Talk:Civil War (comics)

Archives
April 24, 2006 — July 26, 2006 July 26, 2006 — October 15, 2006 October 15, 2006 — February 21, 2007

And so, the clean up begins...

Well, this should be interesting to say the least....Goldenboy|talk|contribs 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the TPB list, external links and the sprawling list of members of each side should get an overhaul/trimming †Bloodpack† 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just making sure of this, i know that every one who had a cameo appearances (ie:someone who you see in 1 panel and that is all) should be cleaned out, but what about beyond that, what is going to constitute being cleaned out, like howard the duck, is he going to be gone, or because he was in that one shot, should he stay in the list?Phoenix741 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill the personnel lists. They are autistic in their detail, and they discuss characters in a very perihperal way, in that characters are only listed by their status at the end of the series. This article is about the entire story. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree remove all the lists. Whatever purpose they have had to provide overview information to those following the series is now over. They are now massive uninformative space hogs in this article. This weekend in New York is the New York Con, and Joe Q and company are starting it off Friday (Feb 23rd) at 5:30 with information about what happens after Civil War looking to the future. Let's follow their lead and bury the past :-) -Markeer 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what about the sprawling list of TPBs? arent they also kinda autistic? its like wikipedia is a bookshop with it, plus the redundant external links †Bloodpack† 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Yeah, I think those need to go. The section's big enough to make splitting it off a question, but an article version of that section just would be deleted. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(In best Picard voice) "Make it so."

Seriously, I've long been against the inclusion of TPB listings in articles, and it's even worse in this case because a full bibliography of the original run comics is just above the TPB list. This is nothing more than collector-cruft. CovenantD 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My other issue with the TPB section is that all of them are scheduled for future publication. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is always possible that Marvel may decide not to print one or more of the planned books. I've removed that section as of [this edit] -Markeer 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

with regard to the external links section, i think most of them already refers to the reference section given which is why its redundant to have the reference section and then duplicating these infos with these external links. also i would like to comment on the linkages of this article, (i.e. mark morales or steven mcniven), when a person's name is already given and linked in the first part of the article/paragraph, i personally believe that it shouldnt be linked again when its mentioned again in the succeeding sentences, because we tend to see repeated red links (especially when theres no available article for it) all over this article. what do you guys think? †Bloodpack† 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions are in line with style guidelines. If a source is used as a reference, it shouldn't also appear as an external link. Wiki-linking should usually only happen the first time a word, phrase or name appears in the text of an article (names in picture captions are usually linked regardless). CovenantD 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me. The whose on which side is incredibly important and a very interesting an informative research. I am infuriated by this decision. There is no other place one can get this sort of information anyway, if there was, and there was a link here to it, that would be satisfactory. But until there is, that information is completely relevant and necessary to the storyline. Madhackrviper 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to get that sort of information about the storyline is to read it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So, every time I need that piece of information I am to 1. Shell out the cash to buy every Civil War related book and 2. Scan through it to find who's on which side? I don't think so, I mean, if this was true, what's the point of even HAVING this article? I could learn the plot by picking up the books. Easy access to useful information, this to me is the point of the Wikipedia. But hey, I'm a hardcore inclusionist fighting against the terrible deletionist majority. I don't quite understand how deleting information and being more concise makes sense in a Wiki... it's electronic, we aren't printing this thing. I will never understand deletionist philosophy. To me this seems like useful information that lies at the very center of the Civil War conflict. Madhackrviper 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The lists should come back. Thanos6 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As the information I wanted was specifically what were the tie-ins involved in the event I'm pretty pissed about needing to root through the history of the article to find a bibliography. I thought encyclopedia articles were supposed to be encyclopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.203.145 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the list's just should come back too. They were very helpful to me. Thelaststand3 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The current up-to-date list of participants can be found here: http://www.marveldatabase.com/Civil_War#Notable_Participants -24.224.227.20 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be good enough. As long as the source is out there. Is that link in the article. Madhackrviper 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that's not the right date, I forgot to sign the first time around.

I find the list of all comics or trade paperbacks involved to be quite helpful because if you are an avid collector like myself I want to be able to track down all the books involved in a given story arc. Marvel or DC are not always the best place to find this stuff and Wikipedia has done great so far by allowing that. I've actually started adding the list of books involved back to the Civil War page because it was such a cosmic event that people will be curious about it for time to come. HEdwards2007 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Earth 616?

This is probably the dumbest question in the world but, please bear with me. Does does this entire conflict take place on Earth 616, the main Marvel continuity? Just curious. Please don't crucify me for not knowing. --- Me 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unlike the House of M, where there is a bit of ambiguity (blame Exiles), the Civil War very definitely happened on 616. 80.176.4.125 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some heros

Where is Ghost rider, deadpool, and Blade in this?--Yowiki 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Rider and Blade are not involved, and Deadpool verges on irrelevant. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is The Fantastic Four, Ms.Marvel, Thor, and Electra?--Yowiki 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the story??

• Fantastic Four splits up then is back together.
• Ms.Marvel becomes a facist.
• Thor is kind of dead, there is a clone.
• Electra is in japan.Phoenix741 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right on Fantastic 4

Ms. Marvel became a soldier and a patiot. Calling her a fascist is like saying police and firemen are fascists.

Thor clone was destroyed by Hercules. Thor himself is back on the scene.

Electra is still dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.132.24 (talk) 06:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Being a soldier and a patriot is two of the main condition for being a facist. Like the german or italian in the 30s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.250.134.242 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because dogs have four legs doesnt mean everything with four legs is a dog. Although fascists are often patriotic soldiers, not all patriotic soldiers are fascists. Also, you really dont need to be a soldier to be a fascist.

You all are confusing. I'm of the opinion the pro-registration 'heros' are fascists. That doesn't mean I think all soldiers are. Lots42 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Punisher's new souvenir

What is the importance of the Punisher picking up Captain America's soiled mask? If you cannot answer without a "maybe", it doesn't belong in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to show what happened to the punisher.Phoenix741 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant to Civil War? CovenantD 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Punisher is there for like two seconds. Nothing he does really affects the plot of the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he save spider-man?Phoenix741 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but his involvement was so small that it could have been anyone without affecting the story much. His killing the villains and bringing Spider-Man is pretty inconsequential. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea well I don't think to writers would put it in there unless they were going to to do something with him. I know that is close to the line of "maybe" but it makes sense.Phoenix741 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the series is over and it never proved significant. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So what if something happens that makes it significant, out of the series, like in the war journal or something? Then would it be added in, cause if that is the case then i will drop the disscussion till that happens.Phoenix741 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If we eventually do a section about the series' lasting effects, then if that becomes important, it will go there. I think that a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of synopses; they are there to give a general explanation of the plot. Character moments, planning scenes, etc, do not belong in these, among other things. Any sort of detail deemed important that does not pertain to the actual plot of the series needs to go in another section for cited analysis. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

okPhoenix741 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

remember waht i said before about something significent happening? wel........ look at this. Even if it is just a costume change I think it is significant.Phoenix741 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but t doesn't actually affect the storyline of this already published comic series. Like I said, if anything, it would go in an "effects" section. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reactions

Is there going to be a section for reactions to Civil War? There's one for House of M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.131.65 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe it may be too early to gauge reactions. While I hated the series, I'm not a qualified source! Once legitimate sources (that can be cited) give their opinions, then the section could be added.

I'm listing below a list of on line comic book critics, please gauge as to whether or not they are legitimate:

http://www.thexaxis.com/misc/civilwar7.htm http://www.popcultureshock.com/index.php?p=41030 http://whedonesque.com/comments/12541#163927 http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/003625615.cfm --Roamingwilderness 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whedonesque is a fansite, so no. I can tell you what Wizard will say: "Yay, Marvel! We love our advertisers! The Wizard Store has lots in stock, and our price guide says these are valuable, so you should buy them!"--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

-Why those sites any more than the likes of IGN are Comixfan which gave it very positive reviews? I mean, of the two non fan sites you listed, both BLASTED it but certainly are no more high profile than IGN, comixtreme or Comixfan! If there are any, they must be well listed.

Okay then list them. Wikipedia is set up so that every one can contribute positive and negative information.

Reasons for Spider-Man swapping sides

The current text reads: "After realizing the fortune Tony Stark is making from the armaments used to capture unregistered superhumans and realizing that unregistered heroes are being denied their rights"

However, this is msot definitely inaccurate. Firstly because he gives neither reason when telling Tony Stark while he's leaving in the main series (He cites the death of Goliath and the idea of keeping people in the Negative Zone) and secondly because it is based off a conversation in an issue of Amazing Spider-Man which has been retconned. The "fortune" Stark was making is contraversial since the entire war profiteer storyline has yet to be resolved, and did little to influence Peter. Also, the heroes are NOT denied their rights- since said conversation was the only source of this and it has been retconned. When I attempted to edit this, it was edited back.

I suggest text more like "After considering the implications of Goliath's death at the hands of the Thor Cyborg and keeping unregistered heroes in the Negative Zone..." since this is definitely true, is the reason he himself gives, and is not shaky in terms of whather or not it still holds after retconning.

What do you mean it has been retconned? It just came out. Peter Parker reacts negatively to Stark's profits, the NZ prison, and the revoking of prisoners' rights ASM 535. Bill Foster is not mentioned. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean it has been retconned. When Spider-Man swaps sides in the MAIN SERIES, he definitely mentions Bill Foster and the NZ Prison. In this self-same issue, it is stated that the Negative Zone Prison is a very temporary measure, backed up by the editors and writer and confirmed in civil war #7. The latter is a direct contrast to Amazing Spider-Man #535, ergo at least some parts of that conversation have been retconned, throwing all of it into doubt. It is a safer option to go with the one given by the main book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.210.73 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Civil War: The Initiative

is this a one-shot or a mini-series? i noticed that this is also included in the civil war tie-in section †Bloodpack† 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a one-shot, and Avengers: The Initiative is a mini, don't quote me on that though.Phoenix741 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

okay, so i guess its also part of the civil war article, right? but what about this upcoming "Initiative" arch and its tie-ins, should it be a separate article from the civil war? (i.e. Avengers Disassembled to Decimation to House of M) †Bloodpack† 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well since it is not part of either Avengers title, i think it should get its own page, cause it is a big deal with that whole 50 state thing going into affect.Phoenix741 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

absolutely, but the problem is, "The Initiative" is just a caption title for the comicbook titles involved, theres no definite comicbook for it †Bloodpack† 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea there is, [1] check April, May and June.Phoenix741 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think The Initiatve should get it's on page. It's going to have such a massive impact on the Marvel Universe which will change it for ever. A superteam in each state? That's pretty amazing. Thelaststand34

It's only amazing if it happens, if it lasts and if it actually plays a major ongoing role in Marvel's comics instead of being discreetly ignored. There are all sorts of amazing features in the MU which don't get mentioned terribly often these days. All we can do is wait 'til it sees print, then judge its importance from there. The current storm of hype makes it relatively notable, as Marvel are putting a lot of effort into it - but whether it succeeds and/or lasts is another matter. --Mrph 21:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A quote we ought to use somewhere...

Writer Mark Millar describing Civil War as "a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag is in chains as the people swap freedom for security"[2]... opinions? It's a nice soundbite (as you'd expect from Millar) and I think it'd be very useful in summarising the author's perception of the crossover. --Mrph 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. A lot more relevant to out-of-universe perspective than the entire rest of the article. In fact, in looking the article over, I see that there is no mention of how it has any real world relevance - a big oversight for something this laden with themes. His work in the industry gives him a perspective that could be considered notable. CovenantD 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Civil War over?

After the issue of Civil War #7, does this mean the civil war has come to an end or can we expect this to continue for a long, long time? - RVDDP2501 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

well the main war itself is over (although there will still be some resistance as per New Avengers #28), but its effects will continue to span through the entire marveldom for the years to come †Bloodpack† 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who and genral recap

Is there an article listing which characters are on what side and that kind of thing? The whole story is so messy, and complicated by the fact that you can't really follow all that's going on unless you get all the crossover comics involved, that such a recap would be welcome... Actually, I think I saw one once, but can't remember it it was in this article or another, related one. so, is there one? --Svartalf 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an unreliable mess, and it's all spoilers, but yes, it's here. Check the history. How is it difficult to keep people clear? I felt McNiven did a good job of representing which characters were on which side. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I miss the two lists of which heroes were on which side, is there a way to get that back? JackalsIII (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication history/Critical reaction

Now that the article has been trimmed, anybody want to put together a Publication history and Critical reaction section(s)? CovenantD 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be up for having a go at that. I know that this won't be an exact match for the WP:CMC/X format, as it's not really a single series, but would we want to put critical reaction under an Impact heading? That way we can put the things using Civil War as a model/springboard - Spider-Man's current woes, the upcoming Initiative crossover and the various new series - under that too. --Mrph 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just putting in something is a good start; the material that comes together will determine the exact wording of the header(s). Thanks. CovenantD 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Civil War

My contribution regarding the similarity between the Superhuman registration act and the cards therein with those of City of Heroes/Villains is valid. Please do not remove it in the future. Warwolf 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis "spoiler" template

correct me if im wrong but since the series is all over, should we remove the "spoiler" template? †Bloodpack† 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

not really, just because it is all out does not mean that everyone has read it.Phoenix741 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i understand, so when do we get to remove it? when i was browsing some films and comicbook related articles i noticed that they still have spoiler templates in them even when theyre 3 already years over (pardon my english) †Bloodpack† 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

well think of it this way, even if it is 10 years old, people still may not of read it, and there fore when they read the article it will be a spoiler to them. I have not read the Maximum Caranage Storyline, so what ever i saw about it on here would be a spoiler.Phoenix741 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

gotcha ;) no wonder its called "spoil"; in foods when its 10 years older its definitely "spoiled" =D †Bloodpack† 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

well yea, but the difference between comics and food is, good food goes bad after 10 years, good comics after 10 years are worth over 200$ 8-P.Phoenix741 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

...and Watchmen (last issue published in Oct 87) still has spoiler warnings in place, for example. Things to consider for this include whether or not the spoiler leads into other things, I'd imagine. Watchmen stands alone - whereas the new status quo at the end of Civil War will be repeatedly mentioned throughout Marvel's books for the next few months (at least) and will be an essential part of the background for some stories. --Mrph 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Variant covers and second printings

...does this really belong under the Bibliography heading with the full list of issues, or should it be covered as part of the History section? Or some mix of the two? --Mrph 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does.Phoenix741 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

well, i think it does since the bibliography section comprises of the books that were published and the related tie-ins. as for the history, i find it odd looking at its content, where its all about the scheduled delays. correct me if im wrong, but isnt that supposed to be "the history" of civil war from its first inception? that should contain production notes from the writers? the "history" title doesnt fit with the corresponding content, should we amend it to the "overview" section? †Bloodpack† 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Civil War: The Initiative

It's a one-shot epilogue bridging the gap between Civil War and the various series spinning out of it. I don't think it deserves an article in its own right. Possibly The Initiative does, as an event, but that's not what this one is (and it's probably too soon to say, anyway...?). --Mrph 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge --Mrph 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Civil War (comic book) basically focuses on the main 7-part marvel's major event with its related tie-ins involving the "war" itself whereas Civil War: The Initiative and its all related tie-ins tackles basically with the war's aftermath, repercussions, effects, etc. If we are to merge Civil War: The Initiative then it should not be here. It should be somewhere else (article) related to the "initiative" not the "civil war" †Bloodpack† 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. - This article is about the entire crossover. This has been the general consensus before. A decision otherwise here means we need to dump a lot of info from this article that seems important. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Pretty much what Bloodpack said. IronMan54 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As above RIANZ 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep what RIANZ said. Phoenix741 03:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• 'Merge The comic is just an uneventful advertisement for other comics. A collection of revelations of things that other books extrapolate on. It's an issue of "Previews" that happens to have a place in the narrative. --24.141.134.4 00:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that the two pages should be merged for now, until it's made clear how big of an event that this is. If it's big enough to continue as its own page, then it should be. For now, there are only a few issues out dealing with the Initiative, so I think it's too early to make a decision. It feels like more of a denouement to CW right now. MikeBC 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge - It's time to merge all of the minor CW limited series articles here. The Initiative section might be split off again later, but for now, it's still part of Civil War, and I don't believe that crossover is officially over. Don't these books still have the CW trade dress? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

are you also saying that the Avengers: The Initiative and Mighty Avengers should also be merged here because they both have something to do with Civil War? †Bloodpack† 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what he is saying is that, anything with the words "Civil War" in the title should be merged, well any one shots at least.Phoenix741 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

and with the word "Initiative" should also be together? Point is, when marvel announced this civil war event, they have also released (May or June) all its related books (through the Daily Bugle July issue) including their scheduled releases (we even have delayed schedules). Civil War: The Initiative is not part of that release. Now, theyre planning this "Initiative" story arc as a post civil war event and the one-shot called Civil War: The Initiative is part of it including the Avengers: Initiative, Mighty Avengers, etc. so theres a difference between the "actual" war and the "post" war arc. just because the book is tagged as "civil war", doesnt mean its also part of the whole civil war bibliography. My argument is based on the Daily Bugle issues they (marvel) have published with the list of books and its scheduled releases †Bloodpack† 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask him, not me.Phoenix741 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

=/ thats why i used a single colon, if i used 4, its directed to you †Bloodpack† 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

o........... my bad.Phoenix741 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In itself, The Initiative one-shot isn't much, and I'd probably vote to merge, or even merge to Avengers: The Initiative, but what about the upcoming Civil War: Fallen Son 4 issue series, or Civil War: The Confession? Are these also to be included in the Civil War article? -- NYArtsnWords 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

like i said, the main "scope" of this main Civil War arc can be found in the checklist of Daily Bugle: Civil War Edition (July 2006 release). It has all the tie-ins and titles related in the Civil War arc. Now, Civil War: The Initiative is not in that list and it was only later released now (February 2007) as part of The Initiative post war arc. If you want to merge this article, fine. But merge it to The Initiative titles (which the checklist can also be found in the Daily Bugle February issue), but not here...This title belongs in the post war arc, not here.

As per the Civil War: Fallen Son 4 issue series and Civil War: The Confession, they all belong in the post war arc, including Civil War: The Initiative. Doesnt mean theyre labeled as "civil war" they already belong here. It should be clear that this article is about the 7-part series with tie-ins related to *duh* 7-part series. I kept on removing synopsis thats not part in the 7 issues including Capt. America's death. (god!). Do you guys intend to branch this arc up to the World War Hulk? (which can also be said related to the civil war when the illuminati exiled him) †Bloodpack† 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Result

Discussion closed, with a decision to Keep No Consensus to merge. --Mrph 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops - sorry about that. With votes so evenly split, I think 'No Consensus' is the more appropriate summary. --Mrph 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I suggest the spoiler tag be extended... There was info, particularly about Captain America, that some people may not be aware of yet. 24.159.210.124 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag extended. 134.29.6.7 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Rider?

I noticed a couple of new Ghost Rider comics have a Civil War banner on the top of the cover, but after reading the comic I have no idea if it actually had anything to do with the Civil War storyline. Is there any good reason for there to be a Civil War logo on there? Did this happen for other Marvel titles too? 24.159.210.124 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he fights Jack O'Lantern, who was killed by the Punisher in CW. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

List of TPB's

It would be really good if someone could put a list together of all the tie-in's like on the page for House of M - a very useful resource. I have got a list of 20 by trawling amazon but not confident it is complete.

I added a list of TPB's that have been announced by Marvel so far. Cross-checking against the tie-ins listed here I believe it to be complete. Now if we can just keep people from deleting it twice a day  ;)

Vandalism

i discovered this text: A new group of New Warriors emerges, however it bears little resemblance to the original group and will likely be another subpar Marvel title released for the sole purpose of flooding the market with unimagitive storylines so they can take more money from gullible comic book fans who enjoy having their intelligence insulted. (Weaponbb7 01:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I've found that this entry, for some reason it doesn't display when I try and edit it, it reverts to the older one when I try and change it. After the publication of Civil War #7, Mark Millar was interviewed by Newsarama and described the event as "a story where I took a giant piss over everything that the superheroes in the Marvel universe have ever stood for." ",[15] agreeing that a "certain amount of political allegory"[15] was present but that the real focus of the book was on superheroes fighting each other. Contrasting it with The Ultimates, Millar stated that Civil War was "accidentally political because I just cannot help myself".208.248.33.30 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's been removed a couple of times now. Hopefully it won't be changed back again. --Mrph 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

dang, i thought that word "piss" is part of millar's statement thats why i didnt remove it †Bloodpack† 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you got rid of the vandalism and it is all good. right?Phoenix741 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

SHRA status of major characters

didn't we agree to get rid of this?Phoenix741 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

yup, should we remove it again? †Bloodpack† 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed, too.--Galliaz 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And if not removed, it should at least be done accurately. This one is WILDLY inaccurate- for one thing the number of remaining non-registered characters is miniscule.

I don't see why it should be removed, since it bears relevance on the article. As for its accuracy, I based in on the information from Civil War and Civil War Battle Damage Report. If there are characters who were non-registered by then changed their minds after the miniseries, then feel free to update the article by listing them in the Converted Rebels section, with a notation that they registered after the miniseries. :-) Nightscream 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

a concensus has been reached ---> [3] †Bloodpack† 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. Which section on that page is it? Thanks. Nightscream 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider it strange that the site has this information, but doesn't have the list of Involved And Listed comics. 24.141.134.4

Event vs. limited series

If the consensus is that this article is about the limited series, not the entire event, shouldn't the intro paragraph be amended? From "Civil War is a Marvel Comics summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 crossover event, based around a core limited series of the same name" to "Civil War is a Marvel Comics limited series, published as the core of of a summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 crossover event of the same name" or something similar? --Mrph 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Civil War is a Marvel Comics summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 crossover event based around a core limited series (7 issues) of the same name"

errr...i think the initial sentence is just fine (for me at least). It means that this 7-part core/main limited series is Marvel's summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 event along with tie-ins supporting the main 7-issue arc. †Bloodpack† 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

I've removed the following recent addition:

"Though a success financially for Marvel, Civil War generally received overwhelmingly negative reaction from top to bottom. The book was criticized from top to bottom, from the senseless deaths of the New Warriors, to the outright villainous transformations of Mr. Fantastic and Iron Man, the countless delays in publication of the main mini-series (leading in turn to several of the main tie-in books, most notably "Amazing Spider-Man", "Punisher War Journal", and "Fantastic Four" being delayed due in order to prevent the tie-ins from spoiling the main book), ignorance of past continuity (most notably Mr. Fantastic supporting super-hero registration, which directly contradicted a previous storyline in Fantastic Four, where Reed Richards outright states his disdain for the concept of forced registration, citing the fact that it was both impossible to carry out and to impliment), to the fact that Millar's main script for the storyline featured numerous plotholes and omitted scenes (most notably, the series turning scene where Spider-Man decides to betray Iron Man) from the main mini-series that made reading the storyline outright impossible without having to read the tie-in stories."

The paragraph is unsourced (for example, providing no citations to the "overwhelmingly negative reaction"), is subjective, and contains statements of personal opinion pretending to be substantiatable facts. (For example, "ignorance of past continuity" and "plotholes".)--Galliaz 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to go about providing links to the vast litany of discussion pointing out the discussion the various plotholes, Millar ignoring established continuity with the various main characters, and such? BakerBaker

Millar the bold face liar

Millar's already in ass-covering mode regarding Civil War and his comments should be ammended with the truth, IE not only did he write Stark in a manner that was universally considered villainous to everyone reading the book but that also that Millar wrote the Civil War with so many plot holes that writers like JMS had to use their tie-in issues to fill in major holes in the narrative, making Millar's excuse redundant since he wasn't doing his job as writer and had to have others do his work for him.

1) Post new comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. 2) Sign your comments. 3) No personal attacks. 4) The talk page is for discussing the article and how to improve it: it is not a bulletin board for posting your opinions about the subject of the article. Your post is almost vandalism. Richard75 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the entire section of "Millar's comments". The quotes from the overview section serve the purpose better than those inflamitory comemnts Millar gave (which have already been denounced by many on the internet as being Millar shilling his own hype) from that section......... BakerBaker

Yeah, but what you wrote is totally POV. I mean, considering I know at least one fan who was on the Tony Stark side of the issue the whole way through the series (me), I'd say "universally considered villainous" is a very POV statement.HXcGeek 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like most (though not all) people who read the whole series do find it difficult to believe that Millar thought he was giving the pro-reg side a "better rep." I think this is relevant information and should be included, if an NPOV source can be found. Do any surveys of fan reactions to comics actually exist?Jefepato 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis Cleanup

The Synopsis section needs cleaning up. It's really long and wordy and disorganized and is just a retelling of it all, and is not encyclopedic. I'm putting on a cleanup tag. --zandperl 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is *after* I spent a half hour reading the section and fixing a billion copyedits. Many more still need to be done. --

zandperl 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole dang Synopsis section should be wiped clean and rewritten, if that made sense. The synopsis as it is, is uneditable in my opinion.

Lots42 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the synopsis down by cutting out info from the ancillary titles: this follows the example the entry for DC's Infinite Crisis.--Galliaz 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The synopsis is ridiculous! I clearly reiterated previously that the contents in the synopsis basically should focus on the events that happened within the 7-part series. People are including events that didnt happen in the 7-issues, incorporating synopsis summaries that happened in the tie-ins. Keep in mind that this 7 issues is the main Civil War story arc. These tie-ins are just supporting events to the main story arc †Bloodpack† 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hulk

Where the hell was the Hulk during this mess? --User:Atomic Religione

He was in space. Little thing called Planet Hulk.

Ahhh I see, even if he was there doubt he'd side with anybody and just beat everybody up. --User;Atomic Religione

Civil War tie-ins list

There seems to be quite a number of duplicate entries scattered around, for example, Civil War Files, which appears in #3 and #5. Does anyone have a more up-to-date list so that list can be arranged better? Marvel did a checklist by month, before they gave up on it due to being late with books, although they've released a trade paperback checklist, which doesn't really help with individual issues... Sera404 13:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Stamford, Connecticut

Should we add something about the Civil War on that page seeing how important it is, like add in to the triva section or something?Phoenix741 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

what are we going to add? †Bloodpack† 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just like "Stamford was also used in the fictional marvel universe as the start of the civil war, during which the super vilian nitro belw it up" or something like that.Phoenix741 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

err...well in that case, it should go to the stamford article †Bloodpack† 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was asking? If it would be ok to do that.Phoenix741 22:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i think its ok, feel free to add a trivia section to the stamford article, lets just hope editors there wont bombard you with so many blah blahs †Bloodp</shpan>ack† 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like some one already beat me to the punch, o well.Phoenix741 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Collections List is ugly

The collections list looks stupid, there is far too much information there and it's listed with the author first. I know for normal novels author comes first but this is a comic book series, it would be much more aesthetic to have the title of the book listed first. Also there seems to be so much information there, if it is all necessary wouldn't a grid make it easier on the eye so that all the information is broken up nicely. Tony2Times 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

In late November, Marvel announced another delay:Civil War' Yanni Papas' #6, originally scheduled for release in December 20, was pushed back two weeks and released in January 4. Unlike the previous instance, only The Punisher War Journal #2 was delayed.

If someone could edit that because, as far as I know, there is no Yanni Papas book. And yes, I've read the "Be Bold," but I haven't familiarized myself with everything yet, so I'd rather not edit it myself. 134.68.175.249 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited Information

"The end of Civil War had a polarizing effect on Marvel's readers with the majority expressing severe displeasure with the rather anti-climactic way it was presented."

This is followed by a citation link that actualy goes to site where information on the Tom Suprgon quote is from. Since this seems to be highly speculatory and contains Weasel Words, I'm going to excise it till we can find the source.MaxusDarte 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This information was added back in, with the same citation that contains NO evidance that the majority of marvel fans were upset with an anti-climatic ending. The source itself is somewhat questionable since besides having no relevant information, the PDF used for the quote above it actualy is made up of a few repeated paragraphs. MaxusDarte 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

POV and Deaths

Although the series can be read as allegorical commentary in the wake of 9/11 and The Patriot Act,

Point of View text that should be deleted, yes or no?

And why does Spurgeon get his own section to criticize the story?

Wasn't there something about a lot of civillains dying in Civil War #7? If so, can someone detail it? Lots42 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Order of Civil War + tie-ins

As I've been reading Civil War and the tie-in comics I've been taking notes of events and placing the comic issues in a timeline. I've been searching everywhere for read orders and only found half complete read orders, guesses, and conflicting Marvel checklists... Would it be worth while for me to add a section for a read order followed by a section of small summaries (under a spoiler label) to explain the reasoning for the ordering?

Derekofminnesota 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)DerekOfMinnesota

I dunno,but placing your own read order would violate NOT a guide rule and your original research. †Bloodpack† 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that makes sense. I'm new to adding to wikipedia and didn't know there was a guide page. From what I've read, making a time line would make more sense and would follow wikipedia's rules, but the Marvel Civil War's tie-ins have some discrepancies that I've noticed and would make creating a time line a lengthly, difficult, and probably disputed amount of work. Derekofminnesota 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CIVILWAR-07.jpg

Image:CIVILWAR-07.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 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Civil War: Graphic Novels

This is a simple one, I've been away from comics for about ten years which i can handle but I want to get into the Civil War era and subsequent stories. So I would really appreciate a list of the graphic novels in 'Read first to last' order. Maybe also including some of the stories that were happening on the periphery...Snowboy 1976 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the "Road to Civil War". Then the core series "Civil War" then you can read all of the other series in any order you want.(i recommend "Civil War: Spider-Man" great writing by JMS). Also, this is not a forum, the Marvel.com site has plenty of forums for this kind of thing. Rau's talk 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man/Tony Stark

Introducing the character as Iron Man and then suddenly switching to referring to him as Stark without explanation the hero:secret identity relationship there makes this article rather confusing. As I'm not a comic book fan I'll leave it someone else to figure out how to fix this. :) --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain America and a Sniper

Now unless there was some sort of retcon I missed, poor ol' Captain America was -not- killed by a sniper. Lots42 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The initial attack was a sniper, which led to his death at Sharon's hands. Rau's Speak Page 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Lots42 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The version in the article is right, but it is misleading. I'll rewrite it. Rau's Speak Page 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Check List

Do we need a checklist? It seems like something that belongs on Marvel.com, not on Wikipedia? I'm removing it, if you object, revert and bring it up here. Rau's Speak Page 01:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed "Collections" and "Involved but not listed". Again, if you have problems, revert and bring them up here. Rau's Speak Page 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I, for one, find such checklists highly useful as a reference, and don't really see any logic behind your removal of this one. I'd like to see the checklist added back - rst20xx (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Though I would agree that it needs a tidy-up, and should be presented more like this - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. Like I said in my first post, this seems like something that belongs on Marvel.com, or perhaps a fanwiki. Rau's Speak Page 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is designed to stop people from adding giant lists of facts which whilst being true are otherwise useless. I would call this list highly useful, and I don't see why you think it should be "relegated" to somewhere else - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial. Devoting that much space just to say that book was involved doesn't make sense to me. And if there is an official checklist, we can have an external link to it. Rau's Speak Page 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that really what you think should happen? Then why when you first deleted the list did you not replace it with such a link? rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I did not know there was an official check list, but your section title leads me to believe that there is. Otherwise it could not be official. Rau's Speak Page 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

.....Okay, I propose this compromise: If you can find sources for the 3 lists (I *think* there is an official checklist, but you might need separate sources for "Involved but not listed" and for the paperbacks), then I won't object to you swapping the lists out for the sources. But if you can't find lists for any of them, I'd like them left in the article. And also let me point out that Avengers Disassembled, House of M, Secret Invasion, Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, Crisis on Infinite Earths and Final Crisis all contain similar lists, so it seems to me to be more standard practice to INCLUDE such lists - rst20xx (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Civil War (comics)"

Because "Civil War" refers not only to the title of the comic book, but also the events it contains (i.e. in-continuity, characters refer to the events of Civil War as the "Super-Hero Civil War" or simply the "Civil War"), the page should be moved "Civil War (comics)".--Darknus823 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the book, not the event. Rau's Speak Page 05:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds like you are talking about two different topics: 1) a comic book title; 2) an event occurring in comic books (not necessarily "Civil War" comics (see sense #1)). I would oppose any move under those circumstances. Instead, these should be separate articles. The "Civil War" comic book (see sense #1) should be at Civil War (comic book), and the event (see sense #2) should be at Civil War (comics). This is consistent with naming conventions, which name characters and events "XXX (comics)" and reserve "XXX (comic book)" for comic book titles. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Comics Project Naming Conventions are pretty clear on this. The disambiguation used is a classification not a description, and the first level of disambiguation for comics is "(comics)" - so this should be at Civil War (comics), although not for the reasons given in the first post (which is also taking a descriptive approach to the issue). If there is only one Civil War in comics then it has to be at "Civil War (comics)", if for example Marvel and DC each had something called Civil War then we'd call them "Civil War (Marvel Comics)" and "Civil War (DC Comics)". Only if there were a lot of Civil Wars would we need "Civil War (comic book)" to try and differentiate between them and I can only think of one case where this applies: Trinity (DC Comics).

On the other point this doesn't need separate articles for comic and the event - there are a lot of such "events" (crossover story arcs) with a core, main, eponymous title and in every case I can think of works just fine with the title/event in one article. (Emperor (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

• After taking a fresh look at this, I see that there is no actual Civil War comic book (at least not mentioned here) and that this whole discussion is not at all about a comic book titled Civil War, but only about a crossover event between characters from various other titles. For that reason, I agree that this article should be at Civil war (comics) and there does not appear to be any need for a Civil War (comic book) article. If there were such a comic book title (presumably that would be a comic book set in the American Civil War), then I would still say there should be two separate articles, but that is not the case here. It seems we agree, but perhaps for different reasons. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's about the comic book. That is blatantly obvious with sections like "Behind the Scenes", "Delays", "Reactions", "Publication History". How anyone can say it isn't about the comic book is beyond me. And Emperor provided good rational, so if no one objects... Rau's Speak Page 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be at "Civil War (comics)" too, as I think this is about the Civil War crossover, of which the Civil War comic book is only the central element - rst20xx (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

...and I make that 4 votes to 1 - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I moved it back. WP:NCC clearly states "In general, when naming an article, use the name itself, without further disambiguation (e.g. Jack Kirby) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Ralph Macchio (comics))." It only suggests using "(comic book)" when "...disambiguating between a proper name (a character name, a group name, a location, etc.), and another related eponymous work" - rst20xx (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Marvel Comics Civil War is the best option, because there have been civil wars in oomics, the American Civil War is the basis of some comics. Calling it "Civil War (generic identifier)" is a bad idea. 70.51.11.220 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly consistent with WP:D and WP:NCC (which is used on hundreds of other comics articles), while that suggestion isn't - the title is Civil War and as there are other the first level of disambiguation is "(comics)." (Emperor (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC))
    • How about Civil War (Marvel comics)? When I first saw the link (I'm not familiar with the story arc), I was a bit confused, as I didn't realize that "Civil War" in comics in general was a topic worthy of of its own article. SharkD (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. 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) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. The out-of-universe material looks pretty good (although it could be firmed up I'm sure - there are a tonne of external links and they must be useful for this) but the actual plot is devoid of even primary sources so it isn't clear what happened when or where. So the article needs some work before making a B. (Emperor (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Plot Summary piecemeal clean-up

The plot summary seems to have been written as issues came out, without being devided to designate them. That beign the case, there are many uses of terms like "Most recently" "currently" "As x does x" that imply an unknown conclusion that is later shown to be known. I'd prefer if someone more familiar with the story modified these things 206.126.163.20 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried. Multiple times. But fanboy's like to revert to the current version. *SIGN* 03:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're on the topic, I reverted the curious assertation that several surviving New Warriors were -lynched-. Odd. Perhaps this article is purposely being vandalized? Lots42 (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I removed a LOT of original research and uneeded extra bits. I also compressed a lot more. We'll see if it stays. Lots42 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone clean up the grammar in this article please? It jumps from present tense to past tense to future tense, sometimes in the same sentence. Its painful to read.