Talk:Iron Man/Archive 2

The model for Tony Stark?
On American TV at the time was the TV series Hawaiian Eye (started 1959), starring Anthony Eisley as Tracy Steel, a playboy kind of detective in Hawaii. As well as the same initials as Tony Stark (also Tony as in Anthony), Steel looked like the early Stark with the same pencil mustache, hair style and build. (Cyberia3 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Is there any corroboration for this at all, other than superficial similarities? In the documentary about the creation of the comic-book character which came on some versions of the DVD for the first Iron Man movie, Stan Lee gives an interview in which he says that he was specifically looking to make Tony Stark similar to Howard Hughes, in which case the parallels in looks and back-ground would also be met. Perhaps Hawaiian Eye also used Howard Hughes as the “go-to” billionaire playboy industrialist template? Jock123 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014
Hello, my name is Scott Russell, and I was hoping that you could add my website link to this wikipedia page. I just created this website and was hoping to get some traffic to it. Below is the link to the website. It is not fully done. I plan on adding descriptions of the 42 suits of armor in the near future. As for the distant future, I plan to do a lot more. Here is the link, check it out: http://suitsofiron.com/index.html.

Thanks, Scott Russell

Rusdog2784 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sorry, but Wikipedia articles cannot be an indiscriminate list of links. See the external links policy for more information. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

illuminati
that thing about the illuminati isn't true right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.180.24.200 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for the move. Philg88 ♦talk 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Iron Man → Iron Man (comics) – We all love Tony Stark, but I just don't think the character really meets our WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Maybe he's the single most popular subject compared to the many other uses, but more so than all others combined? I don't think so. The various sports uses and the Black Sabbath song are also quite prominent. The comics character actually only makes four of the top 10 Google Books results for "iron man" -wikipedia, even though Iron Man comics are included in the results. He's better represented in Google results, but even there, the Ironman triathlon makes the first page and most results are actually about the 2008 movie rather than the character himself.

I hate to think about how much cleanup this is going to entail, but I'm willing to do my part on that front. In the long run, I think this is worth it. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lots of other uses doesn't mean the comic book character isn't the primary topic. RECENTISM wouldn't apply either since the character predates both the Black Sabbath song and the triathlon, which is Ironman anyway, not Iron Man. Calidum T&#124;C 19:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Calidum. Easily the primary subject by this name, and the different naming of the Ironman Triathlon weakens the need to distinguish that topic even further. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is ambiguous disambiguation and fails WP:PRECISE as there are multiple comics properties (and multiple Marvel Comics properties; and multiple comics characters) that may be referred to as "Iron Man". This article is a fictional character article, so if it is not the primary topic and therefore should move, should be called Iron Man (Marvel Comics character); the nominator's proposed title should then redirect to the disambiguation page -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional character biography
The rampant fictography of the "Fictional character biography" section in this article violates so many Wikipedia guidelines on writing about fiction, such as WP:NOT and WP:INUNIVERSE. We've had this discussion already several times in the past, leading to the deletion of fictography comics articles. (See [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fictional_history_of_Spider-Man&oldid=405598493],, and .) The same tenets apply here. In this blow-by-blow, arc-by-arc FCB, the 2000s take up 1,470 words and the 2010s, which we're not even fully halfway through, already take up over 1,800 words. The 1960s, in which most of the mythos and major characters were established, runs only 531 words!

There's no reason for this. I hope other editors will pitch in, since it's a big job, but this FCB needs serious condensing now. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
Per Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker, etc. Tony Stark IS Iron Man, and vice versa. There is no reason to have two separate articles, as Tony Stark isn't notable outside of being Iron Man - there aren't Tony Stark comics as far as I know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a few exceptions where two separate articles exist, for example Diana Prince is Wonder Woman and Clark Kent is Superman, but that is besides my point. In this case the title appears had been discussed at Talk:Tony_Stark_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), and therefore if it is merged it should be because the MCU version of the character does not need its own article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"Tony Stark" is used as the title because in the film series that is what he is called. "Iron Man" is used in newspapers, and then as a tongue-in-cheek comment, not a formal moniker. The film portrayal is independently notable. We would have an article on the character even if the long history in comics did not exist, just as we do for Phil Coulson and Trevor Slattery. For example, Joker (The Dark Knight) exists and that version of the character only appeared in one film. The article allows us to add coverage of real-world aspects of this appearance, such as the casting process, actor involvement, awards, production design (armor), etc. - all of which would add bloat to any other page. Ultimately, WP:NOTPAPER applies - we can improve coverage of topics without it impacting the existing comics-based character summaries and, in fact, this actually greatly helps the comics articles by keeping them free of bloat from the "popular" version. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Netoholic. Tony Stark as a character in the MCU is a distinct and unique take on the character, with a specific different canonical character arc and set of experiences from the historical comic book version, and constituting a unique subject of commentary in reliable sources. Also, there is literally 80K of material here that is not replicated in the proposed target article, which means that merging the two would require nearly doubling this article in size - and making it large enough to justify splitting out the film character portion. bd2412  T 18:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per OP plus the only differences between MCU Tony and Iron Man in general that could possibly be worth noting are movie plotlines, and even those don't warrant more than a paragraph per each film. Every other difference is honestly negligible and having multiple pages for him is thinly veiled fancruft. Let's not try to pretend as if there isn't too much overlap between the two for a separate page per WP:Content forking regardless of sourcing. Sorry to any Marvel fans that this might disappoint (especially the MCU), but there's nothing of discernible encyclopedic value that can't be included on the main page here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like it comes from someone who hasn't read anything in the MCU article except its title. EVERY section has unique information, particularly real-world information, which would NEVER fit in this article. "Iron Man" from the comics didn't get nominated for a couple dozen awards and win at least 8 of them, RDJ in this film series did in the real world. Detailed production information about how the armor and effects were done wouldn't fit in this article. The plot information tells a unique character arc that was never in the comics. To handwave and call this "redundant" is dishonest. -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have read the article, and what I said was that only differences worth noting here were the plots. Armor and effects are better for film articles if anywhere, and same probably goes for accolades. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The evolution of armor and effects over the course of the series can't be discussed in any single film article. Nor can any aspect of the character that has evolved over the entire arc. bd2412  T 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice how I said film articles, as a plural rather than singular article? It shouldn't be too much trouble to simply note what that was like in the first Iron Man movie on that page, then note any differences made for Iron Man 2 in its own article, followed by any new features seen in the original Avengers film, so on and so forth. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 13:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We centralize content of a subject onto an article of that subject, we don't fragment it across multiple articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , for clarification, are you suggesting that the MCU article should remain in order to centralize MCU content there, or that it should be merged here to centralize comic book and MCU content together? bd2412  T 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That comment was against the idea of splitting the MCU character article into just the movie articles. Currently I think that the MCU article and the comic book article should be separate with both article obviously linking to each other, but I am waiting to see if any support votes are based on a rationale that I have missed before I give a formal oppose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. bd2412  T 19:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - as was very well laid out by nom and Snuggums.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 20:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What this comes down to is that the MCU article falls into the Films WikiProject, not Comics, and while we tend to combine characters into one article if the film very closely follows the literary arc (ex. Harry Potter (character), we also don't shy away from having articles about major characters within major film franchises when the stories stray far enough from the original medium. Compare and contrast James Bond (literary character) and James Bond (film character), Rapunzel vs. Rapunzel (Tangled), Joker (DC Comics) vs. Joker (The Dark Knight). The MCU movies do not follow closely any specific comics storyline, and the characters follow brand-new, distinct arcs. Also, this is a (the) major movie franchise of its day and so it is assured that there is a deep trove of information about the portrayal and independent notability. For most of the world, these portrayals ARE the characters now. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per and . There is no doubt that the MCU version is based off the comic version, but is has received significant independent coverage. This is not simply a minor variant of a character that only deserves in a tiny mention in another article, but a distinct version with multiple accolades. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the argument from nomination comparing to Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker suggest moving/renaming the page to just Tony Stark(which just redirects here). The merge with the MCU character doesn't seem helpful, as the movie and comic characters have different histories and stories. I understand considering having the movie version merged into other media section, but I feel that article is too long to add here, and is fine as a standalone. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 21:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the OP appears to have misunderstood the situation. These are not separate articles for the Iron Man and Tony Stark personas of the comic character, this new Tony Stark article is about the film version which is completely separate from the comics. It can definitely support its own article (rather than just mentions as "other media") even if the current version requires some work. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Given the specific popularity of the movies, obviously not everyone who is interested in Tony Stark as a character cares at all about the comic book version of the character, which is just a very different story in many respects. It is pretty clear that with all the section expansion tags in the article, that this is an article still under construction, and it is premature to say now that it should be merged. Let's give it another six months and at least see how those parts are fleshed out. CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This character is clearly racing coverage which shows its individual notability, to merge the article into another would waste good formatting and information and create a mess. To claim that this character is also 'pretty much the same' as the comic book counterpart is also nothing less than ignorance or feigning ignorance.★Trekker (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , since you opened this discussion, and the consensus is clear, I welcome you to close it. bd2412  T 19:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - alternately, you could close this discussion, which I invite you to do. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  00:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would consider it a conflict of interest for me to close a discussion in favor of the position I supported in the discussion. bd2412  T 00:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)