Talk:Civil War II

Titles involved
is insisting on edit warring even after I have tried to explain Wikipedia policies especially in regards to verifiability and original research. The references in the Title involved section must explicitly mention each issue. The Comic Book Resources article does not which issues of "Captain America: Sam Wilson," "Spider-Man," "All-New Wolverine," "Power Man and Iron Fist," "Spider-Woman," "Patsy Walker, A.K.A. Hellcat!," "Deadpool,""Captain Marvel," "Ms. Marvel," "Uncanny Inhumans," "The Ultimates," "Nova," "New Avengers" or "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." are involved. While fans or people with inside knowledge may know, average readers cannot check for themselves by looking at his given citation. I have suggested that he should probably wait until the checklist is released since there is no rush, but he insists on including it now with an incomplete reference. To do this now, probably means that each issue would have to be individually cited but that is not what he is doing. Also for some reason, keeps re-adding full citations for multiple uses of the same reference.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well you will not allow the Previews website to be listed as a reference, so you can't have it both ways. I added the best I could find.  But I am more than happy to reference the previews site that shows all of the information.  Go look for yourself and tell me that I am wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaroa007 (talk • contribs)


 * As I stated on my talk page, if Previews is unreliable then wait for a better one. Wikipedia is not the news. We can wait, there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what your problem with Previews is. It is not unreliable.  The information they post comes from Diamond.  Diamond gets it from Marvel themselves.  We played this game last month and was I wrong?  The information is correct, but you keep insisting on waiting for a checklist.  By doing that you are doing a disservice to people who use Wikipedia to plan their purchases for Marvel products.  With this in mind I'm trying to have a more complete list available earlier to help those people.  You need to stop being so insistent on things being your way.  If you'd allow the Previews reference then there is no issue.  So the problem actually does lie with your instance on not allowing that reference.  I'm not sore at you, but you need to stop being so quick to be judgmental and you must also remember that the page belongs to the entire  Wikipedia community, people who may find other information to improve the references.  It's a collaborative effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangaroa007 (talk • contribs)


 * We are not permitted to link to commercial retailers. Also we are not interested in using Wikipedia to help people "plan their purchases for Marvel products". Wikipedia is not a means of advertising, marketing or public relations. I am glad that you recognize that this is a collaborative effort since you are the one that stated, "I will continue restoring it until you accept that it be left," which sounds like a declaration to edit war. Still that is no excuse to skirt established policies or guidelines. Just be patient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Previews, generally speaking, is unreliable because the content and release schedules are still fluid when they're first announced. Some books are solicited for one release on one day, but are delayed or cancelled. Many of the solicitations are written before the comics they're describing are scripted, which is why you see some writers and artists listed as "TBD". While it's unlikely Marvel (through Previews) would solicit a book as a tie-in when it isn't, it's better to wait for a different source closer to actual publication. There are some occasions when Previews would be acceptable, but this particular instance isn't one. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We can only include what we can prove through reliable sources and, checking through some there, the information in the article can't be supported by the source. So that needs to change. People can always ask the staff at their LCS if they were thinking of putting some of the crossover titles on their pull lists.
 * If we are helping users interested in the event then wikifying the table to link through to characters and creators as some of the titles aren't too obvious to the lay reader - Totally Awesome Hulk stars Amadeus Cho, for example. I know who the Captain Marvel book stars, but don't assume everyone will.
 * So wind the titles back to what we can prove and work on improving the rest of the article. Emperor (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are the full solicits from Newsarama. Creative teams, issue numbers and the text "Civil War II Tie-In!" included for all the titles in question that aren't explicitly stated by the CBR source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Also to the statement that previews/solicits aren't reliable, I believe that they are. From the time of their release to the release of the comic, should anything change, then a new source can be added. You aren't including release dates which are generally the things that change from the original solicits, so I don't see the harm. As with anything on here, if a better source becomes available, you can add it. But I wouldn't call these unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Favre, I have no problem using this in conjunction with ones for other months for the time being. The checklist would be better once its released so we don't have 7 to 8 citations for each series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. But as I said, for now, I don't see the issue with using this as a cite. Should the "catch-all" checklist source come out eventually, by all means use that one instead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The publication section mentions the story began developing in "the second volume of The Invincible Iron Man". According to Iron Man, the current series is at least volume 7, maybe more. I'm not 100% certain which page is correct. Could someone familiar with them please fix this? Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by this as well, according to Marvel.com the first volume of Invincible Iron Man ran from 2008 - 2012, and the second volume picked up again in 2015. This is consistent with The Invincible Iron Man and the Marvel Wikia. Despite the cover, Marvel simply refers to the original 1968 series and subsequent four volumes as Iron Man.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

plot summary
This part in particular seems clumsy:
 * "As the verdict is read, Friday, Iron Man's A.I. system, informs Iron Man that she is near completion of Ulysses' analysis.[22] After Hawkeye is acquitted of all charges, Iron Man informs the other heroes of his findings."

I get that the ref is a break between issues, but it's awkward. We say the verdict is read, but not what it is until after we talk about Iron Man. At the same time, we say the analysis is done, but not what the results are. I think this would read smoother if the whole first sentence was removed. Is it really relevant to the plot that Friday was nearly done right before she was done? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I unintentionally restored that. I was mostly trying to abbreviate the IP's edit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. I thought that may have been the case. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Civil War II. 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/20160521085701/http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/0 to http://www.comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604113537/http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/1 to http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160618101528/http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/2 to http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160728033400/http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/3 to http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160731190414/http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/4 to http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/marvel-comics/civil-war-ii/4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)