Talk:Thunderbolts (comics)/Archive 1

Untitled
Why is the Supreme Power roster included in this article?!? Luis Dantas 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yar. Did massive copyedit without being logged in, 1/12/06, about 5 minutes before posting this, here. Also, this article probably wants someone to go through and decide how much of this great rambling thing is relevant to the subject matter. Honeygnome 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

v New Avengers
Hi. I made an article about the New Thunderbolts vs New Avengers and would like some help with it. (I'm new and it's my first article :S) I know the Thunderbolts and Avengers have a history but this was their first encounter with the New Avengers, and with the involvement of Ms Marvel and Henry Pym I thought it was interesting enough for a seperate article. If memory serves, it's also the first time the Thunderbolts have won, but I'm quite new to the Thunderbolts title and I'm not entirely sure. So, PLEASE HELP. KellyClarksonKicks 13:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New Thunderbolts?
Now that the Tbolts have dropped the 'New' from their title, how should the categories be arranged? --DrBat 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Novels or Trade Paperbacks?
The current version of the article lists a few collections of Tbolts issues under "Graphic Novels". It is my understanding that such compilations are usually named TPBs, while GNs are for the most part new, previously-unseen stories (often in special formats). Did I err? Luis Dantas 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation not needed
I'm removing the "citation needed" marker for the statement:

"This revelation, made at the end of The Thunderbolts #1 (April 1997), is considered one of the most well-conceived plot twists in the history of American comic books."

The notation in the trivia section that it was voted "Comics' Greatest Moment of 1997" in Wizard and ranked #11 on that magazine's "25 Greatest Comics Moments Ever" is quite enough support for that statement, I believe. -- Pennyforth 17:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That needs to be cited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cited how, exactly? What more is needed? -- Pennyforth 23:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

main image
Should we make the cover for #110 be the SHB image, or wait until #110 comes out? --DrBat 22:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait. -Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trades
I reverted the removal of the trade paperback collections. Publication details are notable and I (and many others) include the collections in them as it is often difficult to find information on what each one collects (and this only gets worse with time - it might be obvious to a fan of the series but not so for someone picking up a volume years down the line from somewhere with scanty information - also links aren't allowed to Marvel's catalogue which might have helped in some cases). This is especially so here as the trades aren't a complete run but only reprint some of the issues - I know I found the whole thing a tad confusing at first and the collections section irons out those problems. (Emperor 15:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC))


 * This topic has already been discussed at the Comics Project - there is no need to go over it again on each article's talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_19. If you wish to bring it up for discussion again, please do so on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics. CovenantD 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no need for me to bring up the discussion again as that is firly clear -see the comments from Fram, Chris Griswold and Doczilla. Summed up by Chris "I think we need to clarify our stances. I've been discussing bibliographies with regard to comics character articles, which can be a problem." I also agree that this can be an issue on a characters page but this isn't one and it is legit to include here. I must assume you think the same as I notice you leave in most of the bibliography but remove the trades and there is nothing in that discussion about that. Your removing them seems arbitary and unsupported by the source you use to justify it. I'd ask you not to keep removing them until we can clarify this point. (Emperor 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

B rating
I was disappointed to see that this article was moved to B-class status. We really should maintain the quality of this post, considering its increasing relevance and popularity. Please make suggestions as to how we can improve it, and bring it up to A-class once again. (Mfaith1 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Superhuman affairs, not superhuman activities
Thunderbolts #110 and Civil War: The Initiative both clearly state that the team's working for "The Commission on Superhuman Affairs" - not the "Commission on Superhuman Activities". This may be an error by Ellis, but if so then it's a consistent one - and until we know otherwise, we shouldn't be assuming we know better and amending it in the article (and certainly not without some sort of comment. I've changed this back, accordingly. --Mrph 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many pics
The number of pics is excessive, and probably fails Fair Use guidelines. Suggestions for trimming them? CovenantD 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. They are breaking the flow and are excessive and probably do infringe guidelines. My thinking:
 * Keep: main image, team identities panel, issue #1, Avengers/Thunderbolts and #104
 * Remove: #12, #15. #30, #50, New Thunderbolts, #100 and #110
 * And even that leaves quite a few but that'd be a start. (Emperor 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Move article?

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

I know it was discussed last year, but I don't think the situation has changed much.

I propose moving this article to Thunderbolts, rather than having it at Thunderbolts (comics). Reason being, at Thunderbolts, there sits a redirect to this page. It's pretty much existed that way for 3 years with some minor changes as to where the redirect goes, but it always ends up back here. That, to me, says there isn't any article that people would be looking for other than this one, or else it would have made that page. So this page should get the main space. Does anyone disagree? Darquis 03:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No - for most of the time "Thunderbolts" has redirected to Thunderbolt which fits in with the MOS. That is a better solution. -- Beardo 02:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is pretty much it on general disambiguation guidelines and precedent. The plural should point to the thunderbolt and disambiguation (and in this case sub-disambiguation) to sort things out. The important thing is to make sure things pointing to Thunderbolts now point here. (Emperor 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Agree that Thunderbolts should point to Thunderbolt. This shouldn't move. Dekimasu よ! 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I don't see the need to have the actual title of this book be a redirect to something else. If anything, Thunderbolts should point here, and the little blurb "for information on the weather phenomenon, see thunderbolt" or something to that effect should go at the top of the article. Darquis 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EllisBolts
Condensed the Ellis-written T-Bolts section to a much more reasonable length, offering the high points of Ellis's direction for book (Norman reformed and trying to help Speedball), Moonstone evil again, Songbird arranging for Bullseye to be crippled, and pointing out the irony of the team finally being accepted by the rest of the world when internally they are at their most dysfunctional point ever. --BakerBaker 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)--BakerBaker 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we assuming that Osborn in genuine in wanting to reform, or that his motives for helping Speedball are altruistic?
 * The article's section is POV and needs to be cleaned up, imo. --Silvestris 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. As much as I like Norman, as far as I'm concerned, his 'redemption' is in the eyes of the public only. He's obviously more sane but hardly a good person. And if he really wanted to help Speedball he wouldn't have tried to put him down for fear of him becoming a liability. I attempted to give it a lookover and remove the POV/questionable information.--CyberGhostface 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thunderbolts110.PNG
Image:Thunderbolts110.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Problems
OK we have two problems with the pages images:

Infobox image
The current one was pretty much added as just a reflection of the new line-up and is pretty muddy and unclear except in a larger version. The one I just removed is another "new for the sake of new" reflection of the current line-up, which is a bad idea as it is a radical departure from the line-up that always seems to reoccur through a big stretch of the series - the original one.

To that end I'd propose a couple of alternatives for a more stable image:


 * Image:Thunderboltstrue.png, if we had to go for one we have then this would be it as it shows Zemo and the original line-up. However, there is a lot of text which makes it messy.


 * The cover of Justice Like Lightning - it has the lot, the line-up, their original aliases and their "catch phrase"

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I'd say go with the Justice Like Lightning cover, best expression the original roots. Given a choice of "new" images and lasting iconic ones, go with iconic (cf Recentism)-Markeer 13:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Main body images
There are far too many images on the page and their use can't really be justified under fair use. I mentioned a year or more ago the images that could probably go so I won't be too specific but given that the line-up is often a variation on the original team, if we have Justice Like Lightning as the main image then we can't justify the majority of images present. What I think we'd need are:


 * New Thunderbolts - Image:Ntb.png
 * Ellisbolts - Image:Thunderbolts110.PNG
 * Digglebolts - but not the solicited image as that is specifically designed to be muddy and unclear to generate speculation (see discussion on the Comics Project talk page), so I'd hold off on this until we can get a decent group shot where we can tell who people actually are.

I could also have my arm twisted about the Civil War image, as it might help reflect the fact they brought together an army of supervillains, although it does mainly prominently feature some of the core/original team so it really might not be needed (and might tend to "load" the end of the article with images - probably three + the infobox is really all we could justify).

Thoughts. (Emperor (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, I strongly support reducing the number of images, although in my case it's largely because I think the entire article needs to be severely pared down (i.e. text as well as images). I like the group, I like the comic, but in it's current form it's giving undue detail and weight to individual storylines and creator changes for a comic of it's longevity.  Compare the size of this to most other super-hero teams and this one will likely win by length.  That said, unless it IS pared back, there's an argument that keeping images that match the text throughout improves readibility. -Markeer 13:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs paring back but fair use and length of article don't go hand in hand - as it stands we seem to have an image a section granted trimming down the sections would mean reducing the number of images but the key point is we don't need an image a section, some showing minor variations on the main/original line-up.


 * I do think you should start a separate section on cutting down the plot though as the article, as it stands, is conflicting with WP:WAF and WP:PLOT, but this is a separate issue to the images and I don't want to get sidetracked in this section into discussing plot problems. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Origin of Justice, Like Lightning
See my post here on the Black Lightning discussion page for the origin of the quote Justice, like lightning. --Xero (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roster Question
I was looking at Marvel solicitations and in the background of the person who is supposed to be Nuke, there is two images of the Scourge of the Underworld. So I don't know. If someone could cite a link to prove it is Nuke that is fine. Otherwise I would delete it. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Images
There are a total of 12 non-free images, all surrounding plot summary. As this doesn't quite reflect minimal use, I would recommend limiting it to about 3. I would suggest File:Thunderboltstrue.png, File:DarkReignBolts.png and File:Thunderbolts110.PNG, which should adequately show the overall concept and different major beats of the Thunderbolts. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thunderbolts (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070319182227/http://www.the-engine.net:80/forum/index.php?webtag=ENGINE to http://www.the-engine.net/forum/index.php?webtag=ENGINE&msg=5778.2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Thunderbolts (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=1203
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061030154603/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=86724 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=86724
 * Added tag to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=145526
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206202157/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=151310 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=151310
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206203540/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=95109 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=95109
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126163051/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=92433 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=92433
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211055537/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=96554 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=96554

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

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

no consensus. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thunderbolts (comics) &rarr; Thunderbolts &mdash; According to WP:CMC naming conventions, "(comics)" should only be added when in need of disambiguation. It appears a well-meaning but misunderstanding editor at some point moved the article to this location without need. &mdash; [User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]] 06:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Move --Chris Griswold 06:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think it's fine as is. – Axman (☏) 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Thunderbolts" is just general-purpose enough a name that I don't feel at ease removing the (comics) specification. It is indeed fine as it is. Luis Dantas 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think. Google's first ten results reveal (a) the number one result is the unrelated www.thunderbolts.info, about literal thunderbolts and related phenomena, and (b) the existence of the Windy City ThunderBolts minor-league baseball team and the Lakeland ThunderBolts indoor football team, among myriad others.  As Luis implies, it's quite possible that there will soon be too many thunderbolt articles for a dab notice on top of this article to be realistic.  --zenohockey 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. See below --Newt ΨΦ 14:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Move. The naming convention is clear, and sticking to the convention will improve consistency.  TheronJ 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed with no concensus to move.

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * There is no warranty that someone or something will not name themselves the Thunderbolts outside the context of comic books. The current situation deals just fine with that possibility and does not really hinder anyone, while moving to plain "Thunderbolts" may potentially lead to lots of otherwise unneeded redirection. Luis Dantas 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there is no such article. This article used to have that title, and that title is still a redirect to the article. I honestly didn't expect any resistance to this since it's such a minor cosmetic change, but one which will bring it in line with the WP:CMC naming conventions. --Chris Griswold 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As there's no disambiguation page, I am led to believe there are no other Thunderbolts articles. The move to "Thunderbolts (comics)" from "Thunderbolts" was a tad premature. That said, I don't see a lot of need to move it back, as "Thunderbolts (comics)" will then become a redirect to "Thunderbolts" changing little. Overall, as Chris said, it's a minor cosmetic change. I see little problem with moving it, though while it puts it in WP:CMC naming conventions, I don't know that it doesn't conflict with general Wikipedia naming conventions. --Newt ΨΦ 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's mostly that I was surprised that it wasn't at Thunderbolts of that name was available. I'm really not being anal retentive about it; I saw something that could be different and possibly slightly better, and I thought I should changed it. This sort of discussion, after initiating or participating in so many, has become second nature to me.--Chris Griswold 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Typically, plurals are pointed to the singular, unless a proper name is vastly dominant over its usage as "several of the singular." The tbolt dab page already covers this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm glad I asked you to join the discussion. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.