Jump to content

Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Thor, Cap and Iron Man reunited in Siege

To end the edit war regarding this section:

In the 2010 crossover event 'Siege', Thor will reunite with the rest of the Avengers when Asgard is invaded by Norman Osborn's Dark Avengers and H.A.M.M.E.R.

I have added citations and reworded it slightly to read...

According to ComicBookMovie[27] and ComicVine[28], in the 2010 crossover event 'Siege', Thor will reunite with the rest of the Avengers when Asgard is invaded by Norman Osborn's Dark Avengers and H.A.M.M.E.R.


And no, I am not the person who originally added it. Just figured since they seemed intent on re-adding it without any citations, I might as well try to confirm a source of some sort and add it. So, since I found some sources to cite, I added them instead of removing the text.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

24.172.64.66 has removed the references I put in the text (he was the person who originally posted it, re posted it when it was removed twice by another editor because it wasnt citable, and now has removed the citations and reverted it back to his original).
I have undone his changes on this and reverted it back to my edit (also see below for additional reasons*).
You will find he seems to be going on such edit wars elsewhere as well and cannot seem to stop and read that he simply needs to put citations.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


And yet again! LoL! Left him/her a message on their Talk page. Doubt it will help. He's already been banned from editing other pages or anywhere on Wikipedia in the past it seems, and given explanations as to why. Didnt do much good.


Visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.172.64.66 for more...
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Another note, in him reverting back to his first change, he removed a bunch of other edits that no one else seems to have had problems with. My revert should have restored them to how the page was before he jumped back into this tonight.
And at this point, I must exit from dealing with this to avoid entering an edit war (I believe I am one revert away from reaching the limit, and one more to pass it - already too close to make me happy, and doesnt seem it will solve anything anyway).
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


To hopefully end the above user's re-editing, I have changed the edit to have the references inline, thus restoring his text to it's original format, but still providing references so the other editors that removed his text will hopefully find this compromise suitable.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Character Biography

Currently ends with issue #602, the series is now at issue #607. I am not condoning an issue by issue recanting of the story but there have been pretty signifanct changes that should be addressed in an encyclopedic fashion. First and foremost is that series has completed the Latverian/Doom story arc and we should bring this to a close in the article as well in a concise manner because as it stands now it is incomplete.

As far the events of Seige we should refrain from including that info until that story arc has been complete as well. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TriiipleThreat, and thanks for initiating discussion. I believe what we need to ask ourselves is, would a general-audience reader — not a comics fan — who wants to learn about this Marvel Comics character care about whether "The Latverian/Doom story arc" is complete? There are lots and lots of three- and four-issue story arcs during the classic Lee-Kirby run, but we're not detailing every one of them, either. The biography is overlong as it is, and nothing major changed for this franchise in this particular arc. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
True not every story arc is discussed in the article but the start of this particular story arc is present here, we might as well finish it. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually see where that story arc starts. I see that he sacrifices the Wasp, which is a status quo changer; kills his grandfather, ditto; and develops a symbiotic relationship with Mjolnir, also ditto. I'm a little unclear on the great significance of his rescuing Sif -- just sounds like business as usual compared to those three other things. I don't see any here about Doom and Latveria. It's just Thor battling a supervillain. There's nothing special about it -- can you see how it doesn't compare to killing an Avenger or his grandfather, or a sea change in his relationship with his weapon? -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Also the Asgardians returning to Oklahoman from Latveria is pretty significant becuase it leads into Seige which from all accounts will have far reaching effects in the Marvel Universe. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"Which from all accounts will have...." Let's wait and see what happens: WP:CRYSTAL. Whether Thor's visit to Latveria and battling a supervillain will have any significant impact or repercussions with "Siege," we have no way of knowing. Right now, at this moment, not predicting the future, it's just a superhero fighting a supervillain. That's all. That's not encyclopedically significant. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I could've sworn the section mentioned Loki manipulating Blader into moving the populace to Latveria. No matter then all is well. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New SHB

A change like that requires discussion, particularly when placing a second image in the box. The information is also not clear as uses the disallowed "vol. 1" and makes no clear distinction between JIM and Thor, just counting them as one run which is not technically true. Asgardian (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point it is technically different runs but still considered within the same volume. Also as for justification for the second inforbox it is for the Comic book Thor not the character Thor, see Green Lantern as an example of its use. The infobox was created for articles for comic book characters with their own seelf titled series. Theres currently a discussion going on about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#New infobox. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Readded the infobox with changes to show focus solely on Thor at my userspace for review. How does it fair now? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Update Current History

Added edit rearding Dr. doom and expulsion from Asgard and then how that led onto Siege. This is to update history that had stopped at June 2009. (9 months ago) Lets sehow long that will last on here before the overlord removes it. The biggest Marvel storyline this year has been removed several times which is rubbish. —Preceding comment added by echobase 91.107.81.198 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Third-party-sourcing tag

While WikiProject Comics has long had a guidelines against purely in-universe synopses, the Project is now moving to more actively follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), as can be seen in the deletion of Fictional history of Wolverine, the deletion of Fictional history of Green Goblin, and the deletion of Fictional history of Spider-Man. The plot elements here at Thor similarly need to be integrated with real-world background. It's a long process, with a lot of articles that need to be upgraded to Wikipedia's writing-about-fiction standard, but as per the months of discussion and these three articles deletion, that is the Project's current consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not the tag you posted. The tag you posted is for Third-party references. What you are talking about is in-universe prose. Those are different concepts. I believe the tag you are looking for is
...not the one currently heading the section. I fully support the Projects movement, but posting incorrect tags isn't going to help as much as you might think. Padillah (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you. I see that the third-party tag already appears under "Fictional character biography," so you're right, the in-universe tag should go up. I'll go ahead and do that. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want my opinion on this. We need more than just tagging. Tags are annoying for me. I am all ears on how to improve this article for real. Let's face it this is probably going to be a popular searched article after the movie and we need to do what we can to fix it. Let's focus on the problems and try to fix them and yes I know that's harder than it sounds, that's why I think us discussing it might help. − Jhenderson 777 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, we're in total agreement. The tags are just a way to let other editors (as well as readers) know that proper sourcing is needed. It's not mutually exclusive. I'm certainly volunteering to help — it's just a matter of squeezing in the time. I was just asked to help on Chaos War, which still needs more work, and now I've promised to help with Siege. But you're right, it does need work, and I know I'm not the only WPC member with books about comics!   : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I would be happy with fixing it along with a whole lot of fictional comic book character articles. It's just not easy figuring where to start at. I need just some recommendations to get motivated on and giving me some external links to read would help as well. I feel like there hasn't been enough of fictional comic book character article that hasn't reach featured or good article quality yet ;) − Jhenderson 777 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I might humbly suggest the FCB (or history, or whatever they're calling it) at Spider-Man. It's got refs from some the main Marvel books out there (Peter Sanderson, Steve Saffel, Les Daniels), plus the single best book so far putting comics in a cultural and sociological context, Bradford Wright's Comic Book Nation. Check it out! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So you suggest some books. Yikes. That's doable. Although I am not a big expert on knowing where to read it. And I never figured out citing books. I read a little bit of Comic book Nation on Amazon though. Nice read but I haven't signed up for Amazon so I couldn't read everything. − Jhenderson 777 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Libraries, pulling up a chair at Barnes & Noble, and honestly, a lot of these are available for cheap online. As well, there are comics magazines like Back Issue, Alter Ego, Comic Book Artist, and the mostly indie/alt The Comics Journal, which are perfectly professionally. Of course, there are also online zines such as The Comics Reporter and Newsarama, although with the Web stuff you really have to sift through interviews to get past all the promotional hype that comics creators spew in order to get to the one or two nuggets of actual information. The online zines don't really do reporting so much as just provide publishers a promotional forum, which is a shame. I celebrate the exceptions, and I've often found Matt Brady at Newsarama a good resource. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will see with what I can do. Though I warn you, I am more of a Superhero film contributor than the characters themselves. So this ain't my main expertise. Although I do love reading them. I am mainly just tired of seeing Superman and Batman the only articles done right. Jhenderson 777 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Loosely

I qualified that the movie is only loosely based on the comic however my edit was reverted as POV. This is obviously nonsense since the movie has an almost entirely different back story (where is Donald Blake?). Efficacious (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

i can't tell if you're serious or not. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure am. Some movie adaptations are relatively faithful to the original material. Thor and Green Lantern are certainly not. I appear to be arguing against consensus so I'll drop it (grumble grumble). Efficacious (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a citation to make such a qualification? If not it is considered original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The film is an amalgamation of many different storylines involving the character. Not all of the storylines involving the character involve the character of Donald Blake. It is an adaptation, the exclusion of one aspect of a character's origin does not quantity it as a loose adaptation. Iron Man's origin was moved to Afghanistan, Captain America uses guns, and Wolverine is not short. These films are not loose adaptations, they are adaptations. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
In who's opinion? Yours? That's either original research or weaseling. Or can you point to reliable, verifiable secondary sources that characterize these unreleased films that way? - J Greb (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Efficacious, for coming to the talk page. I would say that calling fellow editors' position "obviously nonsense" is not a constructive way to begin.
The question is, who defines "loosely"? Another reasonable person could look at this and say that it contains all the major Asgardian characters, plus Jane Foster, and their relationship to each other, and involves antagonists from the comics. I also believe it follows the major outlines of the story. Some details are different. A character may be missing. There is never going to be an exact adaptation of a book or a comic books or a video game, etc., so by your definition, every adaptation would be a loose adaptation, thereby robbing the word of its meaning.
We can all agree that it's based on the comic book. That is concrete and stated in the movie's indicia, marketing, advertising, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment re nonsense was in relation to the edit summary suggesting my edit was POV. I accept that clarifying the distance between the comic and the movie would be varyingly applicable to most movies so not a good precedent to set. No doubt reviews will discuss the differences exhaustively. Efficacious (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect for Thor Odionson?

I just wanted to point out that Thor Odinson does not redirect here. I don't know how to make a redirect anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.122.182 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of bizarre how these pages are written.

The superhero pages, I mean. The entire Walt Simonson run (the defining run on the character and his universe, IMO, or at least right there with the Lee/Kirby stuff) is covered in a very short paragraph. Yet below this there is relatively in-depth coverage of the ups and downs of Thor, in-story, over the years.

Shouldn't these pages be more about the progression of a character, not in-story, but as a published character? Long-lived (and even newer) comic characters aren't real people - what's important isn't what they do, but how they're depicted. Take a character such as Daredevil or Deadpool - these were completely different characters, and their worlds were completely different worlds, prior to the arrival of a particular writer in each case. The "history" of the X-Men is pretty much just Chris Claremont and a succession of artists with whom he worked more or less well over the years. And once he left those books became unreadable.

Comics is the history of the writers and artists, not a history of the characters. DC actually seems to understand this better due to their constant re-booting of characters, and their more frequent out-of-continuity stories. The history of, say, Batman, is the history of his depictions, both in the books and in various media.

I just think the superhero "biographies" being so long while the "publication histories" tend to be so short is - missing the point. A guy can write a comic for 100 issues, for a decade, and there will be tons of things to add to the "biography" of the character - but there may be nothing of interest to add to the publication history - the writer may not be very good or add much of value to the character or his world, or do anything interesting with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say is absolutely true, and this page has been in vio of WikiProject Comics and Wikipedia writing-about-fiction guidelines for some time. I will take a meat cleaver to it in a few days when I get the time. I'm hoping other editors can help in this condensing job, and in adding real-world perspective as done at Spider-Man and Superman. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps a mention of Crusher Creel ?

Considering he was one of Thor's most dangerous foes (able to absorb his strength, and even the power of the uru-metal)? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Family Tree Needs to be Updated

Can someone add Odin's brother Cul, also known as The Serpent, to the family tree? I don't know how to do it myself. The character appeared in the 2011 storyline Fear Itself, and his relationship to Odin was established in the following two books, which I cited in the Fear Itself article:

<ref>{{Cite comic|writer=Fraction, Matt|penciller=[[Immonen, Stuart]]|inker=von Grawbadger, Wade|story=Worlds on Fire|title=Fear Itself|volume=1|issue=4|date=September 2011|publisher=Marvel Comics}}</ref>


<ref>{{Cite comic|writer=Fraction, Matt|artist=[[Ferry, Pasqual]]|story=Fear Itself: In the Beginning|title=Thor|volume=1|issue=7|date=December 2011|publisher=Marvel Comics}}</ref>

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The family tree itself is cited to issue #500 so I just made a note for Cul underneath.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been nearly two weeks with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

thor is now a women

this article must be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.237.48 (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The information you are looking for has already been added to the publication history. The fictional character biography will be updated with respect to the comic book once it is released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dual numbering

"As of issue #36, the title used dual numbering in a tribute to the original Thor series, and the caption box for said issue became #36 / #538 (June 2001)"

How come it wasn't #36/ #557? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.68.246 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External link request

Add http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Thor_Comic_Books, http://www.comicvine.com/thor/4005-2268/? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.37.131 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Superhuman Speed

Added superhuman speed to the description of his powers in line with the content of the article of the character displayed superhuman speed (blocking bullets, catching tank shells etc.). Lochdale (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Thor (Marvel Comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Replacing historical mythology with popular media reference?

Thor was first (and by far for the longest time) the Norse god of thunder, upon which the comic book character is based.

IMHO, the original (and historically more significant) profile should be the primary description, with the Marvel interpretation being a separate referenced description.

I realize this is bigger than just one page, but I think this would have historians and story-tellers turning in their graves. Daraghfi (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

APOLOGIES. I'm reading Wikipedia on my phone. It was Google that directed me to the Thor (Marvel) page, and my mistake not to see the main reference.

Faith in Wikipedia is restored - as you were!

Cheers. Daraghfi (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

An Edit War is happening here?

Not much certain, but I had to ask, I was searching for this page for some reason, and I gladly saw it had extensive information on the publication dates and artists and writers, but I saw that the "Abilities" section was a bit incomplete and/or outdated, in comparison to other characters profile pages, which can easily confuse anyone looking for information about this character if he then would compare it to the profiles of other characters.

I know Wikipedia is not about being "The Truth", but I just wanted to make it more complete and better formated, so I maybe went beyond bold on it, but my edits got undone in less than a day, with the excuse of being a super large unsourced list, I haven't seen this section ever needing sourcing on other profiles, so this time I created an user to dig into why and make my edit more official (I didn't fully knew Wikipedia pillars or rules then).

But the point is, that I could now see the list of edits and noticed other people tried the same in the past and the results were the same, "unsourced" was given as an excuse to revert what I deemed as well-intended edits, after all I just tried to embellish the page a little and didn't put anything this character haven't shown in comics or so controversial for him.

After all, it is a fictional character, so I may ask the editors that seemingly want his abilities described less amazingly, incomplete or weaker, if we can come to terms and settle this up, because I feel it is only matter of time before some of them comes again and revert my last attempt at painting Thor's abilities in a more possitive light than what they were.

I also added two major aliases he has received, which are core fundamental to the character, but that's it, I didn't knew I had to give source for every single ability this character has shown that I've mentioned.

If I get reverted once more I'll be upset, but if these editors would keep reverting any attempt anyone does at embellishing this page or enhancing this character abilities, then I guess it is all, after all, this is just Wikipedia, but it would be a serious shame and I would prefer to have the edits reviewed here in this talk section by an admin if possible and then have them allowed in the page and I would request the page gets protected from vandalism.

So I honestly ask, can we come to terms and settle this once and for all or we will keep nonsensically edit warring on this? Because I don't see why care too much to keep things ugly and incomplete and not even allow the slightless change or attempt at describing this character abilities better.—
Zesdek (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The infobox box is not meant to be an exhaustive list, just a summation of the character’s key features for quick reference. A more comprehensive description is detailed in prose in the powers and abilities section of the article.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat That is not what I've intended, precisely, I just wanted to give a nice and more coherent summation of the character's abilities, which is mostly explained in prose in that section, but compared to other profiles, this list section is lacking, and a real lot, maybe I just put too much at first, so even a minor update would come in handy, don't you think? Zesdek (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that is basically what I was thinking. The infobox powers list is long enough already without basically doubling it. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Anon, I don't think the power list section is long enough, hell, it is not even long, it is even shorter than Spiderman's for example. I mean, there are some abilities he can do without any paraphernalia, but this section doesn't makes real justice to that, also, what you mean by "unsourced"? Is there a way we could come to agreement on how to update this profile accordingly without hurting anybody sensibilities? Zesdek (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Without getting into the specifics of this particular page, I find the infoboxes are popular places for trivial clutter. Last time this came up, it was because the list of Spider-Man's allies didn't include everyone.
Here's my general rule - if the ability isn't specifically mentioned in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the infobox. If it isn't defining (meaning virtually every incarnation of the character features them), it doesn't belong in the infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I find that rule a bit iffy, the list in the infobox is just a list, or so I tend to regard it as such, so to add something in the infobox I should also mention it in the body of the article? And there are not many incarnations of this particular character, other than him with some kind of external amplifyer, but the base character having these abilities makes illogical any greater version of himself not already being able of it. I just want to embellish this profile, and to make justice to the list of his abilities in comparison to other profiles, so how can we do something about it? ~~ Zesdek (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jake Olson (gridiron football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Image update?

Senior Editors, Is it possible to update Thor s image? Thor s most recognizable appearance is his black and silver suit, which is how he is portrayed in most of the media sources Including the Thor movies. The blue and red suit was a classic suit Which only lasted until the 80s and made a few brief appearances in later editions. The black and silver suit is the most well recognized. The classic suit is mostly unrecognized because Thor s popularity faded out in the 80s .its only in the mid 2000s that his popularity began to increase,hence most people recognize Thor by his early 2000s version. Is it possible to provide a more recognizable image or at least conduct a poll or a discussion about this. I still want to learn more about this! thanks for reading this. Shiraj chandra (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone there. I need help Shiraj chandra (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. Thor's classic costume is by far his most consistent appearance. It has been used since his first introduction through the 1980's and beyond. Since then Thor has gone through a number of costume changes, no of which has had the staying power as his original. Your comment shows a WP:RECENTISM bias.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, I personally think that this image looks more iconic regarding what the character currently looks like. The previously used image can be featured in an era section of the page instead. David A (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
So is it possible to put that image in the infobox Shiraj chandra (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a fan of the pose, it makes pats of his costume hard to see. How about this one that is a full frontal shot?--TriiipleThreat (talk)
Well, normally Ross is a really good artist, but I am not a fan of the aesthetic quality of that particular drawing. How about this one by the same artist from Thor issue 701 (I think) instead? It looks more iconic to me. David A (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The last one looks the best. It has the classic outfit with the modern feel. Shiraj chandra (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thats nice artwork but again for the infobox I prefer the standing shot that shows off more of his costume.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Anyone of them would work though. In the end it depends on yours and David sir s decision. Shiraj chandra (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
How about this image then? Would it be more acceptable? David A (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Sir,It definitely looks great. But it still your decision Shiraj chandra (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that the same one as we discussed earlier? How's this?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it is another one. Anyway, I think that your new image looks good, but we would probably need to find a version of it without the text. I will try a reverse image search engine. David A (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I found it. I think that it looks great, but it is obviously too wide for our purposes, and would need to be heavily cropped. Perhaps one of the images that I linked to earlier, that only show Thor himself, would work instead? David A (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It would definitely work. Shiraj chandra (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: @BOZ: What do you think about this? David A (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Is it going to change? Lord kai07 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Why not just use the Coipel artwork with the lettering?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Well anything would work, Im not particularly objecting anything. I'm just stating whether the discussion is still active or not. Lord kai07 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@BOZ: @TriiipleThreat: Perhaps it would be better to add this entire great-looking image to the top of Thor's supporting cast page instead, and keep the current header image for his main page, since we cannot seem to reach an agreement here? David A (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was already decided that the picture was going to be used. Lord kai07 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, somebody would have to properly crop the higher quality version of the image without text, and then upload it to Wikipedia with proper descriptions, sourcing, and crediting in that case. David A (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I cannot do that. I lack the necessary skills required for this.Lord kai07 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, you can technically go here, but on second thought, I think that if the other Wikipedia editors here did not like the rendered images of Thor alone that I provided above, I prefer the currently used image instead of heavily cropping the image featuring Thor and his supporting cast. My apologies. David A (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
That said, I personally still think that this image looks better, so if anybody here change their minds, feel free to use it. David A (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This image looks great. But I would still have to request you to do this. My apologies! My editing skills aren't really on point. Hence I ask for this favour. Thank you for reading this. Lord kai07 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on the image’s quality.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

So can we use a different imagine? For example:this or this Lord kai07 (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, the main image should be Thor's classic costume and preferably be comic book art.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Then what about the previous images. Do we have a conclusion?? Lord kai07 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it appears that we do not.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

But does the text really matters. I believe we can just use this image. 1 With the text on. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have cropped the textless image and uploaded it here, so I think that seems like a better alternative to use if others here find it acceptable. David A (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have found a few more images,please have a look.

Lord kai07 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I like image number 3 and think that it can be used, but @TriiipleThreat: and @BOZ: also need to respond. David A (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, the classic costume should be one displayed in the infobox. If we want to go with a modern example of then I still say the best option is this one, even with the text.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the classic constume absolutely necessary. Multiple heroes don't have their classic look anymore. Besides that The 2nd image is in his classical suit. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, an out of topic request. Can anyone please upload this image on Wikipedia. I do not possess the necessary skill to upload an image like this and I need this image for an article. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s not about it being the classic, it’s about being the most “universally recognized costume” per WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE. It just so happens that Thor’s classic costume is his most universally recognized costume. As stated previously the classic costume has been his most consistent costume until relatively recently. Over the past couple decades he has gone through numerous costume changes, none of which has had the staying power of the classic costume.
Also the character should be posed in such a way that shows off more of costume.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This image is his classical outfit and it shows his costume properly. Lord kai07 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded a version of the image that TriiipleThreat suggested above without any text earlier. If somebody uploads it to Wikipedia I think that it can be used if you both wish. You can click here to see it. David A (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The link it outdated. It doesn't show the image Lord kai07 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Also I need help. Can you upload this image on wikia Commons. Or atleast give instructions on how to do it. Lord kai07 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The image link is not outdated, but perhaps you need a Fandom account in order to see it. How about this link instead? Does that work for all of you? David A (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out. It is appreciated. David A (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! The new image looks great. Lord kai07 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Misleading content

Hello.

Since this page received a good article nomination, its content has very quickly been severely distorted.

This version of the characters has traditionally stood for kindness, empathy, nobility, self-sacrifice, bravery, genuine heroism, and general responsibility of power to protect innocents unable to defend themselves. It has extremely little to do with the original mythological incarnation of Thor, much less Nazism and Viking raids, as the article currently appears to attempt to make parallells for.

In addition, Thor's powers and abilities section has been completely butchered to the point that it contains virtually no valid or relevant information whatsoever, and even provides direct misinformation or disinformation such as claiming that he can only lift 100 tons, even though he has moved at least 9 entire universal spacetime continuums through sheer physical strength, which would require literally infinite amounts of power, and that is without the "Odinforce", which has enabled him to perform a few explicit feats of a literally multiversal scale.

There seems to be a very major fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of the Marvel Comics incarnation of this character. David A (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

David A, the goal of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. A laundry list of things we saw him do in the comics is WP:FANCRUFT and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, at the very least the 100 tons mention is not a reliable source, but rather extremely misleading. Even Spider-Man has lifted many tens of thousands of tons on occasion, whereas Thor has a few literally infinite strength feats, and the mentions of viking raids and Nazis seem completely inappropriate for a character that has usually been portrayed as a very nice person throughout his history. The current article seems to actively extremely misinform the visitors about Thor's personality and explicit power level, as it currently presents him as unsympathetic and powerless. David A (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There are two cited sources describing him as able to lift approximately 100 tons, and reliable sources have discussed the contrast of Marvel's portrayal of Norse mythology versus other connotations. If you have an issue with this, you're welcome to make a post at WP:NPOV/N, but I suspect you won't get very far suggesting we should use your understanding of the comics over reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
But those sources very clearly do not know what they are talking about, unless scientific research has suddenly determined that many combined entire universal spacetime continuums together weigh 100 tons. They are citing old symbolic Marvel handbook numbers that are constantly disproven by the comic books themselves, and are extremely unreliable to take at face value. Again, the current version of this page reads more like a character-assassination than a character-appreciation, and that should not be the intended point of visiting it. David A (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: As a compromise solution, can we at least remove the extremely misleading "100 tons" Marvel 1980s handbook citation? It is very blatantly inaccurate to the point of being silly. David A (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why we would remove information cited to two reliable sources just because you disagree with it. Comic books are notoriously inconsistent in regard to character feats, but this is the number that the sources have come to agree on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien:I apologise for not seeing/being notified of your reply earlier. That is the reason for why I removed the "100 tons" mention on my own.
Anyway, the comic books are very inconsistent, yes, but there have likely been several hundreds of contradictions with the "100 tons" claim from the 1980s Marvel Comics handbooks, that your secondary source blindly cited without indepth knowledge about the character, including the references that you removed from this article earlier, so if you want to use the inconsistency argument, no specific statistics data should be mentioned at all. David A (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
We do not write content based on an editor's understanding of the content. We write it based on what is said in reliable secondary sources. I'm sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's expectations regarding verifiability and original research, particularly the part where you cannot come to your own conclusions based on primary sources (such as comic books featuring the character). Again, if you feel that I am mistaken, you can solicit a third opinion at WP:NPOV/N or WP:OR/N. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But if you have read any of the comic books featuring this character, you would know for a fact that "100 tons" is extremely misleading Marvel handbook nonsense, and you yourself used the inconsistency argument above. Why do you so very strongly want to include this particular piece of misinformation that sets a specific border to Thor's scale of power, and why are you adamantly unwilling to budge an inch regarding finding a compromise solution? Please explain yourself.
Also, I would strongly recommend at the very least reading the comic books that were mentioned in this page previously to check that what was stated then is accurate. David A (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You are continuing to call for the removal of verified content because of your personal understanding of primary sources. Please stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to explain to you that the only source that has ever listed 100 tons as an upper border for Thor are the old Marvel handbooks, and that the secondary source that you cited has either read the number there or taken it out of thin air without explaining how it reached that conclusion. Please stop being completely unreasonable in this regard, given that I have otherwise begrudgingly accepted your near complete overhaul of this page, despite all of the work I had put into the content that you removed, and explain your motivations. Do you even know of this character indepth beyond just inaccurately assuming that it is a toxic masculinity icon? David A (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my unnecessarily testy tone in the above text. In retrospect it was inappropriate and overly suspicious, due to general frustration with that the extreme page overhaul removed lots of useful information.

In any case, as I stated here, would it be an acceptable compromise solution to replace the "100 tons" number with strength feats from the following (and similar) secondary sources?

[1] [2]

David A (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, Argento Surfer, NatGertler, Drmies, Nightscream, and BOZ: I apologise for disturbing, but would this be an acceptable compromise solution here? David A (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised that anyone would call on me from this page--what I see is a very long page on a comic character. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
My further apologies in that case. I looked for Wikipedia members I recognised who had contributed to the talk section of the overall comic book project here. David A (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The references to Nazism -- and especially communism --- should either be elaborated, in order to clarify what the author, Arnold, is referring to, or should be removed entirely.
As for the issue on Thor's strength the gold standard is secondary sources. Cite that, and maybe supplement it with issues that explicitly display Thor exhibiting this strength or that strength. Stay away from synthesis, and all other forms of OR. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
At this point, I just want to replace the extremely misleading "100 tons" claim with links to other sources instead. I would prefer if a few directly cited comic books from the pre-revision version of this page can be added, but if that is not allowed, I find it acceptable to use the two CBR pages with Thor feats that I linked to above instead. David A (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Does this seem acceptable for you? David A (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
We do need real world content in the article, other than that I'm not sure what else to say. BOZ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your reply. David A (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@David A: See previous answer. Secondary sources first. Primary sources (i.e.: the individual issues of the comic) are second. I'm not going to say I haven't relied on comics issues when adding content to Powers sections, but in those cases, I only did so if secondary sources were not available, and when I did come across a secondary source, I always added that to the section. And when I did cite comics issues, I always described precisely what was in them, without adding my own editorializing, which violates WP:SYNTH. Bottom line: Stick to secondaries first. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Okay. I hope that the two secondary sources that I linked to above are acceptable as replacements then. David A (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: I am afraid that I still need some helpful guidance here. David A (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay. What do you need? Nightscream (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Clarifications regarding if I can replace the extremely false and misleading 100 tons claim with strength feats from other secondary sources (news sites).
I also wonder if I am allowed to reinsert direct comic book references from the previous version of this page into the currently extremely barren and unimpressive powers and abilities section. David A (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I will oppose any use of primary sources where secondary or tertiary sources are available. I will also oppose the insertion of WP:FANCRUFT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
And replacement of a single blatantly inaccurate claim from secondary sources with more accurate secondary sources that extremely strongly contradict the blatantly inaccurate claim from the other secondary sources?
Also, again, the powers and abilities section here is currently extremely barren and uninformative. Expanding on what is currently there with some matter of fact primary sources seems like a good idea in this case. David A (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
We're not here to write about Thor. We're here to summarize what other people have written about Thor. What you've been describing is more in line with the mission of marvel.fandom.com. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Look. What I mainly want to do here is merely to replace a blatantly inaccurate small piece of information with much more reliable information from other secondary sources that logically contradicts it. That is all. It is extremely far from an unreasonable suggestion, so I would greatly appreciate if you would allow this change to pass. Also, the Fandom page for Thor is comparatively incoherent and doesn't reach nearly as many people. Thor's Wikipedia page risks to severely inaccurately distort overall public perception of the character.
@Nightscream: What do you think should be done here? David A (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you quote the passage or passages that you want fixed or replaced? Nightscream (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I want to replace "He can lift approximately 100 tons" in the powers and abilities section, preferably with a list of Thor's most impressive feats. If it is not allowed to copy-paste the list of feats and powers from the previous version of this page, to add as a supplement to the currently displayed information, I at least want to use some secondary sources in lack of better options: [3] [4] David A (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: David A (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
First, I would ask whether the source cited for that passage, which appears to be the 2006 edition of the Marvel Legacy Handbook by Youngquist and Grünwald, actually says this. If it does not, then remove it. If it does, and you have other sources that say otherwise, and which actually cite specific issues or storylines that give more authoritative info on this matter, than cite those. Another suggestion would be, when sources conflict, to simply report what different sources say. The thing is, the Handbook, at least the series that had been written by Peter Sanderson, in addition to information derived directly from the storylines, also contained information that was speculative or which Sanderson originated himself. If that's what the info from the 2006 Handbook is, then remove it entirely, and replace it with the info from the secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Well, as we both know, the Marvel Comics handbooks do contain a lot of made-up nonsense that contradict what actually happened within the storylines themselves, and the most extremely contradictory claims within the handbooks is the scale surrounding the value 100 tons, which is absurdly small compared to the recurrently literally infinite scale that several of these characters have explicitly demonstrated.
The problem here is that this blatantly inaccurate information seems to have been blindly cited by a few badly informed secondary sources, which have then in turn been cited here. Ideally, I would like to be able to use a combination of other secondary sources, and primary sources from the original powers and abilities section that I linked to above, to replace it. David A (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: I would still greatly appreciate your help here. David A (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@David A: Were my previous suggestions not sufficiently useful? Nightscream (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Well, it is unclear to me if any of the solutions I mentioned in my last longer post here is acceptable to apply. David A (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream and BOZ: Would you be willing to help me out here please? I want to try to rescue this article from severely misinforming the public about this great character. David A (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
What would you like me to do? Nightscream (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: It would be greatly appreciated if you can clarify if I am allowed to replace the extremely inaccurate "100 tons" claims from secondary sources with other secondary sources (These are the ones I have found previously: [5] [6]) depicting Thor's feats and powers, and whether or not I am also allowed to reinsert primary sources from the previous version of this page into Thor's powers and abilities section as a complement to what is currently stated there. David A (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright, since we don't want to just throw out sources because they conflict with what editors think are true or not true, it's better to assess precisely what they say, and either see if they can jibe with one another, or simply report in the text that different sources say different things, or if appropriate, remove the sources and the text they support if the sources are found not to say what the text indicates that they say. It's also important to verify that the editor who added that text was the same editor who cited that source: Remember, sometimes one editor will add text with a source, and then another editor will come by, shoehorn text in between the old text and that source, or change the text entirely, giving the false appearance that that source supports the new material when it does not. I've seen this happen. So let's do this:
The two sources currently cited in the article for the "100 tons" claim are Jeff Youngquist and Jennifer Grünwald's 2006 book Thor, and an article by Jim McLauchlin in the April 1998 issue of Wizard.
Go back through the article's edit history, and verify that the editor who added that text also added the source. If you find that someone added it without those sources, then remove it.
If you find that the editor did cite those sources, then determine whether those sources actually support the "100 tons" claim. Doing so with the Wizard article should be easy. Since no page is cited for the 2006 book, try asking the editor who added that info what page it's on. If the editor does not respond, then try finding a searchable copy online, or just buy a copy, either digitally or hardcopy. Since no page is given in the article for that specific claim, try looking through via its Table of Contents, Index, or whatever. If you cannot find that information in those sources, then remove it from the article.
If one or both of those sources do mention that "100 tons" claim, see if they mention where that information was derived from. Do they mention a specific issue? Ditto for the new secondary sources you mentioned.
If that info conflicts with the info in your other secondary sources, then try editing the passage in the Wikipedia article to simply report that different sources say differen things, and emphasize this. For example, "Jeff Youngquist and Jennifer Grünwald, in their 2006 book Thor, say this and that, but over here in this CBR article, this columnists points out that in this storyline over here..."
Does this help? Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Unfortunately not. It is not realistic for me to get ahold of physical copies of such old and obscure sources, but it is very possible that they do in fact make the false 100 tons claim due to blindly citing the old Marvel Comics handbooks that initiated this misinformation. As I stated previously, the problem here is that it is very easy to disprove that claim through likely hundreds of occasions when Thor has performed enormously greater feats than 100 tons, sometimes to an infinite degree, and even Spider-Man has supported many tens of thousands of tons on occasion. For example, citing the secondary sources that I linked to above (preferably combined with the primary sources that were listed before the recent overhaul of this page) would blatantly disprove that 100 tons has any accuracy and reliability whatsoever. David A (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
First of all, you seem to be focusing on the portion of my post above in which I mention acquiring the sources in question, without addressing what I said about first verifying that the editor who added that passage was the same one who added those sources to support it, and then editing on the basis of your finding.
Second, I'm perplexed by your rejection of the suggestions that you asked for. I mean, seriously, "such old and obscure sources"? Marvel Legacy: The 1980s Handbook (which I now see was the name of the book, and not "Thor"), came out in late 2006. And who said anything about a physical copy? I explicitly said about "either digitally or hardcopy". You can get a digital copy at Amazon for $1.99. Even if you had to get a hard copy, you can get one on ebay for five bucks. Mile High Comics has it for three bucks. Midtown Comics has it for a buck sixty-four.
"...enormously greater feats than 100 tons..." Then modify the passage in the article that reads "He can lift approximately 100 tons" by adding the sources that say that (after you verify that they indeed do so), and then add mention of other instances in which he exceeded that, with the cited source. And again, if you find that the sources currently in the article do not support that passage, then remove them. Nightscream (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: Okay, I found a free online readable copy here. Oddly enough, there's no entry for Thor, even though the final includes him in the list of characters featured. Was a page omitted from this online version? Nightscream (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I apologise if I have brought offence. I will try to answer your points.
1) Thebiguglyalien added the 100 tons text, so we can ask them for verification help if you wish. I was also referring to the Thor book and the Wizard Magazine issue that you mentioned here.
2) I intended to refer to that the 100 tons and 95 tons misinformation began to be spread in the handbooks that were published in the early 1980s, and then Marvel Comics' editorial department dug in their heel regarding the practice, seemingly just because 100 tons was a convenient even number, even though it did not make any sense whatsoever when trying to pattern it based on the feats that the characters have actually done in practice.
3) Thank you very much for your help. That seems like good and useful advice. Is it fine if I also use the primary sources from the older version of this Wikipedia article that I linked to above in combination with the new secondary sources?
4) I cannot visit the online readable copy as my Bitdefender antivirus program registers that it is dangerous and prevents me from visiting it. My apologies. David A (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I now noticed that you linked to a copy of the Wizard article as well as the Marvel handbook (which would be a primary source as far as I am aware). My apologies about that, but anyway, both of them mentioned the number 100 tons as far as I can see and remember. David A (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you be satisfied if we changed it to a simpler phrasing like "Thor possesses superhuman strength"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be greatly preferable to the current text, yes. Thank you very much for being reasonable. I would obviously prefer to complement it with practical examples of Thor's explicitly demonstrated scale of power from secondary and primary sources, but removing the misinformation is my primary concern here. David A (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thor_(Marvel_Comics)/Archive_3&oldid=1228812860"