Talk:Scarlet Witch/Archive 1

Archive 1

supervillainess?

I can't stand having her referred to that way, as she's been a villainess for about 3 years and a heroine for the other 40 since her debut. But I suppose it's technically true. Just grating--Erikacornia 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

well i think it also comes from her invlovement in Avengers Disassembeled and HOuse of M recently.

I removed the super-villainess bit, instead put that she started out as a villain but then reformed int a full-fledged super-hero.

Thanks, that's just much more fair. --Erikacornia 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

She is not evil, she had a nervious break down.

summary wording

Is "magician" really right for what she is? No rabbits out of a hat for her. I thought of sorceress, but she's not quite Clea or Topaz, either. Her main training is from Agatha Harkness; so I guess that would make her a witch or Wiccan adept. I'm not complaining, I just can't think of the perfect wording myself, either. --Erikacornia 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'Wicca' is a religion, and one that Wanda isn't shown to follow. 14:59, 08 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.45.178 (talk)

House of M anachronism

Anyone understand why there is such a large gap between the loss of her children and the House of M events? Hellmark 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

During Avengers Disassembled, the Wasp accidentally mentioned the children, and that was the last straw. That's what unleashed the feelings festering inside her. Then, Dr. Strange, Magneto, and Xavier tried to hold her together on Genosha until Quicksilver ruined their work by warning her about the Avengers and X-Men coming to put her down. That's when House of M took place. Additionally, she re-created her children, in the form of two of the Young Avengers. It's not clear when their re-creation took place, but since she was only reminded of their lack of existence during Disassembled, it must have taken place after that. This, despite their remembering having lived entire lives before the Young Avengers came.--Chris Griswold 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Last straw"? That was the first time they'd been mentioned in years. Dr Archeville 15:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. She is said to have been unbalanced, and certain oddities of continuity were attributed to her. The reminder of her children made her snap. --Chris Griswold 20:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, outside of the comics themselves, the reason is the author of House of M remembered an obscure plot point from her past incorrectly, ignored the resolutions it had already received, and used it as a catalyst to wrap up that volume of the Avengers with a big bang. There were many factual errors in the story (Agatha Harkness's existence itself) that confuse the issue. In story, Wanda seems to have suppressed the memory of having had children, and is upset out of all proportion when she remembers.--140.247.127.104 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The matter of Harkness' existence isn't an error, it's a retcon that she hasn't been real since her return from the dead in Byrne's AWC. Note that when asked back then how she'd returned, she dodges the question.

As for Wanda's memory of her children, by the time of Disassembled, the idea is that her powers had been distorting her ability to tell the difference between dreams and reality for some time, and had by this point forgotten ever having had children.

Stan \ Kirby era image

How 'bout some friggin' original Kirby era images instead of the washed out X-crapolla stuff that has nothing to do with the original masters that created the Scarlet Witch, Brotherhood of Mutats et al85.138.0.158 10:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found a Kirby image yet, but I'll scan some Heck and Buscema images from the original sources soon. In the meantime, I've added a Perez/Marcos image that's pretty good.--Erikacornia 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found an image from X-men #7; also a good Perez scan and a Michael Golden. Hope that satisfies.--Erikacornia 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

What is the herobox picture from? --Chris Griswold 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of this subject I recommend her new main image, be from the New Avengers #26. Intensly dark and beautiful. Here is the link http://marvel.com/catalog/?category=AVENGERS& --The_Magistrate 15:29, 23 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I vote against this one. It de-emphasizes her power (her arms and hands are barely visible, her lidded eyes make her seem barely conscious), and we have no idea what events will take place in this issue written by her most controversial writer. The current image is more reflective of her history as a hero, not just a passive victim.--Erikacornia 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

wasp hates wanda?

Earlier versions of this page seemed to indicate an ongoing antipathy between Janet and Wanda. While Janet may have done Wanda no big favors recently, I don't think actual antagonism has ever been even as much as subtext between the two heroines, so I made some edits to address that implication. Denigrating one heroine to defend another seems counter to the family feeling the Avengers often acheived.--Erikacornia 23:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be an exaggeration of the truth, but between Janet's setting off Wanda's Disassembled breakdown, and her homewrecking encouragement for Wonder Man to pursue a relationship with her, a case can certainly be made for it.

Not to the point that Janet was malicious, however, at most careless or insensitive.--Erikacornia 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Evil Mutants Picture?

Rather than repeatedly change Dr. Bat's edits, I put the question out there for the readers. Should we use his Aaron Lopresti image created some years later for a different comic that refers to the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants era of Wanda's career, or is my image of actual Kirby art from the era under question preferable? He did after all design her character, and reflecting her changing appearance would seem to move the article further away from its in-story slant. --Erikacornia 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use a Kirby image, could you try finding an image more relevant to her character history than Mastermind flirting with her, like one with Quicksilver and/or Magneto? --DrBat 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Mastermind flirting with her? Your picture doesn't really show the actions in question either. It's a summary character page, where Lopresti is basing his work off of Kirby's. Lopresti is hardly as significant Scarlet Witch artist, on the scale of Kirby, Buscema, Heck, Perez or Milgrom.

I could change the wording about the flirting in my caption, as what he's actually doing is trying to get her to join with him in a leadership coup. I thought I was being funny. I chose that image because it depicts Wanda so well in Kirby's early style. Magneto and Quicksilver have their own pages, and shouldn't overshadow her on hers.--Erikacornia 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I had previously uploaded a Kirby image of Wanda by herself, but it got removed.

Anyway, I suggested having Quicksilver and/or Magneto be in the image with her as opposed to Mastermind because her relationships with Magneto and Quicksilver are more important to her character than her relationship with Mastermind.

Furthermore, the Lopresti image shows Magneto rescuing Wanda, and Wanda with the rest of the Brotherhood. Therefore, I think it's a better image for the Brotherhood section than just her and Mastermind. I mean, she had a bigger relationship with Toad than she did with him. --DrBat 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Herobox picture

Any particular reason for using the Alex Maleev recent cover of New Avengers, rather than the perfectly servicable Djurdjevic cover that was up previously? Neither may show the classic or iconic Wanda, but at least in the Djurdjevic she has arms and hands, ie the limbs she needs to use her powers (or did for many decades). The Maleev image is emblematic of her current state of non-use and the "controversial" Bendis era of character destruction; I found an image focusing on her magical abilities to be much more appropriate than one that sexualizes her as a Klimt drawing. I'll wait for discussion, but I'm tempted simply to revert it back. For the longest time this page suffered through a fan art image; ideally it should be Kirby, Buscema or Perez who define the major visual concept of this character. --140.247.127.95 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) --Erikacornia 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot I wasn't logged in above)

I have replaced it with one of George Perez. She isn't using any magic, but isn't either in a "sexy" style or doing anything that seems like "fan art". Simply standing there. I think it fits the fair use rationale better. Perón 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you, good choice! --Erikacornia 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Mutants Kirby Picture

DrBat, can we please stop haggling over the Kirby illustration of Wanda and Mastermind? I scanned it, I want it in, I've stopped replacing your Lopresti illustration with it, we've opened it up for discussion and no one else cares but us, I have a good rationale for providing at least ONE example of Kirby art on the page, and it happens to feature Wanda in a very nice full-on portrait bust composition. I'm just going to keep putting it back, and the article is hardly overloaded with images at the moment. So leave it in, okay?--Erikacornia 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect bit about Quicksilver in the JLA/Avengers section

I removed this sentence: "Quicksilver meanwhile found himself without powers, initially unable to access the DC Universe Speed Force." Firstly, it's borderline irrelevant to the JLA/Avengers section, because this is an article on Wanda. It can be argued that her close connection with her brother makes it relevant, but fine, whatever. The major thing wrong with this sentence is that it is untrue. As per JLA/Avengers issues #1 & 2, Pietro is shown using his powers while on the DC version of Earth. He's not as fast as the Flash (Yes, he can't access the Speed Force), but he never was. He is still superhumanly fast on DC Earth. Further, his powers are not contingent upon the existence of the Speed Force. Those powers come from his mutation; the Speed Force is (thus far) non-existent in the Marvel Universe. Zebraic 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual assault in the Brotherhood?

The current version of this article claims Wanda was sexually abused during her time with the Brotherhood. While it has been shown through retcon that Toad and Mastermind did try, there's nothing to suggest they actually succeeded in this. Similarly, when did the "Wanda was also introduced to prejudice when a Transian boy her age attempted to sexually molest her. She used her powers to return to safety but was accused of attempting to seduce the boy." event occur?

I am just now reading Avengers issue 401 dated August'96. İn page seven while Wanda remembers her life with her father and the brotherhood, you can clearly see that mastermind and toad sexually assaulting Wanda, even while Pietro and Magneto are in the same room! there is also a minor dialog on the same page between Pietro and Wanda which I suspect referring to an incestous relationship between them.85.97.11.83 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wandapietrro.png

Image:Wandapietrro.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 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SW Reworking

Shifted an image; added more sourced paragraphs and culled some side comments that are better suited to other characters' pages (eg. Mantis). Taking some time but the infortmation is accurate and in chronological order. Don't under why a user saw fit to recently delete sourced information in the first place.

Asgardian (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A-104.jpg

Image:A-104.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) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing the in-universe chronology of events

I've made attempt to give a more encyclopedic view to the first two paragraphs, but I'm at a loss as to how to extend that perspective to the very detailed and lengthy article that follows. In one way it's wonderful to have all that history remembered and preserved. In another it's extreme overkill and far too detailed to be useful to most readers, and is against the preferred wiki-style. All I can think of is to edit "boldly" and loose paragraph after paragraph, but I'm not sure that's the right approach.--Erikacornia 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the sequence of the events surrounding the birth of Wanda and Pietro's kids and the discovery that Magneto was Wanda and Pietro's father. It took place in The Vision and Scarlet Witch miniseries Vol. 1 #4 shortly after the birth of Luna, a while before Wanda became pregnant with William and Thomas. --KiplingKat 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.29.203 (talk)

Bring back the Scarlet Witch !!!

It's just outrageous what some "big brains" at Marvel have done to this character! Wanda has always been a loveable, balanced character throughout her history . And her frankness and altruism shall always be remembered! What have you done to her? Bring her back!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.79.47 (talk) 11:28, 4 June 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) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1602 appearance removed; why?

Why was the entry for Marvel 1602 removed? Wanda was part of the storyline, had powers (albiet, unspecified ones), and was a legitamet alternate version of Wanda Maximoff. So why was it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemen32 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Young X-Men presents... statement and other edits

To avoid an editing war, I will lay out the reasons I am challenging your edit:

1) Given the addition of chronological context added in the line above it, the statement is redundant.

2) As for the sentence itself, it begs the question: "What other tales?" The statement requires context as it suddenly discusses a comic series out of nowhere. It provides no direction for the reader. Someone reading the page knows nothing about "the other tales," so the line problematic for that reason.

3) Finally, adding the sentence to begin with is problematic and contrary to Wikipedia policies as no source is supplied to support the statement. When I integrated the chronological context in the line above, I added a fact date tag and requested that a proper citation be added for no other reason than the fact that a supposed source was mentioned ("please see the official marvel handbook..."). All you have to do is add the citation. (I also asked the same of the changes made on Wiccan's page.)

I am not opposed to including this information so long as a proper source is provided. Simply add one where it says "citation needed."

I would also like to point out recent edits to the "Return" section. While I tried to integrate the original information added to appropriate Wikipedia style, recent edits have included statements that are problematic due to their speculative/original research nature. Though a writer at Marvel has "chosen" a character as a candidate, it does not substantiate the statement (which is worded just as dubiously) that this "apparently [means] there is at least a possibility of the Witch returning as a candidate, and that her story has not entirely ended yet." It only means a writer or writers in the company thinks Wanda would be a good candidate.

Here are some things to consider:

1) The provided citation (which requires some reformatting, which can be handled later) does not claim that this is a vote that will determine Wanda's real candidacy in the plotline, only that it is a poll of what various writers and editors think.

2) The language reflects this ambiguity, as it does not make a solid statement of fact, only an interpretation of possibility and assumption.

3) "The Witch" is not one of her noted aliases and is never mentioned in the article previous to that section and is thus inappropriate.

4) As an encyclopedia, the entry is not concerned with whether or not a character's story is "ended." Rationally, as a comic book character, no character's story is ever officially ended, given that officials can use a character with any explanation they want. The reader does not need to be "reassured" that a character will return, only given the most recent concrete statements about the character's whereabouts and any concrete plans on the character's return. (You can observe Jean Grey's history tab as an example of a fictional character's page where false alarms are added consistently.) Only concrete statements of whether a character will return or not from official spokespersons are permissible. The things that are on the page now, while coming from officials, are only speculation.

So if you have a source from someone in Marvel who says something like, "For the time being, Wanda is depowered/repowered," or "Wanda is due to return in the near future/in the distant future," and you can source them, those would be great statements to add. However, statements that "someone" would like to see "something" happen don't have the necessary weight to meet notability and reliability standards.

I prefer to discuss these issues here rather than edit warring with one another. Mull it over and we can discuss it here and hopefully come to a consensus.Luminum (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To offer some perspective, Sandoval isn't a writer attached to New Avengers (and isn't a writer at all) and the article you linked describes a staff-poll, essentially. Therefore, that should be removed, since the fact that Sandoval "picked" Wanda in a poll means little to the title or the writing process. None of that (or the inclusion of Sandoval as the "Young Gun Artist 2009") gives information other than what an artist unaffiliated with the title would like to see in his personal opinion. Since Brevoort and Bendis are the editor/writer attached to the project, you are correct in that their statements have weight. However, all that is needed is what Brevoort said and in what context. Additional things such as "this may mean that..." is only speculation and original research. All it would mean is that Brevoort had something to say publicly about Wanda's candidacy and offers nothing about Marvel's true background planning and decision making process for the title and the future of the character.Luminum (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Get a Different Picture

I hate the main picture of her, but i don't know how to change it. Someone change to the one that Marvel.com has of her, if possible. Please anyone, if we can't have the marvel.com, can someone at least get a better picture of her, please!!!!!!

We don't change superhero infobox images due to personal aesthetics. The current image follows the guidelines laid out here: Wikipedia:CMC/EG#Superhero_box_images. The image suggested at Marvel fails those criteria.Luminum (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary/Third-Party Sources

As an explanation, even if a page is a comic page, this doesn't exempt them from requiring third-party sources, which establish their notability. While most of the content of a comic page is likely to come from primary sources, in order to establish notability and importance, third party sources would be necessary. This is what separates an unknown and unimportant character from one who is worthy of having an encyclopedic entry. Third party sources show that the character has an impact outside of the comic material, such as sources discussing Superman or Batman in the context of the real world rather than the events of the publications they appear in. You can see examples of how third party sources contribute to articles in the pages listed above or others such as a highly visible character like Storm or even a relatively less known character as Anole. In the latter's instance, without the third party sources that demonstrate that the character had impact outside of the source material, the article would essentially be non-notable and should be up for deletion. There are many articles out there that suffer from this problem and probably should be deleted, since just because soemthing exists, doesn't mean it deserves an article, and that doesn't mean that they're acceptable reason to maintain the way an article is. In fact, the goal should always be to substantiate an article.

Luckily, Scarlet Witch is a character that probably has a good amount of third-party neutral sources out there that just haven't been applied. It shouldn't be too difficult to find them and apply them. Therefore, the tag should stay.Luminum (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it! Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :)Luminum (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll find some more to back up the first one, although it does raise the question of how many we need before the tag comes off. Asgardian (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Avengers, Template:X-Men

I'm not quite sure why having both template boxes was a problem. Clearly, Scarlet Witch is in the X-Men box (and for good reason, since she debuted as a villainess within the series and has remained so in some other media). However, she was also much more prominent in the Avengers series, since she was one of its long-standing members and appeared in several of its spin off teams and media appearances. I suggest that we put both up, especially given that there is an Ultimate X-Men box, and she recorded much less time on either Ultimate X-Men or the Ultimates compared to the pages of Avengers. Several prominent members of the Avengers who do not comprise the original team have the box on their pages. Of all characters, Scarlet Witch should not be the exception.Luminum (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The long and the short of it: The content of the navigation box dictates where it goes. If the article isn't, or shouldn't be, in the 'box, the 'box doesn't belong on the article since using the 'box should get you to and from the article.

The Avengers 'box, along with most team oriented boxes, shouldn't have the full roster. And trying to get down to a list of "notables" is all but impossible since most teams in comics have fairly fluid memberships. Even keeping it to the simplest - initial roster or "everyone" - is problematic. Which "initial roster"? The one from the first issue? The one the writer wanted and arrived at 6 issues in? The one based on a retcon? How do we format "everyone"? By team? Era? Active/inactive? Bolding current members? And keep in mind, the 'box should not have to be updated every time there is a change in the roster nor should it impose an arbitrary, POV driven hierarchy within a particular list field.

Right now {{Avengers}} has a solution that works for it, just as {{X-Men}} has a different one that works for it. Unfortunately that solution leaves all but 6 heroes out, or fortunately since it reduces the size of the box and the arguments about which characters get added.

- J Greb (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read the discussion at the box article. I'm okay with it being left out, but it really makes me wonder what the point of the templates are. Is navigation that necessary when those same links exist (or should exist) is most pages?Luminum (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say it's "shorthand" - You can jump to the bottom of the article and get a list of related articles by topic.

- J Greb (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a cast of hundreds on both side of the aisle. I was the one who actually condensed the Avengers roster to the founders, although it be expanded to reflect "Cap's kooky quartet". So long as the Avengers template is present - as the SW was a part of this team for many years - I don't have an issue. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

House of M in relation to other realities

Can somebody answer this question for me please: Is Earth 616 the only reality wherein Wanda Maximhoff went insane and altered reality the way she has? What made this one so special?

The events of House of M took place on Earth-58163, not Earth-616 get your facts right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petaarr (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Scarlet witch perez.jpg

I went ahead and replaced this image as it has been digitally altered from its original.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As much as I love Perez's version of the character, the new image is better. An action shot is better than a static pose. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chaos Magic

From the Avengers Disassembled article: "Dr. Strange's comment that there is no such thing as "Chaos Magic" is a surprise, as Strange himself used it as his primary source of power for a time, and has seen Chaos Magic used on several other occasions. This comment also seems to fly against various important storylines involving the Witch from much of Kurt Busiek's and Geoff Johns's runs as writers on Avengers (vol. 3), including when she uses her magics against the In-Betweener in the "New World Order" storyline and to stop a bio-plague in the "Red Zone" storyline." Additionally, I recall Baron Mordo (one of Strange's arch-foes) as being touted as a "Master of Chaos Magic" (just as Strange was a Master of the Magic of Order). Were the writers unaware of this, or has Marvel been doing some massive re-structuring to their universe's magical background? Dr Archeville 17:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's an error.--Chris Griswold 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically Bendis dosen't care about continuity.

Despite what is said in the main article, there was only one mention of "Chaos Magic" in the Marvel Universe before it was retconned into being the Witch's power in 1998. It was in a fill-in issue of Dr Strange. That's all that's been retconned. Strange was using "Catastrophe Magic" as his power source for a time, and many people seem to be confusing the two. Bendis retconned away one fill-in issue of Dr Strange, and undid the retcon to Wanda's power, with this, plus the apparent return of the twins giving the implication that nothing Agatha has told her since her 'return from death' should be trusted. As it currently stands, references to Wanda's power being "chaos magic" should be edited out.

The leaked conclusion to AvX leads to Wanda being classified as a "∞ Mutant". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.137.45 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Merging comic references

There is an ongoing problem with the comic book references here: when the reference is about a story that takes place in an arc of 2 or 3 comics, we get a specific reference for each one of those comics. For example, one for Avengers #185, another for Avengers #186, and a third one for Avengers #187. That is not needed. {{Cite comic}} allows to use a range of issues at the "Issue" entry, and create a single reference for issues 185-187. See Template:Cite comic/doc#Citation of a story arc within a series Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to have a merged, citation, that is up to you. The problem becomes, with the way you did this, that the citations themselves are incorrect. Examine this diff; you are essentially claiming that Avengers #185-187 were all printed in July 1979, that all three were written and drawn by the same creators (which is possible), and that all three had the same title of "The Yesterday Quest!" The same problem occurs in the second citation, that X-Men #4-7 were all published in March 1964, and all had the same creators and title. If you want to simplify this you can remove the date, creators, and title, or you can fix them all within the same citation to be harmonious. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.jpg

File:Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free 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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ult. Scarlet Witch pic

Can someone either update it with a Ultimates pic (where she's appeared more often, in a better costume, and actually IS by Bryan Hitch) or fix the credit for the picture currently appearing? She only uses the 616 costume in Ultimate X-Men, and I know Bryan Hitch never drew for that book.

Twins

The account of the conception of the twins is incorrect, the Vision was not transformed into a human, and the moment of conception was sexless, occurring on-panel during #3 of the second Vision/Scarlet Witch miniseries, a result of the vast amount of magical energy she briefly wielded at that point.