Talk:Ultron

Um, what about the planet Ultron?

See Ultron (disambiguation). You can create an article on it, if you wish.

Runaways

I'm wondering which incarnation the Ultron in Runaways would be.

Ultron's current status

So, aside from the "Ultimate Ultron" storylines, what is the latest news on Ultron? What iteration (in current continuity) is Ultron currently at?

Currently (as of March 7th, 2006), Ultron exists as a female, 'born' out of Tony Stark at the end of Mighty Avengers #1. --Dr Archeville 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was this close to writing "besides the fact that it is being drawn by Frank Cho" right after the "female for unknown reasons" part.

Oedipus complex

This article doesn't really deal with Ultron's motivations; from his earliest origins he hated Hank as his father and reached out to Jan as a mother/lover, or at least with some indications of desire. I'll check my sources, but this mental conflict seems a significant motivating factor in Ultron's behavior.--Erikacornia 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it's correct. it's so called Oedipus Complex... (it's not casual that the mate was named 'jocasta').. --88.149.170.148 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Links with Vision

"Having created the Vision, he sees the android as his 'son', thus meaning that he feels a certain connection to Wonder Man- whose brain patterns were used to create the Vision-, the Grim Reaper- Wonder Man's brother (And also the first human connection Ultron ever made after his 'father'- and the Scarlet Witch - the Vision's wife - due to their own links to the Vision)."

Is just me, or is that totally incomprehensible? Jariola 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the characters family tree?

This I'm asking about for all the characters, especially in the maximoff/wagner/darkholme family tree, or why completed family trees don't exist (victor mancha being Wiccan and Speeds Uncle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.15.169 (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Avengersv3n20.jpg

Image:Avengersv3n20.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 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) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Reworking article at present as several appearances are missing and many statements have no sources. As for Alternate versions, just the gist, without unnecessary detail and sources in text which flips the universe tense. Asgardian (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't think anyone will have issue with the additions to the FCB as I add exact chronology, dates and references. By doing this with notes on the no. of the Ultron upgrade, there is no need for the not-so-well written Incarnations sections. We will talk about what is still out with one of the bottom sections, but not today. No need for that straight off the bat.

Asgardian (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The FCB is done. That's how it should look - tight, succinct plots with accurate sources and correct tenses and no flipping in and out of universe. The Phalanx image was a casualty as it really offered nothing new: that's just a pose shot of Ultron, and not too dissimilar to the main image in the SHB. The image to add if anything is the shot from the Iron Man cover, which I will try to find as it shows a different version of Ultron. The Phalanx info was also trimmed to what is necessary. There's no need for unnecessary plot extrapolation (clumsy, usually with POV and also a spoiler) when the gist, offering a teaser, is sufficient. As to in and out of universe, references get bracketed and stay out of the FCB information, and creator comment is for the PH, in this case on the article page for Annihilation Conquest.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Female Ultron

The 2007 date of the Mighty Avengers storyline that depicted the Ultron that morphed out of Iron Man and resembled Janet Pym was removed, with the Edit Summary "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH." Where, when and by whom was it decided that dates can only be in Publication History sections? Is this is a WP guideline, policy, part of the MOS, or a consensus ruling? Can someone provide a link to the derivation of this? After I left a message regarding this question on the Talk Page of Asgardian, who made that edit, he edited the passage slightly, referring to it as a "Clarification as per request", but did not restore the date, nor answer my question about this rule about dates and PH's, so I'm not sure if this is a reference to the message I left. Can someone fill me in? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited the passage as per the request re: the background on Ultron's invasion of IM's armour. As to the date, it goes the source in the reference parentheses. Otherwise, we are flipping both in and out of universe in the same paragraph. Dates are suitable (and essential) for the PH, but not for the FCB, as that should be a piece of prose that relays the in-universe events. Hope that helps.

Asgardian (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates are perfectly suitable for Fictional Character Biographies, since they cannot be completely divorced from the publications that depicted them. A brief mention in the beginning of the paragraph gives historical/contextual clarity to it, telling the reader when it occurred, and does not constitute any "flipping". Don't you think it's confusing to the reader without it? Even an in-universe reference like "Following the events of the Civil War..." Would that be more acceptable to you? Nightscream (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't respond to my last post above, or on your Talk Page, I thought perhaps you'd be satisfied with the compromise. But if you have a problem with it, then we should continue discussing it. You stated in your Edit Summary, "Added a "then" which was all that was needed. No Marvel titles in FCB." First of all, there is no policy or guideline that I know of that prohibits titles in FCB, nor have you cited any. It is not appropriate for one user, without discussion, to make such declarations by fiat. In fact, Wikipedia policy strictly frowns on writing articles on serial fiction from an in-universe perspective, and specifically points to such articles as Captain Marvel (DC Comics) as an example of how to properly write an article on a comic book character the Example Articles section of that page. If you look at that article, it treats major events in the character's history in the context of Publication History, and does not give it a separate FCB. Lastly, I would point out that even if you reject this, the Civil War is an actual event that has been referred to as such within the stories, and is therefore not just a title. If you look closely at my edit, in fact, you'll see that I did not italicize that name, for that very reason (though I did accidentally quote it). If you want to discuss it further, that's fine, but refusing to do so, and continuing to revert it, using your own made-up rules, rather than citing policy, is not the way to resolve an edit dispute. If the information I've cited here does not convince you, please let's continue to discuss it here. Nightscream (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Animated film

Regarding this edit, Asgardian, who deleted it, claims that it is "fancruft". Fancruft refers to material of importance only to fans of the subject. It carries the implication that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism, may be therefore regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. It is often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research.

In my opinion, it is reasonable for a section like this to contain a small amount of information pertaining to the plot synopsis. I do not think it is important only to fans, any more than any other material in the article, and I myself am not a fan, as I have not seen the film. It is not poorly written, nor does it exhibit any of the other aforementioned qualities.

I would like to discuss this with others here, to see what the consensus is. Nightscream (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit about Ultron having been created by Stark in that movie would be worth noting, but not so sure about the rest. Dr Archeville (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the first sentence was fine. The rest can be learnt from visiting the article on the film, so probably is redundant. Hiding T 21:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've done some clean-up work on the article but it's still pretty poor - far too much plot summary and far too little real world analysis and critique. However at least the article is factually correct in that it doesn't present a distorted and plain wrong introductions to his origins - in that the reader no longer get the impression from this article that the flashback in #58 of the avengers occurred before his first real world appearance in issue 54.

Well Mr. Clean-Up, in the first instance please sign your comments. We also now have to rework many of your "additions" as was the case on Galactus due to poor grammar etc. Not good.

Asgardian (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)