Talk:Cosmic entity

Proposed split
I'd suggest dividing this in half, by company - so that the Marvel Universe cosmic beings get one article and the DC Universe beings get another. Opinions? Suggestions for names for the new articles are also welcome--Mrph 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Split --Mrph 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Split - Cosmic being (DC Comics) and Cosmic being (Marvel)  being obcious split with a disambig type page at current seems most obvious. - Waza 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Split - ...into Cosmic entities (DC Comics) and Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics) with a disambig type page Cosmic entities and the following redirect pages:


 * Cosmic entity (DC Comics) -> Cosmic entities (DC Comics)
 * Cosmic beings (DC Comics) -> Cosmic entities (DC Comics)
 * Cosmic being (DC Comics) -> Cosmic entities (DC Comics)
 * Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics) -> Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics)
 * Cosmic beings (Marvel Comics) -> Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics)
 * Cosmic being (Marvel Comics) -> Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics)
 * Cosmic entity -> Cosmic entities
 * Cosmic beings -> Cosmic entities
 * Cosmic being -> Cosmic entities


 * Weapon X (de) 13:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision
Closed with a decision to split - Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics) and Cosmic entities (DC Comics) seem to be the best names. There's already a List of DC Comics cosmic entities and a List of Marvel cosmic beings - but Infinity Gauntlet collectively calls 'em "cosmic entities" at least once, so I suspect that's the better choice. My reading of the page naming / plurals discussion is that "entities" is more appropriate than "entity" in this case. Opinions? --Mrph 11:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In DC comics
Cosmic entity (DC Comics) was recently deleted at AfD, with all its incoming links and redirects likewise deleted. However, there appears to be an existing article chapter that covers the topic – DC Universe. Like much of the rest of that article, it doesn't have inline refs (though that doesn't necessarily mean it's unsourced: the article has a list of sources at the end). Still, shouldn't that be an obvious target? Pinging and, who commented on the possibility of redirecting and merging. – Uanfala (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * To be honest, if I had seen that entry I would have !voted to redirect instead of delete. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And now there's a similar situation with Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), which got deleted as a result of the recently concluded Articles for deletion/Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics): there's an obvious target in the section Marvel Universe though it again doesn't seem to have in-line references. – Uanfala (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)