As a Canadian (not necessarily French Canadian, but still) who seems comfortable speaking in French to Gambit (among others) on numerous occasions, would Wolverine not be "fluent" in French as opposed to "has some knowledge?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The article states:
The only known exceptions are adamantium itself and vibranium, which is the only substance in the Marvel Universe known to be even more durable than adamantium.
That isn't correct. Captain America's shield is an unknown alloy containing vibranium that is more durable that either adamantium or vibranium.
Please refer to the 1988 King Sized Spider-Man Annual. This issue has an index in the back as a special feature showing the various strength levels of different heros. Wolverine is listed as normal human strength.
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: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the article is protected with pp-move-indef? There's no evidence of any move discussion at the talk archives. Diego (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be unprotected, the logs do not indicate any sort of movewar. Indeed, the only move vandalism occurred a full-year-and-1/2 before protection was added -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Support A very reasonable move request. The proposed title clearly defines the topic and there is no risk of confusion with the comic book series of the same name. Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 02:47, 5 January 2013 (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.
Page move back discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Vote struck per instructions at WP:RM/CM. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Support I am in agreement with Dream Focus. We have a clear standard to follow with respect to other comic book characters - why change? In regards to the issue brought up by Alpha Quadrant, I think the odds are slim that someone looking for the Wolverine comic book title would be confused when he came across this page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Support, for the simple reason of consistent nomenclature throughout WikiProject Comics. A hodgepodge of styles only makes things difficult for users.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per January 2013 move. Fictional characters use "(character)" as standard disambiguation. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS used by comic articles should be changed to the standardized version used by fictional characters. A fictional comic book character is still a fictional character, and there is no reason to separate comic book characters from the continuum of fictional character articles. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
One must point out that many names of comic characters are also used in other forms of fiction. "Ghost" is a comics character, as well as a character in the novel Lost Souls and a character in Enter the Matrix. "Tarantula" is both a comics character (several, in fact) and a cartoon character (in The Venture Bros. series). "Cyclops" is a comics character as well as a fictional character in the TV series Xiaolin Showdown and in the TV series Mahou Sentai Magiranger. "Beast" is a fictional comics character, a fictional Disney character and a fictional Doctor Who character. Indeed, the Wolverines are well-known fictional characters in the Red Dawn films. This stable WikiProject Comics convention hasn't been in place arbitrarily, as you seem to suggest. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This convention should only be used when additional disambiguation is needed. If there is no need to distinguish between multiple fictional characters, there is no need for a more specific disambiguator. Many fictional characters have more specific disambiguators, but that occurs when multiple characters have the same name. If this is not the case, then the standard "(character)" should be used. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And at the same time, it's preferable for a Project to be consistent within itself, and changing the countless number of entries from (comics) is both impractical and unhelpfully less specific. Having Wolverine stand out inconsistently from the rest of the WikiProject Comics flies in the faces of systematic logic. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Being consistent withing WikiProject Fictional Characters would use "(character)" -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason nor requirement that WikiProject Comics has to completely overhaul itself and change hundreds if not a couple, three thousand articles to accomodate a different project's MOS. Different media have different conventions, needs, details and specifics that best express them. WikiProject Comics uses those which has best suited the Project's purpose for several years and for good reason, as at least three registered editors have delineated above. This anon IP's only reason is, "Because that's how this over Project does it" — a blind adherence that completely ignoring the actual reasons this Project uses the conventions and style it does. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Support existing standard for comic book characters seems quite reasonable.--Staberinde (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Support It's better to not stand out with the rest of the comic book character articles. If one thinks that all the comic book characters should have that name over (comics), then that's a topic that needs to be discussed in the WikiProject Comics page more than anything IMO. Jhenderson777 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Herb Trimpe is not one of Wolverines creators
I have been arguing for some time with another user that Herb Trimpe does not belong under the section that says "Created by". Herb Trimpe had nothing to do with Wolverines creation. John Romita is the one who designed the character, but none of his drawings were published. Herb Trimpe drew exactly what John Romita had already drawn, Herb's were just the first to get published. If you are going to say that Trimpe is a co-creator of Wolverine, then you might as well say that John Romita is a co-creator of Spider-Man, after all he had published drawings of the character, but no, Spider-Man was designed by Steve Ditko. Exactly, it does not make sense to name Trimpe a co-creator since all he did was draw a character created by someone else for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
"Arguing" implies communication. You have been unilaterally, single mindedly, without explanation or attempt to communicate edit warring to remove content from the article. You have been reverted by multiple editors. Asked why and had it pointed out that an explanation is needed. It wasn't until the page was protected that you decided to actually provide one.
Generally the infobox is related to the writer(s) and penciller(s) involved with the characters initial appearance.
The text of the article does clarify the creation process in the lead, and it includes a ref.
Your personal interaction with any of named individuals is not a usable source for a Wikipedia article. That is original research and will be removed as such.
Spider-Man is a very, very bad example for you to use, since Ditko was the artist on that character's first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15, not Romita. Romita didn't handle Spider-Man until 1966, with a 2 part story in Daredevil and then taking over from Ditko on The Amazing Spider-Man with issue 39. (Kirby might have been a better choice given what his heirs filed, but even then it would need to be sourced to something other than you.)
 I believe it important to note that he was one of several new characters for the new X-men team. They recycled him, changing him into something new, and created four new characters, and adding in two previously established ones as well. He didn't just join the existing X-men, he was tossed in with a new bunch instead. Also why remove the part about them making him older than the other X-men? DreamFocus 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)