Talk:Galactus/Archive 2

The Role/Importance of Galactus

I've found a lot of good source material dealing with the importance of Galactus and the role of balance he plays in the Marvel Universe.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks of having a dedicated section detailing Galactus' part in the universal order. As the article stands now, there are various scattered, but repeated, references to his importance in several different sections.

I think the article could be improved by having an area that explains cleary what exactly makes Galactus a singular, unique entity in all of the Marvel Universe and exactly why he is of such great importance.

I would propose to include information such as:

-Information already present in the article, i.e. third-force in the universe, one of the 5 essential entities, the only power that keeps Abraxas in check, the cosmic tribunal in which Eternity appears.

I would also inlcude information detailing

-Living Tribunal explaining his three faces of representation, one of which is Galactus (Equity) -Statement by some abstract character (forget which one, will look up source material) speculatng that Galactus may be even more important than Eternity because he is the only being to have ties to the previous reality, the contemporary reality, and the next reality simultaneously, something which no other character shares.

-misc other items.

I feel the need for a dedicated section because Galactus has such a specific, defined, and important role which is not replicated anywhere in any character throughout all of Marvel's characters. This is in contrast to the abstracts (Death, Eternity, etc.), who by their mere existence fulfill their roles in the universal order. Mobb One 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the problem with trying to define his role is that it is so ambiguous. Byrne seemed to establish that Galactus' role was to weed the universe, to test planets, and made a vague connection between Galactus, Death, and Eternity by naming them each corners to a "great triangle which is the universe." Steve Englehart fleshed out the Galactus/Eternity/Death relationship by establishing Galactus as the "third force of the universe" and by revealing that he provides balance between them. The problem is that Englehart never portrayed Galactus as a universal tester/weeder, but strictly as a balancing force between Eternity and Death. He also established that Galactus' existence was necessary for universal survival. For all we know Galactus MAY fulfill his role just by existing like the full-abstracts. The whole Abraxas-thing throws even more onto Galactus' plate, an interesting development from Abraxas Saga is that keeping Abraxas improsined may be the reason Galactus suffers from his hunger. TheBalance 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman?

How can Superman be one of Galactus's heralds? Superman is a DC Comics hero, Galactus is from the Marvel Comics.

Hello is anyone still there?

Anon

It's from the Fantastic Four-Superman crossover. In it Galactus takes Superman as his Herald and grants him the Power Cosmic. The empowered Superman gains a glossy, metallic, golden skin (think The Runner) and refers to himself as "Kyrptonian". TheBalance 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. I've never read that one. Thank you anyway.

Anon

Merge from Power Cosmic

• Support It's basically nothing more than a fork from the Powers and abilities section of this article, with a mention of the Heralds thrown in. Nothing that can't be covered here and in the Heralds articles (and should be). CovenantD 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - if Galactus is the sole source of the Power Cosmic, it's better as part of this article. If that changes as a result of new plot elements from Annihilation (due to Tenebrous and Aegis...) we can always revisit this, but for now it's not justified. --Mrph 10:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait I agree with merging it, but would imagine it wait until Annihilation: Heralds of Galactus #2 is released. We'll be able to gleam more information regarding Tenebrous and Aegis in this issue, and hopefully find more information on their background and whether they wield the Power Cosmic or not. If they do wield it, then I would vote for a separate article as that indicates Galactus is not the primary source, as we have all originally thought.Mobb One 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support If the Power COsmic had more detail then i would say keep, but due to lack of info, merge.Phoenix741 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree the Power Cosmic article needs to be expanded on, but other non-Galactus folks wield the Power Cosmic. It should have its own article. MightyAtom 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge But those other non-galactus folks who wield the Power Cosmic only wield it because galactus imbued it upon them. insight11 10:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Since Power Cosmic is not a trait of Galactus, but a seemingly separate entity and also since it is used by several characters and in different ways it should have its own article. However some expansion and clean-up is necessary. Evren Güldoğan 20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge The Power Cosmic the vast majority the times it's mentioned is done so in reference to the power of Galactus and/or his heralds. Annihilation didn't change this, it even seemed to make it a point to set Galactus apart in origin, nature, and power from the other members of the "Cosmic Balance". Manssiere 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Re?)added the merge tag. If this has been merged back into this article, which it looks like has happened, the stub needs to become a section specific redirect. - J Greb 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The Power Cosmic has been separated/stolen from Galactus several times. While he is the primary source of the Power Cosmic, it seems erroneous to equate the two simply because it has been proven before that they are not one and the same irrefutably. This is similar to the situation with Venom. Eddie Brock and the alien symbiote combine to create the Venom entity...however the symbiote can be separated from Eddie, and all of Venom's powers come from the symbiote. While there are obvious differences between the two, the power cosmic explains the abilities of many important characters in the marvel universe, and it would seem inappropriate to have everything redirect to the section on Galactus' powers, which is always in a constant state of editing due to differences in opinion. Mobb One 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with MobbOne. The Venom example proves that each are separate. After all, Thor and Mjolnir are separate, so why not here?
• Oppose. Asgardian 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Convinced by Mobb One. Poisonink (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There are plenty of characters that use the generalised power term. It's more convenient to link it separately. Dave (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Need to clarifyI agree that Galactus and his Heralds are the primary users of the power in Marvel, and that generally it is Galactus who bestows it. However other significant examples of users are found in the Marvel handbook, especially in the eighties editions. Characters like Adam Warlock (at the time "Him")and the Stranger are shown as using it, as well as the entire race of earth eternals. Not of whom were created by Galactus. Clearly this does none disprove that the power came from Galactus, but that is deserves recognition that it may be sourced from him unconciously.--Princekilderkin (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked out that 'article' and it was horrible in the amount of speculation, generalisation, and wild exaggeration used within. I likevise agree that just because it is most commonly used in conjunction with the Surfer and Galactus doesn't mean that similar characters, such as the Stranger, and the Watchers, or Tyrant and the Proemial Gods don't. As for 'being the most powerful force in the universe' that's ridiculous by all possible accounts, as plenty of power-sources and entities are scales of beyond anything Galactus has ever shown, and directly contradicted by Thanos in the Annihilation crossover, as he stated outright to Annihilus that he tends to favour more potent sources of power. Dave (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The creation of the character of Galactus

I've seen comic character entries that wikipedia has deemed to be excellent (storm, batman, superman), and the one thing they all have in common is an extensive publication history that chronicles the actual creation of the character by the storytellers.

I've noticed that the Galactus entry sorely lacks this. One might lead to question why does the Galactus entry need such treatment, I'll respond by saying that out of all the characters created in comics, very few have been created under the supervision of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, both of whom we can safely call two of the "founding fathers" if you will, of the comic book as we know it today. Now of those few characters created by both, it is widely regarded that the storyline that ran from Fantastic Four #48-50 is perhaps the greatest collaboration between the two creators. Those who have the knowledge can immediately recognize that those issues introduced Galactus and the Silver Surfer into the comics world.

I've found many sources on the web, as well as a Jack Kirby interview, expounding a bit more on the actual character of Galactus, and exactly how revolutionary he was when he was introduced. The whole story of "The Coming of Galactus" and the two issues following have a strongly profound Face of God/Fallen Angel mythos attached to it, which, according to the interviews, had never, ever been done in comics previous to that point. I know there are potentially semi-controversial religious undertones in that, but the fact is primary sources/interviews elaborate on this idea, and confirm it as well.

The article as it stands now contains 1 phrase to capture this entire idea. I don't think that's sufficient. If we're going to look at the standards for a standout entry, as mentioned above for Storm, Batman, Superman, the Watchmen, Captain Marvel (DC), I feel the Galactus article must discuss in some respectable depth the ideas that Stan Lee, but primarily Jack Kirby, had in mind when creating Galactus. This material would elevate the article as it is now to one that is truly more encyclopedic and distinct from many of the more "fan-oriented" entries, as Asgardian likes to label them. Mobb One 05:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a Publication section is sorely needed here. If you'd like to write up the background info (having already done the research) I'll help by pulling out the publication info from the fiction bio sections. CovenantD 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A slight tidy-up (not a removal). Some of the introductory information shuffled down to where appropriate to conform with Wikipedia opening statements. Noticed that about three times the same thing was just being said in different ways so performed a slight graft so that it reads a tad better and each point naturally flows to the next. A slight cull on two images that have been placed next to better ones and look like clutter. Perhaps the Gah Lak Tus image could be popped in further down on the left if wanting another one? Much better than a staid shot of Galactus without his helmet. That said, this article has really come along. Nice to see a few other folk actually researching and writing as opposed to just editing. Great use of new images. Looking very sharp.

Asgardian 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IQ and Powers

The article says that Galactus is the most intelligent and powerful being in the universe but aren't the five other members of his species as powerful and smart as he is? Furthermore it also says that Mr Fantastic is possibly the most brilliant mind on Earth but isn't Doctor Doom every bit as smart as him? Just something worth noting.

Anpn

With Galactus we face the difficulty of inflation and degradation by various writers. He was clearly designed to be the most powerful and dangerous threat in the 616. As writers have needed bigger and badder threats to make sales this position has changed. In particular the Beyonder and Infinity series affected his position. I think we have to accept that it is inpossible to accuratly grade the incarnate beings unless they have directly faced off. With Galactus we have the further problem that his power level can fluctuate, based on recent nutrition. His power level was bested by the Beyonder, but Dr Doom used a Galactus power source to best the Beyonder. He was held to a standstill by Tyrant, who in turn was beaten by the ultimate nullifier, which sources its power to Galactus. He has defeated the In-Betweener, has resisted Deaths request to take his life, and destroyed huge portions of space in the Annillation. At other times, a contingent of earths heroes almost killed him untill Reed Richards acted to help him, leading to his trial by the Shiar. I cant source these directly, i no longer have the books. i think its best to describe him as functionally omnipotent, whos unique place in reality enboldens his general level of personnal might. Lastly, in a FF story, an alternate reality had Galactus eating everyting, being presently untouchable, suggesting he can achieve a level of nutrition and therefore power beyong what we may normally be presented with.--Princekilderkin (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Makasoff?

Galactus Makasoff first appeared in a classic Fantastic Four storyline in which...

Where is this coming from? Dlong 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Death in the Silver Surfer third volume

Galactus apparently dies in the 109th issue of the third volume of the Silver Surfer. He dies when containing the power of the ultimate nullifier which is triggered by his herald Morg when attempting to defeat Tyrant, his sentient creation. I'm sure he comes back alive later but this fact should be included in the history but I do not know where to include it. Zuracech lordum 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Galactus and his Relationship to the In-Betweener

I don't know if the omission was a deliberate action or if it was just due to the addendum being lost in multiple Page Edits (some sort of Edit War seems to be going on at the present time), but I earlier provided a direct Reference -namely, Silver Surfer Volume 3, Issue #10, -wherein it is revealed that the In-Betweener is the metaphysical counterpart to Galactus.

Unless you can find a reference directly contradicting my source that I cited, I kindly ask you to leave the addendum in.

I'm placing the In-Betweener/Galactus blurb (alonmg with its attendant reference) back into the Article.

Thanos777 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There was some debate over this topic between Galactus and In-Betweener in SS#10. Nothing was ever established. IIRC, The In-Betweener claimed the reason he couldn't summon Galactus' polar opposite was because he was Galactus' opposite -- I believe Galactus disputed the In-Betweener's claim. TheBalance 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I believe that it is as you have said; and I'll now give thought to making my earlier, declarative Statement into a more speculative/'strongly implied' one.

And I mis-typed the proper reference (which I will go and correct now): it wasn't SS-V3-#10, it was SS-V3-#18.....Thanos777 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off

Knock the edit war off. Seriously. It's getting annoying. Dlong 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you sit back, grab a beer and relax. Whenever Asgardian makes an appearance a revert war usually ensues. Asgardian can be also be found engaged in childish, prolonged revert wars on the Thanos and Celestial pages, among many, many others. I suggest you do a search on Asgardian. TheBalance 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try less assumption and more meaningful dialogue. The latter - and any real work on many of these articles - appear to be lacking.

Asgardian 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic, you are and have been involved in revert wars on numerous entries time and time again. Your stubborness, unwillingness to compromise and belief that the goal of an encylopedic entry is brevity leads to perpetual revert wars. All one has to do is look at your user talk page history - the constant here is you. TheBalance 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to be realistic, I suggest you first look at your own behaviour. You and your offsider are very quick to accuse...but do little to discuss.

Asgardian 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction - I no longer bother compromising with or initiating talks with you. It's a well beaten path that leads nowhere. TheBalance 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heaven knows I have had my differences with Asgardian, but his intro and general edits do seem to best follow the Comics Project editorial guidelines and exemplar.

As for the brevity issue: Generally speaking the fewer and more precise words needed to describe something, the better. Lots of phrases can be streamlined ("At a later point in time John Doe began to..." can be simply "Later, John Doe began to...") and the passive voice changed to active voice ("It was suggested by Joe Quesada that Galactus was..." is better as "Joe Quesada suggested Galactus was...").

I'm sure reasonable minds can come together. --Tenebrae 09:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with Asgardian's edits, is that he removes too much, and makes the article just look incomplete. -- DCincarnate

We can come up with a middle ground. What I'd like to suggest is to first conform the article to the edit-guidelines/exemplar format. Maybe Asgardian could do that. Then you and TheBalance can each add a paragraph or a sentence to that, without changing the format. Then the three (or more?) of you can discuss the pros and cons of that paragraph or sentence and refine it. Then repeat as necessary.

It's a bit laborious, but once the article's in shape, then it'll always be in shape, and it'll just be a matter of maintenance. I'm not an admin, but in the interest of harmony, I'd be glad to help peer-mediate if you need me. What does everybody say? --Tenebrae 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tenebrae. Common sense has prevailed. I've been asking 2-3 parties for some time to study the changes (eg. correct Wikipedia introduction, present tense, no POV) before hitting revert. If they looked they would see 95% of the article is STILL THERE. It's very close to "A" standard, but still needs minor work. A little more discussion and consideration would be appreciated, especially for those us that actually spend hours researching and writing these things. It's not as easy as it looks!

Asgardian.

I see that the article has been locked due to constant revisions. Well in any case...we wouldn't be in this position to continually improve the article if asgardian had not had the original initiative to clean it up and reference it, so let's acknowledge that.

That being said, it's all fine having a format done and agreed to, but in terms of brevity and the like....yes it is much better to be more succinct with terminology, but at the same time we shouldn't sacrifice delivery and tone. In this regard a middle-ground must be met.

Now in terms of content. Above all the publication history needs to be expounded. In particular the issue I raised above (The creation of the character of Galactus) concerning the actual creation of the Galactus character by lee and kirby, which covenantD has also agreed is necessary. Now I've already done most of the research on that, and have a draft of a new introduction paragraph incorporating that material, but as it is I still want to work on it. However I have a titanic, once-in-a-year exam approaching the first week of june, and all my time outside of work is devoted to that. If someone would care to begin the publication history by dealing with, specifically, the "Galactus Trilogy," Kirby's inspirations/though processes, etc. that would really begin to separate this article from the rest of the comic book character entries. Mobb One 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The "Publication history" section is wholly inadequate as it stands. Galactus has made several key appearances throughout the years not only in Fantastic Four but in Thor, The Silver Surfer, Iron Man, ROM Infinity Gauntlet and many more. A "road map" through these is needed. --Tenebrae 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hooray...progress. I'm happy to expand on a PH as that is easily done. It just has to be objective with no POV and sourced which is what my revisions have tried to achieve. Having had another look at the two versions, I'm still a little miffed that a certain trio never took the time to study the changes, which only try to enforce some consistency throughout the article and stop that POV and image overkill which seems to creep in on cosmic characters that have a strong following.

Onward.

Asgardian 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nice, hearing people come together. One quick suggestion: Probably it might be helpful to keep unmentioned those things that miff. No good comes of that in discussions like these; trust me. Unquestionably, though, as Asgardian says, POV has to be removed.

Mobb One, why not post your PH draft here, and let us fellow eds take a crack at polishing? -- Tenebrae 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairly Oddparents

In The Fairly Oddparents, I just wanted to add that Timmy's godparents appear as parodies of the Silver Surfer with skateboards instead of his surfboard. Should this be in the Silver Surfer article or can it be noted here?Hoopesk2 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer's. Still, I don't know if it's worth adding. --Soetermans 10:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes but also Timmy appear as Galactimus, a clear parody of galactus in the name,apparence and beavour(he proclam to eat the planet

Additions, Revisions, Edits, and Modifications

Alright guys, I encourage all the people who have contributed to this article lately (you know who you are) to get together here and start brainstorming about how to improve this article.

As per the discussion topic above, I'll post a preliminary draft of a new intro and publication history that details the actual circumstances and background concerning the creation of the character.

I've just read that Galactus may take the form of a storm cloud in the new FF movie. Many fans are extremely irate, some don't even know who Galactus is. From what i've seen, many people are turning to wikipedia for a complete learning of what and who Galactus really is. This motivates me to really see this article done well and I think we should use this opportunity to illustrate that wikipedia can be the one stop source of information.

I'll be posting my draft here soon.

Mobb One 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention the 'cosmic cloud' Galactus in the article. Perhaps when unlocked, it can be put in. 60.241.198.190 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a preliminary draft of the Galactus intro and opening paragraph of the publication history. I don't have the specific references with me on hand right now, but as you can see i've inserted them and will specify them sometime later this week.

-Introduction-

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity who appears in publications of Marvel Comics, occasionally appearing as an adversary of the Fantastic Four or Silver Surfer. Sometimes called the Devourer of Worlds or Ravager of Planets, Galactus is an enormously powerful being who must “feed” on the energy of planets to survive.

Galactus was created by artist Jack Kirby and writer Stan Lee, first appearing in in the landmark Fantastic Four #48. Kirby envisioned Galactus' character to be conceptually equivalent to God, making Galactus one of the first comic-book characters conceived in this mold. (citation, television interview with Jack Kirby)Depicted as a being existing since the beginning of the current Marvel-616 universe, Galactus has consumed countless planets, resulting in the elimination of entire extra-terrestrial civilizations. As one of the most powerful and terrifying characters ever created by the publisher, Galactus has become more developed in recent decades, coming to embody a force of cosmic nature whose existence is necessary for the continuation of the universe. Writers have explored topics involving morality, philosophy, and religion with stories concerning the necessity of Galactus in the universal order , coupled with the required destruction of entire inhabited worlds for his survival.

-Publication History-

"The Galactus Trilogy"

Writer Stan Lee and artist/co-writer Jack Kirby first introduced Galactus —as well as the Silver Surfer— in the landmark Fantastic Four #48, published in 1966. A classic story in which Galactus' then-herald, the Silver Surfer, located Earth for destruction, issue #48 was titled "The Coming of Galactus." It was the first of a three-part story, with "If this Be Doomsday!" and "The Startling Saga of the Silver Surfer" being parts 2 and 3, featured in Fantastic Four #49 and #50, respectively. The "Galactus Trilogy," as the three issues have become collectively called, is considered by many to be the finest work of Kirby and Lee collaborating together, and has been called "one of the most historically significant moments in Marvel's Silver Age." (citation, The Jack Kirby Collector)

In a 1989 interview, Kirby explained that the inspiration for Galactus was drawn from the Bible. (citation).

I will add more later, as the rest of it is on another computer. --Mobb One 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! We are underway. I'll have a good look later.

Asgardian 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

after my exam is over next week i'll get back to this. i'd like a real nice article before the ff movie comes out....and people start questioning who/what galactus is.

Mobb One 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 04:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can - Monster Movie

Anybody wish to add the reference to Can's album Monster Movie which has a picture of Galacctus on the cover and is a very influential LP? 82.29.114.179 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer

I recently read the novelization of the film and Galactus appears as a kind of cosmic storm/vortex but he isn't shown in his humanoid form. He's also called the Gah Lak Tus, like the Ultimate Marvel version of Galactus. It should be noted under the other media secion. While it's not the film, it's based on the film's script.Odin's Beard 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dial "M" for Monkey

{{Editprotected}}

Since I can't directly edit the page, I'll say it here... The enemy that Monkey fights in the episode of Dial "M" for Monkey is named "Barbequor". More information on the specific episode can be found here. ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to add citation

{{Editprotected}} I'd like to add this reference to the last quote (from Tim Story) in the Movies section. The code would be:

Story, Tim (2007-03-02). "Wow - the clock is ticking..." Retrieved 2007-05-21. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Thanks. [edit: the URL is currently blacklisted, b/c of the root domain. So, for now, I've put {}'s around the "blog" portion of the URL until it is whitelisted (assuming my request for it to be whitelisted is approved).]

Earthsound 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, MZMcBride. I will add the cite when the URL is whitelisted. Earthsound 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a workaround to the blacklist, so I didn't have to wait for the whitelisting as I previously thought. Earthsound 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to fix headings

I would like to request that the heading "Alternate realities" be changed to "Other versions" and the heading "Appearances in other media" be changed to "In other media" so that this is consistent with the template established in the Comics WikiProject. --Freak104 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I've rv to last Smackbot. If there's going to be an edit war between The Balance and Asgardian, why don't we just start before them and ask for an RfC. Thoughts from fellow editors?

One thought from me at top: "It is revealed that" is a passive-voice weasel phrase that should be avoid. Better to use active voice and to just say what was revealed. "In Fantastic Four #1000, Galactus learned he had indigestion all these years", or whatever. --Tenebrae 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Formal Request for Comment

Since User:Asgardian has chosen to revert and continue an edit war, I am calling for a Request for Comment from fellow editors. Given the sheer number of changes, I'd suggest we take it paragraph by paragraph.

The two versions are Asgardian's and User:TheBalance's:

• Last Asgardian version

• Last The Balance version

I'd like to get the ball rolling with graf 1:

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity, in the Marvel Universe. Created by writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby — prompted by Lee's suggestion to Kirby to "have the Fantastic Four fight God"[citation needed] — he first appeared as an antagonist in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (March 1966), the first of three consecutive issues comprising what fans and historians would later call "The Galactus Trilogy".

• First sentence I'd suggest slight expansion for WPC style, to say "fictional comic-book character in the Marvel Comics universe".

• I'd leave out the m-dash phrase in sentence 2, and place it in PH if we can source it.

• The rest of sentence two seems factual: Antagonist? Yes. FF48? Yes. Three consecutive issues? Yes. Called "Galactus Trilogy"? Yes, and given that it's a term used commonly and typically, I believe it belongs in the lead, but sourced. There are countless sources; offhand, I've pulled out: Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5; Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered).

Thoughts? --Tenebrae 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "a fictional comic-book character in the Marvel Comics universe" He's not fictional within the Marvel Universe.

"a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe" would be more consistent with how we've started going with those opening sentences lately. Doczilla 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good, sharp distinction. I'll start adjusting leads that way on my watchlist articles. Although we could probably say "fictional comic book character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe", since no where else in the lead does it specify he appears in comic books as opposed to comic strips, graphic novels, manga or other forms. --Tenebrae 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc on the first line and with Tenebrae about the "dashed" section. That full second sentence though...

"Created by writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby, the character first appeared as an antagonist in a three issue story arc that began in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966). This ar would later be called "The Galactus Trilogy" by fans and historians.^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)

- J Greb 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, it's usually better to use active voice rather than passive: "fans and historians call...", rather than "called by fans and historians." Just sayin'. Though in this case the passive voice has source, and it's not one of those "It is believed that...." things, so if consensus is to go with passive in this case, I'm certainly OK.

We ready for next graf?--Tenebrae 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, first things first. It is hardly an edit war, as folks just need to understand how to do things Wiki-style. As I said, my main issue is POV. Who says this arc is the Galactus Trilogy? I'd also leave out the mention of fans, as that cannot be proven. Fans may call the first arc many different things. As to historians, again it becomes a question of who. What can be said with confidence is that the arc was "epic". This is reasonable due to the significance of the story, just as the Korvac Saga was epic. If you've found a source, then great. Link it and I have no issue.

That said, this: :"a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe" doesn't really make sense. Try saying it out loud. Try "Galactus is a cosmic entity that exists in the fictional Marvel Universe."

Asgardian 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We start with "fictional character" in these articles. The article is about the character, not the Marvel Universe itself, and we begin by clearly stating the character's own fictional nature. Doczilla 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Roy Thomas, Stan Lee, and Erik Larsen are sources for the term Galactus Trilogy. See citations above.

I'm with J Greb and the previously consensus-derived WPC editorial exemplar on the version of the intro line. Unless other editors want to comment, it's been days and we have a majority of the commenting editors reaching consensus. Let's wait a day and go to the next paragraph then. --Tenebrae 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

With Doczilla's point... a suggested rework for the lead:

"Galactus is a fictional character in the Marvel Universe, where it is portrayed as a cosmic entity.

"Writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby created the character as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four comic book. It first appeared in a three issue story arc that began in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966), which historians of the medium would later call "The Galactus Trilogy".^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)"

- J Greb 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Still a tad clumsy. Try this:

"The character is created by writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby. Galactus first appears in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 - 50 (Mar. 1966), an arc later referred to as "The Galactus Trilogy".

This keeps it simple. Galactus has always been referred to as a "he" (and is in the article), not an "it". That will create confusion. Also lead with "the character" and in the following sentence his actual name to avoid repetition. Also avoid the wordiness and go for a succinct statement. "First appears in FF vol. 1, 48 - 50 (date)" keeps present tense, spells out which book and that it is obviously a trilogy. "Historians of the medium" is also clunky and pretentious. Just say "later referred to etc." with a source tagged on the end. That's enough. People don't get preceded by a title in comics articles as a rule - there's just a source at the end of the statement.

Asgardian 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He was created - past tense. That's fact, not fiction. The statement about the first appearance at that point in the article is not fiction either. The same statement, when placed within the fictional history section, would have to be present tense, but not in the lead. The lead is fine except that (1) the unsourced remark about having the FF fight God either needs deleted or moved into the publication history section and (2) the thing about fans and historians is inappropriate for the lead without proper sourcing.

• • "Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Universe. Created by writer/editor Stan Lee and penciller/co-plotter Jack Kirby, he first appeared as an antagonist in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (March 1966)." (Or add sources for more info. Don't leave the lead with a lingering "citation needed".)

Although, does it matter that Stan edited the story too? Writer should suffice. And without a source citing Jack as co-plotter, we should call him what those issues of FF called him. We're already giving him equal credit as having created the character. Even if we have a co-plot source (which should be easy to get), that info belongs in publication history. Keep the lead simple. Doczilla 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Doc, the lead is supposed to be a real world description of the subject. I had deliberately split it into 2 'graphs so there wouldn't be a jump in tense. The first is what the subject is since it, the character, is still in use by Marvel. Looking at Asgardian's comment, I would change one thin in that sentence though, swapping "...where it is portrayed..." with "...where the character is portrayed as...". It may be a double take on "character" but it grounds that the article deals with what is essentially a thing.

As for the second section... 1) I tried to avoid passive voice in it, hence "Lee & Kirby created the character..." and "...which historians would later call..." 2) Given the profile of both Lee and Kirby, the "job" notations could be done away with entirely. And 3) looking at it again, "of the medium" is putting on airs and can go.

- J Greb 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as the edit protect is lifted I plan on greatly expanding the publication history. What will be expanded on is as follows:

The original impetus behind the creation of Galactus, sourced from jack kirby interviews/primary sources. Mystical/Mythical connotations heavily symbolized in the story, including summarized analysis/interpretation from comic hisorians Significance of the story The evolving interpretation of Galactus by writers featured in thor, silver surfer, fantastic four, and the galactus limited series, among others. this will all be referenced and cited.Mobb One 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good! If can just start with a date for every new point I'm happy.

Asgardian 10:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First issue: Asgardian saying this isn't the result of an edit war doesn't make it so. Other editors say it is, creating a consensus.

Second, I'd like to ask J Greb to put his synthesis of the lead, based on our discussion, immediately below so that we make look at it, reach consensus, and move to the next graf(s). Thanks. --Tenebrae 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Working with the additional suggestions:

"Galactus is a fictional character in the Marvel Universe, where the character is portrayed as a cosmic entity.

"Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the character as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four comic book. It first appeared in a three issue story arc that began in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966), which historians would later call "The Galactus Trilogy".^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)"

Keep in mind this is set up as a mock-up with the ref/cite call outs. It also feels a little thin, but serviceable, for a lead. - J Greb 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not fictional within the Marvel Universe. "Portrayed"? There's no actor playing the part. Within the Marvel Universe, Galactus simply is a cosmic entity. This accurately combines the information:

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Universe.

Notice that I put no comma after entity because the comma presently in the article screws up in the meaning. The comma says that in addition to being a fictional character, Galactus really is a cosmic entity, but he's not. He's only a cosmic entity within the MU. On to the second sentence . . .

"It"? Although I understand the rationale, that's just not what we say. If you don't like "he" when discussing the character as a comic property, avoid any pronoun at that point in the article. Okay, we have sources calling it the Galactus Trilogy, but historians aren't the ones who first called it that. Either Stan or the fans first called it that way back when. Try this for the second sentence:

Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four, Galactus first appeared in Fantastic Four vol. 1 #48 (Mar. 1966), the first part of a three-issue story later known as "The Galactus Trilogy". REFS

He was created as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four characters. He did not antagonize the comic book. Yeah, that sounds picky, but it's redundant to say Fantastic Four as the publication twice in the same sentence if you don't have to. I can pull out The Elements of Style and other sources to elaborate on why using coordination and subordination for the sentence's three parts is better than using any conjunction or breaking it into two sentences. Doczilla 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it, Doc. As I indicated earlier, all the essential information can be conveyed in one fluid sentence. While I don't like "it" (none of the other cosmics are referred to in this manner), I think "he" is serviceable as it is fairly commonplace. We can always alternate between "Galactus" and "the character" if that's not an option.

Asgardian 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A minor quibbling point... "portrayed" can be used for "shown as", ie "The news story portrayed the politician in a bad light." Evidently that usage is less common than it once was since the immediate assumption was that an actor was involved.

That aside, the structure Doc's put up works well. - J Greb 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is User:Doczilla's first graf, incorporating User:Asgardian's point about the team vs. the comic book series, and an additional word in the lead sentence:

Galactus is a fictional character, a cosmic entity in the Marvel Comics universe. Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as an antagonist for the Fantastic Four, the character first appeared in Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48 (Mar. 1966), the first part of a three-issue story later known as "The Galactus Trilogy". REFS

What do we think? Have we nailed it? --Tenebrae 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Fingers crossed, maybe we can stick a fork in this piece and call it done.

And I hope it was clear that REFS was my shorthand for:

^[1][2]

"1. ↑ Thomas, Roy, Stan Lee's Amazing Marvel Universe (Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006), "Moment 29: The Galactus Trilogy", pp. 112-115. ISBN-10 1-4027-4225-8; ISBN-13 978-1-4027-4225-5

"2. ↑ Marvel Spotlight: Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer (2007; no month): "Jack Kirby's The Galactus Trilogy", by Erik Larsen, pp. 10-21 (unnumbered)" Doczilla 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear indeed!

If there's no objection by end of day today, I'll swap in the consensus version of graf 1.

On to graf 2!

Graf 2

Here's my pass at it, which combines the first two grafs of the PH. I've edited out some of the self-evident material ("the need to generate sales" compelled creation of Galactus -- the need to generate sales compels everything) and toned down the hyperbole and passive-voice material ("is considered by many to be the finest work of Kirby and Lee collaborating together" ... as opposed to collaborating apart, one supposes....) The material about the trilogy's historical importance can go into a Legacy section, since PH is more of a roadmap than anything.

Publication history
Image caption: Fantastic Four #48 (March 1966). Cover art by Jack Kirby & Sinnott.

Writer-editor Stan Lee and penciler and co-plotter Jack Kirby introduced Galactus and his herald the Silver Surfer in a three-part story Fantastic Four vol. 1, #48-50 (March-May 1966). Insert cited ref quoting a Stan Lee sentence or two on Galactus' creation, while Kirby said he drew inspiration from the Bible. (Ref The Masters of Comic Book Art (1987), directed by Ken Viola). Galactus made a flashback cameo in Daredevil vol. 1, #37 (Feb. 1968) before returning to Earth to retrieve the Silver Surfer in actual and behind-the-scenes appearances throughout Fantastic Four #72-77 (March-Aug. 1968). He next appeared in extensive flashback in the heretofore unrevealed origin of the Silver Surfer, in The Silver Surfer vol. 1, #1 (Aug. 1968).

OK, let's tackle that above graf!--Tenebrae 11:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: the need to generate sales and the villains/gangsters, this needs to remain in the PH or perhaps in the legacy section which you suggest. Kirby goes on to reveal in the interview that Galactus and the Silver Surfer are the first such characters of their kind ever created in comics medium. The creations were the first departure from the standard villain archetype, which made them so revolutionary. I am a professional in finance-sales does not necessarily generate innovation, which is what I was trying to communicate in my original (though incomplete) paragraph.

Re: the stan Lee citation. I haven't found any such reliable source for his part in creating Galactus. If you can find one then that would be excellent. As it is, I've seen more articles indicating that Lee had much less of a hand in creating Galactus than Kirby.

For the publication history, there should be a sentence or three summarizing the the events of key issues/stories, along with the significance of the issue/story on the development of the character, as opposed to just having issues with publication dates. See the publication history for the Storm entry, which is acknowledged as one of the more exemplary articles per wiki comics project. I don't think it's appropriate to just have a streamlined approach to the PH...to the average reader they're just titles and the year of their publication. There's a real disconnect there. So, as it stands, I disagree with the above paragraph.Mobb One 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We should all check out the Storm entry. Lee quotes exist; I've been a little too swamped to research cites, but I promise to.

As for whether or not such characters existed before, I'm sure Kirby believes they were revolutionary and unique, but comics previously had antagonists whose actions threatened the entire world. I think we need to specify what the unique elements are.

Since it's toward the end of the day (9 p.m. EDT), it appears we have consensus on the first graf, so I'll go ahead an put it in. --Tenebrae 01:09, 19 June 2007(UTC)

re: antagonists-expounding on what makes galactus (and to a degree, the silver surfer) so unique was my intention in a subsequent development paragraph. if you watch the video interview, kirby made a clear distinction between antagonists in the past...i.e. villains like doom who threatened the whole world for power/conquest/wealth...these he lumps into a category he labels "gangsters."

The difference between them and Galactus is that Galactus is such a higher being that all human motivations are beneath him. This makes him singular in this aspect and separate from any and all villains. That is why Kirby drew motivation from the Bible...Galactus was to be depicted as having such incomprehensible power that he was beyond all mortal ken, and his motivations were purely for assurance of his own survival-the concerns of normal man were too far beneath him to even take notice...making him a true "god" in that respect-kirby even stated that they (galactus and ss) were meant to be portrayed as being above mythological figures (thor, odin, etc.) and more a pantheon of true cosmic "gods." This is what kirby was driving at and conveyed in the interview. And he primarily was motivated to break away from the mold of traditional villain (the "gangster" archetype) due to a need to increase sales. How to increase sales? Create a character that had never been seen before.Mobb One 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best way to get this across is to have the full Jack Kirby quote. Could you transcribe it from the documentary and copy it here? Since Kirby, God bless 'im, often exaggerated and misremembered things, we'd probably need a balancing quote. Thanks! --Tenebrae 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Start with the date. That's where it begins and ends.

Asgardian 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"My inspirations were the fact that, I had to make sales. And I had to come up with characters that were no longer stereotypes. In other words I couldn't depend on gangsters anymore, I had to get something new. And of course I...for some reason, I went to the Bible. And I came up with Galactus. And there I was in front of this tremendous figure, who I knew very well, because I always felt him, and I certainly couldn't treat him the same way that I would any ordinary mortal...and of course the Silver Surfer is the fallen angel. And when Galactus relegated him to Earth he stayed on Earth. And that was the beginning of his adventures. And they were...figures that have never been used before in comics. They were above mythic figures, and of course, they were the first gods."

-Jack Kirby, 1986~1987

Mobb One 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I'll find a Stan Lee quote about the creation of Galactus from a real-world, PH perspective. These would be separate grafs that would follow a set-up graf (graf 2).

I think the name of the documentary with the Kirby quote is here somewhere, but I don't readily see it. Could you add it so we can do the footnote?

Everyone else OK with adding a Kirby and a Lee quote? They're primary sources. --Tenebrae 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Masters of Comic Book Art. Dir. Ken Viola 1987 moving forward...there's material (from secondary sources, i.e. jack kirby collector journal) analyzing what the significance of the "Galactus Trilogy" represents to comics in general, and more specifically how the characters (Galactus and SS) are interpreted and why exactly they were revolutionary. This may be a bit much to include in the PH, I think we should have a legacy section as you mention. The kirby/lee quotes should suffice for the PH, and then we can elaborate on this quoting sources for analysis in a legacy section or similar. Mobb One 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that by date the PH can quite easily track Galactus' appearances. After two appearances in Thor and a return quest for the Surfer, the next one is the arrival of the Airwalker robot, then Thor again for Firelord, a bout with the High Evolutionary and then 2-3 more that lead into the thick of the Byrne era. I can help with these if you need exact specs.

Asgardian 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian can you provide these dates then? Per the storm entry I intend to place a comment on so on the key events in publication history that saw writers "flesh out" galactus' character. this will probably remove some info in the body section of the article and re-phrase it from a publication/writer's point of view.Mobb One 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do in the next day or so. I'll also try and find Mark Gruenwald's comment on the inappropriate use of Galactus as character.

Asgardian 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled the image of Galactus without his helmet as:

1. It clogs the space. There are already three very good images at the bottom of the article. All pertinent.

2. Further to this, it simply isn't relevant. The Byrne image and text explain the "differing perception" phenomenon, and then mentions that the armour can be removed. There's no need to belabour the point with another image.

3. How many Wikipedia profiles about characters with helmets have images of them without their helmet? 99% do not, as it is not relevant. Iron Man is the one exception as the Tony Stark persona is intregral to the story. Not so Galactus, as the character is seen wearing the helmet 99% of the time - it is an integral part of his mystique.

By the by, no more snide remarks in the Edit Summary, thank you. Civility first.

Asgardian 09:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

HalfShadow - good call.

Asgardian 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Half - what happened? I still believe the image doesn't fit, but that was good initiative on your part. No way to preserve the image as a link?

Asgardian 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I never changed it back; User:Durin did. Apparently, if it isn't an image, it isn't considered 'used'. I tried to create a 'hidden' image, but the system wouldn't fall for it. I don't really care anymore. HalfShadow 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed the 4 fundamental forces mention in SHB, as the Power Cosmic is all-encompassing and allows manipulation of these - not an extra ability. Tidied up the PH to lead by date and replaced the link to shot of Galactis without helmet. Half, I added a fair use rationale so that should protect it.

Asgardian 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae - you really didn't look with this one. Firstly, the "v1" style is the new thing - JGreb has incorporated this across a number of articles (eg. Absorbing Man) and it looks sharp. Secondly, I corrected an image that was available through a link so it would not be deleted, as Half and I reached an understanding on how to cover that. There's a rationale above. Thirdly, there's also a rationale for the trimming of the P & A in the SHB above. If you can wield the Power Cosmic, then manipulation of the four forces follows - it is not an extra ability. I haven't looked at the Power Cosmic entry, but that is the place for elaboration on what is possible, not Galactus' SHB. Finally, the much-debated PH. You reverted back to some rather awkward and ponderous sentences that needed trimming. Always, always keep it simple. After all, 10 year olds now have access to the internet as well!

Asgardian 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, v1 is not the new thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes. This is another example of unilaterally going against consensus. And before you "speak to a solicitor (attorney)", that's not victimization, it's the recognition of an documented pattern.--Tenebrae 14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't say silly things like that. Please.

Asgardian 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian, just a point of clarification: I've been using "v#" as per the results of {{Comic book reference}}, that is in citations that that get places in the footnote/reference section. I've been using "vol. #," where it appears in the main article text. I've pointed out to Tenebrae, and I'll repeat it here, this appears to be consistent with how the template, "Titles with numerous volumes", and "Citations" read.

That being said, it is arguable that the template may need to be changed to come in line with "Titles with numerous volumes". Though I don' relish the though of having to find all the places I've used the compromise "ref using the resulting format instead of the template code for readability" situations. - J Greb 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JG. It seems we have another yet another aspect of Wikipedia that requires clarification. The "fair use" business have also cropped up this week with images. Like you, I would not enjoy having to backtrack and correct everything to conform to the latest change that may morph again into something else six months from now.

Asgardian 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae - it is good to see you now taking suggestions on board, such as the note about the Power Cosmic. And yes, it does not need to be bolded. That said, I've reverted the image as it was available through a link, and based on a rationale I provided and Half then delivered on. The issue was solved. As for the PH, the main problem is that the wording is too unwieldly. Example: "the heretofore unrevealed origin" is ponderous and a tad pretentitious. Thoughts?

Asgardian 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to make such snide remarks as "it is good to see you now taking suggestions on board." I've always done so with responsible edits.

Starting every sentence the same way is bad writing. Every writing textbook, every English composition class and every writing workshop will tell you this. It seems as if you're purposefully baiting other editors, and I am not the first editor to say this.

In addition, it's redundant to say "In 1966" when the sentence then says "issue #such-such (Sept. 1966)." Redundancy is another example of bad writing. Before reverting again, why not either accept these facts or build a valid argument against them. --Tenebrae 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between Galactus and the Celestials

Galactus actually eats planets to control the celestials, I am not sure what comic this is from but the artwork looks legit

"The Celestials are race of gigantic cosmic beings who have god-like powers. They were inhabitants of the universe that existed before our own, who had advanced themselves so far up the evolutionary ladder that their very existence caused that universe to collapse. They survived the Big Bang of our universe, and have continued to thrive ever since.

As they advanced themselves, the Celestials began to lose their physical forms. To keep from completely discorporating into the Universe, they created shells for themselves out of the metal known on Earth as vibranium. The Celestials are now beings of pure energy, thought and will incarnate. Each, however, has a distinctive outer casing.

As a result of their advancement, Celestials cannot reproduce the way lesser species do. To generate offspring, Celestials implant of piece of their essences inside a planet. They then surround the embryonic energy with vibranium, which the offspring will use as a casing when it emerges. Finally, to protect the offspring from alien invaders who might harm the planet, the Celestials modify the indigenous intelligent life of the planet, imlanting a "seed" in its genes that will mutate and give super-powers to them as the embryo nears maturation. The vibranium helps to serve as a catalyst for this change. The guardian life evolves through three levels of mutation before the Celestial emerges and the entire world, including its populace, is converted into vibranium for the newborn's use. The Celestials have one natural predator: Galactus, a being who also survived the destruction of the previous universe, and knew the Celestials had caused it. He dedicated himself to controlling the Celestials population growth, which he does using sophisticated machinery that absorbs the embryo's energy from its planetary womb. This has the unfortunate side-effect of destroying the planet, which is why Earth heroes have fought Galactus off numerous times"

http://www.mutanthigh.com/aliens/celestials1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.210.253 (talk • contribs)

This idea was suggested in the earth x stories, though i cannot remember which part. it has been reported by Marvel to be an alternativ earth (wiki page decribes it properly). either way i am sure its not cannon in regards to galactus and the celestials relationship User:Princekilderkin|Princekilderkin]] (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie Screencapture

We'll have to wait for the DVD release for a long time but, if the movie releases on DVD, could one of you take a screencap of Galactus in the movie? We might need it, thanks.

My reason for this is that the cloud looks cool (I only saw the TV spot).

Sorry for being (I don't remember how to spell it but it's someone who doesn't want people to know who he/she is)

Galactus: FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer

The article states that Galactus is a sentient cloud in the film; however, although massive and clearly having vast powers there doesn't seem to be any implicit indications that the cloud is sentient. 66.109.248.114 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer spoke to and him as if he is Sentient; the Herald even summoned Galactus by name. --Panelmyth107 06:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to something as if it were sentient does not make it sentient. Summoning the Galactus by name, does not rule out any other cues, prompts or signal that may have been projected at that point.66.109.248.114 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, give me a break. The Surfer obviously had a relationship and a bargain with him, and referred to it as "him". It's blatantly obvious it's a sentient lifeform. You shouldn't need to get beaten over the head with it to be able top understand that.Rglong 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Galactus could just as easily have been an entity surrounded by the cloud. In fact, that's how my sons interpreted shadows they saw in the area the Surfer was talking toward, while SS himself was inside some of the cloud. Either way, we cannot insert our own inferences into the article. Doczilla 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That thing was huge. Though in a way I do not believe that he was sentient because I agree somewhat with Doczilla Maybe Galactus was just an Entity surrounded by the cloud and his "Arms" (I don't know what else to call them) began to reach into the Planet. But we will never know the truth untill one of the Directors or other Crew members that worked on the movie state that he is in fact sentinet. Though he could have been part of the galaxy or something to do with like Eternity from the comics. But then again he could have been alive or the Surfer would not have been able to blow him up and kill him. Or unless that Surfer just destroyed a life bearing string in the Galaxy that hold the fabrics of reality together. But untill someone does say that he is a life form or not, all we can do is just assume. And we can not add assumptions into the article without reference saying that it is correct so I believe we just say that he is an Entity of the Galaxy, not a lifeform but not not alive. If that makes sense. ManofSTEEL2772 01:44 p.m. June 19 2007

I don't think it's an "inference" to say that he's sentient. He has the power to reason, he made a deal with the Surfer. The surfer bows down to him and talks to him. Galactus has solid, geometric form underneath the fire and his head moves to react to the Surfer. It's not like it's totally up in the air and you can interpret it any way you want. If we start limiting wikipedia to only containing what's blatantly, painfully obvious and spelled out (like you need the script to specifically use the word "sentient" or something) then it's going to end up being pretty darn shallow and stripped of real information. But then more and more people these days can't understand anything unless they're beaten over the head with it.

Additionally I saw the movie again and it's pretty clear there are solid, mechanical structures just underneath the clouds, especially metal fingers poking out underneath the smoke tendrils. Go ahead and wait for the DVD if you want but that cloud is just concealing a huge structure underneath.Rglong 23:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is one part in the film. When Reed while holding Sue is looking up towards the sky, there appeared to be a brief moment that shows an eye. I've only seen the movie once so far, but has anyone else noticed this too? I too feel that there is a being cover up by the fires and smoke, they probably made Galactus this way so he wouldn't look to ridiculous in the film.

In Universe

The section detailing the fictional biography is overly long, at conflict with Wikipedia not being a plot summary resource, and written in an in-universe style. The information should be sourced in real world detail and migrated to the publication history section, in accordance with the manual of style. The information as currently presented is more suited to a more in-universe based resource, such as the Marvel Database. Hiding Talk 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well...to be fair, long-standing characters such as Galactus have very full FCB's, and it is hard for the information to not be in-universe. As it is, I tidied it up sometime ago and introduced the right tense and culled a great deal of the POV and "tell the story" so it is just a case of "X does Y and this happens", which is more the Wikipedia way.

Asgardian 06:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This will be corrected once we get a solid PH down. The rest of the article will be improved in kind.Mobb One 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

two out of the three dc appearances are not canons?

yeah umm... where do you have proof its not a canon.

Galen

His name is Galen, not Galan. It's stated in The Marvel Encyclopedia (Book), and in Marvel Ultimate Allance (Video/Computer Game) that that is his true name.

So why doesn't someone make the corrections all over the damn article?

Because Galan is the correct spelling, perhaps? Galan was the the name used in the original origin and in the SVC #1 retelling, Galen is the mistake sometimes seen in modern comics. TheBalance 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No image

Why isn't there an image of Galactus on this page? Andraxx 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Duck Dogers and Hungortus, Eater of Worlds

On a 2005 episode of Duck Dodgers (TV series) entitled "Consumtion Overruled"; there is a giant helmeted space alien named Hungortus, Eater of Worlds. He has a face with a mouth, but, he eats planets, (along with their occupants), with an opening in his torso. When he arrives in the Solar System, Earth and Mars fight over which planet he will eat. In the end he consumes large amounts food packets dropped from spacecraft sent from both planets. It sounds a whole lot better than a massive cloud of space debris, (FF:Rise of the Silver Surfer). In Duck Dogers, the humor is intentional. Massive cloud of space debris sounds like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, where a cloud surrouds the V"ger (Voyager) spacecraft, execpt they left out the spacecraft and only had the cloud. Execpt for a briefly seen image.204.80.61.110 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Infobox image

Before the image is removed again, can we give the current promoter of it (User:Manssiere) of the original uploader (User:Galactiac) a chance to get a proper Fair Use Rationale, including source for the image and what exactly it's an image of (toy, statuette, or what?). - J Greb 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone please find an appropriate image. The user should know images of toys are not the norm.

Asgardian 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, images of toy or statues are not the norm, but they are not forbidden, at least by no guideline I've seen to this point. As long as a complete FUR is applied and it isn't a fan sculpt. - J Greb 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an image of a heroclix miniature figure. -Galactiac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactiac (talk • contribs) 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so what was wrong with the comic book image used previously? A Jack Kirby image from the original Galactus Trilogy, or even the CGI Galactus from Marvel: Ultimate Alliance would be better than some cheap plastic toy! 68.145.128.30 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a suitable replacement and tagged it for the fair use rationale. Give me a day or so and I'll source the image. No more model shots thank you.

Asgardian 04:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement in Asgardian, so that truly speaks to the breadth of feeling about using a main image that's not from the actual medium under discussion. --Tenebrae 04:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original Andrea Devito image was much more striking and impressive than the current one. Why can't we use the original image that was present before (from Stormbreaker)?

Mobb One 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear me! "Fear the might of Galactus!"

Is it me, or does Galactus awlays talk in third person?

cultrual references: MUSIC

I move that "Other Cultural referencs" have a music section as well:

In the song "Bigacts LIttleacts" off his album "Body of the LIfeforce", Afu-Ra mentions that he is "sharper than a cactus, conquering globes and universes with Galactus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.76 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 4 rv

An image edit today brings up a really important point. I'm not commenting on the image itself, which seems fine if a little background-y. I'm commenting on the reason for the change. The edit summary said it was because the previous image, from 1999, was "dated".

Now, Galactus' trademark design is the same in both, and an encyclopedia can depict the prevalent design of a character whether an image is from 1999 or (as at Thor (Marvel Comics)) 1969. I'm not sure what the rationale is for replacing an image only because it's from 1999, unless it's a matter of decorative personal preference. Thoughts? --Tenebrae 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• See fair use rationale. The previous image depicted Galactus in a somewhat "angry" pose...in my opinion that is not quite appropriate for a character who has increasingly been depicted over the past 20 years to be emotionless and "beyond reproach" in the words of Jack Kirby. The artist of the previous image, Jim Starlin, created the art for the "Thanos" limited series (cover to Thanos #3), not the Galactus: The Devourer mini-series as Asgardian had incorrectly captioned. As such Galactus takes a secondary role in Thanos series and is understandably used as an antagonist of sorts against the protagonist (Thanos). I have restored the new image with fair use rationale which I am confident will explain. Mobb One 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair use" refers to copyright status, not appropriateness of the image. As you say, the image you added is better in your opinion — opinion being the notable word. As fellow editors, we both know that changing an SHB image is not something done lightly or unilaterally, and requires discussion.

Please start a new section below asking other editors whether the SHB image should be replaced, what you would like to replace it with, and why. Then let's please wait for consensus. Thanks. --Tenebrae 19:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are other images that are better than either. Galactus in impassive mode with no other visual distractions is the preference.

Asgardian 08:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SHB image discussion

OK, I guess I can get the ball rolling.

Yes, I agree with Asgardian that we can find a better image than either than one currently here or than the two new suggestions — the first of which has him in background with much clutter in the image, and the second of which is cluttered by a large number of other entities. We need a simple frontal (or close to) image of his most common design (which should be easy, since it hasn't changed since the original and very quickly changed "giant G" design), and uncluttered by outside elements or obscured by graphic effects. Should be easy enough, right? --Tenebrae 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• As I have already mentioned (and Asgardian agrees with me), an image of him in characteristic impassive stance is the best image. The image that was present before Asgardian uploaded the current image is a prime example that fit the above criteria. This is also a good image. http://www.geocities.com/kane_vi/Galactus.JPG. If anyone can find better images, please do so. This article needs an appropriate image.Mobb One 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a good image, except he's all red.
  • I've found a couple; if we like any I can try and source the art:
  • Sample 1 (need to crop out caption)
  • Sample 2
  • Sample 3
  • --Tenebrae 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sample two was the image I was discussing before...i.e. the image that fit the criteria before it was deleted. I'll try and get a better shot of the sample I provided as well. Mobb One 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found a better image of the one I suggested previously. If no one objects I would like to use this image here

• Mobb One 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was the one I'd mentioned before in which Galactus is all red, rather than his standard colors. I'm not sure that would work.

Any comments on the three samples?--Tenebrae 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgement here folks. I culled the model shot as it was inappropriate and needed a "quick fix" shot. Whatever you pick around the criteria already discussed is fine with me.

Asgardian 07:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, I encourage you to view the image on a different monitor, or to adjust your monitor settings. That image is taken from a canon story (Annihilation) and is from the Silver Surfer mini-series. The image is most-assuredly the standard Galactus. Asgardian, do you see that the image has the proper costume? Mobb One 07:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The costume design is fine; it's just the whole image is tinted red. But y'know, while I prefer Sample 1 above, if others are adamant about this Mobb One image, then for what it's worth I won't object. If it's looking all red on other screens besides mine, we'll know soon enough from other editors. Mr. Easy-Going, that's me. Now why do I feel like saying, "Excelsior!"? --Tenebrae 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go ahead and install the higher-resolution image of the above sample. If there are complaints that it's too red, then we can always try another package. I have sample 1 above, except with the English caption. I don't have an image editor so if we are going to use that image at some point, someone will have to kindly take out the Galactus' dialogue.Mobb One 02:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If we need to, I've got Photoshop. Check out how I cropped the cover and removed the logo for The Spirit SHB image. Hey, we gotta take pride in what work we can!   :-)   --Tenebrae 02:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better. That and the image with his face in shadow are the best two I've seen yet.

Asgardian 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following as a possible new image in the SHB. In my opinion, it has done the best job of portraying the cosmic nature of Galactus, while portraying complete indifference to human affairs. Thoughts?Mobb One (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect...except for the Centurion. I suppose you could crop the picture down the side.

Asgardian (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and upload the image. Mobb One (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on the above image from other editors? So far, user: Asgardian and myself are for the new image.Mobb One (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Brevity of Article

In general I feel the article overall is too brief. As I've mentioned before, per the wikicomics project the ultimate objective of the article is to give the reader a comprehensive source of information for the character in question. Brevity does not necessarily conflict with this end, but taken to the extreme-and in the case of this Galactus article, championed over all else-the quality is severely compromised.

I encourage all editors to take a look at what wikicomics contributors have voted as "good" articles...this is only a sampling and is culled from the wikiproject comics page:

Silver Surfer - June 18 2007

Storm (Marvel Comics) — December 3, 2006

Lex Luthor - July 20 2007

As you can see, the articles cited as "good" articles have far more information in them than our Galactus entry currently has. For example, the introduction for Silver Surfer goes further in depth after the opening line...which is all we have for Galactus. Information added by other editors should be evaluated as improving overall quality of the article and not immediately dismissed as "being too long" or "too fan-oriented." There is much in the above three mentioned articles that would both be ruled "too long" and "too fan-oriented" by other editors here for the Galactus article...yet the articles cited above have been comprehensively reviewed, and as evidenced by their favored status, proved to be vastly superior to our article for Galactus.

See the full list of good articles at WikiProject Comics. Mobb One 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Silver Surfer article looks pretty good at first glance. The Storm article, however, has PH & FCB mashed together, subheads contrary to basic Wikipedia MOS (so just on that I don't know how it got a "good" rating), and an essay-ish WP:NOR quality. The more encyclopedically written Lex Luthor article also doesn't follow WPC style or the exemplar. In any event, Galactus has made far fewer appearances than any of those three, and while the article could always use tweaking and improvement, I don't believe it's too brief. Remember, we're writing for a general-reader audience, not comic fans. --Tenebrae 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed but more often-than-not, the general reader-audience are comic fans of some sort. Everyone has heard of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc. Galactus is a very niche character...the odds are if someone turns to wikipedia looking for a Galactus entry, they are familiar with any of Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, Dr. Strange, Infinity Gauntlet, etc. etc. etc. By definition that means they are comic fans....also, the general-reader audience should not mean that a comprehensive article be marginalized, which as I have maintained several times is the highest objective of the comics article, per both wikipedia and wikiprojects comics guidelines. Mobb One 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm with ya on the general principle. After that, the execution shouldn't be too hard. I guess I can volunteer to expand the PH, which, you're right, now that I look at it, is skimpy even for general readers. Work never ends!   :-)   --Tenebrae 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I still aim to have a "legacy" section of sorts on the Galactus trilogy, as we discussed previously during the summer. The other computer I had stored the information on has since died and I will need to gather my sources again...but I think it's important to at least discuss the trilogy in some manner in the PH. We also need the image of Fantastic Four #48 restored...as that is the first appearance of Galactus and I have yet to see a proper comic entry that doesn't include an image of some kind of the character's first appearance. I can volunteer to touch on the trilogy in the PH...and then discuss motives/interpretations/significance in the legacy section. Does anyone think this is not a good idea?Mobb One 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely need a first-app image (or second app, actually -- he appears in the last panel of #48, and isn't on the cover. He's very much on the classic cover of #49).

I think a couple of sentences quoting comics historians or notable critics about the Galactus trilogy is an excellent idea. We can't really talk it about ourselves, since that would pretty much constitute an original-research essay. But getting authoritative quotes should be easy. (Now if only all my books weren't in temporary storage!) --Tenebrae 01:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much room for expansion in the FCB, but a discourse on Galactus' role in relation to the MU could be interesting. It just can't be POV and would have to be sourced.

Asgardian 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few topics I would like to touch on that would be included on the FCB. However that's secondary to expansion on PH and Galactus' role in relation to the MU, as you say. That I aim to be heavily sourced...once I can retrieve the material I had stored. Mobb One 07:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Image in FCB?

It's my personal opinion the FCB can use another image, as after "Devourer of Worlds" we have several paragraphs but no image. It's not really a huge concern of mine like the SHB image was; I'm just throwing out he possibility.

If we do explore adding another image, should there be one of Galactus actually consuming? I realize there's all this talk in the article of Galactus consuming planets, and the inquisitive reader might have a hard time imagining such a process without an aid of some sort...any thoughts on the matter?Mobb One 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A image of Galactus consuming a planet would be very appropriate for this article, in my opinion. FF #257 has some excellent images of this process (albeit without the elemental converter) pencilled by John Byrne. TheBalance 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proemial Gods

I haven't read the Heralds of Galactus run, but was Galactus actually established as a member of the Proemial Gods/Cosmic Balance? After reading this http://www.marvelonline.com/universe/Proemial_Gods it seems that that he may not have been. If that is indeed the case, then the Annihilation section requires a bit of rewriting. TheBalance 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That pretty much says verbatim what Heralds of Galactus contains. Galactus is not a member of the proemial gods...however the proemial gods and galactus are "brethren" in the sense that they were important parts of the universe. the main, and significant difference, is that while the proemial gods were important, in time their presence was no longer needed, while galactus is an essential component. the comic portrayed tenebrous/aegis/diableri as seeking to disrupt "cosmic consonance," while galactus opposed them. Mobb One 06:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the Annihilation section of the Fictional Character Biography is in need of corrections and/or a minor rewrite. TheBalance 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No OHOTMU

Just a quick note here as the cosmic characters seem to attract well-meaning but possibly misguided fans. The Offical Handbook of the Marvel Universe is not recognised as being valid, as it can be proven to be incorrect on many levels (eg. strength).

Asgardian (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines

The paragraph's spirit should also be adhered to. It warns against heeding a fictitious log of data and opinion that is in the case of the OHOTMU, constantly proven wrong by the comics themselves. The entry here smacks of personal research and is also not helped when using terms such as "implied as such" and "potentially more powerful", which are POV. As to specifics, Mephisto and the Grandmaster are nowhere Galactus' power level - especialy when he is sated and fully energised. The Watchers, Odin and Thanos are also not on his power level.

There is also sentence structure, the use of too many examples, and again, the need to not contradict what has been said in the opening sentences.

I can bring others in to comment as we've had to sideline the OHOTMU argument before now, for all those reasons mentioned.

Asgardian (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The handbook is word from the editor in chief and frequently used as a relevant comparison gauge. The 'class 100' scale is utter nonsense, and to be taken biblically (they should at least simply remove the "tons" part of the term), but as comparison-chart the handbooks are official, and no more 'copyright infringement' than briefly quoting any other text, if simply used in the "he is roughly as powerful as/almost as powerful as/nearly as powerful as" manner. These ones were directly from Mark Gruenwald's supervision, arguably the most well-informed and enthusiastic Marvel cosmology crafter ever, so yes, these are just as relevant as anything else.

Mephisto did stalemate Galactus in a battle penned by Stan Lee, In-Betweener was shown as roughly equal in Silver Surfer issue 18, by the same writer of the issue you mentioned as stating that he's "as powerful as Eternity", the Watchers are consistently treated as almost as powerful whether Galactus addressing Uatu during his first appearance, having to combine their powers to summon Eternity (whom Galactus addressed as "father," which is the way I read “The Origin of Galactus” as well, a universal womb, and big bang as the birth rather than a merger... well mother then), or the ensuing battle in John Byrne's "Last Galactus Story". Tyrant was originally shown as a nearly even match, their centuries-spanning (misremembered?) fight laid galaxies to waste. The Stranger has been referred as more powerful than Watchers, when talking to them in Quasar and Beyond, and was teamed up with Galactus as a peer during Infinity Gauntlet. The primordial titans were shown as nearly as powerful in the same "Annihilation" arc as the quote/in-universe opinion originated, which I personally take with the same grain of salt as the "Sentry is as powerful as a million exploding suns, he's like the Beyonder" statement. Grandmaster and especially Thanos I would personally grant shouldn't be nearly as powerful, but there have been a few exceptions for the former. JLA/Avengers seemed to place him around Watcher level for example, and the OHOTMU stated it outright if I don't misremember, or there is any elder more powerful than himself, which I don't think there is. (It used the phrase "...certain Elders of the Universe...") Excepting the Earth X alterverse, the Celestials have consistently been treated as at least equal, and more likely superior, including their handbook entry. Not even the entire collected power of his worldship was enough for Doctor Doom to handle the Beyonder. Gravity effortlessly beat him, and by temporarily depleting himself he fully re-powered Galactus. Odin and Zeus I can't recall confronting Galactus, just referred as the same scale as Watchers in the handbook, and by doubling his power with the essence of the Asgardians within the Destroyer the former managed to cut off the arm of a Celestial. There are likely more examples.

Contradicting the first sentence shouldn't be a problem, it's a balance, rather than cherry-picking. I didn't censor it after all. There are many differing references here, and from Galactus' actual shows of power there are several beings on his own scale. The battle where he actually managed to stand up to the abstract In-Betweener was his most impressive feat as far as I'm aware.

Reformatting my sentence structure is something I personally welcome. I generally focus on matter-of-fact inaccuracies fixing, and references additions. Dave (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to trim it all down to something like "Galactus is one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel Universe. Only a select few other entities are close to, can match, or much less surpass his scale of power. ref Mephisto: ISSUE NUMBER; In-Betweener: ISSUE NUMBER; Celestials: ISSUE NUMBER; Stranger: ISSUE NUMBER; Primordial titans: ISSUE NUMBER etc /ref" to improve the text flow by placing it all in the footnotes section that seems like a reasonable idea. It's either that or making a long sentence with a reference for each significant character. Dave (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Galactus was referred to as "the most powerful creature (being or living organism, the interpretation is open) in the universe" in Annihilation #2 and thereafter. The quote has been referenced and is valid, your claims are original research and thus are not. Vague inferences and references to the OHOTMU don't have a place in this article. Your edits also degrade the overall quality of the P&A section with poor sentence structure and redundancies. TheBalance (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave, you're giving way too much emphasis on comparisons between other cosmics here. You're also replacing about 18 months work of editing by various people...not to mention the groundwork built by editors dating back to 2003 that are still present in this article, and for good reason.

Your main arguments are based on your interpretations of battles that occurred in the comics. In-Betweener and Galactus were shown to be equals in a cosmic wrestling match...that's it. The watchers are *not* shown to be consistently on par with Galactus...witness Annihilation #6 when a watcher was vaporized in Galactus' attack. The battle in the "Last Galactus Story" contains a rogue watcher driven *insane*, certainly not your average watcher.

Comparisons with grandmaster (let's not forget that galactus effortlessly consumed all the elders, with the exception of ego, whom galactus also defeated), Thanos, Mephisto, etc. are all irrelevant as they have at one point or another, or through certain circumstances (e.g., Galactus threatening to devour Mehpisto's hell realm) been shown to be inferior to Galactus. However none of that need be mentioned because all the article is designed to do is expressly illustrate the topic at hand...in this case, the powers and abilities of Galactus...NOT his powers and abilities vis a vis other cosmic entities. In regards to the opening statement of that paragraph.."Galactus is the physical embodiment...sentience of the universe" I am the editor who inserted that sentence, as the issue in question, fantastic four #522, clearly states the same. It is not hyperbole, as by definition the Sentience of the Universe is Eternity...and by definition, Eternity is the sum total of universal existence, i.e. the embodiment of the universe.Mobb One (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To address all points above, in no particular order, along with a few comments made outside of the Talk. The references I've used are no more 'original research' than the single reference you've opted to use. They're relevant explicit references. Despite your somewhat ironic handle in the context, which further implies that you're actually using an alias based on the character in question, you are opting to push one single instance as all-inclusive. Much less placed in a crossover where the primordial titans defeated him, were stated outright to be of equal power in Annihilation #1, and when Gravity effortlessly handled him straight afterwards in FF. A balanced article is expected to include contradicting sources, and in this case they by far outnumber the single one you've chosen to headlight. Various comments like “Mephisto is just as powerful as Thor”, and “Galactus is as powerful as Eternity” make absolutely no sense in the context of his actual displays. And given that Mephisto laid waste to a few galaxies while fighting Galactus it’s hardly an occasion where Galactus was at less than full power. Also hardly something Thor has ever came close to matching.

Again, 'OR' used in the context of one single reference somehow outweighing a horde of contradicting ones is extreme clause-twisting to censor all factual inaccuracies when pushing a personal, extremely shaky, opinion, and can be very conveniently used alternating with 'copyright infringement' to lend false credibility to transparently attempted removal of any 'inconvenient' references used whatsoever. Explicitly shown of comparative power to Tyrant, Mephisto and In-Betweener is 'OR' how exactly? Quoting one official source but not one you personally disagree with that comes from the guy that set up Marvel ‘cosmology’ isn't 'OR' by consequence? Interesting definition. Not to mention that I only saw a "he is the most feared being in the universe" text in his Nova Corps profile when just rechecking the Annihilation: Silver Surfer issue #2 reference. No "most powerful" one, just "power beyond measure", and no other such mention whatsoever.

It also strictly states that he is the sole survivor of the previous universe, encased in a cosmic egg, not the absolute incarnation. If he were the current one wouldn't exist in the first place, since the previous one was the foundation itself, and single planets would be nowhere near enough to sate his hunger at that scale. He'd consume galaxies at the very least. It makes no sense. As for FF#522, much like with ‘’’Lee and Kirby’s’’’ “The Origin of Galactus” the actual flashback shows the voice of the previous universe simply stating "Hear me last son of Taa... I am the sentience of the Universe! Like yourself, I am dying. In mere moments as I mark time I shall draw all the matter in the cosmos into my bosom and collapse beneath my own abysmal weight. But though we both must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace, and let us become as one! Let our death throes serve as the birth pangs of a new form of life." The original then continues with “In a time beyond time shall be born a new universe and into that universe there shall be an entity like no other - A living organism who possesses the matchless power and appetites of a galaxy. But he shall be more than a galaxy… He shall be a galactic ravager… He shall be… Galactus!” to further quote “There is an eternity of nothingness, then the cosmic egg of the universe explodes! “Go, now – and let a universe a’borning beware!” I.e. the consciousness is kept separate after the communion to address him about his purpose. Meaning, he does not contain the entire power of Eternity's last previous incarnation (the universe/Eternity itself, i.e. none left afterwards). He is a 'child' that kept being separate in consciousness after being created, and contains power comparable to a galaxy, which is why he addressed Eternity as a parent during the “Trial of Galactus” story. After the flashback in FF522 the Human Torch then states his ‘’’personal interpretation’’’, which again makes no logical sense whatsoever, and I would welcome an actual explanation how this could be possible, that Galactus is the ”metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos”. Which, again, makes no sense whatsoever in any context, given that the Marvel Universe itself was the metamorphosed ‘embodiment’, i.e. restructured imploded-exploded base matter, and the universal consciousness was kept separate afterwards. Based upon the dialogue the merger of Galan and part of the essence, as a ‘child’ of both. Galactus has not been treated at that scale of power, ever, nor officially declared as such in writer/narrator texts, or editorially mandated character entries. Quasar certainly wouldn’t have been able to briefly stalemate him in the same issue if this was the case. Galactus is the tiny balance between Death and Eternity, not their equal in power. Not even being able to summon Eternity without assistance from Uatu. They’re higher-dimensional entities, scales of infinity beyond anything, including Galactus.

Explicit displays have on the other hand placed him below the Beyonder (no Doom using the world-ship energy/being far more powerful than regular Galactus, and still shown as greatly inferior, was not, and can not be retconned), on par with Mephisto, In-Betweener, and original Tyrant. In Thor 169 he stated himself about the Watcher that awakened him (Ecce?) “His is a power as strange and awesome as my own!” which would rate them as close to his level. The word from ‘’’Mark Gruenwald’’’ in the original handbooks further confirms this. Further shown in “The Trial of Galactus”, and in “The last Galactus story”. Where we for once meet a Watcher maddened by guilt and cutting loose/defending himself at full power, rather than keeping to a pacifistic oath, hardly somehow made more powerful by his rage. That’s not one of their powers the last time I checked. As shown in recent FF issues they generally won’t even try to defend themselves from dangerous attacks, or help endangered or dying brothers, and as shown in Quasar physical destruction is usually irrelevant as they can recreate themselves whenever they wish. The superhumanly intelligent Odin stated that he was of roughly equal power in Thor #168, and Thor repeated the claim to Galactus in issue #169, which wasn’t countered, and again, is backed up by Gruenwald, arguably the end-all-be-all after Lee and Kirby. The Stranger is as always an enigma, but was Galactus’ tag-team partner, and unlike Epoch, shown of equal energy-form stature in Infinity Gauntlet. Galactus is likely either equal or just a tiny bit above. The Celestials have been stated as being created to be something above the other then known cosmic beings, and have officially been stated outright as ‘’’at the very least’’’ as powerful, and more likely far above. Their and Galactus’ various entries have also shown a clear difference in power, consistently to their advantage. Even Kubic referred to them as several orders above himself, and, as mentioned before, Galactus was shown as far less powerful than the Beyonder/Kosmos/Maker, stated as powerful enough to turn the entire crunch effect/universe inside out in the late Thanos series, while the proemial gods, and Galactus would die from simply touching it. And shown at this level during its’ last battle with the Molecule Man. Molecule Man has been stated and shown as potentially leagues above Kosmos (or Kubic) which Kubic confirmed. Remaking a galaxy was child’s play to him even back before his greatest power-up, and the Living Tribunal itself stated that it had granted him infinite power. Mad Jim Jaspers had reality-warping power enough to easily destroy universes. The Scarlet Witch re-crafted reality and the effects were threatening to destroy the multiverse. There are probably several other examples like them. The Phoenix entity also bested Galactus, while inhabiting Rachel Summers during Alan Davis’ Excalibur run, and Galactus even commented that it had a greater power potential. Again, Tyrant and he fought for centuries and laid waste to galaxies in their struggle. This was back in Galactus’ younger days, when he was more powerful and didn’t need to feed so often. He would not have such stamina/energy reserves today. That Galactus eventually won after such a lengthy struggle makes it so narrow to make any margins of power difference irrelevant.

The Stan Lee battle between him and Mephisto likewise had them deadlocked during the actual slug-out between the two. To quote Stan: “How to explain a battle such as this to one who has never witnessed a cosmic conflagration? How to explain a battle wherein empyrean forces clash while the galaxies themselves bid fair to tremble and quake in agonising disarray? There are no words known to man or beast to convey the savagery of such a spectacle, and perhaps ‘tis just as well. Oftentimes what the eye can witness, what the ear can hear, the mind cannot contain! Throughout the firmament the conflagration spreads, as planet after planet is shaken and storm-tossed by the awesome aftershocks. Heedless of the eruption of nearby planets, oblivious to the erosion of distant constellations the combatants unleash power enough to shatter the very stars themselves!” Definitely no de-powering present here either, they were deadlocked with neither budging an inch. In fact it is Galactus’ most impressive visual display of power, yet this somehow ‘doesn’t count’. Since the Silver Surfer feared that the battle would threaten the universe itself if prolonged he told Galactus to threaten to devour Mephisto’s realm, to ‘’’blackmail’’’ him into giving up the Surfer. Galactus tells Mephisto that the battle has drained him enough to once more hunger, and afterwardsexpresses a mental thanks of ‘’’gratitude’’’ for the Surfer’s assistance, hardly the sign of not being in any trouble. Galactus had to resort to threatening his realm to ‘prevail’, but was never able to defeat him in the actual confrontation, in fact running low on power after the enormous output, while Mephisto didn’t show any such signs.

The In-Betweener was also shown of the same scale of power, and eventually held the upper hand, but lost due to the interference of his masters Chaos and Order. While I technically agree about the Grandmaster being considerably below the rest, the ‘eating’ incidence doesn’t really count, as he wanted to get eaten to kill Galactus from within. Yet, all of this is ignored in favour of blandly stating/pushing the view/severe hyperbole that he is scales of power above all other regular cosmic entities. The reader recap to “Annihilation #2” does indeed name him as “The Universe’s most powerful creature,” but that’s standard ongoing ‘event’ announcer propaganda, to get the audience seated, and the editor amended the faux pais a few entries later, where he said "quite possibly most powerful" instead. The handbooks are far more reliable, given that they are the official current word from Tom Brevoort (respectively Mark Gruenwald, and I think Tom DeFalco was in charge of the Master Edition), rather than lower-rung editor/event promoter editor Andy Schmidt’s possible personal opinion. Who also possesses very negligible knowledge of Marvel ‘cosmology’ compared to either of the others. You’re seemingly sweeping anything ‘inconvenient’ under the carpet. The actual demonstrations of power don’t put him far ahead of the rest. Didn’t he mention right after the crossover (The Heralds of Galactus one-shot?) that he couldn’t have single-handedly defeated both the remaining primordial titans? Galactus being slightly more powerful than either, but not than both, was the way I understood their interaction.

My basis for toning down the hyperbole is on very solid ground. No "thereafter" premise regarding mentions of his power exists as far as I'm aware. Gravity handled him summarily right afterwards, managed to re-power him, and a few issues later, channelled the mass of the entire universe while performing ‘cosmic surgery’.

The structure is, as usual, a rough initial draft. Ignoring the implied, and inaccurate, cheap shot insult, if you have a problem, then by all means, feel free to reword it while keeping the context, rather than use it as an excuse. I tend to make additions more in-depth to start with, to showcase their solid validity, so they become less likely to be dropped out of sight by any pack animal that happens to see it, rather than structurally compressed, and then work out the kinks. I could take a hand at it myself if you’d prefer, but it usually works best by collaborating to create a cumulative merger, preferably after discussing which parts should be included.

Again, a single instance makes a very arguable claim undermined by the same story, while many others say something else entirely. I vaguely recall the previous Thanos series making a similar claim about the Beyonder, and the extremely referable official original ‘’’Gruenwald’’’ handbooks are not vague in this area. They specifically state that the Celestials are at least as powerful, and that the Watchers, the Stranger, etc are on the same scale. The battles where he's been shown as equal to other beings are likewise conveniently overlooked, and somehow not worthy of referring? ‘’’Stan Lee’’’ penning Mephisto stalemating him 'doesn't count'? Tyrant fighting him for centuries back in Galactus' early days, when he was more powerful and didn't need to feed so often doesn't either? The In-Betweener being shown on the same scale doesn’t either? The same writer, at the same point of time, can be simultaneously twisted-referred and ignored? This is not speculation. My references and arguments remain solid at their core even if it could be argued that the Stranger reference from the Infinity Gauntlet should be omitted. They were teamed up, displayed at the same power-form size, and treated at the same level of force when hammering Thanos, but a case could be made that it’s somewhat vague. The handbook is generally and frequently acceptably used in Wikipedia, as long as it’s simply for character comparisons, rather than ‘class 100’ nonsense. There is absolutely no good reason why the official word from the various editors in chief, which actually get to ‘’’decide‘’’ the schematics, should count any less than the others, much less a promoting issue recap paragraph, ‘because ‘we’ claim to know so much better’. No matter if a greater amount, and more reliable, references speak against it. Demonstrations of power in comparisons to other entities are certainly not unreliable if Galactus is not shown as weakened at the time. You’re claiming that the article ‘is not’ comparing him to other entities, but yet it very blatantly is, by that very claim at the start of the text, which is invalidated by a multitude of other instances and references you’ve somehow chosen ‘don’t count’. Likewise that ‘the references are there for a reason and have been here for a long time’. Neither claim holds up on inspection, since old ones can be just as wrong as new ones, and it is not remotely a counter to the various points.

That said there isn’t much I can do if there is a team of editors cumulatively deliberately pushing a view they at heart know full well is in extreme doubt, with considerably more contradictions than agreements. So either you can show yourselves as reasonable people affected by logic, or not. Asgardian seems nice enough, and Mobb One has been similarly mostly polite, even if ‘TheBalance’ tried the underhanded and in this context nonsensical, catch all, sweeping ‘it can very selectively include anything I damn well please to use it for’ standard ‘OR’ claim. However, it certainly undermines the validity or the article itself. At the very least it should be mentioned that there are several beings shown at Galactus’ level, or just replace it with a factually correct “one of the most powerful physical creatures in the Marvel Universe”, followed by a multiple reference-pumped footnote. “’’’In one instance’’’ claimed to be/described/shown as…” is the very least change I’ve seen demanded on Wikipedia for this sort of thing, and that’s for actual visual demonstrations of comparative power, not just a thin air, unofficial promotion statement. Dave (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a few misremembered parts, and would suggest "In one instance Galactus has been described as "quite possibly the most powerful creature in the universe", but multiple other references strongly contradict this claim", together with a host of issue references in the following link. That should be fully neutral, satisfying, and unobtrusive. Dave (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if certain Galactus-worshippers would stop reverting to a deliberately wildly exaggerated regular editor event promotion blurb, that the latter rectified in later Annihilation info texts, and which by definition are far less reliable than the official word from the editor-in-chief/handbooks, which aren't allowed, so there you go. I also didn't notice this phrase in the issue in question, when checking it out. Galactus' profile page in this issue did say "most feared" however, and this should be stuck to unless Galactus is explicitly shown exhibiting feats anywhere close to the scale of a host of other entities, and his entire history of appearances with shown power-levels therein is retconned. Othervise it's incredibly biased and selective opinion-pushing POV. "Most feared" is also his traditional role, while destroying multiverses with the snap of his fingers (which would _still_ make 'most powerful highly debatable) definitely isn't. Thank you. Or you could just make this an ridiculous, and unreliable deliberate lie-page, whichever you prefer. Dave (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen so much misinterpretation, rabid fanboyism, personal interpretation and twisting of events presented as facts in my life.

Uh-huh, that's convincing. The guy making a solid case solidly based on logic, and multiple sources of information is suspicious, while the guy selectively cherry-picking an unbelievably unreliable source, in an issue where I didn't even see that quote (it did appear in editorial blurbs in the later Annihilation crossover however) and enforcing the Power Cosmic speculation entry that Galactus possesses infinite power and is the source of the 'power cosmic' is reliable through censorship and bland baseless statements alone, while making completely inaccurate disparaging remarks of my intelligence, rather than defend your 'case'. That'll show me. Also, I'm one of the relatively few editors here who self-edit any previous errors I've made in various entries, if I notice them.

I had to quit reading this drivel about one quarter the way through. Absolutely nonsensical, you clearly don't understand how to compose an encyclopedic entry and you don't understand how to present quotes and events in a unbiased and relevant fashion.

Translation: You're completely incapable of countering the arguments and observations, and resort to insults to enforce your unbelievably POV, deliberate lying. What I have done in the Galactus entry is change the phrase "most powerful" to "most feared". That's it, and I'm fully satisfied with it. Whether you wish to make pompous declarations rather than provide some meat for your POV-pushing is your own business. Dave (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, leave the editing to those of us that can. Manssiere (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can POV view-push through censorship, and sidestep mostly solid logic through pompous nonsense outbursts and use censorship edit-warring? I must admit, it sounds arduous indeed. Dave (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave, frankly you don't rate a response. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't vadalize my discussion page edits with your bit by bit quoting method in the future. Manssiere (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, you don't have the arguments to back up your vandalism rabid caseless view-pushing, and try to hide this unreasonable idiocy through a veneer of arrogance. "The worst thing I've ever seen in Wikipedia." Please. Fer cripes sake, you state that a solid argument with multiple references is nonsencical, make wild claims of misrepresentations when you yourself make use of a single instance of minor editorial promotion recap-page mention, which the editor in question later corrected in a later recap, while simultaneously ignoring official words from multiple editors-in-chief, and don't even link the quote to the right issue. All this to promote your personal unbelievably exaggerated view-pushing that "Galactus has infinite power, is the source of the Power Cosmic, and is the most powerful being ever". You scare me. As for replying point by point, it's only vandalism by cutting it out. Dave (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I only had a few minutes to spare before going to bed yesterday, but to respond in a less annoyed mood. “Fan-ish” is a lame excuse for lambasting/dismissing a more thorough and reliable case. Not to mention that it’s a glass-house deal given where we are, your own patronage of the character, and that you’re on by far shakier and more speculative ground yourself regarding the entries you currently enforce, which by most definitions would be more “fan-ish”/unreasonably POV. “Quite frankly not worth replying to this unreadable drivel” is a particularly pompous excuse (using the non-mollifying, faux-refined “quite frankly” term no less) for not having any good defence. Given your reverts at the other two pages, to collectively rationalise one of the least reliable sources available, POV point-pushing personal speculations, respectively censoring of an explicit fact. Stating that it is misrepresented is either a blatant lie, pompous misdirection, a difference of opinion, or simply that I write too densely, alternately several options. Regardless, while I have no illusions about always getting things right, I’ve made an effort to be thorough, present it exactly as I’ve observed, and left it open to debate, but it has remained unchallenged. Regardless, the point isn’t about whether I’ve interpreted things right or wrong in all the cases, but that you are very selectively choosing to present a case conflicted by virtually every official reference, and appearances the character has ever made, as if a fact. “Most feared” in his more reliable actual Nova-Corps files character entry in Annihilation is more reliable and much more in context of his established history.

As for writing encyclopaedic entries I do know that references should not be taken out of context to utterly misrepresent a case, that prevalence should be given to the most reliable ones, and that bland unsupported statements should not be presented as fact. Wild personal speculation hyperbole (in the Power Cosmic sub-article) stating that Galactus possesses “limitless power and is the source and incarnation of the most powerful power in the universe”. If that was the case he would not need to feed, since limitless means inexhaustible as well as infinite, which is a scale he has never ever came close to reaching in any demonstration. Even the Wraith-world used in the “he teleported the Golden Galaxy” example managed to get the better of him. And if he was the ‘’source’’ per se shouldn’t the heralds/streams all wane in power as the reservoir does? The Silver Surfer has been stated to draw his energy from the stars, and the Fallen One from the dark matter of the Universe. Thanos explicitly stated to Annihilus, in the Annihilation crossover, that he tended to favour more potent sources of power, and didn’t obsess over it, yet this is somehow ignored.

It also states that all heralds can do exactly the same things the Silver Surfer can, which they haven’t demonstrated, and copy-pasting the Surfer’s (or even Galactus’) power-entries to this section seems very redundant.

You’ve simultaneously edited out an explicit reference of Odin destroying “long dead galaxies”, for no reason whatsoever. It’s exactly the same thing as if I started to cut out explicitly shown feats from the Galactus section. I’d argue that the galaxy-threatening Mephisto and Tyrant battles should be added as the thus far shown upper limit extents of Galactus’ power. Conflicts where he has been shown as truly strained. Collectively you’re deliberately pushing a personal, extremely shaky, view of preferred ‘cosmic order’ through a combination of censorship, wild speculation, or selective out-of-context, completely unfounded sources, embracing an editorial-recap-promotion-blurb, which was modified by the same editor in a later issue, while simultaneously arguing that no handbook entries should be used. Despite that all character power-rankings are written down, and accepted by the by far more informed higher-ranked editor and Marvel continuity expert Tom Brevoort, and that Mark Gruenwald wrote the originals. I could readily accept this argument if internally consistent, i.e. all editorial comments outside the stories themselves should be dismissed in the entry, but to accept a very shaky, out-of-context, unofficial and lower-ranked mention blurb, while dismissing the multiple official and far more informed versions doesn’t fit. Meaning, you can list Galactus’ power-extent displays, or say that he’s the most powerful creature when the Living Tribunal states that the Beyonder, and various other reality-benders being able to literally turn universes inside-out don’t rate squat against the glory of Galactus, but otherwise it’s just extremely transparent irate vandalism. Enforced through edit warring without solid foundation.

Look, I likely turned out grouchier than I should, due to by now being triggered at seemingly completely unreasonable illogical point-pushing changes. No matter how good a case I have made at the Talk, how little whoever feels inclined to repeatedly revert has, and how much time I have afforded to let it sink in and welcomed open discussion. However, your response was worse than my own in the bile regard, and with less justification, so it evens out. A one-word change, or omission of the extremely debatable sentence, as well as taking away the wild POV, blatantly contradicted, hyperbole point pushing from Power Cosmic, and not deleting the explicit Odin feat, is all I’m asking for here. Not much really. If you wish to prove yourself better than the standard troll/yet another User:Jjonz sock-puppet, a la User:Darrel37, I may have initially mistaken you for, ameliorate your view, and make the necessary modifications, or thoroughly address the points in this post, as well as the existence of multiple extreme explicit contradictions to the statement. I can write densely when trying to address too many issues at once, so I can understand if the original post may be off-putting/too much work, but I hope this one should be comparatively to the point, and that I’m not wasting my breath.

It’s also possible that the recap page, if there was one, of Annihilation: Silver Surfer #2 did in fact sport the “most powerful creature” moniker previous to the main Annihilation book. Given that I don’t tend to go to the store and browse through the bins for simply reference check-up purposes, and my data copy didn’t feature this intro page. Otherwise the reference should at least be redirected to the issue in question for the time being. Dave (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

David A, in the future you may want to post more concise thoughts as your entries are more akin to essays than discussion. It's difficult to reply to your comments when there's so much material to parse through that it begins to be arduous and tedious.

Well, that's the way I generally think. I don't think in terms of one argument at a time. I think in lots of them/contexts, which I find considerably more reliable technically speaking. Sorry about the compressed brevity. I've made another attempt for a solution below this column.

In regards to the power cosmic...I do not see why your previous edits regarding the celestials, the watchers, and Tyrant warrant any mention in the Power Cosmic article. Not once...not in any instance in any comic book, have the celestials, watchers, or Tyrant ever been depicted on-panel as wielding the power cosmic. Is this not speculation and unsubstantiated personal conjecture? Why mention if it is "unknown" whether other cosmic characters possess the power...it would seem you mention them simply because their cosmic nature qualifies them for inclusion. This would be extremely speculative. My point is that you argue to curb speculation...when your edits would inject a larger amount than you would cull. Per Galactus being the source of the power cosmic...no other character has ever demonstrated to bestow/endow/imbue another character with the power cosmic, aside from Galactus. Capt. Marvel has the "enigma force," which is separate and different from the power cosmic.

You are correct that Tyrant, Watchers, the Stranger, etc have not been mentioned in the "Power Cosmic", rather than "cosmic power" context as far as I'm aware, so it's very possible that this should be left out. Still, it only said "It is unknown if" if I recall correctly, so it was simply a matter of "enough unknowns are left with similar characters to definitely disclude speculation that he 'is an infinitely powerful incarnation and source of the power' way. Leaving out both and simply say "it is commonly mentioned in relation to Galactus and his heralds" or something like that. It was a first rough draft. Modifications don't have to include everything, just the relevant parts. Although Tyrant was created by Galactus, so maybe he should be mentioned... Nah. I agree, it's conjecture.

You are also perhaps taking "source" in a strict manner. The source of (almost) every herald's being (by "being", I mean to say existence) is Galactus. The Silver Surfer did not exist prior to Galactus bestowing the Power Cosmic on Norrin Radd...Firelord did not exist prior to Galactus endowing Pyreus Kril with the Power Cosmic...Terrax did not exist prior to Galactus imbuing Tyros with the Power Cosmic, etc. etc. In each case the power cosmic has irrefutably transformed the original (e.g., Norrin Radd) into a completely different being. Such is how Galactus is the "source" of the power cosmic...it is his to "give" vs. his to "sustain." Such is the relationship between a mother and son...the mother gives existence to the son (Galactus gives existence to Morg, to Nova, etc.) but if the mother dies, the son still survives.

This I agree about. Noting that "Galactus is shown to bestow a portion the power unto his heralds" is matter-of-fact. The problem may simply lie in the current wording, since it reads as if he is the end-all be-all endless well. The Surfer uses whatever it is (apparently his modified structure of soul going by Annihilation) to draw power from the stars, much like Firelord, Terrax and Air-Walker. Rewording it so it doesn't sound like Galactus is the undisputed reservoir works fine.

Pertaining to the Galactus feats...you've listed some of his combative/destructive feats. If we start doing that then we will have, as Asgardian likes to put it, a laundry-list of feats so as to encompass a greater scope.

I find noting down shown scales of power is the most reliable gauge. The currently selected one is extremely unreliable.

Other feats of Galactus: Surviving an attack from all 6 soul gems (later the infinity gems) at the hands of the elders of the universe...extracting himself and some 20-odd other characters from the destruction of reality wrought by the infinity gauntlet, effectively over-coming the gauntlet's powers temporarily...being destroyed by the power of 5 cosmic cubes, only to recreate/reform/reincorporate himself, dr. strange, silver surfer, and nova...having the knowledge and skill to resuscitate Eternity from comatose state...possessing the authority and ability to erase the Phoenix Force from existence...demonstrating the capability to have such insatiable hunger as to devour not just planets, but eventually space/time en route to devouring, and becoming as large as, the universe....

I have every exact issue from which I have quoted all and each of these feats...needless to say the article is not intended for such a laundry list.

When did Galactus overcome the Gauntlet's powers? It completely outclassed him in the issues I checked. If you're referring to escaping to another plane of reality during universal destruction, that's hardly something cosmically noteworthy as various regular Marvel characters have been similarly extracted at times. I also don't remember him showing greater power than the Magus' cosmic containment units, but my memory may be shoddy. The Elders didn't use the gems at anywhere near full capacity. This was long before the Gauntlet saga. They were stated as slightly more powerful than the Surfer at the time, that's it. He did use Gamora to perform surgery on Eternity, but that was presented as scope of knowledge not power. When did he erase the Phoenix Force? It bested him in battle in Excalibur, and that was just a human avatar. He did continue to consume the Universe after being driven mad by the Dreaming Celestial in Simonson's "Time Bubble" FF story, but if we're simply talking absorbtion of power, even Doctor Doom once absorbed Galactus' world ship, using Klaw as a medium, and from that state by far further powered-up by absorbing the Beyonder. The Marvel standard is generally that plenty of sufficiently powerful characters can gradually absorb anything given enough time unstopped, but if we're talking regular level, rather than "Galactus would be the most powerful being in existence if all the other entities let him start eating everything, including them", then no, nowhere close.

Re: other powerful characters...the Beyonder has been retconned, and since Annihilation has been unaccounted for, Mad Jim Jaspers has been absorbed into Fury-Prime, Molecule Man has also been retconned and de-powered, Scarlett Witch demonstrated wild power on a one-time, temporary basis...and so on and so forth. My point is that all these powerful entities are always in a state of flux...only cosmic beings have more or less remained static in terms of where they stand on the power scale.Mobb One (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beyonder hasn't been retconned as destroying a galaxy, or being omnipotent by mortal standards, and was stated as capable of inverting the universe in the Thanos series. Only the Secret Wars II M-Body Dimension of Manifestations 'confrontation' with Eternity, the Tribunal, the Celestials etc were retconned. Galactus logically couldn't be, as even his worldship power was shown as woefully deficient when Doom wielded it, and it put him leagues of power above Galactus' regular state. Your point about these beings in a state of flux, in the sence that they are frequently transient~compared to cosmic entities, is correct and the current presentation states that no being has ever existed that's beyond him, which is gibberish. He's _one_ of the most powerful entities, yes, but his power is not infinite unless he somehow was allowed to eat everything, and that counts for Celestials, the Stranger, Tyrant and Watchers as well. Better to say that on one-three occasions he's shown power enough to threaten entire galaxies: The Mephisto, and possibly (given the enormous time-span) Tyrant or Annihilation (it was unclear if this one was that far-reaching, and Galactus was vastly powered-up after absorbing so many worlds in one go) battles. I still haven't received an answer about whether the 'Golden Galaxy' was a true "Milky Way"-style galaxy, or 'just' the Galador home-system. Dave (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not really supposed to insert our reply postings into the middle of other people's postings. Given the fairly large amount of refactoring that needs to be done to fix this, I can only suggest that User:David A could generate some goodwill by doing so himself. I genuinely think that, aside from adhering to the rules of talk-page etiquette, that this action, if coupled with more concise and diplomatic postings, would go a long way toward keeping this from continuing to be the battleground it's become. Dave -- what do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a fundamental vast disagreement on that matter. I find it logically hard to get anywhere without handling the points one at a time. It's never been a matter of disrespect on my part. It's a matter of concise handling. I.e. showing the respect to handle each point one by one. As for the 'battleground', I don't consider what MobbOne and I do as such. This is rational discussion. The way things should always be handled. I.e. reason prevails. Mansierre did not adhere to this principle in the slightest. Dave (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

David, in regards to your questions regarding Galactus feats: Galactus extracted himself, Thanos, and the rest of the heroes from ground zero of the Magus/Adam Warlock confrontation for mastery of the Infinity Gauntlet. This was depicted (I believe) in Infinity War#5 as well as Fantastic Four #370. The same contest between Magus/Adam Warlock had shattered the stasis field holding all the heroes in confinement, which the Magus had previously erected using the power of the Gauntlet. The energies released from the Gauntlet during the Warlock/Magus battle were rending reality, and Galactus provided an escape (albeit temporarily) from the situation. To my knowledge only Galactus has ever displayed the capability to escape the area of influence of the Infinity Gauntlet...I would agree with you that it would be a small feat otherwise, but considering the destruction being wrought was from the Infinity Gauntlet, and Galactus extricated himself and the heroes while they were being affected by this destruction is a supremely impressive feat.

Re: the magus' cosmic cubes, the magus destroyed Galactus, Dr. Strange, Silver Surfer, and Nova, as well as Galactus' vessel, using the power he harnessed from the cosmic cubes. This was during Infinity War. Later on in the story, Galactus reincorporates himself, his ship, and the rest of the characters. He essentially revives himself and the other characters and recreates his vessel after being destroyed by the power brought against him by the Magus' 5 cosmic cubes.

Re: the Phoenix Force...Galactus didn't actually erase the Force, but in their first encounter in Excalibur (issue 24), Galactus had erected machines to devour the planet. Eventually excalibur came to intervene, and in the ensuing confrontation, Galactus had rachel attached one of his devices, and was on the verge of erasing the concept entirely, when no less than Roma, guardian of the multiverse, the entity Death, and I believe a watcher appeared. I won't quote verbatim as I don't have the issue in front of me, but Roma and Death actually explain to Galactus that if he proceeds with erasing the Phoenix Force, he would imperil the universe and ultimately cause it's destruction. Death then poses the question to Galactus if even he could endure such loneliness, as he alone would survive and be left in the void. In short, Galactus' cosmic peers had to petition him to not erase the Phoenix Force from existence...they did not order him to do so (thus indicating Galactus had the "cosmic authority" to act unilaterally), but used reason and appealed to Galactus' desire to maintain universal order and balance. Thus in this issue he demonstrated the capability and authority to erase the Phoenix Force from existence...not just the avatar, but the Force itself.

Re: absorbing powers...the weak point in your argument is that all the characters mentioned, mainly Doom, use their motivations (conquest, power) as a precept to initiating means to obtain that power. Doom absorbed power he did not intrinsically possess by means he did not intrinsically possess. Galactus absorbs power because that is his primary function...you cannot fault the character for having a primary function such as that. Galactus has the means to do so...he does not have the will nor hunger to execute it. That's what the story revealed...there is no other character not a single one who has Galactus' inherent ability to absorb power and has voluntarily stayed his/her hand in terms of universal conquest/destruction. Given time, x character can absorb y power and destroy the universe, fine...Galactus absorbs power because that is his primary function as a comic character. He has the means to destroy the universe, and the manner and method to do so are already his. He does not need to steal/usurp/acquire external sources of power (Thanos, Dr. Doom), that is the difference between Galactus and the other characters.Mobb One (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, extracting himself from the area of destruction is no different from somebody taking the safe course of action to run away from a gunfight, or when the Avengers teleported away from Immortus' timeline-destroying null-wave in Avengers Forever, or when the Silver Surfer flew away from the Gauntlet/Eternity battle in the first (and only good) 'Infinity crossover'. It's interdimensional teleportation. That's it. I will check it up however.

I need an issue reference for the cosmic containment units. Sometime during Infinity War was obvious previously. That said, it really doesn't say much about his power in relation to the units, as it is unknown how much power the Magus saw fit to expend. If accurate, it does however reveal that he can reconstruct himself and others after bodily destruction, which is noteworthy enough to have a mention in the profile.

In the first Excalibur story the Phoenix avatar Rachel had willingly submitted herself, and as you say it was just the machines. When attempting to remove her as a potential threat to reality it was gradually destroying the stars which gave it power. During the later Alan Davis run, when the two actually battle, Galactus lost, and said that as the Phoenix drew upon all the unborn lives of existence it had vastly more powerful reserves to draw upon, but also killed more people than it saved by battling him over the planet he was devouring. This is a far more reliable gauge. As for the entities, they did use reason yes, but their motivations were their own, any interpretation of superiority over Death itself is enormously biased speculation, especially since it shouldn't care much either way, and was only there due to general interest in the Phoenix as a semi-antithesis, the Watcher doesn't interfere per definition, and Roma tends to prefer reasoning. From the context it seemed more like they deemed a practical example as the only way to convince him, but as a creature of logic, he would listen, and did.

Again, your interpretation that no other character can continue to absorb power is pure conjecture on your part. Unlike other entities on the same scale Galactus needs to actively sustain himself to survive, rather than being an automatic processm. This does not mean that no other celestial entity has the potential to grow in power through the same means, simply that it is madness to extinguish everything and make a potential enemy of the Tribunal or other higher powers. Galactus can not just suddenly eat the entire universe at his ordinary power-level, he needs to gradually gorge on greater treats/stars and similar, and he was in fact shown using a hand-held machine as help to do so, much like Doom used his armour to absorb the Beyonder. Not to mention, Galactus was still destroyed by the nullifier, and as before, we're not talking about alternate futures, or "if this character got an enormous power-up he would be omnipotent". We're talking about the regular, just planet-feeded, Galactus.

All the other arguments and examples above still stand, as does the one below. The incredibly biased and selective statement should be changed to "one of the most powerful entities" (well, the exact quote is below). Statements of "limitless cosmic energies within him", and being the "primary source" of the Power Cosmic should also be reworded, and the "most powerful force in the universe" statement should be similarly removed, given that "Annihilation: Silver Surfer #2" says no such thing. This is a made-up 'quote', while Thanos, who should know reasonably well, says the opposite thing in the same storyline (see below), by the same writer. The statement that he incorporates the entire sentience of the previous universe should likevise be removed, as this was directly contradicted in the referenced story in question, where it was shown to be separate/talking to him after ejecting him into the new creation. These are far from unreasonable demands. Some Annihilation expansion about the power apparently overwriting the souls of the heralds, might be an idea. That said, feel free to insert the reference of gradually growing to devour the entire universe, as long as the profile says nothing about his standard level being the most powerful entity, when it's been shown that it is most definitely not. Dave (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've communicated only once that I know of with User:Manssiere, in December 2006, so I'm really unsure why you would write "Your friend Mansierre," as if to imply something. I'd like to ask you to strike that reference since this seems a pointed and unfair insinuation given the tone of the exchange between you two. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have written on his user page for back-up help in the past, as far as I'm aware, which implies previous communication, but yes, I can only see one such entry, and he was considerably more unpleasant, pompous and unreasonable than yourself, even if the "If I may say so..." "Quite frankly..." tone in conjunction with disparaging remarks was similar, and there were some undertone that he kept track of me from before, given the somewhat mismatched choice of initial insult words/severe hyperbole with this particular actual case, as if harboring a grudge for other matters, along with the simultaneous out-of-nowhere 'attack' on several different pages I had made minor edits on, and he backed out at the same time you stepped in. My mistake I suppose. Dave (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

David, it is difficult to separate my points from yours when you include your responses in the original text of my replies. Wiki pedia has no immediate means for discerning one person's text from another aside from the signatures. That is why it is common practice to respond in entirety after the person's text, as I am doing here.

Re: Infinity Gauntlet, you're taking the feat as basic escape from area destruction type-fare. I find this argument to be insufficient because the destruction being wrought here is the Infinity Gauntlet, not some nullifcation wave by Immortus. The reason this makes all the difference is the exact definition of the Infinity Gauntlet. It grants the user mastery of ALL Time, Space, Reality, Power, Mind, and Soul. Second to only the Heart of the Universe/Infinite, the Infinity Gauntlet is the most powerful object in all of Marvel. You cannot compare the reality-rending powers of one object vs. the gauntlet...simply due to the fact that gauntlet gives the wielder total mastery of all those 6 elements. What you are comparing is the destructive power, what I am comparing is the escape from the power that is causing the destruction. They are two totally different ideas, and that is why I do not find your argument to be satisfactory. What you are arguing is that inter-dimensional teleporation is the same feat regardless of the circumstances, whether one person teleport away from a black hole consuming a planet or teleport away from the power of the infinity gauntlet destroying a separate, identical planet. That is simply incorrect. If one could simply teleport away from the infinity gauntlet as they would from a black hole, then that would violate at lest one of the fundamental facts that a wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet is granted: mastery of all space. Clearly during the warlock/magus battle, all of reality was being effected by the contest, not just the aspect of "space."

Re: cosmic cubes. Using the cubes, Magus destroys Galactus and the others in Infinity War #3 with "the power to decimate a star system." Galactus recreates himself and th rest in Infinity War #4.

Re: Phoenix Force Galactus lost against the Phoenix Force while in a hungry state. How do we know this? Because Galactus came to consume the planet. What happened in that battle was that Rachel battled and defeated a hungry Galactus in combat...that would be inconclusive in a real accurate gauge of power. I never stated Galactus had superiority over Death, that is again a point that you build your response with. Please refrain from using points I did not make in future responses. What I stated was that Galactus had the cosmic stature to act unilaterally. What I ascribe as authority to act unilaterally is supported by on-panel depictions. Additionally, the OHOTMU has an entry for Roma in which she "warned Galactus not to slay Phoenix II" (emphasis mine). In fact, the very reasons of Roma's and Death's appearance are made abundantly clear and there are no unambiguous terms. When Roma appears, this is what she addresses captain britain: "Certain events, captain, are of such Significance, they must be Witnessed first hand. And no, I cannot aid you in your cause. I am as tightly bound by the skeins of fate and duty as you are... this is a moment in the scheme of things, which must stand or fall on it's own...without the intervention of higher authority." Roma, bound by certain decrees that delineate where her sphere of authority can extend, is on hand to witness the outcome of a monumental choice (Galactus' choice to erase the Phoenix Force). As you already mentioned, the stars were going out, which Roma explicitly warns Galactus, "Violate at your own peril." Violate what? The Eternal pattern. Death addresses Galactus and states clearly why he (meaning, Death) is present-after Galactus states he consumes planets for survival, while the Phoenix Force can obliterate the cosmos on a whim, Death tells Galactus ""and from that death [obliterating the Cosmos], bring about New Life [sparking new big bangs, the traditional role of the Phoenix Force]. But you're changing that, breaking the Eternal Pattern." That is why Death appears and has a vested interest in the moment as well, just like Roma. By erasing the Phoenix Force, Galactus would break the pattern, and Death would be out of a job (as stated in Thanos #7, Death explains to Thanos why she never spoke to him during the Infinity Gauntlet affair...Thanos had wanted to kill the population of the universe to appease Death, but Death explains to Thanos "without Life, there is NO Death!")

The watcher now says his peace: "Is that your wish Galactus? ... to condemn the Cosmos to ultimate extinction, and yourself to an eternity in an Infinite Void, [meaning Galactus would survive], wherein exists not the smallest potential for life [life-forms that require stars to thrive would perish]? Can even you endure such desolation?"

Death adds this bit: "Unless that's what you really want? There's a time and season for all things, perhaps yours has run its course? You've handed so many over to my care, why not lay down your burdens, and join them?"

Galactus then proclaims: "I AM. Supreme unto myself. I will not be bound, Reaper--by entity or concept!" Galactus then clicks a button, and the watcher is astonished, saying "Yet Phoenix Lives" indicating shock that Galactus did not follow through with his intention. Notice that neither Roma nor Death raise a hand to prevent Galactus from clicking that button, as neither knew what his intention would be. I find it highly unlikely that Roma and Death would both just "hope" that Galactus would make the right choice and spare Phoenix. The fact is that on panel, neither of them made any direct action towards saving the Phoenix force from oblivion by the hand of Galactus, thus keeping intact the "cycle" that was so critical to the universe. Roma, Death, and the watcher all stood by, making their case for the Phoenix's survival, and remained in place while Galactus made a physical action. Indeed Galactus had just finished stating that he was supreme unto himself and considered the presence of the three of them to be no sign of higher authority interfering in his affairs. Thus, and I stress again, the concepts and entities present petitioned Galactus, then awaited Galactus "verdict" on the matter. With such (relatively) impassioned arguments, it's quite clear that Roma Death and the Watcher were all quite afraid that Galactus was going to do what he wanted to do.

Thus watcher states "Yet Phoenix Lives" to which Galactus replies "For the present."

Now the hour is late and I will finish my response another time. Mobb One (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the “Powers and Abilities” and “Power Cosmic” sections

I don’t have much time right now, but here is another effort to be thorough and use reasoning, that I wrote up a two days back. I have attempted to be less straying, and more to the point in this entry, as I am aware that I can tend to write in a very compact manner.

After another read-through, including finding the missing recap page, ‘’Annihilation: Silver Surfer #2’’ never displays the phrase “most powerful creature in the universe”, while “most feared being in the universe” is there. The recap-page event promotion blurbs in ‘’Annihilation #2-3’’ use the text (highlighted words mirrored): “Nova’s soldiers hold the wave for the first time in months – Finally, a victory. Nova’s victory turns to crushing defeat when he learns that the day’s battle was merely a distraction. Annihilus dispatched THANOS, the mad titan with near god-like intellect, to defeat the SILVER SURFER and GALACTUS – the universe’s most powerful creature. Thanos’ alliance and Galactus capture can mean only one thing – Annihilus is unstoppable.” This is pure showmanship nail-biting event pushing, with the editor that wrote it even contradicting his previous comment in ‘’Annihilation.: Silver Surfer #4’’ where it says “AEGIS and TENEBROUS, possessors of power on par with Galactus”, and in the later ‘’Annihilation #6’’ the promotion-blurb is changed into ‘’DRAW THE DESTROYER, with his daughter MOONDRAGON, free THE SILVER SURFER from Annihilus’ stasis field. Upon his release, the Silver Surfer frees GALACTUS, THE DEVOURER OF WORLDS from his containment. Galactus is the oldest living thing in the universe and, quite possibly, the most powerful. And now… Galactus is angry.” I.e. further underlining that all of them are extremely suspect, as very unofficial event announcer hyperbole, and should be discarded for more reliable sources, to which the Nova Corps entries belong.

On the other hand, going by Galactus story in ‘’Annihilation: Heralds of Galactus #2’’ he was apparently more powerful than Tenebrous and Aegis combined in his very early, more powerful days, given that he said that he was the one who imprisoned them in the Kyln. He is likely a bit more powerful nowadays as well. Whether more than both put together is uncertain, given his earlier sound defeat, but if he didn’t think he would be able to best them it would make no sense for him to send the Surfer to find them. It is also of note that Galactus states (after Silver Surfer briefly enters the universal border “To channel the energies of the crunch. Energies that not even Galactus can long withstand without being consumed.” I.e. he is not all-powerful, nor anywhere close.

Regardless, nowhere in the story, officially editorially sanctioned entries, or any appearances of the character, has Galactus been shown as anywhere near absolutely omnipotent. He’s had plenty of times when he’s been pushed to his limits, defeated, matched, or other characters have displayed feat by far eclipsing his own. Some of which are (admittedly clumsily) listed above. Choosing this extremely debatable reference, while neglecting so many other EIC-official, or explicit in-story showings/statements, makes the entire case seem enforced solely for character-favourism, which is the problem here.

Here is a solution for a version to likely satisfy any party involved:

The refined ”Annihilation: The Nova Corps Files” version of the same Galactus entry from ”Annihilation: Silver Surfer #2” says these things: ”Galactus remains one of the most powerful beings in existence.” ”Galactus possesses virtually immeasurable cosmic power; he is immune to most forms of destruction, and he can consume entire planets’ energies. Only objects – such as the Ultimate Nullifier and Cosmic Cubes – or beings of cosmic power are any threat to him. He possesses telepathy, manipulates matter and energy on a vast scale, and imbues great power in others, making them cosmic threats in their own right.” and ”Reborn anew in the succeeding/present universe as Galactus, he possesses immense power, requiring an entire planet’s energies to survive.” ”Galactus initially went centuries between feedings, but he gradually hungered more frequently, necessitating consumption of more populated worlds” ”Galactus is not truly an abstract being, though he has attained cosmic significance and is considered by many as the balance between Eternity and Death, including by the those beings themselves.”

Simply use ”one of the most powerful beings in existence” in the phrase, with the appropriate reference. Like ”most feared” this is pretty matter-of-fact. It does not make claims of omnipotence. “Virtually immeasurable cosmic power” works fine in the Power Cosmic entry. While baseless speculation that Galactus is an inexhaustible, omnipotent source the heralds draw upon, and that no other power is greater than the Power Cosmic (whatever that is, since the Fallen One uses another power-source than the stars, like the Surfer) can be omitted, especially since the supposedly 'quoted' issue in question (A: SS #2) says no such thing when I check it. In ‘’Annihilation: Silver Surfer #3’’: Thanos: “…The BIOLOGICAL application of COSMIC POWER?” Annihilus: “Surely Thanos of Titan must have SOME knowledge of such power.” A: “I find that difficult to believe. Morg’s cosmic power is gone and he is dead. WHERE DID HIS POWER GO?” T: “Where do you suspect, Annihilus?” A: “You are of power. You would have me believe that you have NEVER considered cosmic power’s…” T: “I do not obsess about it. There are other sources of equal or greater…”

As for “being the physical embodiment of a cosmos”, that’s more acceptable, but is still not what was said and shown in his origin story, given that the consciousness and Big Bang matter remained separate, and he addressed Eternity as father. The Nova Corps entry here likewise states: “Eternity, the sentience of the universe, guided Galan into the cosmic egg as the universe collapsed in the Big Crunch. Reborn anew in the succeeding/present universe as Galactus, he possessed immense power, requiring en entire planet’s energies to survive.” Thus it would seem more appropriate to replace it with that he has become the physical embodiment of the balance between Death and Eternity, rather than state that he absorbed and contains the entire previous one, which is what the sentence reads like in present format.

Another point of interest, to note elsewhere in the profile, would be that Galactus has in fact strived to find alternate energy-sources to spare further victims, shown when he attempted to assemble Infinity Gems in Thanos #1-6. Meaning: He is not without some measure of compassion.

Redundant copy-paste repetitions of the Galactus and Silver Surfer “Powers” entries should probably be reformatted. Perhaps briefly listing the ways different heralds make use of it, while clarifying that they do not all have the exact same abilities, and noting that most heralds have been stated to “absorb energy from the carbon-cycle of solar-fusion”, which fits with various of the Silver Surfer’s personal references on the subject. We could also reference to that according to ‘’Annihilation: Silver Surfer #3’’ “The host form must die before the cosmic power can be harvested… But once the host is dead, the power dissipates”, and, later, that it overwrites the subject’s aura. I.e. implied to become the subjects’ souls, but is semi-speculative and should be left out.

Would these settlements be acceptable? Any thoughts? (Please keep disparaging insults to the section above, and solid arguments in this section, so we make an effort to keep it clean and rational.) Dave (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Galaxy?

Regarding Galactus' listed galaxy-moving feat, I just checked out Rom #27, and the 'galaxy' in question was just shown as a comparatively insignificant golden sphere, much like the Wraith-world 'sun' was simply shown as a great dark globe in the sky of the planet, nowhere near solar size. Was this billions of stars, comparative to the Milky Way, or simply encompassing Galador's home system? The art, and plot were semi-illegible at times, and I'm not familiar with the Rom mythology. If the latter, which seems more likely, the text should be modified accordingly, while adding the galaxy-ravaging (centuries-long) Tyrant and (apparently brief, but then again, time tends to be referred as very different in hellish pocket-universes) Mephisto battles (and possibly the Annihilation meganova) as Galactus' greatest feats to date. Dave (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Galactus in "What If...?"

There was one memorable issue of Marvel's What If? which featured Galactus being transformed by Reed Richards into a human: Elvis. He started skinny, but like this universe's Elvis, quickly became fat because "Th' hunger gnaws, Ma'am, th' hunger gnaws." Are there other issues of What If? featuring Galactus? They can be listed in brief format. --75.173.4.172 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Publication History

I'm starting to add material to the publication history. Per WikiProjects Comics:

• Publication history

:The real world history of the character. This section details who wrote the character, what series they've had or made long runs of appearances in, their longevity within comics and any inspirations for the character. This section should focus mainly on the comic, but include passing mentions of all other-media versions, and acknowledge where these versions have impacted on the comic version. The publication details of any reboots and the input of any creators into the character would also be detailed here.

Tenebrae got it off to a good start but it's been lacking additions for some time. I reverted Asgardian's previous trimming due to its end contents mainly being titles and dates. I realized the current PH is not much better but it is a work in progress. As it seems I'm the only editor currently who has any bother with the PH...so until others contribute I'm going to greatly expand it until it fits the above quoted criteria.

Again of primary importance is the real world history of the character. History as you know is much, much, much more than names, events, and dates. To that end we are sorely lacking treatment of the "Galactus Trilogy," specifically, where exactly the inspiration for Galactus came from (which again, should be explained in the PH as illustrated above), how/why he was created, etc.

As it is Asgardian mentioned that FCB material should not be in the PH, and I agree. However it is important to detail specific contributions/evolutions to the character by assorted writers etc. For example, Byrne's run on FF introduced the idea that G is a sort of cosmic "tester" of civilizations, to see if they are fit to exist. Simonson's Galactus limited-series gave us the first introduction of the idea that Galactus must live so that an unforeseen agent of calamity be held in check (later revealed to be Abraxas in FF). Again all aspects of various creative inputs into the character by the writers/creators, which, as per WikiProjects Comics, should be indicated in the PH. As it is right now the PH is quite paltry and insufficient. I'm starting to improve it...I welcome others to improve and contribute on the content. Mobb One (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes...but I'll make some suggestions. The image of FF#48 (be careful about slipping emotion your Edit Summary) is a classic to be sure, but fails here in two respects. Firstly, it is already the image in the SHB for the Watcher, and more importantly, it does not feature Galactus! In fact, the only cover of the trilogy that features Galactus is #49, and is a head shot only. So for the purposes of the article, it really doesn't tell the layman anything. Another shot of Galactus might be nice, however, so I'll offer up #210 for perusal:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k270/Marcus1400/FF210.jpg

Frankly...no. Several reasons: Perhaps what is needed is the Legacy section Tenebrae and I were discussing earlier on sometime last year to convey why this image MUST be in the PH section. The Galactus Trilogy as a whole has been widely lauded by scholars, critics, fans, and industry practioners as "the greatest story of the Silver Age of Marvel" and as "the highest work of collaboration between Jack Kirby and Stan Lee." I have those exact quotes, found when I was doing my research. To omit the image of the first issue of such a widely discussed creative work, indeed that does *not* tell the layman anything at all. It deprives the layman of that mandatory question: just what does this particular comic book look like then?" The comic does not feature Galactus' image, but it's clear that he's the focus with the large lettering that dominates the cover: "THE COMING OF GALACTUS!"

Pertaining to the Watcher...I noticed you uploaded that image and removed the previous one. Have you gone to Uatu's entry? The same exact image is already there, and in fact has been there for quite some time (more than 2 years). However, primarily, again I must emphasize that PH is a Publication *History*. Not all history has the subject of interest featured prominently on the cover...you mention the layman, and inclusion of the image tells the layman plenty. The layman reading the PH will question "What does this Galactus Trilogy comic look like?" The layman is not concerned that there is a duplicate of the very same image in the SHB for Watcher, the layman is more concerned with the question: what does this supposedly revolutionary comic look like? What does the comic that represents the end results of Jack Kirby's and Stan Lee's "inspiration quotes" look like? The PH is less focus on the character itself and more on the creative works in which the character is depicted, and the creator inputs therein. You deny the layman this, so I'm putting the image back. Why not find a different image for the Watcher, that isn't duplicated in the SHB that's already for Uatu? You list that as one of the reasons for removal of FF48 yet, you have done the exact same thing. Also, if you check the PH for Fantastic Four, you will find the very same exact image included there as well. Would you remove that image, as you did here? Mobb One (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the PH proper, creator information is welcome. Story details, however, belong in the FCB. There's a fine balacing act here.

Asgardian (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merged the best of the two, without the FCB info. Seems like a nice compromise as it has creator/factual references and reads well. I'll also source and add another 4 significant storylines fearturing Galactus. His visits with future Heralds and battles against the High Evolutionary and the Sphinx are noteworthy.

Asgardian (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this POV. I'll agree on the writer input on character evolution...that mandates an expanded FCB. However I disagree that the PH "reads well." It reads like a mechanic laundry list of names and dates...there's no tone or flow at all in the entry. Additionally, the entire PH is under a title heading of The Galactus Trilogy. There's also an injection of present tense in your edits, whereas the rest of the section is in past tense. I have updated the PH. I think this gives more information, and reads in a less "laundry list"-like tone.

Mobb One (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a being a little too passionate and subjective about the images. Again, Galactus isn't on 2 of the 3 covers in the trilogy. Also, do we do this for every great storyline? Are all the covers to the classic arcs in articles? No. Just a key cover or two. What is needed is another cover that features Galactus (full body) in all his glory. As for the PH, I can change the tense and the heading. Remember to be flexible.

Asgardian (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. You can easily find a different image for the Watcher SHB. The Fantastic Four entry includes the image, yet the FF are relegated to the foreground and are not the primary focus of the image. PH deals with key *issues*, not key covers. You still have not addressed the fact that a layman has no visual concept with which to associate the text. We have a full-body image of Galactus in the SHB...no where is it mandated that we have a full-body *cover* appearance, especially in the PH section? There is none. In any event, that can easily be supplied, in any case. Edit: I've taken the liberty of supplying one, in the Later appearances section. It's from Thanos #3.

Also, the "Galactus Trilogy" is a title, as been given by assorted researchers/industry practioners/critics/fans/etc. The "T" is not in lowercase, as in the noun form. Mobb One (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In line with discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, I've changed the lead to be a little more accurate, and changed a sentence to make for easier reading for the layman.

Asgardian (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Living Tribunal/3 Forces/Galactus

There's been some disagreement between User: David A and myself regarding statements made in Silver Surfer vol. 3 #31 regarding Galactus and his relation to the Living Tribunal.

Silver Surfer and the Stranger have just encountered each other, when the Living Tribunal appears and further elaborates on the relations between the cosmic entities.

Statement 1:

Specifically, Living Tribunal makes the statement "I am he who safeguards the multiverse from mystical imbalance. I transcend the REALMS of Eternity and Death, Order and Chaos, ALL the opposing realities!"

Quite simply, the Tribunal transcends the REALMS of Eternity and Death, etc., he does NOT transcend "all scales of duality and balance" as User: David A claims.

Inaccurate. The Silver Surfer storyline was about a weird philosophical notion about reptiles, neanderthals, and cro-magnon relating to different concepts, such as Kree and the Skrull. The LT arrives at a point where the SS questions the Stranger about his origins, and starts to describe the vairous concepts the latter has encountered in terms of duality and balance, between 'vengeance', 'necessity' and 'equity'. I.e. Chaos, Order, and the In-Betweener. Death, Eternity, and Galactus. Skrull, Kree, and Humanity. Reptiles, neanderthals, and cro-magnon. In this context the LT states that he transcends all opposing realities (synonym for dualities, which is the entire point of everything the LT states in the discussion), with the repeatedly stated 'equity' in the middle. Dave (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement 2:

Specifically, Living Tribunal makes the statement "I am the LIVING TRINITY! Three faces look upon the world and judge! The first is VENGEANCE..the second NECESSITY..the third EQUITY! All three must AGREE for this self to act!"

Therefore, each of the three faces of the Living Tribunal are Vengeance, Necessity, and Equity. Why are the three faces specifically Vengeance, Necessity, and Equity? In Statement 3, the Tribunal explains why he is "not unified" (i.e., the three faces that must agree in unison for the entire entity to act).

Statement 3:

Specifically, Living Tribunal makes the statement "I BESTRIDE all dualities, but I am NOT unified! I JUDGE the dualities, and must thus KNOW their NATURE".

So once again, the Tribunal BESTRIDES all dualities-he stands over them (not transcend, there is a difference) so that he may effect judgement.

No, that's misleading selective quoting and linguisticsm, rather than the entire story. The LT stated outright that he transcends them. This also ties into his later statement about the Stranger (whether figuratively or literally) being a missing face at the back, which is the reason that he is not unified. Dave (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

However, Tribunal states that he is "NOT unified". What does this mean? It goes back to Statement 2: All three faces must agree to act.

And now, here is the crux: In order for the Living Tribunal to judge all the dualities, he must know their nature. That is why he assumes three faces, with two representing the dualities (Necessity and Vengeance), and the third representing the balance between them (the face of Equity, which is the uncovered face. Which is also, incidently, the face the Living Tribunal uses to address everyone he talks to).

That is why Tribunal makes

Statement 4:

"Everywhere in the realms of the Duality, is the presence of the Trinity"

Finally, in this discourse to the Silver Surfer, Living Tribunal likens Galactus to the force of Equity in Silver Surfer's universe.

In the Silver Surfer's _frames of reference_. The LT explicitly uses the term 'universe' in various contexts and scales. There is a difference between the two representations. Additionally there are plenty more opposing forces than Death and Eternity. Infinity and Oblivion for one, or Chaos and Order, when tying directly into this storyline. Galactus is never implied equity/balance for everything. Dave (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There's really no room for ambiguity in the Tribunal's statements. That is why the Galactus/Tribunal/3 Forces statement is correct and accurate. Mobb One (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no room for ambiguity. Yet, you manage to attempt to insert it. Dave (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Said user seems to have a very warped view of editing, and regards anything that contravenes his views as "lies". Far too strong a term for this. If it is fact, and can be conveyed in a concise fashion, by all means insert it into the article. By the by, don't give up on the other image. Asgardian (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Said user" has some issues with you personally you mean? Due to User:Asgardian repeatedly making completely unwarranted and undefended edits, and outright deliberate lies, while claiming nonsensical POV justification, regardless if this is remotely accurate or not and the opposite issue ahas been shown with quotes, and proven to use sockpuppets. You have a history of bans, and official complaints about your style of editing, so this is hardly a strange view. Dave (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User DavidA has some real issues as a Wikipedia editor. He constantly edits based on his faulty rememberings of the issues in question, he is incredibly biased in his edits (seeking to conservatively interpret cosmic characters while "overhyping" Hulk-related characters), he often rejects Wikipedia's policies (see his qouoting methods above on this very discussion page), has a generally abrasive attitude (see his numerous edit comments), and often employs poor grammar and sentence structure in his revisions.

Uh, no. While User:David A, does tend to have a somewhat faulty memory at times, it is a pretty unfiltered one due to inherent add, and he always checks up when needed, accepts corrections when these are accurate, and _always_ edits according to what's explicitly shown, or at least the way it seems explicitly shown, as perfection isn't a human quality. User:David A has repeatedly edited away or toned down inaccurate Hulk feats from said 'feats' page (including that annoying returning 'virtually unlimited strength' tag), as well as inserted a low points section, which anyone who was trying to factually follow User:David A's history there (like say User:Sesshomaru, could assert. It started out as a long powers section, since the one at the Hulk page was too short, but it might impair the previous Good rating of the article, so inspired by the Powers and abilities of Superman page (and later learning about similar Spider-Man and Batman features) we decided to move it to its own page, where other users kept adding to it. Currently it's pretty cluttered, and I've lost interest, but since some sort of editing away of hyperbole or known inaccuracies is required, and Sesshomaru isn't very familiar with the character, I try to help him keep some semblance of order every now and then. Still, I admit that I originally had a very silly impulse for starting to edit, in the whole "of all the heavy hitters around, Hulk seems to be the one getting the least respect, even though he has the longest line of explicit über-feats". Then one thing (disagreement) lead to another (compromise solution) to another (getting stuck helping to manage it, and weathering consistent attacks from a relentless lunatic/User:JJonz, who among other things I remember pretending to be a loony Hulk-fanatic on one of the cosmic pages, presumably to accumulate some interest, while checking and marking one of his [sockpuppets], so you may remember the sockpuppet from that isntance) to another (being completely bored with the silly feature). Dave (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see he has also now stooped to lying (something he is very fond of accusing others of doing), with his claim than he initially inserted the quotes pertaining to Death's referencing Galactus as husand, father, brother and son, when a quick review of the edit history shows they were in actuality initially inserted by TheBalance. Manssiere (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

While I, unlike User:Asgardian make no hyperbole claims of a flawless memory, rather than a knack for trivia, I distinctly remember being the one who inserted the actual quotes (rather than somewhat inaccurately summarised recollections) while cleaning up the [Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics)] page, and later [here] after checking up the Skrull-world eating and Trial of Galactus issues, but my current check-up shows that there existed a quotation previously, what I did was apparently to make the context more matter-of-fact, and tangled up the memory with the first instance. As for lying, yes, the Power Cosmic lie about it being stated as the greatest power in the universe, when the actual quote in the issue stated that there were other more potent forces, was indeed apparently a lie, as it was forcibly reinserted after correction. Galactus blasting Thanos full force was claimed as inaccurate, but after just re-checking it, G simply said that he exerted himself and needed a second blast to pierce the force-field, although I agree that whether that was half force or full force is anyone's guess. But yes, User:David A tends to get paranoid from encountering gang-up misdirection, manipulation, and 'convenient' paragraph (mis)quoting to justify/push virtually anything, quite a few too many times. User:David A tends to think and collect patterns in a very literal and straightforward way, so what seems like devious behaviour literally gives him a headache. Dave (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the other articles on the Hulk-related characters, since my interest/knowledge for Marvel characters is mainly with cosmic entities, but from what I have seen in this article, the Thanos article, and a few others, there seems to be a double-standard of removing all references which user: David A describes (some accurately, though) to be POV, yet in other entries will inject so much of his own POV into the edits its truly boggling. So long as editors reference the actual comic when adding new entries, have the publication info on hand to create a new footnote for the new material, we would probably all agree much more frequently.Mobb One (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

State examples for POV please. Regarding removing POV, yes there has previously been boggling degrees of it here and in the power cosmic, or cosmic entities article, not to mentione the 'higher powers' one, which had no basis whatsoever, and when checked up was even inaccurately quoted. I'm obviously not immune to POV, since that's a basis for human perspective, but if I'm corrected, check it up and am proven wrong, then I change my view. That's the ideal point of Wikipedia, to cover each other's mental blind spots. I have zero tolerance for deliberate manipulation or overly pompous attitudes however. Dave (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Before I say anything, I stress that you really MUST follow Wiki guidelines in replying to article discussions by NOT interjecting your replies within posts that were previously written.

2) LT transcends all REALMS, as quoted exactly in the text, not my interpretation, but the exact quote. Do not manipulate the exact text to suit your own conclusions.

3) He cannot transcend scales of duality and balance, because he himself is the cosmic arbitrator...he IS the the balance in ALL of the Marvel Universe.

4) Would you call a judge in a legal case to transcend the concept of law?

5) Or would you call a judge to be knowledgeable of the concept of law, and UPHOLDS the law in the face of opposing dualities...in this case, the defense and the prosecution. You argue for the former. I argue for the latter.

6) Clearly, a judge is NOT above the law, as you claim.

7) Comprehension of the exact meaning of the term "Tribunal" is mandated here. Tribunals do not transcend legal proceedings...they preside over them ("bestride" in the exact word LT himself uses in the text) and oversee, enact, and enforce rulings, based on strict definitions of law. The LT transcends their REALMS...that is exactly as quoted. He transcends their realms...he DOES NOT transcend the concept of dualities, simply because the concept of dualities themselves comprise 2/3 of the entire entity that is the Living Tribunal.

8) As I have already quoted:

"Everywhere in the realms of the Duality, is the presence of the Trinity"

Duality is present in all the realms. Eternity and Death, Order and Chaos. Infinity and Oblivion are irrelevant in terms of your statement of "plenty more opposing forces than Death and Eternity" because Infinity is Eternity's other half, and Oblivion is Death's other half. Order and Chaos, as stated by the Tribunal, are the dualities in the realm of "magik" of the Vishanti. Therefore, in each reality that the Tribunal presides over, are the concepts/forces/natures/whatever you wish to label it, of necessity, vengeance, and equity.

9) In the Silver Surfer's universe* (which is the Marvel 616 universe) LT LIKENS necessity, vengeance, and equity from the most basic scale (neanderthal, reptile, etc.) to the cosmic (Eternity, Galactus Death etc.).

10) Therefore, the CONCEPTS of necessity and vengeance are all there...with the Tribunal likening the existence of the cosmic entities as serving those specific roles. Of course it is in the Silver Surfer's frame of reference...which is why I stress again that the Tribunal LIKENS Death to the force of Vengeance, Eternity to the force of Necessity, and Galactus to the force of Equity.

11) Indeed, in the overall context of the entire 616-Universe, there are no higher entities than Eternity and Death. Therefore it is appropriate to label them, as LT has done, as the forces of Necessity and Vengeance. Galactus balances the two, as LT has likened him to equity, and as Eternity and Death themselves have stated.

12) Nowhere in all of my post did I state that Galactus is the balance for "everything." You are grasping at false straws to legitimize your argument. Mobb One (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1) And I stress that this approach renders it virtually impossible for me to defend myself from a gang-up or argue separate points. It indescriminately favours whoever started a topic, and severely disfavours latecomers, rather than even ground and actually getting somewhere with the diverse points. You see, I don't think in rhetorical terms/lump essays, I think in matters of fact evaluation, which is what we should stick to at Wikipedia, not try to sound good to for linguistic points. This compromise with numbers should work though. Unnecessarily time-consuming though.

2) And how do I 'manipulate'? I almost never consciously manipulate. I'm upfront, and thinking that way is the only way I can sort information. That's the reason some people have a problem with me. LT states outright that he transcends all opposing realities. That reads as exactly the same thing as opposing to me. Especially given that he spends the entire story talking about dualistic setups in the universal hierachies. That, and the Stranger's identity, and that weird likening to 'revenge' and 'necessity', reptiles and cro-magnon, is the entire point of the story you supposedly read. We can at least agree on that, correct?

3) No, he is the judge of all balance. Big difference.

4) No, but you seem to be making a case that the judge is the embodiment of law, rather than the evaluator.

5) No I argue for the latter, but not that the judge is the law. This is hack metaphysical, which doesn't lend well to real-world comparisons.

6) No I don't, and don't see where you got this impression. I do claim that the Tribunal says that he transcends the opposing realities/the dualistic forces which he talks about during the issue, that he judges them, and that he says that he must be apart at the end, further signifying this, and implying that the then claimed missing 4th face, 'the stranger', had something to do with this.

7) Yes, the Tribunal is taken as above the parties to be judged, which in this case are "all the opposing realities" which it evaluates using it 3 main faces, and thus understanding the here proposed dualistic setup of 'vengeance', 'necessity' and 'equity'/balance.

8) Infinity and Oblivion are closely linked to their twins, but not identical. As the sum manifestation of Eternity/Infinity roughly (memory) said to the Magus to unsettle him enough to lose the Gauntlet, reality isn't custom-divisioned for mortal entertainment. You could just as easily stretch this to that none of them are separate from each other, or at least that the ridiculous notion of sentient concepts should be limited to 'strong force', 'weak force', 'gravity' and similar. Order and Chaos are very active in the regular Marvel Universe as well as in the one of magic. This has been clear from their introduction. Then there are other powerful 'sentient concepts' such as Entropy or Destiny, or even minor ones like Love and Hate. It has never been implied that Galactus is the end-all be-all balance of everything, as you're trying to push.

9) Yes, it gives various examples, but it's never saying that this is the only universal duality out there. Again, the handbooks/editors all back me up on this, as does Mark Gruenwald, writer of Galactus' renewed origin story, through the quoted Quasar issue. Galactus is a mostly physical entity of sufficient stature to be granted use of M-bodies, and who has come to function as the balance between Eternity and Death. Stating that he's the balance of everything or a part of the Living Tribunal, when this has never been said, and even contradicted, is convenient and extremely dubious speculation.

10) Yup, the concept of vengeance on a universal scale is ridiculous. The universe doesn't care one way or another, and Death is only relevant to living beings. It's a sub-category for entropy. It's terms the Silver Surfer can relate to.

11) Well, logically Entropy should outrank Death, Destiny is probably a sub-category of Eternity (time). Non-Existence/Oblivion seems strange to label as a force, as energy supposedly can never be destroyed. Space and time can warp each other, so they're closely connected. Higher-dimensional entities like the Infinites are higher up, but they're outside. No idea about the Beyonders, but ditto. Regardless, Eternity, Infinity, Death, and Oblivion are usually all treated as equal (although Eternity was seemingly treated as more powerful than Death in Infinity Gauntlet... while Death was the only entity surviving the Heart of Infinite...), and the LT stated that Galactus is the equity/balance between the two. As you just said yourself, it's metaphores the SS was then thinking in terms of. The LT stated Galactus relationship to Eternity and Death, and anything beyond this is insubstantial speculation.

12) No, you'll note that I'm acting in correspondence with my earlier edits. This is very genuinely the way I understood your viewpoint. First the actual page read like Galactus was a third of the LT. Then it read like he was the incarnation of all equity/balance. This is not the case. If we are in agreement about that Galactus is stated as a near unique (possibly excepting the Stranger, and maybe Maelstrom) quasi-physical/quasi-metaphysical entity that has come to serve as the balance between Eternity and Death, which is the line stated everywhere in comics or handbooks, then I think it's better to write something like: "The Living Tribunal has described Galactus as the "equity" or balance between Eternity and Death." That's fine with me, but it should be done in such a manner not to just repeat information in the previous sentence. Dave (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Now, regarding examples of your POV, you made a large edit in the Thanos entry of his durability, of him withstanding "full force" blast from Galactus. Judging from my previous discussion with you regarding Galactus, including detailing several feats, which can be seen in previous discussions found on this very page, I can conclude that my knowledge of Galactus is more extensive than yours. I state that because if you have a thorough knowledge of Galactus, you would understand that when he stated "never before have I had to so exert myself in order to pierce a mere forcefield" in regards to Thanos' defenses, that literally means he actually had to apply himself or actually had to make a concerted effort, in overcoming the force field. That DOES NOT mean "full force."

Galactus has used blasts on cosmic entities like the Proemial Gods, In-Betweener, Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet, Agamotto, the Phoenix Force, and full-powered Tyrant, not to mention Hunger in the very same issue we're discussing. To imply that the the power level of the blasts he uses against those cosmic entities equates to the blast he used against Thanos — who activated all of his defensive shields — is pure POV on your part.

2) As Galactus stated, a second blast would be successful.

3) We can safely assume that Galactus would have "exerted" himself a little bit more on a second attempt. Nowhere in Thanos' 35 year history was he so easily (a term which you deleted originally, citing POV) overcome.

4) If you read the issue, Thanos was BEGGING Galactus to hear him out, to "stay your hand", all after just 1 blast from Galactus. That has NEVER happened before or since, in any Thanos appearance opposite another character. Note that the issue we're discussing is also written by Thanos' creator, Jim Starlin. Starlin even went so far as to make Thanos literally appear diminutive by having Galactus pick up Thanos with one hand, as Thanos was literally on his knees begging Galactus to stay his hand. Afterwards, having heard Thanos' statements, Galactus literally threw Thanos aside like a small gnome.

5) For all others who may think I am belittling Thanos by using such diminutive terms, I encourage them to read Thanos #5. I have all of Thanos' appearances since 1973 till Annihilation. Not anywhere at anytime has Thanos been humbled so much with one blast that was "exerted" from its source. Hence the all-encompassing term "easily", which you had deleted, citing POV, and instead inserted "full force blast". Mobb One (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1) I had already changed it to 'exerted himself', after reading your comment and re-checking it, if I don't misremember, which is what was stated outright, and this was a supposedly normally well-fed Galactus, but Thanos always has help from his force-fields against more powerful opponents (like power-gem Champion), and it was stated that he activated all his shields, so remaining conscious is stated in conjunction with this. Currently it is an accurate edit. Both Odin and Galactus stated that they exerted themselves.

2) Of course, but it was remarkable that Galactus needed two blasts.

3) Well, Galactus wasn't overcome, not anywhere close, and he did lose to the Dire Wraith sun for example. As for deleting "easily", this was to prove a point of consistency about Hunger somehow referred as an even match for Galactus, when he couldn't even stall a small part of it, and stated outright that his might was "as nothing" in comparison.

4) Uh, yes, the page still reads "easily outmatched", but Thanos withstood it and remained conscious with the help of his shields. This is accurate, but I suppose that "barely conscious" is more correct in both cases. Will change.

5) "Easily" is there. I thought that we came to an agreement that including one (regarding Thanos vs. Galactus) must lead to including the other (Galactus vs. Hunger, which was a much more uneven 'fight'), and discluding one must lead to discluding the other. Asgardian is the one who repeatedly do the same censor-edits over and over, among other things modifying the sentences so it reads like Galactus was not so weakened by the planetary impacts and nuclear arsenal that the Fallen One was a threat. Dave (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say here that Dave appears to be becoming obsessed with pushing a subjective viewpoint that idolises Thanos and belittles Galactus. Accordingly, I have made some alterations to the statements he keeps trying to insert, but did keep some wording in the spirit of co-operation. I won't, however, support emotive and bias storytelling. The facts have been conveyed in both the Thanos and Fallen One articles. That's enough. The LT reference in the Galactus article is far from being incorrect. Think of the layman. By the by, no more accusations of lies etc. That in itself is emotive and provocative. Let's just move on.

Asgardian (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not the right person to talk about obsessive, but yes I'm apparently manic-compulsive on the point of 'right is right'. If I was truly trying to push lies, rather that events exactly as I read them, I would not consistently remove the reference of Thanos personally beating the Fallen One, which he didn't. He tricked it into beating itself. I would also not remove naming it a 'cosmic entity' to make enslaving it sound more impressive, since blowing up a red gas giant isn't nearly enough power for that.

In any case no, quite the opposite. I'm removing hyperbole. I tend to focus on some pages at a time until lies stop to be added, then I go to the next, but I encounter so many references of 'Galactus being the most important cosmic entity of all' (the Cosmic Entities page, and purely subjective), 'the power cosmic being the most powerful force in the universe' (power cosmic page), 'Molecule Man being less powerful than the 'Omnipotents' (Galactus, Celestials etc)' (Molecule Man, Kubic, Kosmos, etc. Actually the Molecule Man only mentioned Eternity and the Tribunal in FF319. And Kubic only mentioned the Celestials, while also naming the Molecule Man as potentially similarly far above itself), a specific 'higher powers' page saying the same, even though this statement was never made in the comics, and so on. It's severely annoying to me when the same stupid edits are pushed over and over again. Mobb and I at least try to be reasonable, and we don't claim to have photographic memory. Dave (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a tad too uptight about semantics. Trims and alterations are fine, so long as there's no POV. I think the snippet on the Trinity is fine for laymen at present.

Asgardian (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely correct. I'm very uptight about semantics not being formed in such a way that they imply something that is not there. It's extremely important. Dave (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing even remotely misleading or incorrect in Mobb One's "Living Tribunal/3 Forces/Galactus" edits, they are absolutely correct, properly worded and relevant to the Galactus entry. I also see absolutely no reason for the revision war over these edits besides what appears to be a personal agenda. TheBalance (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can easily be read as the incarnation of all balance (which, given your handle, may or may not be a preferred view), and like the cosmic entities section, a thin air endorsement-propaganda that Galactus is one of the 3 most important cosmic entities in existence, which is an active dismissal of all the rest, but my last edit was extremely minor and should satify everyone, or so I'd think. As for the 'personal agenda', well yes, my agenda is that consistently misleading statements in a swarm of pages are exactly the kind of think that gets on my nerves. Yours has previously been to maintain them without any defence for doing so. Say what you want about me, but I'm always trying to be matter of fact. Dave (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to support User:Asgardian's 11:17 edit today. The passage as he writes it would be much more comprehensible than other versions to the general-audience reader to which Wikipedia is directed. I'd also agree with his video-game excision, for both the WP:PEACOCK "hit" and for lack of cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But I have no problem with editing for comprehension/limited space. I encourage that sort of compromise. I have a problem with serial-ceonsoring out specific details that are deemed 'inconvenient' to push a factually inaccurate viewpoint that is blatantly false in relationship to what was explicitly shown to happen. Dave (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it another shot to make it both accurate and understandable. It was previously worded as if Galactus, Eternity, and Death are the only essential forces, i.e. endorsing Galactus as far more important than any other abstracts whatsoever. Feel free to improve the sentence structure. Dave (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Last Fantastic Four Story #1

I added the bit about The Last Fantastic Four Story #1. I don't know if I put that in the right place for the article. Anyway, it does show a different aspect of Galactus, actually going to help the Fantastic Four save the enemy he just helped vanquish, because he respected their motive. So he now cares about lesser lifeforms. He admitting he wasn't strong enough to fight the Cosmic Tribunal, I thought surprising, and worthy of mention. Marvel comics is currently letting people read that issue freely on their official website. http://www.marvel.com/digitalcomics/titles/THE_LAST_FANTASTIC_FOUR_STORY.2007.1 Dream Focus (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't take place in mainstream continuity.

TheBalance (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)