Talk:Ultimates/Archive 1

Publishing Schedule

The series was first published in 2001, and continues to be published, albeit very sporadically. In theory, the series is monthly, although in practice it has become a quarterly publication, at best.

The series has been plagued by irradic publishing still, Ultimates 2, issue 10, was a month behind schedule (probably to appear early next month), and eleven is late. ~LinkMaster

Ultimate Avengers Movie

Can't found info on it, online ! Help !--Brown Shoes22 18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Add Staring. Info out of Wizard 171 The Comics Magazine Jan/2006 pg 112 Copyright or not ?--Brown Shoes22 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding info regarding a second film should be done using SOME level of citation. thanks. ThuranX 06:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultimates 2 Arc 2 Heading

I noticed the comment asking everyone to hold off from contributing on an individual issue basis, so that it could be done after the arcs completion to provide a more concise description of events. While that makes perfect sense, should the sub-section heading be on the page if it is going to be empty in the mean-time? --Gallaghp 11:05, 29th August (GMT)

The Ultimates?

Surely this should be at The Ultimates, since it's the title of a work of that name? I'll move if if there are no objections (and otherwise, I'll list it at WP:RM. Alai 04:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I object, since it's the article about the team, and the standard for comic book teams is for there to be no "The" in the title (indeed, I moved this from The Ultimates to Ultimates). - SoM 14:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree this should be at "The Ultimates". While SoM's argument makes sense, this article is equally about the comic book too, in fact the opening paragraph is exclusively about the comic book. The comic book is called "The Ultimates", whereas other comics are called e.g. "Ultimate X-Men", not "The Ultimate X-Men", so they are in the correct positions without "The" at the front of their names.rst20xx 13:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Although having said that I've just gone through and fixed all the links linking to The Ultimates instead of Ultimates. rst20xx 14:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT 2: Can we have some kind of vote on this? rst20xx 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with rst20xx that the article should be at "The Ultimates." Is there a standarized voting procedure on Wikipedia? Lannon 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be at The Ultimates. Iron Ghost 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The indicia just says "Ultimates" for v1 and "Ultimates 2" for v2. No "The". - SoM 23:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). If the name of the article is the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name then do or do not include "the", "a" or "an" in the name, according to the following rule of thumb. If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name. "The Ultimates" is the title of the work and whenever the work in particular is referenced in the article it should be referred to as "The Ultimates". This article is about the work, the comic book series, more than the team. Hence I am moving this page from "Ultimates" to "The Ultimates" where it should stay unless someone can show me evidence to the contrary. --Randomengine 16:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Ultimates13indicia.jpg File:Ultimates2indicia.jpg

And, indeed, if we're going by "work" rather than "team" (the latter being my preference), the Ultimates 2 material needs to be hived off to an Ultimates 2 page (it's explicitly "Ultimates 2", intending to mimic a film sequel titling ala Spider-Man 2, rather than Ultimates Vol. 2, as you'll note...). Moving back... - SoM 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just gone through this with The Top, I can assure you that 'The Ultimates' is NOT enough to require the cahnge in locations. The article should remain at 'Ultimates'. Wiki's conventions on naming pages are clear regarding this, going so far as to cite Joker VS. The Joker as an example, citing JOKER as the correct title. Please make additions ot the material instead of bickering about something so clearly stated in the Wikiconventions.ThuranX 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just "Ultimates" seems to imply that the article is about the Ultimates universe. "The Ultimates" should be used. BlueMech

"Coalition members" in Ultimates 2 #9

I'm not as keen to spotting old Marvel characters as some, so if someone who has issue nine could please loosely identify the unnamed five other members of the anti-Ultimates team? I'm sure someone can recognize the center character from Captain America history, but remember, he was addressed as "Colonel". Crimson Dynamo was also named, and even though the Abomination wasn't, it's a safe bet by appearances. --Godhumanmonster 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the characters represent a long forgotten Marvel group called the Supreme Soviets. Comprised of the Red Guardian (husband to Black Widow), Perun (A slavic god of Lightning and Thunder, know to carry an axe in the past), Crimson Dynamo III, Ursa Major (who can change into a bear), Vostok (an android) and Fantasia. They primarily appeared in the Daredevil and Black Widow run I believe. Members of the group went on to become the Soviet Super Soldiers, who would appear in Iron Man 109. Their nationalities will probably be changed for use in the Ultimates.

I believe that in Issue 9 that the one with the staff who talks to Loki is the Ultimate version of the Red Skull (hence the emblem on his chest). Abomination and Crimson Dynamo , the woman with the horns is rumoured to be Ultimate Gargoyle, the guy with the hammer and sickle is unknown as of yet, suspected to be either Perun or Vanguard. The other two I don't know about.

No. the Red Guardian was killed in a battle with Captain America in Russia when they went to retrieve The Vision. He'd sewn his suit from Human skins, but that was clearly the Ultimate Red Guardian.ThuranX 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to have multiple characters with the same name. Marvel has done that before. Also, the Ultimate Red Guardian encountered in Ultimate Nightmare was an experiment that was never finished and that was abandoned when the soviet employers stopped paying the bills. It is not unthinkable that they would start up a new project capable of destroying Captain America after he was found alive. The fact that they have already encountered one Red Guardian does not rule out the chance of them encountering another. (Remember that S.H.I.E.L.D. is also trying to build more Captain America's) Robje 07:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. Please start signing your posts though?ThuranX 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lizard

Recently, the Lizard was added to the list of villans being held in the Triskelion. Can anybody conferm this (ie what issue of what)? I know he was arrested after the events of UCarnage in USpider-Man, but did they send him to the Triskelion? JQF 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Conners's powers don't have a normal trigger so unless he was tested for genetic anamolies or something I don't think he would be in a supervillain prison. The upcoming Ultimate Clone Saga might shed some more answers about his incarceration.--TylerXKJ 03:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, he went to the police non the SHIELD, NOBODY knows about him being The Lizard save Peter, they couldn't incarcerate him for that. I'd take the lizard out, even of they arrest him for the "clone" creation it doesn't make sense being incarcerated with the other illegal mutates. There's the possibility that he confessed to also being the Lizard but we really can't assume that...

In the last issue of Ultimate Spidey #100 (which rocked by the way). The CIA agent talking to peter's father say's something along the lines of "we have confiscated the life's work of Doctor Cur Connors, this should be very helpfull to you." However almost the entirety of that issue was a flashback so it may be hard to place that event. It may have come right after the Carnage arc (where we still see him in his lab) or later.

The Man-Thing knows too. I'm positive the statement by the FBI agent you're referring to in #100, "we just confiscated the work of Dr. Connors" takes place in issue #39 of USM, because A) he says this after he shows Peter's father footage of the Venom incident, and B) in #39 Dr. Connors tells Peter someone took all of his work ("it's gone, all of it.")CovertSomnophore 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deathlok

Shouldent Deathlok be on the list of people held in Triskelion? They fought and overpowered him in Ultimate Spiderman #70 and he was taken into custody. --Robje 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thor's "hammer".

So I was reading the comic earlier... And I noticed that Thors hammer is no longer a hammer but an axe now. Whats with that?

It's still a hammer, but with an axe attachment on the other side of the hammer head so it can be used as both. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having an axe blad officially makes it an axe, although I forget the exact name for the type of axe. - SoM 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ultimate universe version is much more faithful to the style Mjolnir was in the legends. It's a battlehammer, as opposed to a mallet, which is basically a block of stone or metal used for smithing, etc. Basically, they went with a more traditional look, instead of the mallet version which has been popularized by the mainstream comic. Cybertooth85 03:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Relationships

I'd like to suggest that essentially this entire section be expunged. It's talking about characters and events from other comics, which can only serve to further clutter this already lenghty article. --InShaneee 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reserves

I move to add Falcon to this. We've seen Sam Wilson and his wing-pack deployed repeatedly on missions by Fury and workign in conjunction with the team. Whether or not there's been a clear in-panel 'you're an ultimate now' or not, it's clear he's got some status within the team. ThuranX 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded--TylerXKJ 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I did this a couple days ago, just before i finally got a seconding on this. decided to 'be bold'.ThuranX 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lady Deathstrike

Wasnt she killed by longshot when he escaped? Also, may i suggest we move all the topics about who is or isnt held in Triskelion under one heading? It should clear this place up a bit. --Robje 07:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

X Men 2

At one point in X2, Mystique uses a computer to acces the records on Magneto and where he is durrently imprisioned, during which we see an arial view of the prision. Is it just me, or does it resemble the Triskelion somewhat?

"Sixty of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s top agents in a Sentinel battle armor that has enough hardware to take on a fleet of the old Sentinel models"

as it later revealed it was probably a hyperbole abbout the "enough hardware to take on a fleet of the old Sentinel models" part they are no longer part of shield

also "the general super-soldiers of ultimate reserves" more correctly a backup divison of super soldiers in case the exceptional supers of ultimates would be depleted as its seen just moments before the invasion form u.s.-haters troops

Alleged Prisoners

The Lizard and Kleiser, manily, but they're not the only ones, we can't assume that people are there everytime they are arrested...As for Kleiser they were TESTING Hulk's escrements to see if he was there, where is it written they found remains?

The article doesn't say these enemies are housed in the triskelion, it says "The Ultimates have over the years defeated or killed a number of super-villains; most are detained in the Triskelion. A list of other past enemies include..." (emphasis mine). If these were former enemies they should be included. If they are not, then they should not be included. I know for a fact Herr Kleiser was. --Newt ΨΦ 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I answer here also for your page. :) No, Lizard isn't their enemy, it's spider-man's, and we will probably know about his fate in the next few months in USM. Herr Kleiser was their enemy but the alleged fact is that "there are remains in the Hulk's escrements", it's not confirmed, he is very probably dead.

Then remove the parenthetical statement about his remains being found in the excrement. And please sign your comments with ~~~~ --Newt ΨΦ 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from List of Ultimates story arcs

Seems to be a needless split to provide more detail on the story arcs. CovenantD 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep Seperate but cut down some for relevance. --InShaneee 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seperate cutting down would be good, but all other Ultimate comics have a story arc section. --Lewis the Ger 17:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge but both need to be cut down dramatically --Silver lode
• Merge per CovenantD --Chris Griswold 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wikipedia is not a plot summarizer --Newt ΨΦ 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge but don't cut down--Brown Shoes22 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and drastically cut down the Annual #1 and Grand Theft America sections. --Iron Ghost 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• No merge --Jamdav86 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• No Merge Ultimate Spider-Man & Ultimate X-Men both have story arcs pages of there own, why not The Ultimates? - Seraph 31 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your argument assumes that those articles will stay as well. However, one of those is already under discussion for merging, with, while not a consensus by votes, discussion (see: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy) leaning favorably toward a merger. Wikipedia's policy is that these articles should not exist, especially not in this form, as merely a repository for detailed plot summaries. That others exist does not mean this one should. Also, please sign your vote if you'd like it to be counted. --Newt ΨΦ 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, those story arcs pages will be dealt with as well. I hope this argument is not brought up each time. --Chris Griswold 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Hasn't it already? --Newt ΨΦ 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Using 'the other kids are doing it' is a bad idea, as all our moms taught us long, long ago. ThuranX 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge] A reduction in wikipages, combined with a concentration of highly connection information, makes sense in many ways. ThuranX 02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - The Authority entry seems to cope fine with having the various story arcs within the entry and there doesn't seem a good arguement for not merging (unless it made a page which was much larger than the recommended top limit - even then it would be an arguement to trim down a bit not split). I'd not want to slim them down too much at the moment unless they were really too bloated. (Emperor 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

Decision closed with a decision to merge. --Chris Griswold 08:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I've made some fairly substantial cuts to the Annual and Grand Thief America sections. The Annual section in particular was far to long for a single issue summary. In my opinion, the summaries for the first three arcs are pretty concise and should probably not be cut back to much. --Iron Ghost 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok so the merge has gone forth, now the page seems kind of huge. We should cut down the story arcs and/or the Trivia. Most of the Trivia isn't really relevant it's about Superman/Batman. (Just my thoughts) ≈ Seraph 31 12:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I already cut the story arcs back quite a bit before the merge. I would think that the Relationship to other Ultimate Marvel characters section would be the most obvious candidate for a cut back. --Iron Ghost 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Story arc section needs to be cut down tremendously still. I removed most of the trivia, leaving only the notable bits as they pertain to the Ultimates or Ultimates. Agreed that the relationship section could be cut down as well. --Newt ΨΦ 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ok I said cut down the Trivia but you did kind of do a wee bit of over kill there. ≈ Seraph 31 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Overkill? Not really. Trivia is trivial information, which means it's not notable. Most of these things like Jarvis calling Stark "Master Bruce" is cute or clever to fans, but not really informative or necessary for understanding the subject, and thus not part of this project. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give a real world perspective on fictional works, not list everything that happens in the books down to the clever little fan easter eggs. The edit I made was reasonable. --Newt ΨΦ 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All I would say is that just because story arcs is the longest section, doesn't mean that it needs the most cutting back. After all, along with the characters section, story arcs should be the core of the article; whereas sections like trivia and relationships with other Ultimate Marvel characters are far more peripheral and should probably be cut back in preference to the more important sections. --Iron Ghost 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The story arcs section needs to be cut down because it's against Wikipedia policy (see #7), as the summary offers no secondary analysis nor real world perspective and merely serves to treat the character as a real person, not a phenomenon. It also is not transformative, keeping the copyrighted fiction in nearly the same form (though admittedly without pictures) and thus breaking copyright or at the very least making fair use difficult to argue. --Newt ΨΦ 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on why all of the Ultimates articles have these "relationships with other characters" sections. It just doesn't seem that necessary, and it belongs in the Ultimate Marvel Universe article if anywhere. --Chris Griswold 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It was there in the start because the Ultimate Marvel wasn't very big (compared with 616 it's still really small) but over time it's grew and has pretty much took on a life of it's own. I do agree that for the most part the "relationships with other characters" could bescraped. Rather than the four paragraphs for Spider-man it could simply read, "The Ultimates have helped Spider-man out on ocation. Fury has made it clear that Peter will have to join the Ultimates when he comes of age." What more needs to be said? ≈ Seraph 31 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

TRUTH! --Chris Griswold 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the "It has been seuggested that this be merged with that" box down, coz well, it's been merged already... Sorry if you wanna put it back up ≈ Seraph 31 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Navbox Guidelines

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Government Liason?

How is Fury just a Liason? The Ultimates are government sanctioned, have high level federal clearance, and are under the control of the Executive Branch of the USA. I would say Fury as the director of SHIELD is the Commanding Officer of the Ultimates. Bushido Brown 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

True. --Chris Griswold 07:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects I am going to change the liason bit. Bushido Brown 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I enacted the discussed change Fury is now list as the "CO" of the Ultimates and I added that Captain America is the "XO" Bushido Brown 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be too picky, but is there anywhere in the comics that it states these ranks? Right now it's seeming either speculation or independent analysis, both of which we shouldn't really add to the article. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking CO and XO aren't ranks Commanding_Officer Bushido Brown 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nitpicking. Offering the status as CO or XO without it explicitly stated is still independent analysis, no? You can say that Nick Fury barks orders in a comic that Captain America executes, but stating that it's their job to do so is a level of analysis higher. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All levels of US infantry command have a CO alternatively "officer in command" and an XO alternativly "second in command" from the smallest units to the biggest units(Military units) there is always someone in charge and someone below that person holding a second in command position Bushido Brown 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but I should point out that most units don't have super soldiers. Most. That may change things. Additionally, CO and XO are jargon. I'm not really all that clear on the organization og the Ultimates. Aren't they a separate unit under SHIELD's command? So Captain America would be the CO but he in turn answers to Fury. ??? --Chris Griswold(☏) 08:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even so, until Nick Fury says he's the one in charge and Captain America says he answers to Nick Fury, listing them as CO and XO are going to be independent analysis which constitutes original research. Additionally, being under the control of the executive branch (which I understand the FBI and CIA are) does not make you military . --Newt_ΨΦ 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we just describe Fury's and Cap's roles factually, without descriptive language? I'm not sure that the Ultimates themselves are a government organization or not - they're certainly closely allied with S.H.I.E.L.D and the US government, but are people like Thor and Tony Stark really subject to Fury or Cap's commands? TheronJ 15:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. How do you mean? --Newt_ΨΦ 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Something like:

• General Fury appears to act as the Ultimates' overall commander, selecting the Ultimates' goals, mission and strategy, and recruiting and firing members of the team.
• Captain America typically acts as field commander of the Ultimates missions on which he is present, making tactical decisions and directing the other members of the team.

I'm not an Ultimates' expert, though, so if other language is better, I won't squack.TheronJ 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm being picky, I know, but both of those make analysis that isn't present in the comic. If Nick Fury said "As Commanding Officer I demand..." then I'd say that you can make that assumption. However, saying he "appears" to be something seems POV or OR. --Newt_ΨΦ 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fury: What are you smiling about?

Hawkeye: All this what do you think... now your sending thunder gods up against aliens and telling Captain freakin America what to do. Its just too cool for words. End of Ultimates #7 I think that removes all shadow of doubt as far as the Shield/Ultimates command structure is concerned Bushido Brown 21:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There was doubt that Fury was in command of the Ultimates?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimates a division of SHIELD?

There seems to be some confusion as to how to classify the Ultimates. I say yes, The Ultimates are a divison of SHIELD under the command of the head of SHIELD just like PSY-Ops, Black Ops and Weapon X was. Fury mentions moving Hawk-Eye and Widow from black ops(probably an informal name) to the public team(The Ultimates)Bushido Brown 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Why was my edit reverted back to the way it was before? The way it is now is full of inaccuracies! Thor, Banner, Black Widow, and Giant Man are not members of the Ultimates anymore. General Fury is not an Ultimate member himself either. It's not clear who founded the team and who joined later. Possible plot details for Volume 3 is gossip. Saying Captain America assumed "field leadership to the new government-sponsored superhuman force known as Ultimates as its leader" of the Ultimates is both oxymoronic and needlessly lengthy. I understand the rule for not seperating current and former members, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said some Ultimates were kicked off the team. It's important to make the distinctions at least in the characters' individual bios. I also understand changing the tier system if that was wrong under the guidelines, but was there really a need to delete all the information contributed in the edit?

Intended cleanup

I am planning to heavily edit this article. Based on the WP:CMC editorial guidelines, the overly detailed character biographies and the plot summary should be condensed, partially because no outside sources have been cited to examine the copyrighted material being discussed in-depth. This among the things I will be working on, in addition to copy editing and fixing the tense. I didn't want to do it and then have an edit war. Make any comments you'd like here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare character bios agaisnt 'ultimate so-and-so' subsectiosn at the character pages, and port over any data here which is not there as you go. Otherwise, about time this got shortened. ThuranX 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a lot of editing to the wording and flow of this article, if you don't like it change it back, but it think it makes more sense now. Captaincanuck65 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

YOu don't need to reinforce the Out of Universe style by using phrases like "They 'exist'", or by recapping the Ultimate Marvel Universe, right after its' link. you linked a lot fo stuff that didn't need it, and spent a lot of time resummarizing linked things, which could be jsut clicked on. A lot of what you added was fluff, extra words that aren't needed. As such, I re-reverted it. ThuranX 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article appears to be about the Ultimates series rather than just the team, right? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, a few months ago, there was a merge of the story arcs into the main article. I think, given that, that we should keep the page about both the team and their exploits. I think we can, however, ease back the bios on the characters, shunting most of the material about their powers and abilities and differences from the 616 to their character pages. We can keep a brief character summary, as well as any relevant info about their participation and influence with the team (Iron man no longer funds as much, shield does; Thor's more detached nature; Hawkeye's revised origins, so on.)ThuranX 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note on "Omniscience"

I noticed that the article refers to Thor as possessing "a degree of omniscience". I'd rather not change the article directly but propose that this be changed to "prescience" or "clairvoyance". Omniscience, etymologically, means "knowledge of everything". "All-knowing" and "Omniscient" are synonymous. "A degree of omniscience" seems to me a contradiction in terms. Babel2675 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your're right: It is. Please makre corrections where appropriate. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Triskelion

Isn't it important to note that The Triskelion has been breached multiple times in its short history despite being the S.H.I.E.L.D. and Ultimates H.Q.? I count at least five times. Once in Ultimate War, Ultimate Six, Ultimate Extinction, in Ultimate X-Men's Magnetic North arc, and in the last arc of Ultimates 2.

Not necessarily. Not unless the Triskelion is purported to be impregnable. Also, that would be considered a synthesis of information that, without reference to a reputable source making the claim, would constitute original research. Also, please sign your comments. --Newt_ΨΦ 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The instances can be cited to the individual issues, but I see the point. However, it seems as though most of the information in the article concerns only the events of the Ultimates' namesake series. That's entirely appropriate, but the Ultimates frequently appear in other Ultimate Marvel titles, sometimes taking starring roles in limited series. Shouldn't those events be mentioned in the article somewhere?CovertSomnophore 02:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Loki

Whoever thought Loki was wearing a trenchoat in Ultimates 2 #1 was wrong. I have the issue, and he's clearly wearing a green suit over a light green shirt and gray pants. He's not grinning, either, because his mouth is almost flat and you can't see his teeth.

For the record, Loki isn't a member of the super-human task force that excelled in the super-terror trials, codenamed the Liberators. If the statment concerning the climactic final battle in New York is supposed to be current, I must point out that Perun was missing in action during issue #12 of Ultimates 2, and all the other official Liberators have been killed (with the possible exception of the Schizoid Man, because I'm not really sure if Cap actually killed all those duplicates.) CovertSomnophore 03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What can you cite stating his is NOT a member? He makes a comment about assembling the group, and speaking out of storyline, there's a clear matching of ultimate to liberator, except loki, who would, in theory, shift the balance to tthe liberators. I can't see that we should accept that he assembled and led that team, yet conswider him not a part of it. ThuranX 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the burden of proof lies with stating what Loki IS a member of, not of all the things he is not. I must point out the in issue #10 of Volume 2, there is a summary of each Liberator's history and benefits to the group, and Loki is not mentioned at all either during the briefing. In issue #12, Loki isn't sure what the Crimson Dynamo's name is. Loki's stated mission is simply to cause mayhem; he needn't join any group, such as the Liberators, in order to do so, as he said he has already been using his powers "behind-the-scenes." I have seen no such comment about Loki actually assembling the Liberators. Issue #10 makes it clear the Liberators were assembled by a plethora of nations. The only thing that implies Loki is a Liberator is his companionship to the group during the invasion, and the Colonel's obediance to Loki's order to execute the U.S. superhumans. Still, these things do not certify Loki is a Liberator.CovertSomnophore 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Weren't Librators easy?

Hi, I was just lost there when i read U_v2_12. I mean in earlier issues they were the baddest thing to hit the comic timelines and in few issues they are all dead? and just like that? i mean they have kept red skull for 50 years and almost every other villian is kept alive for future's sake. now we were given really nasty villian guys and then we waited for three months or so and then they just died? i mean it was a set up. like they were killed like an excuse for delay. I bet mark had been viewing the net for comments thats why he added the light saber comment as a reply of the fans. i don't know, man, I am just .... actually waiting for THOR to kick LOKI's a$$!!! Danraz 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article, however please limit your comments to issues pertaining specifically to the article. --Newt_ΨΦ 14:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Editorializing

I combed through the Grand Theft America arc and noticed someone went through and injected their own opinions into the story. I fixed it, and hope it isn't reverted back. I own the comics, and nowhere in Ultimates 12 does anyone mention aything about fights and dogs. Let this be a reminder not to chronicle anything that isn't in the material itself. Also, along similar lines, whoever added that Stark's brain tumor may be a major plot element in Ultimates 3 seriously needs to source that statement before putting it in. And while I'm questioning people's information, I'd like to ask everyone where is it said Quicksilver and Wanda are mutant supremacists? I've seen them in Ultimates, Ultimate War, and Magnetic North, and they didn't say anything about mutant supremacy there. From what I've read, they reigned in the Brotherhood's extremism. I'd like more evidence than Pietro's "primates" comment in Ultimates 2 #2.CovertSomnophore 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a paperback novel of the Ultimates called the Tommorrow men. It spans the time between Volumes I and Volume II. ISBN: 1416510656

Story arcs need to be reworked

I hacked out the part because it was not only bloated, but also an obvious violation of WP:WAF and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a plot summary). It can be remerged in the "publication history" section, if you add concrete real-life data (publishing dates, artists, other sourced info) -Onomatopoeia 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, nearly all articles on fictional subjects use plot summaries and WP:WAF itself talks about using plot summaries. Admittedly, this does not belong on this main page for the Ultimates since it does take up way too much room, rather it should be relocated to a story arcs page like all the other Ultimates plot summaries and the summaries should be shortened. Jztinfinity 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've created that page, though the plot summaries should be shortened, I think I'm probably not qualified to do that since I haven't actually read the issues. Jztinfinity 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is a pretty big deal here, and standalone articles that do nothing but regurgitate plot are something we are now trying to weed out. I truly do not intend to cause you offense here; instead, I would like to offer my assistance whenever you have a question about something on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to comics-related articles. I know you're new, so you may want to read the WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Plot_summaries:

In order to justify the fair use of copyrighted material, plot discussions must be concise summaries, not detailed abridgments that can serve as a substitute for the reading of the actual story...Editors should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository for plot summaries, annotated or otherwise...Plot summaries should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles. WP:NOT states: 'Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series.' In general, articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources."

I am going to delete the plot summaries article now. I hope you will understand this situation, and if not, please do ask any questions you might have. This is not to spite you at all; this is to preserve the project by observing its guidelines.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that in the Homeland Security (Ultimates #7-12) arc the tirskelion is mentioned several times as the place were the final battle between the Ultimates and the Chitauri takes place, this is incorrect, the Triskelion was indeed taken over by the shapesfihting Chitauri, however the final battle took place at an air base and not the Triskelion. This is evident since this base is in another state and not NY. *Valen* 2/15/2007

Ant-Man

Ever since Ant-Man appeared in Ultimate Fantastic Four #25 to battle Namor with the rest of the Ultimates, (albeit as a virtual manifestation,) I've been wondering if that meant Hank would be back on the team. I'm a little fuzzy with the continuity between Ultimate FF and Ultimates. I've just read Ultimate Power #2, and Ant-Man drops in with the Ultimates to fight the Sqaudron. Does this mean Hank will be back on the team following Ultimates 2? It seems that way. Maybe his section should be edited to reflect this?CovertSomnophore 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maximums

Why are they considered a parody/doppleganger of the Ultimates as opposed to the Avengers? Spiderman and Wolverine have never been members of the Ultimates but have been members of the Avengers. Shouldn't the mention of Maximums be removed from this article and perhaps added to the Avengers (comics) article. --Bushido Brown 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It is a very strong parody of the Ultimates. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain --Bushido Brown 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a source on either comparison? --Psyphics_ΨΦ 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, the Maximums speak in the lower-case text that the Ultimate comic line uses. Plus there's the minor thing that "maximum" and "ultimate" mean similar things, whereas "maximum" and "avenge" don't. Kelvingreen 16:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

can you explian lower case text basis? Danraz 14:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate lines uses lowercase letters; most other comics use only uppercase. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While i can see and appreciate that Maximum and Ultimate mean the same thing, while avenge does not I think you forgetting that "Supreme" can also be seen as meaning the same thing as Maximum and Ultimate. Name wise "Maximum"s still seems like a play on Squadron "Supreme" both being dopplegangers of established jealously defended teams with frequent character rotations from the rival company. Team roster wise Maximums resembles New Avengers far more than it resembles the Ultimates Bushido Brown 08:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read it, it's clear who they are mocking. The characters more closely match their 616 counterparts physically, but clearly have their Ultimate Universe version attitudes. ThuranX 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The maximums were a clear parody of Marvel's Avengers and ULtimates, but proving it might be a bit tougher. Too bad CSN isn't online. (Is it?) Also, where is mention of the parody group that the Authority fought? ThuranX 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Issue 13

Does anyone know when the next issue (volume 2, issue 13) is gonna come out?82.36.74.12 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the online catalog, #13 comes out in March.

• Moved now to April. I'd bet on the summer...

• ULTIMATES 2 #13 (OCT062127)

Written by MARK MILLAR Pencils & Wraparound Cover by BRYAN HITCH 56 PGS./Parental Advisory ...$3.99 FOC – 4/26, On-Sale – 5/16/2007 Rauj16 05:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The End?

If Ultimates 3 is the final run of the Ultimates, how can there be people working on 4 and 5?