't say the Spidey part before (I don't recall writing that bit) but it did at least say she was afraid of the symbiote and that sent Brock off on a vengeance bender.Darkwarriorblake 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can look at the entirety of my edits by checking them all as a lump. I did them all in order. It's possible my edits exposed the muddiness of the article, but I changed the information very little. --NewtΨΦ 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, be sure that the information focuses entirely on Venom. It doesn't matter that the clone burns out hosts and that Wolverine survived. That's trivial and has nothing to do with the rest of the article nor the character. Just because it's interesting doesn't mean it has a place in the article. If anything it only confuses the focus. --NewtΨΦ 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. For 13 issues, the Clone is made out to BE Venom until its eventually revealed that it is a clone made from his tongue. Plus it also then displays the fact that Wolverine and Patricia have been hosts since one of them is She-Venom and is absorbed INTO the original Venom, clone AND host plus Wolverine being a host is listed at the bottom, at least with that brief little sentence, people now know how and when he was the host. So I believe it is relevant history and it is brief. Like I said, you don't want a huge article but that doesn't mean everything has to be an insanely short, detail-less run through of events. Darkwarriorblake 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'm supposed to know this, as an uneducated reader, from the way it was written? That's why it was edited out, there was no context. Nothing was mentioned about how the clone is made out to be venom. Wolverine being a host can be covered in that line at the bottom. Anyway, I have some other thoughts.
  1. How important is "The Overreach Committee"? Who are they? They make one appearance in his history, and all they end up really doing is forcing the symbiote from him and pitting him against Spider-Man which happens regularly enough anyway. As for the last "Clone of the symbiote" entry into the article, in order to make any sense of why the symbiote is not wanting to bond with Venom after repeatedly bonding with him before, even seeking him out, requires a bit of independent analysis.
  2. As for the Venom vs. Carnage heading, the paragraph has more to do with Toxin than Venom fighting Carnage. In fact, they team up to try to kill Toxin. It's more important to talk about Toxin than just the fight between Venom and Carnage, which happened several times prior.
  3. I reverted some of the edits back though I kept your citations. Some of the information seems unnecessarily detailed. Does it really matter what the Overreach Committee made Venom do? No major changes were made to the character because of it, it seems like just another arc in the story without much consequence.
  4. Is the symbiote capitalized in the comic or anything other than this article?
Basically, I'm uneducated on the character to large extent and I'd hope that we could get this worked out. I'm not against this information being included, but it needs some context and analysis (secondary) to show its importance. --NewtΨΦ 19:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The description box is too short for this. I submitted this article for GA and edited according to feedback. Feedback was that an image of Venom Vs Carnage would be beneficial. More important than the front cover of Venom: Lethal Protector anyway, its not even his first issue appearance. I'm not going to get into an edit war over the Venom Vs Carnage section but I do believe the previous text is better. What you've replaced it with is basically a cold run through of basic details, the difference isn't huge but its enough to be jarring in its presentation. Additionally, the edits only shorten it by like 8 words so its hardly worth it.Darkwarriorblake 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the more recent edits. Like I said, I'm not against this info being included, but we need to make sure that we're informing the reader as to the importance and reasoning behind things that happen in the comic. I dislike edit wars as well. --NewtΨΦ 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


www.spiderfan.org Your analysis is fair, I've gone away and researched this info and I'm trying to put as much in while keeping it brief so context and such is kept but I have more knowledge than someone who knows nothing of Venom. I do understand, for example, that Spidey and Venom have fought before but time progresses and my belief was that the article was trying to keep a history of the character. I haven't detailed every fight for example but any important interactions should be there.

  • I don't think the Overreach committee (A government branch) turn up after their intervention later but they are still a chunk of his history. I know they didn't create a major character change or anything but if we worked by that system it'd basically be "Venom is created" then skip straight to "Brock slashes his wrists and Venom 3 is born". He doesn't really change all that much, he just turns up and does stuff.
  • I did put why the Symbiote didn't want to be bonded with Brock anymore. It bonded originally due to this retconned cancer he has which produces more adrenaline. BUt after being separated again it doesn't want to bond with him and save his life, his body is disease ridden and dying, he is hardly a suitable host. He tried to take Spider-Man but Spidey threw Brocks body at the Symbiote and it was mid-bond with Spidey at the time so it could not stop and was forced to take Brock instead in a perma bond.
  • Venom and Carnage fight over Toxin true but Toxin is pretty much a prize between the pair trying to ally with/kill him.
  • 'Symbiote' is capitalised in other related articles I think, I don't have any comics at hand anymore to check but in the context of the article, it is a sentient individual and has events occur without a host. Then again you don't capitalise dog just because its a dog, but you do capitalise names. Symbiote isn't a name true but Venom isn't really its name, just seems to be a reference used to easily identify it after Brock names himself that.
  • As for the clone I wouldn't know how to write it. It is made out to BE Venom to the reader, I assume people working behind the scenes (In story) know it isn't Venom. Guess we could go with something like "Venom was rampaging all over Canada whomping ass but burning out hosts. Until he was faced with...dun dun dun...THE REAL VENOM! Its revealed this Venom is a clone". Obviously don't put that :P But we could describe it a different way to indicate that it is implied that it is THE Venom since Brock is not bonded with the symbiote until the end of the arc when he faces the clone.Darkwarriorblake 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Your clone example is a good reason why an out-of-universe perspective is desirable. As for what could be put in if things like the "Overreach Committee" are not included, is how Venom (possibly) begins as a villain entirely but different writers have treated him as a psychopath or anti-hero. It's less how events change or effect the character and more how writers do so through these events. --NewtΨΦ 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Another thing that could being talked about is how different writers (possibly) have had Venom refer to itself/himself/themselves as "We" or "I". --NewtΨΦ 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Where could we discuss that though? I think the "We" part is important, it was his signature for like...ever. Recent stories seem to revolve more around the symbiote bonding with others and Brock pretty much hating it so I don't know if its been used that much lately.Darkwarriorblake 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ideally in the character history section or a publication history section. It's an important part of the character that can be neglected when the character's history is treated as if it actually happened. Look at Superman, a featured article, for an idea of how this article could read. --NewtΨΦ 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Television Pictures

Nix one, no need for two at all. My vote goes for keeping the newest one, looks cleaner, no logos and displays more of Venny.Darkwarriorblake 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one. :D UnDeRsCoRe 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What If the symbiote took over Peter Parker

The following line "Reluctant to kill Thor, the heroes used one final plan, employing Black Bolt's incredibly powerful voice to create enough sonic damage to critically injure the symbiote." I believe is incorrect. I don't have the comic in hand, but as I remember it, it was Reed Richards with a large sonic gun (almost identical to what Black Cat later uses) who ultimately beat the symbiote, but couldn't bring himself to kill it because of its scientific value.

Page move?

There's already a Venom (DC Comics), so the simple disambiguation (comics) in this pages title is inaccurate. I propose it be moved to Venom (Marvel). Any objections? --tjstrf 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. It seem obvious. I mean, why says Venom (comics) when there is more than one Venom is the comics? So, I vote we move it. UnDeRsCoRe 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it then. The "What links here?" is going to be a total pain to fix though. My original idea was that the Venom (comics) page be made a redirect to Venom (disambiguation) after fixing the links, but there are over 100 links. Meh, I guess I'll start on it and then redirect that after I finish. --tjstrf 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Except you f@#*ed it up. Naming conventions say it should go to Venom (Marvel Comics). Next time try waiting more than 13 minutes between offering an idea and implementing it. CovenantD 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That would have required a requested move, as Venom (Marvel comics) was a redirect to this page already. Thanks for the eminently civil reply, btw. --tjstrf 00:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
A redirect with only edit in it's history can still be moved to. I had to learn that the hard way. You made the mistake by "correcting" the link, thus giving the redirect a true history with two edits. Anyway, the character is far more notible than the drug. I mean...have you seen the Venom (DC Comics) article? Anyway, at best, we could just provide some dab stuff at the top of the article. Feh. Don't be too hard on them, Cap'n. I would have made similar mistakes last week if I felt as motivated to move the page.

Now then, I propose we leave things as they are for the time and discuss things further. (I know. I'm surprised I'd be the one saying that, too.) ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article belongs at this name. The DC Venom is realtively unknown outside of Bane appearances, whereas the Venom character has had his own series, action figures, and appearances in cartoons and film. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I agree. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

uLTIMATE cHARACTER Box

Please stop adding it, it's uneeded, basically just the same info as 616. UnDeRsCoRe 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

enter electro

i don't think venom appeared in this game.69.148.51.254 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)JasonX80


Superman

The attempt to paint Venom as having incalculable high superstrength borders on non-NOPV. He has rarely shown these strength levels. There is also no proof and Juggeruant being weaker than Superman, so it is not needed to mention both characters. Mentioning Superman in this article will also cause confusion that Superman and Venom are published by the same company.T-1000 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this little war. Seems like you're the one with the biased POV. "Jug's not weak! He's not! Whaaaa!!" As Thanos stated, it was a company wide-crossover. And flucuating strength levels are a staple of comics, get used to it. The more characters mentioned the better, I'd say. Fighting one character who billed as "unstoppable" shouldn't be enough to prove Venom is strong. Now, state you want to clarify the statement, but if you want a ruling, Superman's name stays. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, this statement is confusing to non-comics fans because it implies that Superman and Venom are published by the same company (The fact that is was a crossover was never mentioned in the article). Second, fighting Superman does not imply Flucuating strength-levels, because Superman always hold back. Third, Classic Juggy is listed as having "incalculably high" strength on the Marvel Handbook, so it is redundant to name another character who also has incalculalbly high strength. T-1000 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Blah, blah. I told you how to handle it. If you won't, I will. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, fighting Superman does not imply anything about the Character's strength, because he holds back. Also, fighting a super-strong character does not make you super-strong. T-1000 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If I recall the fight, wasn't Superman being hurt by Venom's punches? Kal-El can't "hold back" his durability. Thanos6 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Venom was trying to strangle Superman with his symbiote, and Superman was holding back because he didn't blast Venom. If you have proof of Venom actually hurting Superman with his punches, post it. T-1000 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

T-1000 does have a point. Many characters hold their own and defeat other characters who are considerably stronger than they are. Remember the battle between Wolverine and Lobo from the DC vs Marvel crossover? It's been nearly a decade and people still debate about it or piss and moan over the fact that Lobo lost because he's "stronger". The crossover itself isn't even canon, just something to boost sales. Winning, losing, or holding your own in a fight doesn't determine how much pressure a character can generate nor how much weight they can lift. Is the battle between the two even canon anyhow? If it isn't, then the entire discussion really is a bit pointless because using it to measure Venom's strength wouldn't exactly be an accurate portrayal of Venom. Odin's Beard 01:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Refocusing

It would perhaps be nice to refocus the comics section of this away from fictional biography and towards a publishing history of the character - tracing his meteroric popularity in the 90s, the explosion of miniseries, etc. Phil Sandifer 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal - merge "Venom creator credit dispute" into this article

It looks like it should really be part of this article - Venom (comics) doesn't have a "publication history" section yet, but if it had, that'd be the ideal place for this? --Mrph 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

There was already one discussion about splitting it in the first place and it was done because it was a lot of text and a big chunk in the middle of a page, it is ok where it is and isn't harming anyone, I think bringing it back would make the article too big for a start and ugly for another Darkwarriorblake 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Outcome

Discussion closed. Result was MERGE --Mrph 18:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats been going on here?

Seriously? Alternate versions had sources for a start, were on this page for a second. Jeez people, it was fine as it was weeks ago and its been totally boned in such a short time. Whoever decided to edit the alternate versions and remove its sources don't ever edit anything ever again. Put it back on this page also, don't know why you think you can just split it that way, especially when its unecessary but you can't.Darkwarriorblake 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Chill, man. You can't go around saying users should have their editting privilages revoked over something like this. Now, it's being discussed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Venom", if you're interested. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I really think this article has taken a downhill turn in only a month. It was nigh flawless before. Good article flawless. Darkwarriorblake 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Venom Unlimited

I have a theory on how Venom changed from his TAS appearance to his Unlimited appearance. I think he was either fused with Carnage, hence both their dramatic changes in appearance, or it came around as some sort of side-effect of the time portal they were stuck in. The former might explain why Venom has powers like Carnage's own, and why Carnage now refers to himself as 'we' instead of 'I'. Also I think it a little odd that Venom wanted to destroy Carnage in the TAS, but because the TAS and Spider-Man Unlimited remained unbridged, there is no explaination as to why Venom sides with Carnage, especially since Venom sees Carnage as a threat against the revenge Venom plans against Spidey. It is strangeand it goes against all other incarnations of the character! Ggctuk 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to the talk page of Spider-Man Unlimited. Ggctuk 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate removal

Apparently, the Ultimate Venom article has returned, I think it is quite a shock, but so far no one is saying anything. 201.141.212.132 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Newcomer

I'm not happy about it but right now I don't have the energy to get into a bunch of big edits. Feel free to undo it.Darkwarriorblake 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on top of the article, thanks. Eddie Brock, jr. is gaining notibility from his appearance in Spider-Man 3. Plus, it's a lot better written now, I think. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its nothing that couldn't be in the main article, especially considering the size of the ultimate venom description currently there. Notoriety from the movie? His names Eddie Brock Jr. Beyond that there isnt a single similarity whatsoever. Jr isn't a photographer, his suit is a protoplasmic whatever and he didn't get his suit in a belltower either while funnily enough, the normal Brock did during the animated series. I allowed you to keep that unnecessary sentence in the UV section and make Spidey 3 a header but this is taking it too far. I'll leave it up to you to put it back in the main Venom article or otherwise I'll do it.Darkwarriorblake 23:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Allowed" me? Before you do anything more, I'd recommend looking at Wikipedia's ownership policy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I allowed you by not removing the changes when they were not needed and not really appropriate to the article. People don't need to jump from Ultimate Venom directly to Spider-Man 3. The suffix 'jr' does not mean movie brock is based on Ultimate Brock at all.Darkwarriorblake 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Both have a thing for Gwen Stacy, but don't seem to do well.
  • Both wear black.
  • Both have short, blonde hair.
  • Both are similar to Peter, but had "trouble childhoods". (Jr's was marred by his parents death. Movie Brock's could be the same.)

Now, there will bew differences, but who knows? Maybe movie Eddie will be a scientist on the sad. It would follow the theme set by the last two films. Control your POV and ownership issues. I won't rip off your style and say I'm infallibly right or that this is the way things have to be, but I've yet to notice any legit complaints. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


You haven't noticed complaints because you and I are pretty much teh only ones editing this article. The UV article is nothing that requires its own article. Ultimate Venoms powers are no different than 616's apart from using tendrils instead of webbing so theres no point there. His history so far is nowhere near long enough either. It was merged for a reason and I'm pretty sure since then nothing eventful has hapenned to Ultimate Venom to warrant it extending any further. EDIT: Oh and there is a complaint, its right there above my initial post. Darkwarriorblake 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice you've just begun edit warring based on your POV rather than, say, addressing the similarities I mentioned above. Let me give it to you like this: one might disagree with the gay section of the Batman article, but several discussions on that talk page say it shouldn't be removed. Chill and don't worry. The article isn't damaged by having factual, verifible content. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Feh. Doesn't matter anyway. The whole article's just copyvio, anyway. Hybrid seems to have a history of dickup edits, too. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the rather nice profile I gave Ultimate Venom Yesterday? It was betetr than the article you have now. In my opinion, if a loser like Carnage gets an Ultimate profile, then so should Venom. SaliereTheFish 10:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
He's referring to the SHB he added that was subsequently removed per consensus by CovenantD. Saliere, you are mistaken, Ultimate Carnage does not have a superhero box, and shouldn't. --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 Venom clip

How can I get this:http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i209/mexicutioner124/venom.gif

to be viewable like this:Image:Onslaught.gif

Answer ASAP please.

The Venom leaked trailer (at least the end of it where Eddie Brock becomes Venom) is official now. It was shown on Fox before Spider-Man 2 was shown. So it's no longer an unofficial leaked trailer. It should be okay to post those pictures now, but not the Venom Concept Art. It's on Youtube now, and SuperHeroHype has lots of avatars and animated GIFS from that trailer. Ggctuk 10:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use the first crop in the article, I have a slide of cropped images from the SM3 behind-the-scenes preview right below.

-image removed-

Feel free to use it. I know it isn't exactly clear, but it's the best I could do given the quality of the Thanksgiving preview. The Chibi Kiriyama

The leaked trailer is not official now. The leaked trailer will never been official because it was stolen. What FOX showed was not what you are showing. If you go to Talk:Spider-Man 3, and look at the bottom you will see the exact image that was shown on FOX and it is not that one. You do not have permission to show that image, especially under the guise that FOX showed it. Bignole 23:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
A fellow user on SHH provided the cropping, though with the validity in question I suppose removing it would be best. I also suppose the FOX footage you provided is sort of useless, as it doesn't quite show it all...I have the very same YouTube clip you provided on the talkpage on pause here, and it shows a rather clear clip. The Chibi Kiriyama
I've watched the FOX clips, and paused it at exactly the first moment Venom appears and the only shot you get is one that is already down his throat. There isn't some transition from him looking up and then opening his mouth. He is only show for a couple frames, not enough to have a decent picture. Bignole 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Then what's this?

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d177/ChibiKiriyama/Venomproof2.jpg

I lack the ability to crop nearly as well as the user who got the FOX footage crops, and can safely say that the picture I provided (with proof in the image of the URL I obtained it from) is a clear picture of the movie Venom. Perhaps it showed more than his gullet...? The Chibi Kiriyama

You know what, you're right, if you keeping quickly hitting the pause button you can catch the first frame of him that you can't see with the naked eye. Still not a good image, but if you work at it you can see it. Bignole 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

CyberComic

Why have you deleted my info about the cybercomics?

- Venom appeares in the Spider-Man CyberComic Storyline #11 called "Venom Saga", where he frames Spider-Man for a murder.

It's a fairly irrelevant, mundane, non-canon inhouse use of the character. It wasn't really other media, as it was in webcomic form. It also read like some sloppenly added "coming appearance" when it should be a fleshed out summary of any relevant events. (The arc concluded long before those webcomics died six years ago.) And like before, it just seem irrelevant. You're welcome to try again, but at least make it informative. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Eddies middle name

Let's settle this. In the first issue of the Planet of the symbiotes, Eddie is ruminating over whether or not it was he himself or the symbiote who drove him to murder. When he says to himself "...perhaps I should find help...." he immediately dismisses the thought and says something to the effect of "No, I am Edward Allan Brock, I've never needed anyone." This whole Eddie Charles Brock thing has no proof other than the official Marvel Encyclopedia. What do you trust more? A newly made publication likely written by people who hadnt read the Venom miniseries, or Eddie Brock himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.230.169 (talk • contribs) 23:15, January 28, 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Venomoviepic7.png

Image:Venomoviepic7.png 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 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Venom

Ultimate Venom's portion of this article has become quite long. Like Ultimate Nick Fury and Ultimate Thor, Ultimate Venom is a vastly different character than it's 616 counterpart, so I think it would be best to create a new article for Ultimate Venom and just put a link from this think this is put into action. 134.68.177.127 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Such an idea isn't unreasonable - one thing to check before splitting is if it can be trimmed down first. If the size isn't due to unnecessary bloat then a split could be in order. (Emperor 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

No Split - there are already enough Venom articles on WIkipedia. This page just needs some trimming as a whole, not just the Ultimate section. The "Early Appearances" sections seems particularly useless. If the page is ever split off it should be done as per the Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters convention. -- 69.182.73.240 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Ultimate Universe was some limited series, I'd agree. But as it is, Venom is a reoccurring character in the Ultimate Universe and will only have more history added to it. And as for there already being too many Venom articles, that's a different discussion altogether. A clean up of all Venom articles would help, and a separate Ultimate Venom article would help, not hinder.

In the effort of full disclosure, I was the one from the IP who originally proposed the split. Notthegoatseguy 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a long established convention that Ultimate charactes do not recieve their own pages. The Thor example above should probably be merged into the main page or renamed to Alternate versions of Thor but thats another discussion. An Alternate versions of Venom page would be ideal here as it could serve as a sub-page for both Venom (Eddie Brock) and Venom (comics). -- 69.182.73.240 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also established that Ultimate characters who diverge signifigantly from their 616 counterpart get their own pages too, as long as their role is signifigant enough to warrant it. Thor, Nick Fury, and Venom all diverge greatly from the 616 character they are based on, similar to why Hulk 2099 and Spider-Man 2099 have their own pages. Even after cleaning up this article and the Ultimate part, it will only get longer with Ultimates 3 set to be published soon. You can look at the merge debates of Thor and Nick Fury on their respective talk pages as presedence of this. Notthegoatseguy 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you have a strong enough reason to split Ultimate Venom off you should bring it up on the Project talk board Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics so that other have a chance to engage in the discussion. Established conventions shouldn't be broken on a per article basis. -- 69.182.73.240 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I was reading one of your prior discussions on a massive merger (one was Dark Beast into Beast) and many editors said that the proper place is the individual talk pages, so the editors who have worked on the article can voice their opinions. There is no need to seek elsewhere, since it's clear many That being said, creating a new Ultimate character page will attract some attention, so maybe I will put up a discussion there instead of going ahead with the split and then have an edit war start. Notthegoatseguy 11:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is often a good idea to post a note on the Comics Project talk page pointing people here to get more input on this as it can help avoid wasting your time if the broader consensus is not to split (because if so it'll only be merged back in). (14:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor (talk • contribs)

Article Cleanup

I noticed someone tagged this article as a possible merge back to the main Venom article, but didn't say anything on the talk page. It'd be nice to hear from them.

That being said, the Ultimate Venom split debate has bought up that this article needs some cleaning up. I honestly think the Fictional Character Biography section is a good length and should mostly be left alone. However, the Personality section and Powers and Abilities can definately be trimmed down, along with the Spider-Man 3 section, the video game section (maybe cut entirely and just redirect to a List Of article?) and the Early Bibliography section should get cut entirely too. That said, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks before deleting stuff entirely, but will start cleaning up the Powers and Personality section sometime later in the week. Notthegoatseguy 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

==double double lol wut Bly1993 03:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firstvenom.jpg

Image:Firstvenom.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 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Venom (comics)

Discussion closed with consensus of no merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

Too long?

Does anyone else really think this article is too long? It looks like a good length to me, especially for such a major character in comics. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat too long, but I'd wager most of that could be fixed with simple tightening and streamlining of language and removing vios, without cutting down on the factual material. Big job, though.... --Tenebrae (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Theres absolutely no need for the Spider-Man 3 section to be anywhere near as long as it is. Theres a separate article for that and I don't know who is so adamant about keeping it that they keep undoing the vast shortening that takes place. But it needs to go, along with a lot of fluff thats been added to the powers section.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with that last post that the Spider man 3 section on this character is far too long. But aside from that I do not think this article as a whole is "too long." as a reference I looked at the pages of Batman and the Joker and each is respectfully just as long as this Eddie Brock character page. The Joker has been in more media but has far less of a fictional history then Venom. I think the balance is fair. Eddie Brock is a relatively recent but incredibly popular, varied and eventful character. I would not consider this article too long at all.Danleary25 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll try to trim down the Spidey 3 section and then I'm removing the too long tag, as once the Spidey 3 info is trimmed down, the article will be at about the right length for a character of this importance. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It could still use a substantial check and possible re-write of sections to improve their quality even if nothing need be removed. I still think a great deal of the powers section is fluff.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it vandalism too shorten article?

Today Darkwarriorblake went and shortened the section on Spider-Man 3, as was discussed here. Then Alexfusco5 called these edits "vandalism?" Has this been sorted out? The section as Darkwarriorblake edited makes it concise and actually relevant. Before, it contained a lot of extra plot points and explanations from the movie which had NOTHING to do with Eddie Brock (this articles subject). To then call the edits vandalism when there is a tag on the article being too long. Danleary25 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dc

I'm not arguing with you, I apologise if you intrpret it that way. The picture you're replacing it with was replaced with the current and has been that way for a considerably, very considerably long time, mainly because the one you're replacing it with is cluttered with other imagery and it doesn't clearly display Venom. I've bettered the fair use for the other pic. If you do want to use it, it might be more sensible to do so within the document itself particularly the start of his bio or publication history.

As for the intro, the intro is like an abstract from my understanding and should give a reader an overview of the document so that they can make a decision to read further and get more detail.

EDIT: I am compromising with you, I did like a few of your last edits and kept them in and in some cases merged them with previous versions. He is not a Junior though. Never was. You're confusing him with Ultimate Brock or movie Brock. Either way its incorrect.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't aware that it said "junior" in the intro. DCincarnate (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate venom.jpg

Image:Ultimate venom.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Venom gets his own Comic

It's called Venom: Dark Origins, and it's coming out in August. That'll add a few reference points to this article and/or help clear things up. :D 142.26.133.248 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Junior

Is the 616 Eddie actually Eddie Brock Jr or is this someone confusing ultimate marvel with mainstream continuity? Because I've never heard of Eddie being Eddie Brock Jr in 616.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. The Eddie Brock of Earth-616 (the Mainstream Marvel universe) ISN'T Eddie Brock Jr. That IS just the ULTIMATE version of the character.--BigBang616 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fictional character

There is someone who keeps removing the word 'fictional' in the lead for no reason at all. DCincarnate (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that sort of thing happen with a lot of fictional articles. Just revert. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "Venom origin in church.jpg"

There has been a editing contest for the relevance of this picture which illustrates the moment that the character Eddie Brock first bonds with the Venom Symbiote. Kung Fu Man said when removing it "This image doesn't serve much of a purpose." To which Mariomassone reverted the edir and said of the picture: "It's a key moment in character's history." Kung Fu Man then removed the picture again and said "Yet as a fair-use image it illustrates nothing. The text alone suffices in this case."

While I agree that the text is effective I do not agree that the image is "irrelevant" or that the text alone is sufficient. The image shows many different things that the text alone can not. 1)It is the only picture of Venom-less Brock that shows what he looked like before the symbiote had an effect on his body. 2)A bit more cerebral, but it shows in Brock screaming face that Brock himself is as much a victim of his place as a major Marvel villain. And more importantly 3)It helps to support the fact that Brock is not necessarily Venom and Venom is not necessarily Brock. There is a major problem with editing of Venom on Wikipedia that many writers and readers can not differentiate the fact that while Brock has been called by the name Venom in the past, it is the SYMBIOTE that is the definitive creature to be identified as Venom. Brock is a human and a host to the symbiote creature, and is separate from the creature. Danleary25 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, dissecting these one by one, the first point is understandable, but a better image should be used: there's little difference between Brock then and Brock in Lethal Protector. Ideally the infobox would be the place to show such an image.
Second point is a bit of original research there. The image caption and image itself does not fully illustrate Eddie as a victim. Sure he looks like he's screaming, but if you want to illustrate that there are, again, better images.
As for the third point, again that's where the infobox image should be changed. It should be illustrated up front "This is Eddie Brock". Instead it still shows "This is Venom when he was Eddie Brock."
I just feel it's an unnecessary image, and a better one could be used to illustrate the article. For instance, showing the character influenced by him in Kenshin, or the merchandise related to the character. I'm going to change the image in the infobox to something I recovered from Marvel.com's page on Brock, and in the meanwhile leave the other image to see what your response is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that refocusing the infobox picture makes the picture we're discussing seem less important. However, I don't agree one-hundred percent that it's unnecessary. In response to my points I agree that there could be a better picture then this to be utilized. But, to focus my reasoning a little, this picture does illustrate the character's pinnacle moment of origin. It is a crucial moment. On the main Venom page there is a comparable picture which shows the first moment the symbiote crawls onto Spider-Man. It illustrates an iconic moment for both Spider-Man and the "Alien Suit." One could say that the text in that article is sufficient as well, but I don't think any one would make that argument for that page. The picture here is not iconic as the Spider-Man/Alien Suit picture is, but I still think it's a useful illustration for the article in a similar way.
My second point was definitely original research. It was an ineffective way of explaining a point I hadn't finished thinking through.
I don't think the picture is vital to the article but I don't think it's unnecessary. My main concern with the article has been to sort out what is Venom when is Eddie Brock and what is Venom the alien. Removing the picture out right, I felt, was a step back.Danleary25 (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Images and hatnotes

By the pieces:

  1. File:EddieBrock.png is a PhotoShoped composit that shouldn't be used. First off since the images are not ours to crop, degrade, and overlay to create a new image for our own purposes. There is also the intent of the infobox which is to present the most universally recognized appearance of the character. In this case that is Eddie Brock as Venom and the current image fills the bill.
  2. File:UltimateBrock.jpg hits the same issue - presenting the character's most universal appearance. Again, the "as Venom" fits the bill.
  3. File:EddieBrockSpiderman3.JPG is being used to replace an image that fits the needs of this article and has a complete fair use rational, including sourcing for where the image file came from, and a licensing statement. Since EddieBrockSpiderman3.JPG lacks these, it isn't an improvement. Even if the FUR was updated, the two-in-one winds up being overkill.
  4. The hatnote isn't need since the search of Venom (comics) is likely to be used to find this character, but not the other way round.

- J Greb (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But Brock *isn't* Venom anymore in the comics and hasn't been for well over a year. They're presenting him as a different character now. It's an issue of Superman vs. Clark Kent: Venom and Brock are, literally, two separate characters and as of late completely separate. Currently the images you're insisting on using are common depictions of Venom, which thanks to some "genius" at Marvel has been effectively 50 or so differently people in the span of a few years, as of late entirely Mac Gargan, and until just before that point had the same consistent appearance. If you want a universally recognized image for this article one of Brock himself would be a better one. "As Venom" does not "fit the bill" when the character was always treated as a separate entity without the suit, and sure as heck isn't Venom now.
Really this is bordering on being silly. Venom (comics) covers Venom, while this covers Eddie Brock. It should be pretty clear the images need to better reflect the subject matter in the best possible aspects, especially in that infobox.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I support Kung Fu Man's point of view. The Venom (comics) article displays well-known images of Venom and it's various forms, dependant upon it's hosts. The subject header for this article is "EDDIE BROCK" and a picture of Eddie Brock should be displayed in the infobox to best differentiate the character from other version of Venom. To further the Clark Kent vs. Superman point, the Clark Kent info box photo shows Kent and Superman depicted together to understand their contrasting apperance as the same character. The infobox picture uploaded by Kung Fu Man did the same thing. It shows Brock as Brock, and also dispays him along side his Venom apperance. The picture itself was not photoshopped, cropped, degraded or overlayed by a wiki user but ripped from Marvel.com's on page for Eddie Brock. If the fair use argument for ripping this picture was not clear enough it can be made so. Further more if Marvel.com acknowledges Eddie Brock's face displayed and his body half covered by the Venom suit it is fair to argue that this is a universally know picture of the character.Danleary25 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Further for as for the picture of Ultimate Brock, the picture of the Venom suit used here was moved to the Ultimate Venom article where it properly displays an image of Ultimate Venom. The subject of this section is "ULTIMATE EDDIE BROCK" and it details the character of Eddie Brock as he is shown in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics. The Venom suit and Eddie Brock are two separate fictional entities in this comic book series and properly showing pictures of each helps to keep new wiki users who are unfamiliar with the character(s) from confusing the issue. Danleary25 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it is bordering on ludicrous.
The editorial guidelines the Comics project has in place - Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images - is geared to "the most universally recognisable appearance of a character". As pointed out, for this character that is as Venom. Not sans the symbiote nor as Anti-Venom. That's the case for the main Marvel continuity where the symbiote has taken other hosts, let alone the Ultimate continuity, film, and television shows where Brock is the only character to appear as Venom.
And likening this to the Superman/Clark Kent situation is, that's a stretch. The split there is based on the abundance of material for covering two aspects of one character, not two distinct characters. - J Greb (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum... So the KFM's image is taken from Marvel's official online encyclopedia... which is a wiki. So it's a composite uploaded by a fan there or an image Marvel created for it's own encyclopedic reference work. The former still has the same fair use issue, the latter has a worse one - undercutting the use the owner of the image had it created for. - J Greb (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Then an infobox image would be better off showing both aspects, wouldn't it? I mean if you want to be picky in animated material you see Brock more readily than Venom, excluding Spiderman Unlimited, though I do concede he is the only Venom in those depictions. I'll concede too that the image I placed should probably not be used: I mistakenly assumed the staff had created the image (and would have gotten that out if you hadn't created two edit conflicts for me as I wrote this). But for the infobox both aspects of the character should be shown as a "common depiction", and to add that the Ultimate version should be fine to show just Brock as Venom's design is relatively unchanged for the most part in that incarnation.
Now can we come to a compromise of some sort? Or can we just proceed to have this little argument which really doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Since the composite picture is located at Marvel.com's information page for Eddie Brock I believe you were right to assume that it is staff made. At the very least I don't know why anyone has assumed it was fan made. The picture is question exisits right here(where I believe you got it in the first place): [5]Danleary25 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet, this article is NOT about the symbiote. It is about Eddie Brock. Showing a picture of the symbiote as you insist upon having does not show the most universally reconsigned image of EDDIE BROCK. It shows the most universally recognized image of VENOM. While their characters are greatly connected they are entirely separable as the title of this article should clearly show. The Clark Kent v Superman arguement is not a stretch by any means but simple precedent. Because, as you state, where the need for those two articles comes from we have in this case both two distinct characters and two aspects of the same character (if you take into account that Brock was know solely as Venom in continuely which has now been retroactively changed to make them two separate entities.)
"Feel fre to work on hashing it out *before* redtoring the bold edits" is something that could easily be asked fromyou as we already had an open dicussion (above) on this subject before you removed our bold edits. Danleary25 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If the File:EddieBrock.png image is a fan-made composite, can we find the original source for the image in the foreground? Brock as Venom, with his human face revealed, might be the best way to reconcile the duality caused by him being so closely associated with the Venom symbiote, without using two separate images. -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That image is from Amazing Spider-Man #300. Danleary25 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently working on getting an image for both, torrent will just take a bit (the comics, though scanned, seem very difficult to find online as stand alone images o_O)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have the Birth of Venom trade paper back with the issue in question but no scanner at my home to work with it right now. I also have a CBR files of the issue, but the scan it contains is covered in dirt.Danleary25 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (edited for typos) Danleary25 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Also at the very least, if we are discussing the issue of these pictures, there is no reason to remove the See Also I created that links to Venom (comics). Danleary25 (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
KFM
The exception with infoboxs is the multiple images where each version is highly notable and inclusion of all with in the text is impractical. See Doctor (Doctor Who) for an example of this. The subject here doesn't rise to this.
That being said, I can see the point about having an image with and without the images but there is a rub or two - redundancy and over population of images. If an image of Brock sans costume and pre-separation (File:Eddiebrockcancer.PNG cover post) it would have to be within the FCB not the infobox and it could replace File:Venom origin in church.jpg. Reasons being that 1) adding the image starts to push the article into using too many non-free images and 2) right now the infobox image works as a counter point to File:AmazingSpider-Man346.jpg but having both in the body courts 2+ images serving the same purpose.
- J Greb (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
One could readily argue an image in the infobox of Brock's common look is perfectly fine alongside the cancer image, as Brock by that point appears significantly different. So it wouldn't be a case of two images illustrating the same thing: just one showing a common look and another showing the character as he appeared several years later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry... I wasn't very clear. The "healthy" Eddie and the "chemo" Eddie would be fine since it does show the progression/degradation of the character. The redundancy would be the 2 mainline "Eddie as Venom" images in the body of the article. There is a solid reason for it, just not an immediately obvious one. Separating them into infobox and the PH adds a bit of safety for the comparison not having one side or the other deleted. - J Greb (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Danleary25
Unfortunately the most universally recognized appearance of Brock and Venom is the same image. Both are identified the same way even if with in the story the are separate and distinct individuals. And the same is true Angelo Fortunato, and article that had an image of the character as Venom at one point since that was the notable appearance. Just because 1 character is commonly identified by a particular visual does not mean others cannot.
With bold edits, it's it's still within bounds for a outside editor to pipe up once the article is edited and take issue with the change. And even if it winds up being "more discussion is needed", it's the bold change that needs to be sold, not the current status quo.
And the hatnote/see also... frankly that's 1) redundant since the venom article is linked in the lead and should be linked as one of Brock's notable aliases and 2) feels like it's writing down to readers. As pointed out above it is unlikely that "Eddie Brock" would be used to search for the symbiote.
- J Greb (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To whom is this the most universally recognized image of Eddie Brock? If we had a clean version of the picture of Brock, with his upper shoulders out of the suit, would that not be as recognizable an image of the character? The image comes directly from Amazing Spider-Man #300 which is the milestone full debut of the character. Further more (and I know I sound like a broken record, but I haven't heard a counter point to this) Marvel themselves have picked said picture for their own article on the character. It would show the character both as Eddie Brock and as the first Venom host. Marvel Eddie Brock Page
Eddie Brock is a name just as recognizable as any popular comic book name. It is entirely likely that a person would search for Eddie Brock and not be aware that Venom is a separate alien character and that there have been other Venoms hosts.
I am having trouble following the bold editing discuss we're having. Which edit of the page is the "status quo" that you are referring to?
Danleary25 (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To respond to your point made to KFM, "1) adding the image starts to push the article into using too many non-free images": Isn't it true that there are largely no free images of comic book characters. I researched this a little and there isn't a single free image of Spider-Man on that page. There are also no free images on the Batman (except for real life photos of various real-life Bat-Mobile). Danleary25 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Dan - Until there is a consensus here on what to change the infobox to, stop pushing a change to your pet POV with edits to the article.
As for the universal look, simplify it down. This is a general use encyclopedia, not one that caters specifically to comic book or Marvel fandom. Ask yourself honestly - "If Eddie Brock is mentioned to an average person, what what visual representation/version of the character will they think of?"
With your hatnote - which {{seealso}} is not supposed to be used for, that for sections within the body of the article - argument you are selling the point that Eddie is more identified as Venom than not. But even with that, the hatnote is not needed, period. The links within the lead of the and the explanation within the body of the article are sufficient to point readers to Venom (comics) for further information. A "See also" section at the bottom of the article may be justified.
An with non-free image. Wikipedia policy is that use of non-free images be kept to a minimum. Generally that is looked at with regard to redundancy (multiple images in the same article used to illustrate the same point) and number (lots and lots of images within the article). Redundant image will tend to get pulled quickly. Numbers, and it is a case by case what the "limit" is with the rule of thumb for it to start to be looked at is around 7-9, will get the article tagged to get the editors involved to reduce it down to the "major, non-1-line" points being illustrated. This isn't mitigated if there is 0 likelihood for a free-use image to be found.
And kicking that around... there's very, very little ground for there to be an image of the Ultimate version of the character either here or at Venom (comics). The "suit" is identical to the mainline version, which is covered. So the is no point of "And the Ultimate costume varies in this way..." to be made. And it's tenuous to illustrate "artistic license" for how the character looks under the mask in the two continuities. If it's nothing more than a change of haircut, an image of the healthy mainline Eddie and an image of the Ultimate Eddie are redundant usage.
- J Greb (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If an average person not familiar with comics was asked "What does Eddie Brock look like?" how can you assume they would picture Venom? It is most likely that the "average" person would picture Topher Grace. I'm not making a case to put a picture of Grace as Brock in the infobox. But the fact is the picture shown now is what the average person would picture given the word Venom and I'm not convinced they would see the same image if asked to associate with the name Eddie Brock. If I asked you or any average person "What does Peter Parker look like?," or "What does Harvey Dent look like?" or "What does Clark Kent look like?" I'm not convinced those names would conjure an image of that character in their costumes. The title of this article was Venom (Eddie Brock), but it is now simply Eddie Brock and the picture of Venom no longer reflects the focus of the article. Not to wiki users who are familiar with comic books and not to the average user who may be using this resource to learn about the character(s) for the first time.
I care less about the image of Ultimate Eddie Brock being on this page. However, I placed it there to show the character is 16-17 year old kid as opposed to a full grown adult, and that's more of an artistic difference then the haircut. The split screen picture I put together showing the Ultimate Venom (which is in fact visually identical to the mainstream one) was only a compromise since you undid the picture of Ultimate Brock by himself.
Danleary25 (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Also in regards to the hatnote debate there are still almost 200 articles that link here from the old article Venom (Eddie Brock), many if not most of them referring to the symbiote and not the character of Brock. You stated it is unlikely that a person would search "Eddie Brock" when researching Venom. I can agree with that point. However with so many links referring to the symbiote in Wikipedia still referring back here, and this editorial confusion about the difference between Eddie Brock and Venom I believe a clear link to the Venom page is still needed, whether it is a hatnote or clearer explanation in the open summary then the one that already exists. I have begun fixing many of the old redirects that link from Venom (Eddie Brock) but I probably won't be able to finish them tonight. Danleary25 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dan... right now I'm tired and not in the best of moods, so I'm going to try an keep this short to stay civil:
  • The average person not familiar with the comics is going to associate Brock with venom from the other media adaptation, whether you like that or not.
  • The name change was made as per the Comics project MoS since Marvel gave Eddie a new alias - Anti-Venom. Without that this article should have remained Venom (Eddie Brock) since that is how the character was notable.
  • As pointed out on you talk page re the [[Venom (Eddie Brock)]] redirects: Read the text containing the links. At this point you are redirecting points relating only to this character away from this article. If this is you intentional, then it is valid to warn you not to deliberately add misinformation/errors into articles. If it isn't, please go re-evaluate what you've already changed.
- J Greb (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I did in fact, read the context of each paragraph and article for each edit I made to pages that link to (Venom) Eddie Brock. If a link was [[Venom (Eddie Brock)|Eddie Brock]], I linked to Brock. If the sentence was specifically directed to the symbiote I linked to Venom (comics). If there was no specific reference made in the sentence toward Brock or the symbiote and Venom was referenced only as Venom I linked to Venom (comics). If you disagree with my decisions in relinking you can feel free to change them, but as I said I did read each page I changed.
On your continued point, I know that the average user would associate Brock with Venom, but I do not agree the average user would not picture Eddie Brock as human. In fact, unfamiliar users would not be able to differentiate between what is Eddie Brock as Venom and what is any other character as Venom. A picture of him half out of the suit is both a recognizable representation of the character and true to the title of the article.
It may be true that Eddie Brock is now Anti-Venom, but I have not been concerned with that as I am the fact that there are three or four other Venom's, each with an appaerance nearly identical to each other to unfamiliar users. This picture does not serve to distinguish the character of Eddie Brock from any other character that is now or has been know as Venom. Danleary25 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the pages you reverted my edits for the redirect issue. As I said I did read through the context of every edit I made. For instance, the page for Superhero discusses the idea of super-heroes that are not alturic such as Venom. I purposefully linked to Venom (comics) because this is true of Brock, Mac Gargan and the symbiote itself. Danleary25 (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
OK my quick thoughts:
  • Infobox image - this works for me: File:EddieBrockVenom.jpg. Is there any chance of flipping it so he is looking "into" the page?
  • I'd say no to the hatnote as it is used in the lead. This is a broader issue and I'll probably through this over for discussion at WP:NAMB.
Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
I'd say no to flipping the image - if that's how it was published, that the way it should stay. - J Greb (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, J Greb, I know you're not in the best of moods, but people do readily crop, flip, tweak and modify images here on wikipedia quite often for them to work in articles. In fact you're pretty much the only person I've ever seen gripe about it and oppose it, which is kinda strange in the above case since MoS tends to reflect what Emperor said as something that should be done if feasible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I still have the image and could easily flip it. Danleary25 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
OK I checked MOS:IMAGES and it is a no to flipping "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. ... However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences." So I'm fine with it as it is. (Emperor (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
So there seems to be a consensus to go with this picture? Is there not? I'd also like to mention that the picture we're discussing, [6], while not flipped was cropped. I have just uploaded the full length of the artwork here: [7]. Would this one work better? Personally I thought it was better to just have the bust of the character but what is anyone else's thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleary25 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that - the guidelines do say go for a full body shot so that may be the best one to go for, although I am unsure what it is adding as all it shows are that his legs are pure black, but then again if we didn't have that it could be anything (fluffy bunny slippers?) so perhaps it is important to show his legs to show there isn't anything much important going on in the foot department (if that makes sense). (Emperor (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
And I suppose that it does show his body is fully covered in the Venom suit/symbiote. So that makes sense. Alright then I am going to change the picture to the full length one, since it seems the majority of people agree to picture with the exposed face and the guidelines say it should be the full length one. Danleary25 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to throw in my thoughts, the image Emperor suggests works for me, flipped or not flipped, depending on what guidance states. The hatnote isn't needed and is against guidance, so needs to be removed. I've taken the liberty of doing so. Hiding T 11:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eddie_Brock/Archive_1&oldid=1144722792"