Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Archive 2

Dispute
Okay, I've been asked to look at the editing of the page as there is felt to be a dispute over content. First up, I'll point people to the dispute resolution page, and also to the civility policy and the no personal attacks policy. That'll lay the ground rules for the following debate. Basically, I expect every participant to comment on the content, not the user. Hiding Talk 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute summary
Okay, having had a read of the talk page and the article, the disputed edits seem to me to be centring around our policy on adopting a neutral point of view. There appears to be confusion over whether a best of or recommended reading section is a biased viewpoint. What we have to remember is that such lists are matters of opinion, and are subject to dispute. Whilst we can certainly cite Simonson's run as critically well received, with a suitable cite to a reliable source, we cannot build a list of works considered to represent the best stories the character appeared in. What we can do is reference such stories within the article in a suitable manner, perhaps in a critical evaluations section which summarises any critical reviews of the Thor stories in reliable sources.

There is a also an issue surrounding terms such as "greatest". We do offer guidance on such terms at guidance on weasel words and avoid Peacock terms. Basically we should allow facts to speak for themselves. Rather than describe a foe as Thor's greatest, note the number of times they have fought. This will allow the point to be made through the facts. Rather than speak of Thor's greatest battle, note the repercussions of the battle and the impact it had on the work, again allowing the point to be made.

One last pointer, to guidance on page ownership. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Let's collaborate and improve the article. I note there is what appears to be an article expansion idea at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Article expansion. Perhaps we could look to improve this article and seek a peer review, looking towards a listing as a good article candidate? Please try to settle the dispute in a civil manner here on the talk page. Hiding Talk 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor Film Update
Yesterday, I added the reference of his "appearance" in Adventures in Babysitting. I was actually a little surprised it wasn't on there. Thestormofwar 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason this was removed?

"Thor is referenced in the 1987 film Adventures in Babysitting, with a blond-haired garage mechanic named Dawson (Vincent D'Onofrio) whom one of the young children believes is Marvel Comics' Thor."--Swahilli (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody shattered
I've been up since 5am and I'm bloody shattered, however this needs re-writing:

''Thor appeared at the end of Civil War #3 in the midst of a heated battle between pro-registration and anti-registration super heroes and appeared to side with the pro-registration heroes. Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

In Civil War #4, Thor spared the Secret Avengers no mercy, killing Goliath during the battle. It was later revealed that this Thor was a clone, made from hair fragments taken many years ago during an original Avengers meeting (Reed Richards, Henry Pym and Tony Stark were behind it). His Mjolnir was also shown to be a technological duplicate.

The real Thor has yet to return.''

If it's a clone, then Thor did NOT appear at the end of Civil War 3 and Thor spared the secret avengers plenty of mercy because he wasn't there! and so on and so on!

I'd do it but I really don't have the energy to think of good copy at the moment --Charlesknight 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at it at around 4 am, just now(mmm sweet night shift). I'm certain there are grammer and spelling mistakes, but take a peak and see what you think. Alsosprachmiyamoto 08:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image
I've removed the image that depicts Civil War #4 as it is in fact not Thor. I've put back the preceding image, but perhaps this could also be changed as it is technically incorrect as well. While on images, I think it important to note that the picture - particularly if depicting ONE character - should be as generic as possible without distractions. The cover to Civil War #4 was in fact not the best choice as it raised questions, such as why is Thor standing over the bodies of those heroes? Who are they? A new reader only needs a nice clean, generic shot of the character in heroic pose to "get it."

That said, what is the consensus on this image of Thor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thor-334.jpg

It is one of the few covers (I've checked them all) that feature Thor in a clean, striking pose without distractions. Donald Blake is also present, but given that he was part of Thor's origin and remained an integral part of the history so for many years, it could be deemed acceptable.

Thoughts?

Asgardian 05:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I quite like that it demonstrates the classical relationship quite well, we need to remove the logo and stuff right? --Charlesknight 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be fine given that #337 was present in it's entirety and the copyright holder was acknowledged. There are quite a few comic covers on Wiki.

Asgardian 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As Asgardian points out, there are many covers used in this way, and it may actually be better to leave it on. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since the Thor in Civil War is just a clone, we need to have an image of the real Thor in the infobox. 71.203.209.0 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's OK to have an image of the clone, as long as it is representative of the Thor character, and he doesn't normally stand on a pile of heroes' bodies. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, well, referring to incidents that don't have anything to do with you as a way to impugn another editor's reputation comes across as really dirty and not at all in the interest having good faith in other editors. So stop it. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "in more recent times"
Hi. Don't mean to open up a can of words, just trying to clarify an edit. There's a Wikipedia policy about not using temporal terms (Avoid statements that will date quickly) which includes: "Phrases to avoid include 'recently', 'in modern times', 'now considered', 'is soon to become' ...."

I've brought this up earlier, yet I noticed an edit today with the phrase "in more recent times". I'm genuinely trying to understand the rationale for that edit. --Tenebrae 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor culling
Dropped the precise on Journey Into Mystery again as it is better suited to an entry on the title, not Thor (the page is still too long). Tidied up some grammar and spelling, and "obviating" has been changed as many of the younger readers may not know what this means. Put back the list of foes as I've created pages for beings such as Perrikus and the Dark Gods, with one on the God Eater to follow. Removed "greatest" but still included the Celestial reference as it speaks for itself.

The new picture is also in - looks good!

Asgardian 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * CovenantD - you appear to be wasting a great deal of your own time fighting change purely for the sake of it. A good example is the image you replaced here, which is not even Thor. Do dopplegangers (irrespective of their nature) feature in place of the real character on entries? I think not. The image chosen (cover to Thor #334) is a nice, clean generic shot, which is needed (see above). The rationale "gonna call it vandalism" is rather telling as it indicates that you seem to have very little understanding of what the term is and how it applies to Wikipedia. See here for a refresher on the term vandalism and then how that applies to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Note the sentence re: undermining Wikipedia, which is what in fact is happening here. Also, I think you would be hard pressed to justify the constant reversions to past edits of minor characters such as Surtur, given that my updates provide new information and IMAGES. Useful items, yes?

Asgardian 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Asgardian, please stop impugning the motives of other editors whenever they they disagree with you. Please address the issues being discussed and leave your personal attacks out of it. --Tenebrae 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are assuming once again, and using a strawmanargument. There has been no effort to address the issues raised (did you see the posts above?). As for personal attacks, that would appear to be your forte - to judge by your past comments and own admission on your talk page.

Asgardian 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Asgardian, in regards to the bulk of the edits you make to other Thor related articles - you wipe out categories, revert to badly formatted links, take away superhero boxes and return formatting for "appearances" that is different than any other comic book article. You remove entire portions of a characters history and often have too many images on a page and in places that are unattractive compared to how it looked before your edits. Your edits have been reverted by other editors. So no, I disagree most strongly that you are improving the articles in question. CovenantD 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you are the only - perhaps obsessively - thas has been editing my other contributions. If it is a formatting issue, address that, not the information. Again. information, both in text and image form, has been presented that was lacking in all entries.

On Thor, I've replaced the picture as the Civil War cover does NOT feature Thor. It is also not suitable for the reasons posted above. If deemed unsuitable, find another cover, but it MUST be Thor and free of unnecessary distractions.

Asgardian 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you can be bothered with honesty. Until then any dialogue with you is a waste of my time. CovenantD 07:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Convenant - is that a mature response for an editor? Or printing an assumption/snide comment when editing such as "all to prove a point"? You act as though you are above all criticism, and yet you have failed to address any of the issues presented since I began posting. Are you threatened by the fact that another poster has possibly more knowledge of the character? As I have said before, I am not your enemy, and this is not a competition. There is no need for hostility (and to judge by your talk page there would even less if you tempered your comments before posting). Now, I have placed several images within the superhero boxes and applied a few more labels. Meet this effort halfway and leave the Thor image (#334) in place, OR find another clean generic image of the character that does not raise still more questions (as again, the Civil War covers do not depict Thor). Onward.

Asgardian 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that CovenantD feels threatened by your knowing more about a character is absurd and a little nerdy. I've looked at your edits, and sometimes they are either sloppy or ignorant of how things work on Wikipedia and WP:CMC - links, article structure, proper language, getting along with other editors. You have only been a registered editor for two weeks at this point, so my advice is to calm down, slow down, and ask questions when you don't actually know how to do what you want to do. The editors you are arguing with here have more experience with you, and my past interactions with them tell me that they would gladly work on this article with you and answer any questions you might have. I'd rather not take any sides in this, but what it looks like to me is that an extremely new editor has decided he wants to completely overhaul a number of related articles, has difficulty working with other editors, and is verbally attacking and making accusations about editors who have proven themselves with their track record. I have faith that you want to work for the good of the project, but you don't have all the tools to do so yet. That will come with time, patience, and experience. Please try to have faith in the other editors. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 10:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. The behaviour is right. Very territorial and threatened. Hence the condescending remarks. His history (see Talk Page) suggests this poster does not play well with others. They can't all be wrong, can they? Asgardian 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm learning re: structure, but have to object when it comes to has "difficulty working with other editors". Many points and suggestion were made (see above) and they were all ignored. In fact, what comments have come back smack of "I'm right - deal with it." Asgardian 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. Read the comments above and you'll see who has been attacking whom. Also, given the track records of a certain two posters, I don't know how much they have "proven".	 Asgardian 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please adhere to Comics Project policies & style
Asgardian, please do not make the kinds of caption changes as you did here. It goes against the Wikipedia Comics Project's manual of style for uniform cover artwork crediting. I formally and respectfully request that you explain why you believe it's fine to continually revert captions in contradiction to Comics Project policy. --Tenebrae 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've found the artist and credited them. As for text, remember: succinctness is the key. the article is still too long.

Asgardian 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, no it isn't. The article is now under 30kb.  In fact sections like publishing history look like they could use some detail.  WesleyDodds 11:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary - no mudslinging!
Right, in this section I want no mudslinging, no namecalling, no dredging up of old edits and no posting in the middle of other peoples comments. This section is to summarise problems with the Thor page as it stands in a civil manner. Discuss. --Jamdav86 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The publication history is too short. See Fantastic Four's publication history for an example of how this page should look.
 * 2) The character biography is too focused on recent events. It needs to expand back into the "past" a bit more.
 * 3) Is there text and images worth cannibalising from /Article expansion to expand these two sections?
 * 4) Is there a better non-Civil War picture of Thor for use in the superhero box?

What is wrong with Thor #334? Does everyone realise how few Thor covers feature him in classic pose?

Asgardian 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept the JIM synopsis, and put back the berserker rage = ten-fold increase in strength. Mentioned in one of the old Marvel Handbooks and Thor #504.

Asgardian 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * what about Thor v2.41 as an image? -- Charlesknight 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Now there's a good suggestion. The supporting cast are also all in the background as well. As to the cover for the Reigning, we could just keep rotating a few covers from that era as they all encapsulate the situation perfectly. #55 is a very good example.

Asgardian 06:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As per the suggestion by Charlesknight, I'm road testing the image for Thor #41, Volume 2, and have tidied up some of the sentences, particularly in the Civil War passage. The note by 201.37.237.135 - and I hope this isn't a sockpuppet - re: images doesn't really wash here as the image for cover #334, Volume 1, was even clearer and was the TRUE Thor. Once again, the Civil War #4 cover does not feature the real deal, and is therefore inapplicable. Would an image of a Hulk-bot created by Armim Zola to battle the Avengers be appropriate to use as the Hulk's main image? No - because it is not the Hulk. The same applies here. Please also note that the image should be as distraction free as possible - the bodies of fallen heroes who may be unknown to some readers does not help. Issues #334, Volume 1 and #41, Volume 2 are fine as any clarification needed is present in the article.

Hopefully we can now get past this and focus on the text, as there are some gaps that need work. Perhaps a template that lists decades, or perhaps uses labels that suit the mood (such as The Experimental Years). The key is brevity: it should not become a case of "tell the story" which is what the Beta Ray Bill/Surtur became and was worse for it.

Asgardian 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Images guidelines
Read WikiPolicies. Here: WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines. Read it before editing again. 201.37.237.135 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See above

Asgardian 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jam - good use of the Doom cover. Nice to see a few folks thinking outside the square. There are some good covers out there.

On speed - Thor has divine reflexes, which means he can base minimum see the blur as a speedster moves. Thor, however, does not have super speed in the sense that Quicksilver, the Flash or even Superman do. The term, therefore, is a misnomer and confusing for readers. Thor MIGHT have been described as moving at super speed in the old JIM days, but it is a case of early artistic licence more than anything else (another example is JIM #85, in which Thor projects lightning from his hands - he's never done it since). Asgardian 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though the Steve McNiven art for Civil War is only a promotional piece, the publisher must be acknowledged as it features their characters.

Asgardian 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do you get that idea? CovenantD 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Publisher is acknowledged (or should be) in the embedded copyright information on the clickthrough upload-summary page. Per WikiComics examplar, no need to place it on the article page itself. --Tenebrae 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead section
A one line sentance isn't a good lead section. If it is going to be changed again, please make sure it enough information that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I'd suggest checking Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man to see what a good comic book character article looks like. Grey Shadow 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What about using the Lee quote (currently a Footnote) to pad out the introduction? In addition to being interesting it isn't a mere rehash of what is described in the Origin section. No point in saying something twice, after all.

Asgardian 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per the exemplars, one line is all you need. --Jamdav86 10:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New Thor title?
Does anyone know where this was announced?
 * Marvel announced in 2006 that Thor will receive a new solo title, to be written by J. Michael Straczynski, in 2007.

I'd like to add a ref to the article. Grey Shadow 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Marvel's Big Plans Announced at Baltimore Retailer Conference. It seems to have been always coupled with several big announcements, so it's hard to find a single article ref. Hope this helps. It has since been announced that Olivier Coipel will be doing the art, too. --Supercrazy99 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've added the ref to the article. Grey Shadow 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Cover
Does anyone like issue #457 better as a superbox image? --Jamdav86 11:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 11:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is clearer than the current image. The colours are brighter also. Grey Shadow 12:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

'''

Powers and Abilities
Gladiator is the best example to be grouped with the Hulk and Hercules. Like Thor, Gladiator has beaten Hyperion, and provided Thor with much more of a challenge.

Asgardian 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hulk Should Be Removed From the Example Because unlike Thor The Hulk Keeps Getting Stronger and Stronger having no Limit of Strength even Talked About As Being Able To Move The Earth And In The Secret Wars Lifting a 150 billion ton Mountain

I don't really see why that means the Hulk should be removed since the exact upper limit of Thor's strength, or the actual strength limit of any of Marvel's physical powerhouse characters for that matter, is known. While many fans would agree that the Hulk is ultimately stronger, that's irrelevant because it's never actually been established as a fact within any of Marvel's canonical publications. The whole Class 100 thing, when applied to certain characters including Thor, the Hulk, Gladiator, Hyperion, Hercules, and numerous others, is used to give some indication of what these powerhouse characters are capable of, particularly since other writers came along later on and kept increasing the character's strengths, possibly, beyond the limits the creators of these characters had in mind. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited the powers section a bit, removed the part about him entering "an unknown area of space." Being in Limbo isn't really a power. -AS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsorkin (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, the Hulk does get stronger, and no marvel charecter is considered "physically" stronger then the Hulk. but untill the uppe limits of Thors strength is revealed in think we should keep them in the same catagory as class 100+ super human strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.170.88 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thor is stronger than Hulk. Hulk has no resisted at the attack of Mjolnir and the streak of battles is: Thor defeat Hulk 5 times, Hulk defeat Thor 3 times. Thor is stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.29.160 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Word definition
What's "semi-invulnerability"? Is that like "semi-pregnant"? --Tenebrae 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is more like semi-dead. Like Carey Elwes. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's not really anything like total invulnerability among comic book characters. At least when it comes to "mortal" characters and not abstract entities like Death, Eternity, Infinity, and that whole crowd. I usually substitute superhuman durability or resistance to injury in place of invulnerability. Invulnerability just seems to scream that a character can't be hurt to me. Superhuman durability just sorta says to me "yeah, the character is extremely tough, but that doesn't mean that he/she can't sustain injury at all." Odin&#39;s Beard 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Superhuman durability" works for me. It's a nice parallel construction with "super stregnth," "superhuman hearing," etc. -- Tenebrae 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Super speed?
I've just copy-edited an edit to that effect. Does Thor really have super speed? I'm unaware of him ever, like, racing the Flash. :-) My Marvel Universe handbook is in storage; can anyone clarify? --Tenebrae 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion on Thor's speed above. He doesn't use it that often but he does have superspeed.  He flies at faster than light speed and has feats such as catching missiles and shells that put him in the superspeed catagory.  Lochdale 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As per my comments above, Thor doesn't have super speed in the sense that the other speedsters do. Achieving light speed by flight is NOT the same as running across the ground at MACH 10. Superior reflexes, but still not Flash-fast. Ever seen Thor running so fast he could barely be seen? No.


 * Really, you have every issue? So when crosses New York (whilst running) in a "hearbeat" what exactly is he doing?


 * The days of Journey Into Mystery and sometimes horrrible artistic licence! Consider: has Thor EVER projected lightning from his hands since JIM #85? No, so given the history since (40 years worth), it can discounted.

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

His sword fight with Thialfi is at what speed exactly?

See what I'm getting at?
 * King Thor? Who hurls Mjolnir so hard that it takes the head off a Desak-occupied Destroyer?

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Thor's clearing a massive trench in his Marvel Team-Up with the Human Torch is all a fabrication? Lochdale 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You want to quote Marvel Team-Up? An issue from 1974 (no. #26) when Marvel was still experimenting? When Spiderman can modify circuit boards without equipment and undo an efefct by an artifact owned by the Watcher? When Spiderman somehow recovers from the Grey Gargoyle's touch early and makes glib comments as the villain is carried off by a rocket, apparently to his death? When Thor was convieniently sidelined by a villain in some way so that he didn't solve the problem in two panels? Oh, you mean that superspeed...

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. How about Thor 354 when he moves faster than lightning? In fact, he's so fast that the death goddess Hela comments on his speed and retreats from it.  I guess he has done it enough that I think he has it as a power.  Superman actually hasn't used his speed that often (post-crisis) particularly given the number of comics he is in!Lochdale 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian 10:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I'm the one with the question in the first place, but flying at super speed seems as if it would fall under, well, super speed. Heck, if you can fly at near light-speed, I'd say that's super speed. (I can't offhand recall Thor flying that fast, but there've been some 500 stories....). Maybe "super-speed flight" would be a good descriptor?--Tenebrae 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Asgardian, yes. Please see Journey into the Mystery number 110 where Thor runs so fast as to be invisible to the human eye.  Also, Journey into the Mystery 112 where Thor runs the entire length of New York in a "heartbeat".  How about when Thor fights Thialfi at super speeds in the second volume of Thor?  I will get the correct citations shortly as I am currently going by memory but your comment is not accurate.  Lochdale 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What have I said below? Did you read it? Thor has superhuman reflexes - he's fast enough to see a speedster and snatch a weapon. He, has not, however, EVER moved at superspeed since the VERY early, experimental days of Journey Into Mystery? Have you ever seen Thor move at superspeed since, or shoot lightning from his hands? The answer is a definate NO. I have every issue of Thor and while he's been super-agile in combat, there's no super speed.

Asgardian 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

From above:

On speed - Thor has divine reflexes, which means he can base minimum see the blur as a speedster moves. Thor, however, does not have super speed in the sense that Quicksilver, the Flash or even Superman do. The term, therefore, is a misnomer and confusing for readers. Thor MIGHT have been described as moving at super speed in the old JIM days, but it is a case of early artistic licence more than anything else (another example is JIM #85, in which Thor projects lightning from his hands - he's never done it since). Asgardian 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If still needing proof, cite one issue in the last 30 years, in either Thor or Avengers, where Thor actually moved at superspeed. React quickly? Yes? Move like the Flash? No. Thor can attain velocity and light speed in flight, this is different. Another example - Iron Man can fly at supersonic speeds, but does not move at superspeed at ground level because he can't. Asgardian 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand how you figure Iron Man can fly at super speed, but can't be considered as having super speed. No one's saying "super-speed running".
 * As for Thor, I do agree with you since Thor himself is not capable of flight at all, let alone super-speed flight; that's via Mjolnir, from which he just kinda drags behind.--Tenebrae 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Iron Man can fly at supersonic speed (say MACH 3) but this is a feature of his armour that is possible during FLIGHT. He's not Quicksilver on the ground, and as such doesn't have superspeed. The old Marvel Handbooks made this distinction as well - another example being the Sub-Mariner. Namor can swim at incredible speeds as this is a natural ability to which he is suited: but can't move on land at the same rate (the Whizzer from the Squadron Sinister was zipping around him in the first Squadron/Defenders battle). I admit I'm splitting hairs but the company has always made this distinction.

Asgardian 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thor flies a lot faster than Iron Man. Indeed, Thor flies at faster than light speed and he is the navigator of Mjolnir (See Thor 400).  Also, why not look to Thor's recent sword fight with Thialfi as an example of his speed?  He managed to catch and fight Hermes who is Makkari's equal in speed.  So Thor catching shells, missiles etc. is just dumb luck?  Lochdale 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see Asgardian's distinction, which I hadn't realized was in the Marvel Handbooks, and which does dovetail with the phrase "super-speed flight". My God, can we get any geekier? :-)   -- Tenebrae 07:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And the coup de grace - name at least three instances where Thor has used his super speed in the Avengers? Or even two?

Asgardian 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He has used his godblast only four times does this mean he doesn't have it? He used his speed when he fought Nefaria and when he managed to take down a SPEEDING Gladiator. What else do you need? Lochdale 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he can't. Sorry, the old JIM example is not valid for reasons already stated. Nor is an old Marvel make-your-own continuity-for-one-issue one-shot forgettable story.
 * Thor has divine and therefore superior reflexes. He can see speedsters move and anticipate. That said, I've never, never seen Thor move at superspeed in the manner of others such as Quicksilver and the Whizzer. If Thor could move at superspeed, WHY has this NEVER been shown? Why isn't Thor zipping around the block at MACH 1 in his own title or the Avengers?

Asgardian 08:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So his carving a trench at superhuman speed in Marvel Team-up is meaningless? How about his sword fight at superspeed with Thialfi? Neither where in JIM. Or when he catches Hermes (the god of speed) that shouldn't count either? It's fair to include superspeed. Lochdale 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you love it when nerds don't know they're nerds? 70.54.126.63 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge
So, the trend has been to merge Ultimate articles with regular articles. Any support for this?

See. Result was no merge. Sign your posts.Brian Boru is awesome 21:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Definately no merge. I think the Ultimates need to stay separate for reasons of length and quality control.

Asgardian 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jargon
I've noticed some back-and-forth in the superperhero box between "God blasts" and "force blasts." I'd suggest Wikipedia prefers the latter under its guidelines to not use insider jargon, and to make the text easily accessible to a general audience. --Tenebrae 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Invulnerability
I keep noticing that the phrases "near-invulnerability" and "near-immortality" pop up int he superhero box. That sounds a bit confusing to me and somewhat inaccurate. Invulnerable is a word that get's tossed around a lot in comic books and isn't really applicable nowadayse since most comic characters are actually characters instead of a collection of superhuman powers. At one point or another, all of them have suffered some sort of physical ailment whether it be Howard The Duck or Galactus. I think that a term like "superhuman durability" fits more in line. Thor, after all, is much more resistant to injury than a human, and the force required to injure him would generably be much greater, but there are numerous examples of him being injured. According to Marvel, the Asgardians are unique among Earth's pantheons in the fact that they aged. They aged much slower than humans, but aged nonetheless. Thor could be classified as extremely long lived. I think I remember reading exactly that in the older versions of the OHOTMU. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Golden Apples of Idun account for the Norse gods' longevity.

Asgardian 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it's not really an explanation about semi or near invulnerability and all that. Superhuman durability just seems to flow. As far as "near immortality", it's a phrase that could be used, unfortunately, with other characters. Wolverine, Sabretooth, The Hulk, The Abomination, basically every character that possesses some sort of accelerated healing that grants him/her comparable levels of resistance to drugs, toxins, illness, and aging that Thor possesses. Odin&#39;s Beard 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Publication history
I've returned the issue #s to the main body of pub history where they were originally before an editor just now moved them to footnotes. Publication history is not like the char biography, where issue #s are not part of the fictional reality. Pub history charts a series for a general-audience reader and is intended to have such information all in one place, rather than make the reader go constantly to footnotes. That editor has shown a distaste for publication history sections, and the change was reflective of that. --Tenebrae 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An erroneous assumption. You inserted a PH on character that has not even had a series of any kind. Given the limited no. of appearances that said character has had, and the complete ABSENCE of a PH on many, many other characters it becomes unnecessary. The Thor entry, however, still has a PH section - it is simply the formatting that has been tidied up. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to read.

Asgardian 09:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Main image
I hate to rattle this again, but has anyone noticed that in the main image, Thor looks like a friggin' maniac? Kusonaga 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Reborn
Shouldn't there be a segment here about Thor in the Heroes Reborn world. Especially the fact that there is two of them?Phoenix741 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. every single appearance of the character, especially in a variant world that was a single promotional event, shouldn't impact the page much. YOu might add it to the 'other versions' section if you can source it. ThuranX 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yea it would go in 'other versions', my main concern is why there are two Thors (ie: look at the heroes reborn cover on the avengers page.)Phoenix741 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a single sentence type thing? Something like, 'In Marvel's Heroes Reborn Event, (there might be a page, have you checked?) there were two Thors, One a XYZ, the other an ABC.' I'll leave the research and addition to you. ThuranX 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing that i have found about it ever, is from a fan site(not a reiable source) and it says that one is the Real(616) Thor while the other is the Reborn Thor.Phoenix741 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of that, I think it's only worth noting that he wa a part of the HR thingie. and nothing more without a good citation. ThuranX 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizabethan Diction
I think the character's elevated and exaggerated way of speaking is a characteristic worth nothing ("I say thee nay!"). It is commonly noted that Marvel Asgardian's use of quasi-Elizabethan English is an odd choice for supposedly Norse characters. Clconway 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. My only concern is if it's commonly noted that we find a citation. --Tenebrae 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's commonly noted in the same sense as "Scooby and Shaggy are always high" is commonly noted. You're not going to find a NY Times article on the subject. But here's some random mentions from around the web (some of which include some vulgar language):

Clconway 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://blog.tp.org/chip/archives/000739.html
 * http://www.swanshadow.com/2005/09/thor-is-not-homo.html
 * http://daveslongbox.blogspot.com/2006/04/thor-smack-talker.html
 * http://www.barbelith.com/topic.php?id=3026 (wherein Thor's Olde English parlance is cited as a unique element of the trademarked Marvel character as opposed to the public domain mythological figure)
 * http://www.samcci.comics.org/reviews/marvel-keys_pt1_pg4.htm
 * http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Thor.html


 * Nice list of sources. Unfortunately, most are blogs. The samcci.com cite might be legit, as it's expanded from a published piece... the rest only serve to show it's been noted by fans numerous times, but not that any particular dialect experts have touched on it. maybe it can be used to support a 'many fans have noted...', but those are often reverted because fans aren't citable and neither are forums or blogs. It would be good stuff to include though. ThuranX 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here would be my suggested language (inspired by the barbelith link): "Characteristics that distinguish the Marvel comics Thor from his mythological forbear include: blond hair, a clean-shaven face, and an Olde English style of speech (with perhaps some typical examples inserted here)." Clconway 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the fact that Thor speaks in an Olde English or Elizabethan idiom is an extremely notable aspect of his character and hardly requires expert testimony from a linguist. Whether or not it's "commonly noted" that his manner of speaking is "odd" is neither here nor there. Clconway 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds workable. I'm not sure it's even necessary to state it's "extremely notable", which sounds like POV and doesn't really add to the fact -- which is that he speaks in faux-Elizabethan (or is it Biblical?) dialect.
 * Clconway actually makes a good case for not talking about what's commonly noted, with the example "Scooby and Shaggy are always high". First, that's an interpretation not everyone shares. Second, that's an inference that the creators themselves would say is false. But that's just part of the Wiki learning curve -- we're writing encyclopedically, which takes grad students and professional historians time to learn, so, yeah, it takes getting used to.
 * Glad to have a thoughtful new college aboard, Clconway! --Tenebrae 03:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's definitely faux-Elizabethan or Shakespearean English (which would encompass King James Version "biblical"). Many fans call it "Olde English" (see above cites), but this has a specific technical meaning that would confuse the issue. (I think it is meant in the sense of "Ye Olde Shoppe" at the Renaissance Fair.) Clconway 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about 'stylized form of archaic speech, including Shakepearean era english pronouns, and various other constructs, such as 'verily'. IN recent years, Marvel has further distinguished his speech by use of a distinctly different font.'??? ThuranX 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Uru Hammer"
The article currently reads:


 * One element Lieber created in Marvel's Thor mythos was the description of Thor's weapon as the "Uru Hammer". While the hammer was later named Mjolnir, in accordance with Norse mythology, Lieber's made-up "uru" was eventually retconned to be the metal from which it was forged.

It takes a while for the hammer to actually be named Mjolnir, but from reading this one gets the impression that the hammer was actually called "Uru" at some point, and "uru" was later retconned to mean the metal it was made of. Unless I'm missing something, calling this a "retcon" is pretty misleading, especially as I think the first time the hammer was ever referred to as the "uru hammer" was in Journey into Mystery #92, and in issue #93 it's already made explicitly clear that "uru" is the material the hammer is made of: "Thor's hammer is made of the same magic mineral as my chains... the metal uru!", Loki says. So where's the retcon? Am I missing something?

(Anyway, I think the first time it was actually referred to as Mjolnir (well, Mjolner, but anyway) was in The Mighty Thor #137 -- before that, it was always "my enchanted mallet", "the uru hammer" or something along those lines.) -- Captain Disdain 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you might be right -- I'm not sure Lieber ever meant to hammer to be named "Uru." I'm all for rewording the reference, particularly with the specifics you give. (Some of it might be in a footnote, to avoid clogging.) Nice catch. --Tenebrae 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm positive that he never wanted to name the hammer "Uru". (If he had, he wouldn't have been so quick to explicitly state that uru is a metal.) Hmm. Now that I think about it some more, I'm not sure that part is relevant to the article at all, particularly since there doesn't really appear to be any retcon. We could just clip that bit out entirely and move it elsewhere -- a mention of Lieber's contribution might be more appropriate at the actual article about uru. -- Captain Disdain 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the DVD "Mutants, Monsters, and Marvels," which is basically a long interview of Stan Lee by Kevin Smith, Lee says that Mjolnir is a completely made-up name. I'll have to look at the DVD again, but I believe it just came out of a conversation he was having with one of his writers or artists.  If Mjolnir is the hammer's mythical name, Lee is (or was) apparantly unaware.  Hackysackninja1 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to "Publication history"
Okay. So, I removed the uru hammer bit, as discussed directly above, but I also made some other changes to the stuff there was. Namely, only Larry Lieber was mentioned as the early series scripter. He did script nine of the earliest issues, but Robert Bernstein scripted another five after that. From that point on, Lee took up the scripting reins for a pretty long and definitive run. I think not mentioning Bernstein would be a little misleading there, so I fixed that.

I also added a mention of Joe Sinnott to the bit about the artists -- Don Heck, who is already mentioned did draw three issues, but Sinnott did five. Al Hartley of Archie fame also did a single issue, and I mentioned this as well. Anyway, you can see the changes I did. (I'd also like to work in a mention of how dramatically you can see Jack Kirby's artwork develop from the first time he drew Thor to how Thor looked when he left the book some years later, but frankly, I can't work up the energy to phrase that in a suitable NPOV manner or hunt up a reference right now.)

From that point on, I wrote up new stuff: I pretty much fleshed out the main points of Thor's publication history, as far as the creative teams go, but I had to stop at 1996, because that's pretty much where my knowledge (i.e., access to the actual issues) of this stuff ends. I made a clean break at the end of DeFalco's run, because after that, it looks like the creative team changed every couple of issues.

If someone wants to butcher my stuff or anything, go right ahead and hack away! It just struck me as a little silly that the "publication history" bit included only a little bit of stuff about the very beginning, in the early 60's, and then pretty much jumped right to the "Heroes Reborn" stuff in the mid-90s! Comments are obviously welcome.

Oh, and for references about Simonson's run's critical acclaim, I used this review at popimage.com and this column at Silver Bullet Comics. We could do better for those, though -- I'm pretty sure the Comics Journal did a story on him back when he was doing Thor, for example. -- Captain Disdain 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, I realize that the publication history bit is pretty bare bones right now. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more about the Lee/Kirby years, for example, as well as the long Buscema run. I decided to err on the side of brevity, however... -- Captain Disdain 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotta say, nice comprehensive additions. I'm going to close up some of the one- or two-sentence paragraphs for cohesiveness, but I ain't touching a word! --Tenebrae 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image blues once again
I have to agree here that the classic shot if best. The promotional verison is just that - promotion. It is subject to change. We went through this over at the Avengers page. It has to be a concrete change that is going to stick, not just a flash in the pan look for a few issues. Also reduced the size of two images as they were too big and overwhelming the text.

Asgardian 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one though that thinks Thor looks like a beserk madman in this boxpicture? Kusonaga 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He is battle ready, but yea if the new Thor series confirms that that is Thor, then we should use the new picture, till then, stick with this one.Phoenix741 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look battle ready to me, that look a friggin' madman on the prowl. There's got to be something better we can use in the meantime? Kusonaga 10:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Asgardian for once, as well as with the Comics Project guidelines that say the long-established look be used. The Project does not use Superman Blue / Superman Red from Superman's post-death days, but the traditional uniform. Also not the black Spider-Man costume. It's encyclopedic to use the look that is overwhelmingly in four decades of comics and reprints and hardcover collections, etc.
 * That said, if the Deodato image is too melodramatic &mdash; I don't have an opinion on this &mdash; then there are multitudes of other classic images. There's this, for instance, or this with Kirby, or this if you like a nice John Buscema. Here's Ron Frenz, who had a long run. Just some examples. The Thor images on any of these covers can be isolated with Photoshop.--Tenebrae 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are 40 years worth of covers with Thor swinging Mjolnir; calling down lightning etc. The current image doesn't have a very colourful background, but it's not awful.

Asgardian 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote for option 2 (the Kirby cover). It showcases the key design elements nicely. Clconway 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with all of them (although my official vote goes to Kirby as well) as long as we get rid of this one. I know this seems rather irrational, and Deodato draws a nice picture, but to me the Thor currently in the SHB looks like the Joker got ahold of him. Kusonaga 13:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with changing out the image, and while kirby's 'classic', he's also far more simplistic than many readers would expect, given the 30+ years since that era. Modern artists often include more details. (I'm not ripping Kirby, I love his work aesthetically, but not for a single informative image.) I'd prefer image three, as the copy reads with the sort of generic flavor of a Thor story, and the image gives more clarity and detail about his 'traditional' appearance. ThuranX 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Survival in Space
Thor is seen surviving in outer space unaided inummerous times. This is not mentioned at all

I think you should mention the new ongoing Thor series starting on July by Michael Straczynski and Olivier Coipel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.28.54 (talk • contribs)
 * It's already mentioned in the article. --Tenebrae 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate Thor
Ultimate Thor should be merged into the main page as the character is only a different versions of the same character. If this makes the page too long, a companion page for all alternate versions should be created similar to what Wolverine (comics) has with Alternate versions of Wolverine 69.182.78.104 06:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: It'd probably make the page too long, but I don't see why the character shouldn't have his own article. Most alternate versions of characters usually appear in one-shots or a 3 or 4 issue mini-series and then that's usually the last that they're heard of. Ultimate Thor is part of an ongoing monthly series, or he was the last I heard. As a result, the character is involved in various ongoing storylines, plot twists, and all the little bits and bobs that make up a comic book character. I admit that I don't really keep up with the Ultimates and, if the title has been cancelled, then maybe I could see merging the articles since there'd be no more Ultimates storylines. Odin&#39;s Beard 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be consistancy on how pages are organized. I believe the reason they were originally kept seperate was beacuase there were questions of whether or not Ultimate Thor was a variation of the real Thor.  Since it has now been proven that he is, there is no longer a need to have seperate pages for the same character.  Like all other Ultimate characters, this should be merged.  69.182.78.104 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

-no merge - too long of an article, distictly different characters, already nominated for merge and not merged as reflected here. 66.109.248.114 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion regarding(Merging Alternate Versions of Characters)


 * No merge. Seperate and distinct characters.  Lochdale 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. The personality differences can be summed up succinctly, the plot summaries for Thor's actions are in the Ultimates page, and thus the section only needs to give any detail to those major plot areas regarding Thor, which are minimal for Volume one, and a paragraph's worth for Volume 2, mostly detailing how Loki's actions relied upon his deceptions keeping Thor sidelined, and the ensuing reveal that all of Thor's claims were true. ThuranX 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No merge. The two characters are different. They do not appear in the same universes. I don't see why they should share the same page. It is not the same story, nor the same continuity, nor the same universe. A distinction has to be kept between Thor and Ultimate Thor. Moreover, it would make an article much too long. Halpheus 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lightning?
Is Thor immune to lightning strikes or can it knock him out? Couldn't tell from the article's power section. Artemisboy 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and no... normal lightning, sure. Heck, he gets struck by lightning during his transformations from Blake to Thor and vice-versa.


 * But Thor himself has stated that he can create ("the purest of") lightning that can even kill him. Sorry, I forget what issue.


 * RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 19:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Images, images... (sigh)
I'm not going to get in an edit war over this (I don't even mind the image, really), but, in spite of clear requests not to act without seeking consensus, Moshikal and BlueShrek have changed the Infobox image (again). Discuss... Clconway 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this Image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thor_1.jpg . Phoenix741 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That image represents a new change in costume, not the classic style, which is what WP:COMIC guidelines call for. Further, the cover shows the full body frontally, also a part of the guideline. As such, it's clearly more valid, and should stay. ThuranX 04:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the image also, but since it mentions Galactus, the article itself should have at minimum, a link to Galactus' article. Lots42 08:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with ThuranX. Kusonaga 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with ThuranX. It's also Jack Kirby, for god's sake (so to speak). --Tenebrae

Ok, now that I think about it, the older image works because of the old costume, but would anyone object to me adding a pic of Thor in his new costuem? Phoenix741 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, somewhere in the article there should be an image of Thor in his new costume.--Tenebrae 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * DonePhoenix741 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * good. Now, the next time blueShrek reverts and demands 'talk', we can point him to here, where we have consensus. Ironically, he didn't talk at all. ThuranX 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The new Thor image is doing to get deleted by the copyright patrol unless whoever uploaded it adds some information to its image page -- primarily, a URL for the image source, and a fair-use rationale, which I would guess in this case to be "promotional image distributed by copyright holder for use in publications" or somesuch.
 * Also, we can't say "new", per WP:DATED; better to say, "2007 costume." Also, the artist(s) need(s) to be credited. Oh, yeah, and please move to the left -- images shouldn't look off the page, per basic Graphic Design rules. --Tenebrae 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

image was to the left.Phoenix741 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry; meant the right. I went ahead and moved it, and also made it default-sized.--Tenebrae 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I made it left cause the other image above it was on the right. Thought I would make sense to keep it with the whole left-right-left-right, way that the images seem to go.Phoenix741 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sensible, but actually coincidence, LOL. Nice work though, and glad we got through that. There are a bunch of image use guidlines, and more so for some of the Wikiprojects. thanks for continuing to work on the page. ThuranX 04:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We can do better than a shot from a reprint folks. I found a better actual COVER of that transition in moments. It is clearer as it actually states "Thor" on the cover and you have full body shots of the characters - which are necessary. Think it through before reverting.

Asgardian 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can do better than a highly stylized, black and white oriented cover scan; in fact we had. The previous image showed the colors clearly, and the transformation, which was never asked about, nor consensus sought on. I'm reverting. I did think about it, and explained once why your choice was being reverted.ThuranX 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That cover will suffice, as it is better than the reprint attempt. You forgot, however, to change the caption which I have covered.

Asgardian 11:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Image Problem
The main Thor image also features Galactus in the background. But Galactus is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Tres confusing for the newbie. Lots42 02:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it is Thor, and in that issue he is with Galactus.8-/, really not confusing at all.Phoenix741 02:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Acutally, I support this. There are a number of other full-frontal shots of Thor without another character in the background that can, and should be used. It is confusing for a new reader.

Asgardian (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you can find one be my guest, if I have some time, I can look for one. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * #334 is in the SHB for a trial, as it has no distracting background characters and features the Blake to Thor change, which is once again in vogue with the current series. The short of Thor is also very clear.

Asgardian 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You tried this before, we said no. It's clear an RfC doesn't clue you in. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. wreck it freely.ThuranX 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't wreck it. But as ThuranX says, this was discussed already. Please do not make unilateral changes to SHB images. --Tenebrae 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it really has to be an image with no background characters. Is this a better that clearly shows Thor and the change? I think there's one from the 60's, but it really needs to be something clear.

Some other choices are:


 * 158


 * 177


 * 229


 * 262


 * 272

all can be found at http://www.immortalthor.net and are fairly "clean".

Asgardian 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've substituted #272, as it provides a clear, full frontal of Thor using his powers with no background distractions. There is no real rationale for having Galactus - or anyone for that matter - in the background if a clear solo image of the main character exists.

Asgardian (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Video game.
The info for the costumes is not needed, if they want to look that up the they can look on the game's page. Now I am going to revert it, and please stop this. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but it is called Discussion and not the ultimatum page for a reason. I suggested we discuss this matter. I think the fact that three different version of the uniform are significant and noteworthy. I am not familiar with the game, but I am pretty sure that the other playable characters don't really have this option. That Thor has this capability - a change that does nothing to alter the game stats and is there to illustrate differences in hwo the character's appearance has altered over time - is noteworthy. That you think its cruft is immaterial. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * um yea they all have different costumes. Next time look on the games page. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't really know me, so I am going to do you the exceptional kindness of pointing out that being snippy with me will end rather poorly for you, as I am much, much better at The Snippy than you are. So, I would ask that you put a civil tone on your posts, if you would.

Now, I don't car about the game. I don't care if all of them have different costumes. That the character Thor has a choice of them - costumes that are canon costumes actually used within the comic run - is. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

''but I am pretty sure that the other playable characters don't really have this option. That Thor has this capability - a change that does nothing to alter the game stats and is there to illustrate differences in hwo the character's appearance has altered over time - is noteworthy.''

and by saying that they all the characters have different costumes, I completely blew your reasoning out of the water. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, as the conversation happened less than 4 inches above this, I think re-creating my text in rather unnecessary, but cie la vie for short attention spans, and all that. No it doesn't "blow it out of the water"; you will recall that i said that I am not familiar with the game, so let's avoid the semantical games, shall we? The differing costumes have no apparent effect on game play (but if this is incorrect, pls point it out), but illustrate the evolution of the costume - changes which are a reflection of the source comics. Therefore, it is noteworthy. However, if you are suggesting that the costumes are incorrect, then i could actually see why it wouldn't be noteworthy. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, 1 of the costumes if from another universe, the other is a different character, the the other 3 are not that big of changes, it is not noteworthy. And it should not be in the video games section. If you are talking about the evolution of the costume, then look at the images, that shows that very well with out the fan cruft. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask ou once again to put a bit more effort into politeness, boyo; you really don't want to go there with me. Now, are you suggesting that one of the character costumes is in fact not of Thor? This might have been important to mention at the beginning of the discussion, don't you think? As well, as you stating uneqivocally (and, of course, with citable reference) that each costume has different skill sets? If so, then it is cruft. If not, then it is noteworthy. Period. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sry I am not used to people editing comic's articles with out some basic info of the char they are editing. Here are the costumes.

1) Modern and Clasic Costume are the same powers

2) Ultimate Thor is in the Ultimate Marvel Universe (essentially a diff char)

3) Asgardian Armor is stronger, if I am not mistaken

4)Beta Ray Bill is a compleatly different char also.

now are you saying that you blindly added info with out knowing something about the char(anyone who knows Thor, should know about Beta Ray Bill) or the game itself? Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  20:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am used to dealing with editors who know ho to be a bit less dismissive and dickish.Most of my edits are grammar or content-based, which is what my revert was based upon. Additionally, I did point out at least three times that I wasn';t familiar with the game; perhaps you missed that, being involved in all the reverting. Dude, you really need to work on your delivery just a wee bit more..
 * Perhaps you might also want to spend a bit more time looking at the edit history before posting. As I didn't add it in the first place, but its removal seemed perfunctory (as 'cruft' isn't much of an explanation). Solely upon the info that Beta-Ray Bill is a separate character (an d not your sparkling personality, sport), I withdraw my reservations about the removal of the video-game notation. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I know you did not play the game, but I thought you knew something about the char, now I am ending this, as in I am not going to comment anymore cause it is going to lead to us cussing us out, which is bad. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't say I didn't know the character, but not familair with BRB. About stopping the conversation, its a smart move. ;) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Az you're both escalating into asshattery unworthy of either of you, I'll weigh in with this: Any notations about variant appearances in a video game, when the entire concept is nearly a standard onvention of the form now, ought to be considered trivia. Really. What valuable knowledge is it? Encycloedias arent' meant to be holistic, but to provide the valuable info. That he is considered recognizable enough to be included in the game is worth including as a measure of the character's populatrity nad such. The use of unlockable variants isn't. Big deal. For that level of trivia, people can undoubtably find tables on the net listing characters and their varied variant skins. It should be dropped from most pages. I could see noting that BRB is a variant skin on his page, but not here. ThuranX 06:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll find on most pages that mention M:UA that the appearance is all that is noted. That is all that relevant for the character specific pages. Anything else can be posted on the M:UA page if necessary. Thor's appearance in the game is relevant, but not what possible costumes he can wear.

Asgardian 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New thor.jpg
Image:New thor.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 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Longevity vs. Extended lifespan
I really don't want to get in the middle of this dispute, but it's been going on awhile and keeps cropping up here and elsewhere. Forgive me if I'm missing some nuance, but doesn't "longevity" in fact mean "extended lifespan"? Generally in writing, especially in concise tables, you don't use two words when you can use one. Just saying. --Tenebrae 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * to me, Longevity tends to refer to the measure of a lifespan, whereas 'extended lifespan' refers to a battery or lightbulb which doesn't need changing for 4 years instead of 6 months, making Longevity a category of measure of a characteristic, not unlike Durability, which may be limited, like an ice sculpture, or extended, like a bronze sculpture. I support Extended Lifespan, or even Mythic Immortality, referring to the fact that though his body may die, the concept has returned repeatedly in a new physical incarnation. ThuranX 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with "Extended Lifespan" is it's ambiguity. Thor's lifespan is "extended" compared to who or what?  Listing longevity among Thor's numerous superhuman attritubes is pretty clear cut.  Notice how the abilities listing reads:  Superhuman strength, stamina, reflexes, durability, and longevity indicating superhuman longevity with less wording, it's more succinct and concise, IMO. Manssiere 22:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Brevity is to be valued, I agree. But not at the expense of accuracy. Since we don't know that he's actually Immortal, indeed hes' been shown to die, and return from death in a new body (that is, walking out of the realms of death into the living world magically; not seeing his body get back up, dust itsef off and walk away. As for 'compared to who or what?' to the average human, of course. I don't really think that was ever really in doubt. A better issue might be 'what is the duration of "extended"?' that is, doese that indicate an extra 25 years, or 250, 2500? Perhaps backtracking down the list or category of superpowers might help find something more accurate. As a diety, or alien, or remedial celestial, depending on the version of his origin you find, it's probably better to use Immortality, then use the article to explain that he's returned from death repeatedly, and his diety-nature as a concept means he can't really ever be thoroughly destroyed. Luckily we can take our time with this. ThuranX 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm having a little trouble following all this. But I can say that as far as Webster's goes, the primary definition of "longevity" is "a long duration of individual life". I'd have to go with Manssiere's reasoning on this one, with all due respect to my colleague ThuranX.


 * And actually, this discussion might have larger ramifications. I think we could do a lot of good bringing this to the WPC Editorial Guidelines talk page, where we might be able to form a Project-wide consensus on a common concept (Sub-Mariner, Doctor Strange, Loki, etc.) that seems to appear in non-uniform ways in the SHBs. What do we think? --Tenebrae 05:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably a good way to get wider consensus. However, in submitting the question, I feel it really needs mention discussing that different origins affect the outcome in terms of power. For example, Doctor Strange certainly has an extended lifespan, as he will die, as the ancient one did, but it may take a few hundred years. Namor too will die, but his genetics mean it will take longer. Heck, even Nick Fury and Steve Rogers have slower aging than normal humans due to the super soldier serums in their blood. On the other hand, Loki and Thor are dieties, and thus exist both as 'mortal forms' which we've seen 'killed', only to have new mortal shells reform as housings to the ideas, the concepts of the diety. This also has wider implications, because it needs to be determined whether such a guideline would apply to all comics, or all marvel comics? the dieties in Marvel function differently than those of DC, wherein Neil Gaiman's Sandman distinctly explored the ties between worship and survival of a god, making it even harder to examine.
 * I wonder if I didn't hit somethign back there. Fury, Namor, and Strange all WILL die. Nothing specifically says Thor will die, except perhaps for his destiny in Ragnarok, which he's managed to survive a couple times, thanks to the 'magic' of marketing executives, who cast many many spells of 'bottom line'. BUt if it's fairly well canon that a distinct and permanent death awaits, that would probably be grounds for 'extended lifespan', and by the Webster's definition above, Longevity might be fairly interactive with that. ALternately, since Strange has a magical, and namor an effectively 'alien' origin with a lifespan of probably centuries, 'Longevity' might work better there, whereas Fury's slower but noticable aging, (he's about 90 - assuming a birth in about 1915 to make him the 25 or so he looks to be in many old Howlin' Commandos stories - but looks what, 50ish? maybe a 2 years to one of apparent aging?) so maybe he makes it to 120, 140? would put him in the 'extended lifespan'. Extended also is suggestive of an alteration, which the injection of the adulterated SuperSoldierSerum would be, whereas the 'Longevity', by it's dictionary definition seems suggestive of an inherent capacity, thus genetic like namor, or associated with the power of Sorcerer Supreme. Both still result in death. Thoughts? (finally ,if you open the big discussion, Tenebrae, let me know so I can cut n paste this argument, thanks) ThuranX 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 'in Other Media' merge
A random IP added a merge tag, but provided no discussion on the matter. As that article was previously deliberately spun off from this one for space considerations, I am reverting the tag. If the IP wants to revisit the matter, that editor can reply here. ThuranX 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Other media merge

 * merge/nom- I propose a merge at this point, as the Thor in other media is only a few paragraph's long, and was needlessly culled to for "size purposes." The section is not complete enough to merit its own article and the Thor article is not nearly long enough to need such an extraction, when it could simply be managed by some conscientious editting or the character history.  The problem lies in that to make the Thor article complete, there needs to at least be a summary of his appearances in other media, which due to the small size of that section/article is better simply incorporated in full back into the article. 66.109.248.114 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the current Thor article is 29.2Kib long, while Thor in other media is 5.5. I am fully aware that the merge would give the page a size of 34.7Kib, but feel that the other media section is not the section, that will remain a problem.  A focus of the character biography would serve this article better, rather than the current removal of the small other media section. 66.109.248.114 19:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This sort of discussion is what you should have done the first time you added the tag. If you think you can find a way to include the list, which is the current vogue for 'other media', and a good paragraph form, then I suggest getting to it. Give us something to work with back here to build a consensus version of, and let's see what happens. ThuranX 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The current suggestion is clear for "the list" to be incorporated ast it was before into the article, thus the merge tag.  As for suggestions for the rest to the article, those too were placed above; however, my focus is the "other media" in the context of the article, which again is a vote for merge. -66.109.248.114 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, a restatement of the first time you said it But what, exactly, do you propose we do? just cut and paste it back in? or do you have an actual idea to go with here? ThuranX 01:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do suggest cutting and also the action of the paste, as well. I also suggest that a redirect be place on the "Thor in other media page."  -66.109.248.114 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the uncivil sarcasm can stop. A simple Cut and Paste will simply be reverted, as it had consensus to be split. That you've resorted to ridiculous sarcasms instead of actually trying makes it hard to believe that you're taking this seriously. ThuranX 04:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am posing a merge. Consensus does change, I have pose this discussion/survery to clarify consensus for this specific aspect of the article.  I apologize if my tone echoes too close to that of other editors. MY vote is still for a merge, why don't we take a break and see what the input of the other editors reflects. -66.109.248.114 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thor's page is too long. We had to put the Other Media page somewhere like they did with Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, etc. 9:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtkat3 (talk • contribs)

Those pages that the unsigned Rtkat3 cited were created by Rtkat3 without, as far as I can see, any merge discussion. That editor is notorious for unilateral splits without any discussion with other editors, clearly disregarding other editors' opinions.

I've asked him to post at WikiProject Comics/Notice Board, but judging from that page, he so far has refused to do so.

Merge -- Tenebrae 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was improperly divided when split, failing to acknowledge the text source as set out at the guidelines on Summary Style, a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. If it is determined through consensus that the material should be divided again, please be sure to note in the edit summary that the text has been split from this parent article. Until then the article has been merged. - 66.109.248.114 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral splits and merges
Hi. Just a friendly reminder that we're all a team here, cooperating with each other and soliciting input on major article changes. If we think that splitting off a section, for example, is a good idea that will stand up to scrutiny, we do a posting at WikiProject Comics/Notice Board. If there's no objection after a week or so, then go for it. There's no merger or split here so time-sensitive it can't wait a week for consensus. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good trims
As I complimented User:Asgardian even in our Arbitration, I compliment him again on what look like very good trims of POV, NOR and fancruft just now. With all sincerity, -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted and thank you. My "bugbears" of recent months have been these questionable Almagam mentions and a certain other user who keeps trying to slip the story of a video game into profiles. Passion for the characters is a fine thing, but without standards these entries are no better than the fluff on the Marvel site.

Asgardian (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I've kept your trims to the NB section but just retained a mention of why Odin was not restored.

Asgardian (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:THORV2007POST VAR.jpg
Image:THORV2007POST VAR.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 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thor55.jpg
Image:Thor55.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) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Live-action film
Before people assume I'm here creating an edit war, I'm just explaining why I reverted User:Asgardian's edit that had a lot of that section removed. Even though Vaugn is said to no longer be on board to direct, that information is still useful for the inevitable Thor (film) article, which will be made once filming begins. It'll help add the development of the project. So please keep that section as it is, along with verifiable updates. It's for the greater Wikipedia good. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Put in the Avengers Film section, and it really will be for the greater Wikipedia good. What I trimmed it to is just the facts, and enough for the Thor article. If the Thor film happens, all the extras can go there.

Asgardian (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to edit-war, but the Avengers film series page is strictly for the development of that film, and covers events that lead into it. Even then, the article is still in limbo about its foothold. Furthermore, every comic book character's film development that occurs is done on their character's article, up UNTIL the point of filming (this goes for characters who are just starting, and don't alraedy have a film series to cover events in). By dismissing taking aboard all information on the film now in Thor's own article, you may well force less early development information to be in the final piece. This just means people will waste time researching information to make the article good and more encyclopaedic, when it could've been kept track of right now whilst the references are their. That's your choice. I'm going to bring it back one last time, then I'll leave it as per whatever you do after. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't be bothered. Choose as you will. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of Thor Clone
Not the true Thor, and given a badly written caption. Take a look at the others to see how its' done. Thank you.

Asgardian (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities
Thor is among the most powerful superheroes of universe marvel and the image is beatiful. Why why the image and the text come cancel to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.29.160 (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image question
I guess it would be a few years ago now, I read through this article and it had an image of Thor, Sif and Baldor where Thor was seated on a throne looking deep in thought while Baldor and Sif stood behind him. I was wondering if anyone knows this image and knows where I could find it again since it was such a cool image. Thanks in advance. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Other versions In mainstream comic continuity
This catagory should include Beta Ray Bill and Tarene aka "Thor Girl." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.134.5 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Odinforce
Does Thor still have possession of the Odinforce? I don't recall it being mentioned in the current Thor series, though I may have missed it. It's listed in the P&A section as well as the superhero box but the reason I brought it up has to do with the events of Hulk #5. The Red Hulk beat Thor like a rag doll and left him lying on the moon and I would figure the presence of the Odinforce would make the battle less one sided.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Thor that it has fought the red hulk did not have the odinforce. laws here:

http://en.marveldatabase.com/Thor_Odinson_(Earth-616)#Weaknesses

"However, after the final Ragnarok and Thor's subsequent reappearance, he no longer possesses the Odinforce. He does however possess a lesser version of the power dubbed the Thorforce"

Writer-editor Stan Lee described Thor's genesis as following the creation of the Hulk:

“ [H]ow do you make someone stronger than the strongest person? It finally came to me: Don't make him human — make him a god. I decided readers were already pretty familiar with the Greek and Roman gods. It might be fun to delve into the old Norse legends.... Besides, I pictured Norse gods looking like Vikings of old, with the flowing beards, horned helmets, and battle clubs. ...Journey into Mystery, needed a shot in the arm, so I picked Thor ... to headline the book. After writing an outline depicting the story and the characters I had in mind, I asked my brother, Larry, to write the script because I didn't have time. ...[A]nd it was only natural for me to assign the penciling to Jack Kirby....[2]

I own the book "Excelsior!: The Amazing Life of Stan Lee" and it's not true the first sentence referring to the hulk. In fact there is no scan in the note, why ? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.124.186 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In the latest Thor (#602), he has to give up the Odinforce to allow Dr. Strange to fix Mjolnir. This also ultimately bonds Thor to Mjolnir to the point where if it were to get damaged again, he would die. Red Hulk didn't really beat Thor like a rag doll, he just managed to piss Thor off and then Thor came back and kicked the shit out of him until green Hulk took over in the battle since it was a personal vendetta.

69.203.215.36 (talk)

Fan summaries
Passion for characters is a fine thing, but we can't have huge summaries about the life and times of a character, as there is no place for it on Wikipedia. As these articles need to at least attempt to be encyclopedia standard, we just convey the gist, and even then it must be sourced, in the correct tense, have no point of view etc. Asgardian (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Asgardian is absolutely correct. Indeed, he's reiterating some of the most basic policies of Wikipedia. I stand behind him on this. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

'Powergrid Rating'
An IP editor placed a comment about the 'powergrid' rating system in the powers and abilities, linking to marvel.com. I removed it the first time, because last time I checked, marvel.com/universe is another wiki, but the IP has re added it stating that it is actually marvels rating, along with a fan rating. I remember that there were issues with marvel.com/universe in the past, has this changed? I won't revert again until a consensus forms. Templarion (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the current handbook ratings are Marvels official ratings, as mandated by editorial (Tom Brevort), and Thor here only received a 7 in strength, although he also had 6 in durability and energy-projection (Possibly flight speed as well. I don't remember, although he's level 3 in actual movement). Thus it is highly unlikely that this is not a fan-mandated Wiki, and handbook ratings are regrettably mostly prohibited. The latest (now unavailable) RPG ratings were more precise in regards to actual power levels in various areas (As opposed to the nature of those powers, as is the case with energy projection. Additionally the grid goes far higher), but there was some trouble with that as well. Dave (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted it is Marvel's official wiki (and a closed one where entries have to be "approved" - although I don't know the details) the problem is we don't use such power ratings. They are purely abstract and in-universe, which violates WP:WAF. For the official guidelines see: WikiProject Comics/Style guidance. This is based on broad consensus and has been gone over a number of times - feel free to raise this over at WT:CMC if anyone feels strongly about it, but such things will be removed until the consensus changes. (Emperor (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I just wanted to verify before I removed it again. Thanks! Templarion (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me adding a line at the end of the section in the 'invisible' format stating that in-universe statistics are not to be used, including OHOTMU and POWERGRID? Something along these lines:  Templarion (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. I did the same thing for the Film section. Asgardian (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In other media

 * There seems to be some disagreement on wether to use lists or prose in this section. Lists seem to be the appropiate for these sections, see Superman in other media for example. However I do recognize the importance of possibly distingushing the planned Thor and Avengers films due to the films greater notablilty. I have created this sandbox to see what this layout might look like, please check it out and leave any comments or suggestions here or if you think the page is fine as it is. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks much better to me, though I would just mention the Avengers film in the Thor film section. There's still not much known about it, let alone about Thor's involvement. Otherwise I think the change would be for the better. Friginator (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the change. If you want to combine the Thor and Avengers film sections, maybe they could be bulleted together under the heading Marvel Studio Films and change the Lions Gate Films header to Marvel Animation Films. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the inclusion of Nick Fury in the section? There has been fighting about that. I don't think it belongs there, I think it belongs in his article. Spidey104 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just created another topic about this and will answer this question there. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Focus of the Thor (film) section
Yes, this section should be breif but it is there to give the general public a short but general sense of the film including key delevopments which in turn includes CONFIRMED casting at least until principle photography begins. At that time this section can be given its own article and the section in this article can be scaled back even further if you like. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick Fury is a part of this project and thus makes his casting notable in this section. Again at least until the Thor film is given it own article. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick Fury is notable on the Nick Fury page. That's where it belongs. Again, the article can't be used to carry extraneous information about the project. Just go ahead and create the page, as there will only be more information. Asgardian (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this change to a separate article. (I'm posting this comment in case anyone disagrees, so that my opinion is already voiced.) Spidey104 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Today's edit
Among the reasons I gave in my edit summary is that "writer-editor" Stan Lee is less accurate and less specific than "plotter-editor," since Larry Lieber wrote the script, which is also writing. Also, while Kirby may have plotted Thor's debut, I don't know that it's been confirmed Marvel was doing "Marvel Method" at that very early stage. We need to have a citation in order to call Kirby co-plotter (and change Lee's status from "plotter-editor" to "editor and co-plotter"). -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine, just swapped the last two sentences around so that it reads like the other articles, and retained 2nd para. Also, the Family Tree is a tad bizarre and smacks of trivia. No other character has one listed. I can't see a real case for inclusion. Asgardian (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Organizing of the article
I'm a starting Marvel comics collector looking into collecting Thor comics, but having some trouble starting...

In the article for Amazing Spiderman, there is a clear list of which series and which issue there are of the whole Spiderman line. Like Bibliography of Spider-Man titles and, with a lot more work: List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics

Could such a bibliographylist be made for Thor? Or is there a source somewhere else that I haven't found? Robin.lemstra (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously? I'd say that you shouldn't start collecting. It's a very bad habit that eventually turns into heroin, as most Marvel (and to a lesser extend DC) books are constructed to leave virtually no satisfaction, incoherent nihilism, bad quality, an urge for more to fill the void, and neverending unsettled subplots, rather than concrete self-contained enjoyable storylines. It's much better to find lists of recommended and enjoyable complete "Best Picks" stories involving either Thor or other characters instead. Read for entertainment, and never ever become a collector. It's a horrible state of being. Collections of the Simonson run is an idea, or if you want some plain enjoyable modern comics, regardless of source, try One Piece. It's the most popular comic in the world right now, and most people seem to like it. Dave (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, thanks for the warning, but I think I'll take my chance. I'm not gonna go for a complete collection since the start of the series, just following it from where I start, and maybe back to a good starting point. For Instance: I started collecting Spiderman, and decided to start my collection at the Brand New Day series, since the Spider-man continuity basicly got reset. For Thor Volume 3, the story also starts at a very accessible point, and getting my 'fix' in little $3 portions every week/few weeks just works for me. Also, with One Piece, I think I'll just watch the anime.Robin.lemstra (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, going by your user page you've got a similar diagnosis to my own, so believe me when I say that this stuff is extremely harmful and almost impossible to break from to autistic-add people like ourselves and literally worsens both along with eventually inducing schizophrenia. Seriously, stick only to self-contained enjoyable collections. The neverending drug effect has a much stronger effect once started and getting pumped full of the combined values of Nietsche and Mussolini, along with being painted as the default bad guy (due to the lack of lobby groups people with mental handicaps or illnesses are much more convenient to attack than, say, anyone with a suntan, even though it's a technically far more evil attitude than regular racism) in most of them isn't exactly building up a good fundamental self-esteem. Then again, Simonson has stated that he thought that Apocalypse was right, so good quality, but more of the usual self-destructive values ingraining themselves, and the other extreme of isolationist "us versus them" murderous hatred in the X-Books (or movies) isn't remotely constructive or sympathetic either. Basically: Run. Dave (talk)

I suppose someone could he they took the time but to get you started heres the print for the regular series not including limited series, one shots and annuals;

Hope that helps. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Journey into Mystery vol. 1, #83-125
 * Thor vol.1, #126-502
 * Journey into Mystery vol.2, #503-513
 * Thor vol.2, #1-85
 * Thor vol.3, #1-12, #600-present
 * Thank you, it does actually, would it be a good idea to place this in the article? Would look great in the 'Publication information' box. Robin.lemstra (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)