Talk:The Marvel Super Heroes

Corrected Episode Titles

Corrected title of Episode 4 "Return of Captain America" to "The Returnof Captain America" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Corrected title of Episode 8 "Coming of the Swordsman" to "The Coming of the Swordsman."

Corrected title of Episode "Bitter Taste of Defeat" to "The Bitter Taste of Defeat."

Untitled

It should be the other way, Add the other hear.

Spider-Man as far as I know, never appeared on this particular anthology show. He of course, had his own TV series around this same period, which was produced by the same Canadian studio.User:TMC1982

Ralph Bakshi

What is the source for Ralph Bakshi being listed as one of this show's creators? I know he was involved in the second season of Spider-Man (1967), but I don't recall his involvement in this show.

accuracy of title

IMDB lists the show as The Marvel Superheroes. Shouldn't the title of the entry be "The Marvel Superheroes (TV series)"? --SidP 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually if you check out the following YouTube link containing the original umbrella opening [[1]], you will all find that the correct original title was The Marvel Super Heroes. Hopefully a link to the actual original animation will be enough of a citation for the omniscient power(s) that be? 212.124.251.233 11:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone taken a look at the linked 60s animation? Is it worth renaming the article since the on-screen logo was actually "The Marvel Super Heroes"? Doceo 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Theme song lyrics

You see this line from the title theme song? An exotically neurotic and aquatic superhero

I'm pretty sure the song says EROTIC not NEUROTIC. Yet someone changed what I edited back to Neurotic. Here is the theme song in question http://members.fortunecity.com/toontracker/marvelsh.html (Wait for the song to load) Tell me they don't say EROTIC. The Sub-mariner is hardly neurotic.

The lyrics have been published many places. There is no way on God's green earth that a 1960s kids' show would use the word "erotic" in a theme song. Moreover, "neurotic" was a fad word of the time, taken to mean troubled but complex -- it was frequently used in reference to Spider-Man, for example.--Tenebrae 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While you make a good point. it still sounds like 'erotic". But anyway..

Anyway if you listen to the song it sounds like "Superpowered from THE forehead to THE toes". It's clearly "the" and not "their".

Furthermore if you listen to the Hulk song http://members.fortunecity.com/toontracker/hulk.html (wait for it to load) It clearly says "Doc-Tor Banner" not "Doc Bruce Banner".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantdevilfish (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure "clearly" is a good word to use. To other listeners' ears, the lyrics don't necessarily match your interpretation. Following Wiki policy, it's best to leave the lyrics as originally researched until a less subjective basis exists for changing.--Tenebrae 03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Tenebrae. But you have to admit I'm on to something. Especially the "Doc-tor Banner" part of the song. You can't tell me the song says "Doc Bruce". I don't think anyone could possibly hear "Bruce" when they listen to that song. ;) Giantdevilfish 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can tell you is, I can't find a citation for "doc-tor" other than two blog posts, which are unauthoritative. I've seen many citations for "doc bruce," including at the Sci Fi Channel official Hulk page, the article "The incredible bulk of angry green history: Before The Hulk stomped the big screen, he appeard in oodles of television shows", by Neal Ozano in the Calgary, Canada, entertainment site FFWD ["Fast-Forward"]; and the June 18, 2003 edition of the Scott Tipton column "Comics 101" at the somewhat scatologically named film site Movie Poop Shoot. --Tenebrae 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess there are too many reliable sources that support the lyrics as is, so it's a dead issue as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for all your responses and explanations. But before I leave I want your opinion. Click on those above links and listen to the songs. Do you hear Erotic or Neurotic? The forehead or their foreheads? Doc-tor or Doc Bruce? I know this is just opinion and doesn't matter anymore, and has no relevance whatsoever on the page because it isn't fact and isn't supported, but what do you hear personally? And be honest, I just don't want to think I'm going crazy and hearing things that aren't there. ;) Giantdevilfish 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, Giantdevilfish: You are merely the victim of mondegreens! And you'll be happy to know that the upside of this "tune-rette's disease" is all the fun you'll now have at sites like Mondegreens: A Short Guide and Jon Carroll Mondegreens.

Remember, as Creedence Clearwater Revival once sang, "There's a bathroom on the right." And in the eternal words of Madonna, "Last night I dreamed of some bagels." Have fun! --Tenebrae 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: DVD

I've removed the following since it's uncited and is written vaguely. Does it mean Disney was planning to release it and had trouble with Marvel, or Marvel was going to release it and had trouble with Disney? Either way, it needs a footnote.

In 2004, the entire series was planned for a complete DVD boxset release at one point, but was later cancelled in early 2005 due to The Walt Disney Company's legal problems with Marvel Comics over the rights to the Marvel animated catalogue ... The Hulk was not released [in the UK] due to Disney retaining exclusive home video rights to the series since one episode, "The Origin of the Hulk", was released as an extra on their sole 1996 Hulk DVD release.

Some of the speculation seems specious, but that may be because of the writing. Could the editor cite the original source? --Tenebrae 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why was the info on the sole Hulk episode released by Disney on DVD removed, along with the previously announced and then cancelled DVD boxset? Are these not viable pieces of DVD information? 212.124.251.233 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCE. Aside from the poorly, and thus confusingly, vaguely, and overworded way in which it was written, an authoritative source cannot be, as your source states, "my friend at the studio". --Tenebrae 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion on your end. From what I can tell, the original DVD entry was indeed speculative, and it makes perfect sense to remove that entirely. However, the other information subsequently added about a single episode of the Hulk series being on DVD, along with a once-announced and subsequently cancelled DVD boxset, are pure facts, and the later revision removed any speculative information. It appears for some reason you're removing simple factual information now, sans any un-cited speculation.

The cancelled DVD boxset information did have a (now removed) citation from the biggest TV DVD site around. Could you clarify what your specific objection is to those two pieces of information, since as far as I am aware they are simply a matter of record? I would have thought at the very least the single instance of a Hulk episode on official DVD would merit a mention (especially when the other four series were released in their entirety on R2 DVD, except the Hulk), but it seems I may be mistaken. If you could clarify exactly why the mention of the 1966 Hulk episode's appearance on DVD has been removed, along with the cited information on the cancelled DVD boxset, I think it would help to clear the situation for the assembled plebeians who may chance upon this page. 86.147.92.156 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your expanding on this. What I saw when I went to the site was a blog-like entry referring to something reported elsewhere, but which didn't give any actual source like a newspaper, or a trade magazine, or a Disney press release. If this information is reliable and accurate, it'll appear in more than one place.

OK, looking more closely, I see there were two related but different edits made, one highly speculative and badly sourced, the other more straightforward. I'll look for the Hulk-segs cite with you as well. --Tenebrae 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Reinserting info now. --Tenebrae 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

However — God, is nothing simple — I cannot find an authoritative source for the Maximum Entertainment DVDs. There's nothing about them on the catalog page or anywhere else on the company's own site (http://www.maximumentertainment.co.uk/catalogue.html), and the only references to it I can find are on forums, which Wikipedia disallows as a reference source. Until we can confirm these DVDs existence according to Wikipedia guidelines, we need to at least comment-out the reference in the article. --Tenebrae 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Maximum Entertainment aren't the biggest budgeted company out there, so it's no surprise to discover the DVDs are not listed on their website. There are multiple entries for the DVDs (although I've only included the links for the Cap collection) on noted UK retailers Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captain-America-The-Complete-Series/dp/B000QEIQ5G/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/202-9740759-2606225?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1183407810&sr=8-2), Play.com (http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/3355157/Captain-America/Product.html) & Sendit.com (http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7001000135195). Obviously it helps having citations for the actual DVDs, but I guess in lieu of the company website not being updated, one of the above retailers would have to do! 86.147.92.156 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, noticed the current DVD entry mentions that four Hulk segments were released by Disney on their single Hulk DVD. It was actually only the standard three segments (as always made up a complete story). Again, proof of the disc's existence can easily be found at linked to existing retail sites, rather than any Disney website since they have abandoned releasing Marvel shows on DVD (the last release through them was in 2005). This is where the speculation comes in; Marvel sued Disney over their shows in 2004 (http://www.out-law.com/page-5035), and not long afterwards the cash-in DVDs mysteriously dried-up - of course none of the involved parties have said anything either way. 86.147.92.156 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, Wikipedia disallows the use of commercial-retail sites. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. I'm not sure why the size of the company would affect its ability to post a jpg on its catalog page -- it has a large number already there.

I'll try to find a citation to clarify whether it's three or four segments. As it stands, a published, detailed review says four.--Tenebrae 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The cheaper the company, the less time and resources they have to actively market their products; it's hardly a new thing, even with such trvial matters as uploading a jpg. As for the number of segments, I'm sure as a huge fan of the series, you'll easily recall that all The Marvel Super Heroes stories were split into three segments. I have the Disney DVD myself and can confirm this is the case with the Hulk episode included as an extra - but that obviously does not count as a citation. The three segments are mentioned on the following reviews, however (http://www.genreonline.net/Hulk_Animated_DVD.html), (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/dvdreviewsnews.php?id=206) & (http://www.fanboyplanet.com/ontv/dvd/mc-incrediblehulkdvd.php).

Since you're going strictly by the book, I'll simply direct anyone actually interested in obtaining any of these official R2 discs to this page rather than the main entry, since you personally require a non-commercial citation. It is a pity that the discs' existence will be kept from everyone, but your direct control over this page obviously precludes any further development on the issue. 86.147.92.156 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your sarcasm and snideness are misplaced; Wikipedia operates by consensus, and we're all supposed to abide by the guidelines. Also, this is an encyclopedia and not a marketplace; its mission is not to guide users to purchase products.

I believe I've cooperated and collaborated with you, building on your information and providing a citation that you did not. Your accusation of WP:OWN is unnecessary and unappreciated. Thank you and I hope you register and read about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering you blissfully blindsided numerous attempts at providing cited information, I fully believe that my perceived sarcasm (which was hardly my intent) is likely not misplaced. Any and all attempts at proving the mere existence of a few R2 DVDs, comprising 80% of The Marvel Super Heroes series, have been resolutely rebuffed since there is no non-commercial citation available on the internet, and hence they effectively "do not exist" in your eyes. The nearest secondary citations I have located are the website for the DVDs' cover artist (http://www.theextremist.co.uk/IMAGES/ILLUSTRATIONLINKS/Captain%20America.html), along with BBFC links showing that various episodes (Captain America, in this example) were indeed rated on behalf of a company named...Maximum Entertainment (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/CF3A11E9B87378BA80256E96001B7259?OpenDocument).

I certainly know that I shall happily sit back and enjoy the many episodes that have thankfully been released on DVD. Perhaps if you're one day adventurous enough to acknowledge the possibility of the DVDs' very existence, you may put up an online review of the DVDs yourself, and hence "legitimise" them in a citation. My accusation of WP:OWN also doesn't seem so misplaced; I certainly know I will not attempt to touch this page any further due to your omnipresent vigilance on this, and dozens of other comics-based pages, despite your odd lapses of memory such as recalling the standard episodic format of every single story of the series. 86.147.92.156 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated your cites, following Wiki WP:SOURCE guidelines. Please do not post any additional remarks that would be contrary to Wiki guidelines regarding incivility. Thanks. --Tenebrae 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully I am not treading on anyone's toes and apologise if any offense is taken, but I have discussed the DVD-citation issues on my personal discussion page with Tenebrae and am copying my latest response here, since it is pertinent to this entry's main article page. If there is an objection to this, please state where I might have inadvertently transgressed Wikipedia rules and remove this entry:

That's cool. So for the moment, I shall leave both the Marvel article and discussion pages alone until a citable source is put online to formally verify the DVD's existence in a non-commercial environment. Until then, it might be best for you to simply remove the contentious DVD section altogether, since we've established that no meaningful information can effectively be put on there at the moment due to the lack of a permanent citation. In the meantime I shall try my best to actually find or persuade someone to actually give the DVDs in question a review, or some otherwise formal acknowledgement of existence. Hopefully this will be on a well-known website rather than a lesser known one of questionable verifiability. Once such statements are online, I shall direct you to them, and hopefully you will finally allow either myself or someone else to mention the DVDs on your protected page.

It is my hope that the timescale for such non-commercial citations to be generated would be quite short, so I see no reason for not adding the information regarding the DVDs now with a "citation needed" button, as per citation page "Unsourced material". If after a designated period of time to your choosing, either I or anyone else cannot provide a citation, then there's no question that you should subsequently remove the information.

In my opinion, such information rendered in one, or two at the most, sentences would not constitute harm to the whole article. Of course, your opinion may differ, and so I won't push this through you if you can offer a good case as to why it would be harmful to your article as a whole. If not, I will write up a brief and pass it through you first before it goes on your page, hopefully ready for a citation that will be quick in coming. I'm not sure how long the "citation needed" tag should be up for though. I'm thinking two, maybe three weeks. That doesn't seem like such an inordinate amount of time to me, but again, it's entirely your call as the page editor.

I do notice the "Others" section regarding the TV stations has had at least two "citation needed" marks up on the page since [February], so I am hopeful you will allow a placeholder DVD entry with a similar "citation needed" tag on the page for only one-fifth of the timeframe of the specific tags in question. Please advise, and let me know if the proposed DVD entry would constitute harm to the whole article with it's temporary uncited status. Doceo 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Page cleanup

• I've gone ahead and simply removed the Captain America DVD info until all four 2007 UK releases of Captain America, Thor, Iron Man and Sub-Mariner can be cited from a non-commercial website. I've also added a reference for the Region 2 release of the Hulk.

There are two "citation needed" tags have been on the list of TV stations for five months now. Do those entries need to be removed yet? I feel a reasonable amount of time has passed, but on the other hand, they do not appear to be harmful entries to the article.

If there are no objections, I will add info on the aforementioned four UK DVD releases alongside a "citation needed" tag, since as per WP:CITE, I don't believe such an entry will cause harm to the page. The information is not doubtful either, since multiple commercial references can be found as discussed above, and thus with WP:AGF I can offer "common sense" evidence in the absence of Wikipedia-standard evidence. I'm trying to get a detailed review done for me on a major cartoon website for the express purpose of adding info on the four UK DVD sets with corroborating Wikipedia-standard evidence.

However, if no non-commercial citation emerges after a reasonable amount of time (the discs were released in May) however, I will remove the entire proposed entry since their existence cannot be satisfactorily be proven to Wikipedia standards. Since I am assured WP:OWN is not in evidence here, I invite any and all objections to these plans before, as a named Wikipedia editor, I make my proposed edits later this week. Doceo 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • It's been a bit longer than a week, but I'll hold off putting any DVD info with a fact box and simply restore the information once the DVD review I mentioned is actually up, as I'm not sure how long it would actually remain on the page, despite no objections to my above entry. -Doceo 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

In any case, the DVD information currently in the article states the only known facts that I anyone else so far has been able to confirm according to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. If you find them stringent, it's because they have to be — as we all saw in the case of Chris Benoit, anyone can claim anything based on "personal knowledge" or "personal ownership" of something. Most editors are honest and well-meaning, as I'm sure you are. The rules aren't in place for people like that; the rules are in place to help prevent the other kind. For that reason, I understand why the rules are in place and I have to respect them. --Tenebrae 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Well to put it simply, you're applying Wikipedia's rules to everyone else when it comes to information citation on this page, yet two of the three TV stations in the "Others" section have had citation boxes put up by you since February. How long is too long before you decide those two particular pieces of information are harmful to the page? The DVDs I have tried to include mention of on the page can all be independently verified on numerous commercial websites, even if they cannot currently be formally cited. My only mistake was believing such sites would be reasonable proof of evidence (even if they cannot be formally cited in the article itself), considering said items are on sale. However, even given that they are on trusted commercial websites, I have to ask the question; ignoring Wikipedia's standards for the moment, do you personally believe they exist? Understanding how you think would be greatly beneficial to how I approach any of your entries in the future. In any case as I said, I'm making no changes until I can satisfy your criteria, as getting involved in the "three-edit" rule isn't really sporting. -Doceo 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove the uncited TV stations, which have been uncited since February, you're as free to do so as anyone.

Regarding what you or I personally believe, I'm sorry, but it's irrelevant. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop calling it my criteria; I think it's reached a point of harassment when I've explained many times and provided links to the policy about not linking to primarily commercial sites.

And in any case, I see now that you did just provide a link to non-commercial site, so I'm not sure there's any further need to discuss this. --Tenebrae 00:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

VHS

After removing the uncited claim about VHS releases, I've found references to the Marvel Superheroes Triple Pack a.k.a. Marvel's Mightiest Heroes Triple Pack. I've found one non-commercial-site citation, and have included it based on that. Please help me in looking for allowable sources of additional information.--Tenebrae 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found UPC numbers, which, if they check out, are allowable as proof of existence. --Tenebrae

Stations

To the editor who suggested in an edit summary that the list of stations be removed and that they add "nothing" to the article: They are part of the historical record, providing specificity. They are absolutely relevant and perhaps indispensable. The reach of syndicated shows, particularly in the less concentrated, more market-by-market days of media ownership, varied greatly. --Tenebrae 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg

Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg

Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

Any station added that was not on the published list in Marvel Comics has to go under "Others" and has to have a citation — something as simple as a cited and dated issue of the local edition of TV Guide, for example. Otherwise, we're relying on memory, and memory is imprecise. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Release Date

Fine, Tenebrae. I can't say that I understand the reasoning of Wikinazis[2] such as yourself, who insist on removing informative, relevant and non-harmful edits, but if that is what you want to do then I trust you yourself will update the page with the information I added after any press release which may or may not be forthcoming. The Wikipedia policies you point to in your edits are either totally irrelevant or would suggest to me that a simple "citation needed" tag would have been sufficient (if still unnecessary by the terms of Wikipedia policy on those pages you link to) for you to further stamp your authority on the page. I don't see how your reverting of my edits is more helpful to the article than simply leaving it as is and adding any citation when it becomes available from a non-commercial source. The edit is easily verifiable by searching for the product on both Play.com and Amazon.co.uk and may have reasonably been allowed to stay as it was.Decorativeedison (talk) 06:23 19 June 2008

I think the fact you feel it necessary to call those who disagree with you "Nazis" says all that need be said about your understanding of Wikipedia and its policies. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not about my understanding of the policies, it is about your misunderstanding of them and the way you enforce that misunderstanding as if it were the actual policy. For example from WP:CRYSTAL which you cited to back up your edit: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This clearly is not the case with regard to my edit. Also: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". This clearly is the case with regard to my edit.

As for your direction toward WP:VERIFY, you may want to take note of the following sections:

"...editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page."

"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."

My edit clearly did not contravene the other two policies and you seem to be guilty of interpreting Verifiability "in isolation". Again the edit was not harmful to the article and it seemed to me that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" if you count Amazon's release and pre-order information as an easily checkable source. Unfortunately it is commercial so in the light of not wanting to promote one company over another I did not cite them. Had I chosen to do so however, it could have been classed as a questionable source, but well within the following guidelines:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

You also failed to give me "sufficient time to provide references" before reverting the edit. We are not on a WP:DEADLINE.

The issue for me comes down to one simple thing - Is the article more informative or less informative with my edit? To quote one of your own edits "so why give less pertinent info and not more?". I often wonder the same myself...Decorativeedison (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008

Update: Within the last few hours, Play have changed the release date to 25th August [[3]], although it remains 30th June on Amazon [[4]]. Had this been the case two days ago I'd have held back my edit. I still stand by what I wrote earlier though.Decorativeedison (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2008

It is not our job to promote merchandise or to do advance advertising. When something becomes available, that is concrete information. When a commercial enterprise announces that it plans to make something available, that's marketing.

For all any of us knows, you may may be the marketing director of the company releasing those videos. You may not be. The net effect is the same: promotion for a product. I can't imagine what all the rush and all the insistence is about, unless someone has some stake in promoting these products.

And as long as you're flinging policies, perhaps you could tell me how calling me a "Nazi" falls under WP:ETIQUETTE? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that the reasons you give for not citing commercial sources are the exact same reasons that I did not provide such, have I not? I have no interest in doing any marketing or promotional work for companies I do not care for and am not receiving recompense from.

Having said that, I had not previously read this talk page and if I had, I would not have made the edit in the first instance, as I would have been made all too aware by the above comments of yourself and the other users that this page was firmly under your iron fist. For such an uncontroversial subject matter as is this article, I find your rule over it to be frankly ridiculous.

Finally, I did not call you a Nazi. I am not comparing you to Der Fuhrer, I was merely using a term which is commonly accepted to refer to such over-zealous editors as yourself (In fact there used to be a wikipedia page dedicated to the subject but it was deleted by one of the exponents of it). Read the second entry on the link I put up, it describes your habits to a tee. I honestly believe that self-appointed overlord type of editors are just as much of a blight on the Wiki community as the vandals are. At least the vandals tend to move on. It seems to me that no one else is able to make any (beneficial and informative) changes to this article without your say so and are then subject to your seemingly random, willfully selective and sometimes abstract interpretation of the policies. Because of this I intend to stop wasting my time and have no further input on this page. Decorativeedison (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2008

Okay, now in addition to a form of Nazi, I am a "self-appointed overlord" and "a blight." I'd have to say that most admins would consider your name-calling and insulting completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you have to resort to such schoolyard taunting because your position — insisting on a future claim about a commercial product without a providing a citation acceptable according to consensus-derived policy — is indefensible, then feel free to call for an RfC, and we can have objective third parties or an admin or whatever your prefer decide whether I'm a Nazi or those other insults, or whether I'm properly upholding Wikipedia policies against promotion and advertising and for verifiability.

That said, I'd like this conversation to be over. Either call for an RfC or an admin, or please drop it. If you continue otherwise, I'll have to call in an admin about your completely inappropriate name-calling and insults. I've tolerated such behavior from you twice now. I believe that's enough. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that it's been a year and more, but I only just now found this. I find your refusing to deal with his points by focusing on his use of not-unjustified-by-your-behavior labels and taking them out of context so as to misrepresent his usages of them to be evasive, and if there is no Wikipedia policy against that (and given my own personal experience with other editors—and even administrators—there apparently isn't), there certainly should be. By any reasonable, rational and objective standard, it is not good faith discussion. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Who played Captain America?

The article credits both Arthur Pierce and Sandy Becker as Captain America. Which is it? (110.174.166.224 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. The problem is that the section has no footnoting for verification, except for one item at the end. If we can find reliable-source citations, we might have our answers. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Two actors played the role. Listen carefully and you'll notice the different voices in different episodes. As I recall, the voices were identified by old-time radio drama listeners in Canada. These voice performers made visits to local schools in Toronto and spoke with students about their work. Arthur Pierce was recognizable from his work in radio dramas in Canada. Becker was New York based but there are several YouTube videos of his appearances on New York television and it's certain one of the Captain America actors was Becker - his voice is very distinctive and recognizable. The end credits are not available for each episode. I've seen just one example on YouTube but it's likely the voice credits were different for each episode. Most of the uncredited voices were identified by comparing the voices to performances where they were credited such as in Rocket Robin Hood and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Also, Paul Soles (Voice of 1967 Spider-Man) identified many of the actors on his website which is no longer online, but exists on Internet Archives such as the Wayback Machine. YouTube is purging all the Marvel Super Heroes videos because copyright holders are objecting. Only Sub-Mariner's rights are in limbo at this writing. With the Disney/21st Century Fox merger looming, perhaps the rights will be consolidated and a new video release will be possible. --Dstager (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of title

So we've got a flyer here that uses "Super-Heroes", and of course we could ignore that based on what the show uses...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8XL99rL6Gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJZyIXu2hA

...Help? Despatche (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9BMDivjnd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyDTX6cTRhE

Dstager (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Marvel Super Heroes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJZyIXu2hA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211034951/http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=18200 to http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=18200

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I need help properly editing a recent change I made. I've been adding and editing voice credits because a recently published book has unearthed original scripts, storyboards, letters and memos written while the show was being produced. The entry I added for Margaret Griffin who was a voice actor, gets redirected to an athlete Peggy Griffin automatically. I don't know how to alter this so this doesn't happen. If someone can just change that error, I'd appreciate it. I'm not making a new entry for actor Margaret Griffin. I just don't want people to think a tennis player was also a voice actor.

I'm also interested in knowing how to go about adding some new information about Stan Lee's direct involvement in editing and re-writing the scripts when producers created original story material Lee didn't like and also about episodes that were written and storyboarded but never produced. The Iron Man origin story TOS #39 was going to be part 1, part 2 was TOS #42, part 3 was TOS #40 - all golden/grey armor Iron Man stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstager (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Bios

I propose that the main article should have a brief section mentioning the bios from the original series which, to my knowledge have not appeared on any of the home video releases. (If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to state where they may have appeared.) The text I propose follows, but again, if anyone has suggested amendments that would of course be fine. I'm new to wikipedia editing, but this is a topic I'm interested in and so I thought I'd add my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:8780:7930:25C5:83CB:7FA8:3049 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Marvel Superheroes program included several brief bio segments for each character. These segments gave basic background information about who the characters were and how some of their equipment worked. Low quality versions of some of these segments can be found on YouTube, but some segments have not been seen in many years. Whether the originals of these still exist and may allow them to be included on a future anthology release is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:8780:7930:1C01:3201:164D:827F (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)