Talk:Annihilation (comics)

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Quasar?

Is Quasar really a "fan favorite"? I mean, if that were true he'd still have a series, right? I think he's the favorite of some fans just like every super-hero has some fans. -Kevingarcia 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the line "Based on a recently released image, fan-favorite Quasar will be heavily involved in events.", I don't think its needed, as Quasar (fan favourite or not) has not shown in the prologue or the 1st issues of the Limited Series. - scarlettspiderg

He's on the cover of Annhilation: Nova #3 (And when I say "on the cover", I mean "the cover is a Quasar pin-up" :)) - SoM 17:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but does that mean he's going to be heavily involved in events? or that he's a fan favourite? (although I think he's a great character) Scarlettspiderg 12:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Giffen, unprompted, said Phyla-Vell was "kind of critical to Annihilation" and "Right up there with the miniseries" stars - and she's yet to show up. And it's certainly been said that Quasar's living through this as well, so I wouldn't bet against it being said somewhere that he played a major role. - SoM 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure you guys saw that Quasar made his first appearance at the end of Nova #2...I guess on June 21, it'll be time to see just how big a part he's gonna play - AbeBeer

Shortening

These summaries need some serious shortening. As it stands, individual issues are taking as long to summarize as entire miniseries should. Phil Sandifer 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they could get shortened further, but I've tightened up Silver Surfer and Super Skrull. TheronJ 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened all four, but wouldn't take offense if anyone wants to shorten them still further. TheronJ 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After just reading the article, I feel it has the "just right" amount of content. The character isn't the most well-known or popular character, even within "comic reading" community, but all the more reason to expound on his origin, history, and interaction within the comic universe. I say "Well done." as new Nova fan who needed some background. (Steve Duck 09-16-2007)

Minor Correction

I changed "Goothab Omega" to "Godthab Omega" in Ronan's summary. The lettering in the comics looks like "Goothab" at first glance, but when you look closer, you can see that the third letter is actually a "D".

AbeBeer 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outer space characters?

Umm, since when is the Negative Zone "outer-space"? I mean, they didn't retcon Annihilus' origins did they? WookMuff 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tense in "Annihilation 1" section - stop the madness!

Bloodpack, can we try to get some consensus on the verb tense in the Annihilation 1 section? IMHO, the only thing that should be in the past tense is the flashback after Rider and Quill question the Queen - by the time she explains Annihilus's plan, the plan has already happened, so that part, and that part only, takes place in "the past" from within the story's perspective. IMHO, the text should read:

Annihilation #1 begins 205 days after Annihilation Day. Richard Rider has formed an army, the United Front, to oppose the Annihilation Wave. His land-based army includes Drax the Destroyer, Gamora, Ronan the Accuser and Peter Quill, while his outerspace forces consist primarily of Firelord, Red Shift and Stardust, which were all former Heralds of Galactus.

As Rider's ground troops attempt to retreat under crushing odds, Firelord attacks the enemy command ship, capturing their Queen and causing the enemy forces to collapse in confusion, at the possible cost of his own life. After inspecting Firelord's comatose body, Rider and Quill question the Queen, who reveals that the entire battle was only a diversion. While Nova's forces fought the Annihilation Wave, Thanos, Tenebrous and Aegis attacked Galactus and the Silver Surfer, defeating them both. Believing the Power Cosmic to be within his grasp, Annihilus orders his troops to kill the remaining former Heralds of Galactus.

Thoughts? TheronJ 13:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(the only thing that should be in the past tense is the flashback after Rider and Quill question the Queen - by the time she explains Annihilus's plan, the plan has already happened, so that part, and that part only, takes place in "the past" from within the story's perspective)

ok i understand now, but that would make all the lead-in synopsis above as the "past" and needs to be converted in past tense while the present annihilation arc were talking about should be in present /ongoing events/ tense? and heres my own version of the article:

As Rider's ground troops attempt to retreat under crushing odds, Firelord attacks the enemy command ship, capturing their Queen and causing the enemy forces to collapse in confusion, at the possible cost of his own life. After inspecting Firelord's comatose body, Rider and Quill question the Queen, who reveals that the entire battle was only a diversion. While Nova's forces fought the Annihilation Wave, Thanos, Tenebrous and Aegis had already attacked Galactus and the Silver Surfer, and defeating them both. Believing the Power Cosmic to be within his grasp, Annihilus orders his troops to kill the remaining former Heralds of Galactus. †Bloodpack† ^argh! 08:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out

When you folken get to the page, please comment one way or the other, about the (mostly cosmetic) changes made by me to the page.

1. Individual Issues of "Annihilation" were re-formatted to be easier to find/read by potential viewers (Namely, by boldfacing the individual Issues).

2. All spelling errors that I could find were corrected (I don't yet know how to activate Wiki's version of Spellcheck, if ti has any).

3. Looking at the previous discussion notes, I located any verb tense "errors" that I could locate and corrected them to the present tense: I, too agree with those who believe that the entirety of the article should be written in present tense.

4. Added my own complete summary for Issue #5 (shorten it as well as you can, if you feel the need to).

Don't mind constructive criticism...one way or the other.

Thanos777 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - thanks for your contributions thanos777, the article really improved a lot. i would love to help out manually, but im kinda busy at the moment. ill just provide you some helpful tips regarding the article.

please check for redundant linkages, if a particular link is already given above the article or at the beginning, please remove the same link below
if youll check the Civil War (comics) article, youll notice that the synopsis for the 7-issue miniseries does not begin with "issue 1..., issue 2...". it would be clean to read if all of the summaries is compiled into paragraph narrative forms rather than indicating what issue the event happened.
common english words need not be linked
IMHO, TPBs shouldnt be included in an article as wikipedia isnt a bookshop that has a checklist

well, i guess thats just about it and again, i appreciate your boldness, happy new year! †Bloodpack† 02:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in order to "Bloodpack's" points:

I'll check for, and remove, those "redundant linakges" you talked about, and clean them up from throughout the article; in my own articles, I too dislike making too many of them (unless the article in question is reaaalllllly long.
I'll go the middle ground with you; I'll rewrite the opening paragraphs of each Issue summary so that any future reader of this Article can still see which Issue the paragraph in question refers to, rather than the "Issue" phraseology that I used previously. Personally, I feel that each separate 'chapter' of the comic should be delineated (even though I don't do the same thing on Books that I write articles on).
Still kinda torn on the "need not be linked" thing. By that, do you mean when I 'create' words like "super-charged" or "post-dated??" Or in this particular case, "Galactus-Bomb??" Please respond and tell me what you mean (and know in advance that I think if for no other reason than style, such words should make their occasional appearance here and there, especially when used coloquially to define something else not named).
What's a "TPB??" is it a "Trade Paper Back??" If so, why shouldn't they be listed, exactly; moreover, what specifically are you referring to in this case??

See you soon!!

Thanos777 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a list of casualties from all the minis (except the DRAX mini, which occured before the war began), hope no one minds. I intend to scour the books very soon to add some more specifics. --SLWalsh 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article could really use some cleaning up. I made a bunch of minor fixes but it still needs work. Also, at one point near the end it mentions Ravenous having "sued" for peace. I'm not too familiar w/ this story but how exactly does one "sue" for peace?? --Jaardon 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid turn of phrase (although I can't remember if it's the exact wording used in the comic) - see the Suing for peace article. --Mrph 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Changes

Alrightee then...made some changes to the artice per the suggestions of others in this Talk Page.

Feel free to comment as you see fit; also, feel free to shorten the summaries of the individual 'chapters' of this miniseries as you see fit (but please keep in as much relevant information as possible).

Thanos777 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the dust is settling...

...and #6 is out, it might be time to remove the 'future comics' warning on the article (unless it would be better to wait until after the 'Heralds of Galactus' miniseries?) and maybe review what additional changes, if any, still need to be made to the article? I'm wondering if it might be worth putting this forward for the WP:CPR peer review and/or article assessment process - opinions? --Mrph 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal - merge 'United Front (comics)' into this article

As the United Front was disbanded before the end of the series, I'm not sure it actually warrants an article of its own. --Mrph 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Merge --Mrph 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Stephen Day 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As it turned out, the United Front was quite short-lived... and appears to leave no lasting contribution to the Marvel Universe beyond the general changes of Annihilation. There's not really enough information to justify an article, from my point of view. --Mrph 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aye, but instead of merging the content of the united front article, why not just redirect it? because this article itself is becoming too long if we are to incorporate its content †Bloodpack† 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree about the length of this article and the need to reduce it - I should have made this clearer in the proposal. Merging and then removing duplicated information should bring the imported text to a manageable size, though - United Front's not a large article anyway. --Mrph 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United Front was a sub-plot that didn't even exist all the way through Anninilation itself. Stephen Day 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

Discussion closed with a decision to MERGE --Mrph 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels and spin-offs

I've added a (condensed) version of this information back into the article, as I don't think this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue any more.

One of the collections has already been published and the others are solicited on Marvel's website and in print publications
Although Annihilation Conquest hasn't been published, it has been announced - whether or not it ever makes it to print, that's notable. Having said that, I'd be in favour of keeping this section brief as it already has its own article.
On a similar note, I think adding a mention of the second Super-Skrull limited series - initially announced, but then cancelled before publication - might also be appropriate. Marvel may have changed their plans, but the announcement was made.

Sound reasonable? --Mrph 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just one note, can you please "cite" where all of these collections are announced? †Bloodpack† 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have the ISBN for a book, do we also need a source to cite when stating that it exists? I can dig out the Previews or Marvel.com references if need be, but that doesn't seem to be the general policy, although I could be wrong - after all, we don't cite sources when stating that a particular issue of a comic exists, we just mention it as Daredevil #123 or whatever, don't we? (Wikipedia:ISBN mentions that hoax ISBNs have been abused in the past, but doesn't seem to have a definite answer). Thanks! --Mrph 23:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, as i understand, wikipedia is not a primary source. Using words like "Marvel announced" or "its been announced" deems a citation as to where exactly it was announced. Wont hurt if we cite these statements. I, for one, do not technically understand ISBN stuff. When i clicked this link, i takes me to the ISBN article. I looked for the Annihilation book in it, but all i see is the ISBN policy and stuff. My only point is, for a person like me who does not technically understand ISBNs, I tend to seek for a direct source/reference or footnotes attached in statements like "Marvel announced" or "its been announced". No problem with me, i just want to look for additional reading. Btw, are all these books collected already published? †Bloodpack† 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two hardbacks are out, as is the first issue of the new Nova ongoing series. Annihilation:Conquest is still a little way off, though, and the third hardback isn't due for another couple of months. --Mrph 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: scratch that, im dropping my argument, happy wikiying =) †Bloodpack† 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenous?

Went ahead and deleted mention of Ronan killing Ravenous. Considering the number of mentions of what Ravenous does at the conclusion to Annihilation, didn't seem to make sense. However I haven't read any of the comics, so if there's some whacky series of Ravenous clones and one was killed by Ronan while another took leadership of Annihilus' forces, lemme know.

Fair use rationale for Image:CoverANNIHfinalpaint.jpg

Image:CoverANNIHfinalpaint.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) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HeraldsofGalactus.jpg

Image:HeraldsofGalactus.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 ensure 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) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"under-used"

I was just passing through - I don't have a ton of knowledge about the source material - and I noticed "under-used" in the first sentence of the article. Such a term implies editorial judgment - the opinion of whoever wrote that particular piece of the article.

Who said the characters are under-used? Maybe the were used just right or too much in this limited run. Upon what external research is that statement based?

This is by no means a big deal, but I found the sentence jarring. Can it be changed to something a little less suggestive of a personal opinion. Perhaps they are "rarely" used (or some variation of that)?

66.190.204.51 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annihilation (comics). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007102146/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=6479 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=6479

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 00:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Marked it checked. --GrantBnet (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annihilation (comics). 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) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]