Talk:The Infinity Gauntlet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tidy-Up

Promoted link to Infinity Gems where description of powers is provided. Liking to concepts such as Space was simply too vague given the context here. Corrected information, provided sources, added correct tense and culled unnecessary POV and "tell the story" components, which were better suited to a fan site. Culled one image as two not necessary and second simply a version of first. Work on the IG storyline to follow.

Asgardian 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What If

I'm wondering if it's noteable to note the many What-If issues that focus on the Gauntlet? Lots42 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On Trading Cards

Pretty much every comic book character has been on a trading card. Is the Impel information canon? If the Gauntlet weighs two hundred pounds, that's noteable. Of course, irrelevant if you are wearing it, LOL. But in conclusion, there are lots of trading cards.... 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

JLA/Avengers

I've returned this paragraph to the form that gives the real-world publishing facts and ID's the real-world entities before going into the make-believe details.

NOTE: User:Asgardian has twice reverted this in a single day. He is restricted from making more than one revert a week per the Dec. 3, 2007 Arbitration decision here. A request for enforcement has been logged here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed the term "powerful" from lead it is inherently POV and such terms are not usually in leads. As per WikiComics discussion spelt out what what's in the lead.

Asgardian (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And 'powerful' doesn't really apply to describing the Gauntlet. In the terms of the Marvel Universe, the bearer can literally define power. Heck, he or she can make the word mean 'fish'. Lots42 (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Danny Phantom

Should we mention somewhere that there is a special of the Television show which uses a gauntlet that resembles the infinity gauntlet, right down to using gems to power it? 70.17.0.102 (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. It sounds like coincidence to me. Unless there is a verifiable connection, then no. Lots42 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is called The Reality Gauntlet, is a massive glove, has three gemns to power it (Life, Form and Fantasy) and before its second appearance, each of the Heroes took one gem and hid it somewhere. How much more obvious a connection can you get? 194.81.189.20 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but unless the Danny Phantom producers/one of the employees -confrms- the connection, it is original research and not allowed. Lots42 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but using your arguement, we would have to remove every single reference from "In Other Media" in the whole of wikipedia. It is like when a character from one show appears in another, or a character says a famous line from a movie, we know the reference so we don't need it stating for us out right by the writers/producers.194.81.189.20 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to 194.81.189.20; that is not what I am arguing at all. Lots of things resemble lots of other things. You need a CITATION. Like I said, if one of the Danny Phantom writers said they were inspired by the Gauntlet, then it would be appropiate add it in. we know the reference so we don't need it stating for us out right by the writers/producers Yes, we DO need it stated outright. See WP: Original Research. Lots42 (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Artifact versus Series

I feel this article would benifit from a complete restructuring/rewrite. The article seems to focus on the Glove rather than the 1992 company-wide crossover, the latter having a greater real-world context. I would love to work collaboratively with another user on this; although, I am hesitant to go through the boxes to find the series in my collection. -Sharp962 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

False start

While the article dose need a clean up, can we get it done in such a manner as to:

1. Not leave the article without a lead.
2. Leave intact that the article is covering, primarily, the limited series and the plot device that is the glove.
3. Not abbreviate months in the infobox.
4. Try not to eliminate items within the IOM section unless it really is trivial - and Marvel having the item featured in a trading card set the same year the series was published is borderline, hedging to "not quite pure trivia".
5. Not remove a reference section.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Commendations to both J Greb and Asgardian on the recent revisions to the article. In the continued revamping of the article, I thought formatting would best progress in a similar fashion as Sinestro Corps War, as I think the resources are out there to get IG to feature quality.

I added the Origins section, but still trying to root through old Wizards, CSN, and internet to find commentary by Starlin. 'Formatting' (of the series) and Character changes will be the most comprehensive due to the amount of time that's past.

Any other article formatting suggestions? -Sharp962 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

I pulled the Origins section as there is already a mention in the lead that it follows on from The Thanos Quest. The article that states the apparent history isn't too reliable as it was written by fans and they have omitted information. Yes, Starlin resurrected Thanos (stated and sourced in text), we don't know for a fact that the plan all along was to showcase the Gems. If Starlin said it somewhere, then it is certainly fact. Also, the Cloak and Dagger claim is dubious at best. What I did do however, was source the crossover titles and add them to bolster the article. Without a Starlin commentary from one of those those recent Marvel biopics, I don't think much more can be added. Asgardian (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian, if you are going to do something

1. Be truthful in your edit summary, and
2. Do the edits separately.

That is - Add the list as one edit with an edit summary to that effect. Blank a section as a separate edit and honestly state that is what you are doing.

- J Greb (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful about making about this - Be truthful in your edit summary - statement as like another user fast approaching meltdown that could be construed as an accusation. The change was transparent as the rationale was presented on this page for discussion. If we can find a Starlin quote then great, I'm all for it being included. By the by, there are also a plethora of other users that combine multiple edits. Why single me out? And, is this actually illegal? By that I mean in violation of Wikipedia policy? Not a guideline, but an actual rule?Asgardian (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer? Your tendency to practice ownership, edit war, and provide less than helpful information.

Slightly longer answer:

I've got that you dislike the "Origins" section and don't believe it is necessary (more on that in a moment). But swapping it out for something else make it look like you are trying to hide its removal. With your history, that isn't a good thing. Take the time and be up front - remove the section and note it.

As for separating your edits - it's damn hard for later editors to either correct what they see as unintended or inappropriate removal of material or restore a smaller/altered section when they have to work though a mass edit. If the lumped edits are similar, such as removing multiple sections at one time or copy-editing all of the paragraphs in a section at one time, it's less likely to be an issue. But doing it with dissimilar edits can discourage other editors from even trying.

Right now, I'm close to agreeing with you that the "Origins" section is redundant since it can be mentioned in the "Plot summary" (in-story) or in the Lead. The "lead-up" should be mentioned, even if it is to reword

"The storyline continues the plot events of the two-part limited series The Thanos Quest, published by Marvel Comics from September to October 1990."

to

"The storyline continues the plot elements Starlin introduced in Silver Surfer and The Thanos Quest, elements that would also play out in the later Infinity War and Infinity Crusade." (links as needed)

This provides a mapping of what was published before and after this particular series. The major problem I'm having though is that your method is what tends to goad "another user fast approaching meltdown". If you are not aware of this, take this as advice to try avoid the practice so that you don't inadvertently create that meltdown. If you are aware of it, take it as advice to stop baiting that editor.

- J Greb (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

(I apologize for the break, but it helps me to keep sense of the conversation). I am against the listification of the "Cross-over" issues, and would again point to an "origins" or "lead-in" section, as this would be similar in formatting to an exemplar limited series page, Sinestro Corps (I chose "Origins" as that is how a similar section was entitled on Sinestro Corps). The fanification argument of the Marvel article does not reflect that this was a featured article on the Marvel site leading into the What if and Illuminati series, making it a quantifiable commentary from the publisher (comics journalist are comics fans, too). Unfortunately, in this case, I would defer to staff writers of Marvel over a wikipedian editor to refect reliability in the progression of the Infinity Gauntlet series. I really have respect for the Asgardian minimalistic style and agree that this article would benifit from more Starlin; however, I would be remissed to think that from-the-author's-mouth is the only source of commentary on the series. At the least, the Marvel article represents interpretation for the progression of the series from a quantifiable source. In short, more prose and less lists. -Sharp962 (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

That's really a bit of a balancing act...I can see it working both ways, but the best likely option is a mix of prose and list. Essentially:

"Publication order (for lack of a better term)

"While Infinity Gauntlet was an individual series, it did relate to other comics that Marvel had published prior to, at the same time as, and after the publication of the series. The issues leading into the series included:

• The Thanos Quest (Aug - Nov 1990);
• Silver Surfer vol. 3, #44-50 (Dec 1990 - Jun 1991); and
• Cloak and Dagger vol. 3, #18 (June 1991) (the order here is date order, oldest material first)

"During the course of the series, Marvel added an "Infinity Gauntlet Crossover" tag to the trade dress of fifteen specific issues of other series published with cover dates from July through December of 1991. While the core story unfolded within Infinity Gauntlet, these crossover issues provided a view of how the story was affecting the rest of the Marvel Universe. This issues included:

• Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme vol. 3, #31-36 (July - Dec 1991);
• Hulk #384-385 (Aug - Sep 1991);
• Quasar #26 (Sep 1991);
• Silver Surfer vol. 3, #51-59 (July - Nov 1991); and
• Sleepwalker #7 (Dec 1991)

"After the series ended, some plot elements, such as the titular object, the Infinity Gauntlet, appeared in later issues of other series. These plot elements included the continued character development of Thanos and Adam Warlock, which built toward the later Infinity War and Infinity Crusade limited series.

(It may also be nice to have a short list of "epilogue" issues and "spin off" series if such exist)

Ideally this would be a section between the Lead and the Plot. Yes, it does repeat parts of the lead, but the lead is supposed to be an overview of what is in the article. Such duplication is expected.

- J Greb (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the aspect of the spin-off and epilogue to show a greater scope. I believe inclusion of Illuminati and What-if issues may also provide a greater context for the storyline.-Sharp962 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

The List can be worked into a PH easily enough, as can the What If? issues. The Illuminati already have a mention on the Gems page, as that's where it is relevant. Asgardian (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the move...

Why?

The indicia - the proper title - of the comic book series is Infinity Gauntlet. No "The". This is also the case with the TPB, or at least in the opinion of the publisher - [1].

Can we get this moved back now?

- J Greb (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The cover treatment has to be considered. The series Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos, for instance, is listed as just "Sgt. Fury" in its indicia — but the cover title and the most common way the series is known is Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. When the big cover image of the series shows the title as The Infinity Gauntlet, that suggests the same sort of primacy. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And Overstreet list it as Infinity Gauntlet, not Infinity Gauntlet, The or The Infinity Gauntlet. So do what are considered reliable on line sources - The Grand Comic-Book Database and ComicBookDB.com - and retailers - [2] [3] both from Mile High Comics.

The cover argument is nice, and works in some cases. Sgt. Fury is a dicey example though since the indicia changed to match the cover during the run - [4] and [5].

- J Greb (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, although the longer title doesn't seem to have appeared in the indicia until issue #121, toward the end of the title's long run, and we generally refer to the series by the full name for the whole run. The industry was more informal during the 1960s and '70s, when indicia titles seem to be shorthand. For example, whether the cover title was The X-Men or The Uncanny X-Men, the indicia still reads simply X-Men. (That probably needs to be addressed here, but that's another story.)

The indica involves copyright. The title treatment involves trademark. Each are equally valid. What tips the latter for me is that the cover treatment is, additionally, what everyone sees, and so I believe it invites confusion when the cover illustration contradicts the article title.

Suggestion: I've seen, though I can't recall offhand where, article leads that begin something like "The Super Guys (as given in cover logo; Super Guys in postal indicia), is a...." Would this be a workable solution? Otherwise, to a general-audience reader, it will appear as if there's an error if the illustration says one thing and the text says another. What do you think? -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually... X-Men v1 swapped to The Uncanny X-Men with 141 - see Days of Future Past as well as [6] and [7] even though the cover change about 2 1/2 years prior [8] (Oct 1978).

As for "What is seen"... I can see the point to that, but that seems dishonest to a degree with an encyclopedia article. We really should be dealing with what the magazine is titled - which is the copyrighted material - not whit marketing material - which is the trademark.

As for the last... You may be thinking of Countdown to Final Crisis or Countdown to Infinite Crisis.

- J Greb (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, J. I'm not sure trademarks can be discounted as simply "marketing material" — there's an argument to be made the trademarked name of the product is the official name — but leaving that aside, I'm not sure I can agree that avoiding discrepancy between the highly visible trademark and the article title is dishonest. I actually think the compromise suggestion is very honest and transparent — we're providing both the copyright and trademark versions, with a clear explanation. I think if a general audience reader sees "The Infinity Gauntlet" in the image that we'd be less than responsible to call the article "Infinity Gauntlet" without explanation.

Again, I'd have to back to the Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos point. By all accounts, that's what the comic book is generally called, per the trademark, even though the indicia said just "Sgt. Fury" for the first 10 or 12 years.

Regardless, I'm not against using the copyrighted name for the article title, if that's the consensus. What I do believe very strongly is that when there is a discrepancy between copyright and trademark, we need to clarify the discrepancy right up front.

Not sure what the "Countdown" stuff refers to; I was just saying "Super Guys" out of the blue! :-) -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Countdown is an actual example of the name change being commented on in the article. Mostly because the name for the article was set on the "most likely search". Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos and Uncanny X-Men follow, or at least should, the same logic - it is more likely that a search will be based on fan comments or subject specific sources. Both of those sources use the longer version of the title.

And you are right, either

"Infinity Gauntlet (identified as The Infinity Gauntlet on the cover)..."

or

"The Infinity Gauntlet (identified as Infinity Gauntlet in the publishing indicia)..."

should be in the lead.

- J Greb (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, then — all good. I believe we should use specific terms (i.e., "trademarked cover logo" and "copyrighted title per postal indicia" or some such phrasing), and otherwise, I'm good either way with article title. Maybe some of the other editors could weigh in on cover title or indicia title — you're absolutely right on the Countdown and Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos "most common name" examples, and "(The) Infinity Gauntlet" isn't known particularly by one title or the other. Other eds? -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This article is clearly about the comic series, yet there's tons of talk about the actual gauntlet item. I think they should all be moved to their own article- either the Infinity Gems one or perhaps better yet create an article called The Infinity Gauntlet (weapon) [or similar name} then merge the gems article w/ it. The current format is very confusing, talking about Infinity Gauntlet is interchanged between the comic book series and the fictional item. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)