This is an archive of past discussions about Thor (Marvel Comics). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
People, people. This article has been around for ages now, and there has been absolutely nothing added about the period where Thor operated under the alias Sigurd, nor his banishment, and absolutely no mention of Eric Masterson and his time with Thor!
Secondly, there is a HUGE gap between the Surtur War and Ragnarok that needs fixing. I'd normally do this myself, but not being all that knowledgable on the Asgardian, it's necessary for others to do so. C'mon, Thor fans! Kusonaga
It might be an embarrassment of riches, but these sections are now waaaaay too long. This article is 50K -- that's almost twice as much as Wikipedia prefers. I'm sure some of the intense detail can be whittled down. -- Tenebrae16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we change it back to Thor (Marvel comics)? I mean there are loads of other Thors around in Comic and as we are speaking about a deity used in comics, the title should not head an article about the version of ONE company. ThW515:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
First off, I'd like to say this is what happens when you weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid and undescriptive titles. I don't blame Tenebrae——You meant "Marvel", right?——or ThW5, it's just a bad title in general. Anyway...
For starters, Name another comic "Thor". No. No. I don't want to insult you. Name another comic "Thor" with a wikipedia article. Wait...that's...impossiblé. Okay, name a comic "Thor" as notible as this one. Yeah. That's the ticket. Ace Class Shadow18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my typo (since corrected). In that same vein, "First off, I'd like to say this is what happens when you weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid and undescriptive titles." isn't a sentence. And "notable" is misspelled.
Calling other editors' points "weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid" is just not a good or practical way to speak to others, in addition to violating Wikipedia policy about civility. Let's please keep the discussion on a civil level. Thanks.
The character of Thor exsists in the DC universe (as seen in 1999's All-Star Comics 80-Page Giant #1, 1997's Jack Kirby's Fourth World miniseries and elsewhere, including as a recurring character in Neil Gaiman's widely seen Sandman), there's another in the very notable Alan Moore's Glory from Avatar Press (2001), another in Bardic Press' Mythography miniseries, the mythological Thor in at least one issue of Classics Illustrated, there are the similarly named Kid Thor (Image Comics) and Dynamite Thor (Fox Comics), as well as the recurring character Thor in Bill (Fables) Willingham's Comico series The Elementals, another Thor in Hand of Doom Pubs.' Peter Pan and the Warlords of Oz, there was the recurring character Thor in the pre-Marvelo Atlas sieres Venus, and another in the extremely popular, best-selling Image title Savage Dragon, and finally, there have been numerous Thors in standalone, anthological fantasy stories from a variety of publishers.
Well, This one for instance, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Valhalla_(comic). There was one in a Donald Duck story, of course Gyro's Helper became a Thor once, there is Thor de Holbewoner (=the caveman), the first newspaper comics of the creator of the dominant series in Dutch language comics, Thor is used as either at least an extra or an object of worship in almost any comic dealing with the Nordic gods or the cultures they were worshipped in, so what's your point? Wikipedia should bring balanced articles about the topic, and this article about Thor in comics is just a stub, with lots of information about one version, OK, he might be comercially more interesting, but he is only one of the tens of Thors, so either the article has to change a lot or a word with an M has to be added to the tirle. 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's be serious, if this article was about Jesus(comics)
Not sure what the "Jesus (comics)" unsigned post means, but the 26 April 2006 one above (and taking into account that English doesn't appear to the unsigned user's first language), it seems to validate that there is more than one Thor in comics, and that it's more accurate to say Thor (Marvel Comics) when referring to, well, Marvel Comics' Thor. -- Tenebrae15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a Disambiguation link to the top of the article. With that in place, under Wikipedia Comics project naming conventions, Thor (comics) is specific enough for this article. CovenantD15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it? What do you think of these Thors in comics.
Willy Vandersteen’s Thor
Thor de Holbewoner (Thor the Caveman) AKA Tor. 1941. Willy Vandersteen’s first published newspaper strip (the Tor-version), returned in the newspapers as Thor the Caveman.
(Belgian comics)
Karel Biddeloo’s Thor
In “De Rode Ridder” series the existence of the thundergod Thor is shown in #45, (The Hammer of Thor,1970) and the Thunderer has a role in #63 (The Valkyrie, 1974), in which the Rode/Red Knight has been chosen by Odin to complete a mission the gods cannot do themselves without causing Ragnarok. Unlike the Marvel Thor, Biddeloo’s Thor is more or less a country boy, with enormous powers but bound by responsibility. He wasn’t even angry about Johan throwing the Hammer in the Rhine to keep it out of the hands of mortals.
(Belgian comics)
Carl Barks’ Thor
The Thor Scrooge McDuck met after being blown to Valhalla in Mythic Mystery(1960), is not the mythic deity.
(US-comics)
Weird Thors
In issue 1-5 of the Golden Age anthology Weird Comics, a scientist given the powers of the Thundergod by lightning strike is active as Thor, while in issue 6-8 Dynamite Thor’s adventures were shown.
(US comics)
Adventure Thor
In adventure comics #78 Sandman and Sandy fought somebody claiming to be the thundergod Thor.
(US comics)
Vertigo Thor
In the much later Vertigo Sandman series (another Sandman) the actual Thundergod is featured as well.
(US comics)
Thor Tumb
Thor Tumb is at least modelled and named after the thundergod.
(UK comics)
Valhalla Thor
Madsen’s version may well be the best comic (in both senses of the word) adaptation of the Elder Edda. Thor is one of the main heroes from the Valhalla series.
(Danish comics)
Comico Thor
In Elementals #23 (1984) Comico’s Thor made its first appearance.
(US comics)
Of course this is far from complete, but as starter it could sufficient. There are many Thors in comics, versions of the god and just folks and animals with that name. So either you should give them all attention in this article or you should rename the article.
Exactly. And this Thor will still have both names. Specifying, I'm afraid, isn't about respect or instint clarification. It's obviously stated in the article which company he's with. Until another Thor article is made, that's all we need to do.
Like...living people. Take "Jason Alexander". Now, there's an actor and an unrelated nobody friend of britney spears. Before the Vegas thing, we wouldn't need to specific which one is which, right? But he exists. As far as I'm concerned, these characters getting articles should come before an otherwise unnecessary specification. Articles first! The Anti-Gnome18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, the title for a disambiguation page concerned with the COMICS section of wikipedia, telling things about who was the first to come up with a superhero called Thor and the like is taken overflowing with stuff about that Marvel character, the article with the name Thor(comics) should be about Thor in Comics, not just about the characters called Thor published by Marvel. At least 4 of the Thors mentioned predate the Mighty Thor. 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)~
Is it? I showed there are lots of Thors in comics, in itself already enough information to start an article about that. Don't you see that this is like creating an article New York City (comics) and only talking about New York City as it is shown by DC? 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why should those characters get articles first??? An overview of the characters named Thor, their relationship to the Thundergod as known from historical sources etc, and so on is the right way to handle it. Thor is a name and a concept as free for use as Washington, and the name of an article should cover the contents, something this one does NOT. ThW522:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. First, don't separate my comment link that. It's confusing, inpolite and worst of all, unnecessary. Second, if you want to make some new page about the various lesser Thors in comics, go ahead. When you're done, perhaps a name change for this Thor might be in order. Oh and don't forget to cite your sources. The Anti-Gnome23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Aed, idiotic or otherwose stupid" is just not a good or practical way to speak to others, in addition to violating Wikipedia policy about civility. Let's please keep the discussion on a civil level. Thanks.
In addition, it's a question of notability - if someone is looking for a comic character called "Thor", which character are they likely to be looking for? At least seven - probably more - times out of ten, they'll be looking for THIS Thor, as the one with a 40-year history and his own title for most of that time.
Of course, and calling this article Thor (comics) is not following the Be Precise When Necessary guideline. This article is about Thors of just one publisher, while other Thors may be less well known, but are not less noteworthy for an encyclopedia, as they existed as well and are referred to sometimes, somebody may be looking for THEM in an encyclopedia, rather than the one easily found using google. People would expect them here, look at Starfire (comics)or look at Nightwing, a name that is used for different characters in comics, should not be claimed as has happened here for the one by coincidence the most popular. No, I do not deny that the Avenger should have its own position, but as the name Thor refers to a god, and is a rather common name as well, it has been used many in comics, Thor (comics) should try to give an overview of that, pointing out differences and giving indications which Thor can be expected to be found where.
ThW516:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? I don't see the point, putting all Thors from comics in disambiguation would just clutter that, I propose to radically change this set up, and make this article a sort of comics disambiguation page, listing every Thor shortly and giving links to all those Thors, (I mean not just those of other publishers, but Thor 2099, Ultimate Thor, Red etc, as well), should get their own articles, or at least entries on the page dealing with Thor(comics), but I am not gonna do all that work myself to have it reversed by some Marvel zombie, who has not even read a kiddy's version of the Elder Edda and is unable to tell what Marvel character Madsen's Thor's disguise was based on. This should be an encyclopedia, not a Marvel promotion site. Perhaps Hercules (comics) gives the best exanple of what I think the article should become. ThW510:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Concur with ThW5. This article is far, far longer than Wikipedia policy prefers, and the policy itself even suggests what to do in such cases: If a section is significant enough to be here and also of great length, policy says to spin it off into its own entry. I propose helping ThW5 do as he suggests, which also has the value of consistency with Wikipedia's similar Hercules entry. Overall, we need to remember that this encyclopedia entry is to inform people who don't know about the character, who don't know there is more than one Thor in comics, etc. WE all know it, which is great. But this is for people who don't know --Tenebrae18:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You know what, ThW5? You've convinced me. You've obviously done some research and come up with enough different comics versions to justify what you propose. After experimenting with Hercules (comics) and Hercules (Marvel Comics), since there seemed to be agreement on that split, I agree that it seems logical enough to do the same here. CovenantD18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, before we start the big overhaul we should make a plan what to do, some points I have in mind:
1. The main Thor of Marvel, co-founder of the Avengers,the one in the Secret Wars should get its own page.
2. How do we organize the rest of the characters? Most of them are just called Thor, so alphabetically is about impossible. Chronological order is possible, but will give rather chaotic results, I'm afraid. We could split the group up in versions of the actual thundergod, pretenders and folks who just happen to be named Thor, with a few words for the part Thor worship has in series in which the Nordic gods themselves are not featured, but their worship is. What has actually my preference is that we could order them by their makers (artist, publisher,writer), with, in the case of several Thors belonging to the same "owner", a secondary real world chronolgy order.
By makers, then. Keep in mind that you're not likely to get the title "Thor (comics)" for your article, so don't worry about what happens to this guy. In the rare cases you find where someone actually meant to wikify a disambig page, do your thing. Now, enough talk. Don't keep us in suspense, dude. GOOOOOO for it! The Anti-Gnome00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Listen, if I don't get Thor (comics), there is no reason to write anything, so will you be so good to move all this stuff about the Marvel types away? ThW508:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This new page ThW5 proposes for the myriad characters named Thor in comics can only be called "Thor (comics)". I can't think of anything else it could be called. Can anyone? Which means the entry for Marvel Comics' Thor would need to be "Thor (Marvel Comics)". -- Tenebrae14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Marvel comics' Thor could be moved to "Mighty Thor" as well, but in that case types like Thor 2099 should not be included on that page.ThW514:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure most users would look it up that way, since the format throughout Comics Project is not to have the adjectives. This is useful since it distinguishes between, say, Spider-Man the character and The Amazing Spider-Man the series. The entries for Hulk, Iron Man, X-Men, etc., aren't "Incredible Hulk", "Invincible Iron Man" or "Uncanny X-Men". -- Tenebrae15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"Thor in comics" anyone? "Thor (comics disambiguated)"? "Thor (various comics)". Instead of all this "I want the title!" stuff—which, you've gotta admit, could come off as pretty immature—just make up a title and get the ball rolling. The more time you waste debating how to do every little thing and what title(s) to use, the less serious and well intentioned you look (to me). This is to be fair and help inform, right? It's not meant to put out people who intentionally linked to marvel's thor when wikifying—99.9, I'd wager—or done out of spite or something, yes? Then for goodness sake, JUST DO IT! and worry about naming later. Both "Thor (marvel comics)" and "Thor (comics)" are this page. Accept that, make the new page and let's try to work things out from there. The Anti-Gnome00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Gnome, as long as you are so impolite to post every response as if it were a new statement, you do not deserve that people would follow your recommendations, I try to improve Wikipedia and to help to create a uniform format for the discussion of characters with names used many times in completely different series. If you had shown a little interest, you would have known now that I am using my page to form the page that Thor (comics) should become. 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ThW5
<.< Uh, First off, it's not "Gnome". Talk about not paying attention. I'm the Anti-Gnome. As in, "opposite of" or "opposer of".
Anyway, it's nice that you're working on it, I guess, but...isn't that contradictory to...well...a ton of Wikimedia policies. It's your userpsge and you're writing an actual article in it. I never meant to be rude, dude. I actually agree with you, partially. I never stopped. You should make the page. More power to you. However, don't you see the negative results of getting this name, if you get it?
It's basically a Disambig for various Thors in comics. You'll be sending various people who clicked on a link meant for this Thor to a page that could be quite confusing. Futhermore, since this whole thing was brought up fairly recently and not acknowledged by everyone in the comics wikiproject, that will be no small number of links. We're talking the vast majority of all links meant for this page.
Meanwhile, you're kind of...well...suppressing information until you get what you want. You're writing, and that's great, but...as a real article.
Don't you see that if you just make the article first, it'd be much easier? Then everyone can look at, understand it, correct i, and then, perhaps, decide whether it would be better off with the name "Thor (comics)".
I'm not an administrator or programmer or anything, I think we all know that. Still, I know a little bit about names on wikipedia. We cannot just switch this to "Thor (marvel comics)" and give the new article "Thor (comics)". Aren't double redirects or something a concern? Besides, I was serious about those other titles.
Oh and thanks for the "headsup" about my reply style, but I think people will manage to survive and acknowledge one guy who doesn't use the "colon system" on talk pages. BTW, whilst you were all hot and bothered, you forget to sign your comment. Have you tried using tildes? Ace Class Shadow17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking with my admin hat on, there will be no double redirect problems with the proposed move that aren't easily fixed by someone who knows what they are doing. Taking the admin hat off, I would say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) would state we use Thor (Marvel Comics), given it says Follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Love and Rockets (comics)) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case ... use the publisher (e.g. Captain Marvel (DC Comics)), and that in its listing of publisher disambiguations it states are to be used only when the disambiguation phrase "(comics)" by itself is not sufficient; that is, in the case of multiple characters of the same name published by different companies. Given that there are multiple characters being published here, that gives the nod that the page should move to Thor (Marvel Comics) unless a clear consensus exists otherwise. HidingThe wikipedian meme20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
People "will manage to survive", but why make your comments less readable or potentially irksome to fellow editors? Doesn't seem to be much percentage in that.
To have an article titled "Thor (comics)" and another titled "Thor in comics" or "Thor (various comics)" will create confusion. Given the outright refusal 0f some editors' to even consider "Thor (Marvel Comics)" makes me inclined to think we need to ask for mediation. Given that an Admin would pretty much say that any article about the various comics characters called Thor would be called "Thor (comics)", it seems like it might be a waste of time and energy to do that. It's beginning to look like we might have to, though, given what seems to be a logjam -- Tenebrae20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's only irksome to froods. Newest comment? Bottom of the page. Simple and easier for the reader. I guess I can agree with the move, in terms of difficulty (or lack thereof) and naming conventions, but 1: links meant for this article would then lead to an effective disambig page. That's the exact opposite of cool. 2: we've tried changing this thor's name to "Thor (Marvel comics)" it didn't stick. (Probably because it there was no article that needed the title "Thor (comics)" or any other Thors in comics, period.)
So, I recommend that the new "Thor (*blank*)" article be made. Then, change this ones name. Then, try to change any links we find to "Thor (marvel comics)". Then, and only then, change the new article's name to fix naming comventions. Agree? Ace Class Shadow20:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the wrong way round, slightly, and would reqwire admin help. The way to go if you do it that way, is to write the new page at Thor (comics)/Temp, and when that's done, an admin like myself would move Thor (comics) to Thor (Marvel Comics) and Thor (comics)/Temp to Thor (comics), deleting Thor (comics)/Temp after, and then the links would be fixed, hopefully by someone who runs that AWB thing, which would automate it somewhat, I believe. Otherwise, there's not a huge amount that links here as opposed to Thor (Marvel Comics), I can't see it wouldn't take a dedicated group of people more than ten minutes. Of course the other way is to do the move and then write the page here, that doesn't need admin help. If there are concerns the pages might be swapped around, I can protect the page from being moved back once the move is done until the new page is written. HidingThe wikipedian meme20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna do a quick and dirty split, then work on cleaning up the links. I'll leave it to others to make both pages look pretty. Hiding, maybe you could keep an eye on this to make sure it stays put until people get used to the idea. CovenantD21:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Additions
A few things we might want to add to the Marvel section:
Eric Masterton's period as a substitute for Thor will the real one was banished.
The subsequent history of Thor with Jake Olsen and the Lord of Asgard stuff (I haven't followed it in recent years though).
The latest position on "was Donald Blake a real person" - this last I heard he was but was split off from Thor, who ran around the world thinking he was Blake, and later destroyed and replaced by an artificial magical construct which soon collapsed upon itself. Or something like that.
I've added about half the Simonson stuff, skimmed over the LoA stuff, and summarised the recent Ragnarok tale that ended the current book. But, since most of it was plagarised straight fromt The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition #13, I've removed the "Superhuman Powers" section. That had to be breaking copyright, since most was word-for-word. --SoM 00:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I put in a whole bunch of information on Jurgens' King Thor storyline, under "Lord of Asgard" and "Lord of Earth." Sorry if it's incredibly verbose. I tried to pare it down as much as I could, but I quite liked Jurgens' arc so I wanted to include as much of it as I could. Feel free to edit it down to something more manageable if you like. --TheCorpulent101:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone be mad if I move "Deviations from Norse mythology" closer to the bottom of the page? It seems to be presented too early in the reading of the page. Maybe if it was towards the end and each deviation was listed and subbulleted, it would be a better presentation.
When did the USAgent lift it? He doesn't strike me as worthy. This may be someone confusing him with Steve Roger's identity of "The Captain", which he used when he first wielded Thor's hammer (and which was later copied as USAgent's first costume). Timrollpickering01:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it was Steve Rogers as 'The Captain' who hefted it. And I think in classical Norse stories, you need to be wearing the belt and both gloves to even lift the hammer.GeoffB
I don't believe the U.S. Agent ever used Mjolnir. Captain America during his stint as the "Captain". Also, Superman was allowed to wield Mjolnir not because he was worthy but because Odin thought it was appropriate for the situation at hand. Lastly, the crossovers aren't considered canon so not sure I would add them. Lochdale
Which doesn't explain the fact that Superman held it mid-strike while Thor was wielding it. Also it would seem ironice that Superman isn't "worthy". Most people accept that Odin was rather miffed at Supes that's why he wasn't allowed to lift it at the end of JLA/Avengers. Kind of funny since he allowed someone like Beta Ray Bill to wield the damned thing.
GeoffB
TRUTH!?! Superman "lifted" Mjolnir in mid-strike. Thor was busy with a number of foes. He probably thought his hammer toss was not enough to destroy the barrier to Korna and Superman HELPED in mid-toss. The is nothing new. Eric Materson had done this with Thor before.
Moshun11
moultrie11@hotmail.com
I thought crossovers in which the charecters reside in separate universes are considered canon, albeit events that rarely get referenced to again. Timrollpickering22:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Marvel are quite specific when they say that they are not canon. That is, nothing that happens in a crossover affects Marvel continuity. The DCU, however, seem to accept some crossovers (Avengers/JLA) but not others (DC v. Marvel -rejection of the "two brothers" notion). Lochdale
Yeah, Marvel gets all iffy when DC gets to be the 'stars' of the show. I even hear that last part where Superman didn't get to lift the hammer was an add-on and not in the original script and Busiek got a little bit pressured into it. Ah well. Que cera cera.GeoffB
That is not my understanding of this at all. I heard that in the first draft Thor beats Superman but DC went through the roof. Indeed, they had to go to great pains to explain why Thor's hammer wasn't magical thus ending the fight in one panel.
Don't believe everything you hear is my advice, and don't let your love for the character hamper your objectivity. if DC "went through the roof" with Superman being beaten by Thor, why the heck would it allow Hawkeye (of all people) to put the kibosh on Krona with a 2-pound grenade arrow? Why didn't they just have Batman whup Captain America's ass? Why would they agree to Superman not being "worthy" and only just a one-time-Odin-decision?
In this instance, just as Busiek says, if the enchantment just makes the hammer (a material object) hit really hard and Superman is invulnerable... and he's beaten DC versions of gods before... and DC gods are more powerful... etcetera, etcetera.
Hawkeye defeating Krona was just an easy plot device. Krona is a villan and all villans lose due to silly plot contrivances like that. They had Batman take out the Punisher yet would not allow him to be defeated directly by Captain America. I'd imagine my sources are as good as yours but that's not really the point here. DC will never let Superman lose to a Marvel character (one of the reasons he's never directl fought the Surfer as the Surfer would curbstomp him (see their cross-over)). The worthiness issue was a sop to Marvel to counter the result of the Thor-Superman fight. Or perhaps, the writer just read enough Thor issues to show how most people aren't worthy unless 1) Thor is in trouble and needs someone to get the hammer to him (Captain America, Eric Masterson) or, 2) Odin wants a Thor "back-up" (Beta Ray Bill).
DC gods aren't more powerful actually. Further, Thor fought like an utter idiot (wading through heat vision is real smart) and his hammer should have gone through Superman's shielding (magical attack) and all.
Not that any of this is relevant. This page is about Thor and it should be edited by those who have more than a passing knowledge about Thor. For example, I asked you to cite some issues where Thor has lost a fight and then said something to the extent that "he underestimated his foe and would have won otherwise". Other than in the Avengers/JLA cross-over I have never seen Thor say this. It was put in the crossover because I think the writer genuinely believes that a Thor/Superman fight could go either way and that Thor could indeed defeat Superman. If I am wrong then please provide the issue number where Thor has said this before.
That's not a valid argument that "all villains lose to silly plot contrivances". Maybe back in the day. These days, the idea that Krona, all high-mucketty-muck didn't use something sturdier than glass to hold his prized sources of might is plain oversight or a compromise.
And yes this is relevant, since we are to consider all avenues when discussing a point of reference. Which is, by the way, a reason for adding Weaknesses and Flaws, of which I notice you keep editing in favor of the character. That is not very objective. Let it be noted that Thor, while one of my faves since Journey 112 when first got to fight Hulk mano y mano( an often forgotten tale), will receive no special treatment from me regarding his foibles and limits.
No-one is suggesting that Thor receive special treatment here. You made the following statement (several times actually):
"Regardless, Thor does have a thing about acknowledeging being soundly beaten and makes passing note that essentially means "I lost because I underestimated..." ^_^"
I asked you for some support for this. To provide some examples that Thor has done this is the past. You have provided none. Not even one example. I have every issue of Thor ever published (both volumes) and nearly every Avengers and I have not seen this before. I could be wrong which is why I asked you for examples. That's what being objective is about. Again, it's not about special treatment but about the actual facts. Thor does not have a "thing" about being beaten and then saying he underestimated his foe. That was a specific note in the Avengers/JLA crossover put there because the writer genuinely believe that Thor could beat Superman.
As for Krona, it is a valid argument because villans lose in fiction to plot devices all the time. This isn't exclusive to comics. Further, Krona is not a hero so most readers have a lot less invested in him then they do in a flag-ship character of an entire company. The villan had to lose somehow and what's more traditional way for a villan to lose than due to his own hubris?
There are several inconsistencies in this section.
Thor's history with bullets is, at best, mixed. He skin has been pierced by bullets before and he has even expressed dismay at the thought of being shot. He has also, however, survived a nuclear bomb, a world destroying bomb and direct shots from machine guns, grenades and mines. For example, in Thor, Vol. 1, Issue 496 Thor leaps directly into the path of multiple heavy machine guns without any ill effect. I think we should note the inconsistencies by referencing both sides (as is currently the case on the page now).
Noting that Thor has "weakness" to psychic attack really isn't accurate. If we do include it as a weakness then we should note Thor's ability to survive psychic attacks that have put down being as diverse as Iron-man and the Superman-clone Gladiator. Thor's resistance to pyschic manipulation has been a key plot-point in several stories.
So are you saying simply ignore those instances? And, in your examples, Thor always had Mjolnir with him. It is arguable that Mjolnir's enchantments helped in those instances.
And as for weakness to psychic attacks, it refers to him being susceptible to them. In your example with Adam Warlock which was during his bout with dementia in Blood and Thunder ( a rare one-time eveent that Norse gods go through). Had it been on more common grounds the results would have been different. In that series of events he's even more of a dupe because he was effectively fooling himself (in the form of Valkyrie), though I haven't decided to touch upon that. Curious as to why Blood and Thunder isn't acknowledged in his Wiki yet considering it was a major storyline in the 90's.
Also, the mere fact that Moondragon could manipulate means Thor is not immune to psychic powers. Heck, Loki does it all the time.
No, I am not. What I am saying is that we should note the inconsistency which is what we do. It is not arguable that Mjolnir's enchantments help him in those instances because none of Mjolnir's enchantments relate to, or affect Thor's durability.
I don't think the situation with Warlock would have been different at all. All Warlock says is that Asgardians have a higher resistance to mental attacks. The High Evolutionary launched a similar attack on Thor without affect.
Loki manipulates events to manipulate Thor. That is, he affects situations so that Thor can react. Other than when he used the power of the Sword of Twilight to turn Thor into a frog, Loki has not directly controlled Thor under his own power.
I've edited the Flaws section to note the inconsistency regarding guns. I think we should have a "Blood & Thunder" section. Would you like to take a shot (no pun intended) at it Geoff or would you like me to?
I can only think of one instance where this statement is actually applicable to Thor:
Thor is also has a high-regard for his personal pride; many times he has been defeated by a foe but after which he dismisses this fact as 'underestimating' his foe. As he puts it "I have thy measure now", implying he merely miscalculated. This, of course, does not explain the number of times he has been defeated by the Hulk in their history.
Thor, to my knowledge, has never said that about any opponent other than Superman. Indeed, Thor tends to admit defeat when he is defeated and give credit where it is due. If I am incorrect, then please state the issue number where Thor has said this or acted to the contrary.
He does say it in several instances. The most recent on the top of my head is during Busiek/Perez run referring to Lord Templar "I have thy measure now and I find thee lacking!" as well as during Ultron Unlimited. In neither instance was Thor "victorious", simply the upper hand in Templar's case and Ultron waxed him in the latter. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe I recall him saying that about Hercules and Surtur, among others.
Regardless, Thor does have a thing about acknowledeging being soundly beaten and makes passing note that essentially means "I lost because I underestimated..." ^_^
Reading both right now. Let's be clear, there is no example of your statement in any Thor issue ever published.
Secondly, Thor routinely holds back when he's with the Avengers (much like Superman with the JLA) because if he unleashed his full powers he would kill or injure both friend and foe. Indeed, being over-confident is not the same as Thor making a back-handed comment that he would have won but for underestimating his foe. That goes against Thor's fundamental character which is that of an honorable warrior.
In the fight with Ultron Thor notes how he has underestimated Ultron due to Ultron's new armor and his increased powers. It isn't an arrogant comment at all but an acknowledgement by Thor of just how powerful Ultron had then become. That is, Thor isn't saying "well I would have won but for holding back". What he's saying is that Ultron is much deadlier than before.
To be sure, Thor can be arrogant but that does not mean he is dishonorable. In fact, Thor's sense of honor is the cornerstone of his character. To suggest that he would cheapen an opponent by saying "I could have beaten him if I tried" is both factually incorrect and a direct contradiction to the character of Thor himself.
Indeed, in his most recent ongoing mini-series, Bloodoath, Thor admits that Hercules is a better hand-to-hand fighter. Thor may be arrogant but he isn't petty. There's a big difference.
Ok now you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say Thor is dishonorable? Or petty? I point to the fact that many times Thor underestimates his foes and overestimates himself. He values his pride highly, to the point that he sometimes denies his own limitations. And we're not only referring to Thor issues... otherwise you are implying if it isn't a Thor issue it's not valid.
Let's take a look at Marvel Team-up # 70 where he fights the Monolith with Spider-Man. Obviously, Thor acknowledges the Monolith's power (and note that I never said Thor doesn't acknowledge a foe's prowess) but always has to say in essence "I'm still holding back". And that's just one instance. And that's where we go back to the flaws. Thor can be proud to the point of self-denial. And that's no contradiction. That's part of what makes him tick and endearing.
And then there's his temper. When he's miffed he can even go so far as to brandishing his hammer on mere mortals...as in the case of reporters hounding him for an interview.
What you were originally saying (which I quoted for you) is that when Thor loses a fight he suggests that he would not have lost but for his underestimating his opponent. That is what you were saying. Thor has never said or done anything like that. He is cocky, arrogant and often over-confident but that does not mean he is petty. When Thor loses he admits that he has lost. The Superman incident was the writer's acknowledgement that the fight could go either way. It was not, and is not, a character flaw.
During the crossover Thor was talking to Aquaman (of all people) and stated that he now know Superman abilities and that another confrontation would be a different outcome from Thor and Superman's first. Thor lost and admitted it, BUT he KICKED Superman's ass for a minute. hiiyah, heeeyah heh, heh, heh!!!!
moshun11
moultrie11@hotmail.com
====== Ultimate Thor ========
Someone should make note that ultimate Thor and normal Thors personalities are nothing alike.
Also being that they are essentially different characters I think ultimate Thor should be split from the normal Thor page like they did with the hulk page.
I’m glad someone agrees, but I don’t know how to make new pages much less link them.
But I think that someone defiantly needs to separate the two pages.
Leon Evelake23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sif's hair in the myths was indeed made from gold by dwarves. However because the Marvel Sif had black hair, they changed it and claimed that the dwarves made it out of "the stuff of the night" instead of gold, since Loki refused to pay them (it was his fault she lost her real hair.) But Thor loved her even better as a brunette, so she kept it. :) Wilfredo Martinez03:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Thor in Incredible Hulk
Does anyone find it rather strange that in the TV movie The Incredible Hulk Returns, Thor is not Blake's alter ego, but is a seperate character who is Blake's "servant"? Scorpionman03:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The Thor in The Incredible Hulk Movie-
No, I didn't. That is just another sad example of Hollywood Directors not getting a darn thing right when it comes to making a Large Budget Hollywood movie from a Comic Book.
The future Thor, Dargo Ktor (More about him here: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/thordargoktor.htm ), needs to be included in the article as well. I might have the Thor and Guardian of the Galaxy issues he is a part of. If I do (and I can find them) I'll add the section. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to I would welcome the addition, considering I might not be able to find the source material I would need.
Article evolution
The point has been made that this article doesn't cover enough of Thor's history. I'm of the opinion that it covers too much. I'm all for keeping it a functional coverage of the topic. If we detail every event, then we have to cover every major plotline in every decade. This is quite a chore. AS a basis of comparison, I would point to the Superman Wiki entry. It covers every functional point that I would dream of about a superhero w/o going into detail of every plotline.
I'm not saying we do every little bit of history, but the Eric Masterson piece is vital to the character's history and identity. It would not need such a large piece. One of the reasons the Superman article works so well, is because large pieces are contained in sub-articles! Kusonaga16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeffwright 4:12pm, 1 February 2006 (CST)
I wouldn't agree that the Thor page shouldn't cover more. It seems like other S.H. pages cover the major story arcs through the history of the character. Thor is a relatively major character in the Marvel Universe and therefore deserves the attention. I would agree that the most significant issue right now is the addition of the Eric Masterson piece. However, considering other Wiki pages on superheroes contain known "future" incarnations of the character (see for example the Silver Surfer page), the Dago Ktor page is needed as well.
This article truly needs to be cut down. It's 50K, and the level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything. -- Tenebrae16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't just destroy the information. Spin it off into a separate section 'History of Thor(comics) if you must, but don't do that. Toptomcat01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to go with Tenebrae here, this article still after several edits contains far too much detail for an encyclopedia article, as mentioned below (for reference: Guidelines of Article Size). Look at the "Thor" subcategory under "Character Biography". I never read those issues (so didn't edit the section) but just from the written summary I can see that this section details the plot of about a year or two of issues in the 90s, at the end of which no substantive changes to the character had happened. There was a battle (one of the 5+ false 'Ragnaroks' that have happened over the decades), he is sent to the Heroes Reborn universe, then he comes back. While I'm sure there were some very interesting issues of the comic then, this section doesn't add to an encyclopedia entry for the character. It's a synopsis of one specific storyline out of hundreds, with a level of detail implying this story is more important somehow than the entirety of, say, the Lee-Kirby run of the character. And this section is then followed by the far longer Jake Olsen/"Ragnarok" sections, which admittedly are of more recent events but couldn't possibly be so vitally important to an understanding of the character in that detail. Yes, he fights villains, he always will. This article doesn't need to give a blow by blow of each fight, since most of those battles will never make an overwhelming change to the essential character. Just my opinion Markeer14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Some points
Odinson? Does the name appear in any Norse source, or did Marvel just make that up? Also, one comment, when Thor reads "Modern Bride", could that be a reference to the Þrymskviða? Maybe it's just me, but I think that that reading is very funny. 惑乱 分からん13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's not in the Norse sources, my guess is that Marvel made it up using the typical Norse naming convention. Son of Odin = Odinson. Magni's called Magni Thorson for the same reason. I don't know if the Modern Bride thing was intended that way, but it is pretty funny. --TheCorpulent100:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, in the real world Thor was worshipped as a fertility god (of people and soil) and as a marriage god, so both magazines would be of interest to him as profesional literature. 10:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Norse Innacuracies
Some of the statements on Thor's deviation from classical Norse mythology are not entirely accurate based upon current knowledge. For instance, the ability to bear Mjolnir is stated to be exclusive to Thor and his son Magni. Logically speaking, the ability to use Mjolnir is predicated upon bearing magical iron gloves (which protect from Mjolnir's heat) and a magical belt of strength (which is required even for Thor to carry the hammer). Also, the spelling of Mjolnir (as Mjollnir) is somewhat irrelevant since it is often up to an English translator or writer to decide which sounds better. Translator consensus actually says that "mjolnir" is the correct spelling. I removed the Mjollnir part, but left the Thor and Magni part since they are technically the only ones to ever wield Mjolnir. However, I can find no information as to the exclusivity of its use. Bsaark05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thor and Magi are not the only people to lift Thors hammer in Norse myth, first the dwarves who forged it were of course able to lift it, second Loki delivered to Thor as a part of his penance for cutting Sifs hair also a giant whose name I forget stole Thors hammer. So obviously in the mythology there Thor and his son aren’t the only ones who can lift the hammer.
It should also be noted that Thor only needed the gloves to keep from being burnt in battle and that both the gloves and the belt have appeared in the comics and were prominently used by Red Norvel.
Since this is a long Discussion page, and since my other two mentions of this point where specific responses to others' concerns, I'm adding this as its own topic here.
This article is immense and unwieldly, and filled with so many small, fannish details that it has reached 50K -- with Wikipedia policy is to keep all but the most complex topics down to 32K or less. If something is so significant that a subhead is the size of an article itself, then the general policy is to make it its own article, and have a couple of sentences of a short paragraph about it here and use the template
Paragraph here about Timely Comics that gives
enough description to let a layperson understand
where it fits into the hsitory of Marvel, and links
readers directly to the full article.
The level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything.
Most of these sections are, as well, heavily weighted toward recent years' events, which throws the article's proportionality out of balance, making it, ironically, non-encyclopedic. If you had a history of the United States, and most of the article was taken up by, the last 10 years, that would destroy any sense of perspective, significance, etc. I hope we can talk about some of these things -- Tenebrae16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with the above. This article has rested on the comics wikiproject 'to do' list for months and it is still noticeably unwieldy. I'm willing to do a few passes at parts of it for readability but I'm not 100% familiar with the character history so would ask that someone look to see what can be removed or shortened. -Markeer16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've done a revision of the article as best I can, breaking it into chapters and attempting to summarize (and in the case of Eric Masterson, split). I've reached the limits of my knowledge of the character's history having never read it past early Masterson days, so would encourage a more knowledgeable person to edit/summarize the two sections after him (which I've titled "Thor" and "Jake Olsen"). Hope this helps as this is still a fairly lengthy article even with what paring down I was capable of. -Markeer16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? This article needs to remain objective. We can't just say "deceased" now, if that's what you're suggesting. Ace Class Shadow21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of the remainder of this article seems much in need of streamling — the same pertinent points can be made without such florid, non-encyclopedic writing as "This idyllic life was not to last." Wasn't it cleaned up once already some time back? -- 69.22.254.11114:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Previous version hammered out (so to speak) by editorial consensus in April 2006 has been reinserted for the following three section: "Origin," "Personality" and "Protector of Midgard". Please see previous archived Discussions and the History pages before making substantive changes, and please discuss any such changes. The reinserted text below was the result of many editors working together to keep this extremely lengthy article within Wikipedia guidelines. -- 69.22.254.11115:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was the most recent editor to significantly alter the Donald Blake period of the character's history (and yes, I did discuss it friend, in the section above marked Article Size and Detail). That said, I certainly like the Origin/Personality/Midgard sections you've reverted to, as they provide a better encyclopedic overview of the character than the minutia-level detail of his history that has marked this article in recent months. Personally I would be more than happy to reduce the character history subsections currently marked "Eric Masterson", "Thor", "Jake Olsen" and "Ragnarok" to either 2-3 sentence synopses, or else merged into two new sections simply marked "Later Alter Egos" and "Recent Events" (no more than a paragraph each). I don't believe this encyclopedia entry needs more than the assertion that the character has had a variety of alter-egos and that's about it. However, I feel I'm in the minority of editors who feel that way. -Markeer17:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
which version of The Article?
The version of the artocle from marvel.com looks a lot better, and less messy than this version. So why do you keep changing it? —(this unsigned comment was posted by User:Soujaboy)
Well, it was originally pared back because of the unencyclopedic lengthy size, un-wiki lack of section breaks, un-wiki style (e.g. double spacing on paragraphs and run-on sentences) and a great deal of NPOV text, as well as questions about why a few modern storylines were given extensive detail while early Thor stories were not. But NOW after your question, I see that a large part (maybe most) of this article was copied and pasted from [here] on marvel.com, which means that it's extremely likely that it's a copyright violation on top of being bad wikipedia style. Now I need to go through what's left of that earlier text and remove what appears to be outright plagerism. Sigh.
Please read the wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. In the meantime I have to figure out what needs to be done here. Now we may need to blank the entire article out and start from scratch. I'll bring it up on the notice board. -Markeer11:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading the wikipedia guidelines, I haven't touched the text but instead tagged the article. with a copyvio box and reported it. If I understand the guidelines correctly (I might not, this is the first time I've tagged a page with this), we'll need to start this article over, but I believe it's up to the administrators now. -Markeer12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like the Marvel page is a copyvio. The Marvel wiki hasn't been around that long, and with use of the wiki history, it can easily be traced. I'll admit that the current article is completely a blatant copyvio (it even has the double spacing between paragraphs etc. etc.) but before that... Kusonaga12:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, at this point I have no idea what's fresh wikipedia and what's not, which is why I slapped the tag instead of trying to go through and edit out the copyvio. Just at a glance I can see that most of the text under "Eric Masterson", "Thor", "Ragnarok" subsections (pre-Soujaboy revert) are identical to the marvel.com text, so I decided to err on the side of assuming that the character owner (marvel) was probably the copyright holder of any text on their site. To be honest, I don't know for sure of course, but either way it's tainting the wiki-article. -Markeer13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, the wiki is the one with the copyright. I finally got off my ass and looked it up:
The Thor page at Marvel's site was created on the 17th of June, but we've had the texts way before the 17th (I decided to go for the 5th because that was when one of the times you edited the article). Heh, it's kinda funny that Marvel is the one in violation here. Kusonaga16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure (although I very much appreciate you pointing to the marvel site's edit history). On the marvel page there is only one edit [listed in the history], a change of one word. Back here on wikipedia, the main body of questioned text (the double spaced "all one long wordy section" version) seems to have been added on June 3rd by User:Soujaboy, which I suppose simply makes me question why he refers to it as "The version of the artocle from marvel.com" in the first comment of this section. Seems to imply that was his source. My suspicion (and I realize I could be wrong) is that the marvel.com wiki just has problems with listing article history, e.g. if you look up contribs by the user who changed that one word, it actually shows [zero contribs] (even though we obviously can see the one he made to the marvel.com Thor article). -Markeer16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as I had already feared. The Marvel wiki is all kinds of effed up. I've been trying to find out when Marvel incorporated their own wiki onto the site, but I haven't been able to come up with squat. Kusonaga 16:52, 10 July 2006
(UTC)
Ok, so it's wrong to get he info from marvel.com?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soujaboy (talk • contribs) .
Doing research on character details is fine, as long as you cite it as a source. Copying and pasting text and formatting directly is not, especially considering you didn't even footnote them. Please see the guidelines a couple of us have linked on your talk page Soujaboy. -Markeer03:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The Marvel wiki was first noticed as existing at the wikiproject page on the 3rd March. Since they are claiming copyright on their contributions, and since we can't access their history, the thinking is that we claim we had it first until proved otherwsie. However, given that Soujaboy has admitted to copying it from there, everything after his contribution on the 3 June is going to have to be deleted. HidingTalk16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Use the temp page
Okay, this page has to be listed as a copyright violation for seven days before it can be deleted, so please direct any edits you wish to make to Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)/Temp. Please take care not to introduce copyrighted text. If people do edit the main Thor page I will have to consider protection. HidingTalk19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ehh, admin's call of course, but I doubt we need protection yet. We're at 8 days since the copyvio tag first went up (although only 5 from when admin Hiding officially reverted it) so I'm assuming one way or another this will open up in a couple days. In the meantime, people have been reverting the inappropriate edits quick enough and we can get back to real business soon. I'd worry about all the anon IP edits if they weren't all such small things that won't really be missed in the long run. -Markeer21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, but just look at the [history]. One edit and one revert on the eleveth. Two edits on the twelveth. Three reverts and two edits on the thirteenth. I could go on, but it just steadily increased. And I think the fact that we're eight/five days in should prove how slow this is could and how long it could tack. CovenantD himself just recently asked for this to be protected already and he's the most prominent reverter. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of reverts and dedicated Wikipedians. Sure, it might seem "excessive", but how is the alternative any better? Just protect the page and unprotect it when this thing is settled. Simple. Protection is wholly justifible, so I honestly don't see why this is even be debated. ACS (Wikipedian)22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, and you're of course right that the frequency is increasing rather than decreasing. -Markeer02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I don't believe the amount of edits warranted protection, but I have now split the difference on the copy-vio and deleted the appropriate revisions. HidingTalk13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that terms such as "cretin" are NOT to be used in here, Eric. I don't see anything in the article about the use of in-universe statistics that clearly prevents us to use terms such as "class 100", and this is particularly irrelevant when applied to Thor, who clearly belongs to that category and is not likely to ever be removed from it. We're talking about Thor here, the guy is able to press/lift 100 tons or more, there's no ambiguity to it. I also don't understand why my comment about Thor's strenght level being equal to The Hulk's (when not enraged) was deleted, since I can't possibly remember all the times when the two battled to a standstill in Marvel history. Someone explain me please? --Cosmic Camel Clash12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, got that. What about the comparison with The Hulk then? I don't get why it shouldn't be mentioned that Thor and The Hulk have the same stenght level. The Hulk is a very famous character, so it would be meaningful to anyone, not only hardcore Marvel fans.--Cosmic Camel Clash13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It still wouldn't really be accurate because nobody knows exactly what the limits of each of their respective strengths are. Marvel uses 100 tons as a rough figure to give readers a mere indication of what some of their characters are capable of. While enraged, the Hulk has supported the weight of a 150 billion ton mountain and I believe there is an issue where Thor moved an entire island. Thor's strength doesn't fluccuate like the Hulk's. He's physically stronger, at least while the Hulk is "calm". The fairest way I can think of would be to say that Thor is physically strong enough to go toe to toe with the Hulk or the Juggernaut, or whoever. Odin's Beard01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No Merge -- In a perfect world, I wouldn't see anything wrong merging MU and Ultimate characters together. But, unfortunately, Wikipedia is not perfect. MU character articles are already so big and unwieldly (see Magneto, Mar-Vell, Wolverine (comics), Daredevil (comics), etc.), that inclusions of their Ultimate counterparts just make things worse. Even if one did try to consciously keep a combined article small and neat, there will always come a time when someone decides to dump a load of information on it. As a result, it'll just get bigger and even more difficult to maintain. So, I vote No Merge. If they're kept separate, they'll be easier maintain. Bhissong23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)bhissong
Comment:These edits do not come without my condensing them first. I halved Jean Grey before that merge. I've done the same for a number of articles. The significant details are all there, but it just takes fewer words. --Chris Griswold20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge per nom, and I'll reply to Bhissong's perfectly cogent argument: While I agree the Ultimate universe is growing more complex over time, the characters themselves are based on the original creative source and merging them with the Marvel Universe also gives incentive for brevity in these encyclopedia articles. While I completely agree that many MU articles are unwieldy, I would say the solution is to condense those articles, not encourage continuous split-off articles that over time complicates things for those less familiar with the subject. Marvel Comics maintains their own detailed wiki these days (for both mainstream and Ultimate characters) so the best practice mandate for Wikiproject: Comics' editors is to provide an overview of the character for all interested, then provide links to more information if desired. I do not believe it is our goal to provide extraordinarily detailed articles about more than one version of the same character if such can be avoided. -Markeer13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge - Deep down I don't want this to be merged, but I think having both under the same header is the correct Wiki way =o/ --Jedispyder06:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge once condensed - per nom. and Markeer The significant difference is in personality and goals, which merits a few lines. The rest is plot, and should be condensed anyway. That said, this article needs some serious condensing before that can happen. --Newt ΨΦ14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose/No Merge - The article has so much information, the addition would make an already extensive article too busy. I feel the article should be kept the way it is, a brief summary with a link to the already existing Ultimate article. --66.109.248.114, August 8, 2006.
I remember when Ultimate Thor was first separated. There was a need. It wasn't hasty. There was enough information and differences between the two versions. I agree that an attempt should be made to avoid excess spliting. Believe me. However, there is a difference between condensation and simply removing data deemed "unimportant" based on POV. I honestly had no idea what was going on with the Ultimate Marvel stuff at first. Guess what? I learned. Certain Ultimate characters should be more than a section in the mainstream's article. Mergers should be done based on a clear need. Does this article properly inform the reader about Ultimate Thor? Should it? Both answers seem to be "No". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would say the answers are, respectively "not yet" and "yes." "What's going on with the Ultimate Marvel stuff?" is a bit too general of a question to ask. If you mean "What's a play-by-play of everything that's happening with Ultimate Marvel characters so I can catch up without reading the comics?" then go to Marvel.com or read the trades, we can't do that without infringing on copyright. If you mean "What's the purpose/goal of Ultimate Marvel?" I'd say you could check the Ultimate Marvel article for an overview. If you mean "What's the difference between Ultimate Thor and Thor?" that could be covered in this article in a few lines. Our job is not to summarize plot; our job is to give a real-world perspective on comic book characters and comic books. --Newt ΨΦ14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Image
Okay. I can stand it no longer! Can we PLEASE switch the civil war images? The cover to issue four is far more representitive and panels—especially6 ones like the one currently in SHB—should generally be placed elsewhere within the article. I mean...really. This doesn't bother anyone else? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the Civil War cover (which had full Civil War logo and other characters besides Thor on it) with an image that will be used as a variant cover for Civil War #4. It is illustrated by Ed McGuinness and is superior in that it is just Thor. No logo or other characters to distract from the article character. --Darin Wagner23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thor's Mother
I think the article should mention that Thor's mother is Gaea, Marvel's 'motherearth'. This might also explain his connection to, and protection of, earth. Lochdale05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. It might also be interesting to add that Gaea is also the ancestor of every pantheon of "gods" meaning that all of the various pantheons are related. Odin's Beard23:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Superspeed
According to many fans on superhero boards Thor does NOT have superspeed, so why is this isted as one of his powers? Is it in the Official handbook? — ChocolateRosestalk
Because he doesn't in the sense Quicksilver would for example. If flying fast was all that was needed everybody and their sisters would be said to have super-speed. Thor is super-humanly fast but he's no Quicksilver even if he can actually fly faster than him. Hal Jordan and Flash used to be a great team and while Hal could go faster than light speed he was never implied to be anywhere near as fast as Barry. Depending of what you mean with "superspeed" it can be true or not. But simply saying he has it period will make the article fanboyish flavored. Elaborate a bit if you insist on putting it. Thor has been humbled speed-wise before by much slower characters than Quicksilver and never demonstrated the ability to do anything mundane or not at an accelerated pace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Mesmero (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And according to many other fans he does. For example, Thor has ran so fast as to be invisible. Thor has fought the Silver Surfer at speeds that even the Surfer (who ha fought at faster than Flash level speeds) commented on his speed. He doesn't use it that often but Thor has massive super-speed. And yes, it is in the handbook. Lochdale04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
During the Simonson run, Thor fought Hela and stated that, as the god of thunder and lightning, he possessed the speed of lightning (which essentially says that he does in fact have superspeed). I do not have the issue number, as I am here at work right now. Will contribute that a little later. --Darin Wagner17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thor is even listed in both the old and new versions of the OHOTMU as possessing superhuman speed. In the older version, his running speed was listed as "Superhuman". According to the older version, the top speed for someone of this level was about 114 or 115 mph. His flight speed was listed at either "Escape Velocity" or "Orbital Velocity". I can't remember which one, but I remember it was stated that he could fly faster than a space shuttle. The newer Handbooks don't list his running or flight speed seperately, it just labels his speed at being extremely high on the power ratings chart provided. I'm guessing that the writers just combined them into one speed category. So, canonically speaking, Thor does possess some degree of superhuman speed. I think the phrase about Thor having the speed of lightning during his battle with Hela sounds a bit like artistic exaggeration. Odin's Beard00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Which was written by Simonson. Thor flies at faster than light speed, catches things like missiles, bullets and rockets. He has superspeed. Lochdale18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a kind of an old conversation by now, but as far back as in Journey into Mystery #94 (which is a very early example, considering that Thor's first appearance was in Journey into Mystery #83), Donald Blake transforms into Thor and flies out of the window at superspeed. "I'm speeding so fast that I'm practically invisible! Nobody saw me leave Dr. Blake's office, nor can anyone spot me as I streak skywards," he thinks as he goes. That's pretty obvious superspeed, right there.
That said, it's worth noting that back then Thor's powers weren't yet terribly well-defined, and he pulled an extra trick or two that I think have been completely forgotten since then... and good thing, too. For example, in Journey into Mystery #89, Thor finds Jane Foster held at gunpoint and needs something to distract the bad guys, so he, uh, becomes a ventriloquist. "Using his super-developed vocal cords, he throws his voice across the room," says the caption. Earlier in the issue he also "exhales with the power of the hurricane" -- essentially using super-breath to toss bad guys around. Kind of pre-Crisis Supermanesque of him, all this. Back then, Thor also routinely threw lightning bolts from his fingers and whatnot; it wasn't until later that his control over weather was consistently tied to Mjolnir. -- Captain Disdain23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, in flight, we've seen him far surpass escape velocity (The Saga of Beta Ray Bill), where he was travelling at (to borrow a Star Trek term) warp speeds to catch up with Skuttlebutt (Bill's ship).
Of course, that also brings up a neat point. His senses are rather superb as well, as he could actually see, track and follow a ship travelling at warp speeds.
Keep in mind, it is rare that he would ever need to exhibit super speeds. After all, his hammer (which is capable of warping both space and the very dimensional planes themselves to it's will) is more than fast enough to catch the fastest of targets as if they are standing still.
Ok, so the Turner variant was decided to not be used for the main SHB image because of the civil war titling on it.
What does everyone think of this image? Its the same Turner image, but its just the art. I haven't uploaded it yet, but if anyone thinks it would work? --DrBat16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Composing Wiki Text
"It might be an embarrassment of riches, but these sections are now waaaaay too long. This article is 50K -- that's almost twice as much as Wikipedia prefers. I'm sure some of the intense detail can be whittled down. -- Tenebrae 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) "
- In keeping with the statement above, I've tidied up many of the paragraphs which featured poor spelling; bad grammar and superfluous sentences. There were also a couple of plot points without any context that made no sense. It is important to remember that entries on long-standing and constantly changing characters CANNOT feature everything. The reader simply requires the gist of the matter - a succinct and descriptive summary of the most important features and events. References can be provided if the reader wishes to do further research. The "Protector of Midgard" summary is a good example of how to collate the information in an informative way without it becoming unwieldy. Hope it helps. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asgardian (talk • contribs) .
Images
It is important that we state in captions when an image is a solicitation cover, for fair use reasoning. Therefore please do not remove those phrases from captions. Also, why were the images reverted from standard size to strange sizes? Its looks messy and amateur. --Jamdav8619:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Composing Wiki Text, Part 2
The profile is closer to what it should be, but everyone needs to be aware that these pages CANNOT feature blow by blow accounts of what some fans feel is the definative story. The introduction of a Recommended Reading section provides readers with a quick rundown of the more pertinent stories without becoming verbose. Also, the differences between a Marvel version of Thor and the mythical version will be obvious if one sources the link at the top of the page to Thor. A summary is unnecessary and again promotes verbosity. Once again, the entry must be succinct.
Recommended Reading List is acknowledged as being the cream of the Thor stories. Having a lengthy summary of one or two stories is verbose and in fact represents said "POV stance." - Asgardian
Acknowledged by who? And who is recommending? If you want to have an objective list of award-winning Thor issues, or Roger Ebert's list of top-10 Thor stories or whatever, that's fine. Your recommendations are only your recommendations. As fine as they may be, they are, in the end, your personal choices, and that's POV and disallowed. I'm sorry, but that's just how Wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia works. -- Tenebrae00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
NOTE -
The RRL represents the best of the Thor stories (evident given that many on said list have been reprinted) and are excellent reference points for first appearances or a display of Thor's powers. Once again, a verbose summary of one or two of someone's favourite stories (eg. Surtur War) is inappropriate and not suitable for Wikipedia. The entries should present the GIST of the matter - not a blow by blow analysis. By that logic there should be a detailed account of the Celestial Saga and every other Thor story of note - which is impractical as the entry would be impossibly long. Brief summaries are what are required here - not panel by panel commentaries on stories such as the entry for the Surtur War. The same goes for other characters. A good example is Iron Man: a blow by blow account of the Armour Wars would be inappropriate. Brevity is the key. Remember this.
Addendum:
Suggest that those still feeling strongly about certain stories create a separate page for them (eg. The Surtur War) and then link it to the Thor page. Other readers could still benefit and it would keep the character's home page at a reasonable length.
Go ahead and shorten the sections you find objectionably long, but do not replace them with some bogus "Recommended Reading" list. That is blatently POV, as explained to you above, and will be reverted as such every time. CovenantD17:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this a mature response? Have you read the comments made above? Including large summaries of one or two stories IS POV, and not appropriate. If the author, then your material can be kept via a link as suggested above. Finally, how is the list "bogus?" These are acknowledged as being the best Thor stories and feature many important details, such as first appearances. How are the Kirby issues "bogus" given that they feature the first appearances of many of Thor's foes? How is the Celestial Saga "bogus" given Roy Thomas' interpretation of Norse mythology, the use of the 2,000 foot Destroyer and the introduction of Thor's mother, Gaea? How is the Midgard arc "bogus" given it features the first battle with the Wrecking Crew as a team; important developments for two of Galactus' Heralds and laid the groundwork for the Thor/Mephisto feud? Have you read any of these issues? Simonson wasn't the only writer to contribute to the Thor mythos.
I'm done debating the point. You are creating strawman arguments and otherwise avoiding the key issue, which is the POV of the "Recommended Reading" list. CovenantD23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You haven't "debated" anything, and have failed to address the main point. I can only surmise that you wrote some of the text and feel territorial. It can remain, but as a link. Remember, one of the most elements of Wiki entries is succinctness. Also, the attempts to change entries on minor characters smacks of pettiness. Those listings ARE the appearances of said characters. How else will new readers know how to access the issues? More updates to follow - could be time consuming trying to undo all of them.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asgardian (talk • contribs) .
CovenantD isn't being any more territorial than I or any of the other editors reverting your willful disobeying of Wikipedia rules and creating needless disruptions and threats (which seems how the community is supposed to take "could be time consuming trying to undo all of them").
That's a serious escalation even beyond all the breaking.If you don't stop, you'll be blocked. If you don't stop then, you'll be banned. It's that simple. --Tenebrae02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you have just issued a threat yourself. There has also been a complete failure on the behalf of at least two posters to address the issues. There is no need to be territorial, as the added information enhances rather than detracts from the entries. It is not about who knows more about a certain topic. The information presented is for the benefit of everyone. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asgardian (talk • contribs) .
Call it what you will. You're a rogue editor who can't be bothered with following even the rules of signing your posts. This is a community. Nobody can force you to act responsibly, work well with others, and abide by the rules. But then the consequences of your actions are then your own and no one else's. --Tenebrae02:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A "rogue editor"? Three points:
1.
This is your second emotive statement. Be objective. If it came to a review these comments will not stand in your favour.
2.
If I were a "rogue editor" as you describe, the information posted would be both inflammatory and erroneous (eg. "It was recently revealed that G'nort was the true father of Thor"). This is clearly not the case - nothing posted has been incorrect or false. In fact, everything has been supported by references, which oddly enough seem to be the bone of contention. Since when is supportable evidence - the very backbone of Wiki - inappropriate?
3.
Given that this is a community - as you claim - several members of said seem very resistant to change given that many of the improvements have made the entries clearer, and above all, succinct. To date there has been no effort to address the previous points raised here.
I did address your point by encouraging you to shorten the sections you find overly long[1]. Hardly the words of a "territorial" editor. CovenantD03:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Which I did...but putting back paragraph after paragraph on 1-2 stories is not efficient, yes?
That act is POV, so once again, a link is suggested.
This is entirely POV and I have removed it, otherwise we will just end up with an ever increasing list of wikipedia editors adding their own favourites. I was going to have a go at editing the tenses but I've remember I actually have a meeting to get to.
...after the latest rv of material other editors, by consensus, have repeatedly deleted:
Thor (Marvel Comics)
Please do not continue to revert edits that several editors, by consensus, keep removing. To continue to do so at this point is vandalism, and you willbe blocked and possibly banned. -- Tenebrae 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
How are they favourites? These are the significant issues. They DO feature first appearances and significant events.
PS - Tenebrae: you are still being emotive and resorting to threats. Nothing posted has been incorrect and in fact much of the article has now been made far more succinct. It is STILL too long, but much improved.
No thanks to you, it must be pointed out - all of your edits have been undone by subsequent editors who use a bit of finesse instead of a hatchet. CovenantD11:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- CovenantD:
You have committed the same offence. Your response was emotive and also erroneous. I have rewritten every passage in the Character Biography and Powers and Abilities sections to remove all spelling errors; poor grammar and factual errors. This was done to improve the overall quality of the entry and once again, make it more succinct. Many posters here are prone to citing irrelevant information (eg. all the quirks and in and outs of the title and who guest starred when) and/or focusing on subjective moments. This is POV. It is an entry on Thor, and while some of his life events are important milestones, it should not become a case of "tell the story." People are only trying to be helpful, but it is subjective nonetheless. I find it ironic, therefore, that you speak of "others" who use finesse when in fact most posters here are given to verbosity.
Apart from the fact that it is an insult and in breach of Wikipedia procedure, the hatchet metaphor is somewhat amusing given how many almost non-existant entries I have improved on lately. No false, inflammatory or misleading information has been posted. Rather, I have provided information (and quite a few covers) that many new readers may not be aware of. Hardly the act of a vandal. If you want to see vandals in action, try Final Fantasy (FFVII may be a good place to start). I am not your enemy.
Your constant warring with other editors and your childish insistence on reinserting misspelled and gramatically poor trivial edits with POV must stop. I'm reqesting Admin intervention. --Tenebrae14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The bad edits include going against WikiProject Comics style on promotional art and on present-tense fictional history, but also use of POV (it's only opinion who his "greatest" foes are, or what his "greatest" battle was); of disallowed temporal references ("in more recent times"); and of OR speculation and vagueness ("quite possibly"). Many of these appear in the single paragraph below; examples abound throughout his edits.
Thor's other mortal foes include the Wrecking Crew and the Grey Gargoyle, but his greatest enemies have always been the Asgardian "monsters", which include Mangog; the Frost Giants; the Enchanters Three; the Midgard Serpent (comics) and arch fire-demon Surtur. Thor's gallery of mystical/cosmic Rogues also extends to beings such as Mephisto; and in more recent times the Dark Gods (comics); the Sh'iar Praetor Gladiator and the god-slayer Desak. Thor's greatest battle, however, was quite possibly against the combined might of the Celestials, when their Fourth Host arrived to judge Earth.
I think you have good intentions, Asgardian, but also a habit of feeling a bit overprotective of the article. Ease back a bit, and we won't have any more problems. :) --Jamdav8616:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Article expansion
This article needs a bit more detail in certain areas. The pub. history only has a bit of the beginning, and a few paragraphs on the relaunches, but nothing on the 30-odd years in between. Similarly, the biography contains a lot of info from v2, #40ish to the present, but nothing before. Folks more knowledgeable on Thor than me will need to add info in these areas.
Here is some text lost in Asgardian's laudable efforts of reducing useless info, but it may be useful in expanding the pub. history in particular.--Jamdav8616:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the support Jamdav86. I think Tenebrae has been over-reacting and the request for intervention may go against him/her. Tenebrae's claim that there are multiple editors opposing edits is something of a smoke screen as only Covenant has engaged in repeated dialogue, and like Tenebrae is responding with emotion rather than logic. By the by, the references to Thor's foes are correct. The fact that I have read every Thor comic aside, there are widely accepted truths regarding Thor's Rogues Gallery. The Asgardian monsters ARE Thor's greatest foes, and have been since their introduction in the 60's. Also note that on the issue of Thor's greatest battle, I say "possibly", but the fact is that #300 was of enormous significance for several reasons (has everyone read it?)
Please also note that this should NOT be a competition (ie. case of who knows more about a subject) as the aim of Wikipedia is for everyone to benefit from the group's combined efforts. That said, I suspect at least two posters are feeling a little threatened and even "trumped", hence the reaction. Again, there is no need for this. If in doubt about something, ask, rather than attack.
Jam - agreed. I culled as much as I could from the latter portions of Thor's Biography to keep manageable, but it still smacks of telling the story. For the sake of consistency and succinctness, it may be prudent to expand the Midgard section and list foes by eras and mark definable highlights (eg. the Celestial Saga, first fight with the Wrecking Crew, introduction of Beta Ray Bill). This is the only way to track the history of long standing characters without the entry becoming unwieldy. Thoughts?
You can't have "widely accepted truths". You can only have confirmable, verifiable references. They are verifiable, as per comic continuity, and to stick with the example, many of these issues feature first appearaces. Fact , canon etc. That's simply Wikipedia policy, like it or not. The last part of your statement is once again emotive and smacks of an ultimatum.
The article has suffered from so much over-detail that several editors and an Admin worked on bringing it down to a suitable length, even going so far as having the article locked for a time to prevent further editing. I can believe that. It still needs another 1/4 to culled. Perhaps the tail end.
Smokescreen? You've kept inserting a misspelling of J. Michael Straczynski.
I did not write that. You've changed the tense improperly from present to past. You you've temporal references contrary to WP:DATED. Yet you ignore the concrete examples given, and despite this solid, verifiable evidence declare that editors who disagree with you must have some personal motive. Assumptions. You are also projecting - see Straw man and the comments above re: your circular argument.
You've been presented with facts. What facts? It's not a matter of emotion,
Read what you've previously posted. and your inability to work well with the community by your constant defensiveness and inability to accept facts and to adhere to Wikipedia policies of WP:POV, WP:NOR and consensus is creating difficulties for all concerned. Again, what facts? Nothing I have posted is incorrect.
Possibly because two of said editors have a history of conflict with other posters, seem to be displaying some pettiness and territorial behaviour and have a general inability to determine good writing from not so good (a la some other entries I have changed for the better which appears objectionable and deemed vandalism. Surprising considering that many of said entries were almost non-existant prior to the changes).
