Talk:Iron Man's armor/Archive 1

Archive 1

June 2006

Yes, I know this needs cleanup -- I did just start the thing, I know it needs a lot of work. Dr Archeville 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I usually frown on articles like this, but this is a special case since Iron Man's powers and appearances have changed (sometimes radically) with each new armor. Plus, it's a nice way of tracking down certain Iron Man story arcs without leaving the encyclopedic format. Good work so far.

Wilfredo Martinez 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, such was my entire reasoning for starting this article. Still needs a good deal, though, but so do a lot of articles. Dr Archeville 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with making the one with the kilt equal to the original. The technology was a leap ahead: the original was just a solid armor, while the kilted one was like a finely-woven chain mail, polarized by an electromagnetic field. - Salkafar, 1-1-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.216.203 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

pics

It's just begging for some. CovenantD 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Got any idea where we can find some useable images for it? Dr Archeville 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You can easily find them with Google Advanced Image Search. Comic book covers that feature Iron Man in each of them would be the best fair-use ones. Failing that, comic book panel images can be used (but should be clearly identified by issue, pge and panel.) I suggest we stick only to those that REALLY need to be shown, however- the Gold Armor is the same as the Grey armor, other than color, for example. Wilfredo Martinez 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

no the gold also added the kilt. all armors worthy of paragraphs need a freaking pic!76.226.125.152 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey all, I am not a registered user, or whatever, so I can't edit the actual page since it is semi-protected, but Marvel has some great photo's of all of the movie armor's available here: http://marvel.com/news/story/19057/sdcc_2012_iron_mans_hall_of_armor_takes_the_marvel_booth might be good to upload those images for each of the descriptions of the movie armors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregs135 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Greg, and thanks for pointing us to that great page! Copyright issues prevent Wikipedia from using too copyright-protected images in one article, esp at a high-res, but that page can be used as a source to identify the models! Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this article's title be some variation of "List of..."? --InShaneee 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not all that list-y. List articles are a lot more listy. --Chris Griswold 00:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it should be "Iron Man's armor" or "Iron Man's armors". He's got more than one suit (dozens, as recentty shown in a fight against Graviton); he's not constantly modifiying the same suit, he's building new ones. Dr Archeville 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of "Iron Man's armors" for the above reason - in fact, that's where I moved it to originally but someone moved it one step further. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But armor is a mass noun so the 's' just looks weird. You can't have 'an armor', really, can you? Morwen - (Talk) 17:52, 6 July 2006

Is it a mass noun? One suit of armor, two suits of armor... hunh, I suppose it is. Dr Archeville 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ablative = Ultimate

Is it just me or is that his new ablative armor looks heavily inspired by his Ultimate version? I would have thought that even though the Ultimates is incredibly popular they wouldn't bother trying to change him towards the very popular modern version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.10.124  (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.216.203 (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hollows of his bones…

... Tony Stark has hollow bones? Like Warren Worthington III? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.10.124  (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Human bones are hollow, however they generally carry bone marrow on their interior. -- Cybertronian 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Human bones are NOT hollow. The insides are designed for blood producton, mineral storage, fat storage - bone marrow. It's like saying the skull is hollow.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Stark used the extremis package to "redesign" himself to have hollow bones to store his armour. And human bones are hollow to allow bone marrow to more and flow throughout them.

-R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.232.124 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stark Armor (merge)

I say merge just due to the shortness of that article. Also is this the same armor that is used by Spider Man during Civil War? If it is then it should be merged with Spider-man's costume article.Phoenix741 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a section for armors built for others: Spidey's suit, the Guardsman, Cap's exoskeleton etc.Kokushishin 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be ok with thatPhoenix741 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote for deletion; the article Spider-Man's powers and equipment already has a quite thorough section on the so-called "Stark Armor" here. -- Pennyforth 18:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So it is the same armor. Ok i am going to be radical and delete it. Phoenix741 01:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see you've noticed, Phoenix, only admins can delete an article. I've marked it for deletion to bring it to the admins' attention, noting the reason as "duplicates information from Spider-Man's powers and equipment. -- Pennyforth 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea.... I feel like an idiot, TYPhoenix741 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Stark Armor article has apparently been deleted, and searches and links now redirect to the pertinent section in Spider-Man's powers and equipment. - Pennyforth 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessed Importance

Article's subject is of Low importance for being trivial. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NTU-150 Telepresence Armor (or "post War Machine" armor)

I believe that the first apperance of this armor is Iron Man vol. 1 #290, complete with its own holofoil cover. (Also of note in this issue is Tony Stark's return from the "dead" -- and James "War Machine" Rhodes's response to the news.) -- Cybertronian 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

I didn't know if I should post this on the article or here, but there is one common error that has crept up in the last couple of years, changing Models to Marks. Models as documented in the Iron Manual, 1993, was for entirely different armors and marks were the variations within that Model. I have this documented on my website http://ironmanarmor.com under weapons section click each armor for a detailled showing of each armor from the comics. Here is a compiled list I did for Comicboards/Ironman board and Marvel's Iron Man board.

Thank you, Mitch T. (posts as Irn12)

The list:

TOS is Tales of Suspense, IM is Iron Man.

Model I, Mark I, TOS #39, Original Grey Armor, transistors and magnets powered the armor. Jumps

Model I, Mark II, TOS #40, Grey Armor with Kilt, powered skates 60mph, able to jam electronic devices.

Model I, Mark III, TOS #40, Gold Armor, also seen in Avengers #1-2, Holographic Projection, able to push 10 tons, Telescoping sledge hammer. Flying short distances.

Model II, Mark I, TOS #48-52, Proto-Classic Armor with flex metal, lighter weight.

Model II, Mark II, TOS #53, also seen in Avengers #3, fly at 30,000ft Hand Repulsors, powerful magetic repulsion, not built into the armor, could be removed.

Model II, Mark III, TOS #54-55, Rivet Armor and in Avengers #6

Model III, Mark I, TOS #56-65, Pre-Classic Armor

Model IV, Mark I, TOS #66-IM #200 Classic Armor IM #191 another Grey Armor was built aka the Rehab Armor

Space Armors Model V, Mark I, IM #142 Space armor, 1st to reach escape velocity on its own. Mark II, IM #278 2nd Space armor used in the Kree/Skrull War, Mark III, Bad Blood #4, 3rd Space armor, Silver and Red, during the Vol. #3 Iron Man series. Mark IV, Vol. #3 IM #71 aka Ablative Armor. Mark V, Vol #3 IM #83, Heavy Gravitational Armor.

Stealth Armors Model VI, Mark I, IM #152 the 1st Stealth Armor. Mark II, IM #229 2nd Stealth Armor. Mark III, Blank Panter #44, during Vol. #3 of IM.

Hydro Armor Model VII, Mark I, IM #218, the Hydro Armor for deep sea, underwater repulsors and unibeam, escape suit, Ink Smoke Screen, Sonar, Electric Shocks.

Special Note: Gaurdsman armor created by Stark, seen in IM #43 and Mandroid armor seen during the Silver Centurion Armor was also developed by Stark.

Model VIII, Mark I, The Silver Centurion Armor IM #200.

Model IX, Mark I, The Neo Classic Armor (New Red and Gold armor) IM #231. Later Mark II and III added a different chest plate and larger boot jets.

Model X, Mark II, The NTU armor IM #290, but was developed and a form used earlier

Model XI, Mark I, War Machine, IM #281, no chest beam, Mark II with chest beam given to James Rhodes to use as War Machine.

Model XII, Mark I, IM #300 my all time favorite armor, the Modular Armor. Tony rescues the Iron Legion from Ultimo! Mark II, IM #304, the Hulk Buster Armor rated at 175 tons, fights the Hulk in #305.

Classified Note: Tony wears the Crimson Dynamo armor Model VI to defeat the Titanium Man in IM #317.

Model XIII, Mark I, The Gauntlet Armor or Crossing Armor IM #323.

Model XIV XV, XVI Goes through the Arctic Armor, the Retro Armor and the Teen Tony armors.

Model XVII, Mark I, The Prometheus Armor or Stove Pipe Armor, IM Vol 2. #1 Model XVIII, Mark I, Iron Man Vol. 3, #1 Chen Armor

Model XIX, Mark I, The Safe Armor Prototype, Fantastic Four Vol 3. #15 and IM vol. 3 #14. Mark II, #15, vol 3, IM, the Safe Armor, also seen in Contest of Champions II.

Back to the classic armor in vol 3, #33-41.

Model XX, Mark I, The Skin Armor or Udder Armor IM vol 3. #42 prototype (in progress) Mark II, finished #44, IM vol. 3. Mark III, refined IM #50, vol. 3.

Special Note: Revealed Stark created a prototype exoskeleton type armor for the military in vol. 3 #50.

Model XXI, Mark I, IM vol 3. #51, Tin Man Armor with cords on legs Mark II, IM Vol 3. #62, smooth legs.

Model XXII, Mark I, Thor Buster Armor, IM vol. 3. #64

Model XXIII, Mark I, IM vol 3. #73, Sometimes referred to as the Department of Defense armor. Mark II, been refining since created, see cover IM #80, vol. 3.

68.103.179.125 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WinstonIronman.jpg

Image:WinstonIronman.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 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WWHULK25.JPG

Image:WWHULK25.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 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hulkbuster.gif

Image:Hulkbuster.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 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) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tales of Suspense42.jpg

Image:Tales of Suspense42.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) 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IronManvol1152.jpg

Image:IronManvol1152.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) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In Universe

This article is almost entirely In Universe content with no real world content to balance. as such, we should discuss revision or a merge back to the man character article. Such holistic listing is a trivia case, not encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this annoys me too and I am attempting to remedy it. Behold Arc Reactor, which is most definitely not written in an in-universe style.

Beerslurpy (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From the movie, we can see that the arc reactor obviously has these few characteristics:

1) It uses palladium as a core ingredient

2) The large version obviously has plasma arcing and circulating within it

3) Stark assembled it in a cave with items scavenged from missiles, which would include warhead components

Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the arc reactor is a plasma-based power source, and quite likely uses the process of nuclear fusion (which is one of the things that palladium can help achieve). Yes, the earlier articles weren't in-universe but there were some interesting inputs on how a hypothetical "arc reactor" works. Perhaps this should be spun-off into another article, "Iron Man's Power Sources" since we have normal batteries, beta-ray generators, solar collectors, heat inductive field generators, etc. rpf2019 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2008 (GMT+8)

Hypervelocity

I believe the armor wasnt built for the supercavitation thing, but Tony 2.0 opened the armor letting out air. Did i get this wrong when reading? Psilorder (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It *was* built for supercavitation, with a purpose-built supercavitation spike built into the back of the armor. rpf2019 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (GMT+8)

RE:Arc Reactor

I don't have the time to completely rewrite the section on the arc reactor but the way it equates GigaJoules with GigaWatts is in error the 3 GJ rating given to the arc reactor refers to storage capacity not Maximum Power Output as described by the section currently. A reactor with a 3GJ capacity could provide 0.03 Watts for 3750years (50 lifespans) or just over 50kW (67 horsepower) for 15 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.22.164 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the recent movie the arc reactor (big one) runs on:

Palladium Gas

Something Hexafluoride

-Sincerely,

Some idiot

---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.110.141 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some jackass messed with the Film Version description and put in a bunch of childish attempts at offensiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.131.115 (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Animated series

Is the Animated series section actually meant to be Animated series'? note the plural. Also see File:Iron_man-armored_adventures.jpg for his armor in the new animated series: Iron Man: Armored Adventures. Also, he has heaps of armors in Ultimate Avengers 2 in the background(41ish minutes in), to which he states are previous versions Armour. To which he also wears the war machine armor.... despite Rhodes not appearing in the film, nor the film its a sequel of. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Silver Centurion

The sentence "Sensors consisted of a full band audiovisual transceiver2 simultaneous images of the armor." makes no sense. I'd fix it except that I have no idea what it's supposed to say. --Kitsunegami (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

This article does a fairly good job considering the difficulty of explaining without using any pictures. Putting aside the difficulty of figuring out what classifies as fair use it would be great if the article instead included links to external images. It seems like the Template:External media is designed for exactly that kind of use and images previously included could be added again except linked indirectly instead of included right on the page. I reckon this would be a significant improvement for readers. If any editors are interested in working on it that would be great and I hope this suggestion will encourage them but it isn't something I'll have time to do myself. -- Horkana (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Found a twelve page article at IGN all about the Iron Man Armor which covers most of the armor. -- Horkana (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Classic Red and Gold: Should have an illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.130.103 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Repulsor redirect

Maybe the redirect shoul be changed to a disambiguation page, because repulos (or repulsorlift) is also the Star Wars term for a Anti-gravity technology: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Repulsorlift --MrBurns (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Steam Armor

In Marvel Adventures, he used steam-powered armour to defeat Jolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.42.201 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Article length

Its ridiculous how long this article is. And most of the writing isn't needed. YukiBell (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What specific parts do you think can be edited out? Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Extremis wrong

Not a "techno-organic virus", but nanotech, a variant of what his foe used. Also section contradicts itself later on. --91.10.10.89 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Film Mark VII Armor

It says that it wasn't designed for deep space travel as evidenced by the fact that the repulsors stalled in space. I was under the impression that the repulsors stopped because he ran out of power, something that was mentioned before he went after the nuclear missile, and that all of his suits from the Mark III onward, minus the Mark V suitcase suit, were designed to fly in space. It is never made clear if the armor failed as a result of being incappable of space flight or as a result of the battle. As of Mark III the armor is designed not to freeze up at high altitude as the Mark II did by switching to a gold-titanium alloy used in satellites. However JARVIS also notes modifications need to be made to the suits "exo-systems" for space travel. It is never indicated if these changes are made. However, due to the ability of Mark VI to operate underwater and considering Mark VII's increased flight capabalilites its is possible that it was capable of space travel. In addition to the noted lack of power of the suit at the end of the battle, it had also sustained significant damage. Additionally, nuclear detonations give off an electromagnetic pulse which could shut down the armor's systems, all of these factors may have contributed to the failure of Stark's armor while in space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregs135 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Splitting Film Armor

I was wondering if others thought it might be beneficial to split the live action film armors into its own section, possibly to List of live action Iron Man armor. With Iron Man 3 approaching, and Marvel and Disney revealing the multiple armors Stark has been working on, as evident by the recent trailer and poster, I feel this section will get quite lengthy fast. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure an exhaustive list of every armor from the film is really appropriate for Wikipedia. This page already needs to probably be rewritten from scratch, it's more of a fan page than anything else at this point. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to make an comment here, that I have moved the content to Iron Man's armor (film), with a much better layout, in my opinion, or at least one that could be worked on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather major change to make in a rather short amount of time; wouldn't it have been better to make it clear you were planning on making the change, and leave time for discussion here before going ahead? Aawood (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"God-Killer"/Space Knight/Space Armor MK III

Worn during the 'God Killer' arc, it has nothing to do WITH destroying the Phoenix, or with killing any god at all; this could cause Thor-related confusion (especially since Thor has an arc of that name going on at the same time). I propose it is renamed the 'Space Knight' armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.101.32 (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I altered the entry to 'Space Knight' armor, but I see it was rolled back. I would like to know why. At no point is the armor ever referred to as the 'God-killer armor', whereas it is called a 'space knight' (because it resembles the Space Knights of Galador), and there actually is a gigantic Godkiller armor in the story arc of the same name. The designation is therefore confusing, inappropriate and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.78.104 (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw some uncited material in your edits, and reverted them for lack of citations; I must've missed the Space Knight part, or maybe it was unclear that that name was derived from the comic.

Two questions: 1. Can you tell us which issue the armor armor was confused for a Galadorian Space Knight armor? 2. Can you tell us which character got confused?

Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just read issues 5 & 6. It should not be called the "Godkiller" armor, because it did not first appear in that story, it first appeared in the final issue of the "Believe" storyline. Nor should it be called the "Space Knight" armor, since a minor one-off character referring to him as such (possibly ironically, since it's unclear whether she actually thought he was a Galadorian Space Knight, or just addressed him as such as a metaphor or simile), hardly makes that a binding designation. Since there were already two space armors designated Space Armor MK I and Space Armor MK II, it's only logical, I think, to refer to this one as Space Armor MK III, at least unless and until Marvel establishes a different designation for it. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Black and Gold armor

The entire section is wrong, claiming the black and gold armor (which consists of solid parts, assembled into an armor) is the same as the 'putty armor'; this was stated outright by Gillen not to be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.101.32 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Iron Man's armor (film) should be merged back here, as the real world aspects of this topic, is not suitable for its own article. Most of the article is just plot information from the films retold from an in-universe perspective, without much analysis from reliable third-party sources. I suggest removing the plot information and merging the relevant content back here. I know this article is pretty lengthy but likewise it should be cleaned-up. Once both articles are thoroughly trimmed, they should be able to co-exist in the same space quite nicely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose The only problem I have with this, and I guess it's still a similar problem if the page is split, is how can all this information (and all of the comic armors) be conveyed, without it just being a list, with the info from the comic or film plots? In addition, with Iron Man 3 introducing approximately thirty new armors, the film section will be quite lengthy, if each one is listed and mentioned. So I don't see how this can be achieved accurately without a separate article. (Hence the split) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is we don't need all this information. The vast majority of both articles is just information taken straight from the plot. Very little has to do with production, design, reception, etc. Once merged and trimmed, we should have one concise relevant article. Also I highly doubt all thirty armors will be analyzed equally by reliable third-party sources. Coverage of each armor in the article should reflect the coverage of each armor in the media as not provide undue weight to any one of the armors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you possibly include an example of how you want the outcome to look? I think that I'm just having a problem taking what is currently there, and reworking it to the way you are suggesting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The production section is really the only part worth keeping. The rest is essentially WP:PLOTONLY / WP:OR. Perhaps a table format might better suit the actual list of suits due to lack of information. But there are multiple possibilities, and shouldn't be a deterrent from cleaning up the article and merging.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Merge per TT's rationale above. Nightscream (talk) 13:13, April 1, 2013
• Merge as once the in-universe content is trimmed the pages should be able to coexist pretty reasonably. This page is itself in desperate need of a rewrite, it's so unreasonably long and it seems to be 100% in-universe, with nothing about how the actual writers and artists developed the armor over the years. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge It seems the split was undertaken without discussion so should rightfully be reverted as per BRD if editors who work on the article object to the split. I agree with Triiiple that a good copy-edit is all that is needed. If the split is to remain in force then the copyright attribution needs to be fixed as per Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Without taking a wider stance on whether having a seperate page is a good idea in theory, in practice I think much more time should've been taken for discussion before it was seperated in the first place. As such I support the merge at this point, while encouraging Favre1fan93 to continue to discuss the best path for improving the article with us, whether that be a seperation in an agreed form or something else. Aawood (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Make a decision after the third movies release, as stated potentially a lot of new content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.90.106 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New content from the film itself? The overabundance of plot information is the problem with the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge: If I were someone who didn't know comics but saw a movie or heard something about Iron Man or my kid asked me about Iron Man's armor, it would be a whole lot easier to have one single article about Iron Man's armor -- in the comics, in movies, in videogames, whatever. From that perspective, it makes sense to have all that in one place. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: After seeing TriiipleThreat's comment to my question above, I'm leaning to agreeing with a merge. However, I created something that I'd like opinions on to see if it's along the lines of what is wanted out of the merge. It can be viewed in my sandbox. It has the production info from the film page now, as well as the pictures (which will have to be cleaned up, but at the moment I just copied it straight over for the sake of seeing what the section would look like), and as Triiiple suggested, a list of the armors. I would like opinions on the notes I created in the table. Whatever is in italics, I was not sure if it would fall under the in-universe perspective. The info is all sourced, so I thought that it might be okay, but was not totally sure. Whatever is bolded is info I thought was relevant for the specific armor, but I could not find sources for it. Whatever is just normal text, I thought was acceptable. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, please know that this is a rough outline, and probably still needs some touching up. Also I forgot to say that I feel the Arc reactor section on the page would be good to bring back in the merge, if done, but that is all unsourced and I can't seem to find anything that talks about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks much better, now if this article was similarly condensed, it could all fit on the same page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any other objections? It seems most consensus is with a merge (I am in agreement as well), and if there was nothing further, I will go ahead and move the material from my sandbox onto the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Its been over four weeks, so I went ahead and merged the articles and started the clean-up here. The "alternate realities" and "television" sections still need to be cleaned up, If anybody wants to help.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hold on. You blanked out loads of sourced content. What happened to that? All the armors from the Bleeding Edge to the Black and Gold Armor were completely cited, as was Pepper's Rescue Armor. I don't recall the removal of all of this information to have been discussed above, and I see no justification for it. Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a bold edit, feel free to revert it. But all the information was taken from the comic's plot and sourced to primary sources. We need third-party sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there is still room to add real world information to the notes section. But I am completely open to other suggestions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to find that type of info in third party sources, precisely because no one outside of Marvel itself has the authority to establish facts about the armors. Nightscream (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not establish facts but they can provide contextual coverage or analysis of the armors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we need something to establish facts, using primary sources is just fine for that. Everytime you write the synopsis of a book, movie or TV episode in an article about a book, movie or TV episode, you do not require an inline citation of a secondary source, because those works function at their own primary sources for their content, per WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, etc. I mean, your table provided the first appearance of each armor in the comics, didn't it? Those are facts sourced to the primary source.

Also, lost of the material in those tables you created is not sourced at all. In fact, there is not a single citation for any of the material in the "Notes" column of the table you created for the comics armors. And we know that the comic issues cited in the First Appearance column is not necessarily the issue from which the Notes info is derived. For example, Pepper's Rescue armor appeared in vol 1 #10, but that's not the issue when it was called that. That was in issue #14. It makes little sense to me to complain about primary sources, when citing the primaries is far better than removing them entirely, so that there are no sources at all.

I want you to know that I really like the idea of a table, but it should retain the sourced material. I also like that it contains the creative teams too. I would suggest a compromise where the table is restored, but retains the sourced information. The material that is unsourced can be left out. I let the Other media table alone. I also removed the Iron Patriot photo, and moved the feature film Mark III photo up, in order to remove that huge, inappropriate space that was created by their prior placement. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I tried something, the article has been marked for clean-up since at least 2009 and the biggest part of the problem in my opinion is the sheer amount of plot information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

10.2.3 Other Armors

I think it would be appropriate to list Whiplash and Whiplash Mark II (Iron Man 2) under Other Armors. I propose that under Whiplash Mark I it says "Created by Anton Vanko, this suit was initially very rudimentary containing only an arc reactor on the chest and two energy whips," and under Whiplash Mark II "An improvement on the original design, this suit contain full armor, a propulsion system, and additional weaponry, as well as a self-destruct system". This of course is terribly written and not sourced at all, someone would have to talk a lot of time to do it properly, but i think the Whiplash suit is significant enough to be listed. Just a suggestion (which is why i'm putting it under talk and not trying to mess up the page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.147.205 (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While the Whiplash suits did utilized the arc reactor technology, I don't think they would fit on this page or in this category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

Suggesting an addendum to the Mark XLII: the armor's internal circuitry seems to have some sort of waterproofing protection, as demonstrated when one of the gauntlets disengages from the rest of the suit to rescue a trapped Tony Stark underwater. Also, Stark was shown operating the armor despite significant water flooding inside the suit's helmet. 103.11.112.67 (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man 3 iPhone app

Just bringing this up: the Iron Man 3 iPhone app does have some info on the 42 film armors, but easter egg-based code scans from the IM3 Blu-ray are required. This implies the app may not be usable as a source even with the statement "Iron Man 3 Jarvis iPhone app, Iron Man 3 Blu-ray easter eggs required". Please clarify. --Addict 2006 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We would have to use a third party source reporting on the info in the app to use it. So if any exists, feel free to add the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree all the armors of ironman an enemies should be put on the list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BLACKMYSTECHRANGER (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Why has the agreed-upon merge of Iron Man's armor in other media not taken place yet? It’s been over a month and no action has been taken. Dylanvt (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Because of laziness and hesitance. Enjoyer of World^💬 13:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)