Talk:Chaos War

Here we go again
The plot section is already entirely too long and overly detail and we're only three issues in. Please see WP:CMOS on how to write proper plot summaries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur with TriiipleThreat. He's absolutely correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This plot section has only grown worse
The issue-by-issue plot descriptions and highly overdetailed material of interest only to hardcore fans violates both the abovementioned Wikipedia guidelines and WikiProject Comics guidelines. It's inconceivable that a few issues of Chaos War take up as much room as about 20 years of Fantastic Four. It needs to be reduced drastically in order to be up to Wikipedia standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are also a great deal of tie-in issues; and, additionally, I have addressed several issues brought up, such as the long list of names, now removed. However, David's version is simply a mixture of original research and unclear personal speculation, more awkwardly written, and even adding a vague and confusing symbolic interpretation of Chaos War in the first paragraphs. Aidoflight (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance: ''Gaea and her daughter Pele, goddess of fire, summon the surviving gods to a remote isle of Hawaii for a respite before annihilation. Cho calculates that Mikaboshi had already consumed over 98% of the multiverse, but realises that Hera had created a fully unpopulated and sealed off universe in a previous storyline, and as nobody can come up with any way to prevail, humanity could all escape there to to start over, but Hercules still wants to fight, and Balder tells him that the remaining deities who still cherish Earth would join him.'' How is this version, exactly better the older one, made by various editors for month now? I mean, at least cut loose some of the run-off sentences before adding it to the article, seriously... Aidoflight (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The current version is per definition/count shorter than the old one, and I made an effort with it. In general, and not taking out one single sentence, the current text is actually more concise, and yes there were various biased angles that you inserted that I found completely off, and yes, I had a hard time avoiding it as well, considering how intensely symbolism heavy the storyline was; but this intermediate version can easily be compressed even further by more efficient brevity sifters; your version even had multiple paragraphs handling the same thing, you almost uniformly restore even greater incoherence and over plot detail, to the extent of the "scheduled to begin" sentence, even though it has been going for a few months. Regardless, I hate being involved in this kind of pointless back-and-forth with you or anybody else, and have made a notice on the general comics board to let somebody sensible to quicly put an official evaluatio end to it. Dave (talk)
 * In truth, David, forgive me, yet I personally found very little actual symbolism in the storyline. And the parts about the "favourite sibling" and the "foreseeing through time" are rather, well...never mind. But surely I was not the only one who contributed to the previous version? David, your writing skill and enthusiasm are both admirable, and yet, are you so sure the other editors find no flaw in your version as well? Aidoflight (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to User:David A, who I know works hard and is very dedicated, his edits here are for the most part overdetailed fictography, and the other editors here are correct to trim this article &mdash; indeed, it needs much more trimming. Let's ask ourselves how a few issues of Chaos War can need more text than the first 10 years of Fantastic Four.


 * Galactus has been the victim of a long-simmering "edit cold war" between Dave and another editor, and I and other veteran editors have tried to broker compromise there to no avail. It is not in this article's best interest to have a similar, years-long edit war.


 * While WikiProject Comics has long had a guidelines against overdetailed synopses, the Project is now moving to more actively follow Manual of Style (writing about fiction), as can be seen in the deletion of Fictional history of Wolverine and the deletion of Fictional history of Green Goblin, plus the overwhelming support to delete Fictional history of Spider-Man. Before David contributes any more large amounts of his time contributing material that will almost certainly be edited down heavily, I would ask him to try to write more concisely, to work more with other editors, and to forgo long talk-page defenses and rationale &mdash; one's points can be made simply.


 * Let's all please follow the fiction-writing guidelines. That means real-world perspective, third-party sourcing, and no pet theories and POV essaying. We cannot talk about any symbolism that may be here, for example &mdash; we can only quote WP:RS authorities. Let us trim to the encyclopedic essentials; this is not a fan site. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"But there are also a great deal of tie-in issues"
 * Yes, there are few but do we really need detail them all to convey the plot? Also most comic book issuses can be summarized in a single sentence or two, alot of the expressive detail written here can be cut.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But David A's writing is, seriously, come on...no offense, but to me, maybe a bit unsuitable for Wikipedia; my previous version, while possibly somewhat excessive, was at least less in-depth into symbolic analysis and far less biased and personalized in tone...this version I must admit I cannot favor. Like, the absorbs anybody it destroys is linked to symbolism, and before that, there was a link to nihilism. If David, however skilled he may be as a writer, should wholly have his way...well, then I fear Wikipedia's Marvel articles will indeed be most drastically changed, and necessarily for the better, I am not yet so sure. Aidoflight (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what TriiipleThreat and I are both saying is that every version so far has gone against Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and in order to maintain encyclopedic standards this article's plot section must be reduced drastically. It's 1,420 words. It needs to be about 400. Entire movies at the Films Project are synopsized in that many words or less. Aidoflight and User:David A know the material, and are in good positions to judge what's critical to understanding the plot and what is tangential. In order for this article to adhere to Wikipedia standards derived through years of consensus by many more editors that the four or five of us here, we all need to work to trim it. I'm sure Aidoflight and David are not trying to be guilty of WP:OWN &mdash; which would be the case if they prevented other editors, who want to bring this article up to standard by excising plot overdetail, from doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course not. I've repeatedly stated outright and attempted to bring attention to that the article needs trimming, and only became involved because nobody seemed interested. I certainly have limited illusions about my own ability to be brief, and simply tried to cr4eate some form of intermediate outline (that at least summarised the plot more or less accurately in an at least less disordered fashion) for better sifters to start cutting down from. Also Aidoflight seems to misunderstand my fundamental perspective of Wikipedia. Ideally I see it as a place where many people in combination keep each other's biases in check, i.e. we act as keepers for bias from all corners and eventually reach something approximating "neutrality".


 * As I stated in the main comics talk when trying to get more suitable editors involved, I'm not interested in having to keep checking it in the long run. I simply find the notion of defending insanely extreme torture fantasies in an encyclopedia a major trigger button, much like I find defending the Lovecraft-Mussolini blend systematised genocide, social-Darwinism, unnecessary cosmic existential horror, and entitled supremacism in Galactus. I'm very tired of this sort of thing however, and as I also stated, want these situations defused before they have a chance to start.


 * As for Galactus, I think that I have finally managed to broker something approximating a solution there.


 * Regarding the Chaos war symbolism of ideological destruction through an onslaught of "ED" style sum total chaos and nihilism all-front destruction of all ideologies and mental refuges, style information through the internet, it is very blatant, and the writers have basically stated it outright in reprinted twitter feeds. Not to mention that I've become quite good at decoding deliberate symbolic language. However, I personally removed the paragraphs going into this, so unless some interview goes into it, never mind. It's not a big deal.


 * The only thing of actual interest to me was getting rid of the "all people of all faiths willingly and explicitly choose to be rightfully tortured forever, so let's raid some asylums and refugee camps, and kick down anybody with mental handicaps or ridiculously severe trauma into a torture pit with a snappy one-liner" bit.


 * (Which incidentally also was the point where Van Lente lost much of my appreciation of his work, and I stopped simply seeing him as an inventive writer that I enjoyed, and started to notice the distinctive pattern of yet another dangerous/influential ideological sadist... making his new villain "The Extremist" into an (in name only version, but nevertheless stated as) autistic (as a possible misaimed/missing the point completely "take that") wasn't a big hit either obviously, but considerably less relevant.)


 * As for the "if he has his way, I fear that all comics articles will despair" bit, due to cutting out some of your own biases from this article and another; for one I generally tend to try to keep out my biases as much as possible from the articles, or trim it down if I fail and notice; secondly I'm probably one of the most upfront honest editors about them that you're ever likely to encounter, as deceit isn't my thing at all to make an understatement; and thirdly have you even noticed my editing history as of late? I barely have the energy to do anything here anymore, and have mainly sifted out factual inaccuracies in the past. I only got involved here because the retelling of the event was so awful that even my own style would be an improvement. If somebody who actually is good at neutral sifting and being concise (like Cameron, Nightscream, or J.Greb for example) had handled it, I wouldn't have felt the need. You also seem to have completely wiped out my attempt to sift down the rampant thin air brevity and bias of the Athena page. Basically, going by the length and "peacocking" (as the local term goes) of that entry, and most others, you read more like a Marvel Wikia editor, so perhaps you should help out there instead?


 * In any case, sum total relevant part: I would still prefer if somebody with good judgement about what is or isn't relevant (or biased) would sift away the brevity, but in worst case (if nobody has the interest) I'll attempt to help out by making another stab at it myself. Dave (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, first of all, half your comments are not really supposed to be on a Wikipedia talk page, and, please, David, I have no desire or time to argue with you over something like editing Wikipedia, as many, many users have done. Let the other users decide what to do; if they are so pleased with you and what you have done here, then so be it. I no longer really care either way, to be honest. All I hope, though, is that you at least try to avoid conflicts with other users in the future, and greater cooperation and compromise over endless accusations, especially as you are now the one continually changing this article, not me. Aidoflight (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. When User:David A's extreme reactions and long talk-page discourses make other editors throw up their hands and give up editing an article, as happened at Galactus and now appears to be happening here, then the community at large needs to address this. As much empathy and understanding as I and other editors have tried to give David, such bludgeoning, meandering lectures as above are becoming disruptive to the Comics Project. And clearly, from the tags at both Galactus and Chaos War, this is not helping either article.


 * David, for the good of the Project, these long, defensive posts have got to stop. You say you want to trim. Simply do so. Writing mountains of material and then expecting other editors to take on the the monumental task of cutting down excesses of tangential and overdetailed, fannish material is not fair to other editors. I don't know what the solution is, but we may be reaching a point where this needs to be discussed in a larger forum about editors' behavior &mdash; as Project members have done with the equally well-meaning and hardworking but often non-constructive and edit-warring User:Asgardian.


 * What do other editors besides David and Aidoflight have to say on this topic? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, David, and perhaps it would be best if I do not comment further after this, to avoid even more endless argument...but how exactly did a discussion of how to best improve an article about a comic book crossover lead to this complex discussion of your abstract symbolic interpretations of the antagonist, express distaste for the writer's other works, vague reference to concepts such as social-Darwinism, autistic villains, and what was said in twitter feeds? I refuse to accept that my own version was, as you put it, "awful", in fact more clear and unbiased in its overall version, but I concede it was indeed excessive. But I have not reverted the page since you reverted it back, so where the exact basis of your present complaint and accusations lie, I cannot honestly see. The old version was not "fannish" in any way, shape or form, only great in sheer length and detail, but this new version, to me personally, is. Aidoflight (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Et tu Tenebrae? I thought that Galactus was mostly over and done with, and that you had recognised this from this insert on my talk page: Speaking as one of several longtime editors watching from afar, I'm really happy to see you each trying harder to meet each other halfway. I applaud you gentlemen for that.
 * Regarding the strayminded longwindedness, there is little that I can do about that without committing unreasonable amounts of time. I have extremely limited filters and things tangentially connected to a subject tend to flood out at once. I also have an extreme aversion to lying and deceit, and automatically approach the core essense of what a matter really is about past any irrelevant veils, misdirections, and so forth. Asgardian on the other hand was as made of smarmy sarcastic deceit, and in fact was proven as such by Nightscream, which makes it very hard for me to see him as well-intended, but perhaps it's simply a polar opposites issue. I don't appreciate being unnecessarily threatened or presented as far more unreasonable than I actually am though, and did not expect that from you.
 * I also tend to try to address each raised point as best as I can at the time. If several are brought up it lengthens and possibly severely muddles the text. This is not intentionally the same as being overly defensive, just about being completely honest. If I was overly defensive I wouldn't admit that I have serious problems with compression in the first place.
 * Regardless, this is the almost unavoidable manner that I have available for expressing myself, and I'm (repeatedly) self-admittedly very bad at sifting out the relevant parts only. In this case I tried to avoid the problem from the start by getting neutral editors involved to handle it in a final say manner, which worked fine on the One Above All article, and I have repeatedly stated that I would much prefer if somebody neutral would handle it, and then completely leave the matter be. That is per definition far from a case of WP:OWN. In any case, I have attempted to compromise by cutting out all the personal bias that I noticed, along with all the instances that "Aidoflight" has mentioned that he has a problem with here on the talk.
 * As for the "fannish" part, well of course it was, both then and now. That is a statement of fact. I have serious problems sifting it down though. It is simply somewhat more coherent and less excessive now. However, I have no personal interest in this page beyond sifting away the biases and misrepresentations that I found offensive, and followed the same pattern as was established on One Above All, and that has already been handled. I'm not remotely narcissistic enough about my edits to mind if everything was was cut down into an issue-listing if that is what's requeired.
 * Essentially, I tried to handle this in the best manner that I could come up with at the time, find myself backed into a corner regardless of how I approach it: 1) Try to be neutral and bring attention to let neutral parties handle it independently of myself, to avoid any edit-war -> Foist my problems on others. 2) Try to compromise by removing every single instance that Aidoflight mentions, plus the ones that I notice on my own -> WP:OWN as I'm the one involved editing. 3) Attempt to shorten it down on my own, but probably not manage adequately -> WP:OWN. 4) Honestly explain myself on the talk, and address the diverse points -> Overly defensive and unreasonable. 5) Throw up my hands and go do something else -> Court martial, as nobody is available to speak for me.
 * Still, my moods and whims differ greatly from day to day, and my perspective evolves meanwhile, as has certainly been the case throughout the Galactus mess that I'm very tired and most uninterested in at this point, but I people outwardly obviously tend to put it into a more coherent pattern than what's actually there.
 * Regardless, what exactly do you want me to do to swiftly get rid of this mess? Should I attempt to shorten it down, let others handle it, or do something else? Or is anything whatsoever that I do pointless, and bound to be severely misunderstood no matter how clear I attempt to be, and I might just as well resign myself to an unavoidable pre-determined outcome of a severely misrepresented trial that I have no energy for and thus should just terminate my account to get it over with (while Aidoflight runs rampant elsewhere with Marvel Wikia style long text extensions or even pro-torture religious bias... although it's not as if I have the energy or interest to counter most of it anyway)? Dave (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the "et tu" phrasing unfairly implies betrayal. That is hardly proper, and I'm afraid you took my carefully worded attempt at encouragement as more than, clearly, was meant. But let's leave that aside. I know you have explained your difficulties in focusing information, and I certainly don't want to be the one to suggest ending your relationship with something that seems to help you therapeutically &mdash; I say this based on what you have candidly and admirably discussed in the past, on other talk pages &mdash; but at some point the greater good has to be considered as well.


 * Maybe this does mean taking more time on your part, rather than expecting other editors to take their time to trim and condense and tidy up the mountainous amounts of text you add. Maybe it means taking a break and coming back to Wikipedia when you're better able to edit to standard.


 * No editor, including Aidoflight, is allowed to contribute in ways that blatantly violate policies or guidelines. We all police each other on that, as best we can. I wouldn't worry about any editor hijacking this article.


 * I see you've made some trims today. That's great. I know that must not have been easy. When I have time, hopefully later today, after having talked about this here now for a few days and inviting other editors' input, I'll volunteer to go in and make the heavy trims this article requires to reach Wikipedia writing-about-fiction standards. Obviously, other editors can do the same. But to reach standard, we have to cut this down to encyclopedic essentials and remove material solely of interest to fans. I'm sure we all want to make this article as encyclopedic as possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sorry about overreacting. Thanks for the help. I agree about the encyclopaedic part, but am seldom quite sure exactly where the line goes, or which parts that are relevant and which aren't. Dave (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DavidA is involved in dispute after dispute, caused by the same behavior and tendencies he has exhibited since day one. There seems to be a common denominator here, and it needs to be addressed.
 * I would help with this article myself, and it really needs it as there is some blatantly incorrect information in addition to the loads stuff that needs to be trimmed, but frankly I don't feel like getting involved in another 2 year long edit war. I know that is exactly what will happen.  TheBalance (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, David A explicitly attempted to avoid any conflict by first going to the general comics talk page, and actively attempting to make neutral parties handle it, and only felt forced to make an attempt himself since nobody reacted after several days, remember? (Have you noticed that I dislike being referred to in the third person yet?) He has also made multiple efforts to compromise.
 * It is strictly a very petty potshot directed at something that you had nothing to do with, due to a grudge about a conflict wherein you were more biased and unreasonable than myself, but is much more blindsided to see it, and I would not have stooped to checking through everything that you do just to take advantage of anything in progress due to smelling blood.
 * Regardless, feel free to compress the article further and see what happens before you make any unfounded accusations. Thank you. I'll probably let you get away with any dedicated Galactus-apologism, explicitly contradicted or not, as I'm more or less uninterested in the event, and was only motivated by the combination of a very offensive sentence here combined with the same theme inserted into other articles by the same editor. In any case, I'm very tired. Good night. Dave (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of DavidA's history regardless it does not need to be addressed here, lets focus on improving this one article which is something I believe both DavidA and Aidoflight wish to accomplish. Back on topic here are a number of suggestions;
 * For now we should focus on the core issues. One problem with writing in an issue by issue manner is that we have no way of knowing how relevant each issue is in terms of the overall series. For example I dont know whats so important about Thor going off to battle Glory or what it effect it will have on the outcome of the series. This can also be go towards any sub-plots within the core issues.
 * We should refrain from inferring on any symbolism that might be present without references from third party sources. Otherwise it might be considered original research. The addition of third party sources is something that is highly encouraged even in plot sections as it provides out of universe context perspective to the events and is something that I believe should not count against the overall length of the article.
 * The plot section should be rewritten into a following paragraph form while keeping a minimalistic tone. This is also something usually prevented by not writing in a issue by issue style. Remember there is no rush and we can afford to wait to allow time for the series to progress before updating the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said in November, I concur with TriiipleThreat. He is absolutely correct.


 * Why don't we try this: I'll go in and be ruthless. I'll add third-party cites. It may take a couple hours, so I'll put an "under construction" tag. After that's done, why don't we reconvene here and talk about any salient plot point that needs to be in there but isn't. Because I think in talking about why we feel something is important and needs to be added, we'll all focus our thinking.


 * Since this has been going on since November, I'm just going to ahead and roll up sleeves and do this. It's not going to be perfect, but it is going to be a lot closer to standard.


 * In the meantime, let me say to Dave and Aidoflight that all else aside, I, for one, am impressed with the willingness of you both to try and talk it out. That's a very important first step. Because, look, if we can't talk to each other and try to enjoy what we do while providing an encyclopedia that will be useful to people for generations to come, what's the point?


 * Into the lion's den.... --Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted say that I'm really impressed with Tenebrae's work, the article looks leagues better. I know that this is still a work in progress but a few more ideas, can we add foot notes from the source material to the plot section? Also expanding the reviews listed as external links into its own Reception section of prose?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the reception section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And not to get too Alphonse-and-Gaston here, let me give kudos to TT creating a very good Reception section. We should of course try to include other reviewers than these two. But we've no time constraints, so, yeah ... Good job! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the new version. Good job. :) Dave (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David. I know how careful you are and how committed to getting things right &mdash; that's never been in question &mdash; so I really do appreciate your saying so. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How are we supposed to handle full details that will help the articles of each character involved in this storyline if we can't have full summaries here? Rtkat3 (talk) 8:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is we dont use full details here or in character articles. We try to use as minimal details as possible in order to convey the plot. Comics are non-free content and we cannot infringe on the copyright holder's rights.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Incredible Herc
Should this be merged with the Incredible Hercules page? it says on the last page of the last issue it's the end of book 8 (or something to that effect). 78.155.225.150 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are separate works with there own notability.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)