Talk:Green Goblin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comics
Portal

This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

More information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (publisher):
	Marvel Comics work group

[edit] RPG

Removed from article because I don't believe RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 08:31, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Name: Norman Osborn
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 185 lbs.
Eyes: Blue
Hair: Red-brown
- Intelligence Level: Genius
- Strength Level: Superhuman Class 10
- Durability Level: Superhuman (Bulletproof)
- Speed Level: Enhanced Human
- Agility Level: Enhanced Human
- Stamina Level: Enhanced Human
- Reflexes Level: Enhanced Human
Weapons and paraphanelia: Various handheld explosive devices and a self-propelled glider.

[edit] Goblins

I added a small paragraph explaining their presence and a small paragraph for Harry and Hobby so someone doesn't have to click to read all about them while reading Norman's article.--Kozmik Pariah 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotech in the 1960s?

There is an anomaly. From the article intro: "The original Goblin was Norman Osborn, a corrupt industrialist who co-founded a major nanotechnology firm with Dr. Mendel Stromm". I'm not familiar with the comics, but my spidey senses are tingling because this appears to suggest that, when created in the 1960s, the creator of the character knew or described nanotechnology. Does Eric Drexler owe Stan Lee money? Is this some sort of retcon? Or (my suspicion) is the language incorrect? I'd like someone who knows the story to fix this, I don't want to step on something with my big fat assumptions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I was always under the impression Osborn Industries was primarily a chemical- (or chemical weapons-) manufacturing company. Dr Archeville 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum Overdrive in the Live Action Film

I think the cameo appearence by Green Goblin in the movie Maximum Overdrive should be added. It hard to miss, since his head is on the front of the "Happy Toys" truck that is the main villain of the movie.

I agree, it should be mentioned, though where on the page I don't know. -- Lord Crayak

[edit] Fan Film

Green Goblin's Last Stand was an early fan film by Dan Poole. It featured the Green Goblin, and in the trailer Bullseye and Mysterio.

Download it here http://files.filefront.com/Green+Goblins+Last+Stand/;944220;;/fileinfo.html

15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Enda80Enda80

Why is this important and why does it need to be listed in the External Links? --Chris Griswold 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[1][2][3]Its not some little thing that no one knows about it. It has a big reputation across the Spider-Man fanbase. Wizard magazine even mentioned it once.--CyberGhostface 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's important, please add it to the entry. Otherwise, on face value, it comes across as the same sort of plug that people try to slip into these entries everyday. --Chris Griswold 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added it. If you want to remove it, go ahead. I was just offering my two cents.--CyberGhostface 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it was added without comment, I have seen other such links removed regularly, and I had just had to follow a user around deleting the plugs to his store he was adding. If it's notable, great. I'm happy for it to be included. I, unfortunately, have never heard of it, and I'm currently on dial-up, so I'm not that much use to write about it right now. --Chris Griswold 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Urich does not write editorials

After all, he is not and has never been editor of the Daily Bugle or any other publication (AFAIK anyway). Yet the paragraph headed "The Return of Norman Osborn" implies otherwise. I would rather not make the correction, because I do not remember whether it would be more correct to refer to Ben's articles, JJJ editorials or both. Luis Dantas 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It may have been an opinions column; people tend to confuse the terms. --Chris Griswold 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but still, the possibility does exist that the article should refer to JJJ editorials. Someone who knows for sure could pitch in and make a correction. Luis Dantas 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

User:Dr Archeville has suggested on the wikiproject comics Notice Board to merge Harry Osborn and Ultimate Green Goblin into Green Goblin. As the discussion suggestion points to this page, seems as good a place as any to get feedback (e.g. Merge, Keep, etc). Please sign all comments and votes. -Markeer 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate Green Goblin, but Keep Harry Osborn as a separate article. Harry's status as a supporting character in the Spider-Man comics goes beyond his time as Green Goblin, but I do agree Ultimate Green Goblin is the fruit of the same original tree. -Markeer 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep I disagree with both merges. Markeer already pretty much stated what I think for Harry Osborn, so I'll dedicate this to the Ultimate version. A quick look at the Ultimate categories shows 43 articles. While a chunk of these deal with the comics, a lot of them deal with the characters themselves. And while I understand Wikipedia has no real length requirements, having both characters merged would add an unnecessary length. Ultimate Goblin has a fairly big article now. I personally think this article should be focused mainly on 616 Norman, with brief mentions of other Goblins and respective links to their own pages.--CyberGhostface 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate entries are to be avoided when possible, and while the powers, etc, might be slightly different, the character is essentially the same. It's just a variation on the original. Keep Harry separate though, like the Flashes and the Green Lanterns. --Chris Griswold 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge the Ultimate entry into the parent entry (after some cutting down of the plot), but leave Harry's entry where it is. --InShaneee 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If we do merge it I'd prefer that we don't abridge it.--CyberGhostface 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --Chris Griswold 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My personal reason is because I worked hard on the article. (I'm not the one who made the article but I did a chunk of the work on it). I wouldn't want to see it crammed into already overlong article and into a one paragraph ditty that goes "In this continuity, Norman turns into a goblin". Minor characters in the Ultimate universe (like say Dr. Strange) probably don't warrant their own articles but the major ones do because they do have different histories than their 616 counterparts.--CyberGhostface 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

However, if they're not significantly different (or haven't had time to build a significantly new body of information), consensus is generally that they be merged. And it is still my feeling that the plot section can be edited down, not to a few sentences, but smaller than its present form. --InShaneee 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate GG, Keep Harry Osborn. - HKMARKS 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate GG, Keep Harry Osborn as per Markeer´s comments above. Hueysheridan 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge UGG, Keep Harry Osborn, for the reasons Marker made clear. Dr Archeville 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge UGG, Keep Harry Osborn -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge UGG, Keep Harry Osborn. WesleyDodds 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Decision was to merge [[Ultimate Green Goblin into Green Goblin, but to keep Harry Osborn separate. --Chris Griswold 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Osborn good?

I think Norman Osborn was a good man before he became possesed by the evil Green Goblin. I mean, he was responsible for his company, did his best to take care of his son, and, in later issues, tried to help Peter get by in life by offering him a job at Oscorp. Think about what would've happened if Norman Osborn hadn't been caught in the explosion. Would he have still turned to crime and tried to kill Spidey? It's hard to say. But Norman Osborn was no tyrant before the Goblin came into his life. And where did the dog-killing part come from? 71.221.224.233 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.22071.221.224.233 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The revelation that Norman killed his dog as a child was in this issue. He killed it because he considered the dog another mouth to feed.

I suggest you take some time to check out spideykicksbutt.com which has a number of essays on the subject as you are clearly ignorant about Norman's character.

Furthermore, all your edits are seriously POV.--CyberGhostface 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is with you adding bullshit about the third Spider-Man movie in the Harry Osborn film? Give it a rest.--CyberGhostface 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I admit the dog killing was very inhumane. But the Goblin did the rest. And Harry does die in Spider-Man 3. Check out his article. Right by the statement that this is Harry's last appearance, there's a link which proves this. 71.221.224.233 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.22071.221.224.233 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like the Goblin is some demon posessing Norman; it's not. It's just a facet of his insanity. Furthermore, please show the link that Harry dies in Spider-Man 3 (not to mention, that is a MASSIVE spoiler for a movie that has not even come out yet, and I think I speak for almost everyone when I say I don't want the ending of the movie given away). And killing the dog is enough by itself to show he wasn't a good person, not to mention he wasn't a great guy even before he became the Goblin. He was also abusive towards Harry, for example. --CyberGhostface 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to upset anyone. 71.221.224.233 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)70.58.211.22071.221.224.233 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the link or not? --CyberGhostface 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't...it must have been removed. 70.58.211.220

If it existed to begin with.--CyberGhostface 18:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It did. Check with the creators of the Spider Man 3 article. It's like what that guy in Ultimate Spider-Man Volume 8 said: I would have it, but now I don't.

Yeah right. I seriously doubt they'd reveal such serious information prior to the film's release.--CyberGhostface 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll never know if you don't check. And as for the previous response above, let's not swear while we're in this talk room. 70.58.211.220

How about you just give me the link? Because until you do I'm not believing a word you say. I'm sick and tired of anon vandals like you adding false information.--CyberGhostface 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're being a jerk. All I'm trying to do is explain how I found this out, and you're just yelling at me for no reason. If you want the link, I'll do my best to find it. But if I can't, then check with the creators of the third movie article. They put the links on the page. 70.58.211.220

I didn't find Harry's death link. But it did say that his storyline would conclude with Spider-Man 3, so I think that's one of the definitions of death. 70.58.211.220

So in other words you're just posting your speculation and theories as fact? Assume makes an ass out of u and me. Just because a storyline is concluded doesn't neccessarily mean it concludes in death, and shouldn't be posted as definite fact.--CyberGhostface 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, check with the creators, for heaven's sake! 70.58.211.220

How about you just give me a source? How do you check with the creators to begin with? I seriously doubt Sam Raim would tell someone like you how the movie ends. But thats just me.--CyberGhostface 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to check with the creators, leave a message on the article talk page. 70.58.211.220

I'm sure that its Sam Raimi posting on Wikipedia divulging the ending and not some overweight 14 year old claiming to be him.--CyberGhostface 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"The creators"? Nope. Posting in an article talk page does not get a message to Sam Raimi. Even if he had time to read it, he has neither motive nor time to waste in responding. Sheesh. Doczilla 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant the creators of the article. I've been trying to get this guy to talk with them and get confirmation. I SWEAR I saw a link by Harry's article two months ago that proves his death. 70.58.211.200

I found it! Here's the link:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/xKiriyamax/scoop1.jpg

Even if its true, its not an official source. I would wait for the film to come out so its not ruined for anyone.--CyberGhostface 19:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. 70.58.211.220

Film's out, Harry's dead, get over it.

No shit. That doesn't mean one should post spoilers before the film is released. Then you'd be no different for the morons running around at the Harry Potter book stores yelling "So and so kills so and so!"--CyberGhostface 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, now that we've established that conflict, let's get back to the analysis. Yes, by reading past Spider-Man comics, it is evident Norman Osborn was at times very emotionally unstable and manipulative, and very often put off his own son when in distress. But he has a human side. Norman, like Jonah Jameson, admires Spider-Man for the hero that he is, and his unbreakable spirit and love for life. But the fact is, both men can never truly measure up to his worth, so they try to bring him down, because, "Heaven help me, I'm jealous of him!" -From Amazing Spider-man #10. By the way, next time, when I find big news, I'll give citations along with it. Happy editing! 70.58.211.220

I think the only time Norman's admired Spidey as a hero was when he was amnesiac. I think the two respect each other but I don't think Norman's mantra has ever been "Spider-Man's the hero I can never be, so I try to bring him down". I really think, if you haven't already, that you should read spideykickbutts.com's Green with Evil essays.--CyberGhostface 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have. And I am shocked. I never considered that Osborn's built-up cruelty from blasted Amberson's torturing would result in him turning out that bad. And apparently, he's gotten worse, especially with his son gone from his life. What really torks me about that is that Norman considers Harry at times to be a spineless weakling; however, that is probably what turned his attention to Peter. I wonder how he'll manage things as leader of the Thunderbolts these days. Here's to hoping Moonstone's plan is uncovered so she doesn't make a canyon out of the small hill she's made. Happy editing! 65.103.61.154 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope he stays with the Thunderbolts too. He's much more interesting as a leader than Moonstone is. I love his conversation with Bullseye in the first issue though.--CyberGhostface 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goblin Glider

Goblin Glider was just created. Surely this should be merged into this article. I don't understand why it was necessary to create as a new article instead of a section of the Green Goblin article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Merge per my nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge is this vote even necessary? --Psyphics _Ψ _Φ 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. No, I guess not. I'll take care of this now. I am still reluctant to use my admin superpowers. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, I've noticed you are a bit less bold now. 'S okay, but I mean, I could have done this by just merging and turning it into a redirect. However, I'm reluctant to be bold most of the time. --Psyphics _Ψ _Φ 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change the picture

It's a bad impression of the Green Goblin, he looks like a 6 year old kid. And it's a really old image. DCincarnate

If we're not going to change Spider-Man to accomodate his new costume, then the same logic should stay for Green Goblin. If you can find a good picture of his classic costume that most know him by then go ahead.--CyberGhostface 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's a difference here - while Spider-Man's costume change was plot-based and always intended to be temporary, the Goblin's was a costume "upgrade" and has been his standard look the the past five years. Beyond that, it's really only a matter of personal preference as to which look better represents the character. --Ultimo Fantastique 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this? [4] DCincarnate

I'd prefer it be a comic book image, preferably a cover and maybe his first appearance if he's on the cover. He's a comic book character and the image should reinforce that. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

When they release the Thunderbolts variant cover with Green Goblin on it (so far, they've done Venom, Bullseye, and Penance), I think it should be changed to that. --DrBat 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't change the picture at the top. Just add that Thunderbolts cover/picture into the 'Fictional character biography' section where it is appropriate. --Freak104 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good article...

but i think that:

Alter ego is Norman Osborn and Harry Osborn

No. Harry already has his own article. No need to convolute his dad's.--CyberGhostface 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goblin (comics)

Hey. I've noticed that this page is kinda treated like the place to put most/all data on comic book Goblins, but I was thinking we could do something better. I propose splitting content like "Fury the Goblin Queen" into a Goblin (comics) page. In it, we could also include data on the Hobgob and his variants. (Demogoblin, anyone?)

As is, what should be primarily Norman's page—unless he's split off, instead, ala Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote.—is overrun with data of varying relavence. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Split Phil Urich section. Phil Urich is a major character now. He's now one of the Loners.--Gonzalo84 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No Split What's to split off at this point? Wait and see ... and if there enough to merit an article in the future then possiblly a new article. It's hard to create an article with barely a paragraph. 66.109.248.114 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea....especially with the upcoming Solicts for LONERS #3 focusing on Phil's story {within the Loners' current situation}PaxHouse 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Split I agree. At least he deserved a picture. Dmr2hn1

- Split With an MC2 counterpart, a solo series and a lead role in a new, popular series, there's plenty that could be used in a solo article - Goldenboy 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Goblin

It should be added that the Death of the Goblin (tentative title) starts with issue #112, starring Norman Osborn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.101.212 (talk • contribs)

It should be added once those issues come out, not before. Freak104 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd more say it should be added when we have solicitations that we can link to, which specifically title the arc "The Death Of The Goblin". SaliereTheFish 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time changes

I changed all the past tenses to present tense. However, the article still suffers from multiple compound sentences. This not only makes for difficult reading but sometimes thoroughly muddles references. I would very much welcome someone more knowledgable than me giving the text an additional revision 217.231.18.29 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Thegreengoblinreturns.png

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ams26.jpg

Image:Ams26.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimategoblin-markbagley.jpg

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Goblinsinspast.jpg

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spider122.jpg

Image:Spider122.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Furythegoblinqueen.jpg

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about toys?

Sorry if I'm posting this wrong. But what about toys, statues, etc.? Seeing video game references is cool but as a toy collector I'd love to seem them included. Especially since there are so many cool Green Goblin toys! Bart chambers (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)bart_chambers

[edit] too many fair-use images

Do we really need all these comic covers? Doesn't that run contrary to [5] Bobisbob (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Running down what's here...

Image:Green goblin2.jpg — Currently the infobox image. Frankly, looking at the FUR currently in place, this one should go. There is zero sourcing, wither to a website that it pulled from or to where the image was physically published. And the later is really preferred.
Image:14-1goblin.jpg — I can see how this one is justifiable, since it's the character's first appearance.
Image:Amazingspiderman39.jpg — Previously the infobox image. This current use is nothing but decoration.
Image:Spider122.jpg — This may relate to the text beside it, but it does come across as "another Goblin image".
Image:Thegreengoblinreturns.png — As does this one.
Image:Goblinsinspast.jpg — Redundant since it is used more appropriately in the articel the section links to with {{catmore1}} (though {{see also}} may be more appropriate).
Image:Tbolts121 cov.jpg — This one has some merit since it looks to be a "revamp" of the character design and is relevant to the section where it is placed.
Image:Ultimategreengoblin.jpg — Reasonable with the Ultimate revamp, and a substantial section.
Image:Goblinani.png — Reasonable as an example of the adaptation of the character for animation.
Image:GreenGoblinMovie.jpg — Reasonable as an example of the adaptation of the character for film.
Image:Goblinfof.jpg — Reasonable as an example of the adaptation of the character for video games.

Suggestions:

Restore the infobox to Image:Amazingspiderman39.jpg, since it is a fully sourced, FURed, and appropriate image.
Lose at least one of Spider122.jpg and Thegreengoblinreturns.png. To be honest, both could go since neither substantially help to provide understanding of the topic, and the removals would not hurt that understanding. (see WP:NFCC#8)
Lose Image:Goblinsinspast.jpg as it is redundant, and less than important to this article.

- J Greb (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (amended in light od revesing an edit to remove images made after the discusion was started... - J Greb (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

If the current infobox picture has to go for not being sourced then so does a lot of other character's infobox pics including [6] and [7].

The Amazingspiderman39.jpg pic won't be good for the infobox since the character is barely in the center. If we need to use comic covers for characters infobox, they should be like [8],[9] and [10].

The Tbolts121 cov.jpg image is hardly a revamp, he had that costme design for a while. If we can have that why not the image of Scorpion with a different costume on the Mac Gargan page. Or the Scorpy-Venom image posted on the "powers" section, but that a different dispute. Bobisbob (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "other stuff exists" argument goes a long way in saying the problems else where need to be fixed, not that we keep it here. If, and that might be a big leap with Green goblin2.jpg, the images can be sourced back to an actual comic and the site that it was pulled from, part of the problem is removed. Not all of it though.

I think I can see where you're coming from with Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Superhero box images, point 3. But... the guideline speaks to prominence, not dead center placement. On the whole, the cover of The Amazing Spider-Man #39 hits all the bases:

Iconic look of the character.
Full body.
Neutral coloring.
Prominent feature of the image.

The only quibble comes from the iconic look of the character: the contorted posture on the goblin glider. That really falls in the same category as the example under shadowing under point 2 of the guide.

I can also see where you're coming from with the Thunderbolts image, and looking back at it, I can agree, to a point. The Scorpion costume example is every indicative of two things. First is trying to get all the costume variations when only the costumes are the context. With a lot of characters that becomes a gallery even if the images are peppered throughout the article. Second is "newer is better" with no context beyond it being a newer image or one by a bigger "name". On first blush, the Thunderbolts section gave the image context beyond "new" or "another Goblin" costume. Re-reading it a few times, that context isn't there and either the section needs a re-writer (unlikely) or the image gets added to the "to lose" list. - J Greb (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I'm going ahead and removing some of the images. Bobisbob (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)