Jump to content

Talk:Adam Warlock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 22 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Comics}}, {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Redundant?

In the first sentence of the Him to Warlock section; ...artifically created human created by scientists... seems awkward and redundant. I will change to ...artificial human created by scientists... if there are no objections or better suggestions.

I also think "artificial human" is contradictory, since a human would not be "human" if he/she were artificial, but I believe he was described as such in the comics, so it should probably stay that way. Someone with access to that issue might look it up and see exactly what the description was, and then change it to ...described as an "artifical human" created by scientists... (or howevery it actually reads in the comic). Using the quatation marks would indicated that though the two terms are contradictory, it is pulled directly from the source material. Thoughts?--The Eskimo 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)


Powers Section Out-of-Date

The section describing Warlock's powers looks to be gleaned from the 1980's Marvel Universe "Book of the Dead". That data's over 20 years old, and in Warlock's case is definitely outdated considering the number of times he's coccooned-up since then and emerged stronger than before.

During the Infinity Gauntlet series, it was stated that he, Gamora, and Pip all received augmented levels of strength. This was further elaborated on in The Infinity Watch series to indicate that Pip--by far the weakest--had been augmented to Spider-Man's level of strength, while Gamora was in Iron Man's class. Warlock is at least as strong as Gamora. --SteveG 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this--in his powers section it states he possesses the soul gem, but in the Dr. Strange article, it states he also possesses the Soul Gem. Who has it? 199.111.219.141 07:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information (under "recent developments" of the fictional character biography section) regarding Dr. Strange and the Soul Gem. Gaunt Man 10:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a comprehensive view of the Enclave.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/enclaveff.htm

The Black Hole Grenade is one of those "comic book deaths", and since there is no definitive death sequence, I'd say we have to assume the Greg Pak series takes place later in continuity, unless we are told otherwise by an official source.

Yeah, the continuity kind of sucks, but hey, they're the Enclave, I wouldn't be surprised if they can clone themselves or if Aeysha could ressurect them.

hey, I added a TON of (what I consider to be) substantial information, though some of it may be non-encyclopedically worded; my apologies. I just wanted to let everyone know it was me since I did it whilst not signed-in. love, --Atsab (09/10/06, 2:14 am)

NPOV?

While Starlin was superb, this article seems a little too biased.71.113.238.56 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Magusface.png

Image:Magusface.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 04:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Solo series and features

  • Avengers Annual #7
  • Avengers vol. 1 #118
  • Cosmic Powers Unlimited #1
  • Curse of Rune #4
  • Doctor Strange vol. 2 #32, 36, 47
  • Fantastic Four vol. 1 66-67, 369-370
  • Incredible Hulk vol. 2 #158, 176-178
  • Infinity Abyss vol. 1 #1-6
  • Infinity Crusade #1-3, 6
  • Infinity Gauntlet #1-6
  • Infinity War #1-6
  • Marvel Comics Presents #108-111
  • Marvel Premiere #1-2
  • Marvel Team-Up vol. 1 #55
  • Marvel Two-in-One #61-63
  • Marvel Two-in-One Annual #2
  • Marvel Universe: The End #1-2, 6
  • Quasar #38-40, 50, 53-54
  • Rune vol. 2 #0-3, 6-7
  • She-Hulk (2004) # 7-8
  • Silver Surfer & Warlock: Resurrection #1-4
  • Silver Surfer vol. 3 #44-50, 52, 55, 83-88, 93-94
  • Silver Surfer/Rune #1
  • Starblast #1
  • Strange Tales vol. 2 #178-181
  • Thanos #1-6
  • Thor vol. 1 163-166, 468-471
  • Ultraverse Unlimited #1
  • Warlock and the Infinity Watch #1-42
  • Warlock Chronicles #1-8
  • Warlock vol. 1 #1-15
  • Warlock vol. 2 #1-4
  • Warlock vol. 3 #4
  • Wonder Man (1991) #14

Fair use rationale for Image:MP-9.jpg

Image:MP-9.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.

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 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it said that the Living Tribunal removed Adam Warlock's Godhood because he was "artificial"? In the Infinity War it merely shows the Living Tribunal ruling against Warlock without an explanation as to why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.145.249 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Emperor (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Post-Infinity Watch

The section after the Infinity Crusade goes a little too quickly into stuff that happens after the Infinity Watch ended. I actually came to this page looking for that information. I doubt it's absolutely vital to know what happens to Warlock in that short period. For example, I wanted to know about this miniseries called Starblast which came out after Crusade -- it's fairly crappily written and is interesting only in that it has an intriguing mix of characters you don't see anywhere else (Warlock, Hyperion, Ikaris, Darkstar, etc.) -- but I became curious about that period in Warlock's story. For example, what happened when Rune stole the Infinity Gems and how did Warlock get back from the Ultraverse, etc. But this article goes immediately from the Crusade into this:

"Warlock next appeared in an intergalactic asylum, encased in a self-generated cocoon, and after being reincarnated with a slightly different appearance assists in stopping a crisis instigated by several warped Thanos clones"

Even if the period I'm curious about isn't vital, the first clause is technically inaccurate because that is not where he "next appeared" -- that's where he appeared several years later (roughly nine years later).F. Simon Grant (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

Publication history and Fictional character biography, by whatever wording you want to give those discrete sections, are mashed together here. In-universe material is supposed to be present tense, and real-life historical material past tense. There's a lot to do to straighten out such MOS vios as "An unrelated and short-lived series titled Warlock featuring the alien cybernetic character Warlock ... is also published" — no, it is not. It was published back around 2000, but not longer — and to divide the material into the two sections as WikiProject Comics guidelines have it. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with language changes (just don't over intellectualize it and let it become verbose). As to format, it would seem there needs to be a guideline (which is what they are, not strict mandates) for short articles, and one for longer articles. After all, we don't want a PH for a longer article to read like a list (which was tried and doesn't read well). I will have another pass at it soon. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always proclaimed that the mashup doesn't work. Either you're telling a story of how a character has developed within his world or you're relating the experiences of what writers have done and felt regarding the character; this "take the bio and make it look like it's out of universe" doesn't really accomplish either. BOZ (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which was tried and doesn't read well." Asgardian's claim is dubious; he is virtually the only veteran editor in favor of a mash-up. "I will have another pass at it soon" suggests to me we need to do an RfC and get additional editors' voices. For the moment, at least two editors prefer not to have mashed-up articles, so I would like to express trust that Asgardian will respect that. If he wants to call for additional comment, that would be fine and proper. Going rogue is not. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are making assumptions again. It was tried. See Rhino and Abomination before I rewrote them another way. And yes, I can - as is my right as an editor - tackle an article. Anyone can. Also, please refrain from emotive terms such as "rogue". That is your opinion and does not help discussions. Think it through before reaching for the keyboard. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other term to use when an editor consistently goes against consensus and guidelines, and draws the ire of numerous other editors to the point that Arbitration proceedings are launched against them — so much so that the very behavior you exhibit today had you placed on parole for a year. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per [1], there is this:

The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.

Perhaps more discussion is required, yes? Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus.

Wikipedia works through consensus. The debate above currently sees a consensus currently emergent that is against merging the two sections. Editors should proceed in line with that consensus unless and until it changes on this talk page. Hiding T 10:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FCB written in-universe

Material specifically discussing writer/artist contributors are real-world and go into the PH. The FCB, under whatever name, is written in-universe and present tense. The real-world writers and artists are not part of the fictional universe. This article needs rewritten to address this. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and that's what's happening right now - just doesn't all happen overnight. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. It's 1:36 a.m., and I've just finished disentangling (and fixing the cover-date abbreviations). Most of the content otherwise reads much the same as it did before, minus some trims for wordiness, changing passive voice to active voice, and removing some fannish phrases that are meaningless to non-comics-fan, general-audience readers ("the Titan" Thanos).
It is consensus-derived WPC MOS to separate real-world PH from in-universe, present-tense fiction. Please see Hiding's comments above. Obviously, any of us can edit this article. It belongs to no one. However, wholesale reversion of what other editors respect as WPC MOS is improper. I'd also ask you to click through to the footnoted databases before making series-title changes. -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why does it have all happen overnight? Is there a deadline? Do you want applause for working into the night on an article anyone can edit? The PH & Biography were being separated, which you have contributed more to. I'll also made a few extra additions, as we can all contribute here. That said, let's keep some perspective. We're not saving the world here. Asgardian (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply stated facts. No need to snipe or be uncivil. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too detailed FCB?

In the last 6 days, I've cut the FCB down from 1900 words to 750, but the excessive plot tag keeps getting put back. If something is still too bulky, could someone mention it specifically so I can work on it? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Argento Surfer[reply]

Merger proposal

A large portion of the information in the Magus article is already present on the Adam Warlock page, and the rest should be condensed into a few paragraphs and added. The two are the same character and the Magus article is mostly just a more detailed plot summary of info already covered on the Warlock page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to a merge. Yes, some of the content is dupicated, but the two are distinct enough to warrent separate articles. The Magus was a separate entity in Infinity War and his appearance in Captain Marvel vol 4 had nothing to do with Warlock, and doesn't belong in this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So make a "Magus" section in the other versions section of the page. The point is that there are only about two small paragraphs worth of material on the Magus page that aren't present here already. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings about it. If you perform the merger, I won't reverse it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done After cleaning up the Magus page, I agreed. I've done the merge. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing the same for the Goddess page - didn't realize that version had an article here, too. The character came about in the same manner as the Magus did, and is another alternate version of Adam Warlock within the comics. The Goddess article here is nothing but a far too in-depth plot summary, that can be significantly trimmed and merged into the "Other versions" section of this article as the Magus article was. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about merging her to List of Marvel Comics characters: G instead? The Magus is *actually* Adam Warlock (except for the Infinity War version...), but the Goddess is actually a different entity. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She's split from his psyche in the same manner Magus was, so while technically she's a separate entity she's just another reflection/version of him, spun out of the same being/character. I guess you could merge it to the G list but it makes more sense to merge it here. Just my two cents. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done After giving it some thought, you're right. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on this matter is that this is a big mistake. Official Handbook Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition #8 (July 1986) lists Magus as his own character as does the October 1993 issue of the Official Handbook Marvel Universe Master Edition and Marvel's own website has a separate listing for Magus. The different incarnations of Magus are potential future and alternate versions of Adam Warlock, the first two are clearly divergent from Adam Warlock. Only the third is part of Adam Warlock's history. Adam Warlocks listing should list the connection to Magus and Magus' listing should do the same. The information does not need to be repeated, a brief explanation with a link to each other's listings, like most listings of this sort, is useful. But Magus is a major Marvel Villain, Adam Warlock and Magus should have their own listings as Marvel themselves list them differently, and anyone looking for information about Magus in specific shouldn't have to sift through everything that is written about Adam Warlock to find out what is specific to Magus, which is why I was led to this page which unfortunately is too cluttered with information to be useful or specific to what I'd like to know about Magus. beanlynch —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First appearance conflict

I don't know what "OSPG" is, but I own FF 66, 67, and Thor 165. Him appears fully revealed with a very significant role in the issue. It is certainly more than a cameo. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up again. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#First Appearance vs Cameo. Argento Surfer (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partnerships ordeal

Hello. Just wanted to point out that it was me doing those edits on mobile in which I changed the partnerships. The reason being is that 1) Kismet has met Adam once in canon. And he didn't accept her in the story. It was in one of Quasar's books. Can't remember the issue atm. But perhaps the most important is that 2)He was actually in partnership with both Gamora and Pip the Troll. This date even BEFORE and AFTER the Infinity Watch. It wasn't up until 2006-07 with Annihlation & Annihilation Conquest that they've split into the Guardians of the Galaxy but hey, even Pip the Troll and Adam recently reunited in Infinity Finale. They weren't just teammates (Although they were), hence why I decided to add them both. Considering how they were part of his supporting cast in his own series or in others like Stranger Tales, it seem out of place and inaccurate to not cite that.JayAaerow (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a picture of Adam Warlock"?

And it's Neptune? That can't be right. I don't know enough about this character, so I'll let someone with more knowledge determine if this is correct. Dogman15 (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Warlock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Warlock&oldid=1197978926"