Talk:Gambit (Marvel Comics)

Mask
Question. What is that mask thing on his face from the cartoon? I have seen it on many different characters (thought it looked awesome) but I can't seem to find out what it is. Anyone know? (and perhaps that should be included in this article too.

It's just part of his body armor. It protects the head. 71.221.127.163 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stats

 * Name: Remy LeBeau
 * Height: 6'1"
 * Weight: 175 lbs.
 * Intelligence: Above Normal
 * Strength: Athlete
 * Durability: Athlete
 * Agility: Peak Human
 * Reflexes: Peak Human
 * Stamina: Athlete
 * Special Powers: Mutant ability to charge objects with kenetic energy and throw them with an explosive effect.  Gambit is considered extremely powerful.
 * Origin of Superhuman Abilities: benevolent mutation.
 * Other Abilities: Gambit is highly skilled in hand-to-hand combat, combat with weapons, and is a former professional thief.

removed from the article because I don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan

edited "Gambit is a mutant and his primary mutant power is the ability to charge matter, whether organic or not, with volatile kinetic energy.", as he cannot charge living organic matter. For instance, he can't grab someone's arm and make it explode. He can, however, cut off an arm and use that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.70.30 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In Daken: Dark Wolverine #8, he does precisely that, grabs Daken's arm and blows it off. Does Daken have an adamantium skeleton that he could have used or maybe this was a lapse in the " no organics" rule?

Reflexes
In X-Men #1 (2nd series), Gambit can catch a bullet. Does this fall under an ability category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.194.234 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No - he's appeared in far too many issues for a one-time thing to matter. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion versus Fact
Removed the line "This character was killed after he outlived his usefullness, like Beast." that is opinion, not fact. ~Red

-User:Yusuf mumtaz

Removed "Etienne" as middle name
"Gambit (whose real name is Remy LeBeau)" -- I removed "Etienne" from this intro as I don't believe it has ever been established in any of the comics that this was his given middle name. It's a common misbelief that I think arose from some fanfiction. Should be ommitted unless any one _can_ verify this from canon.


 * "Oh, and Gambit's middle name is Etienne. (Don't remember the exact source--Gambit (3rd) #1 or #16, I think.)" I found this on the internet and will see if I can check this soon.--GingerM 18:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC

Myth: Gambit's full name is Remy Etienne leBeau
 * Myths and Truths

Truth: Gambit's middle name has never been revealed in the comics. The name Etienne comes from fanfiction, specificially, Lori McDonald's Gestalt Arc. It is hard to convey the popularity of The Gestalt Arc to someone who was not around at the time it was first published. Suffice it to say that more fans were reading that particular fanfiction than were reading the core books, and that it inspired a lot of imitators (including the President of the Guild *coughs*). As a result, many fans started using Etienne as Remy's second name. -- This is from http://www.gambitguild.com/repository/myths.html

Correction: The middle name of Etienne was first used in the fanfiction "End of Innocence" by Rubylis, published a couple of months before Lori McDonald's Gestalt Arc, and people started using it after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0A5:C0B0:D4BD:ABDB:D166:5A27 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

--(updated Myth/Truth citation to reflect new GG site layout) S347 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

His middle name was established as Etienne in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe X-Men 2004. Oddly enough, he also has a cousin also named Etienne.

I guess this is still open to debate -- basically the Official Handbook was badly researched, as the name Etienne was never revealed in cannon. My opinion is we shouldn't propgate misinformation, and canon should establish fact on characters. I've removed Etienne as Remy's middle name. Landscribe 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Landscribe


 * How did Etienne keep coming back into the article. .. (RossF18 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

"Oddly enough, he also has a cousin also named Etienne." - my middle name is the same as one of my cousin's first names. It's not coincidence - both of us were named after another, older, family member. So there's no big deal that Gambit might have the middle name Etienne and a cousin called Etienne. "basically the Official Handbook was badly researched" - or, alternatively, the Official Handbook knew full well where the name originated, and it was officially added as a nod to the fanfic. Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened (in fiction in general, not specifically handbooks). The handbook has included Etienne in reprints and updates of Gambit's entry, in the same books where corrections have been made to fix mistakes from past volumes. That Gambit has retained the middle name suggests it isn't an error, but deliberate. "the name Etienne was never revealed in cannon." The handbooks are canon, and have revealed new information like names before. 86.147.239.50 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fact: Gambit's full name is Remy Etienne leBeau
 * in the current x-men series, vol.6 issue #2; Rogue is ticked at Gambit and yells out his full name; which is Remy Etienne leBeau.
 * It is written in the third panel. Go see for yourselves. 2600:1700:1BCA:4450:50E2:BF43:91B5:255C (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Gambit's Eyes
What I don't get is what is with his eyes? How come they are like that?

-Why does Nightcrawler have indigo-blue skin? It is because he is a mutant, and that explains Gambit's eyes as well. It is a stylistic choice. :) - Andrew


 * His eyes are consentrated kinetic energy which he transfers into the things he throws - which in his case means playing cards. Might not explain the actual reason for them being black with red pupiles. So I think we'll go for Andrew's explanation. ;)

Havok 16:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-Night crawlers skin is Indigo blue because he is the biological son of Mystique, who later abandoned him. - Luna

"with red pupiles." His pupils are black. His irises are red.

"-Night crawlers skin is Indigo blue because he is the biological son of Mystique, who later abandoned him. - Luna"

No.....It isn't. His skin is blue because he's a mutant. Mystique being his mother has nothing to do with it. She had another son, Graydon Creed, who is completly human. - Anonymous

I think Nightcrawler inherited Mystique's blue skin. Perhaps the gene of his father, Azazel, that corresponded with skin colour, was recessive to Mystique's dominant blue skin gene. Graydon Creed not having blue skin may mean that the gene for caucasoid-nordic pink skin (that came from Graydon's father Sabretooth) is dominant to blue skin. ...I have no idea whatsoever how anything I just said relates to Gambit.62.194.0.236 11:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gambit has the power of suggestion. People will believe what he says which is why he is such a romancer and a great liar becasue of his mutant power of suggetion. Thats why his eyes are red

--His eyes are red because, like someone already said, he's a mutant. His eye color was the only evidence of his mutation when he was born. ~Random Gambit Fangirl (Oct 2006)

His eyes are red because of his blindness. When he regained sight, they turned red.

But they were red already BEFORE he went blind. While he was blind, they were yellow (another color I can't explain). I think the main reason his eyes are red, is because... well... Y'know, it's cool. RED eyes. Wow.

Ragin' Cajun
I've heard him called 'the Ragin' Cajun.' What's up with that?

- It's off of the comic book covers. I think Marvel thought it was "catchy" or something along those lines. One of the comic books I'd be talking about would be "Giant-Sized Gambit" where it proclaims on the cover, "A collection of classic stories featuring the Ragin' Cajun!" There are some others that use the phrase, such as Gambit #3(1999) That and he did grow up in the French quarter of New Orleans, which would explain the idea behind the phrase. -Random Gambit Fan (July, 2005)

i think wolverine called him "cajun" to tease him in the animated series--Jaysscholar 21:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He refers to himself as "the Cajun" in X-Men vs. Street Fighter. For what it's worth ... - 211.28.136.8 09:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

--Part of the reason for the 'Ragin' Cajun' name is that he is Cajun. His adoptive family was a Cajun gang called the Thieves, that's where he learned how to steal. ~Random Gambit Fangirl (Oct. 2006)

Summers' Connection?
I read somewhere on the internet that he was referenced as being related to Scott Summers, possibly his brother. Is there any truth to this?

- in the alternate future of x-men the end he's a clone of cyklops and sinister (x-men the end volume 2)


 * It's a canon story or a non canon? because with new Origin of Wolverine in Univers X (earth x) who he 's a adopted son but he is a moon clan or another clan. All stories of future with resolved misteries from past, it's possible that Gambit origin can be non-canon. answers from collection the End could not canon finally.


 * I can't count on both hands the number of characters who were said to be the Third Summers Brother. In the end, they had to invent a whole new character to fill that mantle, and IMHO "Vulcan" was somewhat of an anticlimax. (But better than some other choices... I mean, Apocalypse? Come on!) --- Noclevername 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't Sinister claim that Gambit was artificially created to be the next body for him to possess? Someone stole him away though so it never eventuated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holywhippet (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

name
why is he called gambit?--Jaysscholar 21:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Gambit" usually refers to the sacrifice of something minimal (in chess, usually a pawn) for something greater. Basically, it relates to his attitude of taking risks for great rewards (ie, his thief background). Cybertooth85 01:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it can refer to the sacrifice of anything, for the chance of greater reward in the future. The term is commonly used in chess, as Cybertooth says, but any pawn or piece (except the king) can be sacrificed in a gambit. One well-known example is the Queen's Gambit, where a queen is offered as a sacrifice, usually for certain (but well-concealed) checkmate within several moves. The term is also commonly used for similar situations in other areas of life. Sorry for commenting 2.5 years later. Applejuicefool (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate X men
A section should be added to the alternate versions of Gambit for the Ultimate Universe and Age of Apocalypse version of him.

Please add data about gambit in ultimate x men Batzarro

Is he dead in Ultimate X men?

Gambit died while defeating the juggernaut by taking down a half constructed building on top of him, but after a kiss with the young rogue, as he was dying, his powers and personality were transferred to her. Much like in the true marvel universe’s version of ms marvel, carol Danvers in to rogue. She now possesses his power along with personality and not her original parasitize absorption power. Batzarro 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes he is! Mattjblythe 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Until, of course, the next writer decides he isn't ;) -- Noclevername 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He's dead. There's no point for him to come back.

The writers for Ultimate X-Men have yet to really go into depth as to what happened with Gambit's death. She stated herself that she could hear him speaking to her within her. Though these voices, (as well as all else she gained from him) have currently diminished, it is not beyond reason that his soul is somehow trapped within her.

Your argument holds no merit. "He's dead. There's no point for him to come back." One of the rules in comics that holds much foundation to it is the fact that characters return from "death" on a near regular basis. It is very rare that a character does not return, such as Gwen Stacy. Most do, such as Jean Grey, Jason Todd, Professor X, Magneto, Ultimate Sabretooth, and many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.137.34 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He's dead for good. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.105.101 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

he is not dead and you get over it!the guy with the example of Gwen Stacy is right.One more example is Elektra and Psylocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.89.227 (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Gambit is not coming back people... he's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.118.98 (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Witness
Add something about The Witness,The Future vesion of Gambit to the article220.247.254.17 15:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is speculated that Witness may not actually be an alias of Gamibit's but someone else. Batzarro 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

gambit died while defeating the juggernaut by taking down a half constructed building on top of him, but after a kiss with the young rogue, as he was dying, his powers and personality were transferred to her. Much like in the true marvel universe’s version of ms marvel, carol Danvers in to rogue. She now possesses his power along with personality and not her original parasitize absorption power.


 * I know it's not technically canon, but The Ultimate X-Men Guide (As in "Ultimate guide to the X-Men", not "Guide to the Ultimate X-Men"; it predates the Ultimate Universe) says that the Witness is Gambit, and mentions him on the page devoted to Gambit. --Switch 05:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

films
Not only Josh Holloway but also Vincent Castell has been claimed by the fans of X-Men to be Gambit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.113.33 (talk • contribs)

Hmm. That's...interesting. I won't comment on whether you should add it to the article or not, but if you do, a source of some kind would be nice. ACS (Wikipedian) 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say don't. This is Wikipedia, not WikiHollywood Gossip. Noclevername 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

SEE RUMORS BELOW

Main Image
I think we need a new main image for this page ASAP. This is a photoshopped joke image; the actual image just says "DEATH!" WikiFew 04:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I didn't know about the 'shopping, but I think that either ways, the image is very bad at showing people who Gambit is. It's probably better to have an image of his "regular self". I'll upload one, if nobody's against that.--Kaonashi 07:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I replaced that image for a new one. It's an artwork from Marvel vs. Capcom. I think it shows Gambit pretty clearly. A picture of Gambit after he joined Apocalypse is just too different from what people are used to, so I think it'll be a positive change. Any objections, please discuss here. Thanks.--Kaonashi 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it wikipedia guidelines that the current image of a character should be used. there was a similar discussion on the spider-man boards and the classic suit was chosen because the iron spidey suit is TEMPORARY. i see nothing temporary about gambit's current appearance. i think the pic should be of his new self. similarly, his powers section gives his new powers. why state his new powers with his old appearance. it doesnt make sense. you shouldnt have an image that people identify with for the sake of it. wikipedia is here to educate. lets educate people on what gambit currently looks like. the title is (after all) "gambit (comics)" not "gambit(marvel vs capcom computer game)". we need to make sure anyone who picks up a comic can search here and see relevant images of comics. it should be changed back immediately, in my opinion. &mdash; ChocolateRoses talk


 * Find us that guideline, then. That image was chosen because the most recent form of Gambit isn't the one people are most acquainted with. You see nothing temporary, but there isn't any evidence to explain so or otherwise. Again, that appearance is very new (many don't know about it and it's not one that falls in line with most of his incarnations) and it may or may not be very temporary. If you want the most current image of Gambit, all you have to do is look down to see what he looks like. Education, right? The image we see IS relevant. If someone is looking to see information on Gambit, they should see that they would see the most. Among other reasons, it would prevent confusion. Evan 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're doing what's convenient. That's totally against wikipedia's policy of being bold. You ARE wrong, i just don't want to get into an argument.&mdash; ChocolateRoses talk


 * a) That's not a Wiki policy.


 * "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."


 * b) It says "be bold". It's a malleable term. What it says is for you to not be afraid to edit a page or add new information and the like. No where does it support your argument anymore than it supports my own.


 * c) Uhmmm... Exactly how am I doing what's convenient? I have images of Death/Gambit. It's no bother to me to change the image, I just think it's not necessary. Evan 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My objection is that a picture of Gambits current form ould be a spoiler. 172.142.75.254 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Affiliations with XSE?
First of all, I assume the "XSE" referenced in Gambit's previous affiliations is the X-Treme Sanctions Executive and not the Xavier's Security Enforcers. My main question- was Gambit ever actually a member of this team? I don't even think he was officially on the team showcased on X-Treme X-Men, let alone a member of the team when it was officially named X-Treme Sanctions Executive. As a side note, I haven't exactly been following comics recently, but isn't Gambit a member of The 198?WikiFew 04:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Gambit was never made an official member of the team. However he IS affiliated with them. And, any mutant that still has their powers is a part of the 198. Evan 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually not. The 198 specifically refers to the mutants camped outside the mansion (and no, theres not 198 of them. Go figure. They're still referred to that way in-comic.). - SoM 04:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Traitor?
Why does X-Traitor link to Onslaught's page? Lizard Dude 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Professor X/Onslaught was the traitor. EVula 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Gambit Guild resource?
Question: Does anyone know what's happened to the Gambit Guild (home of the LeBeau Library) website? It was one of the oldest and best resources for Gambit info/discussion out there, and after almost seven years of continuous existence, it completely disappeared. I haven't been able to find /any/ information about why or where it's gone on the net, and since Wikipedia (second-best Gambit resource) doesn't have an article on it, I thought I would ask here as a last resort. If anyone knows what happened, would you please let me know here? Thanks.

--24.143.66.153 11:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)A Fan


 * Actually, it does this frequently. It's up for a few months, and then it goes down for varying periods of time. Don't ask me why, it just does this. It's not that it was taken down, it's more that it's really screwed up. A user from the forum made a fake forum under the GG's name and many of the former users came to that one, but I don't believe that has the consent of the webmistress. Just wait a few weeks, it'll come back. In the meantime, Gambit's Spotlight on UXN is a great source for info. Extremely detailed. Evan 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, Evan - much appreciated. --24.143.66.153 10:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC) A Fan

Hi All,

GambitGuild.com is back up; Neko (domain owner) asked me to help out, and I've built a new one from scratch with a new host as of Nov-2006. The library in question has likewise been restored from a 2004 version and various ia.org snapshots, and new stuff is being submitted. In short, it's back, and this time is being actively maintained / adminned. Barring all of us being hit by a bus, I expect it shall remain that way for awhile.

- SBB

First appearance
I don't believe that Uncanny X-men 266 is Remy's first appearance. I've actualyl just recently been rereading all of uncanny x-men and just finished 267, and I'm pretty sure that he appeared before. How else would he have had a photo of Storm in 267 and recognized her in 266? Can someone verify which was his very first appearance? I'm sure he was in one in the 80s, I think gambling was involved too but I can't quite remember. I'm afraid if I find one I may be mistaken, so help please.

His first appearance was actually x-men annual 14, which predated his 1st in-continuity appearance(UXM#266) by a few months. You see x-men annual 14 took place after the events of 266 and 267, but the annual was released before those issues by a few months. There were no appearances prior to those issues. 1990 was the year Gambit made his 1st appearance.

If you're thinking of the x-men group photo Gambit was looking at in UXM#267, it belonged to Storm, not Gambit. He had dug it out of her belongings, along with her knife. No where in UXM#266 or 267 did I get the impression Gambit recognized Storm. But even if he had, the now established continuity would allow for it anyway. With Gambit working for Sinister and his involvement in the Morlocke Massacre, it would be feasible for Gambit to have known who the X-Men are.--Killphil 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts and Facts point too uncanny X-Men annual 14 being the true first appearance of Gambit. First off look at the cover release dates annual 14th July 1990 Uncanny X-Men 266 late August 1990 almost a month-and-a-half after annual 14. Second fact not only did you see Gambit full appearance an annual 14 he had spoken dialogue and was referred to as Gambit by storm herself meaning in no way was this a cameo Look up the definition of first appearance and cameo I could understand if he had just been standing there and you seemed part of the guy but he is in more than 5 or 6 full panels. Truth of the matter is if you are buying 266 you are buying it for the cover not the first appearance it is a lie. now if we were going to go by first appearance in time line then yes 266 in the Marvel Universe timeline would be Gambit first appearance but then we would have to change all first appearances such as Batman's first appearance Superman's first appearance Wolverine's first appearance and so forth because their past has been Revisited so many times and comic books predating their first appearance so if you want the true first appearance of Gambit uncanny X-Men 214 would be the comic book you want 266 is his second appearance Havenx23 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Srry stupid auto correct. Uncanny X-Men annual 14 not 214 Havenx23 (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Added "highly agile" in characteristics-power description
I added "highly agile," before "skilled hand to hand combatant" etc. Gambit's agility has often been said to be a mix of his powers and training so I felt the context which I added it was appropriate. --Killphil 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "adamantium" from the description of Gambit's staff
Nowhere has it ever been said that Gambit's staff is made from adamantium. In fact many appearances would undermine this theory anyway. For example-in Gambit#4(1st monthly series), Gambit is fighting Blade and blocks a swing from Blade's sword. The sword is imbedded halfway through the staff. Not adamantium there. In Gambit's appearance in Moon Knight #41, Gambit attacks Moon Knight with a charged staff and Moon Knight comments that Gambit's staff is powerful due to the kinetic charge in it, but his own staff(Moon Knight's) is powerful also because it is made from adamantium, indicating that Moon Knight has an adamantium satff, not Gambit. Gambit wrecked one of his other staffs fighting Bond in X-Men Unlimited #7.--Killphil 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Adamantium Staff description comes from the X-Men Animated Series. Although recent writers may have added it to canon, thinking it was part of his background. -- Noclevername 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The cartoon had even less info on Gambit's staff than the comics did. It was definetly never mentioned that it was Adamantium here. Again, No in-continuity comics reference to this staff being adamntium. If it was, then Adamntium is not the indestructible metel I have been led to believe, as he has wrecked several staffs in the past as refenced in my post above. Pure fan speculation/hope.--Killphil 07:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gambit sometimes puts a charge through his charge and it explodes on impact, causing extra damage. This would only work with his adamantium staff. But yeh i can see why it contradicts itself because adamantium can't be damaged (except by ultimate hulk).

Question
I seek a permission so to speak to deleate the following statement in the bio: "Early rumors have suggested Gambit would be played in an upcoming X-Men movie by Denzel Washington, but these rumors are unsubstantiated at this point in time."

This is a bogus statement since there is no upcoming X-Men movie aside from Wolverine and Magneto and Denzel is an African American actor who would not play a Cajun white character.

Well... "An upcoming X-Men movie" could mean Wolverine or Magneto, since those movies are spinoffs. Eh, the matter is moot anyway.


 * Thanks for asking! Be Bold in Editing! Talk first, then edit and summarize. Please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Gilgamesh Rex 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Three words: Michael Clarke Duncan. The reason why Denzel cannot play Gambit in MY opinion is, that he's too old. This is the same reason David Boreanaz and James Marsters should never again play "Angel" and "Spike" respectively.
 * The rumors and speculation about this or that actor playing this or that character are boundless. Adding every one of these is probably not a good idea for an encyclopedia entry. -- Noclevername 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Flight in Ultimate X-Men
Just read Ultimate Spider-Man #101, where in the fan letters column someone claims Ultimate Gambit can fly, citing Ultimate X-Men #14 where he allegedly flew onto a rooftop and enabled a young girl to fly. I put the following statement into the article, but then realized that even though whoever replies to the Ultimate Spider-Man letters column confirmed this, that may not make it true, so if someone has Ultimate X-Men #14 can you confirm this?

"Ultimate Gambit apparently had the power to fly as he flew to the top of a roof in Ultimate X-Men #14, as well as imparting flight to others (causing a little girl to fly using an umbrella). When the Ultimate version of Rogue possessed his powers, she apparently used them to fly only in Ultimate Spider-Man #93."

If this is the case, it explains why Ultimate Rogue flew during the Deadpool story arc. Vignettelante 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In UXM Gambit places a card underneath a manhole cover, and stands on top, blasting himself up to a rooftop. Although at the end of the issue, he does seemingly make the little girl "fly" briefly by charging her umbrella with kinetic energy. As for the Ultimate Rogue, that was probably a writer's goof (They don't give out No-Prizes any more for explaining those away, more's the pity!).

--- Noclevername 02:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Armor
what, no mention of his armor? That's the reason I scoped out this article. I mean, he's got a really distinctive outfit, with a trenchcoat on top of that. Who made it? Is it all that useful for defense? How do the boots flex at the ankles? Is that headband itchy? WE MUST KNOW! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Nah, it just chafs around the groan.

Rumors
"Gambit will appear on the sequel to X-Men: The Last Stand" Well he didn't, some people say that he will be in the next (x-man 4) movie, and the productors want Josh Holloway (Sawyer forom Lost) to play him.201.80.45.90 13:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of promised characters and actors who DIDN'T appear in the last movie make me wary of publishing any rumors/speculations about the next one. -- Noclevername 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are many fan sites for such information. We should only limit inclusion of information that has been verified as officially true -- verification of rumors doesn't really help since it just verifies that the rumor being reported does in fact exist. Again, we all want for Gabmit to be in X-Men 4, and there are many rumors of him being slated to be in X-Men 4 with several people involved in making X3 saying that they had Gambit in several scenes and would want him to appear in X-Men 4. However, given that X-Men 4 hasn't even been announced yet and given that Wolverine and Magneto movies are comming out, X-Men 4 might be at least 5 years away, if at all. Given this, any speculation really are just rumors and while they are fun to discuss on fan sites, they should really not be added to an encyclopedic entry for the character. (RossF18 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Ultimate Allaince
Under the video games section, it states Gambit was one of the X-Men struck down by Dr. Doom during the Doom's Day clip. Can anyone varify this? And if so, then where is he located because I can't seem to find him. Link McCloud 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)LinkMcCloud

Gambit can be seen in the CGI scene where Doom had just defeated many heroes, such as the X-Men, Magneto, and the Hulk. Gambit is the first hero shown on the floor defeated as the camera turns from Doom to all the fallen heroes. His face is not shown due to the position of his body, but it is clearly him due to the outfit warn, and the playing cards on the floor near him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.137.34 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can also verify this, he's hard to find unless you know where to look because he blends in with the destruction so well. He's dead and sprawled along the floor at the bottom right portion of the screen, at approximately 30 seconds into the cinematic. His right hand is open and a few playing cards can be seen next to it on the ground. Laverick Phoenix (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Creators
Although his introduction was drawn by Mike Collins, I believe the character was designed by Jim Lee. Does anyone have a citation for his creation?

Games
I personally own Arcade's Revenge - on Genesis. Was it ever actually released on SNES? 71.198.127.97 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC) nearly 6 years late, but yes. It was on Gameboy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.245.160 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for the reorganisation of "fictional character biography" section
Following the marker that we should maybe try to reorganize the fictional biography section, I suggest that maybe we can go along with keeping early life and mutant massacre and than briefly mention that he has joined the x-men for a while and than had his association severed in several occasions, than proceed with the apocalypse section. All the stuff with the x-men and x-treme could be dealt with under another section titled "history with the x-men" or something like that. Surely some of the stuff (like his fight with wolvie in the danger room for instance) are character moments that people could be interested in but i don't think they could be markers of a fictional character biography. What do you say? I might go along and do this after a couple of days if no one objects or proposes another thing..TheDreamingCelestial 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be both reaorganized and shortened, but as you suggest, I'd sugggest that if major reorganization takes place, we model them after the Storm article with major section in publication history and then a much shorter bio. With that, I think a "history with the x-men" section would be good (either in the publication history or bio section, but, as you mentioned, it would currently be too long to be one section and would need to be shortened. I'd not suggest making sweeping deleation, but things like that Wolverine fight would likely be deleated and anything else that should really be on the actual story arc pages.--RossF18 10:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gambit1024-thumb.jpg
Image:Gambit1024-thumb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GambitDeath.png
Image:GambitDeath.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:77570-gambit 400.jpg
Image:77570-gambit 400.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncxmen266.jpg
Image:Uncxmen266.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gambit-20050531074756286.jpg
Image:Gambit-20050531074756286.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:X-Treme-X-Men-43.jpg
Image:X-Treme-X-Men-43.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:X-Treme-X-Men-43.jpg
Image:X-Treme-X-Men-43.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Skin Discoloration? (Marvel RPG)
A friend of mine told that Gambit has some skin discoloration, specifically on his hands. He said he had read it in the Marvel RPG book. Has anyone else ever heard this?
 * Please sign your posts. And that was a while ago. He has no skin discoloration anymore. --RossF18 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image issues
The fair use of image:Gambit-20050531074756286.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The fair use of image:X-Treme-X-Men-43.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

Both of the above images are redundant with the image currently in the infobox (Image:Newgambit.jpg). Neither adds more than "This is how Gambit and an item he's charged looks." This runs counter to "minimal use" cited policy points with regards to non-free images.

It also runs counter to "Significance" for the same reason — 1 is significant, 2 is redundant if not decorative, 3 is decorative.

Both, as full covers as published, would have some worth if this article had a "Publication history" section where the real world context was discussed. Thee they would be examples of Marvel's exploitation of the character. Though even there, the 1st issue of the first Gambit series would have more value than the last issue of the last one.

- J Greb (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both images removed as their use is redundant and decorative. - J Greb (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about docoration but whether they add something to the article. Both of the images illustrated the appearance of gambit at the respective time, i.e., the miniseries and X-Ttreme X-Men, both different eras. --RossF18 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And the image show appearances that are substantively the same as the infobox image. That's duplication of use. (NFCC#3a). Further, the art for the final issue of the 2nd ongoing does not relate either to the character's "early years" or the top of the "X-Men" section.
 * It's either decoration or a scattered costume gallery. - J Greb (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not duplication if its an entirly different image, from 10 years before that illuminates the discussion. You can dismiss my argument if you like, if there is a dispute, you can't just single handedly keep the article in the way that you think is right by repeated reverts. The guideline is for duplication. That your argument, my argument that it's not duplication. As far as the section and image, I've added it to that section because it was deleted arbitrarily from the section where it belonged: publications. This article is not a christmas tree and it wasn't decorated. The image adds value to the article. Please refrain from reverts until we can get further feedback. Move the image if you'd like, but outright deletion if there is a dispute is not appropriate. This is not your article. --RossF18 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm tracking this article, so there is no need to keep adding things to my talk page when you make an edit. I'll find out, don't worry. If you really like adding to my talk page, feel free however. --RossF18 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the post to your talk, I posted that before seeing your post to the talk page.
 * As for the images... I'm sorry, the similarity between the images removed and the infobax image is a policy issue. IF, and this is a big one in this case, the images are showing/supporting something that is hard to get across in the text, the duplication is irrelevant. But, as best that can be shown, the images show:
 * The characters appearance. Which is essentially the same across both removed images and the infobox.
 * The character "charges" things up. Which can be sufficiently conveyed in text and is also presented in the infobox image.
 * That the character was presented in conjunction with his own logo and that of another comic. This is irrelevant to the section if the FCB.
 * That, in one case, the character was feature in "X-Treme X-Men". Again, something that can be clearly stated in text.
 * Is there anything that these images convey beyond that?
 * If so, then by all means add them back, but do it in conjunction with a section of text supporting that use. Otherwise the images are being used in breach of NFCC policy and stay out.
 * And on some other points:
 * The "Charging 'Gambit'" image was never in the PH, it has always been stuck in the FCB where it has only been "And at one point he looked like this. Which is a lot like this or this."
 * "This article is not a christmas tree and it wasn't decorated." That's... cute, real cute. Please go take a look at WP:NFCC (policy) and WP:NFC (guideline). Decorative use of image is adding them to make the article "look nice" but either adding zero information/clarity to the article or repeating the purpose of images already present.
 * Oh... and as for feedback: That is precisely why the notices leading off this section were placed in August. As a not to the editor(s) working on this article that there were policy issues with the images and that, unless fixed, they would be removed. After a little over 2 months of no comment, it seemed no one cared to either fix or defend the use.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fairly clearly violation of WP:NFCC - I have removed the image. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Using this reasoning, all, or at least 2, of the images in the In other media section of the article have to be removed.--RossF18 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Get to it then, I'm having me dinner. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed - I looked at them and can't see what three nearly identical head shots are adding to our understanding. The idea is to keep the images to a minimum and I can't see how anyone can justify the use of all those images from animation. There are differences but they are very minor. (Emperor (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Just my 2-ish¢ on the "In other media images...
 * Up to a point, I'm in favor of images being present when a character's appearance is heavily stylized or modified with an adaptation to a different media. Yes, there still needs to be care taken that we don't wind up with a short-ish list tacked onto an image gallery. And the redundancy (1 image per show) and "significant for understanding" (generally no image for 1 line adaptations) issues still hold some relevance.
 * With this article though, I take the point that 2 of the IOM images amount to "For this adaptation the character was kept true to the visual depiction in the comics": The 1990's X-Men cartoon, which seemed to use the comics being published at the time as an exacting style guide/bible, and the X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse wallpaper, which is hard to read but essentially something that could have been pulled out of a comic at the time. The wallpaper also has an issue since it's for a "1 liner".
 * The X-Men: Evolution and Wolverine and the X-Men mugshots would be better if they weren't just that - mugshots. The first shows that there was an attempt to modified the appearance, and the second... maybe a case of "trying for the best of both worlds" which is a stretch of saying the questionable "close stylistic variation" of the comic's look.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Smoker
"One of his defining traits is that he used to be a smoker." I have never met anyone who, when asked to give their defining traits, say they used to be a smoker. This is just an off-hand comment that, while somewhat acceptable in the article, belongs down there with "he used to wear a blue scarf." I'm not a specialist enough on the topic to make the edit myself--for all I know maybe all his issues really were about smoking, but I'm guessing anyone with any knowledge of Misseur LeBeau could just delete the paragraph and the article would be better off for it. --Mrcolj (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Defining trait, in character, certainly not, but it is/was part of his trademark appearance. Of course since Joe Quesada all but banned characters from smoking, it doesn't show up very much. However, you look back to a lot of non-action images of the character from the past and he's smoking a cigarette. So defining trait, maybe not, but it's worth mentioning. Wolverine, Thing, Fury, known cigar chompers, at least with Wolverine they explained that he didn't smoke anymore as a promise, but Gambit always used to have a seemingly-hand-rolled cigarette in his mouth, and probably still would on a regular basis if it weren't for the EIC. ---D--- (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography?
I was looking at Storm (Marvel Comics) and Wolverine (comics) and I was wondering if we should start a bibliography section. I currently have the running list below. I still have to go through X-Men vol. 2. ~ Itzjustdrama ? C 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uncanny X-Men Annual #14
 * Uncanny X-Men #266-267, 270, 272-280, 294-295, 297-298, 304, 307-308, 309-316, 318, 321, 323-236, 330-331, 333-338, 340-350, 361-362, 364-372, 375-390, 444, 468, 494
 * Gambit #1-4
 * Gambit vol. 2 #1-4
 * Gambit vol. 3 #1-25
 * Gambit vol. 4 #1-12
 * Gambit and the X-Ternals #1-4
 * Gambit Annuals #1-2
 * Gambit & Bishop, Alpha #1-6
 * Wolverine/Gambit: Victims #1-4
 * Rogue #1-4
 * Rogue vol. 3 #1, 4-6, 12


 * Yes, add it in to the text.--RossF18 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Who keeps adding that rubbish?
"This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective." It's clear what is or isn't fiction unless you have a IQ marginally larger than your shoe size. Stop adding that rubbish please. --IceHunter (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reviewing WP:CIVIL. Just because you don't feel the tag is merited doesn't mean you need to be insulting to those who do. Doniago (talk)

Added Bojustsu in powers and abilities
Since Gambit seems to be an accomplished stick fighter, I added that he knows this martial art as well. It serves to cover the stick fighting aspect of Remy's overall fighting style and was actually mentioned in the latest Gambit entry in a Wolverine handbook from last year.

--Killphil (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any weaknesses?
Hiya. Haven't all superhero types got a super-weakness? Super-man - Kryptonite, Spider-man - Family etc. (I'm not an expert). The words "Vulnerability" and "Weakness" don't feature in the article at all. There is one count of "Vulnerable" but that's referring to his temperament. If someone knows of something that could be added that would be good. I was just passing by and thought I'd suggest it. Good luck all. Happy editing! fgt c 11:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Physically, he's apparently just a normal human being or "peak" human in terms of vulnerability, just like most of the other "mental" mutants. If you manage to hit him, it hurts. If you manage to stab or shoot him he bleeds, and in theory will die from a mortal wound unless immediately saved by someone or something capable of healing him, etc. He does have the ability to use his powers to consciously regenerate some small injuries, however. Craftmatic2 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Writer Induced Stupidity of "Potential Energy"
Potential Energy is measured with respect to some other force field, such as gravity or magnetism, and would never be sufficient to produce the effects Gambit actually does in the comics, animated series, and the movie. The amount of potential energy in a playing card is actually no more than the kinetic energy it would have if it fell from the height it was held in a vaccuum, which is nowhere near as much as a grenade. In fact, it would barely make a spark if converted to thermal energy, for example.

If, however, Gambit were converting all of the energy contained in the chemical bonds of the target object to pure Kinetic Energy, then this would certainly produce an explosive force similar to a grenade per playing card.

On the other hand, converting nuclear energy or mass-energy to kinetic energy would be too powerful, because a mere playing card's worth of mass energy would equal a 50 kiloton nuclear bomb, or just the nuclear energy of a playing card would equal 500 tons of TNT.

So I gather than what the writers have always meant when they say "Potential Energy" actually should have been specified "Chemical Potential Energy". This is actually much more consistent with the feats you see Gambit perform in the comics and cartoons. Craftmatic2 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gambit/Adam Essex
I know that it was confirmed by a writer that was no longer writing X-Men. But since he did create the character "Adam Essex" and confirmed it in an interview, is it worth noting? http://deathtojohnny.kinja.com/gambits-true-identity-is-finally-revealed-1761097472

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gambit (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519222913/http://comicsalliance.com/new-gambit-comic-book/ to http://comicsalliance.com/new-gambit-comic-book/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018024021/http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters to http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2020

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Gambit (Marvel Comics). BD2412 T 18:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Gambit (comics) → Gambit (character) – per WP:NCCDAB NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gambit (disambiguation), Mike Gambit is also known as "Gambit". In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then Gambit (Marvel Comics).--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be unnecessary disambiguation? El Millo (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * per WP:NCCDAB, it is acceptable to change the article as Gambit (Marvel Comics).--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alternate move to Gambit (Marvel Comics) per guidelines.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories
I want user MercifulEarthMother to prove with sources such as titles, issues and vols from the 616 universe that he has all of these abilities such as superhuman strength, manipulate reality, manipulate time, healing abilities, elemental transmutation abilities, gravity abilities and dimensional travel abilities. 108.208.137.159 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I want you to actually read the "Powers and Abilities" section of the Wikipedia page instead of being overly skeptical and aggressive over the changes. MercifulEarthMother (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Having read the section, are you basing the addition of those categories on a single 10-issue storyline from 21 years ago? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)