Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: August 3 to 9, 2014 (22nd)

Shouldn't Vance Astro be considered a member of the new team? He looks to be sticking around as of solicitations for #7 and his memories gone so the people of the new team are the only ones he knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.168.213 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say wait until he actually starts going on missions with the team, as opposed to hanging out on Knowhere and only interacting with the team when they're on-station. On a related note, I've edited the page to refer to Cosmo as an ally rather than a full-fledged member, for much the same reasons, plus the fact that recent issues have shown that Cosmo's loyalties lie more with the residents of Knowhere as a whole than solely with the Guardians, which befits his role as the station security chief. He's easily the best ally the team has among the other residents of Knowhere, and is essentially the station liason for the Guardians, but he has his own responsibilites that preclude his being an active member. -- Pennyforth (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing information is all well and good, but the Fictional team history was so close-packed with them, it was nearly impossible to read the text when attempting to edit it. I added more (and more up-to-date) information to the section and tried to spread out the issue citations a bit....but there's still all those citations of Newsarama articles jammed together in the listing of the team roster in the first paragraph. Now that the series is well underway, wouldn't it be simpler to just cite issue 1 as establishing the roster? The cite for #1 in that section is already in place for the entire first paragraph--any objections to removing the Newsarama cites? The cited articles are as much character spotlights as they are identifiers of team members, anyway; perhaps they could be moved to the individual characters' pages? -- Pennyforth (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go for it - I have checked a few and they already have the links but it is worth double checking. (Emperor (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Does there really need to be a separate article for the ten members of the Guardians of the Galaxy, a team that has only existed for seven issues?--Marcus Brute (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge the two lists

List of original Guardians of the Galaxy members. It is what we do with other teams which have a range of line-ups, like the LSH, JLA, etc.. (Emperor (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC))[reply

]

• Guardians of the Galaxy (original) → Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team)

 Done--Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the team that was depicted in Thunderbolts (issue #41 or thereabouts)? -- Needscurry (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to say Marvel Studios is expected to announce an May 16, 2014 release date for the film I changed this to August 1, because Marvel announced that their Marvel Untitled fim ( which Guardians of the Galaxy is expected to be) has been moved to August 1. I'm not good with links, but I know a lot of reliable sources have comfirmed this date change, so I was wondering if anybody could put the Reference link for me? Carlandthegrit (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)  Done Argento Surfer (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting everyone know that an

With Star Lord being cast can we move the incubator to the mainspace yet? Suzuku (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general we wait until films start shooting, or have very significant coverage. The

WP:GNG, which seems like a good benchmark for us to wait for on this one, too. (That doesn't mean people should rush in to add 4 more pointless refs, haha, just wait until it happens naturally) -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Cosmo redirects here. Is there not enough information or significance to the character to have his own wiki page? I think that a character that has been in 58 sepparate comic issues would have met the requirements for it's own entry. http://www.comicvine.com/cosmo/29-49203/ http://marvel.com/universe/Cosmo_(dog) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.80.179 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for his own article, but I've changed the redirect to his entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Cosmo the Spacedog. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221174729/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=149237 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=149237
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221175320/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=156891 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=156891
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://variety.com/2015/film/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-sequel-title-1201530645/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsarama.com/22573-marvel-announces-black-panther-captain-marvel-inhumans-avengers-infinity-war-films-cap-thor-3-subtitles.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ew.com/movies/2017/02/10/the-guardians-of-the-galaxy-will-meet-the-avengers-in-infinity-war/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/comic-con-2012-marvel-movies-robert-downey-jr-349346
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172755-james-gunn-confirmed-to-direct-and-rewrite-guardians-of-the-galaxy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://marvel.com/news/story/20914/marvel_studios_begins_production_on_guardians_of_the_galaxy

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to put 2 articles on the union because of the same name, where the authors, the base, the comic of the first appearance and the composition of the 2 teams with the version of the team (1969 and 2008) will be indicated in the joint article in the infobox of the team, and in the article the story 2 commands in the fictional history of the team, but indicate to which team the story belongs (to the 2008 team or the 1969 team) and do the same to other sections in the article (publication history, other versions, compilations, in other media and others) . If the union is completed, I will report in talks of articles of other language Wikipedia (on Russian, Herbrew and Japanese) that the articles in the Enwiki are united and I will suggest that they also merge the articles.

I think this is a terrible idea, these are two completely different teams, to combine them would be like a reverse fork. I know wikipedia has an obsession with having as few article s as humanly possible but I don't know what this will acomplish.

talk) 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose Both teams are notable enough to warrant their own articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Two different teams with the same name and little to no connection. The original team's stories were set in the
  31st century and feature the distant future of the Solar System. The new team's stories are set in the present day of the Marvel Universe and they mostly feature previously established (though often underused or forgotten) characters from this setting. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - no argument is given for doing this, and I find none. Just because things have the same name does not make them the same thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm hiring you all, just suggested an idea, but with a group of
  talk) 18:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose both GotG and Champion merges. They are distinct teams/books and I see no benefit to combining the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It's clearer this way, rather than trying to reconcile two disparate storylines with constant references to the original publication dates. The only argument I can really see in its favor, is Marvel's new numbering scheme, which includes the '69 book in its count, but it's a weak argument. RevoltPuppy (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix the publication date error in the Infobox, where beneath the dates given for Volume 2, it says:

() [[in comics|]] – present

I just noticed this, and don't know how to fix it, so I thought I'd point it out. Nightscream (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's missing dates for volume 3. I added parameters, but I don't have the information handy. If you fill it in, it will fix the glitch. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]