Talk:Iron Man's armor

Television deletion

I will be deleting the entire Television section in approximately one week unless sufficient reliable secondary sources are added to it. It has been waiting for a single reliable source for over 7 years. This entire section, as well as most of the article, is nothing more than a fandom. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Dylanvt (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Content removal

@Dylanvt: you have so far removed ≈77% the page, over a 100Mb of content. I can understand some content that simply doesn't belong, but much of the content you've removed as unsupported. Some of that content had links to other articles, but aside from that I have to ask; have you considered trying to find some sources, instead of just basically gutting the page? - wolf 04:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I carefully read through this entire article, and only deleted in-universe content. Wikipedia is not for summarizing fictional works, nor for describing in-depth the magical powers of a fictional item within a fictional universe. What this article can have is information from reliable secondary sources. That is, this article is not allowed to be a summary of the armor, but rather an encyclopedic entry about what reliable sources have said about the armor. Hence, I left everything that was written from the perspective of the real world, such as the following:

This armor possessed a "horned" faceplate reminiscent of the first red-and-gold armor, as writer Kurt Busiek said that he liked Iron Man's helmet from early Avengers issues, and a pentagonal chest beam.

On the other hand, content like the following does not belong in any Wikipedia article:

This armor eventually achieved sentience due to Stark downloading Jocasta into the armor, a strike from Whiplash's whip and the armor's lack of Y2K compliance. This corrupted the usual failsafes Stark had installed to prevent such an occurrence happening as Jocasta unintentionally infected the armor with the 'Ultron Imperative,'

This article should contain no original research, and no content written from within the perspective of Marvel comics and films. Anything that can be attributed to reliable secondary sources can be added, and if a primary source would be helpful to exemplify that, it can be included as well. The reason that I have removed 77% of the page is because 77% of the page (so far) has turned out to be in-universe summary rather than reliably sourced encyclopedic content. There have been hatnotes and dozens of inline notes warning of these problems for 1–12 years. Anyone who is willing to put in the work to actually improve this article is more than welcome to do so. What I cannot accept is reactionary takes like "oh no you can't get rid of this, people put so much work into it and it's so detailed and there are links everywhere!". I'm not accusing you, @Thewolfchild:, of being one of those reactionaries, but I have seen many takes like that in regard to this article in the past. The article has been in desperate need of rewriting for over a decade.

Finally, anyone who would like to contribute to a fan wiki is welcome to write in as much detail as they please at the Marvel wikia, where most of the content I deleted belongs. Dylanvt (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The wall-of-text above was a bit much, but regardless, I stand by my OP. That was a lot of content to delete, and not all of it was unsourced. Hopefully you don't hack-and-slash as much going forward, or tell people who raise concerns about your editing behavior to go and edit some fan site instead. Constructive criticism is part of the collaborative process. There is no need for any insulting or condescending responses. Have a nice day. - wolf 08:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing I said was insulting, and I'm simply following commonly established Wikipedia procedures.

First, the quantity of deleted content is completely irrelevant. If there are 100,000 bytes of original research, or uncited material, or fiction, or libel, or self-promotion, or travel advice, for example, I or anyone else would be welcome, and in fact encouraged, to delete it. Everything that I deleted, I will repeat, was written from within the perspective of the Marvel universe, and thus did not belong on Wikipedia.

Not being "unsourced" is also not, in and of itself, meaningful. The vast majority, if not all, of the sourced material that I deleted was sourced directly to a published comic; that is, to a primary source that was being used for original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, secondary sources are required to establish notability. The claim that "the mentally incapacitated Stark and the Mark 0 armor were easily defeated by Osborn, who engaged Stark while wearing the Iron Patriot armor", which I deleted, is a) original research, b) irrelevant to this article, being primarily plot summary, and c) not evidence that Iron Man's armor is notable.

Once again, this article can only exist to discuss what other people have said and written about Iron Man's armor, accompanied by a brief overview of the armor itself that can be sourced directly to the comics, etc. Everything that I deleted was in-universe and thus did not belong. Dylanvt (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oy, another tl;dr snarky reply full of... inaccurate comments. For example, primary sources can be used. You did not improve this article and I don't agree with you that all of that content must have, I repeat, absolutely must of been removed. But, I'm not going to get bogged down in a dispute with your battleground-style, giant-walls-of-argument that you keep posting, just so I can try and address this mass-deletionism spree. It's not worth it so, congrats... we're done here. - wolf 16:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to point to any concrete examples of content that I removed that should be allowed to stay. And I of course didn't say that primary sources can't be used. I said that they can't be used to support original research and in-universe content, as they were being used in this article. I'm sorry that my discussion was too long for you to read through and see that that's what I said. Any specific content I deleted whose inclusion can legitimately be justified using Wikipedia's actual policies can of course be added back to the page. Dylanvt (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen in the edit summary, I spent over 2.5 hours actually going through the entirety of sections 1, 2, and 3 checking for appropriate and inappropriate content, and removing all of the inappropriate content. You haven't provided any basis for disagreeing with my removal of this content beyond "it was a lot" and "there were links". I have provided plenty of basis for the removal. Dylanvt (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Partial clean-up

Okay, I've had a bit of a crack at finding a balance here. This isn't really my area, but there we go. It's still very, very primary-heavy; there are probably a ton of other sources out there but I've not the interest to snaffle them all up. The collapsible table seems a fair compromise for listing most of the armours (sorry if any u's have sneaked into the article, that was the hardest part); it's hovering on fancruft in places but hopefully it will draw the venom somewhat. Obviously it's still very ramshackle but only because I've not put any effort in beyond reorganisation; again, I can't believe it's all that hard to find interviews with artists and writers around the major redesigns to balance out the creation section. The hope is to direct energies to what needs pepping up for those interested. The fictional section also needs work and I don't really have the working knowledge to do so; however, it will need to be considerably focused on specific storylines regarding designing armours and the ilk rather than a list of what every single armour did in every single fight, otherwise it's just another Iron Man bio. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also not sure who needs to hear this but if you're writing a fictional section you don't write "In the Siege storyline" because that's not fictional. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)