Talk:Galactus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

SHB image

On August 30, User:DrBat unilaterally replaced the existing superherobox image, without discussion on this page, and reverted it when another editor objected and restored the previous version. Either image seems fine, but for the record, the protocol is to not replace the single most major image of an article without discussion. -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the image from the Annihilation Secret Files? I thought those type of images couldn't be used? --DrBat (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I hadn't put that earlier image in — and actually argued against it in but went along with consensus at the time — so I can't say myself if it had come from a copyrighted source that Wikipedia or WikiProject disallows. If so, then certainly it was right to change it.

My pertinent point was that when changing something so major as the SHB image, it's clearer, more collaborative and more protocol-preferred to post a note on the Talk page. No biggie. Thanks for the explanatory note, however belated! -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I don't think the article needs a Biography section. The PH section summaries the character's overall appearances very well. However a section titled Character overview (or Characterization?) that describes the character of Galactus and his role in the comics would be better. DCincarnate (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we still need to highlight the significant stuff and explain his "creation". That can go in this section. Regards

Asgardian (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Made a start, but definately keeping it to the gist. Asgardian (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional images to the article.

It occurs to me that the article may want to have an image depicting what Galactus is most famous for: feeding on a planet. There is no such image and the interested reader may be looking for one, given the subject matter. Any opinionsMobb One (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. So long as it doesn't disrupt the text, no problem. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Howard U. prof.

As I'd mentioned on David A's page, I applaud having academic commentary that places this material within a larger, real-world context of literature and social effect. I'm not sure having it in the lead is appropriate though, for two reasons: It's just one person's opinion, and given the entire history of planetary threats in comics and movies, it can be construed as a non-mainstream opinion. Secondly, it's one of context where it is; I believe the original location of the quote followed the "trial of Galactus" mention, which narrows the academic point to one commenting not on a planetary threat like many others, but on the jury-trial "acquittal" of same. I think the outcome of the trial is what the prof. believes justifies genocide — not the existence of Galactus per se. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As good as the quote is, it goes in the PH. Asgardian (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it - it's on a personal blog, the fact that the guy is a prof is neither here or there - the question of if it should be added relies on if he is known as an expert in this area - and I can find no evidence of that. We never just go off the fact that someone is an academic to use them as a source, otherwise, I can start adding myself to the article on the basis of my personal blog. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it it's more of a general article site with several contributors to the various articles, so at the very least that makes it comparable to say Newsarama. Also, Wikipedia policy by far prefers these types of 3rd party evaluations to the 1st level direct spurces we tend to be forced to use, so it would be more warranted to remove almost anything else before. This also isn't the type of area that one can be a true authority, as in research specialist, in beyond literary credentials, so I'm not sure what you'd be looking for beyond that he has a history of writing these types of story evaluation columns.

Still, you do have a good point in that it's hard to know exactly where to draw the line. Someone wouldn't be allowed to reference him/herself, but might technically go an underhanded route and ask a friend instead. I suppose it depends on if the article was written seriously or manipulatively, and is an inescapable risk for all types of reference articles, whether published through books or fansites. Regardless, it is a fair point/observation to make, does not appear problematic, and is the type of reference that is favoured by Wikipedia policy.

You're usually correct in your clean-ups, so this definitely isn't to be taken as some general slam, but in this specific case it seems odd to remove it before lots of less warranted entries. Dave (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This also isn't the type of area that one can be a true authority, as in research specialist, in beyond literary credentials, - rubbish, that's what academics *do* they become specialists in very narrow very specific things. The fact that he is an english lit prof is neither here nor there as his specialism could be 13th century poems for all we know. I'll re-add it for the moment, while I have a further think about it - but the cruft-filled biography needs an extensive re-write. Most (if not all) of the content could be covered in the publication history using an real world perceptive. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my perhaps clumsily worded intended point being that "Would it really make him less qualified to write an analysis if he doesn't have "lecturer about comic book history" as an official specialisation than, say, Shakespeare and Faulkner?" He is apparently informed enough to have contributed heavily to the site in question, and presumably has thorough training in general literary reviews, which seems good enough for the purpose here, whereas a chemist expressing personal opinion about physics would be more objectionable.

Still, you do in fact have an advantage over the rest of us in that you could technically publish articles/analyses through entertainment news sites, and then get them briefly referenced here if someone found them interesting. Dave (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the commentary by the professor only be mentioned if other sources mention that comment? Is the professor famous as a comic books commentator, or published any notable books on the matter?--TiagoTiago (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he did write continuous articles for a then popular comics reviewing site, but no I don't think that being referenced by others is a requirement, since "newsarama" etc articles written by people with less credencials are cited all the time. Dave (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the tense

Since David A and Cameron seem to be doing the heavy lifting, I'd just like to point out that in the real-world sections (i.e., not FCB), past tense should be used. It often is here, but I've found numerous passages like "...during Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four the Invisible Man has later nonetheless described Galactus as...", which should read, "...during Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four, the Invisible Man nonetheless described Galactus as..."

I've edited the paragraph on Galacta; details are in my edit summary.

It's much calmer around here now, isn't it? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the glitch, and to almost quote Phineas and Ferb: "Yes, yes it is." Dave (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like we spoke too soon/it was too good to bwe true. TheBalance seems fully intent on continuing to reinsert numerous statements he should know full well to be untrue, unbalanced or/and misleading, including the ones Boz agreed with me about after checking the evidence, and displaying a significant favourising cherry-picking double-standard in declaring Galacta out of continuity, whereas "Spider-man and the Secret Wars" "counted", even though the latter severely contradicts previous continuity and is done by a team that does all-ages continuity-free projects, and the former doesn't explicitly contradict anything. Dave (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see some back-and-forth edit reversions, and before this escalates into a full-blown edit war, I'd like to suggest that User:David A and User:TheBalance come over here and talk over each of TheBalance's proposed changes. I don't know which of these editors is "right" or "wrong," but what I would wager is that one is correct on some of these, and the other is correct on others. We need to build a consensus.

I'll be happy to referee, if that helps. What I would suggest is that we start with the edits in the first paragraph here. Can we start with this one: DavidA says:

Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe", to be reborn as "a galactic ravager". CITE: Super-Villain Classics #1 (May 1983). Although the 1980s updated Mark Gruenwald origin special displayed the two entities as separate after the transformation was completed, during Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four the Invisible Man nonetheless described Galactus as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos". CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005)

TheBalance says:

Created by the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan, CITE: Super-Villain Classics #1 (May 1983)</ref> the Invisible Man has described Galactus as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005) and story narrative has labeled him "the most awesome living entity in the cosmos." CITE: Thor #134 (Nov. 1966)

The one thing I would suggest offhand is getting rid of "the most awesome" quote, dudes. It's subjective and vague — how does one measure "awesomeness"? — whereas calling him "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" is concrete, within the fictional framework. So at least it sounds like that latter phrase is something both of you can agree on?

Now, both versions of the first sentence seem to be saying basically the same thing. Is there a way to phrase it, perhaps with less highly specific detail, to a way that says the essential thing you both agree on? (Also, there's a grammatical issue -- TheBalance's sentence is saying the Invisible Man was created by the union of etc.) -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've been aiming for matter-of-fact impartiality in that phrasing by simultaneously keeping all of them, and stating "which writer did what version when". "Most awesome" is typical narrative hyperbole yes, but if the context of early Marvel in the 1960s (before most other entities were introduced) is clarified it does not present a prooblem of blatant inaccuracy to my sensibilities. On the other hand I do have a major problem with Mark Gruenwald's updated origin being offhandedly included into a hype-up statement, despite contradicting the claim. Galan was incubated and transformed within the sentience, this part is clear and neutral. However, after the Big Bang the dormant Galactus is shown being sent out in his ship with the voice of the universe bidding him farewell from within the explosion. Boz agreed with me on this point after being shown the image in question, and you can readily see it yourself, as it is used within the profile itself. I have no trouble with keeping the statement from the Waid run, as it is not displayed in a misleading manner as long as the conflicting context of the Gruenwald story is also kept.

Speaking of the origin story it also clearly shows Galactus finally being awakened by a fully developed Watcher (Ecce?), i.e. his true age outside of stasis is counted long after these immortals and presumably the Elders of the Universe, were born. There was also a Kubik/Kosmos story that theorised that the Cellestials originated in the universes prior to his own and were what Galactus would evolve into after the next Big Bang, and there are plenty of extradimensional beings of indeterminate age. Hence "The oldest being in the universe is also misleading hyperbole", whereas "The only known surviving inhabitant of the previous universe" would be acceptable, but seemed misplaced in that particular sentence about his level of technology. Dave (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Galactus wasn't created by Galan incubating within the cosmic egg, he was created from the union of the Sentience of the Universe and Galan. There is a distinct difference here, and while it may seem like semantics to the outside observer it is a pivotal plot point in Galactus' origin. In fact, Galactus' "incubation" did not even occur within the cosmic egg, but rather in the present reality which makes Dave's version blatantly incorrect.

Here's the dialogue that lays it all out, the Sentience of the [previous] Universe is explaining the situation to Galan,

"Hear me, last son of Taa -- I am the Sentience of the Universe!"

"Like yourself, I am dying. In mere moments as I mark time I shall have drawn all the matter in the cosmos into my bosom, and collapse beneath my own abysmal weight."

"But though we both must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace and let us become as one. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a new form of life!"

"In a time beyond time shall be born a new universe and into that universe shall be one entity like no other -- a living organism who possesses the matchless power and raging appetite of a galaxy."

"But he shall be more than a galaxy. He shall be a galactic ravanger... he shall be... Galactus!"

Galactus wasn't created by incubating within the Cosmic Egg, he wasn't created by his incubation in the current reality, Galactus was born the moment Galan and the Sentience of the Universe "became as one". The incubation period (that once again, occurred post Big Bang) was Galactus achieving maturity, not becoming Galactus.

In response to Dave, Galactus has been referred to as the oldest being in the universe in-continuity several times, including by Eternity himself. TheBalance (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You omitted the following part (Link):

"There is an eternity of seeming nothingness, then the cosmic egg of the universe explodes!" (Galan's ship is seen being ejected far away from the central explosion)

"Go, now--and let a universe a'borning beware!" (The voice of the dying universe calls out a farewell to to its child from inside the furnace)

"For eons the sturdy starship carrying the metamorphing being hurled through the interstellar void..."

So what does all the above text tell us?

1) There are several references to making children: "into my bosom", "we need not die without an heir", "my fiery embrace", "let us become as one", "birth pangs", "cosmic egg", the ship violently sent out from its mother's womb.

2) The previous universe disturbingly comes across as a petty asshole who wants to be remembered in the new creation by creating a "galactic ravager" that all the inhabitants should "beware"/taking revenge on its successor.

3) The sentience is clearly shown as a separate entity when calling farewell after the explosion, and as the "mother" of Galactus, not a previous incarnation.

4) "There is an eternity of seeming nothingness" means that there was a very significant period of incubation time between that of Galan entering the egg and the rest of the universal mass being drawn in, which would make absolutely no sense othervise, as it should take several billion years at the very least from the universe showing symtoms of collapse/the Taa'an scientists discovering what was happening, and most of it actually doing so, which is the reason for my interpretation of the most crucial metamophosis happening in the womb. However, there is also "In mere moments as I mark time" and "For eons the sturdy starship carrying the metamorphing being" before meeting the fully developed Watcher species, with a fully formed planet to land on (several billion years more described as "mere" eons) so the timescale is inherently completely topsy-turvy/writers apparently didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Conclusion: The origin story makes a major point of depicting Galactus as the child of the previous universe with Galan gestating in its "womb", and explicitly shows them as separate entities, but does definitely not say that they are the same being. I have been fairminded in keeping the references you like that are accurately portrayed, i.e. Stan Lee's 1960's "most awesome" and Mark Waid's 2000's "metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos", but the 1980's origin story says a very different thing, and if you are interested in objective historical/more Wikipedia relevant portrayal you should show the same courtecy and objectivity by allowing the display of contrasting historical context. Different writers apparently have different takes, similar to how Stan Lee simply had Galan enter a star in the first Thor origin (which should possibly also be mentioned for this reason btw).

Regardless, you are correct in that the metamophosis continued afterwards, so we could change it to something like "incubation within the cosmic egg, and continued metamophosis for unspecified eons afterwards". It just seems kind of awkwardly long.

I don't remember Eternity calling Galactus the oldest being, but regardless the point still stands that there is a major difference between frozen stasis or time-travelling, and actual sentient lifespan. The Watcher race was apparently fully developed by the time Galactus was awakened, which means that he is far from the oldest in terms of personal experience. There is also the Kubik/Kosmos story that refers to the Celestials as possible survivors of the universes even further before, and assorted otherdimensional entities, or immortal time-travellers such as Size-Neg, that are likely also older. "The only known survivor of the previous universe" says the same thing you want in a neutral fashion by keeping those variables out of the equation. Dave (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad both of you are willing to try this route. Trust me: Collaborating works. There's an old improv saying: "Your idea plus my idea equal our idea." You couldn't do improv if people didn't collaborate and build a scene together.

Here's the thing: I've scanned the back-and-forth debates higher up on this page, and I can see that you both and User:Mobb_One each vigorously defend your points. Given the fictional, ever-changing, and decades-long narrative involved, there are going to be endless details that inconsistencies that can be debated.

What I'm suggesting is the opposite approach: That we seek a way to say something all three of you can live with.

So, rather continuing to defending your points point, which all three of you can do, and which isn't working, why don't we keep things simple, one step at a time, like bricklayers.

Just for example, then, I'd like to see what you and both think about this merger of your first sentences:

Galactus was created in an interaction with the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe". CITE: CITE: Super-Villain Classics #1 (May 1983) One member of the superhero team the Fantastic Four, whom Galactus has frequently encountered, described him as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005)

See how I did that? Before we go any further, I'd like to get your responses to this — keeping those responses brief, please, and keeping in mind the idea that we're striving for a common, general way to phrase things, that won't be subject, as they have been so far, to differing views and interpretations. We can find things you both agree on. But we have to want to do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that I already tried to fairly take into account the ever-changing, and decades-long narrative involved and finding a balanced solution everyone could live with by mentioning the different/conflicting preferences/takes of different writers, and keeping the accurate references that suit the tastes of hardcore fans of the character such as TB and Mobb. As well as making the wording as neutral as I could manage regarding the interaction. The character was clearly shown to be transformed and incubate within the egg, hence that was stated. However TB has a valid point in that the metamorphosis continued afterwards, so the sentences I used previously (displayed below) could be adapted to reflect this:

P&A text: "Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe", to be reborn as "a galactic ravager". Although the 1980s updated Mark Gruenwald origin special displayed the two entities as separate after the transformation was completed, during Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four the Invisible Man nonetheless described Galactus as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos"."

"Image text: "Galan of Taa is transformed into Galactus during incubation within the Sentience of the previous Universe"

I suppose that "interaction" is technically fine, but I personally think the vomb and birth context should be referred to (in a non vulgar manner), hence the "incubation" choice. However, it would be a very unfair representation to strictly mention the Waid take and not the explicit Gruenwald contradiction. That said, I have no illusions about always finding the appropriate wording, but the historical context of contradiction should be maintained, and possibly expanded to Lee's original 1960's Thor origin. Dave (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction is much too vague a term, IMHO. "Union" or "merging" is very much in line with the story's dialogue, and supports later plots involving Galactus' nature and origin.

Also, clarifying that it was the Invisible Man (herald of Galactus) that described Galactus should be retained, as this wasn't a normal version of Johnny Storm that made the observation. In the story, Johnny Storm had the Invisible Woman's powers, and furthermore was granted the Power Cosmic by Galactus in order to locate hidden worlds. This combination of power-sets granted him the unique ability to see behind the veil, to see the true nature of things. He was the first being shown in-continuity with the ability to perceive Galactus' "true form", and thus his statement about Galactus being "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" holds quite a bit of weight. TheBalance (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That latter point about Johnny Storm is important, and we can phrase that in a way that has context and still be understandable to non-comics, general-audience readers, to which Wikipedia policy says we write.

I'm more concerned, though, about your sticking with "union" when that appears to be a phrase that DavidA appears to feel is inaccurate. Neither of you -- and me, neither -- has a conduit to absolute truth, so we need to find a phrase you both can live with. "Interaction" -- or some other, similar term -- is intentionally vague-but-accurate. We're trying to find commonality here. The other way clearly isn't working. DavidA: Do you have a middle-ground word or phrase that addresses TheBalance's concerns along with your own?

As for Johnny Storm, how about:

One member of the superhero team the Fantastic Four, temporarily serving as Galactus' herald and thus imbued with a cosmically heightened perception of reality, described him as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005)

I don't think it's necessary to say Invisible Man -- most people take that to mean the Robert Louis Stevenson character, and the pertinent point is "a member of the Fantastic Four serving as Galactus' herald." Who it is specifically doesn't matter.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

David may feel it is inaccurate, but it is what happened. Once again, here is the quote that nails it all down,

"But though we both must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace and **let us become as one**. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a new form of life!"

Furthermore, this aspect of Galactus' origin is pivotal in later interactions between Eternity and Death and emphasized his place in the universal order. Interaction is simply too ambiguous a term, especially when their "union" was spelled out clearly for us in print.

My other objection is that a majority consensus has already been achieved on this issue, Dave is a vocal minority here.

The revised sentence regarding Johnny Storm/Invisible Man works for me. TheBalance (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DavidA: "let us become as one" seems to indicate union. I notice that the page of art in the article, which you mention further up and from which TheBalance quotes, has a caption that reads, "The Sentience of the [previous] Universe merges with Galan of Taa in the Cosmic egg." I can see how the term "egg" can lead one to say "incubate."

TheBalance: As we know, however, Marvel can say one thing in one comic and a different thing in another comic about the same event. First things first, then: Are we in agreement that the page of art in the article is the origin that this article will use?

If so, then it seems as if the the dispute is between "union/merge" and "incubate." Is that correct? Please, let's keep our answers short and sweet -- big blocks of text are not helpful. Pare things down to the bare essentials, and we'll move more efficiently through this.

We may be about ready to sign off on this one and move on to the next disputed passage. I'd like to hear DavidA's response to "union" first — succinctly, please — and whether there's a more general term that addresses both your concerns. TheBalance objects to "interaction." What would would you suggest that is not "union" or "incubate" but which is still accurate? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Galactus did have an incubation period, but this occurred after the Big Bang (in the present reality) and not within the Cosmic egg (the previous reality), making David's interpretation erroneous. TheBalance (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that I usually only have access to mobile phone interaction, which may work for brief hobby fixes, but takes too long for these types of responses (and I don't really have any enthusiasm to speak of for it), so I'd appreciate if the two of you could wait with drawing definitive conclusions until I've had time to respond .

In any case, "let us become as one" in this case interacts with the numerous references and allusions to "lovemaking"/"conceiving children" seen in my reponse above. You know, *ahem*. Most definitely not stated as "Let us become one entity as an escape plan so I can survive this", but as "I will die, but want children, embrace my bosom". On the other hand the two are explicitly shown as separate beings in the following frame, which should be mentioned.

Regarding the incubation period, that's from the omitted following "eternity of seeming nothingness" part in combination with the inherent nonsense assumption of the universe drawing every iota of mass into itself immediately after Galan entered the center, rather than taking at least as much time as it took to expand from the Big Bang before that, when the Taa scientists had just discovered the effect a few years earlier. So no, it is definitely not erroneous. It could however be followed by "and continued metamorphosis afterwards". Then again, after rechecking the page, the inherent contradiction problem here seems to be that the writers insert other much odder references such as "in mere moments as I mark time" (which of course would still mean millions of years) and the starship travelling "for eons" before meeting a fully developed Watcher on a fully formed green planet afterwards.

I have no problem with the "Invisible Man" story being mentioned rather than simply the Human Torch character, and (despite almost never being given the same balanced courtesy/npov approach by TB and Mobb) kept it as such.

To summarise from all of my latest responses: I already did attempt to create a middle-ground balanced solution by including several conflicting takes and wording phrases in a more neutral manner. (What is so offensive about "incubation" or "only known survivor"? Seriously?) If I had attempted to give it as uniform a slant as TB is going for I would (for example) have deleted the Mark Waid and "most awesome" mentions. So a possible inherent problem here is that a "compromise" between one moderate and one extreme wording at best makes a semi-extreme pov wording, as the argument seems to center around editing out the contradictions. Dave (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think I gave this my best shot, But with all respect to both parties' knowledge and genuine caring, and your devoting admirable time and effort to try to write something useful and encyclopedic, I'm afraid that trying to reach common ground is doomed when you each refuse to budge from your positions, reject compromise phrasing (User:TheBalance), and seem unable to work with the concept of succinct responses and short replies (Dave) Unless each of you learns to collaborate -- which means to find reasonable compromise and commonality -- then my own efforts won't produce any good results.

One admin I've been in touch with has suggested banning you both from this article for a time, and presumably letting other editors write a plainer, more basic version of the disputed sections -- leaving out excessive detail to write plain-vanilla, inarguable facts ... which you two have not provided, since you're arguing with each other.

I said to him, "Wait and let me try this first." But I can see it's not going to work. I'm disappointed. I absolutely know you both are operating in the best of faith. But I, at least, can't help when there's such refusal to compromise -- which, frankly, I see more with David, who, despite good intent, is doing OR synthesis and analysis and continuing to defend his positions at excessive length.

I'm sure we'll work together on articles in the future. You both care and know your stuff. But this intransigence means you'll both keep reverting each other over and over again. That's not doing any of us, the article, or our community any good. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfiltered stream-of-consciousness is the only way I can express myself, and I never did get a chance to say my piece, but I have now, so I'd rather see you simply evaluate all of the above, and go from there. I don't have any problem with you or Boz coming up with compromises as long as I get to state what the current problem is. However, there are several more of them than I directly adjusted this time. The only crucial part I directly addressed was the one discussed above, since I had discussed it with Boz and had the impression that he agreed with me. For example, I was going to wait with the supposed "teleporting a galaxy" part until I found the time to upload and show Boz some scans from later Rom issues that directly contradict this in itself vague reference.

However, I've definitely not tried to be as unreasonable as the other party. Similar to Dormammu I've made continuous new versions that attempt to compromise and keep all parties happy by for example listing several versions of the origin, as opposed to applying censorship, which was their approach, and find it unfair that this effort has not been acknowledged.

Or as a more direct comparison, I personally reinserted the "Spider-Man and the Secret Wars" reference that TB wanted there because it sounds impressive, despite that the narrative is incoherent, illogical, and directly contradicting continuity on several points (such as Titania's recruitment specifics, the Beyonder in his modified Captain America form long before he took it, Spider-Man knowing about the costume beforehand yet being surprised later, Doctor Doom in the same position regarding his eventual defeat and narrating the details to Klaw/Beyonder rather than the other way around, Doom gaining the Beyonder's power through willpower rather than surprise attack by employing the machinery he built for this pupose during his dissection, and so on, along with the Marvel Adventures story style and ambiguous intended continuity status), whereas the Galacta mini that has none of these continuity issues (and is much better written) apparently didn't suit TB's tastes so he dumped it in the "out of continuity" heap.

Basically all that is needed to make a compromise with me is to actually listen to what I have to say, acknowledge my attempts to write different versions, and make an effort to make adjustments from that, r-ather than think through a severe bias (no, not you Tenebrae. I trust your objectivity). This is how J_Greb resolved the Dormammu situation. And much exactly like there the other party makes almost no attempts to rewrite and incorporate, simply revert to exactly the same text over and over. The page as it currently stands has TB simply censoring out any adjustments to look exactly the same forever. This kind of thing is a problem.

Anyway, regarding your concerns about invested time, most other points should be more straightforward, as in "read the scan draw a conclusion". Galactus flat out stated as draining energy to the containers in Annihilus machines and then displayed absorbing it back during the Annihilation event shouldn't be much of an issue for example. However, if ypou want others to adjust the entire article instead I'm fine with it as long as you listen to what I have to say. Too let the article stand as it is regrettably has the same effect as uniformly enforcing TB's bias and censorship. Dave (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Another modification attempt. How about something in the veibn of this suggestion: "In the original 1960s Stan Lee origin Galactus was created when Galan was transformed by a dying star. (Thor reference) In Mark Gruenwald's adjusted 1980s origin special he was rather stated as the child of the Sentience of the Previous Universe, created from Galan's incubation within the Cosmic egg and further metamorphosis afterwards. In Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four run Galactus was rather described as the metamorphosized embodiment of a cosmos." That seems fair and accommodating enough. Dave (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words about my efforts, and I honesty am trying to listen to what you have to say. I'm a little concerned about your statement, "Unfiltered stream-of-consciousness is the only way I can express myself." Is this a preference, or a genuine medical/psychological condition? I'm asking seriously and not being in the least glib.

It's important to know before continuing, because the very busy admin who's looking at this situation is suggesting you and The Balance — and Mobb One will likely have figure in at some point — agree to mediation. But mediation will be difficult if not impossible when one party is using unfiltered stream-of-consciousness. I'm willing to work with you both, but I think it will be difficult to find someone willing to wade through dense and I'm afraid often meandering text.

I'm willing to help; I want to help. I'm only able to devote so much time and energy, however, so I need to know what we're up against. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of my condition is that I have very limited information filters both in and out, and that I it's processed as a general jumble, or rather several tracks are co-processed at once, and it is hard to keep track of which ones I have finished, and often intuitively jump from one subject to the next without immediately noticing or forgetting if I said everything I had to say. It tends to come out as information dumps, and I have a hard time absorbing responses until I have finished. It's not quite as bas in print, as I can recheck what I said, but it also goes slower, still comes out somewhat unstructured, and it would take here unreasonable amounts of time to edit it. down afterwards, especially if I use the mobile. This is part of the basic definition, and not inherently an attitude problem, but it can of course be fought against to a degree, such as trying to make it somewhat easily overviewed or cutting out sentences that I notice turn too hostile. The thing is that this is me already doing so. Dave (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I have to say I admire you quite a bit for working with this hand you've been dealt, and contributing to Wikipedia in spite of it. I really applaud your wherewithal and spirit, and I especially admire your being forthright with your fellow editors; that couldn't have been an easy thing to talk about.

I don't know where that leaves us in regard to the article. I really wanted to help, and I wish I still could. But between this issue and TheBalance objecting to a compromise term like "interaction" —different parties can argue over "incubation" or "merger," but you can't argue that both those things are "interactions" — I think this is more than I can handle.

I wish you both the best — you both really care about this article, maybe too much — and I wish even more both you could bend like the willow in a powerful storm, and not stand like the oak tree that gets felled. And believe me, living in NYC, I see mighty oaks and other trees felled in Central Park and on the streets all the time after a bad storm. Both of you defending your points at all costs is not good in the long run. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally speaking I can live with if "interaction with" is inserted into some version of my last suggestion, although "child of" also seems explicitly self-evident from the issue in question. Dave (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In-universe rubbish clogging up article

I see the fictional history section is getting clogged up with in-universe mastectomy material - anyone want to take care of it or do I need to turn my flamethrower on it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, User:Emperor and I probably mostly agree with you, and you're usually one of the most efficient local editors in filtering out irrelevance, so your help would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Publication history should refer to all canon apperances. Galactus does appear in the Galacta one-shot, and currently Marvel has implied that Galacta is part of the main universe "Earth-616". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.147.58 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidetrack from the above section

Moved to a separate section from the above thread due to clogging, personal he-said she-said distracting irrelevance to the issue of an independent party rewriting the page in a less Wikia manner. In response to my first post above, due to me unwisely (and ironically) not filtering out out the word "lies" from the phrase "filtering out lies and irrelevance", TB said:

Dave, most of Asgardian's battles with you over this article had to do with your insistence on inserting in-universe details into the article. TheBalance (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of them (here and elsewhere, and a host of editors finally decided that Asgardian was an unapologetically sytematically dishonest, manipulative, and disinformation-mongering liar, and banned him) had to do with me not liking the very selective information inclusion and biased twisting the most reverent fans of the character were inserting as a general one-sided theme (especially disturbing considering the ideological content of what you seem to be endorsing).

Meaning, from my perspective there are two options to balance it: Either contrast different extremes by also inserting all of the references and depictions that don't glorify or excuse the character as well (giving Thanos 1-6 an honest more expansive summary would have been one of them), and make the highly arguable and contradicted ones neutral, or just remove all of it. I'm fine with either, but have also developed my Wikipedia viewpoint over the years. I'm leaning more towards Cameron's take nowadays for page accessibility than the "indiscriminate inclusionist" I started out as. That's more Wikia territory. (Although of course those tend to be much more factually unreliable)

For example, Cameron started his Wikpedia career by stomping out that Hulk P&A page I started that I now realise was very silly, and has proved himself as one of the most constructive contributors afterwards.

Regardless, this is yet another attempt from you to distract from the point of more useful final solutions by trying to provoke me into the knee-jerk disconnected straying I usually do to start another inconstructive/unmoderated back-and-forth that doesn't lead anywhere (since trying to start an edit-war didn't work), so anyone else reading this, just ignore this part and carry on. Dave (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong about Asgardian and once again spewing unfounded slander.

P.S. I only read the first paragraph of your reply. TheBalance (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, neverending WP:GAME wastherunningthread ofAsgardian'sarbitrationcase. Particularly inspect User:Nightscream's posts and evidence page.

Also, if you don't even bother to read the answer (second column), please don't bother to write the question next time. Dave (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not referring to any of Asgardian's edits save his dealings with you on the Galactus page. He continually reverted your in-universe and/or incorrect insertions. TheBalance (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is not the way I remember it at all. I remember it as me trying to remove your various fannish "Galactus is the embodiment of the Power Cosmic, the Power Cosmic is the most powerful force in the universe, Galactus is a third of the Living Tribunal, even a fraction of his being can create multiverses, and any time he is defeated, upataged, or questioned in the slightest, much less stated outright as less than an insect in comparison with Eternity, it doesn't count dangit! Hex the most awesome entity in the universe, becaus they said so 1968, so there!" inserts and selective information, but for argument's sake, even if there were "in-universe and incorrect insertions" by me on the page (and the last time I checked you reverted almost anything that didn't entirelly support your bias) this would be completely irrelevant for the issue at hand,Italic text as Cameron's workthrough would hopefully remove all of it, mine included, which I'm entirely fine with. As for Asgardian, I'm talking about the behaviour he almost always displayed to me, here and elsewhere. Dave (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Dave, you've had problems with your rememberings in the past and this is just another example. For one, all of those examples you just mentioned were never stated in any article, and are complete fiction. And what's even more humorous (for me at least), is that most of these points of contention you continue to focus on and give me credit for, and that force me to revert your far more biased revisions (and they are), weren't even put into the article by me. They are simply facts put in by fans with a modicum of reading comprehension and a comic in hand. TheBalance (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're saying that those things were not said (they were interspersed in the Galactus, Power Cosmic, Ultimate Nullifier, and Cosmic Entities pages, and the principles were maintained elsewhere by Asgardian) by anyone, or that they were said but not by you, simply by Mobb, Mansierre (name?), Asgardian or another hardcore Galactus fan "with basic reading comprehension", i.e. you simply agreed with them? Regardless, fair enough, you shouldn't bear the responsibility for the actions of others, but in return I'd like you to recognise that I actually believe in what I'm saying, i.e. I'm upfront about what I think, and that it is possible to get a different valid pattern than yourself without "lacking reading comprehension", and I'll extend you the same courtesy, so we finally focus on the issues themselves and not each other. That at least is necessary to get anywhere. Thank you. Dave (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fictional Character Biography?

Maybe I'm walking into something that's already been discussed, but as a new-comer to this article, I have to say the fictional biography seems really out of place and a little long winded. That's not to say it's unnecessary; it has really good info about G's origins and notable events involving the character, but it seems that since there is already an origin section, as well as a breakdown of the character's history through the past five decades, that the most pertinent of the "Fictional Character Biography" elements could be spread out through the above sections. Anyway, it just seemed like it was plopped into the article and was out of place. --The Eskimo 16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)

If you are by chance recommending removing the section, due to redundancy, I second your nomination. - Sharp962 (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

Spider-Man & The Secret Wars Continuity

It appears this story is in continuity. It is a retelling of Secret Wars through Spider-Man's perspective and was not published under Marvel Adventures as has been put forth. Link TheBalance (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The story completely contradicted plenty of the standard Secret Wars history, glaringly Titania's and Volcana's origins, and presented events in an extremely different and completely incoherent psychedelic manner in general. It has no more place in the article than the current also much more irreverent same-style "Infinity Gauntlet" 'event remake', which also goes heavily against the original serites. Or to follow your own logic regarding events you didn't like (Galacta and In-Betweener), at the very least it is highly arguable and subjective whether it "counts" or not, and as such should be left out. If I can be reasonable and compromising enough to accept that logic to accomodate yourself, I think that you can show enough flexibility and objectivity to accept that the rationale carries over to this case per definition. Othervise there will be a very inconsistent and biased approach. On the other hand if each remake mini (or Galacta for that matter) start to get referenced as major retcons in multiple other books, then there's no helping it, horrible works or no.

Speaking of retcon books, this one much better written and more imporrantly referenced/verified in other books, the new SHIELD series describes Galactus as "the son of Eternity". Should we use that phrase at the start of the section? Dave (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how the Galactus/In-Betweener situation in any way relates to whether or not Spider-Man and the Secret Wars is in continuity. The problem with the Galactus/In-Betweener situation is that a statement was inserted into the In-Betweener entry that was simply not established in the story. Regarding SHIELD, "the son of Eternity" is not an inaccurate description, but we also know he is more than that just as he is to Death. TheBalance (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, In-Betweener fighting G to a draw in a story wherein the entire point was that they are counterparts, and nothing was stated or implied about G being weakened before the battle, canb most definitely be interpreted as them being equals, the point was that it could also be interpreted othervise, and that subjectivity clinches the argument both there and here. As for G being "so much more" that depends from story to story. It's not so much that he is everything, but rather that he is entirely fictional, different writers have their own separate takes. For example, in Millar's recent FF G was described as "less than an insect" compared to Eternity. He is also recently recurrently described as completely ridiculous by editorial in interviews or writers in stories... including of course that the Galacta mini lampshaded that he is rendered obsolete by the current prevailing scientifoc theory that the universe will continue to expand forever (bye "Last Galactus Story"), or its similar focus purely on energy/Joule content and the old info that he can also feed on stars making the whole "eat people and other living things, of all low-energy nourishment, to keep Kali/Abraxas imprisoned" extremely suspect. Trying to eat the more benevolent cosmic function Epoch, which following Gs own definition would harm the universe, also puts G in a much more ruthlessly self-serving hypocrite light, much like Stan Lee's original story.

The "son of Eternity" angle is obviously the one I myself subscribe to/think makes the most sense, based on the incubation and expulsion as "an heir" from a cosmic womb, and later comments on G's part, along with being the most recent take in a book specifically designed to retcon and redefine much of MU history, so I think it's as valid as any other description. Dave (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I strongly suggest you read that story again. The entire point of that story as not that they are "counterparts", that was the IB's assertion and his alone. Galactus consistently argued against it. Galactus has consistently been held in high regard by Marvel Editors, see Tom Breevort's comments on is wellspring board. In fact, Marvel editors went so far as to veto Giffen's original plans for Proemial Gods which was to make them survivors of the previous universe like Galactus. Breevort has also reiterated Galactus' ties to Abraxas. TheBalance (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I only sporadically keep up, and almost exclusively through interviews (I haven't posted on regular comics fan message-boards in several years), but if that is the case then either different parts of the editorial department simply have different views about the topic, or the perspective has simply changed in recent years. Dave (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? This is the sort of in-universe masturbatory detail that belongs on a fan site not here. As for Spiderman and the secret war, it's clearly meant to be in continuity --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the miniseries, it clearly goes completely against established continuity on a number of points, particularly the Titania-Volcana origin, and is exactly the same style as the current Infinity Gauntlet remake, so it definitely seems to be out.

Regarding the interview, it is not stated that this series is an official new interpretation of events approved by editorial, just that they are trying to fit it in-between the panels, but considering that the final product strongly contradicted previous events, until we see a validation from editorial of this version of events now being the new retconned official story, or strong references to these events from other books (as is the case with SHIELD), the continuity is definitely highly arguable, much like the Galacta series.

That doesn't mean that it can't be enjoyed as a standalone tale like any other however, or has any less value as entertainment. Personally, I'd much prefer if Marvel and DC completely dismantled all pretenses of continuity and simply let creators do their own self-contained mini- or maxi-series, such as All Star Superman, Long Halloweeen, Red Son, Supreme, etc myself. They tend to read much better, and on a moral level they would be driven by enjoyment of the works not by calculated addiction.

Anyway, I've got the "anal-retentive per definition" excuse, and technical lack of filters regarding responses, so if I still manage to consistently force both down on several points, I think that you can manage to tone down the "masturbatory" or double-emphasized "who gives a shit" flame-war bait. Thank you.

Btw: Apologies to TB for first misreading and thinking that he was the one who responded in this manner. Dave (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the miniseries, it clearly goes completely against established continuity on a number of points, particularly the Titania-Volcana origin, and is exactly the same style as the current Infinity Gauntlet remake, so it definitely seems to be out. no, no, no - the fact that it actually doesn't make any sense is irrelevant, Reliable sources say it's in, it's in. This is why we don't rely on primary sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I saw (naturally with allowance for that I may have overlooked it) it's not stated outright that "this is in continuity", nor any word from an editor, just that the writer bases it on the original Secret Wars series, which is fine for a mention in the "alternate/unclear versions", but the downright weird continuity nature combined with the similar all-ages approach "Infinity Gauntlet" remake miniseries released just afterwards makes it very arguable/uncertain as far as I'm concerned.

Still, it's not like I'm going to make a major fuzz about it, just note that I like consistent approaches for this kind of thing if other uncertainties are left out.

Speaking of more prominent non-arguable appearances left out of the page, the FF appearance wherein Galactus tried to eat the other cosmic entity Epoch, or the Thanos appearance wherein the character was criticised for not seeking alternate non-sentient energy sources, since he is fully able to feed from them, should probably be somehow expanded upon, but given the controversy surrounding this page, I'm simply making a note of it for anyone interested to hopefully read and then insert mentions of the stories. Dave (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PH edits

Dave, here are my concerns regarding the edits as they stand:

1. Thanos Limited Series: The crux of the series was less about Galactus and his deprivations and more about Thanos wanting to "improve his image" and be an "agent of good," a complete 180 from his portrayals in the Infinity sagas. Additionally, the rebuke of Galactus by Thanos specifically calls Galactus arrogant and prideful. Hypocracy, "flawed" reasoning, and entitlement are labels that Thanos doesn't necessarily declare himself; he acknowledges that Galactus has the capability to unilaterally act in the universe, something which few creatures are capable of doing. The "noble" goals of Galactus to replace his hunger and to ensure that his depravations would no longer ravage the universe were acknowledged by Thanos himself. That deserves mention in the PH far more than Thanos' rebuke for several reasons:

A. It demonstrates an evolution or interpretation of the character that, to that point in publication history, had not been explored to the same extent, which is what the PH is for, to highlight character changes and developments introduced by different writers.

B. The Thanos rebuke serves nothing more than a counterpoint, but it's a flawed counter-point, and here is why: Thanos is in the throes of trying to re-evaluate his moral compass in this entire story. His quest for "redemption" for all the suffering he has caused. For someone who once killed half the population of the entire universe at the snap of his finger for the sole purpose of winning the affection of an unrequited love...his evaluation of Galactus is tantamount to calling a homicidal serial killer to a witness stand to testify against a general or commander who is responisble for the deaths of many. In other words, you cannot use a characters statements of another character in a character witness/qualifier manner if that character (thanos) is himself of dubious intent. In other words, what makes Thanos qualified to make those statements, when he himself has done far, far, far worse. To put it another way, how can you take these assertions with any degree of ojbectivity when the source is under serious question? Let's bring it back to the article: Eternity validates Galactus and that is included in the article. You will recall our disagreement on how the method of this validation is expressed in the article. The point is that Eternity is an undisputed authority on the manner of cosmic balance/importance, thus his word concerning Galactus merits inclusion. Thanos is the exact opposite...highly dubious, deceitful, self-serving, worshipful of Death. In other words...you can't use Thanos' statements as some kind of "moral judgement" on Galactus or Galactus' character. There's no point of reference.

Regarding the FF appearance:

I believe that absolutely does not merit any summary of plot, when far more important stories, such as the Trial of Galactus and Death's covnersation with Galactus about his role in the universe do not get any mention in the PH. This has nothing to do with imposing one view or another...this has everything to do with identifying and highlighting which events are more important to character illustration, and clearly there are far more events that trump this FF story, which Galactus appeared in all of 2 issues. If you insist on mentioning this story, in which in your edit your deliberate use of the word "benevlolent" to describe Epoch is designed to portray Galactus as the exact opposite, then you would also have to back through the PH and indicate all the stories in which Galactus intervened in universal crises to prevent the destruction of the universe or its cosmic imbalance by the hand of the villain of the week in that particular story...and there are many of those. Let's further take a step back and realize that the writer for that story, Dwayne McDuffie, is completely ignorant of cosmic continuity: Silver Surfer is portrayed as possessing conventional human physiology, which is so grossly inaccurate as to be comical. Additionally, Uatu states that the Ultimate Nullifier belongs to him, which obviously contradicts the first appearance of Galactus and the Silver Surfer, suggesting that the writer for this story, which you wish to expand story synopsis of, does not know anything about the subject matter on which he writes. In other words...it's expaning mention of a deeply flawed story (to say the least) while other parts of the PH that merit much more in-depth treatment, don't have the same focus.

As for the Nova appearance, I could see some merit for saying SS functioned as G's mouthpiece, but there is really no need at all to say "Nova rescuing the planet" which invites the reader to have sympathetic bias, which has no place in the PH whatsoever. Additionally, the real backdrop of the story is the depraved killer named Harrow, who is the real villain of the story, and the real agent who hampers Nova rescue attempts, as opposed to Galactus, as your edit would imply. In fact, Silver Surfer is the entity who enables the rescue; he does what Nova could not. Galactus eliminates the evil Harrow, and "thanks" Nova for his "assistance" by teleporing Nova away from the entire situation; he does what Nova could not. Yet that need not be mentioned here and that would inject as much bias as saying "Nova rescuing the citizens." Do you see what I mean?Mobb One (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As an added follow-up...there are stories mentioned in this PH that contain actually quite a bit of insight in to Galactus' character and the way certain writers view him. Thus far, they have no mention in the PH whatsoever. If we're going to insist on including criticisms by other characters for what Galactus does, then logic demands we also mention why Galactus does what he does, and what his beliefs and intentions are for doing so, according to several writers. You can't impose criticsisms without elaborating the "why's" of the actions. For example, no mention is made in the Annihilation entry that Galactus preserved cosmic balance in the early stages of the universe by imprisoning tyrannical beings, because these tyrannical beings sought to destroy the cosmic balance and to re-write reality in their image. The take-away from this story: Galactus seeks to preserve cosmic balance and the natural order of the universe, not re-write it in his own image (Tenebrous and Aegis) or usurp the fundamental natural order (Thanos). Yet instead of mentioning what motivates the character, we are putting in a rebuke by one of the most sinister comics characters (Thanos)? That's really questionable, I'd say.Mobb One (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further follow-up: I was a bit skeptical of the choice of words you used for your Thanos rebuke edit, in which you used the adjectives "entitled, flawed and hypocritical." I suspected you did yet another one of your edits where you recall from memory instead of referring to the source material in front of you. The actual text from Thanos is rather succinct and not as lengthy as you describe: "No matter how awesome the entity, it has a social contract with the rest of the universe. You currently consume without any regard to the effects of your ravaging." Thanos goes on to say that a time will come where the inhabitants of the universe will no longer abide by Galactus' existence. Here, Galactus, makes the same point that I have been making, in that Thanos is in no moral position to pass judgment on him. Starlin actually has no legitimate answer to this rebuttal...so in response to himself (as Galactus), Starlin (as Thanos) merely states that those that he killed did not stay dead. Unbelievably weak counter-argument. Which underscores why Thanos should not be used as the moral compass here. Anyway...Thanos told Galactus his error lay in not considering the price others would pay for his salvation, and that Galactus should "Live, but realize your monstrous ego nearly destroyed you and the universe. Your narrow vision nearly proved your end."

I fail to see anything hypocritical or flawed in that dissertation. Only that Galactus is arrogant and proud, and operates without regard to ramifications, and that one day, the universe will suffer his existence no further. It's actually far less of a rebuke than your initial edit made it out to be, so I have removed it.Mobb One (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

David A bias

There was an exchange some time ago for arbitration between Asgardian and David A. During one of the exchanges David A admitted that he does not like Galactus and proceed to list a litany of allusions, correlations, and direct comparisons to fascists, Hitler, Mussolini, Machiavelli, and the like. It's quite clear you have an ugly bias here Dave.

The latest instance being of course, that you couldn't help but insert that comment of Surfer turning into a genocidal villain after Epoch. Clearly, since you're such a fan of Galactus, and by extension, Silver Surfer, you read how blood thirsty the Surfer was in Beta Ray Bill: Godhunter. Or you read how callous and detached the Surfer was in Nova #13-#15. Or how he was indifferent to the plight of the civilizations dieing in battle at the Fault during Thanos Imperative. Sound absolutely wrong? You're right, it is. I just recounted stories that quite frankly expose your bias. Genocidal villain?

Convenient that you totally forgot that the Surfer had intentionally lead Galactus to an uninhabited world to feed on, and made such a distinction clear, before Hercules summoned Galactus on a whim to Earth. Surfer is enraged because Hercules brings a hungry Galactus to Earth, with all the danger that such a scenario implies. Said danger could have been avoided if Hercules had not summoned Galactus at the time that he did, which lead to a quick undoing of Surfer's deliberate intent to lead Galactus to an uninhabited planet. Read the issue (if you haven't read it) and you'll realize that you were incorrect in your assessment.

And I notice that your flawed approach by editing from memory. Why not look the FACTS before you edit? You waste your time when your edits are inevitably corrected due to inaccuracy and you also cause other editors to take the time to correct them. All of that could have been avoided if you simply edited with the source material in front of you. FACTS. Not memory or emotion or your bias.Mobb One (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Time is brief, but I tend to be openly honest, as I like to cut to the heart of matters, and dislike moral myopia. You've also displayed a raging pro-bias, and even admitted it at least once, so it's not like you're in any position to throw stones. However, you leave out that I had made efforts to find compromise solutions and politeness between the two of us, and actively tried to find middle-ground solutions, which was also mentioned in my recent talk, but I'm not in the mood for personal attacks from you right now. Asgardian is also a proven and banned manipulative liar and serial-sockpuppet user, so let's keep this local in the future.

As for accuracy, I always try to be reasonable, and if people tell me that I remember some detail wrong I recheck. Do you really think that it would be preferable if I wasn't?

Regarding the latest version, that's not the way I read the situation at all. The Surfer was angry about interrupting a feeding, but apparently not averse to destroying the Earth either. It strictly consists of matter-of-fact quotes, in an attempt to find as accurate solution as possible after TB complained, so although you're very free to fill in more details or compress it, as long as the entire cotnext is preserved, it is most definitely not deliberately misleading as you accuse me of, and if so I would not have inserted "Galactus sanctions only hunger". Dave (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What "TB" complained about were the blatant inaccuracies you added to the article.

Seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&oldid=408071477

"During the Chaos War storyline, Galactus (alongside Silver Surfer) are teleported to Earth by Hercules to help fight the forces of Amatsu-Mikaboshi, but is enraged by the summoning, as he was about to devour a planet at the time, and both he and the Surfer express disinterest in assisting in the conflict, as the Surfer considers his master's hunger to be more important, whereas Galactus states that he survived the destruction of the previous universe, and assumes that he will survive this collapse as well"

As shown, Galactus stated absolutely nothing and expresses no "rage" in Chaos War #2. I corrected your mistakes, but you in your desire to maintain "control" inserted a litany of quotes which simply aren't necessary or beneficial to the article.

Also, you're interpretation for the cause of the Surfer's anger is wrong. The Surfer wasn't upset that Hercules interrupted Galactus' feeding, but rather he was perturbed because Galactus was "seconds from sating himself" on a uninhabited planet when Herc summoned to earth, "a world [he] tried so hard to save so many times." TheBalance (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As is stated elsewhere on the page The Silver Surfer acts as Galactus' spokespiece, so I remembered it that way, but I rechecked it after you noted the detail, and tried to correct it to become as npov as I could to avoid conflict, which lead to the blow-by-blow quotes.

The problem as I see it with your version is that you ignored selective events and only focused on the ones you prefer. Regardless, I have tried to compromise again, by attemtping to summarise from the quotes, and inserted the "interrupted feeding" part.

More importantly, Mobb attempted to sneak in his own image description during the edit, even though it was agreed in discussion between me, Mobb, and Tenebrae, that telling the readers what to think about the showcased page is extremely leading and unnecessary. The current wording is completely neutral, simply tellign readers who the participants are.

As for accusations of "maintaining control", for one, as you probably know, considering that I've stated it out loud and attempted to hold this approach, I don't tend to react to that something isn't biased enough in my direction, but that it is extremely biased in another, certainly not in an encyclopedia, which was the overwhelming case with the page, and connected pages such as [[Power Cosmic],] as Mobb had initially left it. Still, I have developed my persepctive a lot during this time, as presumably has Mobb, so it is unfair to judge either of us from inexperienced mistakes. Currently I have attempted to include all of your legitimate pro-cases along with the legitimate con-cases, which Mobb initially attempted to weed out.

Speaking of which, in the current Fantastic Four arc Galactus is stated outright as driven by revenge upon the 6 billion descendants of people who had the "audacity" to kill a future version of himself in self-defence when it tried to eat them all. I'm not going to insert it myself, as anything I do seems to lead to you guys seeing an opportunity to "making a hen out of a feather" gangups, but it should probably be mentioned by somebody.

Tenebrae, would you like to step in here for both cases? As you know, I have abided your neutral and concise decisions/solutions, and it would definitely be appreciated to keep this nonsense from going onwards. Dave (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sneak in an image edit? If your responses for discussion are accusing me of doing something I never did (read: Check the edit history again) then this is not going to progress in any fashion. And I suggest you get off your high horse; you've accused me of using sock puppets in the past and I didn't even know what the term meant until a search on Google. At that point I took note that you will resort to libel and groundless accusations when challenged in your edits. Your carelessness is exposed by your accusation that I attempted to "sneak in" an image edit, and refer to an agreement in which I never participated.

You edit from memory, you insert "facts" which are in reality inaccuracies, and you call others correcting your mistakes "compromise." This isn't "nonsense." These are prevalent issues and they should be addressed.

Case in point: The "Three" story from Fantastic Four featured Galactus exacting retribution on Nu World, a planet created for the habitation of future Earth people. The future Earth people did NOT kill Galactus in self-defense (during millar's earlier run) as you inaccurately claim, but rather they intended to captured and succeeded in enslaving the future Galactus to drain his life essence, ultimately killing him. HUGE difference between your imagined view and what really occurred in the story. In fact, in the same story Dr. Doom and Human Torch are similarly used against their will and without regard to their safety. And that is why I used the exact term I used, retribution. And if you do insert it yourself, make sure to insert FACTS, otherwise what you perceive as gang-ups" are really people who have a more vested interest in the article, and thus greater knowledge, correcting your edits for inaccuracies. If you had inserted your version of the story (truthfully, did you ever read the original story that Hickman references in his recent FF arc?) I would have been quick to correct it or remove the entry in its entirety. That could have been avoided if you edit with the source material in front of you; a practice which, if you have noticed, I repeatedly indicate you do not do as frequently (read: all the time) as you should.Mobb One (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Galactus attacked the future-Earth in order to eat all of the already extremely suffering inhabitants. They managed to defeat him through the sacrifice of most of their remaining heroes, and then used him as an energy-source to escape into the past. When present Galactus heard about it he decided to murder all of their descendants, who had nothing to do with the event I might add; and as his herald Lightray stated, it was simply out of spite, not hunger. However, in case they deliberately lured him there the self-defense angle turns muddled I'll grant, but if they had not he would regardless have killed all of humanity.

I do have a tendency to edit from memory though, you are right about that, as othervise it has a tendency to turn into blow-by-blow too long descriptions, but in this case (and others) the details that that you make a a fuzz about are minor in terms of context, at least as I see it. Whether Silver Surfer spoke for Galactus or Galactus himself said it directly, doesn't really make a difference in context. Neither does that a very small amount of the ancestors of the 6 billion people he wanted to murder used future Galactus as an energy-source after he was captured. It was unethical to rob banks and capture the Human Torch however, but they were stranded in this time and attempting to save the last remnants of future humanity, so it wasn't a conventional situation.

I checked up the editing history, and you are correct. You abided to our agreement about the image text. [TB was the one who inserted it again], without me noticing. My apologies about that. This is very tiresome in the long run. Dave (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say this, I it might be helpful for a neutral, disinterested third party to step in and make a bold suggestion: These core disagreements and the extremely lengthy and labyrinthine discussions that accompany them have daunted any other editor aside from you two from contributing to this article in any significant way. I'm speaking in general; there might be one or two exceptions.

I've seen this sort of thing happen in other, unrelated situations: People get into a cycle, and the cycle takes over. When that happens, the critical thing is to break the cycle.

I know Wiki-addiction ... I've suffered from it. Years ago I had an editor show me the coding method to self-block myself from Wikipedia. I've since learned to be more moderate. So I know what that feels like, firsthand. Does the same apply to either of you? Who can say. But one key to finding out is to ask you both to break off and not edit this article for, say three months. You'll gain some distance and other editors can look at it with fresh eyes and maybe trim and streamline and substitute more general, non-contentious phrasing for certain things.

I mean, if you can't stay away — if either of you are truly addicted and can't stay away for three months — then that's the way it is and there's nothing to be done about it in Wiki world. (In the real-world, any sort of addiction needs to be dealt with; it's not healthy.) But that's about about all I can come up with, after what seems like a year or two of you both, in good faith and good intention, working at loggerheads. It just seems as if otherwise, this situation is going to continue, with nothing being truly resolved, and this article in continual flux.

Something to think about, anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have tried to limit my interference with the page as much as I can lately, and as you know I am perfectly fine with allowing neutral parties to sort things out. It's not insufficient bias in my direction that turns annoying for me (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all). It's when the bias is heavily slanted in one that I find deeply morally offensive. Neutral is perfectly fine. However, yes, I have severe OCD, and don't really receive any help about it (none available). I have put several sites on restrict through my filter though. Dave (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mobb One, what do you say? It sounds as if David is willing to hold off for a while. If three months is too much, how about two? I'm sure if you agree, David will, too. It can't hurt.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Supervillain

Let's all please avoid edit warring and (again) discuss this here:

Looking at the article's reference and the statements from Lee, it's clear that the character was developed to be a villain. The character was introduced as a villain and Lee and Kirby's spin is that the character is actually an antagonist, villainized because of the reality of what it needs to do to survive which puts it at grave odds with the protagonists. Yes, it can be debated whether or not this constitutes an accurate cat as "supervillain", but Lee's own statement suggests that he was formed to be be a villain. Whether or not he changes from that categorization later doesn't change the application of the cat, as many characters go from villainy to heroism and vice versa.

Additionally, looking at the third party notable references used for this article, they group Galactus under "villains": Conroy, Mike. 500 Comicbook Villains, Collins & Brown, 2004., http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/5.html.

Regardless of whether Galactus fits the mold of an archetypal supervillain (since he was apparently designed to be a villain who didn't) then it seems our goal should be to apply categories as they apply to real-world interpretations. If he is considered a villain in general and conceived and designed to be introduced as a villain by creators and was one in his initial appearance, then the cat fits.

Feel free to discuss.Luminum (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lee and Kirby designed him to be an antagonist that didn't fall into the archetypal mold. Adhering to absolute black & white labels of "heroism" and "villainy" disregards the work by writers such as John Byrne, Mark Waid, and even Jim Starlin in developing the character, which is what the intent of the Publication History shows: character development as interpreted and presented by diff stories and writers. The works of the aforementioned creators certainly do NOT portray Galactus as an antagonist for your conventional group of heroes, but rather reinforces him as an amoral cosmic being.

In other words, to apply Galactus as super-villain simply because his initial purpose was to be an antagonist, and simply because his gray-area character forces one to choose between "good" and "evil" absolutes, thus invariably choosing the latter, I believe is an incorrect approach.

If it were not, then characters such as Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver should be presented as super-villains, as their original appearance was as members in the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

He is NOT considered a villain "in general" by those in the comics industry. There are many articles and interviews by assorted contemporary writers and editors (i.e., Keith Giffen, Andy Schmidt, Greg Pak, Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning, etc.) that explicitly explain that Galactus is less a villain in their stories and is more a natural disaster. You cannot sustain a true "villain" in any story who neither has any motive for personal gain nor an enmity with a favored protagonist. Galactus has neither and thus is always written as being the backdrop for which the heroes enact their stories.

In closing, Galactus has not been written in an antagonist's roll similar to that of his FF debut for decades. This of course is in support of Marvel Editorial's pattern of presenting "omnipotent," alien characters as simply present in order for the the in-story universe to function. In other words, do we categorize the character of Death as a super-villain? Do we categorize the Celestials, who in their debut functioned as antagonists for Thor and Odin, as super-villains? Despite the fact that Death was created merely as a character to embody the very same universal function, and that the Celestials were created to portray characters that served a universal purpose of judgment/execution/cultivation/promotion?

These are all gray-level characters and if we apply an absolute value on Galactus, then consistency demands we do the same for the stable of characters that Marvel has that are purposely "neutral" on our moral compass.Mobb One (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The truth is Galactus is one of those characters that has established himself as both as a antagonist/protagonist. Just because Galactus has been written as a supporting character doesn't make him not a supervillain BUT just because he was a antagonist doesn't make him a supervillain either. This is definitely a point of view term for you can in Galactus's mind that he is a force of nature but that wouldn't be so in the minds of his victims. This has been going with other comic book characters that are notably antagonists such as Ozymandias and Magneto as well. Characters that make your head spin to determine that they are villain or not but maybe anti-hero instead. I think in the long run it's silly to argue about it so and if IGN placed him on the top 100 comic book villains then it's a good enough source for me but not for others. If not try to find what Marvel creators say about. Anyways there's my two cents. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, this character too complex to fit into an arbitrary pigeonhole. There's nothing that forces us to categorize him as "villain" "supervillain", "anti-hero" or anything else. Indeed, a plethora of more serious and scholarly third-party sources than IGN do not pigeonhole him, so taking the IGN labeling as more than one opinion is undue weight. I believe the general public would be best served by simply describing this character's actions, through the course of the article, and letting readers decide for themselves. Probably the one category we can all agree on is "supporting character," since he generally, with very few exceptions, has not headlined a series. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The introductary paragraph suggests that Marvel officially considers him a Supervillain. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fantastic Four template lists him as a villain.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside of being lumped into a single 1983 issue of Super-Villain Classics: Galactus, and the IGN thing I wouldn't say the article lead says anything "official" about what Marvel considers him. The Sub-Mariner co-starred in Super Villain Team-Up — does that make the Sub-Mariner officially a supervillain?

We (as in Comics Project members) made the Fantastic Four template. It's arbitrary. We can change it to whatever is the more accurate designation. Again, given the character's amorphous nature — many times he's been heroic — I would suggest going with an appellation with which no one can disagree: "Character." Or, perhaps. "supporting character." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why characters such as Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver (comics) and Hawkeye (comics) aren't categorized as supervillains in addition to being categorized as superheroes. It is part of their character history and part of their publication history. I also don't view the addition of the cat as being any kind of pigeon-holing. In the case of the characters mentioned above, it is just part of how the character was written, a role that the character assumed. Being categorized as a fictional supervillain doesn't conflict with a character also being categorized as a superhero. Emma Frost, and even more analogously to Galactus, Phoenix Force (comics) and The Beyonder are decent examples. The cat is a means by which a user can access the character and the page content allows a user to determine the larger context.

As a side note, we aren't a Marvel regurgitation website. We DO draw our "own" conclusions based primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. Even if Marvel's current stance is that Galactus is an amoral force, as an encyclopedia built off of other sources, we are driven to provide content within the context of the real world, not in-universe. In that case, his categorization and notability as a supervillain by tertiary sources has significant weight. And yes, that information should be weighed by the other sources describing his creation as an a-archetypal antagonist stated by Lee and Kirby and other authors, but it doesn't erase other information, just qualifies it. Obviously, we're not talking about adding a cat and then removing all discussion of him being created as an amoral antagonist. If we were, then that would obviously be incorrect.Luminum (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You bring up very solid and nuanced points. While I think it might be confusing to list quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch in both the supervillain and superhero categories, I absolutely see your historical long-view logic.

What I'm saying is that there's no rule that says we must put everything into a black-and-white category. Not everything, in fiction or the real world, fits neatly into a category. I don't think any of us disagrees that "supervillain" is too simplistic a term to fully encompass this character.

As a very minor side note, just speaking as journalist and someone who care about language a lot, "based off of" is not the correct phrase. It's "based on." Again, a minor thing, but then so is a pebble in one's shoe and we all know what that's like! I mean no offense and it's not that big a deal. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the one thing I'm not clear on here is why we think users will be confused by the cat, considering that cats lead to an article in full and otherwise are at the bottom of the page. In the case of Galactus, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Hawkeye, who haven't been considered "villains" for a long time, it should be clear from the a well written lead as well as the first few paragraphs of publication and character biography that the individual was introduced as a villain/antagonist. Further reading would reveal that they are now mainly superheroes. I think the cat would be confusing to readers if they were listed first in the article, but they aren't. I would agree with you if the cats appeared as the primary introduction to a character. As an example, the lead for Emma Frost describes her as originally being conceived of as one of their foes but also states that she later became a hero and if a user skipped the lead and started from the main article and read through it, they would understand why she should also be categorized as a superhero. Likewise, a user reading this page should understand that Galactus embodied the role of a supervillain for a time before largely being written as a being that was neither good nor bad.

The other thing is that I don't think that the cat itself is a rigid definition. I think it's based more on how the character has been categorized by reliable and notable sources, regardless of how "villainous" they actually are. If a published book on supervillains includes him, Lee created him as one of many villains (even if specifically created to be a philosophical commentary on the relative nature of "good" and "evil"), one of Marvel's publications includes him, and IGN's comic list includes him as a supervillain, I think that justifiable real world perspective for a simple categorization. I don't think the cat specifically defines what a supervillain must be besides inhabiting the role in some notable way. What do you think?Luminum (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

These are really good and nuanced points you bring up. I've tried turning to [Wikipedia:Categorization]] for guidance but have found it to be more of a page about how to create categories rather than for help in determining what goes into a category. If other editors here are familiar with a Wikipedia guidelines pages that addresses this, please direct us there.

I understand that IGN and Conroy label Galactus a supervillain, and that Lee himself, in 1993, considered him a supervillain in the character's initial appearance. In contrast, Lee, in Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (2006), never uses the term supervillain for Galactus, and instead refers to him obliquely as a god. ("The second issue continues the theme of God (or a "god") come to judge the world....", p.114).

Les Daniels uses both terms in Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades... ("one of the most terrifying villains in comics, the godlike being known as Galactus," p. 127). Peter Sanderson goes for super villain, oddly capitalizing it in Marvel Chronicles ("Lee ... tried to create the ultimate Super Villain. ... The Super Villain Galactus first appeared on the last page of....", p.115). On the other hand, Jack Kirby never calls him a supervillain in his major interview in The Comics Journal #134 (Feb. 1990, reprinted in The Comics Journal Library: Jack Kirby), where he says, "Galactus was God. ... Everybody talks about God, but what the heck does he look like? ... No one ever knew the extent of his powers or anything and I think symbolically that's our relationship [with God]," p. 42 of Library.

So there are contrasting views, even with Stan and Jack, as to whether they conceived Galactus to be a supervillain or not in his original appearance. The next question, then, is what has Galactus been most commonly?

Thinking out loud here: Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch have most commonly, for the vast bulk of their characters' existences, been superheroes, so I'm not sure how useful it would be to include them in the supervillain category. (I see we have Venom categorized as supervillain, but Eddie Brock as both supervillain and superhero, which seems confusing since the symbiote Venom would seem to be the larger framework that encompasses Eddie Brock, Mac Gargan and Flash Thompson. These black-and-white categories aren't one-size-fits-all.)

I see Galactus is already in Category:Marvel Comics cosmic entities.

So I'm going to bow out at this point; I've provided some data for other editors to use or not use, and hopefully that will help some sort of consensus to be reached.

I imagine it will be — I'm seeing an intelligent, well-reasoned debate among my fellow editors, and I wish I weren't too busy to be of more help. This is an impressive discussion, and I'm happy that I'm seeing more and more Wikipedians just like this. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The point in this is simple. Categories are meant to be used when there is no discussion in that the character belongs in it (such as with Ultron, Apocalypse, or Dr. Doom). As soon as we get into "grey areas", when the black & white superhero/supervillain does not work anymore, then the best thing to do is to simply avoid categories. It is not written anywhere that all Marvel characters must be included at either ones, specially when we have other types of Marvel characters to categorize, such as "cosmic entities" MBelgrano (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion is interesting and has enough info to include a paragraph on the page about the issue. I can understand if concensus is it's not worth it, but I think it could work.

One question, though, in opening paragraph says he was on a list of top 100 "antagonists", the ref says it's top 100 villains. Is it villains has been changed to antagonists to weaking the case for Supervillain? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would personally be fine with just not including the cat. As for the "top 100 antagonists", that's just incorrect. If the source ranks him specifically in "villains", then it should be stated as such. We have no authority to change the meaning of another source's actual statements to suit our personal interpretations. I will correct that.Luminum (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to log on to Wiki but I wanted to follow-up on this discussion. I haven't checked the article to see what the final decision was but the fact that this issue has garnered so many responses is indicative of the nebulous nature of the character...which is why I was against applying the cat in the first place. I certainly wouldn't apply super villain anymore than I would apply "super-hero" despite the fact that Galactus has acted to save the universe/preserve the universe in no fewer than 2 "event" comics in the past 12 months. Characters such as Eternity and Oblivion are purposely amoral and nebulous in character and thus have no cat label; that in my opinion is the best approach to this character. Mobb One (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate Nullifier

Dave, feel free to explain your reason for removing the latest Ultimate Nullifier edit since it was accurate and clearly portrayed in FF vol. 3 #49. TheBalance (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, lay off of the bad edits, DavidA. The UN nullfied then rebooted the Marvel multi-verse.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/62936/1348372-fantasticfourv34618_super.jpg

Later, exactly that was accomplished, only by Reed instead of Abraxas. When Reed fires the UN we see Eternity shattered by the UN, then we see reality remade with the qualification that ALL of the destruction that Abraxas caused across realities was undone. Please stop reverting sound edits. TheBalance (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Link problem

There's, apparently, a problem of linking. Either from the french article "Vaisseau-monde" or searching with the keyword "Worldship", the site redirects to the section "Power and abilities" of the article Galactus. This link seems not coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.33.175 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

References for toys?

What type of references are being requested here? Links to the toy on Amazon? I haven't seen this tag put on lists of toys for other characters (see Thanos for instance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have noticed that is an edit war in this article. If you want to discuss things about Odin, Zeus or the Cosmic Power/Power Cosmic, do so here, not reverting each other and using the edit summaries to explain things. Edit warring is not allowed (it does not matter the topic or who was right and who was wrong), and if it gets out of control it may lead to the protection of the article so nobody could edit it, or the block of the users doing it. I hope it will not be needed to go so far, just stop doing that and discuss the situation here. Cambalachero (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to end the Galactus/Odin debate would be to say something like "Galactus and Odin battle, and the Silver Surfer ends the conflict by proposing a compromise." In the long term, who looked worse at the end of it and by how much is minor.Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as usual I'm fine with a neutral outside party (preferably one that has browsed through the stories) to decide whatever goes or not. Mobb and TB have a vindictive pro-bias, whereas I am anal-retentive with a bad sense of judgement. Dave (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to informally mediate, and since I know David and Mobb and we've worked together and I think they trust me to be impartial, I'll volunteer to help if I can. I do have those issues of Thor, and I'm happy for any excuse to break into my Silver Age longboxes. I'm on a work deadline and won't be able to do this for several hours or probably tomorrow, if that's alright with my colleagues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine to me. And again, I find David A's double standard is getting exasperating. He labels "Possessor" as my "personal theory", yet states that the Celestials, Ego, the Proemial Gods, Stranger, etc. etc. etc. all manipulate cosmic energy, and therefore cosmic energy = Power Cosmic. Yes, they manipulate cosmic power. However, he is unable to support his theory/claim/supposition/unsubstantiated reasoning that cosmic energy/cosmic power/cosmic ability = the Power Cosmic. Since absolutely NONE of the aforementioned characters have EVER been confirmed on panel to control/store/channel the Power Cosmic, simply stating Galactus' ability as "The Power Cosmic" is insufficient because this makes no qualifier nor distinction between a being who operates with the Power Cosmic (Silver Surfer and the heralds) and a being who controls who operates with the Power Cosmic, in addition to wielding the normal properties that it grants. Just because Stranger created Ego or the Celestials made the Deviants and Eternals DOES NOT mean they wield the Power Cosmic, and I challenge anyone here to pour through any kind of reference to substantiated David A's claim that they do. Purely and utterly unsubstantiated supposition and in a word, false. What David A is doing is conflating a qualified descriptor (cosmic power) with a noun (Power Cosmic). This is analogous to saying that "mutant power" and "magnetokinesis" (Magneto's ability) are interchangeable. the Power Cosmic is a type of cosmic power (as is--in Marvel Comics--the Power Primordial, the Uni-Power, and the Quantum bands, among others) but not all types of cosmic power can be called the Power Cosmic.

I welcome mediation and thus recommend we leave the item as it was before the change, i.e. "Posser of the Power Cosmic" until such time a verdict has been reached and changes (if any) are effected. Again, my main points of contention: None of the parties David A offered as substantiation of his "theory" have ever been stated to use the Power Cosmic. And note that the Power Cosmic, when it is mentioned in comics, is capitalized as a proper-noun, whereas the generic description "cosmic power" or "cosmic energy" is not. Again, independent research is welcomed. I daresay the conclusions reached will be that there is insufficient proof to support that the Celestials, etc. specifically use the Power Cosmic, as opposed to cosmic power. Mobb One (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Odin/Zeus material. Galactus defeated Odin in battle, and that was the original entry before David A decided to insert further into the fight in question. I have never, throughout the entire article and since my first edit of the Galactus entry in September 2006, been of the mind that encyclopedic entries should go into any sort of summary, no matter how brief, of the actual battle itself, unless the characters involved were not who they seemed. For example: Galactus defeated Odin. Hunger defeated Galactus. Galactus fought to a standstill with Mephisto, etc. etc. The issues of Mighty Thor make clear to the impartial observer that Galactus prevailed in the contest; that issue is not the subject for debate, and hence the original edit merely stated "Galactus defeats Odin in battle."

The issue NOW is that David A wants to go more into detail. A "strenuous" or "narrow victory." Ok. What was strenuous? The telepathy aspect of the battle. What was "narrow?" Again, the telepathy aspect of the battle. What happens after the telepathy contest? Odin grows in size and headbutts a stationary Galactus. Both plummet to earth. Galactus reconstitutes/repairs any damage, and continues as normal. As for Odin, he asks Thor for help to stand up. A character stands still in a passive stance, receives the "ultimate attack" of the aggressor, yet the aggressor ends up far worse. That telepathy battle that was contested by both parties? Odin admits in issue 6 that he no longer had the strength to prolong the battle. There's nothing "narrow" about that.

Now, see how much information I had to put in to the above paragraph so that the full context was made available? Hence, "Galactus defeats Odin in battle, and the Silver Surfer brokers a peace between the parties" and not "after a telepathic contest, Odin--unable to continue the mental struggle--physically attacks a stationary Galactus. The two plummet to earth, where the battle is ended when--after a brief moment--Galactus repairs the damage, and Odin is left with wounds grievous enough to prevent him from standing without assistance. The Silver Surfer intervenes to cease further conflict between Galactus and Asgard."

As for Zeus. There never was a "battle" in the same vein as Galactus-Odin. For starters, Galactus was not "battling" Zeus alone, but rather Zeus augmented by Amatsu-Mikaboshi, who previously had absorbed the skrull and Zenn-La pantheons, among others, and the various death realms and hell realms, etc. Galactus fired on Zeus, was shocked that his attacks had no effect (thus telling the reader that there is more going on that readily apparent) "Zeus" punched Galactus, then released a thunderbolt that staggered Galactus to his knees. From there, Hercules took over the fight and that was the end of it.

-->Why this "battle" is not worth mentioning. It was an inconsequential part of Chaos War and had no effect on the plot, as opposed to Galactus' assistance in sealing Mikaboshi into the pocket dimension. The only point it serves is to again place a measure of "relative power" which David A is completely obsessed with. My issue with this: to be consistent we must then go back into the FCB and list every fight/battle/encounter, no matter how inconsequential. So, that means inserting into the FCB (if it is not already there), that

Galactus fought the In-Betweener to a point where they ended up in the In-Betweener's realm and Chaos & Order intervened; Galactus fought the Sphinx and trapped the Sphinx in a perpetual time-loop Galactus sought to battle the Beyonder and consumed Taa II in preparation Galactus fought Tyrant and "countless" galaxies were destroyed in the collateral damage Galactus fought the Phoenix Force in a weakened state and while defeated, managed to drive away the Phoenix and consume the planet anyway Galactus fought Aggamotto in Aggamotto's own realm with neither side achieving an advantage Galactus battled Hyperstorm and absorbed the latter's hyperspace energy Galactus outperformed the Celestials when contending against the Cancerverse Galactus Engine

etc. etc. etc. etc.

this laundry list is not what the FCB needs, yet it is exactly what David A is proposing by saying "Galactus battled Zeus." An inconsequential encounter that did nothing significant to the plot, and does nothing in the article except to construct a sense of relative power between Galactus and other characters. In fact (taking this Zeus example), in order to be necessarily even MORE objective and factual, we would need to add context to the statement "Zeus battled Galactus and won" to "A Zeus enhanced/augmented by Amatsu-Mikaboshi briefly fought a weakened, hungry Galactus (because yes, David A, Zeus' "battle" with Galactus occurred after Hercules prevented Galactus from feeding by teleporting him to earth right before Mikaboshi's forces arrived")and was impervious to Galactus' attacks." THIS is what I am trying to avoid in the article. Now, does anyone agree with my logic, or does it seem unfounded? If it is unfounded, then I would be happy to insert every encounter Galactus has had with other beings of power into his FCB/PH. I know them all, and would only be too pleased to list them. Mobb One (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's taken me a couple of days, for which I apologize, but I've pulled Thor #161-169 out their longbox and today I'll start the process of trying to wade through all this and offer what recommendations and quotes from the comics that I can. I appreciate your patience, and reiterate that I know you both want to make the article as good as possible and are genuine about that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the fight being debated was in Might Thor #5-6 (Aug-Sept 2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Guess that show my age — I saw "Galactus" in a Thor context and immediately back to the Silver Age ur-text! OK, I guess I can't help as I don't have the new Thor series. (I'm afraid I haven't read Thor in a while; the last interesting stuff for me was the alt-future tyrant Thor storyline.) But, as long as I have them out, I'll see if their information can be useful here or in other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you could check them out anyway? You can buy them cheap through Comixology, or check them out for free online, and spend the monthly allotation that you can afford on the media you enjoy most and want to support, like 9 out of 10 readers do. It creates a plus minus zero matter-of-fact/no difference in money spent damage assessment, so it is morally neutral... Well, unless somebody doesn't buy any media at all, but if you have spent a few dozen thousand bucks on it in total, I'm pretty sure that it isn't a genuine problem. Dave (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)