Talk:Abomination (character)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Maybe add this?

It might be helpful to mention the fact that the abomination's strength doesn't increase with his anger the way the Hulk's does. Zongalt 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

Added a cover from the first two-part story in which the Abomination appeared, and moved the other image further down to the Powers and Abilities section. Removed the "tell the story" component of the Video Game section as a blow by blow account of what happens in the game isn't appropriate. The first paragraph - which is quite good - tells a new reader all they require.

Asgardian 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the main pic per Comics Project guidelines, which calls for certain criteria about the character's pose and positioning (and not just the cover of their first appearance). What's there now isn't perfect, but it shows the character much better. CovenantD 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is fine for now and clearer than the darkened image.

Asgardian 02:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained why your prefered image is better under the guidelines adopted by the Comics Project. And once again you've reintroduced elements of the SHB that are no longer used. Revert. CovenantD 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The new image is fine. It is clearer and an actual cover that places the Abomination in context. The other image is too dark, and while a nice shot is not suitable as the main image. Text also tidied up - all spelling errors and incorrect tenses removed, as was the "tell the story" aspect of the video game.

Asgardian 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD - your reverts seems to be "just for the sake of it." Some added text in the SHB is fine - as is an original cover for that matter - and use of past tense is also acceptable as this is history. It happened, as opposed to happening. You are also not reading text before reverting as it is much improved and far more succinct. Try and be more objective and less obsessive. If you intend to simply follow me and try and undo all edits - completed and yet to come - you will need to quit your job and forgo sleep! Hardly worth it given no one owns these boards, yes? Your history on your Talk page indicates that you perhaps get a little too involved. Relax.

Asgardian 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring many, many guidelines to have your own way. That's not how Wikipedia works. I suggest, AGAIN, that you read some of the style guides, talk page discussions, exemplars, and other resources that many editors have steered you towards before you edit Wikipedia any further. And worry about your own life and not mine. CovenantD 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate version - image?

Anyone got a panel of the Ultimate Abomination that we can use to illustrate that section? We don't need to repeat the superhero box etc but since he looks a bit different, it might be useful to have a picture? --Mrph 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cover

Please do not use the cover with both the Abomination and Hulk. Not everybody can identify which is which, we have to consider non-comics reader. T-1000 17:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The top left hand corner has an image of the Hulk!

Asgardian 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And how will a non-comics reader tell that the Hulk? And the image with abomination is outdated. He has a much darker shade of green. The characters positioning is also violating image guildlines. T-1000 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Power and abilities

Fixed power and abilities section. The abomination is not constantly twice the strength of the calm Hulk. It varies with comics writers.

Unsubstantiated POV.

Asgardian 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Different writers write the abomination differently. It can be verified. T-1000 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, The abomination's strength does increase while he is angered, even normal humans do this. T-1000 17:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated POV.

Asgardian 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a scientific fact. Adrenaline causes people to become stronger. T-1000 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anger and Adrenaline are two very different things. Adrenaline is a body chemical, anger is an emotion. It's a scientific fact. Humans don't get "stronger" when they get "angry." 162.84.229.161 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

controversy over superiority of angry hulk continues

I undid the last editor of the article because that edit removed relevant information from the article. I see that this is a controversial topic. Apparently the hulk gets stronger when he is angry (significantly stronger) and The Abomination (for most writers) may only get a little stronger (adrenilated) or not at all when angry. This is an important aspect of The Hulks powers versus The Abomination's powers, so I undid the edit.--Markisgreen 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Navbox

The table with all the links to various characters in the "Hulk" universe is not appropriate. It smacks of ownership of article and POV as to what is a priority. A similar Cosmic list was culled because Wikipedia articles are not a series of lists (and for the same reasons - ownership and POV.) It is also odd to have this on a villain's page - by that logic EVERY villain should have a table linking them to a primary hero. Obviously, this won't happen and so we have to go with established Wikipedia practice, and at present that is a linked mention in the article.

Such matters also need consensus, rather than unilateral change.

Asgardian (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The template is not the same as the case of Cosmic characters, as the qualification of what equates into a cosmic character is a bit subjective and changes throughout storylines. The Abomination is a character that is fully integrated into the Hulk mythos and appears exclusively in conjunction with other Hulk characters. The navbox serves not only as a quick reference, but also to point to other basic characters in the Hulk mythos. I agree that most characters cannot be exclusive to one character; however, this is not an all or nothing argument. This is equally not a question of ownership, as all the edits in regards to this matter have been made by two editors (the two having this discussion to date), and simply I don't agree with your choice of style in this circumstance. The Navbox itself increases accessiblity to a focused group of similar characters and should remain. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it is a subjective decision as to which "Hulk" characters are featured in the nav box. Even if you had consensus, there is still the question of how to decide on which "major" characters are featured, and which are not? How do you decide on who is "major" and "minor"? Will this be consistent across ALL the articles as they would then have to feature on each page? Maintaining the nav boxes could also be a logistical nightmare as the Marvel Universe changes. More and more questions arise. Such things really are best left to a fan site. Sorry.

Asgardian (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have transferred the argument of from the appropriateness of a Hulk table on the Abomination page to the appropriateness of a Hulk table. My argument is simply that the Abomination is an intregral part of the Hulk mythology, and a navbox points to various aspects of that mythology (the current navbox does in part include characters, but not exclusively). With an information medium as massive as Wikipedia, the ability to create accessible means to navigate to various related topics is essential, templates are an easy source to provide that; this is regardless, as the question of a Hulk tag seem to be a clear and logical in regards to approriateness. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reread that paragraph. You are using definate terms such as "integral", "essential" and "clear and logical" to enforce a personal point of view. You have no consensus, and again, have failed to address the question of subjectivity. I have different views of what and whom should go in a nav box (not that such a tool has been ratified), as I'm sure will others. What do you say to that? Any more attempts at this will be considered vandalism and I will notify a moderator. You require a request for comment at the very least before introducing such a tool. In the downtime, the nav box stays out until the matter is resolved.

Asgardian (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to reread my previous statement. If your concern is of content of the navebox, that argument does not cover the inclusion of a navbox on character page. In addition, with precidence of Lex Luthor, Joker, and Green Goblin amongst others, it is clear that my edits neither require a request for comment nor are acts of vandalism. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

You are still falling down on the fact that for the sake of consistency, there needs to be a mandate for an "all or nothing" approach on navigation boxes, AND there are still the issues of who decides what characters etc feature and the upkeep. None of this has been thrashed out. This is why the Cosmic List was pulled.

Asgardian (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the simple point that navboxes are not simply character lists. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC).

But what goes in them is a subjective decision. That's what you miss.

Asgardian (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality rating

I was wondering if improving this article to B or GA before the movie comes out would be worth it. I'm thinking that a review of the fictional character bio is needed ,with some trimmings, though it's certainly not an awful bloated blow by blow litany as is. I'd like to find and add some real-world commentaries and criticisms, perhaps citations about the balance of Blonksy and Banner? Any thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I reverted this edit in four parts, each explaining some of the problems. Again, here they are:

• A parenthetical notation is not needed, and is better handled by regular prose, which I cleaned up.
• The issue number/date problem is not resolved by deleting notation of the problem, nor by just fudging the data. Find a citation. I tried a while ago, and couldn't.
• The director's commentary about the character in other media belongs in the article about that character. The fuller production information is included in the relevant film article, but a specific selection about the character's nature is fully appropriate to this article.

ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

An odd action. The dates were fixed. Also, how can it be fudging? If in doubt, count the issue dates on your fingers or use Ebay or an issue archive. The last to issues are from 1976 - vol. 1 was monthly. Fact. Again, odd. I'll address the other mistakes later.

Asgardian (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it. I didn't write that section, although I did add the initial date conflict notation. I tried to find citations, but couldn't, though I agree on the math, because it could have occurred in the 1976 issues, OR in issue 183. I'm not going to argue the change any further, but I still feel I had the right idea here. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have also placed statement about Blonky's employment upfront as an aside to clarify, as the old statement broke the tense and flipped out of universe. Also trimmed a sentence of "tell the story" that does not pertain to the Abomination and is too in-universe.

Asgardian (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a parenthetical has been added. That's poor writing, plain and simple. it's far easier and smoother to simply note that marvel updated the origin. As such, I've yet again done so. Stop adding parentheticals. ThuranX (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK...birth date is culled. For reason, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandman_%28Marvel_Comics%29

Bottom line is that the OHOTMU is flawed, and as such is not recognised. Tidied up own text, and removed list format from P & A. Some sources missing, and with rewritten sentences that is where the revamped origin statement will be.

Asgardian (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also added a new image that as per Wikipedia policy is a full frontal shot. Also have the character performing an act of strength which suits. If there's a better shot, I'll insert that. Open to suggestions.

Asgardian (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ONce again, I'ver reveted most of what you've done. This all comes down to you having a childish fit. I keep incorporating text you think ought to be in a parenthetical form, despite that being downright shitty writing, and you're upset by it, so now it's 'if I can't have my way, i'll take my ball and go home'. bye bye, have fun alone with your ball. Further, the new image is significantly worse than the old. It's a smaller image of the character and obscured by another character. Increasing image size won't fix that. ThuranX (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you:

1. Be civil. There is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

2. Do not act as though you have ownership of the article. There is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

3. Keep adding a birthdate sourced from the OHOTMU. It is not an acknowledged source. There has been discussion re: this at the above-mentioned link and there is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

4. Change the SHB image when one image matches requirements and another does not. There is a Wikipedia policy re: this.

Asgardian (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet again. Birth PLACE and Birth DATE are different. There exists a GUIDELINE in the WP:COMICS project about The OHOTMU and Birth dates, not places, and there is no formal Wiki-policy. As for the image, there is a policy, and it requires taht characters not be obscured by other characters, as well. Finally, I remind you that content based edits which are reverted should be discussed, not shouted down. ThuranX (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your comments to date have been of more of a shouting nature. I am simply stating the facts. Firstly, the OHOTMU is not a recognised Wikipedia source due to the high level of inaccuracy. As such, it is not quoted. Once again - not quoted. As to place of birth, it is to all intents and purposes irrelevant and not used unless the place of birth factors as part of the character's ongoing motivations. Orion; Superman and Thor are all excellent examples. Blonsky's DOB is irrelevant - it never factors into the FCB or any issue. You could claim the character was born in Kentucky and it would be just as irrelevant. As to writing and style, the Marvel claim does not belong there as the prose then flips from in to out of universe. Consistency is required.

Asgardian (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a shouting match, iv'e tried to explain this, but you don't want to hear. There is now a new source for the information, from another editor. As for importance, Hulk is a character built in part around cold war fears of nuclear bombs; for his nemesis to be a soviet bloc spy spawned of the same radiation origin is relevant. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

For a while now, IP editors have been blanking the image in the infobox. I'm opening a talk page section for them to explain their edit. Otherwise, it will continue to be reverted. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much hulk?

Any reason why the biography section only covers his history with Hulk and She-Hulk, but not any of the encounters with other Marvel Characters such as the Silver Surfer?

perfectblue (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

a few reasons come to mind: the biography should not be an issue by issue recap; not all appearances are equally notable; the character is primarily a villian for the hulk, and not a wider ranging enemy overall. ThuranX (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk (2008 film)

(spoilers)

I'm unwilling to go into a revert back-and-forth over this, but I really think that the references to the serum administered to Blonsky in the film deserve more than simply to describe it as a mothballed serum. The movie's already out anyway, it was clearly labeled "Reinstein", referred to as World War II era, and even before that the director was already talking about it as a "super-soldier serum". D.B. 16 June 2008

but the facts some are trying to assert simply aren't given as fact in that context. yes, fans KNOW that it's the super soldier serum, given that Leterrier implied we'd be seeing Captain America in it and so on, but at no point IN THE FILM is it called that. it's in a dusty old room with lots of old, tarp covered stuff. that's it. Maybe in Norton's cut it's more clear, but not in the release. ThuranX (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

General Ross and Blonksy made explicit reference to the super-soldier program of World War II, and the canister Ross took out of the deep freeze was clearly marked "Reinstein". It isn't simply the director talking, these are things explicit in the theater version. Making reference to those in this section, and letting the readers make their own conclusions is neither unnecessary nor unreasonable, and, I think, a fair compromise. D. B. 16 June 2008

The words 'Super Soldier program' didnt' happen. you, as a fan, couldl figure it out, but those words, not spoken. It's really that simple. For you to determine that that was the super soldier serum based on what you heard is not going to happen. ThuranX (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The words shown and spoken in the film were: program, super-soldiers, WW2, and Reinstein... what's so wrong about putting up links to super-soldiers, WW2 and Reinstein? As I said, allow the readers to draw their own conclusions out of the information. There's more basis for referring those, for example, than saying that Blonsky is nearing retirement, which the section presently does, because in the film itself, there's no mention of Blonsky retiring. All the film shows is that he's at the end of his physical prowess; General Ross, in fact, proposes that Blonsky allow himself to be promoted off fieldwork. Unlike the above terms, we only have director's statements as basis for retirement.

And Zak Penn's statement seems out of place in this paragraph, and also in need of indication as to who Zak Penn is that his opinion should be relevant. D.B. 16 June 2008

At no point did they say 'super soldier'. it's really that simple. pulling the word 'program' out of the various places it's used to justify your agrument doesn't help you. At no point was it ID'ed as such. However, since it's clear you're in no mood to get an account, or be accountable for your edits, or learn about consensus and citation, I'll fix this whole mess later, as I've jsut thought of a way to do so. ThuranX (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, better, I'll let you do it. Find citations for adding the Vita ray info to the captain America page, with real citations, not comic books. Once that's done, you can add that it was the vita-ray serum that Blonsky is given, and link the words vita ray to the appropriate section of Captain America. I thin kthat will suffice, and will have both citation and a situation fully grounded in what's actually given in the film. If that's not enough compromise to lump it, then you're gonna have to leave it. ThuranX (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blonsky called it a Super Soldier. Ross then said it was oversimplifying. Rau's Speak Page 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, respectfully, you should watch the film again. Pay close attention to Ross and Blonsky's conversations. They did talk about the WW2 "super-soldier" bio-enhancement program. And note the "Reinstein" label on the canister Ross pulled out of storage. I really don't understand how stuff like describing Blonsky as nearing retirement, when no mention of that is made in the film, merits inclusion, but making reference to the terms I've highlighted - which were actually mentioned and discussed in the movie - is not allowed.

Mm. Also, quite clearly, the treatment Blonsky received was only the serum and without the Vita-Ray treatment. The distinction, if you want to get into it, between serum and Vita-Rays is important. Respectfully, that you confuse the two seems indicative that you don't know enough about Project Rebirth to edit a section where an understanding of it is important. Taken together with your erroneous insistence that things actually spoken of in the movie were not mentioned, when they were, I respectfully suggest you consider that you might be mistaken.

(fyi, I haven't re-edited this section since I started this discussion. I'm not interested in a revert war that'll come down to who's more obtuse. But I believe you're wrong on this matter.) D.B. 16 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.89.211 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Wow... I'm fully aware that the serum, and the ray treatment that fully activates and stabilizes it are different. I've read enough comics to know what the deal is. However, this isn't about who's got a bigger comic book 'brain'. This is about what can be verified in the film. I haven't said one thing about 'retirement', but it's nice to know you're going to blame me for anything you don't like. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Retirement is included in the section as it is now, the version you consistently uphold, despite having no mention in the movie itself. But the terms I keep pointing to are explicitly mentioned and discussed in the film, but you won't allow them. Please watch the movie again. That's all I have to say. Have a nice life. D.B. 16 June 2008

That I haven't edited it out doesn't mean I support it. I don't recall reinserting it either. However, your continued assumption that everything you don't like is my fault is a clear display of bad faith. as such, I see no reason to continue any of this. I offered a compromise solution, but you're not interested in it, and I had to do it, and you're still not happy. ThuranX (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really meant to let this go. Don't take this page so personally. It was, however, a reasonable assumption that you approve of the extant section considering your diligence in removing the parts you don't approve of. Nevertheless, you should go over all that I've written above. I merely pointed out the inconsistency of retaining "retirement" when we go by the standard of what is found IN THE FILM when, in fact, it isn't found in the film. But I never said it was YOUR fault, so please don't take this article too personally. Finally, I do suggest that you watch the film again, because the words I suggest are clearly mentioned and discussed IN THE FILM. D.B. 16 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.89.211 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the movie does it say

that the Abomination was imprisoned in the Vault? Is it in the DVD, 'cause in the movie the last shot is of him lying on the ground with a chain around his neck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.162.90 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Abomination mention in film

Seems to me that in the absence of formally using the comic book's name for the "monster" created in the movie, the use of abomination as a warning is an interesting inside joke intentionally used for the benefit of aficionados. Similar in intent, if not in substance, to Stan Lee's appearances. AlbertHall (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's trivia, just like Stan Lees appearances. I noticed the joke, enjoyed it, and that it the extent of it. It was a nod to comic fans, just like the treatment that Blonsky underwent. Rau's Speak Page 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rau, as evidenced by the section I started at the same exact time as this one. The only difference between the two is that stan lee, as a living person and repeat actor in all Marvel's films, is of marginal notability, whereas a throwaway line is NOT. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, the only notable part about Stan Lee's appearance is that he appeared. That is the extent of it. We don't even need to go into his role, at least not here. Rau's Speak Page 00:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And this isn't the article to include him, only the relevant film articles, and his article. So we're agreed that the line isn't needed, as it's just trivia? ThuranX (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Albert has yet to reply. And this discussion did go very quickly, hardly enough time for many other people to notice. Yes we are in agreement, but no, I do not feel that consensus has been established. Rau's Speak Page 01:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We need more opinions, but I can't help but be amused by opposition to the only mention of abomination in this film on the wiki page about Abomination! AlbertHall (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is actually about Emil Blonsky. Otherwise, Rick Jones would be on this page as well, as he currently goes by "A-Bomb", a shortened version of the name. Rau's Speak Page 01:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

constant addition of trivia.

Numerous editors seek to circumvent the fact, well cited, that Leterrier chose not to call Blonsky 'Abomination' after his transformation, by including the throwaway reference in Sterns' dialogue. This is nothing but a trivia note for the fans. It has no impact on the plot, and as Leterrier is on record that he refused to use the 'abomination' name, we can conclude that Sterns is NOT, in fact christening the character, but delivering a nod to fans, which is nothing but trivia. ThuranX (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is part of a perfectly valid discussion about the production process and the way the character was adapted for the film.VatoFirme (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to see a bit less about the plot, and more about how the character is portrayed in the film, for example the removal of his reptilian features and his signature webbed ears, which as I recall was for the same reason as not explicitly naming him as a supervillain, which was to mesh better with the more naturalistic tone of the film.VatoFirme (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth place

Zagreb is in Croatia. Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore....If it was mentioned "Yugoslavia", then should be "Croatia, former Yugoslavia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

archenemy

As many regular editors of this page are aware, an IP is conducting a one man edit war against consensus and numerous editors. Can we please, here, establish that inclusion of the phrase 'and archenemy of the hulk' is POV, and does not belong in the article? The context of the article gives enough information for the reader to realize that Abomination is 'a hulk bad guy', without using POV language to do so. ThuranX (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with that phrase as being that it is POV; rather, it is bad writing. Either way, it definitely doesn't belong in the article. Skoojal (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

clean-up.

Although looking good overall, I'm a bit concerned that simply saying 'he's like the hulk, except smart and permanent', is oversimplification of the section. Readers shouldn't have to go to the hulk page to learn about the abomination in that way. Whiel the secton can be tightened up, it should not effectively point to another article. ThuranX (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The article reads a bit too dry now. Yeah, he appeared in this, this, this, and this, but what does that say about the appearances themselves? "He's been used a lot." Not a very interesting read, and could stand to be more informative. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Informative, or just full of more plot coverage? ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more plot couldn't hurt. Plot summary, concise though it may need to be, is vital to understanding a work of fiction, and this one has been stripped to little more than bare bones, especially in parts. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Point blank? This is a half step up from bullet pointing the infobox (side issue there with the image...) and an appearance list.

If that's the intent, then we may as well just transwiki what was there to the Marvel DB and turn this into a redirect to the "List of Hulk enemies" or "List of Marvel villains/characters".

Part of the pitfall/reality of articles on elements in works of fiction is that the plot is going to need to be covered to some degree if the article is going to cover how/why the element was used in the stories.

Oh... and the side issue. Why was the image changed? The Amazing Spider-Man Annual cover isn't any better than the Incredible Hulk one. The only thing it may have for it is that it's "more recent" which shouldn't be a consideration.

- J Greb (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that the significant (Hulk related) appearances need a bit more plot context, and the issues turned to citations, we don't need to go overboard either. That said, the 'publication history' is too literally taken here, and shouldn't be a 'complete guide to appearances', but should focus on the 'making of' stuff, while plot focuses on the IU. It could use a loosening up, you're right. I didnt' think it was that bad in reviewing the diffs. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And agree on the image.ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave a shot at it, but would like some help with this section:

In later issues, it is revealed that Blonsky's transformation alienates his ballet-dancer ex-wife, Nadia. Coupled with constant defeats at the hands of the Hulk, Blonsky is driven insane with hatred for Banner. The Abomination also grows incensed upon learning that Banner has married Betty Ross, the daughter of Thunderbolt Ross.

With the loss of his wife, Blonsky decides that Banner should also lose his spouse. The Abomination subsequently poisons Betty with his radioactive blood, causing Banner and his associates to believe that her proximity to the Hulk has given her a fatal case of radiation poisoning. Banner later exposes the Abomination's role in Betty's false death, and the Hulk defeats him in combat. Banner then forgives the Abomination, who cannot accept this act. Blonsky finally realizes that he has been living a lie — it is he who is the monster, not the Hulk.

Months later, the still-grieving General Ross manipulates the Hulk into attacking and almost killing the Abomination. The Abomination is then taken into custody by the military, and as punishment is forced to watch a film loop of him and his wife prior to his transformation, making his incarceration a constant reminder of what he has lost.

Eventually, operatives from the secret organization Home Base release the Abomination in order to fight the Hulk. The Abomination has become even more vicious as a result of his incarceration, and reminds Banner of the loss of Betty to goad him into a violent response. The plan backfires as the Abomination faces an enraged Hulk, who utterly defeats him.

These events are later revealed to have been a hallucination created by the entity Nightmare, which is confirmed when Blonsky shows no knowledge of the relationship, and also declares that he's had two different wives named Nadia, about which Abomination states, "It happens. Hey, Johnny Carson's been married to Joan, Joanna and Joanne," to explain the difference in personality. Blonsky is then employed as a U.S. government hitman against hostile foreign interests.

I'd like to say that 'Under X Writer, it was revealed that ... shortened form of Abomination Kills Betty plot... However, flagging sales (cite) and poor reviews (cite) led to Y Writer retconning this storyline, instead presenting it as the manipulation of Nightmare'.

Before I do so, I'd like help finding the citations, rather than starting off with Cite needed. This is probably one of the most critically reviewed Hulk stories with Abomination, so it shouldn't be too bad. Thoughts? Cites? ThuranX (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ALSO: Thank you to the three editors who cleaned up my Cleanup efforts. I made some sloppy typing, cut'n'paste, and citation errors. Thanks to all. ThuranX (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added another image and some more plot detail to try and jazz it up. But, this is what you get when you write out of universe. I know it seems unpalatable, but it is Wiki-correct. I can add a tad more plot, but it needs to steer away from opinion. Asgardian (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

2 things:

1. Where in the MoSes relating to writing about fiction does it state "No plot, period"? Because that seems to be exactly where you are guiding the article. Think long and hard on that since the "By decade" approach for a minor character is frustratingly choppy unless you are only bullet-pointing the appearances. And if that's the case, lost the text and convert the article to a table so that we can move along to the AfD.
2. The image you added is going to go. It isn't appropriate for the infobox but it more or less duplicates the purpose of infobox image - "The Abomination looks like this and fights the Hulk." The image has 0 relationship to the text it is beside (1967 cover in the 1990s). And even if it were moved to the 1960s section, it contributes 0 to the text the asid from confirming "the character appeared here", which the text conveys perfectly. Bottom line: by NFC policy, the image should not be in the article.

- J Greb (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Character's first cover, and laymen might like to see what the Abomination looked like during Marvel's formative years. At any rate, there are plenty more. The article does need a second image to spice it up. Asgardian (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you only want to address the second point, we'll start there...

The "debut issue cover" has relevance only if that issue is being covered by the article. The manner in which you are rewriting this article from scratch precludes that, period.

WP:NFCC policy is that the the images in the article be kept to a minimum and be significant. To be clear:

• Minimal usage: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. - Since there is already an image that illustrates the character and the primary use of the character (fighting the Hulk), any other image that fils the same purpose and nothing more is in breach of NFCC policy.
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. - The image needs to support the text, generally the text it is locate immediately next to. It also has to be some thing that the reader wouldn't under stand if the image wasn't there.

This policy coupled with the Comics Project MoS for infobox images makes the covers of Tales to Astonish #90 and Incredible Hulk #171 unusable within the article. Neither meet the standard for showing the character in the infobox and both duplicate the gist of what the current image provides. Anything, everything else that the image could provide can be done perfectly well with text - even the "The Abomination fights the Hulk" aspect.

And yes, this means that even if the infobox is changed, it is unlikely that the covers would add anything significant to the article.

As to the other point, I'm still waiting for you to point to the MoS that states all plot is to be removed. The ones I've seen point to minimal, yes, but reasonable to cover the topic.

- J Greb (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Images are highly subjective. Viewpoints and interpretation of the policy will differ. There are many other articles that are far more questionable. Also, all plot has not been removed - just the in-universe and POV. Asgardian (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the line on images isn't that subjective. Nor is the excuse that other articles are bending or breaking policy a reason for this one to. So the image has been pulled. - J Greb (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with J Greb, this 'rewrite' is a radical gutting of the material, please hurry up and Listify so we can AfD it. i looked in on your progress, and to help you out, I've helped strip out a few bits of unsubstantiated plot you left in, removed irrelevant info about the Ultimates, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As Asgardian didn't answer J Greb's question allow me to take a stab at it. The key guidelines are WP:PLOT and WP:WAF and we have kicked the issues around a few times but I wonder if there has been either a misunderstanding or people are interpreting things too strictly.

It came up when we were talking about assessments it became clear that the natural course of evolution for an article is to bulk up the publication history with background and character development and trim back the plot. This is usually a long process and so far it usually happens to the higher importance articles so it might not work the same way with everything. It is certainly possible to help articles on the way (focusing your efforts on adding to the PH) and when there is enough material it is possible to rewrite the FCB in an out-of-universe style (as has been done on Punisher and Galactus). However, it strikes me that unless you can a satisfactory version you may have to let an article run its natural course. After all, while we have to keep an eye on them and work towards them, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF are hoops that we need to jump through only as part of the higher class assessments. The bonus is that by that point you should have marshalled enough sources (that is one of the big hoops for B-class assessment and articles biggest stumbling blocks) that you should have plenty of material and it should flow fairly naturally. Imposing it on a C-class article or even a Start is going to be problematic unless the article is also of reasonable importance as everything is going to be spread pretty thin.

It is also important to note that neither guideline says "NO PLOT" - the key is writing in an out-of-universe style and this will clearly mean touching on the plot as part of the character/story development. (Emperor (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Regretably, Asgardian has reverted all my efforts to a more consensus built version. I'm done, and unwatching the page. good luck with his temper tantrum. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper way to write in an out-of-universe style seems to me to need more than "the character appeared here, here, here, and here". I'd expect to see something more like: In the "Such and Such" storyline in issues #3-4, the character faced three different enemies who left him for dead. In the "More Such and Such" storyline in issues #10-12, the writers were seeking a new angle(per cite) which allowed the character to gain revenge on his enemies. That is informative (dispite my intentional vagueness), and yet stays out of the range of in-universe. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is more meat to be added to the bones, but it cannot factor in opinion and POV, which is what your example just did. If there's no source, we can't speculate. Not finished yet. Asgardian (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what the (per cite) is for, so we don't have to rely on our own opinions. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you still haven't said I think you need to take this to your sandbox and we'll revert this article back to its previous state as it is inadequate as it stands. (Emperor (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Inadequate is not an option. I've reworked some information, but understand there was not much there to begin with. I think this should all go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics now. Asgardian (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't. I think that J Greb, Emperor, and myself are clear. You're going to far, reverting to your version without any real discussion, and asserting a ridiculous level of dryness. I'm not sure what brought this behavior on, but it needs to stop now. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Inadequate is not an option"? If so then the article can't stand as it is - it is pointless, merely a prose list of appearances which is actually less readable than an actual list would be. If you can't convert such an article into a readable out-of-universe style then it is time to admit defeat. As I've said above I am unsure if this is possible with articles below B-class quality and/or mid importance as there is usually a lack of material (as amply demonstrated here). I think the best bet is to work on expanding the publication history until there is enough information that would allow the article to be converted properly. (Emperor (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually, you need to get some perspective. You contribute, then decide to leave the discussion, then come back, although in that time were blocked for the comment here to another user, so I am cautious. What needs to happen is for there to be a proper discussion, which is shaping up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics

The users Tenebrae; BOZ and Cameron Scott will also be invited to work through the issues. You should also take note of what I have already stated there. Finally, why are you removing detail, when I have been trying to fill the article with as much out of universe material as is possible? Please, go to the relevant Talk page. Asgardian (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a work in progress, like Rhino (comics) now is. You're on the right track as far as certain aspects of presentation, but some parts do need work. I like how the origin story from the 1960s section looks; in fact, this too me is clearly the best written part and should be a model for the rest of the article. The 1970s section is decent, but the further down it goes, the less readable the whole thing gets. Think about it; what interesting thing needs to be said about every appearance? Is it enough to say "he appeared in this comic book"? Does that tell the reader anything other than, "oh, the character was used a lot by the writers"? How are we trying to inform people, and what do we want them to know? Some plot details from every appearance are important (even if it's nothing more than "fought the Hulk") and even better than that are any out-of-universe details we can provide beyond issue number and publication date. Heck, who wrote the comic, who drew it, and are those details notable as well? Interviews of the writers and artists may be hard to find, but I'm sure they exist to some degree, and these are the things that will provide out-of-universe details that will spice it up. BOZ (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Having been asked to be an additional voice for perspective, and without delving too much into it, this doesn't seem like a particularly acrimonious discussion. I think my friend ThuranX might have made an unnecessarily arch comment that sounded threatening ("I'm not sure what brought this behavior on, but it needs to stop now"), but maybe we could say that was just venting from frustration; we all react better and are more willing to compromise when we're spoken to civilly, right?

And again without delving too deeply into this very long discussion, BOZ's comment seems modest and sensible, although "plot details form every appearance" (emphasis mine) don't seem necessary — it's more important to create a contextual arc than to get bogged down in business-as-usual loglines. I'd consider concentrating on appearances of particular note, in our give-and-take consensus judgment (i.e. changes in character plot or characterization status quo). I'm very in favor of adding pertinent writer/artist information as we go along.

Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimates print run

What makes the run of ultimates different from all other title mentioned, that only it needs the full series run dates included? What do those dates have to do with the Abomination, or Ultimate Abomination? They aren't the issues in which the character appeared, which might be important, but of the entire series. I note that, for example, Ghost Rider's dates aren't given though Abomination appeared there. This looks like an attempt to beef up that section with irrelevant information. ThuranX (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The print run of Ultimates 2 has been added, yet again, without any rationale for what makes that print run distinct from all the other titles mentioned in this article. I see nothing special about this title which makes it different than any of the others; instead, this is becoming a slow editwar. Without justification, however, I will remove them again to assure consistency within the article. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming an edit war. Asgardian, in his tantrumish behavior, has consistently refused to discuss his changes to this article. He is now edit warring over the inclusion of the print run of Ultimates. he's been asked to use the talk page, and I fully believe he is aware of this section. No other title or publication mentioned in the article has its print run enumerated or discussed, but he insists on listing the print run for Ultimates. This is an odd inconsistency, and one Asgardian is unwilling to discuss. if he cannot explain himself here, I will pursue administrative review and sanction, this childish behavior must stop. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)