Talk:Abomination (character)

Character bio
I copied and pasted the bio on Blonsky and i added it. It needed a more intimate approach to a good character. Sorry to upset some of you. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * So you went back to before the overhaul, and brought all that back, on top of the overhaul? that's worse than either version alone. I'm reverting it. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez. Sorry dude. Everybody needs to relax. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

This is one of the worst comic character wiki's i have seen it need a summary of the characters history, not just issues it appeared in. much the way a novel gets a plot summary. - WiT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.40.194 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, well, any attempt to alter it meets with a temper tantrum. Good luck. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro.
The addition of a sourced real world critical assessment of the character should be kept in the intro. While not substantive enough to start a full section of the article with, it immediately highlights the real-world notability of the character, which is required for any article on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should be added to a "Reception" type section with refs and some information from those source(s), which should then be summarized in the lead. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without such others ,it's better to leave it establishing notability in the lead. When, and if, we get more such content, then it certainly should be incorporated into the body of the article, but as it's currently the only such information, the rest having been exsanguinated months long, long ago, we have to use it in the best way we can. That would be establishing some aspects of real-world context and notability in the lead, so that new readers understand that he character has been noticed outside the in-universe. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's in change?
Who is in charge of this articles boundaries. I can't even add a single paragraph to A-Bomb in Hulk 2005 game, and 2008 film? (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't see in the edit history where you're having such conflicts, can you provide diffs? there may be good reasons why your edits were removed. ThuranX (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is about improving this piss-poor article (pardon my French). I was going to add edits to Blonsky's 2005 video game article and Abomination in the 2008 Hulk film. That's all I wanted. Plus some jerk added --THIS IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IN THIS ENTRY. MUST BE ENCYCLOPEDIA STANDARD AND NOT A FAN SITE. ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE DELETED--> to make matter's worse. Not to mention somebody keeps removing fictional secret agents, superhuman speed, strength, etc. (JoeLoeb (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Well, Add the info. I see no one reverting you. Make edits, see what sticks. Don't bitch about it before you try. And erview this talk page, it's not like you're up against a huge crowd of opposition, are you? ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted that note to stop any fan info that creeps in, and sure enough, it did. In these articles things such as video games just warrant a mention, not a blow by blow account. The language was unfortunately very lazy and colloquial. We only go with facts, and they must be presented in a concise and professional manner. There was also some serious link overkill - the fact that the character is a Marvel Comics super villain is usually enough. I'm fact I'm going to put a case that a lot of these unnecessary links are sidelined as they are often misleading. For example, many characters are not mutates and do not move at superspeed, but people still insist on putting the links in. That said, I corrected the two alternate universe mentions. The Abominations series does belong in the Alternate section.

Finally, you blow your credibility when you lead with Plus some jerk added...

Asgardian (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, knock it off, asgardian. You put up a gigantic fight here against multiple editors, who walked away from yet another page where you edit war nonstop to get your way. Your combative style is rearing it's head again here, and once again you're going to push more editors away. You do not own this page, despite your presumption that you do. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, it's not fan info, IT's stone cold fact. (JoeLoeb (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Firstly, when you write in that style it is " fan orientated", not Wiki-orientated. Secondly, your previous immature comment (yes, I saw it) and the above show you are both acting like fans, not Wikipedia editors. Finally, I am bringing in some cooler heads. Asgardian (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

NO, I'm not writing like a fan. The lead should reflect the content. Naming the film is perfectly acceptable in the lead. You have a bad habit on this article, reflected clearly on this talk page, of going against any consensus and just persistently reverting over and over to your preferred version. IF you're going to go running for support, then I think I'll notify all the people who opposed the last major slash-and-burn you ran on this article. Since then, you've consistently reverted for months, preventing any adjustments to the article. Youv'e never explained why this one article is so wrathfully hawked over, but it's tiresome. ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are both being uncivil, which is a breach of Wikipedia policy. Not good. As for the lead, it has been corrected to read " a feature film which is acceptable as we are naming the genres'', not actual specifics. After all, every comic; video game; TV appearance etc is not named in the lead - there are sections in the article for this. Asgardian (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At least fix the article. Keep some of the categories and mention some storylines like him killing Betty, being matched up with Samuel Sterns/Leader, etc If you can fix the alternate universe stuff, then do the rest for the character.(JoeLoeb (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I have reverted your edit, Asgardian, because, as I said before ,the name in the lead is perfectly acceptable, as is minimal context ,which you continue to delete. It was absurd, and objected to in January, and it is still absurd, and objected to. I note that you do this on a few articles, but not on many, many more. I'm getting tired of your 'revert till they are cowed into leaving' style, and I'm done putting up with it. I have provided reasons for my changes, and I plan on a lot more changes, because this article needs improvement. ThuranX (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you fix this article, then? (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * There's no reason at all that you can't fix it. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Just do so cautiously, making sure you don't include conflicts. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He was mutated by gamma radiation, therefore a mutate. Soldier and Major, or Captain applies for the film article, if someone can edit it. Whatever I do, it's conflicted with someone higher up. Superhuman speeds also applies to Blonsky/A-Bomb, as well. (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Categories are based on the 'original media' character. In the comics, Blonsky was a spy, which doesn't automatically mean military. Please note that I have supported many of your changes, but this one isn't in line with what should be included. Attacking me now won't help you. And stop with this 'I'm not allowed to edit here', because I've been quite clear in my support for your edits overall. A-Bomb is a different character, albeit similar, and as mentioned, Blonksy, (by which I assume you refer to the film) isn't correct because it's an alternate media. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not attacking you, "ThuranX". I'm well aware that alternate media doesn't always have automatize categories like cap., majors, or soldiers. I've been warned about this before, but I wasn't aware it applied to numerous characters other then "A-Bomb" (Abomination for short). Thank you very much for you're assistance. I'm far from attacking you, I'm just stating my opinion. (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * This has now been protected so I'll throw in my thoughts, partly based on one of the more wide-ranging edits (but touching on other points):
 * I think it is well worth naming the film in the lead - it is a high profile media appearance and one where quite a few readers will know him from. [[WP:LEAD}] says it should be a summary of the article, of which this is his biggest in other media appearances and, given the length of the article, the lead should be longer too.
 * I am unsure why so many categories were removed - the powers categories in particular (if there are concerns with categorising by powers then this should be addressed elsewhere).
 * Why is the mention of the Abomination mini-series being removed?
 * Why were three video games removed?
 * Why is the Marvel Zombies version mentioned in the 2000s section and not the alternate versions?
 * There might be good reasons for some of this but doing everything all in one go means they can't be properly explained in the edit summary.
 * Overall the article is difficult to read and just comes across as "and then he appeared in this and then that and then this", the dates of issues in particular should be footnoted as it doesn't help with the flow. Equally dividing into decades is pretty arbitrary and the PH should be divided up into more obvious chunks. (Emperor (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I tend to agree.
 * Notable items should be at the least mentioned in the lead. The appearance in the film and the limited series are, with in the context of the topic, are notable.
 * I can see why two or three of the cats were removed. One is redundant and two are there because of a standing quibble point.
 * There needs to be consistency when applying "Alt versions". Right now the rule of thumb for article on main-stream MU characters has been "non-616 characters are AVs, period." The AV mentions shouldn't be in the PH, especially if it is as an in-story ref.
 * The PH is choppy as hell. Best case, it should be reworked to minimize the appearance list feel. If an appearance list is really wanted, do it right as a table and slot it in before the AVs.
 * The PH subheads do seem forced. The character has what is effectively a ver unified PF/in-universe history. There are no natural subsections.
 * Right now the AV and IOM sections feel like "I don't want this trivia here" reworks, which is really a disservice to the article and the topic.
 * There is very little chance that there will be an article on the Ultimate Abomination. Taking the time and space here to fairly treat that AV would be a good idea. Full or detailed summary of the related story? No. Something more than a one line afterthought? Definitely.
 * The remaining variants, Marvel Zombie, Future Imperfect, and so on can and should be re worked into a paragraph noting how the character was altered for those stories or story lines.
 * The film... again, something more than a one line after thought is proper. And no, "It should be covered elsewhere" doesn't cut it. There may be some of the information covered in the film's article, but there should also be a reasonable presentation of the information relevant to the character as seen in the film here.
 * With both the television and video game sections, it is very appropriate to a notation of how the character was adapted for use in the shows and games.
 * A couple of last thoughts that go beyond just this article:
 * We really need, as a project, to re-think the "Comics version only" mentality. Right now it's doing a good job of removing material covering how characters are adapted in other media. The presumptions seem to be going along "minimize in the comic character article as the film article will cover it" and "minimize in the film article as a character article will cover it". This tends to leave almost nothing covered.
 * Category:Film characters needs a Category:Comics characters adapted for film sub, at the least. The television and video game cats likely also need this. And it would alleviate the quibbling point about having the parents on articles like this.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that the balance between comics and film versions articles needs to be monitored, and 'reasonable' coverage of significant AVs included. However, if that comment about 'mentality' refers to my comment regarding categories, I meant it to apply to that aspect only. We can write about, and establish variations within those 'other media' sections, but having some reasonable guideline for the categories is worthwhile, and with the numerous revisions done in, for example, spiderman's multiple animated series, we could see a single character qualify for a fat stack of categories thoroughly irrelevant to the comics version. ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I tried to rebuild the article with some context a while ago. I'd like to continue that earlier effort, if no one minds. I'll have some time later this week to do so, if no one minds me taking that job on. I'll wait a couple days for some replies nad consensus, but I had a good start before, and would like to fix it up. thanks. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No ThuranX, it's not something I'm leveling at a specific editor or a specific, narrow set of removals. It's a general state of mind where we try to push the material out.
 * That being said, I can see the reason to try and limit the categories. Catting an article on a character implies that the category applies to all versions of the character. I'd love to be able to just cat sections, but the only way I can think of doing that is to create individual redirects for the variants. Such as, and I think this is an example that was floated a while back, Blob (Wolverine film) to house Category:Fictional boxers. - J Greb (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonder if that works. It'd be good fro those looking for category qualifiers, but it's sort of 'one-way'. And 'non-specificity' of your comment noted, thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (shrug) If the film section is large enough - not 1 line and includes the reason for the cat - a "see also...for related articles" line can be added. So the "Film" section of Blob would get:
 * "See also Fictional boxers of similar characters."
 * It's a hedge, but it could work. - J Greb (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorisation of redirects is a great fix to this (and other issues) and it also keeps everything joined up, as links to say Reed Richards can easily be broken and are difficult to fix if changed, while Reed Richards (Ultimate) only needs one update and can be properly categorised (I picked the Ultimate version as there is a lot of interlinking between Ultimate characters and that could very easily fall apart).
 * I also agree about the categories as we have things like Category:Smallville characters which really needs hooking into some kind of structure like "DC Comics television characters" (under Category: DC Comics characters and "Comics characters adapted for television"). You might want to give jc37 a nudge and see what he thinks too. (Emperor (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * J Greb is likely referring to Blob (X-Men films) above. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all I'm disappointed none of the more experienced editors addressed the civility issue. A look at two editors Talk pages indicates this goes beyond this article.

Secondly, most of the "additions" since the lock was lifted have been very poor, and the article has degenerated as a result. Passion for a character is a fine thing, but the articles cannot be written in a fan style, and some adherence to the general standard is required.

In the interests of keeping the peace (such as it is), I've removed the date tags. Now, the appearances themselves can be padded out so it reads less like a list - although it is accurate - but the information added must be encyclopedia standard. I can't offer too much here as I haven't read all the issues and would rather not add anything incorrect or misleading (although those are all Abomination appearances).

Two other questions - why mention the film in the lead when all the other examples are not? We are listing genres, not examples. That's what the sub-sections below are for. TV shows don't get a mention in the lead, so why the film? Also, why is an Alternate version not listed in Other versions? This is the norm everywhere else. Why is this article different? Thoughts, not attacks, welcome. Asgardian (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * let me help you out here. Everyone else commenting thinks your version is a problem, not the other versions. That is no different than months ago; the only difference is that now I'm not going to back down and walk off when you WP:OWN the page, which is what you are doing. As I stated six months ago, you do not act like this on every article you work on, just a few. You do not edit in this style on every article, just a few. I don't know why you act like this, nor do I care. But it's over. Enough civil discussion on this has been tried. You demonstrate, repeatedly, that you don't really care about civil discourse, but about using that cycle of comment, response, stubborn reply, until someone says or does something you can wedge in as incivil, thus diverting to that, then back to the beginning, lather, rinse, repeat, until others walk off. Your approach to the article has been roundly rejected. It's an inconsistent position for you, so I suggest, quite seriously, that you drop it. Either learn to get along here, or unwatch the article here, like I did long ago for you over at Thor. I see that article's still not an FA, though you seemed so sure you'd have it there. Go work on that, but you need to either change here or move on. ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your conduct kills any credibility your message might have. Also, study the changes. "Telling the story" does nothing for the article. If you've read the issues, outline some points that can be put into sentences. This is how you can help. Asgardian (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. But multiple sections and editors opposing your edits DOES kill and credibility you have that yours is the preferred version. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian, stop doing the following: You complain about the level of maturity, ability, and competence of other editors. Fix you own bad habits first.
 * 1) Lumping contentious edits in with other, potentially good edits.
 * 2) Editing more than one section at a time.
 * 3) Reducing material that is not trivial to "bullet point trivia".

- J Greb (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DCIncarnate moved the IGN ranking from the lead to it's own section. Because it's such a small section, positioned so low on the page, I'd like to move it back to the lead for the real-world notability which that represents. ThuranX (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved the sentence because it felt out of place in such a small lead. I mean, the lead basically goes like this for the reader: "The Abomination is a fictional character in Marvel comic books... Oh! And he is ranked as one of the greatest comic book villains of all time on this website." Small section? Well so is the "Future Imperfect" section DCincarnate (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's relatively reasonable... though... It's either something that should be on par with the IOM, not a subsection of it, or integrated into the PH. Given the size, working it into the PH would be a better option. - J Greb (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with DCincarnate. The "by the way" style doesn't work in the lead, but it does when placed chronologically in the PH. Also, the issue of genres still needs to be addressed for the sake of consistency across the articles. Asgardian (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, an answer to all of our questions. Turns out, the entire edit warring was to PROVE A POINT! ThuranX (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh for goodness sake. Who are you talking to? You should have read the comments following first. Not good editor conduct. Asgardian (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what all this talk about superheros and comics is about. This is supposed to be an encylopedia. I came here looking for information about the word "Abomination" and somehow comic book crap comes up?? And not even a link to perhaps other uses of the word? What is going on here? 76.112.199.81 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you type in "Abomination", Wikipedia will list this page with a brief breakdown on what each entry is. The comic book article will not come up unless you click on that link. Asgardian (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits.
Although two editors have worked to clean up the film section, Asgardian is reverting without any justification beyond the usual he's right, everyone else should get off his page attitude. Asgardian, bring any problems HERE, or stop edit warring, which is what you are doing. Proof of that is in the fact that your last few reverts are so blanket in nature that you reintroduce spelling errors into the article, just to go back to your own earlier versions without examining the diffs between to find actual, completely non-objectionable, edits which should be retained. ThuranX (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are over-reacting. And to judge by this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThuranX&action=edit&section=95

Not getting any better at being civil. Asgardian (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, linking to a guy who's in the process of getting a topic ban lashing out is your way of 'proving' anything about me? Instead of dealing with your edit warring, which you've been to the admins before about? Stop edit warring. discuss. BRD. two editors support a wording that you didn't write. Live with it. ThuranX (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One, you may not in fact be supporting a great version. Two, the link shows, and does this conversation, your lack of Wiki-etiquette and civility. "Live with it" is not an acceptable response. Asgardian (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Civility threats aren't the same as addressing the issues behind the edits. Strawmen are good in farmer's fields, so please go outside and build them there. Otherwise, the content of the edits is what should be addressed here. That you are unable to do so after two requests says to me that you can't, so I think this topic is over. ThuranX (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a case of "can't", just don't wish to because you can't be civil. Asgardian (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't. Got it. Moving on now. ThuranX (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight Reorganization
Would anyone mind if I added a subsection, within history, for the paragraph about the death of the character? I feel it is a very important detail in the history of the character, and as such, should be separated.

In addition, the bit about ign is most definitely not information about the fictional history of the character, and should be moved to the Media section, in an Internet subsection. If there are no objections, I will make these changes at the end of the day.

My apologies for making the changes without consensus. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  20:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that there has been concern over the potentially low placement of the ign rating. If it is very significant, it could be placed at the top of the media section. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, formed above, after MUCH argument, was that as it's the only external criticism currently sourced in the page, it was best in the publication history. As to the death, it's a comics death, and insignificant in that regard. It fits into the character history, and that's enough. ThuranX (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with ThuranX on both points. Suggestions are always good, but we have to keep an out of universe perspective, and remember that these are fictional characters. Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest Edits
OK, in the interests of peace, I've tried to separate some components for a clearer article, and hopefully clarify some points. There is now a PH - complete with a short Origin - if we can find such information, and the Biography as I've called it cites the most significant stories with all sources relegated to footnotes. The addition of a third-party source tag is unnecessary as frankly, we all know they need such things. All comic articles. Spelling out the obvious with a tag just makes the article look unsightly.

In addition, not sold on clumping all the media together in one paragraph as it reads like a bit of a muddle. This section is supposed to be broken into sub-sections for easy reference. The opening statement is also unnecessary as it is repetitive and overstating what the lead paragraph claims. Such a change would need strong consensus, rather than an experiment here.

The same applies to the Other Versions sentence - we already know this and it is repetitive, not to mention problematic as by that logic all the articles have to have this sentence, which the very sub-title spells out. It was a nice try, but comes across as unnecessary padding. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply remove cleanup tags without addressing the issues. Also, you split the publication section in two without moving the bit about the Wizard poll ranking at the bottom of the new "biography" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Again, note all the articles could use 3rd party sources. Are you going to tag them all, from A to Z? Also, note that Alternates are now sourced as footnotes, as per the rest of the article. Asgardian (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in thinking about it, fewer sub-titles would be a good thing. So long as the information is separated when there is a large amount, fine. The 3rd party argument still needs debate, as some like myself opposed tags in the last discussion. Asgardian (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can anyone fine the link to the discussion that was had a few months ago re: notability?

Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to the Film section
In the Film section (under "In other media") there are 3 bullet points.


 * Bullet point #1: talks about the Abomination's appearance in The Incredible Hulk (2008)


 * Bullet point #2: talks about the Abomination's appearance in Iron Man & Hulk: Heroes United
 * Bullet point #3: talks about footage being reused, of Abomination rampaging through Harlem, in the Marvel One-Shot "The Consultant". (but does not state what movie the reused footage came from)

I suggest that Bullet point #2 and #3 should either be swapped or Bullet point #3 should clearly state that the reused footage (of the Abomination rampaging through Harlem) came from The Incredible Hulk (2008)

I suggest this because, as it stands, since Bullet point #3 comes after Bullet point #2 and Bullet point #3 doesn't clearly state what movie the reused footage came from (it just says "from the film"), it implies that the reused footage came from Iron Man & Hulk: Heroes United which is incorrect.

I know the connection between the reused footage and the movie The Incredible Hulk (2008) should be "Obvious". But just remember that you, the experts, may think it's obvious, but the people that are coming to this page, to learn more about the subject, may not think it's obvious.

Fictional Character Biography incomplete
Abomination's fictional character biography starts off after he turns into Abomination and battles Hulk, that should be edited to include his origin story and the character's early life (if revealed).--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing new Hulk series
I added the Abomination's reappearance in the 2014 Hulk series, but I wasn't sure what volume number to cite for this series, as (aside from the 2013-14 Indestructible title) the various reboots and resets for the Hulk books over the years have bounced back and forth between The Incredible Hulk and simply Hulk so many times. So, I just cited it as Hulk #1-2, April-May 2014. If anyone has a a definitive idea of which volume number it should be identified as, please add it to the citation. -- Pennyforth (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken Source Links
I am sorry if it's not a recommended way to address this, but I've just noticed that link of some of the articles are broken. For example article 1 which tells about the IGN ranking of supervillains is gone. IGN currently have a new ranking. The second source link is broken too. I'll try to update the ranking and article links later. In the meantime, can someone experienced can fix it up, I am kinda a newbie and do not want to vandalize a popular page. Abhi347 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Abomination (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511133106/http://comics.ign.com:80/top-100-villains/54.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/54.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013230843/http://www.kcra.com/entertainment/16574962/detail.html to http://www.kcra.com/entertainment/16574962/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 2 October 2016 (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.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Files for discussion/2020 April 30. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)