User talk:J Greb/Archive Nov 2008

Character infobox
I like it - I was going to suggest something similar (also for titles) but thought it might be a little cheeky or tricky to do. (Emperor (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC))


 * It's a little esoteric... and the main character 'box, as well as the title/series one, have the issue of absolutely needing the override. I figured "Test it out on the smallest first. See if it works..."
 * There's still going to be an issue of editors adding wrong cats... such as "Dick becoming Nightwing" as a "debut". But I think that would happen anyway.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well quite - you always have to have an eye out for someone misunderstanding something - on that note... I reverted my change to Ant-Man, as you say it makes sense on an alias page. ;) (Emperor (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

Categories
Is there a reason that it automatically categorises to Category:Fictional characters in comics? I thought that that was supposed to be a "parent" with all articles sorted in subcats by publisher (at least)? - jc37 07:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It actually needs the subcat field entered otherwise it's defaulting to the parent. - J Greb (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh.
 * While I understand the value of it, categorisation by infobox seems to be something that would seem to need better documentation, or "something".
 * Is there any way we could subst some sort of commented prompt for editors so that they would know to add subcats? - jc37 17:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this while I've been under the weather.
 * I've got a feeling an "opt in" model would work better, That is "If sortkey is present, the template generated the relavant cats." It isn't that hard of a fix, and, especially with 4000+ character articles, it allows for a "work in progress" model like the image. - J Greb (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does sound better. - jc37 06:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC) - [And sorry to hear that you've been under the weather...] - jc37 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been re-codded and seems to be working right now. - J Greb (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Supervillian pushing IP.
Please review the IP's contrib log, and talk page. You'll see the vast majority of the IPs edits are of that ilk, and he's been warned excessively, even with custom, non-templated warnings, that his edits are not acceptable. Please block ,or ask an uninvolved admin to review and block. I reverted a stack of those last time, nad now you have, and we shouldn't have to, or let someone else, revert them again. ThuranX (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image help
I know you are snowed under chasing the Fairusebot (and not feeling well!!) and didn't want to throw more work your way but I am stumped as to the tiny, tiny message that cropped up when I added the photo to Liam Sharp. Liam has uploaded it to the Commons site and it looks OK there (and there are no speedy deletion notices there) and it might be that I have messed up the code or... something. Anyway thanks if you can help - if not I'll throw it out to a wider audience but it seemed like the kind of thing you could quickly resolve (or give me pointers on resolving it). (Emperor (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC))


 * deletable image-caption was sitting in the caption field... - J Greb (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn. Can't believe I missed that. Thanks for spotting it. (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

Jeph Loeb
Hi. We may have a consensus discussion on our hands. Can you offer your opinion on it here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Another set of eyes if you don't mind...
This - User talk:DrBat - popped up on my watched list. And in looking at it it seems a very sideways situation.

I've laid out my reasonings in a thread there to the blocking admin, but I'd appreciate an "older hand" taking a look to see if I'm missing anything.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It popped up on my watchlist too.
 * I was waiting to see how the second unblock request would be resolved, but then you placed your comments, so then, I was waiting for Jossi's response.
 * If there is no response in the near future, I may assess the unblock request myself. (Something I nearly did several hours ago.) - jc37 16:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi did respond to my initial comment... and to be honest it made things look worse IMO. I've asked for a little more clarification, but... - J Greb (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's what I was referring to in my second-to-last sentence. - jc37 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... my bad... (wondering if that qulifies for taking a Homer moment out of petty cash...) - J Greb (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Doctor sort
Yes, I was kinda torn on that one myself. But when I saw Doctor Doom sorted that way, I went ahead and did that for several other "doctors". I think I'm leaning in your direction on this, actually. - jc37 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Doom, as well as Savage and Strong, is an odd one out. And even there I'd be tempted to sort on the full title, not just the "surname". - J Greb (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See contribution history at Doctor Druid. Though I'm wondering if "Druid" really is the character's surname? - jc37 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the tone of the article and what I remember of the OHOTMU? Yup. But then the character was also "re-purposed" and renamed when Marvel got back to him.
 * The more I look at this, the more I'm tempted to say we reserve the "surname sorting" to the articles clearly titled with full, Western style names. I believe a general reader is more likely to look for "Sgt Rock" or "Doctor Strange" under "S" and "D" respectively, not "R" and "S".
 * - J Greb (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just attempted to sort out a few characters with the title. However, I wasn't sure how to treat Doctor Doom. Shouldn't it be standardized as ? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per my above comment: I would leave it as "Doctor Doom", period. The only exception, and it's an almighty stretch, would be "Fictional doctors". (The stretch is that Doom is not presented as a physician, like Doctor Strange, or a PhD, like Doc Savage.)
 * Look at it from a general (non-comics savvy) reader using the categories to navigate to Doctor Doom. The reader is more likely to look for the article under "Doc", not "Doo". And definitely not under "V" (or "v" in your example, which adds a whole 'nother layer of problems) since the letter does not exist in the article title.
 * - J Greb (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Phantomcomics2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Phantomcomics2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TulipO'Hare.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TulipO'Hare.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GlCv2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GlCv2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GLC image
the image i used had more GLC members for new users to get introduced to, and it was also better looking.

and what is "arbitrary sub sets", are we trying to improve this wiki or are we playing games.

Retroqqq (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

...
just a mess we both submitted at the same time...

i didnt get your last words

Retroqqq (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you responding to your talk page or to the GLC talk page? - J Greb (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * yep, i did a mistake never mind, so i found that image in comicvine, I propose to add it somewhere lower inside the article, what do u think ? Retroqqq (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GLC image again
so.. if I edit the image to meet the goal of 300px can we add it then ??? Retroqqq (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the article talk page. - J Greb (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Teen Titans #66
Excuse me, but seeing as how the information comes from both the official DC site and the personal blog of writter Sean McKeever, I'd say it is applicable. I'm not in the habit of providing fraudulent information.- Drpryr (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. - jc37 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox_comics_creator
Sorry, I stumbled upon this merge discussion and accidentally stirred it up again. Apparently it was never concluded. Would you mind coming back and finishing the discussion? --Kraftlos (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth/death dates
I like what you've done with the upgrade. Before rolling it out could I suggest another feature?

The hardest bit of the template are and then switching to  and  for someone that died (and remembering that the day month order is the other way round to the one I'm used to ;) ). Not a great hardship but if you included dob/mob and dod/mod it would be possible (with a bit of fancy coding) to run this through those templates to pump out the desired result and make using those templates extremely easy.

See Jack Kirby for an example of it in use. (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC))


 * and look like they can be reasonably used... as you point out it's just a case of adding 4 paramaters and the logic to not use the templates if all the fields aren't there. I'm not sure though if the age is needed for the living.
 * As for the date order... Since the "nonUS" parameter has been added to cover "Colo(u)rist", it should be possible to have it generate the European style date default. (And I'm assuming that Wiki itself is still parsing this type of stuff for end users...)
 * As a side note, I'm 'a wondering how Pisgwithwings will take this type of tinkering... I don't think he' caught on to the area/occupation over lay or the auto catting. - J Greb (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * is the one used specifically for the living, then when they pass on you need to switch the template, add in the death adate and age and do some jiggery pokery - with it running from simple and easy to understand parameters it would make the changes effortless. The templates do allow you to do d/m and m/d formatting so I suppose you'd want to allow that somewhere but again the beauty is that you need only do it once and it works for both.


 * And yes - this kind of thing (specifically the nationality/area autotemplating) is exactly why we need a separate template. (Emperor (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC))


 * OK... I've updated the code but not the docs.
 * birthdate and deathdate are override fields now. The infobox will place anything at those fields instead of working through the birth/death templates/
 * nonUS should trigger the international standard for dates.
 * mob, dob, mod, and dod have been added.
 * And if the full "death" set is present, but the full "birth" one isn't, Death date will be used.
 * - J Greb (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice - I updated Don Lawrence and it does generate the goodies. However, it doesn't seem to be generating the categories and I am unsure the nonUS switch is working. So nearly there (and they should be easier fixes). Nice work. (Emperor (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I see the problem... as per the docs:
 * "sortkey is the field that tells the template to add the categories."
 * "sortkey" needs to be included in the template for the catting to work. It's also stuck into the Lifetime template to generate the "DEFAULTSORT" for the article.
 * Also, "subcat" needs to be there for sorting into the nationality subs. This is deliberate since "nationality" doesn't lend itself to clean autolinking to the relevant articles. - J Greb (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Small addendum... Is there a big difference between "British writers/artists" and "English writers/artists"? I updated Lawrence using the existing nationality for "subcat" and it looks like it flipped the cats... - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh excellent thanks for spotting that I'll keep it in mind.


 * English vs British? I think the distinction is personal preference - I suspect the other similar categories are more important as national identities, especially since devolution (Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish). So I don't think the difference between British and English matters that much to most people born in England but if someone was born and brought up in England they might consider it a worthwhile distinction (and some don't - in fact friends of mine very specifically describe themselves as British). (Emperor (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Alias infobox candidate?
I was just wondering about this Beetle (comics). Both Beetles have their own articles, the only exception are three college students who stole the existing suits (which sort of doesn't count). I was going to drop an alias infobox in but thought it worth checking (I'm not sure at what point it stops being applicable - when one character doesn't have their own article but has their own infobox?). (Emperor (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC))


 * To my way of thinking its in cases where the article covers one or more characters that have either 1) a substantial story arc to them or 2) the character tends to reappear. There were a few articles where I flipped the set 'box for the character one based on that (Superwoman and Harlequin (comics) were among them ... and Blue Beetle probably should be flipped as well). But there are also a fair chunk that are like Marvel's Beetle (the Black Knight, Flamebird, and Nightwing jump to mind) with one or two versions that either just appeared once or can't be/haven't been expanded beyond 2 or 3 sentences. I'd say drop the set 'box Marvel's Beetle for now, if things change, the 'box can change. - J Greb (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've added the infobox now. (Emperor (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Madelyne/Goblin Queen question
You brought up a really interesting point on the image of Madelyne Pryor..the article is about Maddie not the Goblin Queen. My question is this..when an identity is so closely tied with a character (like Jean Grey /Phoenix, Dick Grayson/Nightwing, etc) is it really possible to seperate the two? Wouldn't an image of Goblin Queen be easily id'd as Maddie than the original debut pic by Paul Smith, or the "reborn" Madelyne pic by Cruz simply by merit of Madelyne's role as the Goblin Queen in the "Inferno" story arc in X-Men. I am really curious to hear your opinion on the subject (not pushing for the image..just really interested by your comment). Justiceofthewar (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Grayson article has gone through discussions about the infobox image, part of which resulted in a consensus to use a Nightwing image over a Robin image (just as strong a connection), a sans costume image (a harder thing to find), or no image. I'd have to trust that the Grey article has had the same, even given that character has had the Marvel/X-Men penchant for routine costume "reworks".
 * As for the Pryor article, in all honesty, part of what should be hashed out is if the original, non-powered, uncostumed appearance or the Goblin Queen has the stronger weight to be used in the infobox. And as I posted there, I'm more of the mind to say the former is more relevant.
 * And with the images themselves... The Smith and Silvestri are the only ones of the actual character. The one by Cruz is, based on the information presented, either the "Age of Apocolypse" version a "near Maddie" construct. In either case it isn't the character obstensively covered by the article. And the Land one appears to go with the "Red Queen" section. Both the section and the use of the image make the assumption that the character is indeed Pryor returned from the "dead". The section is iffy since there isn't really anywhere else to put it, but passing the image off as Pryor when there is nada to support it save fan assumption isn't acceptable. - J Greb (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You have some really good points, I agree that the picture of Goblin Queen by Silvestri would be better image as there are no indications that it isn't Madelyne and the Inferno storyline makes Goblin Queen better known than non-powered Maddie(unless they retcon her again which is very frustrating). Thanks so much for talking with me Justiceofthewar (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rampage (Marvel Comics)
Can you semi-protect this article? That anon won't stop adding that Ghost Rider bit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

When is a prestige format one-shot a graphic novella?
It is a bit of a riddle. I added the comic book title infobox to Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop but it doesn't seem a perfect fit and I have also edited Aetheric Mechanics recently which is a 48-page graphic novella. Which raises the riddle.

It strikes me the answer might be "when it has an ISBN." Graphic novel is often used loosely for marketing terms but if it has an ISBN then it has been officially registered as a book which would push it out of the "long comic" definition and into the area of "short book". Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC))


 * The ISBN may be a good indicator, but there are a couple of other things that I see that need to be considered.
 * How has it been marketed? Most of the things that are published with a square binding and a heavy cover, soft or hard, are marketed in the US as either "Graphic novel" (original material) or "Tradepaperback" (reprints).
 * Is it a series or a stand alone book? I know this is different between the US and European models, but I have trouble calling Batman: The Cult or The Dark Knight Returns graphic novels. These are comic book limited series with "upmarket" printing. Batman/Houdini: The Devil's Workshop is a good example of what I would think of as a graphic novel, not a 1-shot comic.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that we should be cautious about the marketing slapping "graphic novel" on trade paperbacks to shift a few extra units but that can be easy enough to spot as they have been serialised beforehand (and really serialised graphic novels is just marketing speak - the author of Black Cherry Bombshells changed the description from webcomic to serialised graphic novel which is pushing it way further). This is trickier and I tend to agree - it is closer to a graphic novel than anything else.


 * I actually have the comic around here somewhere so will check what they call it (although as it was the early nineties they might not have bothered being too specific).


 * I'll change the infobox unless something crops up to suggest otherwise (Emperor (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

unhelpful quibbeling on tombstone
Hey bro, what's up with your "That's unhelpful quibbeling unless you have a ref for the actual ship weeks."? That edit summary on Tombstone (comics) makes no sense to me at all since I'm neither quibbling nor being unhelpful. Cooper999 (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Twofaceaeckhart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Twofaceaeckhart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Smallville s04e07.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Smallville s04e07.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2tab7.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:2tab7.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Daredevil hc 10.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Daredevil hc 10.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DDY3cover lg.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DDY3cover lg.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ddelektra.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ddelektra.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Punisher Extermal Link
Just out of curiosity...why is the 'Fictional mass murderer' category original research? The Punisher has killed many times out of malice aforethought. That's what makes him awesome. Lots42 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hulk again...
Why should not (about Hulk stuff)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.57.145 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Primary reason? The P&A section is a contentious point on the article. With that, your initial edit was reverted. At that point it's something that's very contentious, and needs to be aired on the talk page,. Not just pushed back into the article. - J Greb (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)