Talk:Vulture (Marvel Comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004[edit]

I removed the following from the article because I really don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 08:32, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Name: Adrian Toomes
  • Height: 5'11"
  • Weight: 175 lbs.
  • Eyes: Hazel
  • Hair: Bald
    • Intelligence Level: Gifted
    • Strength Level: Variable up to enhanced human (he can press between 700 and 1000 lbs. at the age of over 60).
    • Endurance Level: Normal
    • Stamina Level: Variable up to peak human
    • Reflexes Level: Normal
    • Speed Level: Winged Flight Limit
    • Agility Level: Normal

He is butt-ugly --Yancyfry jr 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spidermanep26.jpg[edit]

Image:Spidermanep26.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Amaz2.png[edit]

Image:Amaz2.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 Wikipedia: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) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film appearance[edit]

@Darkknight2149: You claim the addition being made is "unsourced" and "rumour", but Comic-Con panels that are either publically viewable or widely reported on in reliable secondary media are generally considered reliable sources for the simple claim that the character was confirmed as appearing in the 2017 film. Why do you think this doesn't belong in the article yet? And (probably more importantly) why have you not attempted to discuss this on the talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Greetings. To the point, the reason I keep removing it is because no one has cited a reliable source. Sources are always required for such claims and people have been trying to add this since long before Comic Con (making it rumour material). As for the Talk Page, this didn't appear to be an edit war so much as a series of occurrences of random editors adding the same uncited/rumour material to the article. Even if a discussion was had on the Talk Page, the addition of such material would've continued regardless of the result (as is usually the case in circumstances such as this). DarkKnight2149 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But sources are readily available. Here is one: "Michael Keaton is playing The Vulture (aka Adrian Toomes), and he WILL be the main villain". And that is from months ago, before SDCC gave more evidence: this source says "we've now got our first look at the film's villain, the Vulture". These sources contradict each other as to whether it is confirmed who is playing the character, but reliable sources stating that the film's main villain will be the Vulture are abundant. Edit-warring over the issue (and requesting page protection!) just because the user adding it have not provided properly formatted inline citations is disruptive. It honestly looks a lot more like you do not want the material in the article regardless of whether it is sourced, than that you sincerely believe it constitutes "uncited/rumour material". Anyway, now that I have given you two sources, would you like to self-revert and insert a source yourself? Or better yet, summarize what the sources say yourself and insert that into the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing disruptive about my edits. Although sources are readily available now, it is only just so. For the majority of the time people have been trying to add it, it was an unconfirmed rumour (and when I requested page protection, nobody was citing the information, making the request very much warranted). And yes, Wikipedia revolves around verifiability, so sources for such claims are required. Notice how as soon as someone added a proper source, I stopped reverting.[1] I should also point out that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to cite it, not the person removing it. As for the "main villain" claim, that has little to do with accuracy and more to do with WP:ANTAGONIST, which states that interpretations of characters in the form of labels ("antagonist", "protagonist", "main character", ETC) are to be avoided. As for the remark that it looks like I simply don't want the information in the article, I'm not quite sure what possible motive I would have for that, but I guess speculation is speculation. DarkKnight2149 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WT:MOSFILM#Applicability to "Foo in other media" sections of articles on fictional characters. As far as I can tell, you are misinterpreting WP:ANTAGONIST, which only applies to the cast sections of articles on films, not the "in other media" sections to articles on fictional characters. Whether your interpretation is a good interpretation (i.e., ANTAGONIST should be applied to articles like this, even if it doesn't currently say it should be) has yet to be determined. And the sources seem to have been confirming this rumour since at least May -- how long has the edit-warring been going on? And as far as I can tell, adding encyclopedic content about how "it was rumoured that..." is generally acceptable, if the rumours have been covered in reliable sources, and the rumours are explicitly stated as rumours. If a bunch of people add accurate, verifiable information to an article, and you revert them a bunch of times because they have not inserted properly formatted inline citations for their verifiable information, it does look like you are reverting them because you don't like the information; otherwise, you would take the path of least resistance and simply add an inline citation for them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ANTAGONIST is being discussed at MOSFILM, so I'm not going to get into that here. I'll only say that there are other editors who enforce it on articles such as this, so you were right to start a discussion there because that discussion is much bigger than myself or this article. I've already explained why this isn't an edit war, but I'm sure you'll call it that regardless. As for the main topic at hand, the Vulture thing wasn't confirmed until Comic Con recently. The rumour has been circulating much longer than that, but the confirmation has not.
And no, we don't post rumours on Wikipedia. If you started a discussion at Wikiproject Comics, I'm sure all of the editors would tell you the same thing. On a side personal note, I should point out that I've never read an encyclopedia that contained rumours as their material. Back to this, I have no problem with the information itself, and there have been plenty of instances in articles were I have added citations, and sometimes a "citation needed" template. However, the problem with CN templates is that they usually go ignored for months (or even years) until the information is finally removed, which is why I don't use them often. I also have a rather extensive watchlist and only so much time. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to cite it, and if reliable sources are so readily available, then that only means that there was no excuse to add the information without one to begin with. DarkKnight2149 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, tagging material that is accurate and verifiable and then months (or years) later removing it as "unsourced" is generally considered disruptive. You are only supposed to remove material that you genuinely believe cannot be reliably sourced, which clearly was not the case here. There is always an excuse: people are lazy, and per WP:VOLUNTEER they are allowed to be. If they make mistakes or poorly format their edits, the burden is on you to help them before undoing what work they did do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing material that's been unsourced for years is one of my primary efforts, when I have time. I've never been told it's disruptive, and have actually been thanked for it repeatedly by multiple editors.
As to this discussion, I think it's only appropriate to mention a rumor after it's confirmed. In this case, I think it would be fine to say "after being rumored for months (citation to early rumor), Vulture was confirmed as a villain at SDCC 2016.(citation)" Otherwise, the word confirmed lacks context. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: Was the material you removed accurate and verifiable, and you removed it immediately either because you were too lazy to locate a source or because you didn't want it in the article whether it was accurate and verifiable or not? Did you tag accurate and verifiable material yourself with the intention of waiting years before removing it simply because you don't like it? The latter hasn't happened here, but this guy used to do this, so it definitely does happen. In either of these scenarios, removing 'unsourced' material is indeed disruptive.
I don't really care what the article says anymore. This discussion has tired me out. I'm probably gonna take a break from modern American pop culture articles again for a couple of months.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been accurate. It was not easily verifiable, because I will do a Google search or two before I remove material that seems relevant. I usually have no opinion on the content because I just go through the alphabetical clean up listing. And, for what it's worth, my actions are 100% in line with WP:UNSOURCED. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm stricter about sourcing than most. I just think that that is not what Darkknight was doing here, as the material was being widely reported well before the "twentieth" (read: third) revert and the frivolous RFPP, and any quick googling would have confirmed this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well end this conversion, as it has become a pointless game of you accusing me of disruptive editing, me explaining exactly why it isn't disruptive and you entirely ignoring what I have to say. As I have mentioned numerous times, a Google search wouldn't have fixed anything because it was only just confirmed at Comic Con. And as I have already pointed out, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to cite it (not the person who removes it). Otherwise, making claims without proof allows them to become subject to removal.
And given some of the claims you have made in this conversation, such as believing that rumours are acceptable, I'm not sure you understand the guidelines and policies as much as you should given that you've been editing since 2005. If you think that my edits are genuinely disruptive, you are free to file a report at WP:ANI (though you'd probably be wasting your time). But you should probably consider that there is a difference between disruptive editing and edits that you simply don't agree with. DarkKnight2149 21:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just responding to your edit summary since, like I said earlier, I have long-since lost interest in this discussion, and so am not interested in reading your full comment. I agree that this is accomplishing nothing. Let's all get on with our lives and do something else, shall we? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply here. (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture (comics) → Vulture (Marvel Comics) – Due to there are characters from the publications of DC Comics also claim the name 'Vulture', thus this article should be rename to avoid confusion. NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, uncontroversial this could be moved by WP:MOVE but broken links will need fixing In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with suggestion that Vulture (comics) become a DAB. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DarkKnight2149 21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the DC Comics characters appear to be ludicrously minor and lack references. It's not even clear if they're worth mentioning in the article as they appear to be one-off non-notable side characters. The DC Comics organization appears mildly more important, but not by much. Meanwhile, this article appears much more fully fleshed out & notable. Page hits bear this out too - 2000 average daily hits vs. 20 average hits. That's a 100x difference! SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the fact that the DC Comics article exists is enough reason to move. DarkKnight2149 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, but there is the occasional exception when there's an overwhelming difference in importance. See Talk:Dynasty (TV series) for an example, although I suppose that wasn't exactly a unanimous RM - one of those shows lasted a decade and had a huge number of viewers internationally, while the other was a forgotten footnote in one country. This Vulture case isn't quite as dramatic, but it's at least close to that area. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out at the linked discussion, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply since this article already has a DAB modifier on it. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I cited Talk:Dynasty (TV series). It *does* apply if one meaning is toweringly more important than the rest within a DAB modifier. Cops (TV series) is another example. SnowFire (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image deletion nomination(s)[edit]

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 26. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vulture_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=1198843723"