Talk:List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Qualification of Cosmic Beings[edit]

Many of the characters listed here do NOT qualify as cosmic beings (see Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics)) so I'm editing the list. Wilfredo Martinez 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Which is the one with the huge round head and the toga from the Galactus saga? - Radicaladz 2:44, 29 September 2006

Do you mean one of the Watchers, possibly Uatu? - Weapon X (de) 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the guy. Radical AdZ - Radicaladz 00:37, 10 October 2006

Grouping of characters / Merging of content[edit]

I think the characters of this list should be grouped and then the article should be merged with Cosmic entities (Marvel Comics). What do you think? - Weapon X (de) 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

After the deletion of content by Darkknight2149 within Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), that list content should be merged into this article... - Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 20:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no objections to merging that list to this article. DarkKnight2149 21:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
merged the content - Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]


Because of the apparent lack of significant differance between the terms cosmic entities and cosmic beings (see also Category_talk:Marvel_Comics_cosmic_entities#Split proposal), I want to move this article to List of Marvel Comics cosmic entities in order to align the name with the names of the other cosmic beings/entities articles:

Weapon X (de) 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, a planetary level should definitely be discluded as qualifying, as several elite Marvel heroes or villains would qualify, as would most heralds of Galactus or Elders of the Universe. It should at the very least take nearly galaxy-spanning power, or a position that is vital to the universal order. To equal a character with planet-busting power with one that can rewrite spacetime with its pinkie is ridiculous. Dave (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Move mentioned above - Weapon X (de) 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

-> Survey closed with decision to move! Weapon X (de) 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I recently read Spider-Man Anual 99' which featured the Man-Thing and a list of all powerful beings that I've never heard of: K'ad-Mon - first Man of Lineage, Scrier (not Norman Osborn) - very powerful entity revived by the Silver Surfer and Hir - creator of all. It also talked about something called the Nexus of Realities. Any idea where this fits in with all the other entities? Lironhallak (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


These five do not seem to hold any real potential for developing into articles that are actually worth having around. List entries would be for the best if development and reception information cannot be found for them. TTN (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added seven other small articles to the discussion. TTN (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The comment "These five do not seem to hold any real potential for developing into articles" is speculation. The characters have made individual and group appearances before now, and will no doubt do so again. Eternity alone has made over ten appearances. Given this and the fact that the stories they do appear in have ramifications for the Marvel universe, they should remain in the current format. It is also a format that is accurately sourced: this cannot be said for many minor articles. Asgardian (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The amount of appearances they have made and their overall importance within the fiction is of no consequence. Everything boils down to conception and creation information and reception information. If the creators have not commented on what has gone into these characters, and if they have not made any real critical impact, they do not need articles. I would say the only character listed here that has any real chance would be Galactus. Though, maybe I'm wrong and people actually care about minor characters such as these. I'm not really familiar with actual comics. TTN (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Given this comment : I'm not really familiar with actual comics I think you had better quit while you are behind. The "real world argument" was raised something like two years ago and promptly shot down as many of the characters have been around for decades. By that logic, only a handful of characters would make the cut. Since you don't read comics, you probably don't realise that Stan Lee; Jack Kirby and others created a fully interactive universe of over 2,000 characters with continuity. Almost every character has contribued something and had their moment in the spotlight. Keep, keep, keep. Asgardian (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if this area was completely foreign to me (it's certainly not, I've spend hours reading on the Marvel Database), it's hardly like it's so complicated that only die-hard fans can edit these. My comment was more towards the fact that the creators may actually detail notes of minor characters in the actual comics themselves or something. Though again, you are looking at this through rose-tinted glasses. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of comic book characters that truly deserve articles because of their importance over the years (even less important ones like Squirrel Girl probably still deserve them as well). But at the same time, I can also tell that just because a character was thrown up thirty to fifty years ago does not mean that they automatically deserve a full article on this website, especially if the articles are already the size of list entries in the first place. They belong on their own, more specifically developed wiki. TTN (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Per Asgardian. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The sheer volume of characters posed for merger needs to be more itemized to be more seriously considered. In response to the specific purposal, as it stands in all-or-nothing fashion, several of the characters have a steeped history that crosses several mediums, Galactus utilized in a motion picture, several video games, TV series, and comics and a main and supporting character. Several of the characters listed are not only established in their own right, but have been used as archaetypes for later pastiches. Keep- as the utilization of these characters in the comic medium is prominent, established, and evolving. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
Are you sure that you have actually looked at the proposed articles? Galactus is not one of them; he was one of my examples of an article not to merge. Not one proposed character besides Death has more than five full paragraphs of information. Even if these characters are as glorified as you make them out, you cannot deny that all of them have articles the size of list entries. TTN (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought Galactus was included, simply missed due to the volume of characters listed. My stance remains, as characters such as the Living Tribunal, Death, and Eternity, were some I referenced in regards to archaetypes, and while not a prominent as the World Eater, still apply in cross-media fashion.-Sharp962 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
You find them to be important, but just going from a stylistic standpoint, do you really think they need separate articles? Remember that this is not a fan site, but rather a place where general people can look things up. Say someone with no knowledge of Marvel comes here, is it really beneficial to have all of these spread across dozens of articles, or would it be better for just one single list to contain characters that really do not have information to break out of a four or five paragraph stubs? Then, if someone wishes to go more in-depth, they can go to the Marvel Database instead of having to search through broken up stubs. TTN (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Real world info exists for most Lee/Kerby creations, but you have to go to books that are not available online. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts looking through the grouping... Potential problems:

  • Lists, especially those that tend towards long-ish like this one does, tend to be forced down to 2-3 line Lead like blurbs about the items. Some of the proposed articles are close to that as is, but the bulk aren't. There's a good chunk of material that will get flushed from those.
  • Lists also frown on images, regardless of if they could be valid inclusions. Most of the topics on this list have a visual representation that is hard to get across in text, more so with limited text. And there is no way it would be accepted to have scores of images attached to this list.
  • "Let them go to the Marvel Database or Marvel Universe" is a bit short sighted. Especially when what the merges would do is reduce the information given here and no direct pointer to where more information is available. And again, loading scores of those into a List is frowned upon.
  • Other articles point to those in this grouping, generally for additional information. Having them point to a specific line in a list (which would need an anchor added) does not provide that.
- J Greb (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This list should be focused enough to give a good two or three paragraphs for most characters. That should be plenty for most of them, and I'm sure four paragraphs wouldn't be totally out of the question if necessary (though I don't think any would need that many). Much of the information really should be taken out in the first place anyway. Images are always a sacrifice, though have there been absolutely no group images created for some of them? I would think with such a long history, there should be some out there. Unless there is some sort of issue with linking, I'm guessing that a simple link to this would suffice. How exactly is sending someone to a list a bad thing? This will be much more focused than the articles current forms, so it can only help. TTN (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Accessibility to such sites is not always universal depending on browser, machine, or other circumstances. I'm not sure if the "other stuff exists" should be utilized in pointing to reasons to merge. I would like to echo the above comments, that these characters are found utilized in various fashions, and the simple merge to this list or that list may not adequately open them to the population versus their own page. Again, speaking in terms of the proposal as it stands. - Sharp962 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
It's not my argument that these should be merged because the Marvel Database should be used to cover them instead. It's that most of the information on them is rather improper to cover here. For example, most of Death's plot information is pretty pointless overall. The only real specific plot aspect that should be covered is the whole relationship with Thanos, which can probably fit within a well written paragraph. Any other plot points really should be covered within the comic articles. And I'm still confused as to how exactly being in a list makes it impossible to cover these properly. I guess if you think we need to dictate every time the characters appear in a minor storyline, that might make it impossible. That shouldn't happen in proper articles, though. TTN (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you are making assumptions. I've reworked Death and there's far more than a paragraph there. These characters all interact and have significant roles. Yes, many articles need reworking, but not deletion. Asgardian (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about summarizing it, which is what should be done anyway. We don't need to explore every single storyline that features the character, just the major aspects. Mentions of comic storylines can then be linked instead (i.e. instead of explaining the whole Grandmaster scheme, mentioning it and linking to Marvel Super Hero Contest of Champions would be better). The character is important in the Marvel storylines, not in the real world of comics. Death is not on equal ground with the big names or even niche characters like the aforementioned Squirrel Girl. If I'm wrong about that, just insert some critical reception or popular culture information. TTN (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Death not being on "equal ground" with niche characters is highly debatable at the least. Popular culture alone is rampant with examples of personifications of Death...this does not factor in the personifications of Death that are in nearly every cultural or religious circle, much less popular culture. I tend to agree with J Greb and think that a list format would be quite a mess. Off the top of my head there are some 10 cosmic entities that would involve an average of your 4 paragraphs each...that's 40 paragraphs already with minimal room for images or creator references alone, as too much content would be spent describing the role of the character in the MU and how it interrelates to the others, as well as citation of major story arcs involving said characters and the assorted "cosmic powers" that are specific to each entity. These are all, as their monikers suggest, pretty "abstract" in nature and I honestly believe a list format of 10 cosmic entities spanning 40+ paragraphs will be confusing to the reader at best, and at worst will compel him or her to eschew Wikipedia altogether as a source for this type of information; for why read condensed paragraphs when much more complete, comprehensive, and visually descriptive resources render our paragraph entries uninformative and insufficient by comparison?Mobb One (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about the personification of death as a topic; we're talking about Death, the Marvel character. Four paragraphs is the absolute upper limit, which would only be used for one or two if they happen to need it. Besides Death, which could take three paragraphs, the majority would only need two paragraphs anyway. All of the people here are way too focused on the standpoint that all comic characters deserve articles because of their age. Do you want to know what it really confusing: thousands and thousands of characters spread all over the place, citing every single random storyline, regardless of importance. Remember, while you may value every single line of these articles, someone who is just interested in learning the "lore", myself, will likely find half of the information is irrelevant and useless.
Take a character like Thor, who has been much more extensively used than any of these characters, featured fairly often in other media, and actually has a very good chance of attaining FA status with a good amount of work, and you'll see that it can work well enough with a small plot summary. That is a decent summary of a much wider area than these characters. Comparatively, they would be fine with a sentence. Two or three paragraphs for such characters is perfectly fine, and with links to the Marvel Database and the other site, they can further expand upon the characters if they wish. TTN (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really relevant to WP rules, but usability studies have shown that lots of smaller web pages are easier to use and navigate than large ones. It's one of the reasons we always argue about this stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

How do you propose merging them. I would expect a list entry to contain relevant information, particularly first appearance and creators. I think this list should be better established in such a format before any merge is considered. Once such a format is established, I wouldn't be opposed to such a merge for most of the articles proposed. It's possible Death may be better merged to a Representations of Death in comics, if reliable sources allow. Hiding T 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, the first paragraph would handle the introduction, origins in the comics, and basic personality traits (though they can flow into other paragraphs). The second would handle extremely major roles and the like. The third would cover powers unless there really isn't that much to say, like with the cosmic entities. That would be the general mold in my mind. TTN (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There's actually a lot to say with several of the cosmic entities, who have had multiple appearances. Also, the articles have been written in a style that just covers the gist, as opposed to a fannish narrative of each issue. The approach suggested won't work and will create a very unwieldly article as there is too much information, even when presented in succinct form. Asgardian (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The current articles are still written without any actual direction. It's just plot followed by plot without any real context as to why it actually matters. For Death, one paragraph for the basics, one paragraph outlining the basic major storylines and possibly starting the Thanos relationship, and the third paragraph covering or finishing the Thanos relationship. That is all the average person needs to know about Death as a character. It may have to be a little brief, but that's still OK. If they want further information, they can look at articles covering the relevant storylines, relevant important characters (such as Thanos for Death), or they can use the Marvel Database and that official Marvel site. Now, if these articles actually obtain some real world information detailing their importance, then articles are perfectly fine. TTN (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I still think you are being too literal. "why it actually matters?" is an argument that could apply to any comic book character. None of them are crucial to our existance at the end of the day. That said, Wikipedia offers a way in which to learn about the medium and the characters, irrespective of what universe they hail from. Some feature more heavily as they continue to be popular, others less so. Many, however, have made and continue to make contributions to the fictional universe in which they exist, universes we real people like to map and chart for the sake of enjoyment and information. It will never be perfect, and there will always be some gray, but we do abide by Wikipedia's rules and present the information in that fashion.
Yes, some very minor characters do not have entries, or those that do could be merged. Not so the Marvel cosmics, for all the reasons stated.
The issue of minor players should be investigated, but understand the votes will be against merging the cosmics. I think that issue is resolved. Asgardian (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You're still making out that every character is on the same level. Major comic characters like Superman, Batman, the Hulk, and Spider-Man have all had a large effect in "culture" over the years. Lesser characters, while not as important, still have been talked about, reviewed, and critiqued. That can be shown through sources. Characters like the ones here are absolutely nothing on that hierarchy. They are only important to people that value the plot lines and the massive universe they've created. Though, they still play some role, so instead of not being covered, they're just succinctly covered on lists. TTN (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment while we probably do need to merge a number of minor characters I think it is unwise merging to specific lists like this. This problem has come up before and we have discussed this. I am still of the opinion we should have a "List of minor Marvel Comics characters" (and a DC equivalent) and have been making a list: User:Emperor/Sandbox/Minor characters, Hiding has also be working on one. So I don't think we should merge here but we should revisit them topic with a more general article. NB: This is the same comment I left on the list of supporting hulk characters article merge discussion and the point still stands here, also worth noting that it is unwise to do this in batches if it is a potential grey area as the discussion gets difficult to follow very quickly. (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC))
There is absolutely no way that a single list could possibly work. There are thousands of comic articles that need to be merged, so that would be quite cramped and without structure. TTN (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure about thousands but the plan is to split it alphabetically, like the main character lists. (Emperor (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC))
I recall this project being discussed approximately a year ago or so, and while ambitious, I'm pleased to see it go ahead. I would find that to be more palatable than the current proposal. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Does anyone here actually have a defense for the articles that doesn't involve "they are important", "they are old", or "they cannot possibly be trimmed in any way"? Something like "the creators have detailed the ways that they though up and developed these characters" or "most of these characters have been talked about by professional sources in a real world context" would be nice. TTN (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Brothers[edit]

Wouldn't the Brothers be considered a cosmic entity? Or can we not put them here because they are both owned by DC and Marvel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman3095 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Brothers were retconned into mere galaxy-busters created by the Living Tribunal and the Spectre as an experiment, and were easily destroyed in conjunction. Their natures are unclear, so I do not think that we should list them. David A (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)