Talk:Carol Danvers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 2

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

The result of the proposal was moved. I'll have to leave it to a comics expert to write over Ms. Marvel, which by default will redirect to Carol Danvers in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel → Carol Danvers – I think it might be time to revisit this issue, now that Danvers is scheduled to begin her second volume of Captain Marvel,[1] and a new character, Kamala Khan, is scheduled to take over the Ms. Marvel series.[2] If moved, this page would then serve as a disambiguation page to include Carol Danvers, Sharon Ventura, Moonstone and Kamala Khan.-- TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am not advocating either position but in light of this new information, I think we should revisit it and a strong argument can still be made that Danvers is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Ms. Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that "Ms. Marvel" can not be a disambiguation page, per WP:DABCONCEPT. See Flash (comics) for a precedent. bd2412 T 21:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is the type of article that I meant like Ant-Man, Black Widow (Marvel Comics), or Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I would support this move now, as opposed to if I participated in the first one. I believe that Danvers has spent enough time as Captain Marvel to warrant the page about her, and not her other identity. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose - I don't see that anything has really changed in the past 15 months, jut a little more build up towards a situation similar to Dick Grayson (and that's being real generous). It's still a bit of a "weight" issue though - has a year's worth of comics really disrupted the primary topic? I can't see it.
    As far as the other characters go... Again, the use of the name "Ms. Marvel" by those two characters is no where near meeting PRIMARYTOPIC. Nor is a brand-spkaing new character who likely will not justify their own article.
    - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd argue it has definitely disrupted the primary topic, as Carol Danvers is experiencing unprecedented popularity following her transition from Ms. to Captain.Proserpine (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any support for this claim or is it just hyperbole? Brian Reed's turn on Ms. Marvel had an impressive run, 50+ issues.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's just a smattering of the increased profile Carol Danvers has had since becoming Captain Marvel: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/09/06/captain-marvel-movie/ http://www.news-record.com/go_triad/arts/books/article_e3715fc4-dd01-11e2-b21f-001a4bcf6878.html http://www.avclub.com/articles/captain-marvel-has-a-new-book-a-new-look-and-a-new,82753/ http://www.popcults.com/marvel-comics-carol-danvers-45-years/ http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/02/22/captain-marvel-carol-danvers/ http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=46867 http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/10/nycc-cosplay-a-female-dr-doom-a-male-white-queen-and-kick-ass-korra/ Proserpine (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, all of these sources are circumstantial. None of them directly state that the character is more popular now. The film was originally reported as being a "Ms. Marvel" movie. Theres still lots of Ms. Marvel cosplay. And both Ms. Marvel #1 and Captain Marvel #1 sold out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's the writer of the upcoming new Ms. Marvel series, G. Willow Wilson, on Captain Marvel's dramatically increased popularity, which Marvel editorial has openly discussed. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=48952 "I think it was [Marvel editor] Sana [Amanat]'s idea, because we had been talking about the most recent other big, successful rebranding of a female character, that being "Captain Marvel," and the very interesting fan culture that's come up around that, and all the great work that Kelly Sue [DeConnick] has done with it." Denying Danvers's enormously heightened profile seems bizarre to me. Proserpine (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not denying anything, I just want to be sure that whatever consensus is reached, is based on fact. Also the quote just verifies that the transition to Captain Marvel was successful, not that the character is more well known as Captain Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Carol Danvers was introduced without a codename and has used others (Warbird, Binary) besides Ms. Marvel. Her new move to 'Captain Marvel' is by all appearances permanent, and the character is more prominent than ever before -- laypeople are far more likely to search for Captain Marvel or Carol Danvers than for 'Ms. Marvel' if they're trying to find this character. The introduction of Kamala Khan cements the fact that Ms. Marvel is no longer a name primarily associated with Carol Danvers. There is precedent for this with other superheroes; qv Blue Beetle, which describes three characters (Ms. Marvel describes four). I see no reason why Kamala Khan wouldn't merit her own article just as Jaime Reyes did, as she's getting her own solo series.Proserpine (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Binary and Warbird were relatively short lived codenames compared to Ms. Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, she's used way more names than Dick Grayson has, and used them for reasonably long stretches. Proserpine (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm reluctant to support a move, reading the article it seems she was introduced as Carol Danvers but became Ms. Marvel in just over a year and has been that way for 4 decades. The alternative versions are based off her, any appearances in other media are based on her, a Ms Marvel film as touted would feature her. She is Ms Marvel. Dick Grayson isn't comparable as he was introduced as Robin but there have been many Robins since then and he himself has been another name for probably longer than he was Robin, so we just use his basic name, while the article on Robin discusses the history of the Robins instead. Could it not be handled like at Batman#Personality where it discusses Batman but links to the alternative Batman, Dick Grayson? If it is moved, a redirect needs to be made (if it doesn't already exist) Ms. Marvel. Edit Turns out it does. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Henry Pym is a better example. He was Ant-Man for most of his tenure as a character, but like Carol Danvers he's had a number of other short-lived codenames and there have been other Ant-Man characters. Ant-Man is therefore a page discussing the history of that codename, while Henry Pym is the page on the character. Carol Danvers and 'Ms. Marvel' should be the same, imo. Proserpine (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any of the other characters that have used the codename Ms. Marvel are as identifiable with it as Scott Lang is to Ant-Man.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The press explosion around Kamala Khan this week is already more notice than Scott Lang has ever received from anywhere.Proserpine (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Not to belabor the point, but the timeline people have been giving for Carol's use of the codename Ms. Marvel is off. Danvers was introduced in 1968 and did not become Ms. Marvel until 1977. That's 9 years of being 'Major Carol Danvers'. She was 'Ms. Marvel' from 1977-1982 (5 years), then became Binary from 1982-1992 (10 years). During the time she was Binary, her persona was also active in Rogue and was consistently referred to as 'Carol Danvers' or 'Carol'. After Binary she was Ms. Marvel again from 1992-1998 (6 years), but was not a prominent character and made only five sporadic guest appearances. In 1998 she became 'Warbird', which she continued to use until she was booted from the Avengers (1 year). She was then out of general use until 2005, when she appeared as 'Captain Marvel' in House of M. From 2006-2012 she was 'Ms. Marvel' again, becoming 'Captain Marvel' from 2012-present.
All together that's 9 years best known as Carol Danvers - 19 if you include her tenure as Rogue's split personality, 10 years as Binary, 1 year as Warbird, and 2.5 years as Captain Marvel. Those surely equal or even outweigh 24 years total as Ms. Marvel, only 11 of which were spent with the character in regular use. I'd even argue that 'Carol Danvers as Rogue's alternate psyche' was far more prominent in the larger Marvel universe than 'Carol Danvers as Ms. Marvel' at any point before 2006, but that's a sidenote. Proserpine (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Table (temporarily) While K. Khan is scheduled to begin as Ms Marvel February 2014 justifying the move because of her is premature. We all know that between now and then, she could be canceled. An important fact is that she (Khan) has a totally different superpower, so seems to have no relations to Carol like the various Flashes or Green Lanterns do to each other. OTOH, Carol IS now Cpt. Marvel and WILL become better and better known as such by new readers. I suggest we table this discussion until summer 2014. My vote is (if I have to vote now) that this article be split with most of it going to an article on Carol Danvers, and leaving just a bare bones skeleton article describing time and dates of the various holders of the title/name.Abitslow (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for my statements previously made in the last merge discussion and for the amount of time actually spent as Ms. Marvel as Proserpine so graciously laid out for us. Spidey104 20:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I came here to read about the new Ms.Marvel, expecting the page to contain an overview of the people who have carried the title. Instead I got an article about the Carol Danvers, with no discussion of the other Ms Marvels. Given Carol Danvers long and complicated history in the Marvel universe, she certainly deserve a page under her own name.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd hadn't realised she'd even resumed the Ms. Marvel title between Binary and Warbird but she was so little used in that period it's easy to overlook. Ms. Marvel is only one of several titles she used in her career; it's also a title used by other characters so we should follow the practice for both the other female Captain Marvels whov've also had multiple codenames and their most prominent ones used by others. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marvel is no longer calling the character "Ms. Marvel"

I think it's ridiculous that Wikipedia has this character under "Ms. Marvel" when Marvel now calls the character "Captain Marvel". See http://ifanboy.com/comics/captain-marvel-1-2/ 99.232.45.205 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The character has a 40 year history as Ms. Marvel, titling the page Captain Marvel represents WP:RECENTISM in the worst way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with TripleThreat. Should we have renamed Dick Grayson to Batman during Wayne's death? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't have Dick Grayson as Robin either, or even Nightwing. We have him under Dick Grayson. Shouldn't a character with this many codenames be under Carol Danvers? 86.138.248.74 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Not the same thing, Dick Grayson has been Nightwing for over 20 years, Carol Danvers only significant codename is Ms Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The character has a 40 year history as Carol Danvers, and an inconsistent 40-year history as Ms Marvel (see comment below).
But the character is now more popular than ever. Furthermore, there's no chance Marvel is going to return to calling her Ms Marvel. I suspect the only reason they didn't rename her to Captain Marvel sooner was because DC Comics also had a popular character named Captain Marvel. In January 2012, DC announced they were renaming their Captain Marvel to Shazam, and Marvel renamed Ms Marvel to Captain Marvel just five months later. I doubt that's a coincidence. 24.114.228.117 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want evidence of Carol Danvers's new popularity, just have a look at the "Carol Corps" (her online fan following). They make their own off-license merchandise and it's all based on the Captain Marvel titles. 24.114.228.117 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing that could be considered is moving the page to Carol Danvers, as this is standard practice for characters that have used multiple names for any length of time. Aside from the recent rename to Captain Marvel (which I agree should not be a reason to move the article to that name), but she did go by both Binary and Warbird for multiple years each, and for decent stretches of time she used no codename at all. So the assertion that she "has a 40 year history as Ms. Marvel" is not entirely accurate. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Same as TriiipleThreat's comment above - the commonly used name for the character is Ms. Marvel. Shifting the article just becase the publisher decides to change the character's name doesn't hold up.
- J Greb (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Seventh Sense?

When was the last time she used her sixth or seventh sense? Artemisboy (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, what the heck is this "Seventh Sense?" It's given a drive-by mention once in the current version of the article. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No Fictional Character Biography

This article is missing a Fictional Character Biography section, it should be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture and First Appearance?

I'm wondering if we should include a new picture of Danvers for her main picture. The one currently being presented is a bit dated, and people who come to this page now will likely be looking for Captain Marvel. A suggested change can be found here. Also, should we include her first appearance as Captain Marvel in his info box? We have Carol Danvers and Ms. Marvel--just a thought! I thought it might be worth discussing. Comicbookprof (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Omitted and inaccurate information

Currently the article omits her early status quo, which included (1) flight enabled by her costume (rather than her own power, and (2) dissociative personality (Carol and Ms. Marvel were unaware of one another). I came here to find out when/how these issues were resolved and changed to the current status quo, and the information is not in the article. I see it was mentioned in the "Fictional Character Bio" section that has been excised, but not explained very well. It should be in the article.

I also think that some mention should be made that Jerry Conway intentionally placed Carol in the Spiderman milieu to try to establish her as a headline character like Spiderman. That's why she's working at the Bugle, and why she becomes friends with Mary Jane Watson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B85B:35F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself! Anyone can edit Wikipedia, just be sure to verify your claims with reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we use the modern costume, which all signs point to being the one to stay?

This one - it will be the one in some form in the film and there's no plausible way they go back to the old exposed skin look as her main outfit: File:Captain Marvel - Carol Danvers.jpg Neukenjezelf (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

jesus christ, how do I make that a link and not a full page image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neukenjezelf (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to with what may or may not appear in film. This article is about the comic book character and the costume that Danvers has spent the most time in. Besides she has been depicted in the black costume in many more media than the current one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Source? Neukenjezelf (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Source is referenced in the article. Her current costume has only been in use since 2012. Whereas her black costume has been in use since 1978 (Ms. Marvel #20 October 1978 to be exact).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that there is already an image of her current costume in the "2010s" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Carol Danvers, Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel, and feminism

This article, as well as the Ms. Marvel and Captain Marvel articles, would be improved by incorporating some of the feminist elements brought up in various sources the last couple of years. The subject of feminism is barely touched upon in this article (in the two-paragraph 1970s section), and isn't even mentioned in the other two articles. I am not a comics expert and help would be appreciated, but I'll move forward on my own if no-one else is interested.

  • Abad-Santos, Alex (October 14, 2013). "Meet the Women Who Are Changing Marvel and Comics". The Wire. Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
  • Abad-Santos, Alex (November 5, 2014). "The insane, sexist history and feminist triumphs of Captain Marvel". vox.com. Vox Media. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
  • Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia (November 9, 2014). "Captain Marvel wants YOU for the Carol Corps". The Kernel. Daily Dot. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
  • Dockterman, Eliana (November 4, 2014). "Meet Captain Marvel: Fighter Pilot, Feminist and Marvel's Big Gamble". Time. Time Inc. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
  • Field, Samantha (November 24, 2014). "Why Captain Marvel Was The Right Choice For Marvel's First Female-Led Film". themarysue.com. The Mary Sue. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
  • Phillips, Jevon (August 16, 2012). "Captain Marvel: DeConnick on Carol Danvers and the comics industry". Hero Complex. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 23, 2014. Interview with Kelly Sue DeConnick.
  • Riesman, Abraham (October 28, 2014). "Here's Why Superhero Fans Are Losing Their Minds Right Now". vulture.com. New York media. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
  • White, Brett (July 9, 2014). "Marvel Women of the 70's: Ms. Marvel". marvel.com. Marvel. Retrieved December 23, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Feminist legacy section

Reading the talk page history, there are references to the "FL section," which I've figured out is the "Feminist legacy" section. It was created in February 2009 [3] by @Stoshmaster: but renamed "Characterization" in July 2009 [4] by @RossF18: which is/was apparently used the Batman article. However, considering the importance the discussion of feminist themes are to Danvers' character - and those of Ms. Marvel and now Captain Marvel - I propose restoring the original section head. Lightbreather (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a more generic heading like "Themes" would be better so we can potentially present all points of view but the section can still be expanded with the information you provided above.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Triiiple in regards to a more generic section title that deals with the many iterations of Carol Danvers and the critical response to them. The vast majority of Danvers' history she would definitely not be considered a good example of a superhero that exemplified anything that could be defined as feminist. In fact she had some travesties inflicted on her by various writers. I think a section that deals with her the various stages of her history, with both critical and fan response to these phases, would be in order. She started as a meek, typical comic book woman, blossomed into a more complete feminist character that drew favorable critiques from critics, got butchered as a character for a while (drawing both fan and critical ire), got reclaimed a bit by Claremont and finally today developed back into a definitively feminist character. I personally don't think a Feminist Legacy section works because legacy is a strong word. Carol Danvers isn't WW. The character has never made out roads from the fairly insular world of comics. In a few years when her movie comes out that could all (hopefully) change. Capeo (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Current Main Image

I know this is kind of an old topic, but I thought it was worth revisiting. With all of the changes Danvers has undergone in the past several years, might it be more suiting to put a more modern picture as her main photo? I know she spent a lot of time as Ms. Marvel, but Marvel seems completely dedicated to pressing forward with Danvers as Captain Marvel. She now has several years as this character under her belt, and there is even a new Ms. Marvel. I believe users who access this page for information would be better served if a photo of her as Captain Marvel was present from the beginning. This would better reflect the evolution of the character. Maybe something like the March, 2014 cover by David Lopez would work? Comicbookprof (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I dislike the current main image, can we find one that looks realistic biologically? I suggest Frank Cho. Lots42 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Flicking through the first arc of Mighty Avengers, you're not going to find a Frank Cho picture of Ms. Marvel that is more 'realistic' i.e., her breasts are just as OTT in pretty much every picture you look at. Planewalker Dave (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue at hand is that this image, while dynamic and all, isn't very telling of what the character is really like. This is akin to Bad Girl art, and I believe most comic fans would agree that Ms. Marvel definitely does not fit in with the Bad Girl crowd. 207.164.158.194 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. It should definitely be changed. I'd do it myself, but I honestly have no idea how.

5.80.254.241 (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the image should reflect her post-2012 look. I'm not sure how to do that, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.181.180 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Having been confused by why the main image was so outdated I swapped it out for the current one further down the page but it was immediately reverted by TriiipleThreat citing "WP:RECENTISM, most recognizable costume for infobox". So there we have it. (Notes another example of why I don't bother editing Wikipedia anymore.) Peteashton (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

incoherent sentence

In § 1980s we have this:

She gives birth on Earth to a child that rapidly ages into another version of Marcus, who is ultimately unable to remain on Earth after Hawkeye mistakenly damages his machine, takes Ms. Marvel back to the alternate dimension with no opposition from the Avengers claiming to have felt something between them.

The sentence from the beginning is complete after "damages his machine", including the underlined verb phrase (VP), whose subject ("who") refers to Marcus. Now, what is the subject of the highlighted VP? If it's Marcus, it should say "and who takes" to conjoin the two parallel VPs; if Hawkeye, it should be "and takes", preferably deleting the comma after "machine".

And what exactly is happening in "with no opposition from the Avengers claiming to have felt something between them". Did the Avengers feel something between Carol and Marcus? Carol and Hawkeye? Carol and the Avengers? —if it was the Avenger's feeling at all. And who's making the claim, and to whom?

This is a mess, and needs cleaning up— preferably into two or three shorter, simpler sentences— by someone who knows the story. --Thnidu (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carol Danvers. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carol Danvers. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Captain Marvel (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Captain Marvel at Draft:Captain Marvel (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Would that be why the "direct film" link to the article links back to this page? Because there isn't one yet? Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Main picture

Shouldn't the main picture in this article be of her current incarnation as Captain Marvel, rather than of a previous cover from her previous (and not even first) stint as Ms. Marvel? -Kez (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The main reason we used the black costume was because of WP:RECENTISM and WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, which advises to use "the most universally recognisable appearance of a character". Upon revisiting the issue it seems the Captain Marvel costume may have just surpassed the black costume it terms of usage. As of today, the black costume featured in 54 issues of Ms. Marvel beginning in Ms. Marvel vol. 1 #20 (October 1978) and the entire second volume, while the Captain Marvel costume has been used in a total of 56 issues of Captain Marvel vol. 7, vol. 8, vol. 9, Captain Marvel and the Carol Corps, and Mighty Captain Marvel. This of course does not account for secondary appearances of either costume in other comic books like X-Men or Avengers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Surely issues of Avengers where Carol is an Avenger aren't secondary appearances, are they? That was her main book for significant periods of time (Michelinie and Busiek/Johns/Austen Avengers, at the very least), and she was pretty continuously a very important character in the Bendis Avengers books from Civil War onwards. I'm fine with the current Captain Marvel costume as the main one, but the black and yellow costume was around for a very long time - from 1978 to 2012, though she had a couple of other looks during that period. That includes pretty much all of her stints with the classic and Bendis Avengers, which I think ought to count as much as her solo series (Hickman Avengers, Ultimates, Alpha Flight, and any other series where she is a main member and uses the current costume should also count, of course.) john k (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

The Alex Ross image shows the character in full view. Why would an image that doesn't show the full costume be used instead? DrRC (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s historically more significant as it’s the first issue of her as Captain Marvel. Secondly she’s facing front, not looking up with eyes closed. Also the only thing missing are the boots which is not disclosed anywhere in the article.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The face is also blurred by light and shadow.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
While issue 1 of volume 7 is her first appearance, I think we can both agree that it simply doesn't show her full costume. There's a variant cover from the same issue that shows her full costume, and it's complete with red boots. Also, her face is clearly visible. How about we use that instead? [5] The current image can still be used in the article to show its significance. DrRC (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The boots are minor and we don’t need two images of the same costume. The historically significance of the issue trumps this minor concern. Besides the shade of the blue in that latest image is different than typically depicted.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Scarlet Centurion rejection

Presently in Carol_Danvers#2000s

Kang's son Marcus, the Scarlet Centurion, falls in love with her, but she rejects him, in part because he reminds her of Marcus, son of Kang's older alter ego Immortus, who raped her.

Can someone provide a specific issue/page reference for this? I would like to consult if Carol explains this in dialogue, thought bubble, or if it is narrated, to check for accuracy.

The end of the 1st sentence, preceding this statement, says:

Avengers vol. 3 #41-54 (June 2001 - July 2002)

The end of the 1st paragraph, after this statement, says:

Avengers #500-503 (September-December 2004), Avengers: Finale #1 (January 2005)

It's not clear to me where to check. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Carol Danvers' sexiness rating is not lead-section worthy

I recently edited Danvers' ranking on a "Sexiest Women in Comics" list out of the lead; it is mentioned in the "Characterization" subsection. TriiipleThreat reverted: "Undid revision 860154255 by Gdswamp (talk) this is done per WP:LEAD, which summarizes info from the article body." If I'm reading the rationale correctly he reverted because the lead is a summary and the sexiness ranking does appear in the article body, so the ranking is... objectively worthy of inclusion in Intro? Summaries reflect subjective choices about top-level info to include. There are lots of lists of "sexiest comic characters" online - I see no mention of those rankings listed as top-level points of interest in Intros to other major comic characters' articles. Cpt. Marvel is about to become the first female hero to lead a Marvel Studios movie. No reason the Wiki article has to reify the notion that attractiveness is one of the character's key features. Haven't reversed the revert but request a better rationale than just "this is done per WP:LEAD." (Apologies for any non-standard aspects of this entry. I'm an infrequent contributor) --GDswamp (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not sure coming in 29th on any list is all that lead-section worthy but it does speak to the reception of the character's deliberate design, albeit to the Ms. Marvel incarnation, not Captain Marvel. Also the Comics Buyer's Guide was a major industry publication, one of only a few in its heyday, not just any "list of sexiest comic characters online".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Circular and self-reinforcing argument. Depictions of nearly all female comic-book characters have emphasized secondary-sex traits (the subject of much discussion of gender inequality across comic culture). The decision to highlight a 29th-place ranking on a "sexiest" list reinforces that emphasis via a non-neutral decision to elevate the information; justifying the editorial choice with reference to the character's sexiness is circular. As you say, "coming in 29th on any list" is hardly noteworthy. Per WP:LEAD, under Relative emphasis: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject...." Unless your position is that articles on all female characters in mainstream superhero comics should cite their sexiness rank, because sex-appeal has been incorporated into their "deliberate design," Carol Danvers is a clear choice for excluding this info from the lead-level summary. This article has been marked as a C-Class entry by WikiProject Feminism. My edit is minor and removes no content from the entry, aiming only to bring the emphasis of character traits into line with articles on other major Marvel heroes. --GDswamp (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the non-neutral thing would be to omit information from a reliable third-party source based on a WP:POV notion that the content itself is sexist, however legitimate that concern maybe in a wider societal context. Furthermore, it is not my position that "all female characters in mainstream superhero comics should cite their sexiness rank" as I am not concerned with WP:OTHERSTUFF. My revert was made in response to your edit summary that emphasized its supposed redundancy, which is why I responded the way I did. Like I said, I am "not sure coming in 29th on any list is all that lead-section worthy" and would not oppose its removal from the lead based on those grounds.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I'm inclined to agree with Gdswamp that the "29th sexiest woman in comics" line is not lead-worthy. It's not a key point of the article (more of a minor trivia factoid, I would say), and it definitely reinforces the trend of overemphasizing sexual aspects of female characters. I can't think of a single article about a major male superhero that mentions his sexiness ranking in the lead section. I would support cutting it from the lead. However, I have an additional suggestion: perhaps it might be worth expanding that part of the lead to discuss Carol Danvers' characterization in more depth? The 'Characterization' part of the article is a little sparse right now, but it looks like there is potential to discuss topics such as feminism, femininity, costume design, etc (and why the sexiness ranking could be considered problematic). By itself, I don't think the ranking is interesting or useful -- but the addition of more comprehensive information to that part of the lead (and the whole article) might lead to a definite improvement. Are you thinking about working on this article, GDswamp? Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
There has been no suggestion of omitting information, only of excluding trivial information from special mention in the article introduction. Since it seems there is agreement on the basis of that triviality, the immed. question is settled. Additionally it is specious to argue that one set of choices about what to include in an Intro is neutral/objective while another is non-neutral/POV-based. The original, contested edit was not made based on my or anyone's POV about content - no one is bothering to debate whether Carol Danvers is or is not the 29th sexiest female character in comics - it was made to correct the purely editorial/structural decision to include one source's sexiness ranking in the text that frames/introduces the article. All choices about the contents of framing text represent a POV, as the mandate for the lead section (per WP:LEAD) is to point readers to the "most important contents" of an article. The original contributor felt that Carol Danvers' sexiness rank was among the "most important" information relayed about her in the subsequent article. Others disagree. Both positions are based, clearly, on points of view. --GDswamp (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not the right person for the job of a more comprehensive rewrite, per the thoughtful suggestion of Alanna the Brave (talk). Not an expert on this character or the wider history of relevant issues in this art-form. Good idea, though. --GDswamp (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit stunned that we're even having this discussion. We don't include trivia in lead sections. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we’re all in agreement, albeit for different reasons.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There has been a discussion about this list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 51#Sexiest Women In Comics. Cambalachero (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Certainly has. Rankings from the "100 Sexiest Women in Comics" appear in entries dedicated to at least 63 comic-book characters and are deemed to have "most important content" status (and listed in the Intro) in 33 of those entries. In fact all of these additions appear to have been made by a single contributor on a pair of days in 2012, so the elevation of this trivia hardly reflects a broad consensus that it is important. Questions have been raised on at least two prior occasions about the information's inclusion and prominence. Consensus seems already to have been reached that the information should be demoted from article leads across the board.--GDswamp (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a "publication history"

There should be a list of comics or runs that she appeared in. This is the biography of a fictional character.

There is a picture of a comic titled "Ms Marvel" from 2006. But there is no further info. Is the title still running, did it change to "Captain Marvel" etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.49.243 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CMOS#LSECTION: "Bibliography sections are reserved for articles on writers or artists." But the information you are looking for is in the Publication History if you keep reading.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Strickland link

One editor deleted a reference, saying that the link wasn't working - but that's not what we do with a WP:DEADLINK. Another restored it, saying that it was an archive link and the archive is working find. In actuality, the original link is working a-okay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Main image

Shouldn't the image at the top of the article should be changed to reflect the various incarnations the character has had, similarly to what's been done on the Hank Pym page? I think this image from later in the article or something would be more fitting, since she's had like 4-5 different names and has been a major character under multiple identities, not just her current one. BubbleRevolution (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

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

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carol_Danvers/Archive_2&oldid=1136593090"