From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


The new series "Ultimates" has fundamentally altered the character of Galactus. If the change remains in place from an editorial standpoint, it may warrant further explanation beyond the 1 sentence currently in place.

We may also want to include the cover for Ultimates #6 at some position in the article, which is only the 2nd or 3rd comic since 2009 (i.e. the same profile used in the main image) to feature Galactus on the cover.Mobb One (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that the one where he's in a gold costume, and he looks like he's breaking out of a glass window? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
That same issue, yes. There's also a variant cover which, IMO, is more representative of the character.Mobb One (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


I just checked out the IGN page concerning Galactus in its listing of Top 100 villains: Really, it's not much to look at. It doesn't do anything to justify Galactus' place other than "I think it's cool". It doesn't count how many stories he appears in, how many later characters were inspired by him, how much worth he is in merchandising, etc. I really don't see why we should mention in the lede that Galactus was ranked 5th on IGN's list. It isn't insightful. The IGN page itself isn't insightful. BaronBifford (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to disagree that it doesn't provide anything useful. Particularly on how the last two paragraphs analyze the character:
"It's this larger than life presence which makes Galactus one of the more important villains ever created, but it's his ties to Earth and its heroes that make him one of the greats. Through the creation of his heralds, destruction of the Skrull Empire and attempts to devour the Earth, this being is one of the greatest threats ever known to our beloved heroes. Most other villains pale in comparison."
"Lastly, though it seems like something small, we can't overlook it. Galactus is one of the few villains on our list to really defy the definition of an evil-doer. He's compelled to destroy worlds because of one simple fact - he's hungry. Can't blame a guy for wanting a little snack… can you?"
If you feel that we don't need a quick a quick note in the lead mentioning his place on a list, then I can't disagree with you there. But rather than get rid of it, why not use some of this other material in a Reception section or something else? (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
But the IGN article, even those last two paragraphs, do not describe the reception of Galactus among writers and readers. "He's big and scary and he hurts people out of need rather than sadism." So what? BaronBifford (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in the lead, but it seems counter-productive to remove a source discussing the real world opinion of the character from an article that's lacking non-primary sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Quality is more important than quantity. BaronBifford (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. If this was a quality article with an abundance of quality sources showing notability, there might be a case for removing this source. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
And removing this worthless sentence improved the quality slightly. What are you asking of me? To rewrite the whole article from scratch in my Sandbox? BaronBifford (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It improved the lead. I wouldn't say removing the only source relating to the character's critical reception improved the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh boy. But thank you for at least acknowledging that this article in its current state is shit. BaronBifford (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, how about the start of a reception section I added? There is a lot more needed, I agree, but you've got to start somewhere. (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should we respect the opinion of one fanboy, just because he is an employee at IGN? The article doesn't even give the writer's name. I could start a blog and make a better list. BaronBifford (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this would fit just fine in a reception section. Bifford, the difference between the IGN article and your theoretical blog is that IGN is a business with editors. It's written for fanboys just like Wizard was back in the day, but that doesn't invalidate it as a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Try to look past the author and instead look at the content of the article. It's rubbish. It just reads "I think Galactus is cool because he's really powerful and also kinda tragic in some ways." He's not exactly assessing the commercial value or influence of the character, is he? BaronBifford (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's not an ideal source, but it's one of three sources that touch on Galactus' popularity with fans (the others are #13 and #14). It's the only source touching on his popularity after 1968. As I said above, I'd be far more willing to remove this ranking if there were additional sources supporting Galactus' popularity in the article. That doesn't require re-writing the article, just some properly phrased Google searches and one or two new paragraphs. I'd do this myself, but my workstation prevents me from viewing "entertainment" websites. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a poor argument. I believe any information included in the article should be of quality, or not included at all. It's not like this article desperately needs an assessment of the popularity of Galactus anyway. BaronBifford (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Then it seems we're at an impasse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Jobsworth, jobsworth, it's more than me job's worth... BaronBifford (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, look, I apologise for my snarkiness. Let's instead both accept that this article is a work-in-progress, and thus nothing in it should be treated as sacred. In fact, leaving voids may prompt other editors to insert information that is actually good. BaronBifford (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the expand tag added is a better prompt than the absence of a section. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and who is going to go about expanding it? You? Why are you looking at me? BaronBifford (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who chooses to? I may get around to this at some point, but it's not high on my priority list. If you don't feel like doing it, then don't. The tag exists to alert editors (and readers who don't yet edit) that specific work needs to be done... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It's never going to get done because 90% of Wikipedians are too lazy to do serious work! BaronBifford (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's possible. I've come across tags that were 8 years old before. Still, I'm an optimist. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Personality of Galactus[edit]

In the lede, it implies that Galactus feeds only on living worlds since he was introduced in the comics in the 60s. In his original appearance, the Watcher explicitly points out that Galactus could feed on non-living worlds too, but Galactus simply doesn't give a shit. This made Galactus a pure villain. It was in later comics that writers turned him into a predator that acts out of necessity, and who somehow serves an overall beneficial role in the Universe (perhaps tapping into our Judeo-Christian intuition that a god ultimately does what is best for all even if he seems cruel to some). BaronBifford (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid point. Could you try to find the scan with the Watcher's quote? David A (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
From Fantastic Four #49 BaronBifford (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. This seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. David A (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead, removing that inaccurate line. I also removed the analysis of the character, which belongs somewhere in the article body and is kind OR anyway. BaronBifford (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am uncertain if rewriting the entire lead is a good idea. It would probably be best if you simply inserted an issue reference to Fantastic Four #49 regarding that he was originally described as capable of feeding on any type of planet. David A (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That should go somewhere in the main body of the article, not the lede. BaronBifford (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the lead as I wrote it agrees completely with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead that you provided is both inaccurate ("colossal humanoid alien"...Galactus is NOT an alien, nor is he humanoid) and summarizes none of the key content from the rest of the article. The controversies/topics of genocide and manifest destiny, etc. are terms that the writers themselves (verbatim) and 3rd party analysis have used for the character. Thus it is not OR.Mobb One (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galactus. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)