Talk:Enchantress (Marvel Comics)

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance

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

Fictional characters

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

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Iðunn

Thor: Ages of Thunder claims the Enchantress was Iðunn. I had added this with the reference. Why was it removed? As regardless, the current mini shows the Asgardians before Thor came to Midgard and isn't mentioned at all in the article. Regardless of whether she is Iounn or a composite, the fact that she had the role of picking the golden apples should be mentioned. Additionally, Enchantress has been shown in the new current Thor series. If I add this info will it also be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this issue. The Encantress mentioned in the comic is refered to as Iðunn but makes no reference on wether this is actually Amora, whom this article is about or Idunn (comics), an already established character who fullfills the same role. However the Enchantress in question does resemble Amora. I'll leave this info for now. Hopefully someone else can better explain. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idunn and Amora are two very different characters. One is a minor secondary character that appears from time to time, the other is a serial troublemaker. Asgardian (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought, removing reference to Idunn. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe simply removing the reference is unwarranted. If they were not referring to Amora in this issue, then that means that four separate Goddess'; Freyja, Iduna, Mardol, & Gefn all have shared the name Enchantress. All of these are alternative names for the Goddess' Freya and Idun. It is more likely that Matt Fraction simply retoconned Amora's history and payed little attention to the fact that there were already established characters in the Marvel Universe named Idun and Freya. Also the character in this issue, as well as, Thor: Reign of Blood, looks too much like Amora for it to be a mere coincidence. A separate section on the subject of her role in Asgard that mentions the reference could at least be made, rather than completely disregarding it all together. - Minity (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Thor: Ages of Thunder and Thor: Rein of Blood are either limited series or one-shots, whould this information be better pressented in the Other Versions section? I am of the opinion that it is out of place in the header. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we just put the information under her powers in a new section, entitled something like "Role in Asgard" or something along those lines. This way we can also expand on the information presented in the one-shots. Also, if the Thor in these stories is considered to be the same and current Thor, then it makes sense that this would be the current Enchantress as well, and that information would not belong in the "Other Versions" section. If we take it out of the header, I feel the sentence saying she is not a Goddess from Norse mythology should also be moved to the new section as well. -Minity (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Enchantress's identity is not a power or ability so this information would not be notable in that section. The focus of article is on Amora and it is presently unknown if the Enchantress in question is in fact her, so Other Versions might be suitable place for this information. Also one shots typically have little bearing on character development in the main series so putting it there would have the least impact on the rest of the article. As far as Thor (Marvel Comics) is concerned there is only minimal reference to one shots and limited series outside of its Other Versions section. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying to put it with the power section, I was suggesting to make a new section and keep it away from the main article. I dont think the information belongs in the "Other Versions", whether or not the information came from a One-Shot because, as of right now, it does not seem like it is another version of Amora. Also, all of the information in the "other versions" section of Thor (Marvel Comics), involves other versions of Thor, or at least a version of Thor in a different timeline, regardless of whether or not they appear in a One-shot. I dont believe that this is a different Enchantress, and I agree that the information does not need to be in the header, but unless it is confirmed that it is a different version of the Enchantress, I dont believe it belongs in the "Other Versions" section either, especially when other characters have information about them, such as Rogue (comics) name, which is in a section by itself under her powers section. Minity (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, there was an interview in one of the "comic" magazines at the time of the mini that asked if it dealt with an alternate reality version of the Thor cast and Fraction said no, it's simply the cast pre their entry into the Marvel U or something along those lines. I'll see if I can find an online link or scan of the interview. However, the last of the Fraction Thor minis released at that time, Thor: God Size, very clearly takes place in current continuity, so that is saying something.

Second, this is the exact quote from Thor: Ages of Thunder:

"The branches of Yggdrasil grew fat and heavy with golden apples. Life in Asgard was as it had been before the siege. And She who was tasked with gathering the golden apples of the world tree continued her task. She who has had many names throughout time, throughout every era of Ragnarok... Freyja... Iduna... Mardoll... Gefn... Enchantress" - (note the name Enchantress is bolded in the comics, I didn't add that) - "Only she, in all her godessness, in all her feminine perfectness... could convinvce the tree to give of its most miraculous fruit."

The fact that the comic itself bolds the name Enchantress (and the only refers to the character as Enchantress from that point on) and the character is drawn identical to Amora, it's pretty clear that it's supposed to be the same person.

What I think it is? A ret-con. It's the same thing as the character Phobos (another minor divine character rarely mentioned). In the Aries mini-series it clearly stated that Phobos and Alexander where two different characters, and in fact Phobos the god appeared as a villain in the comics way back when. Yet, Bendis ret-conned the old Phobos out of existence and said that Alex is/was Phobos for his Secret Warriors series. Regardless, the information should not be taken out of the article, it has a proper citation.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all the talk about ignoring the one-shot and one-shots having very little mention in the article... You seem to have no problem citing Thor: God Size at the end of the "Fictional character biography" section. Seeing as Thor: God Size is one of and in the same line of Fraction written Thor one-shots released as Thor: Ages of Thunder, I don't see how it's justified to ignore one then cite another.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way this information is currently worded is fine per wp:npov as it references both Iðunn and Freyja while distingishing it from Freya, the character and Idunn (comics). The issue now is where this info will be best presented, leave it in the header, move it to another section or put it in its own section. Regarding one shots and limited series, not all should be handled equally. Some are single events that have little or no bearing outside of themselves while others clearly are made to tie back into larger universe. As Amora has had little pressence in the main series since Thor: Ages of Thunder was released its unclear on how these events have effect the larger universe. I cannot comment on Thor: God Sized as I have yet to read it. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the information into its own section, I also believe that since we are being so picky about the information, we need to be specific in terms of what was actually said in the comic, so i kept the reference to Iðunn, but made it so it says Iduna, which is what the information in the comic actually said. I also don't believe we need to even mention Freya in the section, only Idunn, as she has been confirmed to have cared for the Golden Apples in the past. It is currently unknown whether or not Freya has done the same things in the MU that are now being connected with Amora. And no, not all things should be handled equally, but since we are obviously have difficulty coming to terms with where the information should go, then we should follow the example set forth by others. Minity (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current decision and believe it was handled well. As for theories as to why it was done in the comics, if it was ret-con or not... It could have actually been very deliberate by Fraction. For example, of the four goddesses mention by name "Freyja... Iduna... Mardoll... Gefn...": Freyja herself in the Norse poem "Gylfaginning" is explicitly stated to have taken many names while searching for her missing husband, Od. In fact both Mardoll and Gefn are names attributed to Freyja in later sources. However, Gefn also originally referred to the separate goddess Gefjon who was later often attributed simply as an aspect of Freyja by scholars due to their similarities. Fraction could have been commenting on this and attempting to create a similar situation in the Marvel U. Regardless, Freyja, Iðunn, and Gefjon were all centers of fertility rites and cults in Norse mythology, so Fraction was probably setting up the Enchantress to represent the prototypical fertility goddess (which in of itself might deserve a mention in the section but I don't know how to add it without it being original research - though one could certainly mention that Freyja Iduna and Gefjon were fertility based goddess as they're sources for that).24.190.34.219 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but didn't want to mention it because I'm pretty sure it would be considered original research too. Other than that, everything looks good to me. Minity (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EnchantScarletvision9.GIF

Image:EnchantScarletvision9.GIF 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 ensure 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) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Enchantress (Marvel Comics) art by Alan Davis.jpg

Image:Enchantress (Marvel Comics) art by Alan Davis.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 ensure 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) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie

Alright, there has got to be something different we can do with Sylvie's information, because the page is getting edited too much, and it seems that everyone who is editing is dissatisfied with the way the information is presented. I think that, either Sylvie should get her own page, or she should at least be completely separated from Amora's sections of the article, at least being placed under the Norse mythology section, since nothing before that is about her and should not be connected with her. I say this because I really dont want to start seeing Amora and Sylvie sections throughout the article, they should remain completely separate. Minity (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree something needs to be done. This article clearly belongs to Amora. I'd support a seperate article for Sylvie or at the very least move this her information back to the Other Versions section and make it clear in the header that is article is about Amora.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to reflect this sentiment, hopefully this is acceptable until seperate article for Sylvie is created.TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me until Sylvie gets her own page, this is speculation, but if she remains in the MU, I doubt she will continue using the Enchantress name for long anyway.Minity (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of relationship with Thor

I think there's something that deserves a mention, but I can't remember which issues it was in or exactly where it appears in the Thor chronology: When Thor is king of Asgard, he becomes more interested in Amora romantically. Heimdall mentions that most Asgardians think that this is because of Amora using her wiles and magic to make Thor reject Sif but that it is really because of Thor's new role as king, which caused him to deliberately pull away from Sif and Balder. Amora, being both powerful and unpredictable, was closer to a true counterpart. Yes, I'm paraphrasing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be broken into separate articles/entries by character (Enchantress I, Enchantress II)

All comic character entries need to be done such, and arranged by real-world chronological/fictional-universe and -histories sections (not so applicable to Marvel as say, DC, but in the manner of Golden Age, Silver Age/Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.156.11 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enchantress (Marvel Comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007230125/http://disneyxdmedianet.com/DNR/2010/doc/AV_Series_Overview.pdf to http://disneyxdmedianet.com/DNR/2010/doc/AV_Series_Overview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Main Image

she needs a new main image, that one is of her as a child Cordelia Van Allen (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]