Talk:Baroness (G.I. Joe)

Embarassingly Un-encyclopedic
The section on the comics history of this character makes up the majority of the article, and I believe it's summary of the character's history is far too detailed and breathless in tone to be encyclopedic. It's not much of a summary - in places it lapses into a blow-by-blow description of fight scenes. The Marvel section alone has over 30 exclamation marks, all outside of quotes - here's a few examples:

"Hearing the commotion, Anastasia opens the door, to find the American soldier standing over her brother with a smoking gun!"

"The Baroness then pilots a small aircraft, saving the Commander from the Fort’s explosive destruction!"

"Not only has Dr. Venom has betrayed them, but the G.I.Joe team has discovered the location of the lab! How?"

"The HISS goes out of control and rolls on its side, leaking fuel in the middle of a firefight! Badly hurt, the Baroness begs Major Bludd to help her get free, but he leaves her alone as the HISS explodes around her!"

"Then, in a grand gesture of his love, he activates a series of levers in the Silent Castle, causing it to transform, and reconfigure into a larger, more majestic version of Castle Destro, proving his love is everlasting!"

I'd hate to delete a lot of content without providing a replacement, and I'm not familiar with the source material so I don't know if I could summarize this in a better fashion. Is there anybody familiar with this character who could provide a more concise and less enthusiastic summary of this material?

69.155.76.48 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the 31 exclamation marks with periods, it still needs a lot of pruning but it reads a bit better this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.76.48 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is poorly written stuff that looks like it was pasted from somewhere else. Whoever visits this page or has it under watch should rewrite it. It looks to be written by someone doing work for the product line.RSido (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this entire section needs to be re-written as a small fraction of how it currently stands. But what a daunting task ! I'm afraid I am not up to it. Anyone who would take up this challenge certainly deserves a nod ! Just reading through it once is painstaking.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd coincidence
Her real name is Anastasia DeCobray? She wears glasses? Anyone remember Anastasia Newkirk?

Enda80 23:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Comic Book 1st Apperance
Maybe I missed it but shouldn't there be something in this article about how the Baroness first appeared in the comic books rather than the action figure line like most G.I. Joe action figures? 24.178.211.155 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody followed up on this question from 16 years ago, but that's actually the reason I visited this page. I recalled that the character appeared in the comics years before the toy line.  Did Larry Hama create her for Marvel Comics, and if so, I was curious how Hasbro ended up with the rights.  Does Hasbro own the rights to all the characters in the 1980s comics, like Quinn the Eskimo and Scarface?  Is this the reason behind the nebulous mention in the article about a trademark issue necessitating the creation of a toy named "Chameleon"?  Honestly, I was expecting to read more details about the facts of the character than her fictional histories.  -notaregistereduser 2600:6C5A:44F0:A1A0:7948:A02B:2E4:6956 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Clean up tags
Issues have been raised by more than one person regarding the length of sections of this article and the absence of citations. It would be greatly helpful if project members would pitch in and try to get this article under control. One major point is the section Marvel (Volume 1). The section should be a much briefer summary of the plot, rather than a nearly step by step retelling of the plot. Other sections need work as well. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie Plot
Guys, please stop edit warring and discuss the disagreement here. I agree with Marc-Olivier Pagé. Adding a plot subsection in a section already devoted to the movie is unnecessary and redundant. Just because other pages are a certain way doesn't mean that GI Joe pages have to or even should be.--Ridge Runner (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should we have who portrays her and who's directing it and then just start on the movie plot, they should be kept seperate like all people from film you Harry Potter film characters with a summary and then all the films clamped together it doesnt make sense this is easier to read The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ridge Runner. The Movie Master 1, I understand the logic behind wanting to separate the director and actress from the plot, but like I said, the movie has its own page and plot section. We don't want Wikipedia to repeat itself over different pages. A link to the movie's page is sufficient. If you do want to summarize Baroness's actions in the film, that's fine, but it should be a short summary, and it should not be in a separate section. The article needs to be consistent, and since there are no Comic Plot and Animated Series Plot subsections under each Comic and Animated Series section, there should not be one here either. The Baroness's appearance in the live-action movie should not be given more importance than her prior appearances in other media. Perhaps a separate line (paragraph) to summarize her involvement in the movie plot would be a good compromise ?--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That could work for now but (I know this is thinkw way way ahead) if or when the sequal comes out it will eventually have to be split or if someone adds toy info but you can take away the sub section for now The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I'll do it right now.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Due
I don't know a lot about the G.I. Joe series or comics, but shouldn't "Yazuka" be Yakuza? (Unless it was misspelled in the comics, whether intentionally or accidentally.) —Sasoriza (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

real name
it never really states he real name in the article, just starts referring to her by it. Also, it seems like she has multiple last names, and various origins of her title. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My edits and Fortdj33's reversion of them
1) I had combined the two infoboxes because the movie version of the character is not distinct enough from the others to deserve its own infobox. Or, if it is, then the Marvel and Sunbow versions are distinct enough to need to be separate. 2) There doesn't seem to be any reason for the Sigma 6 material to be all in one section instead of spread between the comics, animation and toy sections. You will note that the Movie related toys and videogames are not shoved into the live action movie section. I feel that the version I had made is more relevant to a generalist encyclopedia and that the version Fortdj33 has reverted to is a sloppy mess that is too detailed in some ways for such an encyclopedia while simultaneously not being detailed enough for a specialized GI Joe reference work. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I respect your good faith edits, I reverted them to make this page more consistent with other G.I. Joe character articles. If you look at the articles for some of the other movie characters, they all have separate infoboxes specifically for the movie characters, which have different information than the original toys. Likewise, the larger character articles have the Sigma 6 information in one section, because there's not enough information for the Sigma 6 toys, comics and animated series to have their own sections. I agree this article definitely needs to be cleaned up, but it should follow the same format as other G.I. Joe character articles that have already been upgraded to B-Class or better. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree the various articles should be consistent, I just don't think they should look like this. As for the Sigma 6 sections, they would be no worse than the Spy Troops/Valor vs Venom or Resolute sections. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at Duke (G.I. Joe) and Jinx (G.I. Joe) you will see that both of those B-Class articles spread the Sigma 6 material out to the appropriate sections (toys in toys, animation in animation). --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)