Talk:Ultimates/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is it notable if a subsection on real-life celebrities that made cameos or were mentioned in passing in The Ultimates was included? Eaglestorm 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that this would add a little to the authenticity of how real the book is. You can state on an article that it was very realistic, but tying in character like Larry King cements that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.99.152 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's noteworthy, because a lot of comics have cameo appearances by real-life people. A section on it would imply that this is somehow specific to Ultimates, which I don't think it is. Btw, are there really that many? The only two I can think of are King and George W. Bush. Freddie Prinze Jr. was mentioned, but not really seen clearly anyway. Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the only way to save this article is a full and complete rewrite. That is, an expert rewrites from top to bottom and just outright replaces the entire article.

Lots42 06:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a mystery woman (of sorts) featured on the promotional image for Ultimates 3. This article has been frequently edited to have her listed as Storm. I believe this is merely speculation, lacking in foundation: the character does not even look like Ultimate Storm. It seems more logical that she be a previously unidentified character, either Ultimate Lorelei or Phantazia. That said, I believe it is best to leave her as "unidentified" until she is formally recognized. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.189.66 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph in the intro is, IMHO, completely superfulous. Is that how you spell the word? I vote it be deleted anywho. Lots42 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is pure speculation to state that this villain in Ultimates 3 is Magneto. Leob has never expicitly stated this and most likely showed Magneto to throw us off. Ultimate Fantastic Four showed writer's willingness to do this, and Ultimates 3 is an extremely high profile series, and the plot is being guarded closely.

The released "villain" cover to Ultimates 3 #1 prominently features Magneto and the Brotherhood of Mutants. I cannot find a direct interview that states that these will be the villains of Ultimates 3 - but to say that it is "pure speculation" seems a little unfounded in itself.

I'm sorry. Perhaps "pure speculation" is hyperbole, but it is at least partial speculation.

Just realised that this is probably Ultron, after the Iron Man "big reveal".

that's speculation, please sign your posts.`ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

why is this page titled Ultimates and not The Ultimates? Captaincanuck65 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has Naming conventions. Same reason he's at Joker not The Joker, and so on. ThuranX 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Should it be stated that solicitations revealed that in Ultimates 3 #1 one member of the team will die and that Valkyrie is a villain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.101.58 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I have added this along with other solicitation information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.79.140 (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's frowned upon to put in information about comics that have not actually been released yet. Just a head's up. Lots42 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article wants a citation for Samuel L. Jackson giving his consent for Nick Fury's look. I got a cite but I am suffering a moment of dumb and don't know how to put it in.

• http://www.samuelljackson.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=44 Lots42 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimates 3 section seems to be full of run-on sentences, according to a glance or two. I don't want to spoil myself too much because I haven't read it. So I'd rather not go in and fix it. Lots42 (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth splitting Ultimates 1 , 2 & 3 in its own separate sections? Then in each of the separate pages, sales history, reception, notable reviews can be added. The page is becoming pretty large as it is. Stextc (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the moves made by Nightscream and the splitting done by Stextc.

Moves: Based on the indecia of the comics, and the naming conventions for fictional teams, "The" shouldn't be used in the title of this article. Since the series was titled Ultimates, "The" should also not be used when directly referencing the title.

This article,

Ultimates 3

have been copy edited to correct the usage of "the" with in the articles and have been moved to reflect the proper titles.

Splits: This is a bit of a bigger issue. Last year there was a merge discussion which is archived here: Talk:Ultimates/Archive 1#Merge from List of Ultimates story arcs. The state of the story arc list at the time it was merged is here.

While splitting an article that has gotten overly long (50k+ in size is the "start thinking about it" point, no ~45k) an cannot be condensed is proper, splitting in a way that circumvents a consensus needs to be discussed first. And looking at the new article, they seem to be mostly plot/story arc summary, exactly what was condensed and merged. That is a strong argument for the two editors shepherding the splits to revert and propose splitting the two sections out. Otherwise it is likely that we will see requests to merge the 3 articles (potentially 4 if I read one user talk page comment correctly) citing no change in the consensus reached last June. J Greb (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I was not aware there was already a discussion to merge the story arcs. I did post a discussion topic here early March but did not get a response. However the split has included sales history, reviews and other developments enough to establish its own notability. It has not just been moving out extensive plot summaries (which still require additional work). Adding reviews and sales would only increase the current article to become too large. Please see

Ultimates 3 as a good example of the reception to the comic which was not present in the original Ultimates article. With enough material on the web it would be easy enough to improve each Ultimates article to something like Spider-Man: One More Day Stextc (talk

) 12:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First, lack of response on the talk isn't evidence that consensus changed. At the least a {{split}} should have been placed at each section head to draw attention to the discussion.

Second, while the article for Ultimates 3 is border line since the plot summary is just about balanced with the real world context (and that might change as issues 4 and 5 are added), both the Ultimates 2 and Ultimates "1" articles are plot summaries with window dressing. If an article is predominantly plot summary, it's going to have troubles with

WP:PLOT

.

Last, as you point out below, there are parts of this article that can be compressed or eliminated as covered in already existing articles. With that in mind, the publications, critical commentary, and reactions can be expanded here. The plot summaries are also an area where things can be condensed, with marginally important items being removed. - J Greb (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with J greb. I think this artticle should've been reevaluated for RWC< and a severe cutting back of IU content. The Review and reception on Ultimates 3 is good ,but should've been posted here, and I note yet ANOTHEr fat overbloated plot summary has emerged there, yet another example of IU gone wild. I'd be fore re-merging the RW content back here, and using the current tiny plot summary. People should buy the book if they want the plot, and read here about the real world results in terms of sales and criticism. ThuranX (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I agree the current plot summaries in the individual sections need a lot of work. I haven't added anything to them I just cut and paste from the original article and moved across. I am planning to be working on these articles a lot more over the next few weeks. J Greb and ThuranX, if I could get your agreement to hold off any merge talks until I work on these articles that would be appreciated. Nightscream has been doing some great work with copy editing etc. and I can see these articles being tided up. Also icv2.com has all the sales history, I could use some help getting all the Ultimates sales information compiled. Stextc (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to giving a reasonable amount of time. But, I do have a concerns. Mainly that it's going devolve into an excuse to turn all 4 articles into in-universe centric pieces. If the splits hadn't been made, trimming the in story material would have been easier. - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I favor merging, in part because of the length of the first two miniseries and the need to give their details some depth; and because the main article needs trimming. Nightscream (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it also be an idea to change the Ultimate Marvel template box so that it links to all three volumes of Ultimates? e.g., 'The Ultimates' becomes 'The Ultimates (1 | 2 | 3)' or 'The Ultimates (1, 2, 3)'. Planewalker Dave (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nightscream (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to revert if it is deemed to be 'not fitting with regular formatting' or some such. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate any help for editors to fix up this article and improve

Character Descriptions

Most of the Ultimate character descriptions are in the characters own page. It seems unnecessary to put more information than just a basic list (and perhaps the issue the character joined or appeared and status).

e.g.

• Captain America - Appeared Ultimates #1 - Currently Active Member

This could trim the article right down. Merge all relevant information to the character page. Thoughts? Stextc (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts:

1. Since there is already a
   seealso
   }} placed.
2. "Allies" should be reworked and compressed.
3. If the relavent information isn't already on the relavent, currently linked articles, then the info should be condensed down and moved.

- J Greb (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Slowly getting there. Have merged some of the character descriptions either to the list or the respective character page. Is there a need for more information than a name? Stextc (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales History

icv2.com is a great site for sales history. It would be great to compile the sales of every history of every issue. I've put some sales history in

http://www.popsyndicate.com/site/story/the_ultimates_3_2

http://weeklycomicbookreview.com/2008/01/29/the-ultimates-3-2-review-2/

http://aboutheroes.com/2008/02/ultimates-3-2-review.php

And some Ultimates 3 #3 reviews :

http://comicbookrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/02/comic-book-review-ultimates-3-3.html

http://www.comixtreme.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39395

Stextc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Developments by artist

I note a lot of statements by Millar on how he approached the story lines. To balance it we need Hitch's commentary (if it's out there) on character designs and how he approached the art. Stextc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's out there, sure, but if it's not, I don't see it as a lack of "balance."

Agreed. There's no lack of balance to include what's available regarding non-controversial real-world content. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a great article with describes Hitch's approach to his work. Loads of Ultimates references. I'll take a stab at transferring this to the relevant section. Will appreciate any help to improve. I've added it to

Ultimates 1 http://silverbulletcomics.com/news/story.php?a=569 Stextc (talk

) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, there's really NOT enough material to split it. This page really just suffers from too much in-universe garbage. ThuranX (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why is it split? I didn't think there was enough either, but I saw that it had been, so I brought up better names for the articles. Rau's Speak Page 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, meta-series sounds clumsy, the intro could just say 'a continuing series of comics, comprised of long arcing stories each published as its own volume' or some such. The amount of plot detail in that U1 is ridiculous compared to the paltry critical response, and doesn't do much to support it being a stand-alone. Ought to put a merge tag on it. This article really needs some clean up. Too many comic articles suffer from extreme plot creep, and this article's no different. I suggest working on that instead of looking to splinter things out over and over. ThuranX (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One and two don't look like they can continue as they are, and three is largely unsourced. I figure, we merge them and clean-up from there. Because if we clean-up now, and then down the line they get merged, we end up doing the clean-up all over again. Rau's Speak Page 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done (a while, I just forgot to mention it). Now I just have to wait for someone to complain and revert it. Rau's Speak Page 06:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, not gonna complain or revert or anything but is there plans in motion to actually merge cleaned up versions of the receptions and publication history information from the articles, and maybe extremely trimmed down plots. Just wondered if you guys had started it in a sandbox somewhere. --- Paulley (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As the one who did the merge, no there isn't a sandbox. I just took information from the three articles and edited it together. I didn't expand the plot at all because I don't like long plot sections. I kinda #$%#ed this up, didn't I? Rau's Speak Page 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well the histories are still intact so its no biggy but yea you really should look into merging the publication and reception sections. make the article something a little more like

Captain Britain and MI: 13.. though it looks like some other editors are doing some expanding and clean up --- Paulley (talk

) 08:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'll get to work on it in my sandbox. Though there really wasn't much in the articles. Rau's Speak Page 09:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The reception section that I placed in the article is merged from information from the three articles. And when I merge the publication info from the articles, I get one sentence. Because everything else seemed more like "creation and conception" to me. It was how the creative teams felt about the series, and I don't see what that has to do with publication. Rau's Speak Page 10:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well currently the the details of publication seem to be in the lead paragraph.. so why not just do a "creation and conception" section instead... you could call it "production"... and kinda use both the publication and conception information in one section. ---Paulley (talk)

Unorthodox, but it could work. But then what would happen to the lead? I was thinking how we could mention the division of the volumes. Similar to how

Halo Graphic Novel does. Rau's Speak Page

23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea give it ago.. i take it that it was you as an annon user who added the production section in Ultimates over night --- Paulley (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I logged on and was surprised to see it. I like what's there though. A bit of clean up, removal of unsourced material, I think it'd be a good section. Rau's Speak Page 07:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whadda ya think? Thanks to that anon and some Google magic, I think it looks pretty good. Rau's Speak Page 08:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea that looks alot better, gives the article some substance and a good base for people to follow on from. --- Paulley (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had to guess, what would you say the current ranking is? I think it's above Start-Class. Rau's Speak Page 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your talking the high end of start. I think it covers referencing and citation, grammar, the main structure seem ok to me, coverage and accuracy may need to be made broader and more supporting materials might help. --- Paulley (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the article is now more Wiki-correct as it has links; tenses; solid sentences etc. Unfortunately, all the opinion on production delays and the reviews are just that, opinion. As POV, it simply doesn't belong. The POV becomes very pronounced when discussing Ultimates 3. While much of the old version is debatable, the new version simply states the facts. By the by, listing how well (or not) a title sold is also POV. Sales figures can be interpreted in several different ways.Asgardian (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Giving a plot is also POV. Plots can be interpreted in several different ways. rst20xx (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All reviews are opinion. They give the reviewers opinion on what's being reviewed. Rau's Speak Page 02:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

None of these things you guys mention here violate NPOV. If the reason given for production delays are properly sourced, then it's not POV, it's a question of documented fact. Ditto for how well a title sold, which, when specified by the number of copies, and/or attributed to a source, is also a question of fact, and not opinion. As for plot, most aspects of a story's plot are self-evident, and not a matter of interpretation. Wikipedia policy even has specific guidelines for writing plots. Where you get the idea that for an article to include a plot is POV, I have no idea. As for reviews, reviews are an area where the inclusion of an opinion is legitimate, so long as it is properly attributed to a reliable, verifiable source. POV is a violation only when the POV in question is that of the editor, not when it is the properly attributed opinion of a professional critic.Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

...Well I, for one, was being sarcastic when I said plot is POV. I mean come on Asgardian, "listing how well (or not) a title sold is also POV"?!?!?!?! - rst20xx (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, Rst. Nightscream (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article needs to be Wiki-correct and be an encyclopedia article, not a fan-fuelled article. With that in mind, note the following. There is an Ultimate link at the bottom of page so no need to spruik other titles in lead as focus is Ultimates and relevant segments of Reception in PH as goes to history. This happens without POV statements such as "The series became notorious for its delayed release dates. " FCB focuses on the gist, not poorly written conversational storytelling that flips between in and out of universe, such as "Captain America suspects that this was leaked to the press by the liberal Thor, but Thor denies it. In this story..." Also trimmed non-relevant statements such as "The first issue of Ultimates 3 was the highest selling comic in the December 2007." So what? There are no figures or a scale to provide any whether this is truly noteworthy and it means nothing in qualitative terms (ie. the

quality of the story).

This also applies to much of the text re: Ultimates 3. Much of it is not relevant here and again is all POV.

Finally, the Ultimates movies are linked, and all the information on dates is there as that article focuses wholely and solely on the films.

Asgardian (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception which contains sourced reviews as well as sales history (with amount of copies sold) are not POV. See for example Wanted (film) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film). Both these film articles contain critical reception as well as how many tickets sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.111.165.51 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've added the reception back in and removed the paragraph on a couple of reviews from publication history (it should have its own section). (Emperor (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

The PH has been reworked, as it can contain creative backstory. Thor certainly does. Sales, however, should stayy out as they mean nothing to a layperson and the relevance is in the qualitative comments anyway. Asgardian (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I saw the "production" section appear and that should be kept in "publication history" for now, as that section doesn't just deal with "issue one was released in" but the whole development process. (Emperor (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Sales mean nothing to the layperson? How do you figure this? Of course sales are relevant. As long as it's sourced, it's appropriate. As for POV, I'm not sure if you meant that having them for Vol. 3 and the first two volumes is POV, or what, so I included sales figures for the first four issues of Volumes 1 & 2. I did not restore the bit about each issue of Vol. 3 declining, because that sort of thing could be seen as POV since first issues of series typically sell more than the second or third, as this is certainly the case for the first two volumes, which, as aforementioned, wasn't mentioned. I restored/added sales info for all three volumes, so hopefully now it'll look more balanced. Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is certainly %150 better than it was a few weeks ago. Now, as for Sales, let's take a look at the statements:

Ultimates (Vol. 1) #1 ranked fourth among the top 300 comics sold for February 2002, based on Diamond Publisher's indexes, with the next three issues ranked second, second, and third, respectively.

Yes...but so what? And what titles beat the Ultimates? And why is it important? What does this say about the story? Will this mean anything as time goes on? Claiming a title came in fourth place back in 2002 is odd, to say the least.

Ultimates 2 #1 ranked second among the top 300 comics sold for December 2004, with the next three issues ranked second, fourth and sixth, respectively.

Same reasons. And sixth now? It is opinion that this is noteworthy...

Ultimates 3 #1 ranked first in December 2007's Top 300 comics with preorder sales of 131,401, Issue #2 ranked number seven with 105,070 preorders. Issue three ranked better than its predecessor, falling at number five, but had a smaller number of preorders, totaling at 97,210.

Pre-orders? Three ranked better than predecessors, and smaller numbers? This is dry stuff, and not really interesting or pertinent.

So, quoting movie profits for a blockbuster, particularly one of the greats, has merit, but it isn't done for comics. Particularly when said comic didn't even come in first place. Asgardian (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Said comic (Ultimates 3 #1) was the highest selling comic for that period. Sales history is a non POV way to attest to a title's commercial popularity. Saying it's popular is POV, saying it was the second highest selling comic (with sourced numbers) is non-POV. Comics are calculated on pre-order since comic shops order a title usually 3 months before publication. Stextc (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is a question of context and what it does for the article. The first example I cited shows it is a fairly meaningless statement. Asgardian (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "so what"? It shows how well the title sold! What difference does it make which titles beat it? If you want to add that in, then do so. In what way is this a question of context? Indicating how well a movie or comic book did is a relevant aspect of its publication history, and thus, it adds legitimate information to the article. It is not a "meaningless statement". You ask what it says about the story. Who says it has to? Where do you get the idea that the only information in the article has to be about the story? I have no idea where you get these ideas about it being POV or out of context, but the information is reasonable, and is indeed done on Wikipedia for comics as well as movies. Where you get the idea that it isn't done for comics, I have no idea. The consensus agrees with this, and the information is staying. Do not delete it again.Nightscream (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think sales figures are an important part of the reception section - it may be we can rework the wording but it should be in. (Emperor (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Sales figures are important, and quantifiable, and NPOV. It's how they're being presented that can seem boosterish. It's like the difference between a chart of the weekend's top-grossing movies, and the spin that studios put on those raw numbers, to make everything seem like a hit ("The #1 comedy sequel February opening"; "the #1 female-star drama Wednesday opening").

The crucial difference: context. Saying something is #1 or #3 or #6 by itself doesn't really have much meaning.

I have a suggestion that might be considered a compromise solution. Someone else came up with it at Strange Tales, in a section titled "Circulation figures". It's a simple chart (the latter part perhaps a bit too long and detailed) of the plain numbers, similar to a box-office chart.

Something like that, with the actual figures (or, I guess, official estimates, from the look of it), would be a lot more useful to researchers, students, writers, journalists and anyone else who'd typically use this encyclopedia. Saying "it was the #3 comic released that week," in the absence of context, doesn't really tell you anything. Raw numbers, however, people can compare. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, Tenebrae. I don't know if you've read the disputed portion of the article, but if you did, then you saw that it does not give its sales in the style of Hollywood PR. It does not say "The #1 comic". It indeed specifies in detail its sales ranking in the Top 300 comics sold for the month in which it was published, and in some cases, cites the exact number of copies sold, and provides the sources for this. So I'm not sure what precisely your criticism is, since it seems to me that it presents the very context you prescribe. Nightscream (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to offer whatever new voice I can. I think I've got the gist of it. I read, "Ultimates (Vol. 1) #1 ranked fourth among the top 300 comics sold for February 2002, based on Diamond Publisher's indexes,[9] with the next three issues ranked second,[10] second,[11] and third,[12] respectively," and I'm just not sure that being the #4 comic sold in February 2002 is really all that notable or encyclopedic.

My compromise suggestion is just one idea. I'm thinking, given the length and unyielding tenor of the discussion from June 28 all the way to now, that maybe each side can try and come together on some compromise or other. What do we all think? (Small housekeeping note: We don't use "vol. 1" — just "vol. 2" on, per WPC MOS). --Tenebrae (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sales figures included; they're one of the most objective and neutral measures of the popularity of the book, outside of critical industry reviews and such. If it's not selling, it's not popular, and will be canceled. I say leave notable sales info, (like that top of the month/quarter/ ever in. Similarly, putting in all sales info would be listy and random information. ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree on the essence. "Sales figures" is exactly that — the actual number of copies. For a researcher, an academic, etc. — the kind of reader who comes to an encyclopedia — those raw numbers are the pertinent data.

The title's popularity in a given month is more of interest to the mainstream-press reader.

One thing I think gets lost in pop-culture articles sometimes is that we're writing for researchers, students, and the like. Many articles read as if they're written for fans or for casual readers. That's why the "//:fansite//" template exists. ("This resembles a fansite.") Much of this article is great, but I read some parts and wonder, "Why would someone who's never heard of this care about this or that point?" I think we should always ask ourselves that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this babble about the Annuals is, I thought this was about the writer's intent comments and whether or not they should be in. The annuals are out, as is'

WP:CRYSTAL to predict their plots, but to include the writer's direction for the stories in Ultimates from his own mouth is normal and appropriate real world information. One should be in, one should be out. A final note, avoid blanking each other's comments.ThuranX (talk

) 03:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to enter the fray further, but I have to stick my neck out and agree with Asgardian about the Jeph Loeb quote about what's upcoming in the Ultimate universe.

It may or may not be crystal balling, but it does very much read to me as newsiness. We have no

This article has a lot of good material about production background, and some good behind-the-scenes quotes that flesh it out and give the reader a better picture than otherwise. I think some of the other quotes, though, simply sound like promotional-speak that doesn't really give any particularly significant information, and risks making this article read like a fan page. It really does. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think they are fine. (Emperor (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

If that becomes consensus, I would at least suggest holding the links back here (We really should start a 'sources list links' section at the top back here that won't get archived), so that we can use that and the end results to compare and constrast intentions and results. ThuranX (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Emperor. (And hey, ThuranX.) I know you do good work, so I'm wondering, given the points raised, if you could say why you think they're fine. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I waasn't offering an opinion either way. I'd like to see relevant material about the creative direction stay in, even if it's an 'as it's occuring' situation, but I can go either way on immediate inclusion. I'm just saying, if consensus is 'it's out for now', then save the links and stuff back here, so we can contrast the early statements of intent with their later comments on the actual works. I think that sort of approach will certainly augment the quality of Real-World content, and help us push for GA. ThuranX (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree very much with the latter suggestion.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jeph Loeb quote about what's upcoming in the Ultimate universe...I honestly can't see the urgency to add a quote that essentially serves to promote the upcoming product." The quote isn't about merely what's coming up in the Ultimate universe, or promoting the upcoming product. It specifically explains that certain plot threads in this series will be left unresolved, and therefore, it is valid for inclusion in this article.

"Same with the Madureira quotes. He's saying, in essence, "this is what I plan to do." Why don't we wait and include in this encyclopedia what he actually does?" I don't understand this comment at all. Art is purely subjective, so there's no way for editors to say whether he accoomplished the nuances that he described he would set out to do without violating NPOV. Artists and writers generally do not comment on whether they accomplished every detail or sensibility that they described in prior interviews. How is such material not valid for inclusion? Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

with regard to point one: I understand that, and would say that a general statement to that effect like 'Loeb has stated that some plot threads are intended to resolve in Ultimate Origin/Ultimatum/Betty & Veronica Summer Bikini Special'Reftag. But going into more detail would be mroe than is currently needed.

With regards to point two, we're not talking about our personal interpretations, consider " While Madureira attemped to portray thatcharacters as dark and brooding (cite Mad's interview), Critics found the characters to be shallow (cite), predictable(cite), poorly colored (cite) and hostile to groucho Marx (cite)". By citing the critics agaisnt the artist's intent, we can balance things. ThuranX (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason the comment is not appropriate is that it is not yet fact and as such is not canon. Things can and do change. As Tenebrae said, to include it as this stage makes it sound like promotion. Asgardian (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NO, it is a fact. You don't seem to get that. When real world people say real world thing about what their intentions are, those are facts. They have not happened in the series, and for any number of reasons - editorial decisions or changes in flow as the work progresses, for example, they might never occur, but it is a fact that the creator had certain goals and ideas in mind, and the interview speaks to that. It's called real world content, and this article, most comics articles, need more. ThuranX (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true. It amounts to speculation and "crystal balling", as it hasn't happened yet. Plans can and do change. Heck, it might never happen at all, making the quote inappropriate. Some of you need to realize these are encyclopedia articles, not fan pages where anything and everything can appear. Asgardian (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this, and figured I'd give my

two cents. Speculation is when users expect something to happen. Not when a writer says what the subject of a book will be. That is fact. Crystal Balling is defined by Wikipedia policy as unverifiable speculation. Rau's Speak Page

23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is still future tense and subject to change. Once somethinh has happened, such as a book going to print, then it becomes fact. Asgardian (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the plans are fact. He stated that the plot would be wrapped up in the annuals. That is fact. Whether or not it actually does is speculation. And are you saying that anything that hasn't happened yet doesn't belong in Wikipedia? Because there are hundreds of articles about that kind of thing. There is even a rating system for it. Rau's Speak Page 00:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He may have said it, and that in itself is fact, but that does not mean it will necessarily happen. Asgardian (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I said. Does that mean you agree? Rau's Speak Page 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. we report fact. You admitted it's a fact. it can go in. Further, please stop signing like that. it's obnoxious and interferes with smoothly reading the section. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As the person who originally posted the Annual paragraph, I've been following this discussion. I have to say I totally agree with Rau J and ThuranX on this on. Loeb has made it perfectly clear that the plot will be wrapped up in these Annuals. More than that, this was posted in an official Marvel news item (not his blog or anything like that), which suggests that Marvel has no issue with this fact being stated. So, for the time being it's pretty safe to say that this is going to happen. Planewalker Dave (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"The reason the comment is not appropriate is that it is not yet fact and as such is not canon." First of all, whether it is "canon" is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, not The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Second, it is a fact. It is indeed a fact that the writer of the series has explained his intentions of this series, which is almost completed. The word "fact" does not mean "present tense". That the year 2009 will begin at 12am when December 31, 2008 is finished is indeed a fact. That it is a statement about a future event does not change this.

"Things can and do change." Which is not grounds for not including it. The criteria for inclusion are relevance, and the citation of reliable sources. If any aspects do change, that's what the Edit button at the top of the article is for. We change the details according to more updated sources. Wikipedia has a slew of articles about upcoming films, TV shows, books, etc. and that when properly sourced, these are all legitimate according to WP policy. Should we delete them all? Should we have deleted the articles on The Incredible Hulk (film) and The Dark Knight if they appeared prior to today? Should we get rid of the future films and future tv templates? If so, that would require a change to WP policy and ignoring consensus.

"As Tenebrae said, to include it as this stage makes it sound like promotion." Material whose primary intent and effect is promotional is not permitted. That doesn't mean that material that satisifies Wikipedia's criteria must be excluded if it has the secondary effect of being promotional. The articles on The Incredible Hulk (film) and The Dark Knight have the secondary effect of prmoting those films. Is that justification for deleting them?

"Some of you need to realize these are encyclopedia articles, not fan pages where anything and everything can appear....that does not mean it will necessarily happen." Jeph Loeb is not a fan. He's the writer on the series, and as such, he's a reliable source for the info in question. The possibility of change or cancellation of a future work has never been a criterion for not including information on them in articles. Where you get the idea that Wikipedia guidelines forbid information on future events, I have no idea. Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We're being newsy. That's part of what makes it fannish. Wikipedia and Wikinews are different.

It's only fans who care about what the writers plan to have upcoming in the series. The general-audience reader, to whom Wikipedia specifies we must write, does not.

Articles about upcoming movies or in-progress series carry a disclaimer template. Do we really want to have that be a fixture on all ongoing series' Wikipedia pages? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you assert that the general audience reader of this aritcle is not a fan? It's not newsy. Saying, "Jeph Loeb explained that some plot points in this series would be left unresolved, and later addressed in future books" is legitimately pertinent information about this series, especially in the context of the article's need to touch upon the series' plot. It doesn't require a template. Nightscream (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You assume that they are fans. There are far more non-comic fans out there actual followers. That much should be obvious. Sorry, but it is newsy and a tad geekish. It certainly reads that way. It is also speculation, as once again, someone's intentions are not necessarily going to translate into fact. Asgardian (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, both Annuals are now present in Marvel's October catalogue (http://marvel.com/catalog/?date=2008-10) with the Captain America one's description being: "Who is the Black Panther? If you think you know, you haven't spent enough time in the Ultimate U! What secrets from his past cross into Captain America's origin? What deal did they make that will throw Cap's loyalty to the Ultimates into question?". Planewalker Dave (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Still future tense, and still hasn't happened. Just look at the production run for U and U2... Asgardian (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The catalog confirms not only their intent, but their existence as well. Their is no reason any longer for them not to stay. Claiming that it's future tense isn't good enough. There are entire articles on things that have been confirmed to be planned, but haven't happened yet. Rau's Speak Page 02:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: "On what basis do you assert that the general audience reader of this aritcle is not a fan?" As any debate student knows, it is impossible to prove a negative. Asking someone to do so is unreasonable and inappropriate.

Per Wikipedia's own stated policy, "Wikipedia's content is written for a general audience, ..." By definition, a fan ("an enthusiastic devotee," "an ardent admirer or enthusiast," per m-w) is not a general audience.

WikiProject Comics policy does not allow solicitation catalogs to be used as reference material.

Having a series writer talk about what he hopes will happen or intends to happen is newsy and promotional, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I think, given the history Asgardian and I have had, that for us to agree so wholeheartedly on an issue speaks to a shared view of Wikipedia policies from a wide array of angles. I hope no edit war erupts over hopes and plans about which only fans would care. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say, I didn't realize I had blanked a comment. It was inadvertent, and I apologize for not being more careful in my placement of a post. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"There are far more non-comic fans out there actual followers." We're not talking about "out there". We're talking about general audience readers of this article, since that's the point that Tenebrae raised in his July 19, 2:01 post.

"It is also speculation, as once again, someone's intentions are not necessarily going to translate into fact." The fact that the writer of the series has explicitly stated his intentions with regard to the plot of this series, which is close to being completely published, is not "speculation", unless you change the definition of the word. Speculation means that someone who has no authority or knowledge of a given topic is essentially saying "Maybe this will happen. Or maybe that will happen. I don't know." That's not what we're talking about here. The guy who writes a comic that is 4/5 published, saying what he is doing on that comic is there not "speculation". His statements of how some plot threads will be unresolved is indeed fact. No "translation" is needed, except to insist that a statement of intent made by that someeone is a really "speculation" or "crystal balling" instead of a plain fact.

"RE: "On what basis do you assert that the general audience reader of this aritcle is not a fan?" As any debate student knows, it is impossible to prove a negative. Asking someone to do so is unreasonable and inappropriate." Then why did you go out on a limb by assuming a distinction between the two--that the general audience reader of this article is not himself/herself a fan? Who do you think the typically reader of this article is? Won't most of them be fans? If you say no, then on what basis do you assert that? If you can't prove it, then why assert it in the first place?

"Having a series writer talk about what he hopes will happen or intends to happen is newsy and promotional, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia." First, Loeb has not made any statements about what he "hopes to happen". He has only stated what he is going to do. Not the same thing. And it seems we're going in circles, because my question has still not been answered: When is future material appropriate for inclusion, and when is it not? Why is it okay for future material to be in articles on upcoming TV shows and films, but not in articles on current and almost completed comics?

Also, here's an idea: If talking about upcoming comics is "newsy", then can the passage be changed from "Loeb stated that some plot threads will be left unresolved by the end of the series, and addressed in future books", so that it ends with the word "series"? It would therefore have no material about future books, but simply make a statement about this one, albeit one that leaves the reader left wondering why they were left unresolved. Does this make sense to you guys? Nightscream (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is still speculation. Why not just wait, and if said titles are published it can be added as fact into the PH? Asgardian (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not "still speculation". I just responded to that assertion by explaining how, in my view, Loeb's statements do not fall under the proper usage of that word. Instead of simply saying "It still is", can you respond to my reasoning by explaining how it is not valid? Nightscream (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that all articles be written for a general-audience reader. That's out of all our hands.

Wikipedia policy also disallows pointing to other Wikipedia articles to say, "Well, they do such-and-such there," since many Wikipedia articles are not done properly.

Loeb planning to leave some plot threads unresolved doesn't actually seem significant -- just about every series ends with some plot threads unresolved. As for what he's "going to do," well, an editor may change that -- editors edit, and writers don't have the last word.

I'm not sure what the rush is that prevents us from waiting for the story to be published and the facts set in stone. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that WP frowns on using that argument, and I disagree with that, because it's not reasonable. I think your interpretation of it, that some "other" stuff that one may point out, might also be wrong, is perfectly valid, but then that would mean that whether that argument is valid is relative to whether the other stuff cited is right or wrong. In this case, is the inclusion of future material wrong? Of course not. There are entire templates for it! I also question your assertion that just about every series ends with unresolved plot threads, at least when it comes to miniseries. I think the relevance is demonstrated by the fact that a news organization deemed it noteworthy enough to mention. But if you want to wait until the final issue comes out, that's fine by me. Nightscream (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this a different way. Some editors here are saying that when real world people state their intentions, there are no facts until they actually happen that way. By that logic, Wikipedia's article on

THANK YOU! The inclusion of such material is valid because it's a statement of relevance by a member of the creative team. The "crystal ball" and "speculation" refrain implies that by its inclusion, Wikipedia is making some judgment as to whether the future event will come to pass. But that's false, as it's just documenting, or referring to something relevant stated by a reliable source. Nightscream (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Brunelleschi isn't comparable, since the article talks about his intent after-the-fact, not before. If the editors here, say, tied up all the loose plot threads neatly, then talking about Loeb's intent would be illuminating.

I work with ThuranX a lot, and he's erudite and makes a lively argument, and his parsing the difference between near-future claims and "Sam Raimi spitballing about Spiderman 5: Paste-pot Pete Attacks!" (love that!) is certainly sensible. To reiterate, though, Loeb's statement doesn't say anything significant — serialized stories with ongoing characters almost by definition leave threads dangling — and while we can debate that that literary point, the quote at this juncture serves primarily to promote the series. If the story gets changed in editing, then after the fact, it's a different situation.

I know, Nightscream, that each of us at times disagrees with certain Wikipedia policies. We can't ignore them, though — we can only try to change them, as genuinely happens: Wikipedia is ever-evolving, and I've seen policies and guidelines change. But we can't ignore the ones we don't like. And I truly believe in my heart that you, like the rest of us intelligent, adult editors, know that that's true. Otherwise we have anarchy. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please added

{{otheruses|Ultimate}}

76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Done; I added it to the current hatnote, using {{otheruses4||the comic book|The Ultimates (comic book)|other uses|Ultimate}}  Chzz  ►  19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.