Talk:Ultimates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Ultimates' naming for a discussion on the naming of individual characters' articles in the Ultimate Marvel continuity. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Archive
Archives

/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Cameo appearances

Is it notable if a subsection on real-life celebrities that made cameos or were mentioned in passing in The Ultimates was included? Eaglestorm 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that this would add a little to the authenticity of how real the book is. You can state on an article that it was very realistic, but tying in character like Larry King cements that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.99.152 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's noteworthy, because a lot of comics have cameo appearances by real-life people. A section on it would imply that this is somehow specific to Ultimates, which I don't think it is. Btw, are there really that many? The only two I can think of are King and George W. Bush. Freddie Prinze Jr. was mentioned, but not really seen clearly anyway. Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goodness

Unfortunately, I think the only way to save this article is a full and complete rewrite. That is, an expert rewrites from top to bottom and just outright replaces the entire article.

Lots42 06:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery Woman

There is a mystery woman (of sorts) featured on the promotional image for Ultimates 3. This article has been frequently edited to have her listed as Storm. I believe this is merely speculation, lacking in foundation: the character does not even look like Ultimate Storm. It seems more logical that she be a previously unidentified character, either Ultimate Lorelei or Phantazia. That said, I believe it is best to leave her as "unidentified" until she is formally recognized. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.189.66 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The fourth paragraph in the intro is, IMHO, completely superfulous. Is that how you spell the word? I vote it be deleted anywho. Lots42 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Classic Marvel Villain"

Surely it is pure speculation to state that this villain in Ultimates 3 is Magneto. Leob has never expicitly stated this and most likely showed Magneto to throw us off. Ultimate Fantastic Four showed writer's willingness to do this, and Ultimates 3 is an extremely high profile series, and the plot is being guarded closely.


The released "villain" cover to Ultimates 3 #1 prominently features Magneto and the Brotherhood of Mutants. I cannot find a direct interview that states that these will be the villains of Ultimates 3 - but to say that it is "pure speculation" seems a little unfounded in itself.

I'm sorry. Perhaps "pure speculation" is hyperbole, but it is at least partial speculation.

Just realised that this is probably Ultron, after the Iron Man "big reveal".

that's speculation, please sign your posts.`ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Title

why is this page titled Ultimates and not The Ultimates? Captaincanuck65 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has Naming conventions. Same reason he's at Joker not The Joker, and so on. ThuranX 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Solicitations

Should it be stated that solicitations revealed that in Ultimates 3 #1 one member of the team will die and that Valkyrie is a villain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.101.58 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I have added this along with other solicitation information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.79.140 (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's frowned upon to put in information about comics that have not actually been released yet. Just a head's up. Lots42 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson and Fury

The article wants a citation for Samuel L. Jackson giving his consent for Nick Fury's look. I got a cite but I am suffering a moment of dumb and don't know how to put it in.

[edit] The Ultimates 3 section

The Ultimates 3 section seems to be full of run-on sentences, according to a glance or two. I don't want to spoil myself too much because I haven't read it. So I'd rather not go in and fix it. Lots42 (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moves and splits

Would it be worth splitting Ultimates 1 , 2 & 3 in its own separate sections? Then in each of the separate pages, sales history, reception, notable reviews can be added. The page is becoming pretty large as it is. Stextc (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the moves made by Nightscream and the splitting done by Stextc.
Moves: Based on the indecia of the comics, and the naming conventions for fictional teams, "The" shouldn't be used in the title of this article. Since the series was titled Ultimates, "The" should also not be used when directly referencing the title.
This article, Ultimates 2, and Ultimates 3 have been copy edited to correct the usage of "the" with in the articles and have been moved to reflect the proper titles.
Splits: This is a bit of a bigger issue. Last year there was a merge discussion which is archived here: Talk:Ultimates/Archive 1#Merge from List of Ultimates story arcs. The state of the story arc list at the time it was merged is here.
While splitting an article that has gotten overly long (50k+ in size is the "start thinking about it" point, no ~45k) an cannot be condensed is proper, splitting in a way that circumvents a consensus needs to be discussed first. And looking at the new article, they seem to be mostly plot/story arc summary, exactly what was condensed and merged. That is a strong argument for the two editors shepherding the splits to revert and propose splitting the two sections out. Otherwise it is likely that we will see requests to merge the 3 articles (potentially 4 if I read one user talk page comment correctly) citing no change in the consensus reached last June. J Greb (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that I was not aware there was already a discussion to merge the story arcs. I did post a discussion topic here early March but did not get a response. However the split has included sales history, reviews and other developments enough to establish its own notability. It has not just been moving out extensive plot summaries (which still require additional work). Adding reviews and sales would only increase the current article to become too large. Please see Ultimates 3 as a good example of the reception to the comic which was not present in the original Ultimates article. With enough material on the web it would be easy enough to improve each Ultimates article to something like Spider-Man: One More Day Stextc (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
First, lack of response on the talk isn't evidence that consensus changed. At the least a {{split}} should have been placed at each section head to draw attention to the discussion.
Second, while the article for Ultimates 3 is border line since the plot summary is just about balanced with the real world context (and that might change as issues 4 and 5 are added), both the Ultimates 2 and Ultimates "1" articles are plot summaries with window dressing. If an article is predominantly plot summary, it's going to have troubles with WP:PLOT.
Last, as you point out below, there are parts of this article that can be compressed or eliminated as covered in already existing articles. With that in mind, the publications, critical commentary, and reactions can be expanded here. The plot summaries are also an area where things can be condensed, with marginally important items being removed. - J Greb (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm with J greb. I think this artticle should've been reevaluated for RWC< and a severe cutting back of IU content. The Review and reception on Ultimates 3 is good ,but should've been posted here, and I note yet ANOTHEr fat overbloated plot summary has emerged there, yet another example of IU gone wild. I'd be fore re-merging the RW content back here, and using the current tiny plot summary. People should buy the book if they want the plot, and read here about the real world results in terms of sales and criticism. ThuranX (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I agree the current plot summaries in the individual sections need a lot of work. I haven't added anything to them I just cut and paste from the original article and moved across. I am planning to be working on these articles a lot more over the next few weeks. J Greb and ThuranX, if I could get your agreement to hold off any merge talks until I work on these articles that would be appreciated. Nightscream has been doing some great work with copy editing etc. and I can see these articles being tided up. Also icv2.com has all the sales history, I could use some help getting all the Ultimates sales information compiled. Stextc (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not adverse to giving a reasonable amount of time. But, I do have a concerns. Mainly that it's going devolve into an excuse to turn all 4 articles into in-universe centric pieces. If the splits hadn't been made, trimming the in story material would have been easier. - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I favor merging, in part because of the length of the first two miniseries and the need to give their details some depth; and because the main article needs trimming. Nightscream (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it also be an idea to change the Ultimate Marvel template box so that it links to all three volumes of Ultimates? e.g., 'The Ultimates' becomes 'The Ultimates (1 | 2 | 3)' or 'The Ultimates (1, 2, 3)'. Planewalker Dave (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nightscream (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to revert if it is deemed to be 'not fitting with regular formatting' or some such. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Do

Would appreciate any help for editors to fix up this article and improve Ultimates 1, Ultimates 2 and Ultimates 3. There's probably more "to do" but this should be a great starting point.

[edit] Character Descriptions

Most of the Ultimate character descriptions are in the characters own page. It seems unnecessary to put more information than just a basic list (and perhaps the issue the character joined or appeared and status).

e.g.

This could trim the article right down. Merge all relevant information to the character page. Thoughts? Stextc (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts:
  1. Since there is already a list for the roster including the reserves, the sections "The Ultimates", "Former Members" (Fury may be valid to add to the list article since he acted as the de facto leader/controler of the group), "The Reserves", can be removed with a {{seealso}} placed.
  2. "Allies" should be reworked and compressed.
  3. If the relavent information isn't already on the relavent, currently linked articles, then the info should be condensed down and moved.
- J Greb (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Slowly getting there. Have merged some of the character descriptions either to the list or the respective character page. Is there a need for more information than a name? Stextc (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sales History

icv2.com is a great site for sales history. It would be great to compile the sales of every history of every issue. I've put some sales history in Ultimates 1,Ultimates 2 and Ultimates 3. Any help would be appreciated! Stextc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More reviews

Much more critical reviews are required. They should reflect the majority. e.g. Ultimates 3 was not well received by the critics so there should be more bad reviews than good. I've only put in one line statements for each review in Ultimates 1,Ultimates 2 and Ultimates 3 but those definitely need to be expanded

Here are some Ultimates 3 #2 reviews that need to be written up :

http://www.popsyndicate.com/site/story/the_ultimates_3_2

http://weeklycomicbookreview.com/2008/01/29/the-ultimates-3-2-review-2/

http://aboutheroes.com/2008/02/ultimates-3-2-review.php

And some Ultimates 3 #3 reviews :

http://comicbookrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/02/comic-book-review-ultimates-3-3.html

http://www.comixtreme.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39395

Stextc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Developments by artist

I note a lot of statements by Millar on how he approached the story lines. To balance it we need Hitch's commentary (if it's out there) on character designs and how he approached the art. Stextc (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's out there, sure, but if it's not, I don't see it as a lack of "balance."
Agreed. There's no lack of balance to include what's available regarding non-controversial real-world content. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a great article with describes Hitch's approach to his work. Loads of Ultimates references. I'll take a stab at transferring this to the relevant section. Will appreciate any help to improve. I've added it to Ultimates 1 http://silverbulletcomics.com/news/story.php?a=569 Stextc (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)