Talk:Hydra (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:HYDRA)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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 the Marvel Comics work group.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

DC Universe Hydra[edit]

In Batman#167, November 1964, the Earth-1 Batman and Robin faced a crime cartel called Hydra. This story, "Zero Hour For Earth" was reprinted in Showcase Presents Batman. The Earth-1 Batman opposed them in Holland, Greece, Switzerland and Singapore with CIA help. (Yes, the CIA was referred to by name.) They used the tip-off from Batman #62 about an apparently big man only wearing a disguise because a chair can support his weight. -- 23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)~Enda80

... HalfShadow 21:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes;it's the group now known as Leviathan in Batman Incorporeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob: Agent of HYDRA[edit]

In issue #38 of Cable and Deadpool, the character of Bob was introduced. In a breakage of the fourth-wall, it was mentioned that Fabian Nicieza was pitching him for a mini-series of his own. I've added the character to the list of HYDRA members. If the series isn't published, y'all can delete the line if you want. HXcGeek 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Operative 128[edit]

I cannot remember where I read this anymore, but I distinctly recall a comic about Hydra set in the past. In it, was a Hydra member only refered to as Operative 128. It was implied in this story that 128 was in actually Wolverine. They didn't come right out and say it, but the intention was clear. Anyone have something more solid on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "HYDRA" anywhere but on Wikipedia. It should be "Hydra".[edit]

I am not really into editing Wikipedia, but I thought it should be known that the terrorist organization is named "Hydra" not "HYDRA". It's not an acronym, and it shouldn't be in all-caps. The main Wikipedia page for Hydra has yet to get a citation for all-caps to be "Marvel's official spelling", and even Marvel's own Wiki uses the standard "Hydra" spelling, so I don't know where the Wikipedia editors got it in their heads that it's supposed to be "HYDRA". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I just changed it. It contradicts both Marvel's web page and Wikipedia's MOS. -- (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
From S.H.I.E.L.D.: "The acronym originally stood for Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, Law-Enforcement Division. It was changed in 1991 to Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate.
Within the various films set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the acronym stands for Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division."
Secret Warriors #1 shows that the all caps spelling in the preferred one: "After Joining HYDRA, Baron Wolfgang von Strucker siezes control of the organization and constructs the Hydra base Tsunami - Called HYDRA Island." (sic)--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Earth's Mightiest Heroes[edit]

In the following interview, Christopher Yost says Nazis still exist in this cartoon, so should someone remove the note in the article about HYDRA replacing the Third Reich? (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The end and/or replacement of the Third Reich doesn't mean that Nazis no longer exist. --Loremaster (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, he also says in the interview that Germany still became an Axis power. Does that mean the Third Reich existed in this show? (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea that the HYDRA “replaced” the Third Reich simply means that HYDRA stopped being a mere tool of the Third Reich and actually became autonomous from, and even more powerful than, the Third Reich... --Loremaster (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That contradicts the interview, too; since Yost said HYDRA still worked for the Nazis! (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Not it doesn't. The point is that even though they still worked for the Nazis their autonomy and power was overwhelming. There are examples in the real world where the secret police of a government becomes so powerful that they unofficially replace the government in practice but not in name. --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blinded by my own interpretation, but could you please explain to me what exactly Christopher Yost said in the interview that makes you think this was one of those cases? (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am simply explaining what the writer of the sentence you dispute may have meant but feel free to change the sentence to something you think is more accurate. --Loremaster (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Menace #10[edit]

I do not own Menance #10 nor the hardcover reprint, although it is on my wishlist. The story appears in Crypt of Shadows #5, which I do own. HYDRA is mentioned twice in the story, and there is nothing about it that differentiates it from HYDRA of the Marvel Universe. I don't know if this bit was an edit to tie it into Marvel continuity (although in a horror reprint title, I'm not sure why) or if this was how the story was originally printed.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Title and term change[edit]

New section for those wishing to discuss changing "HYDRA" to "Hydra" with regard to this article and where it crops up in other Marvel Comics related pages. A few ground rules:

  • Sign your posts.
  • If you are editing without an account on a dynamic IP or from varying locations, please make it clear which posts are yours. If you cannot or will not, it will be treated as a case of sockpuppeting.
  • Since the change has been contested, arguments for the change are going to need to provide sources and references for the change.

Keep it noce,

- J Greb (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The 1983 OHOTMU writes it "HYDRA" in every instance it is used, as does the OHOTMU Deluxe Edition. Anyone who has access to these sources can verify this. (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
And Marvel's official website, which is linked from the article and a better reflection of current editorial policy, specifically doesn't spell it in all-caps. --There are no names left (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not Marvel's official site. That's Marvel's official wiki. Wikipedia disallows user-submitted content, including wikia, to be used as references. That's the first part. Second, Wikipedia isn't subject to recentism; if the name has been spelled one way for over 40 years of comics, that's the way we spell it. Any recent and possibly temporary alternate spellings can be given in a properly cited footnote. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Hydra, not HYDRA, in the Handbooks of the 2000s. And before someone uses Tenebrae's "recentism" argument, it hasn't been spelled HYDRA for 40 years. Most text in comics is in block capitals, so you can't use that to argue that it was spelled HYDRA 40 years ago, not unless you also want to claim that we should be using SPIDER-MAN and CAPTAIN AMERICA instead of Spider-Man and Captain America. A post by one of the Handbook writers on their official forum [1] makes it clear that the lower case usage in the modern handbooks is a deliberate thing, making it a correction to the 1980s books usage of HYDRA. (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae for what it's worth. (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's great for Tenebrae, but amounts to nothing in terms of this debate. The page claims, without a citation to back it up, that HYDRA is Marvel's official spelling. However, Marvel's most recent handbooks, which would have more of an idea of what the official spelling is than Wikipedia does, say Hydra. (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It's pretty simple: is it an acronym? Then all-caps. No? Then no all-caps. Typography is not spelling, so Marvel is not "spelling" the name with all-caps, they're styling it with all-caps. See: MOS:ALLCAPS for the official guideline. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And putting aside correct terminology, Marvel is neither spelling it nor stylizing it all-caps. Again, if we are talking how Marvel officially presents the name, then the Official Handbook entry on Hydra is clear - no caps (except for the H). (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly second Curly Turkey. When I saw that Hydra was in all capitals on Wikipedia, I assumed that by some retcon the name was now an acronym. If that's not the case, it should be "Hydra" on Wikipedia regardless of any official stylization.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So, several days go past and no counter-arguments? Have those who favoured HYDRA accepted they were wrong, or are they just not wanting to risk debating it because if they did so they might be forced to concede the point? I'd change the page, except I bet that, as is all too common on Wikipedia, someone (who hasn't bothered to engage in the debate here) would swoop in, revert it, and then insist no one else should change it back without discussing it - and then, of course, they wouldn't actually come here to discuss it. After all, that's pretty much what the last person to revert it to HYDRA did - "look at the talk page, this has been resolved already." (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, when several days have passed without further discussion the proper course of action is to boldly edit again. If your bold edit is not reverted, then the issue is resolved; if it is reverted, then you've succeeded in getting the discussion going again. If someone repeatedly reverts your edit without participating in the discussion, then they are edit warring and may be reported to the Administrators' notice board.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since it has been ten day since anyone has responded to support the "keep it HYDRA" version, and that support was simply repeating an "I agree with a prior poster" with no reasons or evidence to back that stance, and since multiple subsequent posters have stated cases why it should be Hydra rather than HYDRA, I'm going to go with NukeorEarl's advice and edit again. To any would-be reverters - please have the good manners to discuss before reverting. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I've moved the page to "Hydra (Marvel comics)"—maybe that's not the best disambig, but Hydra is obviously unacceptable, and it can't stay at HYDRA. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, Agent of HYDRA should also be moved, to Bob, Agent of Hydra. I've corrected the all caps HYDRA's on the page in question, but am unsure on the protocol for moving pages. (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There are good (and bad) points for either position, but we have consensus that the proposed title (which already redirects here) is sufficient to distinguish the article from others of the name "Hydra". Cúchullain t/c 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hydra (Marvel Comics)Hydra (comics) – There is no other notable entity called Hydra in comics, so no further disambiguation is needed. HalfShadow pointed out above that there was group that used name in 1960s era Batman comics but someone else said that the group now is called Leviathan. I do not know if this is true, just assuming good faith but either way this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Hydra (comics). The name redirects here anyway. TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Should preference be given to Hydra being in the world of "comics", or to being fictional characters? They are Marvel Comics properties ("Marvel Comics" includes movie franchises, etc), but are their appearances restricted to comics (or be considered so, even if they have been so far)? Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That is the way our naming conventions are currently set up including Hulk (comics) and Wolverine (comics) amongst others, who have appeared in a wide variety of media.---TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Are dismabiguations not supposed to be as general as possible (e.g. "writer" rather than "novelist", unless there are two writers with the same name). The fact that it has been done elsewhere should never be presented as an argument that that is the way things should be done. Curly Turkey (gobbl Lqae) 22:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It appears that (character) is a well-established dismabiguation, though problematic I suppose for a group ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The guideline specifically states "When disambiguation is needed use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
          • It doesn't matter what the WikiProject guideline states, the sitewide guidelines take precedence. Project guidelines supplement—never override—stewide guidelines. Take a moment to reflect on why that may be. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
            • WP:PG does not differentiate between "project" guidelines and "sitewide" guidelines. A guideline is a guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
              • TriiipleThreat, you're not seriously going to waste everyone's time with a line of "reasoning" that declares that any fringe Project can simply come along and rewrite the sitewide community consensus, are you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
                • You put forward the statement, so back it up with a policy or guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • So you are going to waste everyone's time with your unsupportable horseshit. Good luck working up a consenses. I, for one, strong oppose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • I like how you get upset when you cannot support your claim. Either support it with policy or guideline or concede the point and move on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
                      • As the proposer of the move, and the proposer of the proposterous claim that WikiProject guidelines can somehow override the sitewide guidelines without causing massive intractable problems, the onus is actually on you to provide evidence for your horseshit. Apparently you can't even be bothered to read the main page of the Manual of Style, where Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus is cited conveniently in a footnote:
                        "This is a matter of policy at Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus: 'Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.' And: 'Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages.'" Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
                        • Thank you, I concede that WP:AT still applies (also didn't realize this was policy, not guideline) but I argue that WP:CMOS#NAME still applies as well as the primary scope of the article is the comics and all other appearances are derivative works limited to an "In other media" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several comics feature the mythological hydra in them, and there's a Transformers character named "Hydra". So we should not use ambiguous disambiguation. Particularly since one would think with the requested name, that it was a overview of mythological hydras in comics. This is not the primary topic of "hydra", so should be properly disambiguated instead of ambiguously disambiguated. -- (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The existence of other subjects by the same name is irrelevant unless those subjects have articles of their own. This is why Louise Simonson's article is at "Louise Simonson" and not "Louise Simonson (X-Men editor)" even though there exist at least a dozen other people named Louise Simonson, and why Bullseye's article is at "Bullseye (comics)" and not "Bullseye (second Marvel Comics character)]]" even though there was a Marvel Comics character named Bullseye around before him.--NukeofEarl (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:NukeofEarl actually en.wikipedia disambiguates by topic coverage not article title, that is a common mistake, but made clear in the first lines of WP:Disambiguation.
(1) what other "Louise Simonson" are you referring to, where is she mentioned?
(2) what other "Bullseye" are you referring to, where is he mentioned? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia disambiguates by both topic coverage and article title. Otherwise Cell (biology), Cell (EDA), and Cell (geometry) would all be at Cell.
(1)Just check out Facebook; there's over half a dozen there alone. "Louise" and "Simonson" are both extremely common names, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they sometimes coincide.
(2)Can't remember for sure at the moment. Think it was in an issue of Incredible Hulk.
(3)These are just two examples out of thousands; don't get hung up on them.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
(1) okay, so you are saying that there is no other topic covered on en.wp
(2) likewise, you are saying that there is no other topic covered on en.wp
So how are (1) and (2) relevant to article topics covered on en.wp? You appear to be making a large amount of posts here while still not having understood either the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:Disambiguation guidelines. What is at issue is whether Hydra (disambiguation) has more than one article covering a topic for (comics). Does it or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "(comics)": as per policy, disambigs must be as general as reasonable. "(comics)" is not sufficiently general. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: @J Greb, There are no names left, Tenebrae, and NukeofEarl: As participants in the preceding discussion on a similar topic, I invite you to share your thoughts here. TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Unfortunately, WP: Manual of Style/Comics doesn't provide any guidelines for how to disambiguate fictional subjects; the guideline TriiipleThreat cites is for comic book companies, not fictional entities. And I've always been bothered by the fact that comic book characters are disambiguated with "(comics)" when every other type of fictional character on Wikipedia is disambiguated with "(character)". Hydra is not an individual character, of course, but given how characters are disambiguated, you'd expect it be disambiguated "(fictional organization)". That said, "Hydra (Marvel Comics)" is WP: Preemptive disambiguation, and until a consensus is formed on how to disambiguate articles on fictional comic book entities in general, the only sensible place to move it is "Hydra (comics)", in accordance with the current common practice.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You are correct, that guideline is for companies, that actual guideline is at WP:NCC which states: "Following extensive discussion of naming conventions for comic book characters at Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Comics, the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)"."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @NukeofEarl: I had said when I moved it that (Marvel Comics) was less than ideal. As you've said, "every other type of fictional character on Wikipedia is disambiguated with "(character)"", which suggests that it is the sitewide consensus, which takes precedence over local consenus. I've launched an RfC to deal with the broken wording of the local MoS, but whatever is decided there cannot override sitewide consensus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, easily the primary comics-related topic by this name, and I see no good argument to the contrary. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @Postdlf: If this were a rock band, and there were no other genre of band with the same name, would you disambiguate as (rock band) rather than (band) giving the rationale "easily the primary rock band-related topic by this name"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Using the word "comics" as the disambiguator clearly has precedent, as mentioned. However, I would be amenable to using "fictional organization" instead. Or just "fiction", if the latter is too unwieldy. Using "Marvel Comics" on the other hand, seems to me to be overly and unnecessarily specific and difficult to search for. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and others above. BOZ (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no such thing as WP:PRIMARYCOMIC. Wikipedia mentions other hydras in connection with comics therefore this article must indicate Marvel to retain compliance with WP:TITLE policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Note to closer. I suggest this RM be closed as invalid because:
(1) the RM proposer has, no doubt in good faith, misdirected about en.wp policy in the RM proposal, and the following flood of !votes who have supported have also followed that misunderstanding. User:Curly Turkey is the only editor in the RM discussion who has correctly read and represented WP:TITLE policy. Local consensus based on a misformed proposal mistating a policy should not override a policy.
(2) the proposer has not addressed the Comics and animation section of Hydra (disambiguation) which shows that 4 other Hydras are mentioned in en.wp articles on comics/anime (though it isn't clear whether the 2 Japanese Hydra characters exist in paper versions as manga, or cartoon animation only, probably only as animation characters).
Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Policy does not dictate which disambiguation term to use. This RM is about interpretation of said policy. You obviously feel your interpretation is correct, others feel theirs is. Actually according to the current page there is only one other Hydra in comics, the rest are animated characters. But this article need not be the sole use of the name just the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Hydra (comics), as noted in the request.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to explain how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to an article that is already obscure and disambiguated (check out the long, long list of other Hydras). Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not that this is the primary Hydra topic, but that it is the primary Hydra comics topic. Hence why the proposed move is to Hydra (comics) and not Hydra.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
User:NukeofEarl you said "It's not that this is the primary Hydra topic, but that it is the primary Hydra comics topic." I'm sure that's in good faith but we've seen this before; a pocket of well-meaning editors in a project who are not truly familiar with how WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIGUATION work. Part of the solution here is probably to link to WP:DISAMBIGUATION in the comics MOS, which I have just done. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC carefully, it shows clearly that apart from Hydra there are no WP:PRIMARYCOMIC, WP:PRIMARYSHIP, WP:PRIMARYGAME etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
That project-specific policies do not exist does not mean that articles covered by those projects are exempt from following the policy. Quite the contrary.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As above please read the guidelines carefully: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only refers to non-disambiguated titles. Such as Hydra period. Hydra (any disambiguator) is already not a primary topic. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
User:TriiipleThreat User:NukeofEarl, Policy does not dictate which disambiguation term to use between (character) and (comics), but policy does dictate between ambiguous disambiguation (comics) and unambiguous disambiguation (Marvel comics). What is against en.wp WP:TITLE policy is your proposal/support "this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Hydra (comics)" Please read reread carefully what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says about what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is and what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to (namely Hydra the base space). What you are arguing is WP:PRIMARYCOMIC, which is a concept which goes against titling in every project area. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Marvel" is too important to the recognizability of this topic. It is distinctive of Marvel, and not of comics generally. PrimaryTopic does not descend to subtopics. Hydra is ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WikiProject Fictional characters[edit]

As this is a group of fictional characters, I've added the {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} banner to the talk page. This is unrelated to the above dispute about disambiguation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And as I stated in my edit summary, before Curly Turkey started edit warring, this article is about a fictional organization, not a specific fictional character. {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} would apply to any articles about specific characters who belong to Hydra, but just like Advanced Idea Mechanics, S.H.I.E.L.D., Avengers (comics), Fantastic Four, or any other group or organization in the Marvel Universe, an article about Hydra in general is just not in the scope of that project... Fortdj33 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Talk about bad faith editing! Fortdj33 has just WP:3RRed, and then immediately comes here proclaiming "Curly Turkey started edit warring". I have no confidence that this discussion will continue in good faith. I'll be reporting it when I get up in the morning. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
And as I stated on my talk page, I've only reverted you twice, and you've reverted me twice, so in this case we are equally at fault for edit warring. Yes, I could have started this discussion after the first reversion, but I thought that I had explained myself sufficiently in the edit summary. You were the one who brought it to my talk page for discussion, and when you didn't get the answer that you wanted there, you reverted the article again to your POV. Only then did you start a discussion here. I'm sorry that you are taking this personally, but please try to remain civil. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • For the record, 1, 2, 3, the last of which was done after this discussion was opened. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Hydra (Marvel Comics) article. It is not the place to accuse other people of violating policy. Please try to focus on the issue of content that is in dispute. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you'll be striking your accusations of editwarring and POV-pushing? Because your accusations were your opening salvos in what had opened as a neutral discussion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my part in this discussion getting so heated. Again, I'm not sure why you are so fired up to argue about this, but nothing is going to be resolved if you continue to focus on blaming me, rather than trying to come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with Fortdj, per the arguments and examples they posed. This is about an organization, not specific characters. Yes there are fictional characters in the organization, but I am coming to this page to learn about Hydra as an organization, not Background Hydra Minion #5 in Avengers issue X. I, like Fortdj, feel this project would apply to specific characters (Your Tony Stark, Superman, etc.). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

While my instinct was to assume that WikiProject Fictional characters only covers articles on individual characters, I checked the "scope" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters, and it says, "The project covers all articles relating to fictional characters of all media. This includes supervision of individual character articles, lists of characters and general articles about characters." That's not a completely unambiguous embracing of this particular article, but it does indicate that their coverage is broader than just articles on specific characters.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing another WikiProject's banner is an act of bad faith in general. It smacks of ownership to me. Please note that just because a particular WikiProject (whether that be Comics, Fictional characters, or whomever) has a banner on a talk page does not mean that they have any more authority than any other Wikipedia editor. The five pillars still apply. Controversial issues still need to be settled by consensus. I'm putting the banner back.--GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the relevant guideline I'm using for this, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles: "Placement of any relevant banner should generally be accepted, as each project may have unique resources and be willing to improve and monitor the article. One group may not prohibit another group from showing an interest in an article." --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
No one is claiming ownership of this article. I removed the project banner, simply because I think that the criteria for including this article in {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} is wrong. And putting the banner back before a consensus has been reached, is definitely not working in good faith. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Removing the banner for the third time, after the discission had been started was the act of bad faith. There is nothing like a consensus here for removing, and a Project does not need permission before adding it. Accusing editors left and right ofbad faith and POV-pushing doesn't make the case any better. What happened to "Please try to focus on the issue of content that is in dispute"? You seem focused on anything but. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Or my action could be looked as being bold. Since I wasn't the one who put up the banner in the first place, it's not like I'm edit warring with you over this; I'm providing a second opinion. If you cut it out again, I won't revert it, even though that would be The Wrong Version. (I'm saying that in jest, in case it isn't clear.)
Regarding whether or not the 'WikiProject fictional characters' should be allowed to have a banner on this page, are you a member of that project, Fortdj33? If not, do you think it's OK to dictate which articles they should and should not be interested in? Because that's what a banner is for. It says, "we're interested in this article." It does not and can not mean, "we own this article." I'm sure you know that. So I'm failing to see the harm caused by allowing them to have a banner here. I could understand if, say, WikiProject Mythology had put a banner here, mistakenly thinking that the titular hydra was a literal creature as opposed to an organization. But I don't think that this is a case of incorrect categorization. Or, I could understand if the header of the talk page was weighted down by 5+ WikiProject banners, and you didn't want to add any more. But that's not the case. So, if 'WikiProject Fictional characters' is interested not just in individuals but also in fictional entities, is that not permissible? --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey:, just what are you focused on? I admit that this discussion should have taken place before any edit warring, but I have explained my position more than once, as to how I don't feel this article is in the scope of {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. (And yes, I am a member of that project, which in no way implies ownership). You seem determined to make this out to be something personal, which for me it is not. I still don't think it is right for anyone to put the banner back while a discussion is in progress, but I hope that we can still come to a consensus on the true scope of the fictional characters project, without resorting to personal attacks. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Now raising the spectre of personal attacks, to add to accusations of editwarring, acting in bad faith, and POV-pushing—even your "apology" above was a backhanded one. If you want people to believe this is not personal, then the onus is on you to quit making it personal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh...Curly Turkey, I don't know what you want, but it's clearly not the idea of coming to a consensus. I have stated my position on the issue of the Fictional characters banner, and you seem to have taken it personally. You continue to focus on me, rather than focusing on a simple content dispute, and apparently you think that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA don't apply to you. Believe what you want, but I have done my best to keep this discussion on topic, and I still hope that a consensus can be made regarding the true scope of the fictional characters project. However, this petty bickering solves nothing, and just as it was on my talk page, I have no desire to continue arguing with you. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Fortdj33: I had assumed that you were not a member of 'WikiProject Fictional characters' and that this was a fight between WikiProjects, not a fight within a WikiProject. That's my mistake for not figuring that out sooner. I apologize for reading into it incorrectly. I can still see how this article could conceivably fall under the scope of that project, but since I'm not a member of the project, that's not really for me to decide. It sounds like we could use input from additional project members. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Could an uninvolved admin do something to clean this up? Say, collapse the tangents or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)