Jump to content

Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ultimate Vision

I think the Ultimate vison section needs a little cleanup. Mostly becasue of this quote:

"Later, former Ultimates member Hank Pym created another robot, called the Vision II. It is shown as being identical to a robot named Ultron that Hank Pym had been working on, and is presumably just a copy bearing a different name for ease of identification. Pym took the robots to show Nick Fury in an attempt to rejoin the team. While exiting the building, the Vision II encountered the Scarlet Witch who began to flirt with him."

Him? In the Ultimate Universe things are different, including but not limited to: a female vision. The rest of the section is correct as I understand. However, I don't know what this person is citing. I can't think of where this information came from. It wasn't in the Galactus Trilogy, The vision #0, #1, or #2 which is all that is out right now. And I have read a lot of the other books in the Ultimate universe and can't seem to recall any such scene ever happening.

If I don't see this cited soon I will delete it from the article, yet have left it up as I may be very wrong.Bhold1 09:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I left it up for a while, and no one made claim to that statement. I therefore deleted an un-cited bit of info. Bhold1 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scarlet Witch entry says: In Issue #6 of Ultimates Volume 2, writer Mark Millar alludes to her relationship with Vision; Hank Pym attempts to redeem himself by bringing two androids, named Ultron and Vision II, to the Ultimates. 67.83.47.9 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The original write-up and Scarlet Witch entry are correct, I distinctly remember a different male Vision and Scarlet Witch flirting with him (and Quicksilver showing disgust) in Ultimates.

Also, the mini-series has been disregarded.

Separate article?

Anyone else think that the Golden Age Vision should be split off into a seperate article? - SoM 13:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure. --DrBat 11:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. The Timely Comics Vision is a completely different character from the Marvel Vision(s) (one an alien, the other synthezoids). In fact there alreayd is an article specifically for the Timely Vision. All information concering the Golden Age vision so go to that particular article. Bhissong 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)bhissong

Johns & Reins Version of the story: could be used?

In the article I've didn't found the version of the Vision history that was given in the 2002 Avengers Icons story-arc composed by Yesterday and Tomorrow, Eye of the Beholder, Father of the Machine and Dog Fight, in which the Vision was stated as the Tomorrow Vision, an android assembled by a very young Phineas T.Horton to show the media his best invention: a "Solar Gem", light powered, able to give every mechanical device that used it as a core the ability to think hundred times better than an human brain. The misfire of the experimental robot, which circuitry burst in flame (a reference to the Human Torch?), led the reporters, called by Horton himself to flee. All but one, a Nazi spy who managed to stole one of the Solar Gems, thus creating the legendary Gremlin, in that case a mechanical construct capable to take control of every machinery, from cars to plane, bent on spreading fear between the American people. After losing all his memory to the Gremlin, the Vision managed to regain them with the help of a young boy, son of an USAF pilot, and Victoria Horton, the young niece of Phineas, holder of the third and the last Solar Gem. It was Victoria who instructed the Vision on changing his molecular density to prevent the Gremlin on taking on his robotical body, and when the Vision destroyed the Gremlin's Solar Gem, she became the caretaker of the last gem, and part of the "family" of the Android. DrTofu83 18:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that series (well, besides the fact that it was crap - since that's a subjective matter), is that it gratiuitously contradicted anything and everything about the Vision's history. You either replace the Avengers Forever events with it - which twisted itself in knots to try and include anything and everything - or you ignore it. It's far simpler to ignore it, since even the weird phasing effect had gone by the time he was "killed." - SoM 21:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
As it is a subjective matter, I disagree. Avengers Forever rekindled the connection between the Vision and the original Human Torch, and the Vision mini-series did a lot to cement and acknowledge that connection. Personally I think this should be played up more and include a reference to the Vision's pre-Avengers adventures being one-in-the-same as those of the Torch (prior to the Vision's creation). He may not remember them, but that seems to be what has happened again with "Vision II." This connection should be further acknowledged, at least by including Adam II, the Pyronano monstrosities, the Gremlin devices and Professor Phineas T. Horton as relatives (Horton going on the same line as Ultron and Hank Pym). Kevingarcia 04:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact at first I've thought of a paragraph on this alternate version between Other Media Appearances and Bibliography, but I understand your point... it would be only a matter of confusion about the real origins of the Vision. And I'll bet that Virginia Horton and her solar gem were alred removed from the continuity... DrTofu83 10:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Relationships

Time to start talking about it. I've seen a lot of different edits overwriting each other. CovenantD 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the new version of the Vision being treated as a separate entity?

They're the same thing. I don't understand why they should be separate. --Chris Griswold 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not the same. The old Vision's body was a copy of the synthezoid body of the original Human Torch altered by Ultron, and his mind and personality were based on the brain engrams of Wonder Man and Alex Lipton. The current Vision (from Young Avengers) is Kang's 30th-century armor animated by the original Vision's core operating system, with a mind and personality based on those of Iron Lad, a young Kang. Both their bodies and minds are different, so they're two distinct individuals. --TheCorpulent1 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a better question: why is the new version of the Vision referred to as Future Vision? It's more than a bit misleading. This version of the Vision came into being in the present and remains active in the present, so he's not from the future and shouldn't be labeled as such. He is not in any way what the former Vision will become in the future, which is the impression "Future Vision" gives. Someone ought to edit a more appropriate name for this character/section.

Superheroboxes

Consensus over at the Editorial Guidelines talk page seems to be that we shouldn't have multiple superhero boxes in this way. Accordingly, I think we should delete one. --Mrph 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Present Tense?

It seems that this article needs to be edited into the present tense. That sounds simple enough. You'd think that anyone could do it; you wouldn't even need any special knowledge or sources about Vision. However, when I read the article and try to imagine how to say these same things in the present tense, I have no idea. For example:

The Vision's body was thought to have been created from that of the original Human Torch, while the patterns of his synthetic brain were based on those of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Simon Williams. It was later revealed that the time lord Immortus used the power of the Forever Crystal to split the original Human Torch into two separate entities: one remained the original Torch while the other was rebuilt as the Vision by Ultron

How can we say that in the present tense? It's talking about one thing happening after another and it seems that the only way to say such things is in the past tense. -- Lilwik 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Vision's body is thought to have been created from that of the original Human Torch, while the patterns of his synthetic brain are based on those of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Simon Williams. It is later revealed that the time lord Immortus uses the power of the Forever Crystal to split the original Human Torch into two separate entities: one remains the original Torch while the other is rebuilt as the Vision by Ultron Maybe? Ugnut 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a past version [1] of this article that carefully changes the tense of every verb to make it present tense just like this. Doing this changes the meaning of the words and makes it seem strange. There must be a better way to talk about a sequence of events without being forced to use the past tense. Wikipedia is right to ask us to use the present tense because all those older versions of Vision still exist today as much as the most recent Vision, if a fictional character can be said to exist at all. — Lilwik 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Superhero Box Image

I don't think the image of the golden age Vision should be in the character box. Granted, he is the "first" Marvel character named "Vision," but he bears little similarity to the much more popular android "Vision." Since the majority of the article is about the android Vision from the Avengers, I think the hero box image should reflect that. Bhissong 13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)bhissong

I agree.
This whole article got screwed up. --DrBat 22:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is Vision (Marvel Comics), not Vision (Timely Comics). Even if Marvel owns the Timely character, that's not the Marvel character. Furthermore, our editorial guidelines say we need to present the most universally recognizable version. The Timely Vision deserves recognition but does not belong in the superhero box. Doczilla 03:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not what has played out with the Whizzer...but swapping an image is easily fixed. That said, all three verson can and do belong on the same page.Asgardian 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, they are related in name only. The alien version bears little or no resemblance to the android versions. --DrBat 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
They all share the same name and hence a complete listing on one page prevents confusion for new readers. If you think the alien version doesn't look like the android version (especially on the Invaders cover) then you may need glasses.
Asgardian 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The 40s Vision's look may have inspired the android Vision of today, but besides that the characters aren't connected at all.
A comparision could be made if you went to the Human Torch's article and tried shoving the android Human Torch (Human Torch (android)) there. In fact, one would have more reason to do that than shoving the alien Vision into this article because the android Torch has interacted with the modern Human Torch before, has made several appearances in the modern comics, and is also an important and well-known character.
As with the Human Torch, a simple link at the top of the page saying "Click here for the Golden Age character" is all that is needed. Frankly, adding some obscure alien character from the 40s is more likely to cause more confusion than it is to prevent it. --DrBat 00:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happens, I strongly feel that the Golden Age Vision should not be the image used in the SHB. Either the SHB should feature the most recognizable incarnation or it should not have an image at all, instead placing an identifying image in each separate section for each version. --GentlemanGhost 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over Golden Age Vision

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Split

It seems there has been an edit war over the inclusion of the golden age Vision in this article. Obviously such a thing should be handled in the talk page. I personally see no significant connection between the golden age Vision and the more recent Vision and therefore I think it should be excluded from the article or given only a very brief mention. The link at the top of the article is perfect. — Lilwik 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Lilwik. The Golden Age Vision already has its own page. It does not belong here. Plus, the picture in the SHB should be of the Avengers' Vision. Anyone else call to chime in? Bhissong 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)bhissong

We have the separate Black Widow (Marvel Comics) and Black Widow (Timely Comics) articles, by way of example and comparison.--Tenebrae 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Golden Age version has a page with almost no information. As such, it can and has been included here. The fact that one particular version is more "well-known" is irrelevant. There have been three versions of the Vision from Timely/Marvel, and they belong on the same page. It's certainly good enough for the Whizzer and others. The other version is substandard at any rate - past tense, POV, poor grammar and sentence structure, unsourced claims that belong on a fan site and a muddied use of images. The GA page can be redirected here.
Asgardian 07:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that being more well-known is irrelevant, but what reason do you have for putting these two characters on the same page? The only reason I can think of would be because they happen to have the same name. But having the same name is even more irrelevant than being well known. These are clearly two very different characters with nothing connecting them but their names and they should be treated as such. I wonder if the Golden Age Vision is even notable enough to deserve any place in Wikipedia at all more than a brief mention. I certainly think it is not notable enough occupy the main image of this page. — Lilwik 10:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, as per WikiProject Comics' naming conventions, Roman numerals should not be used to disambiguate versions, as they currently are in the infobox. If we do have all three characters on this page, perhaps we should use an infobox along the lines of the one used for Flash (comics). --GentlemanGhost 10:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the Roman numerals. --GentlemanGhost 11:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What about a compromise? Asgardian, the body of your article concerning the Marvel Vision is tighter and more concise than the previous version. All around, I like it better. What if we keep the body of the article as Asgardian has edited it, but simply take away the "Timely Vision" information? That will make the article even stronger, I think--Bhissong 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)bhissong
I disagree.
Cleaning up the page (ie, changing the tense from past to present) is one thing; wiping out a big chunk of the information is another.
And it's not like the page is overly long, either. Plenty of fictional characters have far bigger articles. --DrBat 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with bhissong. And there's plenty to write about with the Timely Vision on his own page, for the Kirby connection and the dozens of stories in which he appeared. Outside of the Angel and the the Destroyer, I think he was the biggest of Timely's second-string characters.--Tenebrae 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A minor point here. When you move the article, if such a move is agreed upon, please move it to "(comics)" with a lower-case "C". This is the WikiProject Comics naming convention. --GentlemanGhost 23:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a notice about this dispute on the WikiProject Comics talk page, soliciting comment from other Project members. --GentlemanGhost 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote: To split or not to split

Split them into separate articles for Vision (Timely Comics) and Vision (Marvel Comics). Doczilla 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Split them since the two characters are just too different and putting them in the same article just confuses things. Let us mention that modern Visions appearance was vaguely inspired by an older character called Vision and leave it at that. — Lilwik 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Split them. I've made my reasons clear enough throughout this discussion page. Bhissong 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)bhissong

Split them. Compared to most characters who have the same name, certain ones need to be separated which includes this one, such as the Black Widows. RIANZ 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Split Phoenix741 11:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, Phoenix. Didn't you express the opposite point of view yesterday? [2] --GentlemanGhost 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Split, and let them remain separate articles. Murghdisc. 11:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Split them. --DrBat 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Split -- I'm all for mergeing articles but these are two vastly different characters, not alternate versions of the same Vision. Keep 'em seperate. 69.182.78.104 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote discussion: Talk about whether or not to split.

Although having both in a single article could be totally appropriate in light of many, many precedents, this edit war is ridiculous. The two (I'm lumping the two androids together as one to simplify what I have to say here) characters, though unrelated in-universe, are connected in real world history. The android Vision got created when the writer wanted to bring back the alien Vision, but Stan said no, let's create an android instead. However, each character can merit his own separate article. The android's look is obviously based on the alien's, and the creators have said so. But so what? Their separate Timely/Marvel origins give us simple enough grounds to divide them up. Yes, the alien Vision has a much skimpier history by far than does the android Vision, but he certainly has more than many other characters that have their own articles. We do not always cram every set of similarly named characters into the same article. Count how many Green Lanterns, Flashes, Robins, etc., have separate articles. (Yeah, there's also a unifying Flash article, but that works because the character histories are tied together and they're all published under the same DC Comics banner.) There would be nothing wrong with keeping these characters together in the same article, but obviously people can't or won't make that work. When people are (1) fighting over whether or not to include both characters in the same article, (2) repeatedly changing the name of the article because you can't agree, and (3) screwing up the edit history and discussion page, then you just need to split them and be done with this mess. Since you obviously have way too many other issues to settle with regard to how this article is edited, you need to set at least this issue aside.

Here's the most relevant precedent: Black Widow (Marvel Comics) and Black Widow (Timely Comics). Doczilla 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes...but then take a look at the Whiizer, which goes the other way. This is not the main issue, folks. My main gripe is that someone has come in and pushed a very inferior version - reread all my past points. Sorry, but it is a mess and the stuff of a fan site. I can handle most things, but not sloppy POV with no sources and poor grammar. When there's also poor use of images and large chunks of white, then I draw the line. I'll separate them if everyone feels that strongly - and rework the GA version - but the main article should stay as I've written it. I've dropped the Roman numerals and swapped the images so that the Modern Vision showcases the article. I cannot, however, support the rambling mess previously pushed. GG will now tell me to calm down, but I can't seem to get the other poster to see what the problems are.
Asgardian 11:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Whizzer goes the other way because (1) he has made many Marvel appearances, (2) he has other connections to modern Marvel Comics (e.g., all the years when he was said to be Quicksilver's father), and (3) the various Whizzers all have the same superpower.
This discussion is about the split, not about whatever inferiority anyone percieves in either version. Doczilla 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So, Asgardian, even though it's not your preference, you are OK with the split? --GentlemanGhost 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup

So, what needs fixing? I'm trying to compare versions, but unfortunately, the profusion of changes makes them difficult to compare merely by using diffs. A few things have already caught my eye, though. --GentlemanGhost 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Modern Vision? If we are counting the Iron Lad-based version as a separate character, which we seem to be doing, can we really call the Wonder Man-based version the "modern Vision"? --GentlemanGhost 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, and yet throughout Marvel publications the characters talk as if this Vision is a separate character from the original android. When in doubt, defer to the source. Doczilla 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • He's not saying that they shouldn't be treated as separate characters, he is saying that the Young Avengers Vision is no less modern than what we are calling the Modern Vision. In fact, I would say that Young Avengers Vision is actually more modern. — Lilwik 07:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I meant. I have no issue with them being treated as separate characters, but then it seems odd to call Wonder/Vision the "modern" version. What does that make Iron/Vision? Post-modern? It's a minor point, but I thought it worth mentioning. --GentlemanGhost 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First sentence of FCB. I think it is appropriate to mention that the character is an android right off the bat. Present tense can be tricky, though. I would prefer "Ultron, a robot, creates the android Vision…" or "The Vision is an android created by the robot Ultron…" rather than "The modern Vision is an android, and is created by the robot Ultron…". --GentlemanGhost 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Vision's origin. I actually prefer Asgardian's rewrite of this. I don't think it's necessary to explain Immortus's split of consciousness right off the bat. The prior version seems muddled to me and I think it would be confusing to a layman. --GentlemanGhost 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. It appears that Dr. Bat has already addressed some of these points while I've been off examining old diffs. Still, feel free to add points that you feel have not been covered. --GentlemanGhost 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian Edit War

It seems that we still have an edit war going on between two different versions of this article. Naturally, the thing to do is to settle this in the talk page rather than talking through edit summaries. Who prefers which version and why? Can we merge the two versions somehow to make one version that is better than either of them? That is what I would like to see. Hopefully Asgardian would allow that. – Lilwik 08:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted the page back to before the "discussion" began. This is the third page (so far) that we've been having this go on. If this sort of disruption continues, I think some person or persons may have a block forthcoming in their near future. For now, while any uncontroversial changes are welcome, please discuss the proposed changes. Please do not force me to protect the page. - jc37 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, two points:
  1. civility is a must. If in doubt, please read WP:EQ.
  2. I've been reading the edit summaries, and one thing I'm noting is comments like: "Study the policies and you'll know why". Well, we have more than a few policies and guidelines. Please link to the ones which you wish to be noted and/or studied.
I'm sincerely hoping that this can be resolved without further disruption. - jc37 18:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the prior version the one that's supposed to remain until a consensus is reached? This is the version of the article before Asgardian replaced the entire thing with his own version (see [3]).
Though I wouldn't mind if you did protect the article. --DrBat 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with The Doctor. A certain user seems to think that their versions are always right and ends up causing problems with certain articles... like the Absorbing Man edit war plus numerous others. So I second protecting this article until the "problem" is resolved. I also stand behind the fact the Vision and his Timely Comics predecessor should be split. Especially since the Timely one will be at the top which will in turn may confuse people. 146.171.16.8 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I happened to select a version before this discussion, which was also prior to most of the "page refactoring". But which version I chose, is incidental to the need to for civil, productive discussion in order to move forward. Please also see m:The wrong version. - jc37 09:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The "certain user" actually split them to keep the peace. He now wants another certain user to see the flaws in the other version of the main article, for all the reasons previously listed. Sorry, it is just bad.
PS - Sign in. Don't hide behind a code. - Asgardian 05:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Problematic

Following Jc37's lead, I have reverted back to the point before the controversial changes began. This seems to be the most fair way of doing it. I would rather see the problematic points addressed here than for the edit war to continue. --GentlemanGhost 05:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is all problematic. Past tense, poor grammar, no PH, poor use of images, unsourced POV and whole paragraphs of "tell the story" with no ability to craft the history into a coherent piece of prose. I presented a version that was there for days before this insistence on another inferior attempt, and even split the GA Vision into another article, corrected the roman numerals and swapped images to keep the peace. Understandably, I'm a tad annoyed. - Asgardian 07:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to start a new section below listing the specific examples that you have issues with, and hopefully they can be resolved amicably. - jc37 09:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You should just accept that you are not the only editor of this article and let it go. I never engage in edit wars because it is simply pointless. I don't edit articles to enforce my opinion of what should be in an article; I do it as a service to the greater good of Wikipedia. I consider my contributions to Wikipedia to be a gift to all the users and editors, and so if that gift is rejected that is their loss and of no consequence to me except for the time I wasted doing the edit. Therefore, I never do an edit if I have reason to believe it will be reverted; that's an unwanted gift and a waste of my time. I think that people who do edit wars might benefit from thinking of it as I do. – Lilwik 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
All true and valid points. Still...frustrating. You write these things according to Wiki-standards and make them pretty sharp, and then this sort of thing happens. Sigh. If folks at least knew something about the characters and could present sources, I'd be much happier. - Asgardian 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I added sources. [4] And then you reverted my edits. I also tried making some compromises, like adding your Perez-image to the article, and adding your Kirby-GoldenAgeVision image to the Golden-Age-Vision's article, as well.

And your version's wording is convoluted; for example, just compare

to

And the whole "Aside from the Vision's partnership with the Scarlet Witch, he has been involved in four significant events that have impacted on the Avengers" and listing the events one by one ("first event," "second event," ect) just seems sloppy to me. --DrBat 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Both quotes seem to have problems to me. The second is horribly convoluted and generally not good, but that seems to come from an attempt to bring the article into the present tense. The first suffers from using the past tense in a way that should be avoided.
In Wikipedia we are always describing matters of fact, never fiction, and therefore we should not use the fiction-writer's convention of describing fictional events in the past tense. It can be difficult, but instead of saying, "Vision was created by Ultron," we could say, "Vision's creator is Ultron." The reason is that we are not telling the story and we are not describing Vision's actual history, we are describing the character Vision as he currently exists in the entire body of work about him, the old and the new. I'm not saying that we shouldn't include all the same information, just that it is a matter for the present tense. – Lilwik 23:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, those paragraphs accurately summarise in a coherent fashion the Vision's history. The other version is all over the place and has misplaced information.
listing the events one by one ("first event," "second event," ect) just seems sloppy to me.
No, that's common sense and Wiki-practice - presenting the information in chronological order and then revealing each development's significance. This is where you fall down - you have no understanding of structure.
Lilwik, You also seem to need to look at structure a little closer. My version is far from convoluted and accurately summarises the events with sources. It is also not as easy as it looks, and takes a considerable amount of time to write. That's why I become irked when people then try and push inferior edits. - Asgardian 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, since this version is more Wiki-correct, and I have made concessions such as splitting off the GA version, swapping an image and correcting the Roman numerals, offer up some more suggestions on how to improve. Also note that two other posters were happy with this version and just tweaked slightly. I say this as this version doesn't require the massive structural overhaul the fan-version does.
Thoughts? - Asgardian 02:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the version you keep pushing on us is awkward in its use of the present tense. It reads poorly. Writing things in the past tense gives them a certain structure because it says that one thing happened before another in a sequence of events that tells a story. When you try to do the same thing in the present tense if ends up feeling disorganized if you do not take special steps to organize it. It should be in the present tense but only if doing so makes it a better article.
I also think that your concessions are irrelevant. No one editor is in authority here and this is not a negotiation. The only thing that matters is the article. -- Lilwik 03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be in the present tense but only if doing so makes it a better article.
Wikipedia stipulates present tense. It works for every other article, and can and does work here.
The only thing that matters is the article.
Agreed. The article is all-important, which is why it had to be re-written for all the previousy listed reasons. This version was then slightly modified by two other users, and then improved on again by myself, as per others suggestions. Make more suggestions if you wish, but Wikipedia requires a certain style and structure. That cannot be bucked. -Asgardian 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected.

Please resolve the differences here on the talk page rather than edit warring.

Consider this a final warning: continued incivility will result in being blocked. - jc37 10:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of differences

Please feel free to list thoughts or concerns about the article. - jc37 10:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Present tense
Although this is needed for all "in-universe" sections, there is some leeway. In the previous discussion of the phrasing of the origin section, Lilwik was concerned about saying "The Vision was created by Ultron..." My question is, does this happen off-panel or do we see it? If it's off-panel, then we are allowed to use past tense because it is part of the character's backstory. However, if we see it happen, then we should use the present tense: "Ultron creates the Vision..." or some such. --GentlemanGhost 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the opening sentence The modern Vision is an android, and is created by the robot Ultron is accurate. Ultron works on the Vision on-panel. He "is" created rather than "was". Standard kind of sentence for any creation entry. Asgardian 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a very awkward sentence. I am not sure if it is poor grammar, but "is created" seems wrong. You will get that a lot of you just mechanically translate past tense sentences into present tense to comply with policy. I would prefer The original Avengers Vision is a fictional android created by another fictional robot called Ultron. Writing in the present tense is a very different sort of writing and needs to be done in a different style, not just with different verbs. – Lilwik 04:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a tad too clumsy. There's no need for a mention of the Avengers in the first sentence as the Vision is not yet a member, and the fact that Ultron is a robot is enough. Asgardian 04:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be thinking in a past-tense style. Vision is a member of the Avengers in many stories about him and Ultron is his creator. There is no implied chronology when you are speaking in the present tense like there is in the past tense; you do not need to say things in the order in which they happened. In fact, trying to organize by chronological order when speaking in the present tense is confusing. I called Ultron a fictional robot to make it clear that Ultron is not the real creator of Vision in the way that Roy Thomas is. -- Lilwik 05:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are now getting bogged down in semantics. The SHB spells out the creator, and the FCB is just that. Asgardian 05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The section that a statement is written in does not change its meaning. If we say that Vision was created by a robot, it's not likely that anyone will be foolish enough to believe that the character was actually designed by a machine, but just because we aren't likely to confuse anyone doesn't mean we shouldn't make ourselves clear. – Lilwik 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think you are overcomplicating things. "The modern Vision is an android, and is created by the robot Ultron" seems to spell it out clearly. Asgardian 07:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot support that sentence having a place in this article because of how awkward it is. I am actually thinking that it might be best to stick to past tense. This is a brief summary of Vision's story and just as the section title indicates it is his fictional biography. In that case it seems right that it is should be written in the way that biographies are written. I have seen this in many other articles and they are very good articles. Theoretically present tense would be better, but it is impossible to convey the information clearly in that form, so I believe this is a case for WP:IAR. – Lilwik 07:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that "is created" is awkward. I would prefer, "The modern Vision is an android created by the robot Ultron." --GentlemanGhost 10:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with that is the old issue that the version of Vision created by Ultron is no more modern than any other version (not counting Golden Age Vision, of course). – Lilwik 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's not get stuck on one sentence. Asgardian 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, moving on.

  • Vision's origin
Unfortunately, the Vision's origin is convoluted, which makes it difficult to describe in an unconvoluted way. I personally don't feel that it's necessary to mention the retcons and reveals right off the bat, although I could be persuaded. To explain the synthesis of the Human Torch and Wonder Man, what about something like "Ultron combined the body of the original Human Torch with the brain patterns of Wonder Man to create the Vision."? --GentlemanGhost 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ultron didn't just combine the body of the original Human Torch with Wonder Man's brainwaves. The assertion that he had used the Torch's body, the discovery that Immortus had simply tricked people into thinking he had, and the business about splitting the Torch in two (which still is not the same as using the original Torch) were all retcons. Originally, Ultron was simply said to have created the android outright with no mention of the Torch at all. Doczilla 07:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup, and that's why in my version I reveal the details as they occur chronologically. As GG pointed out, the Vision's history is complicated, with each event having ramifications. That's why I break it down point by point with sources. This is what a new reader - who's never heard of the Vision - needs.Asgardian 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If I was a new reader, and I read your version, I'd just end up being more confused. And if we were doing "reveal the details as they occur chronologically," then the Torch returning and throwing the Vision's origin in question would be written after the bit about the government dismantling him, and not before.
Was the idea of the Vision's body originally being the Torch's a retcon? The only thing I would really consider to be a retcon was Byrne trying to undo everything in the 1990s with West Coast. Should we write something like "Byrne tried retconning the Vision being the original Human Torch by bring the Human Torch back" (and Byrne has stated on his forum how he never liked the idea of the two being the same; should that be stated as well?), and then how Busiek tried to 'unretcon' it in Avengers Forever? --DrBat 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm not sure if the first Vision=Torch discovery was a retcon or simply a secret. Roy Thomas had dropped some hints, then Steve Englehart got to write the big reveal. Maybe Roy always had it in mind (which seems doubtful since Stan simply told him to make the Vision be an android), maybe the idea came to him quickly after introducing the character, or maybe it came to him later. In terms of in-universe story, it's irrelevant whether any of them were retcons. In terms of real world behind-the-scenes story, it's all relevant. Within the article, we shouldn't call any of them retcons without external sources which confirm that they are/were. Doczilla 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
no roman numerals. Brian Boru is awesome 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ultron's claims were believed for many years, until the time of the reveal. Then later still there was the reappearance of the original HT and finally the Forever Crystal. I laid it all out in working order with sources. Asgardian 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
After a few days still no case for the other version. Asgardian 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already established my case.
Anf if we're going to do it chronologically, then the Torch returning and throwing the Vision's origin in question would be written after the bit about the government dismantling him, and not before. --DrBat 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to start with the first paragraph, not the section as a whole. To whit:

The modern Vision is an android, and is created by the robot Ultron. Using the brain patterns of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Ultron programs the artificial lifeform to attack Ultron's creator, Henry Pym and his wife, the Wasp. The Wasp is the first to encounter the synthezoid, and describes it as a "vision" while trying to escape. The Vision is convinced by the superhero team the Avengers to turn against Ultron and becomes a member of the team. The Vision becomes a core member of the team for many years, and eventually forms a relationship with the Scarlet Witch, who he later marries. The pair have twin sons, but suffer a personal setback when it is revealed that their children are in fact two missing shards of the soul of the demonic entity Mephisto. This drives the Scarlet Witch insane, and while eventually recovering she and the Vision separate.

vs.

The modern Vision was created by the robot Ultron, who intended to use this artificial lifeform against Ultron's creator, Henry Pym (Ant-Man/Giant Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket), and his wife, the Wasp. (The Vision's body was thought to have been created from that of the original Human Torch, while the patterns of his synthetic brain were based on those of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Simon Williams. It was later revealed that the time lord Immortus used the power of the Forever Crystal to split the original Human Torch into two separate entities:one remained the original Torch while the other was rebuilt as the Vision by Ultron). The Vision rebelled against his "father" Ultron and joined the Avengers, and later became romantically involved with the Scarlet Witch, Wanda Maximoff. The synthezoid and the mutant eventually married, and appeared to have somehow had twins via the Witch's mutant hex powers. It was later revealed that this was not the case (see two paragraphs below).

I personally find the former to be less confusing. --GentlemanGhost 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GG. I wrote the paragraph in such a way as to give the gist - in correct tense with sources - of what the Vision is all about. I then expand on these points and their significance to him, his wife and of course the Avengers. Unfortunately, the second version is too convuluted and is clogged with information that has not been presented correctly. There's a house style that works best on Wikipedia, and this is the format I adopted here. By the by GG, I'm currently doing a mop-up of some of the minor villains (eg. Zzzax, Whirlwind, Melter etc), so feel free to adjust the SHB accordingly. Asgardian 23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the second version is not my version.
For my version, see [5]. --DrBat 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think they both have problems, but the first has more serious problems than the second. The second is convoluted with too much information packed in without proper explanation. It's not a very good summary. On the other hand, the first misuses the present tense to tell a story, which is worse than telling a fictional story in the past tense. The reason we are supposed to avoid the past tense with fiction is to keep us from telling fictional stories like this, not so we can mangle the language by trying to do it in the present tense. We are supposed to state Visions fictional history as matters of fact. Especially bad is "Ultron programs the artificial lifeform to attack Ultron's creator." What matter of fact is that saying? Is it a description of Ultron? Certainly not. It is in the present tense, so it is really saying that Ultron is right now programming Vision to attack people, and that is simply wrong.
The second version needs to be adjusted for content. The first version needs to be radically rewritten for style. -- Lilwik 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a gross exaggeration, and you also seem to not understand that there is a house style. As top your Ultron example, you only quoted part of the sentence - in it's complete form it makes perfects sense. As to tense, once again, the present is the norm. A minor tweak or two is fine if justified, but it works and the information is presented in a logical fashion. I've written enough of these to know what works on Wikipedia (eg. Thanos, Odin).

Asgardian 01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's complete form is almost exactly the same as the quote I gave. It just says, "Using the brain patterns of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Ultron programs the artificial lifeform to attack Ultron's creator, Henry Pym and his wife, the Wasp," which is longer but just as wrong. It doesn't describe the way things currently are; it describes a single event and therefore is incorrectly in the present tense. You seem to have done the same awful thing to Thanos where it says, "Thanos is born on Titan," which you have forced to be in the present tense even though it clearly should be in the past tense. I'm not saying Wikipedia policy says it should be in the past tense; I'm saying that it only makes sense as an English sentence if it is in the past tense.
You can say these things in the present tense and be perfectly correct, but you have to qualify them somehow to show that you are not actually talking about the present. For example, you could say that in a certain book it shows Ultron programming Vision to do this thing, because that is actually true in the present. You could say, "In the first issue of his eponymous book, Thanos is born on Titan," if that were actually true. You could even say, "In the beginning, Thanos is born on Titan," but left unqualified it is only correct if you are talking about now and that makes no sense.
On the other hand, "The Wasp is the first to encounter the synthezoid" is perfectly fine because she is has that honor and always will. Once you are the first at something, that becomes a present matter of fact forever. It might be more natural to say that she was the first, but it's not wrong to say it in the present tense. Take a look at the article Present tense; it has a list of the situations in which it is appropriate to use the present tense. -- Lilwik 04:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as a suggestion, but...
"As a gambit to kill his creator, Ultron creates an android with a core personality based on the recorded brainwave patter of the deceased Wonder Man, Simon Williams, and a physical frame that incorporates a duplicate of the original Human Torch's body. (The duplicate was previously created by Immortus using the Forever Crystal, a fact Ultron is unaware of as he constructs his weapon.) On the base programming he adds specific instructions to kill Hank Pym and his wife, the Wasp.
"The Wasp is the first to encounter the synthezoid, and describes it as a "vision" while trying to escape. The Vision is convinced by the members of the Avengers to turn against Ultron and becomes a join the team.
"Over the years, the Vision becomes a core member of the team, and eventually forms a relationship with the Scarlet Witch, culminating in their marriage. The couple have twin sons, but suffer a personal tragedy when it is revealed that their children are in fact two missing shards of the demonic entity Mephisto's soul. This drives the Scarlet Witch insane and acts as a wedge between her and the Vision, which ultimately causes them to separate."
Though that last section reads more like it was written for the Scarlet Witch article instead of the Vision.
In general this keeps the "rolling now" that is preferred tense for in-universe sections. The exceptions being in relative past acts in context of the particular paragraph. But that's jusrt my 2¢...
- J Greb 05:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That works pretty well. It's not really ideal, but I notice as I am reading it I stop noticing how technically wrong it is. The biggest problem is the first sentence, which just looks so wrong, but once I'm into it I stop noticing. I think if we started it with "In issue ____, the robot Ultron creates an android," that would help make it less jarring. -- Lilwik 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem lies in how the WikiProject Comics exemplars are set up. In following those, the real world references, such as "In The Avengers #57," are divorced from the FCB. It has been suggested on the project talk page that the exemplars need to be revisited with an eye to the current Wiki-level "Writing about fiction" guidelines". It looks like one of the suggestions is to try and blend the Pub History and the FCB. That would allow for your concern to be addressed. It does create a problem though: should the article follow the real world chronology, leaving the retcons and flashback episodes to be mentioned paragraphs after the original versions, or the "in universe" chronology, placing plot elements published years or decades apart right next to one and other. - J Greb 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm not sure what exemplars you are talking about, but take a look at the Good articles and the Featured articles from the WikiProject Comics page. Specifically, I mean Batman and Storm. Superman also seems to be a parallel case, but there is no fictional biograph section for that article. The Batman article uses the present tense but makes it correct by qualifying it within the context of certain books, as in, "As these comics state, Bruce Wayne is born to Dr. Thomas Wayne and his wife Martha." They could have easily said that in the present tense as in "Bruce Wayne is the son of Dr. Thomas Wayne," but they chose to bring publication history into it and specify it as an event in certain comics rather than a simple statement of his relationship to his parents.
The Storm article does something even more interesting, qualifying the present tense statements with time in her fictional history, as in, "While stationed in Egypt during the Suez Crisis, a fighter jet crashes into her parents' house." It would be awful if they had just said, "A fighter jet crashes into her parents' house," but because they qualified it in time it doesn't look like they are making a ridiculous statement about the present.
I think a rolling now is acceptable, if used in moderation, but it needs something in the beginning to set the now or else the implicit now will be the reader's now. I think we should re-establish the appropriate now at the beginning of every paragraph at least, as they do in the Batman article in the second paragraph of the fictional biography with, "In the early strips,..."
I think that if we find this an awkward way to tell a story then we should not be surprised; it is like that by intention. Wikipedia is not the place to be telling long and elaborate fictional stories. However, I personally love the detailed character history information that we find on some of the best articles. I'd give examples but in the context of this discussion I have a feeling they would get destroyed. -- Lilwik 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad... I should have put in the links. The exemplars I was talking about are here and the discussion is here and here.
And I agree, the last thing these articles should be tying to do is "tell the story". If the eventual goal is to consolidate the two sections (PH and FCB), then I'd rather see the real world material being the spine of the article with the in universe pieces being secondary. - J Greb 07:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately that version is also a tad convuluted. The problem with these other versions is that they lack the necessary structure. Sourced "signposts" are the preferred option, and work here. Asgardian 10:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
To be blunt: All 3 versions of the section lead are convoluted and lack in line "sourced 'signposts'", and your proposed one from here suffers the same short comings. The same references you wanted to place, and more, can be place in any of the versions, but they do not make them any the less convoluted when read. - J Greb 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a limit to how clever one can be with complicated character histories. My version works in Wiki-terms. Asgardian 10:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't yet agree on precise wording, is there a consensus on methodology? Asgardian has previously suggested that the "retcons" of the origin be presented in chronological order, not all in the first paragraph. Is that something we agree on? --GentlemanGhost 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on the intent going in.
If the idea is to keep the current exemplar format, then the reasons, writers and editors connected to the retcons would be in real world chronology and in the PH. But the origin in the FCB would be and "as it stands" synthesis.
If the idea is to blend the PH and the FCB, then I would go with the real world events being the spine of the article. That does mean that the article would deal with a chunk of the history of the character's use before getting to the changes made to Thomas' origin story.
I'm tempted to say we go to the blending, even if it rankles some. The article, in a general use encyclopedia, should be about character as an intellectual property. The in-universe bits should be examples of how it has been used, not the be all and end all of the article. - J Greb 07:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The PH can contain appearances and mentions of the series. All the significant stuff can and has been written for the aptly named Fictional character biography. Asgardian 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, Asgardian, you would prefer not to blend the two. --GentlemanGhost 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No. The FCB covers it all. The PH can just have mentions of the first appearance and his series and still look sharp. In fact, I think that is all the article needs. Asgardian 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note:I've unprotected the page. That doesn't mean that the disputants here have a licence to ignore discussion and revert war their edits again. It's just been a long discussion (which is great, more discussion seems to still be needed), and I don't like leaving an article fully protected for such a length of time.) - jc37 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Added PH to my version for viewing. I think it works and again goes to my point about a tidy chronology. Since images are also being discussed, I prefer the comic image of #194 - which sums up the Vision perfectly - as opposed to a TV shot for the SHB. Thoughts? Asgardian 10:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it now can be viewed in the page history. I unprotect the article, and you immediately edit it. Please realise that this action is exactly why others are not happy with you atm. As I look above I see: "Since we don't yet agree on precise wording..." - That reaffirms that this a content dispute, or at least content currently under discussion. I'm not going to reprotect the article if I can help it, but please be patient. If you feel discussion has stalled (perhaps those in the discussion have missed noticing it on their watchlists), perhaps a note at the WikiProject talk page might be in order, since I would presume all in this discussion have that page watchlisted as well? - jc37 11:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see a great issue with this. The conversation went towards the inclusion of a PH, but not blended with a FCB. That's how it would look in a Wiki-correct article. The other version is a visual mess with all the aforementioned flaws, so I won't be adding to that! Asgardian 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree (with Asgardian).
The image can be used in the powers section, but the other image is better for the main image. It's higher-quality. The Vision is completely transparent in the other one, and even though he's in the center of the image, the machine he's fighting is too distracting. --DrBat 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The cover is ideal for all the reasons listed. A bastardized TV image is not appropriate for the SHB. Certainly a fan site, but Wikipedia. As inappropriate as the wrong tense, poor sentence struture, POV etc. Asgardian 02:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already listed why it isn't ideal.
And how is it a "bastardized TV image"? It was the cover for the first issue of his miniseries. --DrBat 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think poor sentence structure is far less appropriate. That is why we have to be so careful with sentence structure, especially when we are trying to do a bulk conversion from past tense to present tense. Having good content is one thing, but before we worry about that we should at least have an article that looks like it was written by a native English speaker. -- Lilwik 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The other version is inappropriate. Asgardian 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, time to step up the debate. The other version's introduction is muddied and unclear, article should lead with mention of the Timely character and the link, a very inadequate PH which I have now revised, and poor placement of the SHB resulting in slabs of white. Much of the FCB is in the wrong tense, has missing information and the Powers and Abilities section carries POV statements and unsourced claims (all accurately covered in the other version). The Alternate Versions section is also weak with too much "tell the story", incorrect referecing and POV once more. The double use of the SHB is also inappropriate.Asgardian 05:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot of those issues were dealt with before you started your revert war. --DrBat 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the issues have not been dealt with. They are all fact. Take Powers and Abilities as a simple example. It leads with a POV assumption about the Vision's strength, and uses the OHOTMU as a source, which is invalid (and incorrect). There are also unsourced claims about what the Vision can do. Read my version. Present tense, all fact and sourced, without additional references to unnecessary characters. Sorry, but I have to call a spade a spade.Asgardian 08:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to my version? I don't see anything POV; if anything, you need to remove the last paragraph, but that's it. --DrBat 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am referring to your version. If you can't see these faults - even things as elementary as tense, POV and using sources such as OHOTMU - then I need to take this to the next level and bring others in via a Request For Comment. This is basic Wikipedia stuff.Asgardian 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've already put it in Requests for comment.
And it'd be nice if you pointed out what was POV in the first place. --DrBat 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Simple.

Part of your version (all in wrong tense anyway):

While not possessing as much raw strength as others like Thor, Wonder Man, and the Hulk (unnecessary mentions and all opinion) the Vision's ability to manipulate his mass and density make him a formidable (subjective word) adversary. The maximum density he can achieve is 90 tons. (OHOTMU claim - not valid) The Vision has defeated the Squadron Supreme's Hyperion, a being with strength rivaling that of Thor. (No source and subjective claim without proof). On another occasion he used his density-altering powers to defeat Count Nefaria, another highly powerful individual (unnecessary phrase and subjective) that also possesses an extremely high level of superhuman strength. (Says who? Source?)

In short, all very conversational and better suited to a fan site.


My version -

The modern Vision is powered by solar energy absorbed via a gem on his forehead. In addition to his ability to discharge this energy via high-intensity solar-powered optic blasts, the Vision possesses the ability to manipulate his mass and density, which at its lowest allows flight and intangibility and at its highest provides superhuman strength and diamond-hard durability. On one occasion the Vision uses this extreme durability to render unconscious the villain Count Nefaria. [18] The Vision often uses his ability to alter his density against foes, by phasing an intangible hand through them and then partially rematerializing it - a process he describes as "physical disruption." This effect typically causes great pain and results in incapacitation, as is the case when used against the Earth-712 version of the hero Hyperion. [19] The Vision is also capable of self-repair and interfacing with other technology.

- Correct tense, claims sourced with no opinion. Just the facts, and referenced against the comics themselves, as opposed to disallowed - and flat out incorrect - OHOTMU. Asgardian 05:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? I've already stated "if anything, you need to remove the last paragraph, but that's it." And what do you do? Pick apart the last paragraph.
And you're quoting from the current version, which is NOT my version (for example; my version, which I've already linked several times, doesn't mention anything about 90 tons). --DrBat 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Asgardian's version of this paragraph is better. There's no need to resort to the past tense when we are giving a description of Vision's abilities and it does seem to be less subjective. Of course, that doesn't mean that Asgardian's version is better overall, especially in the FCB. -- Lilwik 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lilwik. We'll cover all the ground. Moved up the SHB as the white gap looks atrocious. Discussion can continue about the image. Revised the introductory statement as there were too many POV terms. "at least" goes as there is a definate number of characters with the title, while "most enduring" is subjective opinion and the Ulimate versions do not get billing in the opening - that's what the bottom section is for. Also removed blurb on 40's versin as it does not belong there - as per many, many other characters and teams on Wikipedia such as the Squadrons Sinister/Supreme and their various members, a simple sentence with a divert is sufficient. Asgardian 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vision_(Marvel_Comics)/Archive_1&oldid=157578024"