Jump to content

Talk:Norman Osborn/Archive

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


Goblins

I added a small paragraph explaining their presence and a small paragraph for Harry and Hobby so someone doesn't have to click to read all about them while reading Norman's article.--Kozmik Pariah 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nanotech in the 1960s?

There is an anomaly. From the article intro: "The original Goblin was Norman Osborn, a corrupt industrialist who co-founded a major nanotechnology firm with Dr. Mendel Stromm". I'm not familiar with the comics, but my spidey senses are tingling because this appears to suggest that, when created in the 1960s, the creator of the character knew or described nanotechnology. Does Eric Drexler owe Stan Lee money? Is this some sort of retcon? Or (my suspicion) is the language incorrect? I'd like someone who knows the story to fix this, I don't want to step on something with my big fat assumptions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I was always under the impression Osborn Industries was primarily a chemical- (or chemical weapons-) manufacturing company. Dr Archeville 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan Film

Green Goblin's Last Stand was an early fan film by Dan Poole. It featured the Green Goblin, and in the trailer Bullseye and Mysterio.

Download it here http://files.filefront.com/Green+Goblins+Last+Stand/;944220;;/fileinfo.html

15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Enda80Enda80

Why is this important and why does it need to be listed in the External Links? --Chris Griswold 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[1][2][3]Its not some little thing that no one knows about it. It has a big reputation across the Spider-Man fanbase. Wizard magazine even mentioned it once.--CyberGhostface 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's important, please add it to the entry. Otherwise, on face value, it comes across as the same sort of plug that people try to slip into these entries everyday. --Chris Griswold 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who added it. If you want to remove it, go ahead. I was just offering my two cents.--CyberGhostface 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed it because it was added without comment, I have seen other such links removed regularly, and I had just had to follow a user around deleting the plugs to his store he was adding. If it's notable, great. I'm happy for it to be included. I, unfortunately, have never heard of it, and I'm currently on dial-up, so I'm not that much use to write about it right now. --Chris Griswold 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Urich does not write editorials

After all, he is not and has never been editor of the Daily Bugle or any other publication (AFAIK anyway). Yet the paragraph headed "The Return of Norman Osborn" implies otherwise. I would rather not make the correction, because I do not remember whether it would be more correct to refer to Ben's articles, JJJ editorials or both. Luis Dantas 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It may have been an opinions column; people tend to confuse the terms. --Chris Griswold 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but still, the possibility does exist that the article should refer to JJJ editorials. Someone who knows for sure could pitch in and make a correction. Luis Dantas 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

User:Dr Archeville has suggested on the wikiproject comics Notice Board to merge Harry Osborn and Ultimate Green Goblin into Green Goblin. As the discussion suggestion points to this page, seems as good a place as any to get feedback (e.g. Merge, Keep, etc). Please sign all comments and votes. -Markeer 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate Green Goblin, but Keep Harry Osborn as a separate article. Harry's status as a supporting character in the Spider-Man comics goes beyond his time as Green Goblin, but I do agree Ultimate Green Goblin is the fruit of the same original tree. -Markeer 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep I disagree with both merges. Markeer already pretty much stated what I think for Harry Osborn, so I'll dedicate this to the Ultimate version. A quick look at the Ultimate categories shows 43 articles. While a chunk of these deal with the comics, a lot of them deal with the characters themselves. And while I understand Wikipedia has no real length requirements, having both characters merged would add an unnecessary length. Ultimate Goblin has a fairly big article now. I personally think this article should be focused mainly on 616 Norman, with brief mentions of other Goblins and respective links to their own pages.--CyberGhostface 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate entries are to be avoided when possible, and while the powers, etc, might be slightly different, the character is essentially the same. It's just a variation on the original. Keep Harry separate though, like the Flashes and the Green Lanterns. --Chris Griswold 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge the Ultimate entry into the parent entry (after some cutting down of the plot), but leave Harry's entry where it is. --InShaneee 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If we do merge it I'd prefer that we don't abridge it.--CyberGhostface 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not? --Chris Griswold 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My personal reason is because I worked hard on the article. (I'm not the one who made the article but I did a chunk of the work on it). I wouldn't want to see it crammed into already overlong article and into a one paragraph ditty that goes "In this continuity, Norman turns into a goblin". Minor characters in the Ultimate universe (like say Dr. Strange) probably don't warrant their own articles but the major ones do because they do have different histories than their 616 counterparts.--CyberGhostface 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
However, if they're not significantly different (or haven't had time to build a significantly new body of information), consensus is generally that they be merged. And it is still my feeling that the plot section can be edited down, not to a few sentences, but smaller than its present form. --InShaneee 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate GG, Keep Harry Osborn. - HKMARKS 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate GG, Keep Harry Osborn as per Markeer´s comments above. Hueysheridan 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge UGG, Keep Harry Osborn, for the reasons Marker made clear. Dr Archeville 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge UGG, Keep Harry Osborn -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge UGG, Keep Harry Osborn. WesleyDodds 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I'm new at this but I just merged every single green goblin article on wikipedia into one so please don't delete what I edited because all I did was just make way more detail than before _redyugioh 11:27am 6/11/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redyugioh (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Discussion closed. Decision was to merge [[Ultimate Green Goblin into Green Goblin, but to keep Harry Osborn separate. --Chris Griswold 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Norman Osborn good?

I think Norman Osborn was a good man before he became possesed by the evil Green Goblin. I mean, he was responsible for his company, did his best to take care of his son, and, in later issues, tried to help Peter get by in life by offering him a job at Oscorp. Think about what would've happened if Norman Osborn hadn't been caught in the explosion. Would he have still turned to crime and tried to kill Spidey? It's hard to say. But Norman Osborn was no tyrant before the Goblin came into his life. And where did the dog-killing part come from? 71.221.224.233 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.22071.221.224.233 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The revelation that Norman killed his dog as a child was in this issue. He killed it because he considered the dog another mouth to feed.
I suggest you take some time to check out spideykicksbutt.com which has a number of essays on the subject as you are clearly ignorant about Norman's character.
Furthermore, all your edits are seriously POV.--CyberGhostface 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, what is with you adding bullshit about the third Spider-Man movie in the Harry Osborn film? Give it a rest.--CyberGhostface 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I admit the dog killing was very inhumane. But the Goblin did the rest. And Harry does die in Spider-Man 3. Check out his article. Right by the statement that this is Harry's last appearance, there's a link which proves this. 71.221.224.233 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.22071.221.224.233 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like the Goblin is some demon posessing Norman; it's not. It's just a facet of his insanity. Furthermore, please show the link that Harry dies in Spider-Man 3 (not to mention, that is a MASSIVE spoiler for a movie that has not even come out yet, and I think I speak for almost everyone when I say I don't want the ending of the movie given away). And killing the dog is enough by itself to show he wasn't a good person, not to mention he wasn't a great guy even before he became the Goblin. He was also abusive towards Harry, for example. --CyberGhostface 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to upset anyone. 71.221.224.233 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.22071.221.224.233 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the link or not? --CyberGhostface 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't...it must have been removed. 70.58.211.220

If it existed to begin with.--CyberGhostface 18:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It did. Check with the creators of the Spider Man 3 article. It's like what that guy in Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 8 said: I would have it, but now I don't.

Yeah right. I seriously doubt they'd reveal such serious information prior to the film's release.--CyberGhostface 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll never know if you don't check. And as for the previous response above, let's not swear while we're in this talk room. 70.58.211.220

How about you just give me the link? Because until you do I'm not believing a word you say. I'm sick and tired of anon vandals like you adding false information.--CyberGhostface 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're being a jerk. All I'm trying to do is explain how I found this out, and you're just yelling at me for no reason. If you want the link, I'll do my best to find it. But if I can't, then check with the creators of the third movie article. They put the links on the page. 70.58.211.220

I didn't find Harry's death link. But it did say that his storyline would conclude with Spider-Man 3, so I think that's one of the definitions of death. 70.58.211.220

So in other words you're just posting your speculation and theories as fact? Assume makes an ass out of u and me. Just because a storyline is concluded doesn't neccessarily mean it concludes in death, and shouldn't be posted as definite fact.--CyberGhostface 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, check with the creators, for heaven's sake! 70.58.211.220

How about you just give me a source? How do you check with the creators to begin with? I seriously doubt Sam Raim would tell someone like you how the movie ends. But thats just me.--CyberGhostface 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to check with the creators, leave a message on the article talk page. 70.58.211.220

I'm sure that its Sam Raimi posting on Wikipedia divulging the ending and not some overweight 14 year old claiming to be him.--CyberGhostface 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"The creators"? Nope. Posting in an article talk page does not get a message to Sam Raimi. Even if he had time to read it, he has neither motive nor time to waste in responding. Sheesh. Doczilla 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant the creators of the article. I've been trying to get this guy to talk with them and get confirmation. I SWEAR I saw a link by Harry's article two months ago that proves his death. 70.58.211.200

I found it! Here's the link:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/xKiriyamax/scoop1.jpg

Even if its true, its not an official source. I would wait for the film to come out so its not ruined for anyone.--CyberGhostface 19:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. 70.58.211.220

Film's out, Harry's dead, get over it.

No shit. That doesn't mean one should post spoilers before the film is released. Then you'd be no different for the morons running around at the Harry Potter book stores yelling "So and so kills so and so!"--CyberGhostface 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, now that we've established that conflict, let's get back to the analysis. Yes, by reading past Spider-Man comics, it is evident Norman Osborn was at times very emotionally unstable and manipulative, and very often put off his own son when in distress. But he has a human side. Norman, like Jonah Jameson, admires Spider-Man for the hero that he is, and his unbreakable spirit and love for life. But the fact is, both men can never truly measure up to his worth, so they try to bring him down, because, "Heaven help me, I'm jealous of him!" -From Amazing Spider-man #10. By the way, next time, when I find big news, I'll give citations along with it. Happy editing! 70.58.211.220

I think the only time Norman's admired Spidey as a hero was when he was amnesiac. I think the two respect each other but I don't think Norman's mantra has ever been "Spider-Man's the hero I can never be, so I try to bring him down". I really think, if you haven't already, that you should read spideykickbutts.com's Green with Evil essays.--CyberGhostface 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have. And I am shocked. I never considered that Osborn's built-up cruelty from blasted Amberson's torturing would result in him turning out that bad. And apparently, he's gotten worse, especially with his son gone from his life. What really torks me about that is that Norman considers Harry at times to be a spineless weakling; however, that is probably what turned his attention to Peter. I wonder how he'll manage things as leader of the Thunderbolts these days. Here's to hoping Moonstone's plan is uncovered so she doesn't make a canyon out of the small hill she's made. Happy editing! 65.103.61.154 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope he stays with the Thunderbolts too. He's much more interesting as a leader than Moonstone is. I love his conversation with Bullseye in the first issue though.--CyberGhostface 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion he's a good guy. He hunts down criminal offenders!Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, good and evil is complicated. Before a good character is seduced to evil, he is sometimes a little strange and mean. Norman was not innocent, but in comparison to Greeny already. Think of similar character like Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader or Smeagol / Gollum. Supervillains can turn a unhappy character to a hero or poor victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.109.47 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Goblin Glider

Goblin Glider was just created. Surely this should be merged into this article. I don't understand why it was necessary to create as a new article instead of a section of the Green Goblin article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Change the picture

It's a bad impression of the Green Goblin, he looks like a 6 year old kid. And it's a really old image. DCincarnate

If we're not going to change Spider-Man to accomodate his new costume, then the same logic should stay for Green Goblin. If you can find a good picture of his classic costume that most know him by then go ahead.--CyberGhostface 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd argue that there's a difference here - while Spider-Man's costume change was plot-based and always intended to be temporary, the Goblin's was a costume "upgrade" and has been his standard look the the past five years. Beyond that, it's really only a matter of personal preference as to which look better represents the character. --Ultimo Fantastique 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this? [4] DCincarnate

I'd prefer it be a comic book image, preferably a cover and maybe his first appearance if he's on the cover. He's a comic book character and the image should reinforce that. --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

When they release the Thunderbolts variant cover with Green Goblin on it (so far, they've done Venom, Bullseye, and Penance), I think it should be changed to that. --DrBat 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't change the picture at the top. Just add that Thunderbolts cover/picture into the 'Fictional character biography' section where it is appropriate. --Freak104 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

good article...

but i think that:


Alter ego is Norman Osborn and Harry Osborn

No. Harry already has his own article. No need to convolute his dad's.--CyberGhostface 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Goblin (comics)

Hey. I've noticed that this page is kinda treated like the place to put most/all data on comic book Goblins, but I was thinking we could do something better. I propose splitting content like "Fury the Goblin Queen" into a Goblin (comics) page. In it, we could also include data on the Hobgob and his variants. (Demogoblin, anyone?)

As is, what should be primarily Norman's page—unless he's split off, instead, ala Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote.—is overrun with data of varying relavence. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Split

  • No Split What's to split off at this point? Wait and see ... and if there enough to merit an article in the future then possiblly a new article. It's hard to create an article with barely a paragraph. 66.109.248.114 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea....especially with the upcoming Solicts for LONERS #3 focusing on Phil's story {within the Loners' current situation}PaxHouse 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Split I agree. At least he deserved a picture. Dmr2hn1

Ultimate Goblin

It should be added that the Death of the Goblin (tentative title) starts with issue #112, starring Norman Osborn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.101.212 (talk • contribs)

It should be added once those issues come out, not before. Freak104 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd more say it should be added when we have solicitations that we can link to, which specifically title the arc "The Death Of The Goblin". SaliereTheFish 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Time changes

I changed all the past tenses to present tense. However, the article still suffers from multiple compound sentences. This not only makes for difficult reading but sometimes thoroughly muddles references. I would very much welcome someone more knowledgable than me giving the text an additional revision 217.231.18.29 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thegreengoblinreturns.png

Image:Thegreengoblinreturns.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 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ams26.jpg

Image:Ams26.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 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimategoblin-markbagley.jpg

Image:Ultimategoblin-markbagley.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) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Goblinsinspast.jpg

Image:Goblinsinspast.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) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spider122.jpg

Image:Spider122.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) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Furythegoblinqueen.jpg

Image:Furythegoblinqueen.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) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What about toys?

Sorry if I'm posting this wrong. But what about toys, statues, etc.? Seeing video game references is cool but as a toy collector I'd love to seem them included. Especially since there are so many cool Green Goblin toys! Bart chambers (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)bart_chambers

too many fair-use images

Do we really need all these comic covers? Doesn't that run contrary to [5] Bobisbob (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Running down what's here...
  • Image:Green goblin2.jpg — Currently the infobox image. Frankly, looking at the FUR currently in place, this one should go. There is zero sourcing, wither to a website that it pulled from or to where the image was physically published. And the later is really preferred.
  • Image:14-1goblin.jpg — I can see how this one is justifiable, since it's the character's first appearance.
  • Image:Amazingspiderman39.jpg — Previously the infobox image. This current use is nothing but decoration.
  • Image:Spider122.jpg — This may relate to the text beside it, but it does come across as "another Goblin image".
  • Image:Thegreengoblinreturns.png — As does this one.
  • Image:Goblinsinspast.jpg — Redundant since it is used more appropriately in the articel the section links to with {{catmore1}} (though {{see also}} may be more appropriate).
  • Image:Tbolts121 cov.jpg — This one has some merit since it looks to be a "revamp" of the character design and is relevant to the section where it is placed.
  • Image:Ultimategreengoblin.jpg — Reasonable with the Ultimate revamp, and a substantial section.
  • Image:Goblinani.png — Reasonable as an example of the adaptation of the character for animation.
  • Image:GreenGoblinMovie.jpg — Reasonable as an example of the adaptation of the character for film.
  • Image:Goblinfof.jpg — Reasonable as an example of the adaptation of the character for video games.
Suggestions:
  1. Restore the infobox to Image:Amazingspiderman39.jpg, since it is a fully sourced, FURed, and appropriate image.
  2. Lose at least one of Spider122.jpg and Thegreengoblinreturns.png. To be honest, both could go since neither substantially help to provide understanding of the topic, and the removals would not hurt that understanding. (see WP:NFCC#8)
  3. Lose Image:Goblinsinspast.jpg as it is redundant, and less than important to this article.
- J Greb (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (amended in light od revesing an edit to remove images made after the discusion was started... - J Greb (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

If the current infobox picture has to go for not being sourced then so does a lot of other character's infobox pics including [6] and [7].

The Amazingspiderman39.jpg pic won't be good for the infobox since the character is barely in the center. If we need to use comic covers for characters infobox, they should be like [8],[9] and [10].

The Tbolts121 cov.jpg image is hardly a revamp, he had that costme design for a while. If we can have that why not the image of Scorpion with a different costume on the Mac Gargan page. Or the Scorpy-Venom image posted on the "powers" section, but that a different dispute. Bobisbob (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "other stuff exists" argument goes a long way in saying the problems else where need to be fixed, not that we keep it here. If, and that might be a big leap with Green goblin2.jpg, the images can be sourced back to an actual comic and the site that it was pulled from, part of the problem is removed. Not all of it though.
I think I can see where you're coming from with Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images, point 3. But... the guideline speaks to prominence, not dead center placement. On the whole, the cover of The Amazing Spider-Man #39 hits all the bases:
  • Iconic look of the character.
  • Full body.
  • Neutral coloring.
  • Prominent feature of the image.
The only quibble comes from the iconic look of the character: the contorted posture on the goblin glider. That really falls in the same category as the example under shadowing under point 2 of the guide.
I can also see where you're coming from with the Thunderbolts image, and looking back at it, I can agree, to a point. The Scorpion costume example is every indicative of two things. First is trying to get all the costume variations when only the costumes are the context. With a lot of characters that becomes a gallery even if the images are peppered throughout the article. Second is "newer is better" with no context beyond it being a newer image or one by a bigger "name". On first blush, the Thunderbolts section gave the image context beyond "new" or "another Goblin" costume. Re-reading it a few times, that context isn't there and either the section needs a re-writer (unlikely) or the image gets added to the "to lose" list. - J Greb (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I'm going ahead and removing some of the images. Bobisbob (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Goblin Glider 2

Another Goblin Glider article was created, this time as Goblin glider. If you still want to merge it back to this article (as was decided back in 2006), feel free. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oscorp

There should be a article on Oscorp put in the fictional companies or organizations in marvel. Articles on stark inc, roxxon, etc exist why not Oscorp. Also with the events of Secret Invasion and focus on Osborn, mention of his company would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum17x (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Green Goblin or Norman Osborn

Should this page be renamed Norman Osborn, as that seems to be the predominant side to him in the comics at the moment? Sure, he's evil, but rarely does he wear the goblin suit or be called the Green Goblin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.169.47 (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an idea I suggested at WT:CMC - as we have Other Goblins such a page would tend to occupy the top slot and one fix is to move this to Norman Osborn and move that over here. Or trim down the former and merge it in here. (Emperor (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
To clarify: Dab pages tend to lack a suffix if there is confusion about which article is the most likely search. If there is a likely target, the dab gets tagged with "(disambiguious)".
It's been pointed out on the CMC talk page that the Norman Osborn Goblin is the most likely search target. Leaving this article under this name and dabbing the set index is appropriate.
It is not appropriate to just cut and pate move to swap the article and the redirect.
- J Greb (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am starting to like Emperor's idea on this. This article seems to focus on just Norman Osborn and Norman has been just been himself lately. While Green Goblin (set index) can be just be renamed Green Goblin and be the autobiography on who has taken that mantly like Harry Osborn, Bart Hamilton and Phil Urich. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the primary name should be Norman Osborn. Green Goblin can be redirected to Norman Osborn, or to a list. The character goes by Iron Patriot and Norman Osborn. Green Goblin is one of many previous identities. But regardless of other character names, the character has always also been Norman Osborn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.64.28 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanding Publication history

I've expanded the PH section to introduce more out-of-universe material to the article following WP:WAF. I'd suggest adding a couple more sections and expand on the character development and other background. Also it looks like the other media section should be split off to a new article.

I also turned up more material when looking for sources:

This might come in handy [11]

Feel free to use anything useful and I'll see what else I can turn up. (Emperor (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Excellent work so far! :) BOZ (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've split off Green Goblin in other media. I'd also say we remove the "Personality" - he is a fictional character so it is whatever the writers need. It'd be better to put character development information in the PH. (Emperor (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC))
I removed the personality section, agree that character development should be in the PH. How do we shrink the FCB? I'm of a mind to tag it if I can find teh appropriate tag, so that we can get some sort of sense of what are important storylines and to what depth we should cover them. I don't follow the character, so I can't tell what is ultimately extraneous. Anybody have any ideas? Hiding T 11:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As per the discussion on the Comics Project talk page - I'd suggest adding a couple more sections in the PH and expand them with both background information and some out-of-universe plot where relevant (we just don't need a blow-by-blow account of everything he did. Once that has shaped up remove the FCB and throw in a link to the previous version so people can check if there is anything important that has been overlooked and they can add a mention of that in. With knowledgeable and enthusiastic editors it should be possible to turn this around pretty quickly (although I suspect it might take a little longer). (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

The Witch

He is a secret character she has the scarecow`s hat a lightpunkin 
she has black pants and a purple bouce hunter she is a secret 
character on xbox and she is a character on D.S.



X. THROW PUNKINS     B. fREEZE GUN      (Double jump to fly)
A. to TO JUMP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.175.237 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Immortal?

The last ten years or so has displayed that as one of his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.101.221 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Split (2)

This article should be split into Norman Osborn and Green Goblin.

  1. The Green Goblin has been the alias or costume of several characters (ok, thats old news).
  2. Norman Osborn is now a character of his own, goblin apart. He has been developped as a character independant of the goblin for years now.

The importance took by Norman Osborn as Norman Obsorn itself in the Secret Invasion and Dark Reign stories argues for a split. talking Cherry 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Either that or the article should be called Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) like the way Marvel.com does it. But the article is getting too large (mostly it's the fictional character's biography) so it might need an split of some kind. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above, I think possibly the best solution is moving this to Norman Osborn (fix the incoming links, naturally) and move Green Goblin (set index) here, then make sure Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) and Iron Patriot and other links point to the Osborn article. Its still a tricky call but the last few years have made it increasingly obvious that this needs to be refocused on Osborn. (Emperor (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Fictional biography split

The fictional character biography has now been split into Fictional history of Green Goblin. Both the article and the biography is larger than even Spider-Man's. If you have an problem with it feel free to discuss it here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This should have been proposed first, not opened to discussion later. This isn't the solution to having too much in-universe material, all it does is create an article that is all fictional content, which is never a good idea. As the article improves towards a B and beyond the FCB will naturally shrink (as the articles has to abide more strictly to WP:WAF) and then it can be rejigged with a push on to a GA, reducing any in-universe material and rewriting things like origin and (most importantly here) characterisation to be discussed in an out-of-universe manner. (Emperor (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC))
I understand what you mean. Like I said though if any one wants it back (mainly by an administrator like you) it is welcome to be done since it can easily be changed back. But anyways sorry for not discussing it before hand. (I do agree that would have been better way of handling that. I am not a fan of those discussion boxes being in the way of articles though). I know that an all new fictional content is not always a good idea but sometimes they can be necessary for some major recurring characters. Anyways I want whatever is best for the article and I am sure you have the best intentions for that. So do what you think is best. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
And although it may not be an good idea. It could give his biography room for telling his story in an more personal level with the other artice and not worry about the size. While this article can focus on his more important history in a shorter level. I might see if I can improve on the fictional character biography sometime by reading the article on it. And then maybe we won't need an article about it after all. But still the article is beneficial for what it is because his biography is just going to get longer. But I still agree with what you said. Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No Cape

The article says that the Green Goblin has a cloak as part of his costume. None of the illustrations I have of Gobby show him wearing a cloak. Whoever put that in must have confused Osborn with the Hobgoblin, who does wear a cloak. I will correct this. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge in media article

I am requesting that Green Goblin in other media be merged in this article, Green Goblin in the In other media section. Much like what I did in the Doctor Doom article. When the fictional history section was moved from this article, I believe this article has had some room to expand information. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

With that amount of coverage, it seems that Green Goblin in other media meets WP:GNG so why merge? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Becuase this article got small after the fictional history was removed. My fault as well. The Fictional history got too huge for the article but when removed this article got too small and the in other media article fit here so why not. If the fictional history is fixed to get back on here the in other media will be split. Also there was a few redundancy of this article In the other media section and the split article. − Jhenderson 777 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DITKO MEANT FOR NORMAN TO BE THE GOBLIN

I don't understand why this rumor refuses to die. I took this from the Steve Ditko wiki site:

Ditko...disputed the long-held belief[28] the disagreement was over the true identity of the Green Goblin: "Stan never knew what he was getting in my Spider-Man stories and covers until after [production manager] Sol Brodsky took the material from me ... so there couldn't have been any disagreement or agreement, no exchanges ... no problems between us concerning the Green Goblin or anything else from before issue #25 to my final issues".

This was taken from an article about Ditko that appeared in WIZARD magazine around the time of the release of the first SPIDER-MAN movie. As Steve intimates in this Wiki Goblin article, he did indeed "plant" Osborn in the series as a minor character at a businessman's club J. Jonah Jameson was known to frequent. He is often seen standing in the background only to gain in prominence as the series went along. Around issue #24 he is at the Daily Bugle and JJJ says he will see him at that club later in the evening. In Spider-Man 26 he is seen holding a rival newspaper and commenting on the photographer who got the shots of a battle between Spidey and the Goblin. Finally, in Ditko's next to final issue AMAZING... 37, Norman is clearly up to no good and comments on how Spider-Man had finally become a problem that must be dealt with. John Romita is just flat out wrong. Steve knows better than anyone and he pretty much told us.MARK VENTURE (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that too but I can't find a source. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Megamerge

Um I'm new here but i suggest we merge all the articles on the green goblin together into one article so people don't have visit 3 to 4 articles to learn about one villian.-Redyugioh [4:48pm] [6/28/10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redyugioh (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can merge a few small articles such as Green Goblin (set index) but I recommend Alternate versions of Green Goblin and Fictional history of Green Goblin to stay because they will stuff this article. That is unless the articles can be trimmed. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe his history could be simplified and fit in this article. We don't even have a history article for Doctor Doom. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Split (3)

In response to the bold "splitting" of the article and looking at the previous 2 discussions from 2007 and Feb 2010:

  • As it currently stands, this article focuses on Osborn. The other notable characters to have used the "Green Goblin" name and costume have had that material moved, or originally incorporated, in their own articles. The minor characters are covered with Green Goblin (set index) and the other continuities with Alternate versions of the Green Goblin. This covers the consensus from 2007.
  • The Feb 2010 discussion does not look like it came to a consensus. And even if there is consensus, the articles should be moved not just have text copied from one and pasted over another. Cut and paste moves lose the edit histories linked to the content and is a no-no.

Frankly, moving the article makes little sense.

  • The article focuses on Osborn, and Osborn is what a person looking for "Green Goblin" likely wants, there is little reason for renaming or moving it.
  • The character's entire publication history should be taken into account, not just the past few years. Remember, this is not a fan site nor is it a news/review site. The material should be given the importance presented in secondary sources, not based on an editor's tastes or interpretations.
  • If there are secondary sources that support it, as with Superman and Clark Kent, a separate article on Osborn might be warranted. But it must have those secondary sources.
  • If the article is too long, and 55k is "heading toward a pr0blem" not "a split is needed now", then looking at what can be compressed should be done before cleaving out information. And yes, there is a lot of plot dumps and editorial/fan conjecture that can be compressed or removed. This includes material in the sections "Mental illness and other weaknesses" (editorial conjecture based on and sourced to primary sources), "Television" (plot dumps for 1994's Spider-Man and The Spectacular Spider-Man), "Spider-Man" (Again, massive plot dump from the movie), and "Video games" (some of the items edge towards being game guides). And the in-story history also should have been compressed, not just moved. Ideally, the IOM should have been split out before even considering splitting out the FCB - which now stands as an article (Fictional history of Green Goblin) totally devoid of real world content and exceeds the "a split is needed now" point (currently at 73k). That is a train wreck as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go.

- J Greb (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey I am not an administrator, I didn't know I could move stuff that are already redirections besides cut and paste. And me and User:Tenebrae are supposed to be working to unsplit and fix the fictional history article. − Jhenderson 777 18:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been remiss about that. It's just such a big job and it's enervating just thinking about it. I'll do some more work there this week. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That's ok! It's all good. :) − Jhenderson 777 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
If the page won't move, you do have the option of Wikipedia:Requested moves. That will result in a discussion though.
As for the fictional history issue... It may be that Green Goblin in other media needs to be recreated. The noted plot dumps would still need to be fixed, but it would open up some space here. Beyonds that... the FCB would need a severe pruning. Hit the notable points. Include only what is necessary for clartiy. Turf everything else. It's not pleasent, but we're looking at ~130k between the two current articles about Norman, and more than 1/2 of it is plot.
- J Greb (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
J Greb, I am doing edit conflict with you. It's all good. The main reason why I put Green Goblin in other media article on the main article is because it got small after the Fictional history was out of the way. I am not angry. I know it's hard to tell on the computer. I even agree with you on some stuff. − Jhenderson 777 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I now notice that I did what you want to not be done in this section. Sorry! But still User:Emperor's opinion sounds good on that section. − Jhenderson 777 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image issue

- J Greb (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maximum Overdrive in the Live Action Film

I think the cameo appearance by Green Goblin in the movie Maximum Overdrive should be added. It hard to miss, since his head is on the front of the "Happy Toys" truck that is the main villain of the movie.

I agree, it should be mentioned, though where on the page I don't know. -- Lord Crayak

I am writing it in now. It definitely should be in there. Cant believe the nerds forgot it lol. If any one disagrees with this, you can rent the movie and view the credits, at the very end of the credits, they give acknowledgement to marvel comics for the allowed use of this character in the movie. Rippey574 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Goblin's history

I propose we merge this article with the one on the Goblin's fictional history and have the history be simplified. We really don't need an overly detailed article on the Goblin's history especially since there are none for villains with a wider history like Doom, Magento, Joker ect. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge. I already put a smaller, more simple fictional biography for the main article if merged. − Jhenderson 777 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Geez, the FCB really ballooned out of control in a hurry - probably back to as big as it was previously. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see that. I knew there is a reason why I put the Green Goblin in other media article back. − Jhenderson 777 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Jhenderson 777. Until we can get support from the Fiction Project on adhering to guidelines, it's probably best to shunt the non-guideline, fan-page-like FCBs to separate articles and keep the main article up to standard. I'm truly sorry I wasn't of more help; the Green Goblin FCB was just too mountainous.---Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No, if a fictional charcter's biography gets to long, the solution is to trim it down not give it it's own article. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Given the track record of the "Fictional history" pages, I can't even call them "articles" with a straight face any more, I have to agree. While splitting the FCB off looks like one reasonable option, it invites massive amounts of plot dumping. That makes the situation worse not better. The character article can be given room by splitting of the adaptations into other media and possibly the "alternate versions" sections. But the FCB shouldn't be split off, if anything it should be watched and pruned. When blocks of material are added, that material should be questioned as to if it is important to a general understanding, fan minutia, or somewhere inbetween. - J Greb (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and from what I can see, there's also repetition to consider. For example, the PH and the FCB both go into detail about Osborn killing the Skrull queen. I'll help — and I hope others will, too — to deal with the redundancies and add cites. Spider-Man seems to do this OK, so we can do it here, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think trimming is needed for the FCBs of some of Spidey's other villains too. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Osborn miniseries

The following background for the Osborn miniseries seems useful, but as it stands, it's unclear, and I've commented it out for the moment in the article:

While stemming from an offhand comment linking Osborn with Oz, DeConnick is also drawing on other prison-based inspiration, including Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion

Who made the comment? An editor? DeConnick? What specifically is the inspiration from Scorpion? Just saying the name of the movie isn't helpful. Please clarify or delete. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section "Care home bullying incident"

Does it matter what toy they used to abuse people? If they had a pair of Spider-Man underwear on at the time or wore a Superman Cape would it matter? This doesn't belong in the article about the character. Dream Focus 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional people with bipolar disorder

Why is it whenever I put the Green Goblin under Fictional people with bipolar disorder, it gets removed? It explicitly says that he's bipolar on the page! Smijes08 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Broomstick"; original version of the Goblin glider

In the original comics, the Green Goblin rode a flying mechanical "broomstick" instead of his glider; he didn't use the glider until his first "return". I think this is worth at least mentioning, is it not? Skinr (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Splitting

I propose that this article be split. Norman Osborn has distanced himself from the Goblin persona to the point that it is an important part of his history, but not the main identity he is known by. Spider-Man's greatest enemy is not the Green Goblin, but Norman Osborn. Norman, therefore, should have his own article by that title, with the Green Goblin being a seperate article detailing the various people to where the costume, their various deeds/misdeeds, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancelot551 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As you said, despite that persona being a major part of history, Osborn in himself has transcended just being the Green Goblin. Norman himself is Spider-Man's greatest foe, not just the Goblin persona that has now been donned by many. DarthKurgan (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I too completely agree. There isn't much more to say, actually. 67.242.219.182 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree only because such an interpretation is -- while arguably accurate -- original research.
Plus, most people recognize him as the Green Goblin even with his shenanigans in Dark Reign. Venom, for example, has had several different hosts at this point with Flash being Venom now and Brock being Toxin. So something that convoluted might need a warrant a disambiguation article, but I don't see the Green Goblin being in a similar situation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Massee

This whole Norman Osborn is in the end credits is original research. See here. Jhenderson 777 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that could easily be a underling, so the person in the cell should not be listed as Osborn unless there is solid evidence that it was actually him.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Multi-article Green Goblin move discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move both. -- tariqabjotu 13:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

– Norman Osborn has been the Green Goblin AND the Iron Patriot, so it isn't appropriate for his article to be titled only Green Goblin. He is primarily identified as the Green Goblin, but that is not his only alter-ego. (Eddie Brock, Mac Gargan, and Anya Corazon are similar examples.) There have been multiple characters to have the alter-ego of Green Goblin, so that article should be for all of the characters not just one. Furthermore, no one is going to look for "set index" when trying to find more Green Goblins. Spidey104 14:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. You beat me to it. Norman Osborn is a alter-ego that deserves his own article just like Roderick Kingsley, Mac Gargan and Eddie Brock. A Green Goblin article really needs to be just like the article Hobgoblin (comics) and be about anyone who wears the costume. Jhenderson 777 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Totally agree with the reasoning above me. Norman Osborn has been multiple characters, while Green Goblin is his most famous, but the article should be about him, and Green Goblin should list all who have taken the name. (I know it's DC, but similar to Batgirl and Barbara Gordon imo). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The content as it is currently presented doesn't warrant this proposed move. Users who are seeking information on the Green Goblin will be sorely disappointed to find a summary list with neither proper history nor the content traditionally found in a fictional character article. This really is more of a content issue not a move request issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
After the (set index) article is moved it will be more visible and get more hits. This will lead to more people editing it when they notice problems. It is not technically an orphaned article, but it might as well be because of how its poor title has lead to no one seeing it and no one editing it. Improvements can and will be made to it to make it more like the better Hobgoblin (comics) article. Spidey104 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You are offering this set of events without any certainty that they will take place. When it comes down to it, the current article is better suited for its current location than the set index.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't expect the Green Goblin article to be the same as what (set index) article is. The set index article is acting like a List of Goblins article. I think the Green Goblin article needs to be totally different entirely when we are finished with it. Also Norman Osborn article needs to be a little different too...but what I feel like is there should totally be a Norman Osborn article even if we don't move these articles and instead make a divided one entirely. If anything I could possibly be against the set index move and just rewrite the Green Goblin article entirely after the move and still keep the set index. Either way I am ok with it. Jhenderson 777 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am offering this set of events with absolute certainty they will take place. As Jhenderson777 stated the set index article is more like a list currently, but once it becomes a real article I will make improvements upon it. It sounds like he will as well. Between the two of us I am confident it will become greatly improved, so it doesn't matter if the likely help of other editors happens or not. Spidey104 02:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Norman is notable even when he's not in costume. He has had more than one codename and many people have been Green Goblins. The Green Goblin article should be like the Hobgoblin or Flash article. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Let's shoot for B-Class Status

We're almost there.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: 

Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Structure: criterion met
Grammar and style: criterion met
Supporting materials: criterion met

We just have to finish filling in all those pesky citations, so if you remember the reference for a plot-point that's missing a citation, please fill it in. Also, let's keep to a minimum tagging superfluous citation requests to plot descriptions that already have their reference listed a sentence or two later, because then we're just repeating the same citation.

Keep up the good work, everyone. Norman deserves the best. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing complete

Hiya. I'll be working on improving the written form of the article, and will assist with citations if I can as well. Let me know if there's anything specific you want me to address, or if you have any notes or questions. NinjaDuckie (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Tidied up the layout of the page from start until Fictional Character Biography. As a personal comment, I don't have a particular problem with most of the wording used. It's just a little awkwardly put in places, needing a brief reword. The worst thing is probably the formatting. I've done a lot of splitting of paragraphs to make it easier on the eyes. Large quotes in particular seem to be used a lot, but they're cited properly so that's not an issue. NinjaDuckie (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, real-life issues. I hope to have the full article finished copy-editing by the end of tomorrow. Definitely override if you need it done earlier. NinjaDuckie (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're done with the copy-edit. I do want to point out this was my first time copy-editing, so it may be worthwhile getting a second opinion, but overall the page reads a whole lot better and looks much better on the eyes. I do have a non CE issue with Citation #46 in that I can't see the context or reference for the quote used but that's all that cropped up while reading. Please let me know if there are any issues and thanks for your patience. NinjaDuckie (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Norman Osborn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"The Benefactor (Marvel Comics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Benefactor (Marvel Comics). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Osborn/Archive&oldid=1251895067"