Who Watches the Watchers - Forum for the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe & Similar Works

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/13/2020 10:31 am  #1


Things People Keep Getting Wrong - Original Version

Historical text from Comixfan. Closing this thread after moving all the old text over because it's been replaced by a newer thread: https://whowatchesthewatchers.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=293

Stuart V
Jun 26, 2009, 07:59 pm
For no other reason than it annoys me when I keep seeing so-called info sites getting certain things consistently wrong, I'm resurrecting a thread that got lost when the site had its hiccup a while back. In no particular order, as stuff occurs to me, I want to highlight common errors which perpetuate across the internet because one person misreads something and then others cut and paste that error across sites (often, but not always Wiki sites) until they become widely accepted, to the extent that when you try and correct them (again, talking Wiki sites), other posters come in and undo the change because they know better (based on what they've read online, rather than in the comics themselves). I might only do this once, I might do it intermittently, I might do it regularly - I don't know yet. Others are welcome to join in.

In no particular order:

"Devil Dinosaur is of above average intelligence, at least for a dinosaur."
No, he's not. He's of above average intelligence, period. Don't let his inability to speak (Nextwave clone notwithstanding) fool you. Devil is human level smart, no question. Devil plans ahead. An animal, even a smart one, might remember stuff, it might react to stuff, they might even plan to handle a past problem if they encounter it again (such as storing food for winter), but they don't anticipate potential future events they might one day encounter and then plan for them - that requires the ability to both comprehend the future as a concept and to imagine stuff you haven't personally experienced. The best example (but not the only one) of Devil doing this is in his own series, when he faces flying alien robots. Devil has previously scouted out the valley he lives in, noticed a region of geysers, and filed away that location so that in the off-chance he ever faces a flying opponent who won't come down to ground level to attack and instead attacks from out of Devil's reach, then Devil can lead them to the geysers, make sure his opponent is in position, and then kick a boulder into the blowhole to trigger an eruption at the correct moment (using tools, not taking chances on random eruptions), so that the flying attacker will be struck by a high velocity blast of boiling water. That's forward planning for an unlikely to happen event that he's never seen or experienced, but one Devil nonetheless conceived of.

Wilhelm Lohmer, the original Master Man, isn't German. He's American. This was implied in his original appearances, when he was noted to be a Bundist- generally speaking, Germans weren't Bundists, Americans of German descent were. It was explicitly stated in Captain America: The Medusa Effect, written by Master Man's creator, Roy Thomas.

Isaiah Bradley was a victim of experiments to recreate the Super Soldier Serum, not to create it. It's simply a timeline issue - Steve Rogers was already active as Cap before Pearl Harbor, and had been active with the Invaders from December 1941. Isaiah didn't enlist until February 1942.

Editing to add: I see this still being debated back and forward on some places on the internet, and I see the handbooks being brought into the debate, which is why I feel the need to comment. Despite The Truth itself setting the timeline that makes it impossible for Isaiah to come before Steve, despite the presence of a Captain America comic shown in The Truth that predates the experiments on the Camp Cathcart "volunteers", despite the creators of The Truth quite unequivocaly stating that Steve came first in interviews and The Truth TPB's appendix, there are some people doggedly holding on to the misconception that Marvel's official stance is that Isaiah has been retconned to come before Steve.

"They've retconned it since The Truth came out, that's why Patriot says Isaiah was the first in early issues of Young Avengers." Nope, Patriot just has the dates wrong, and Steve didn't see the value in correcting an angry young man whose grandfather was horribly mistreated - going "actually, they murdered all those other soldiers and abused your grandfather later than you think" doesn't make what was done any better.

Isaiah's entry, Patriot's entry, and the WWII entry in Blockbusters of the Marvel Universe all say Steve got experimented on before Isaiah. "Oh, the Blockbusters entry on WWII has probably got wrong info they need to correct." "The [handbook] team probably only look at big events and don't catch all the lines of dialogue". Sorry, no, not even close. While we can and do make mistakes now and then, I can say with absolute certainty that we didn't in regards to the timeline here.

So, to make it clear - Steve became Captain America and joined the Invaders before Isaiah even enlisted. They haven't retconned things to shift Isaiah's enlistment and experimentation earlier. They haven't retconned things to shift Steve's experiments later (way too much interaction with other characters and thus too many knock on effects for that). As of April 2011 Marvel's official order of who got experimented on has Steve predating Isaiah by more than a year. This is not my opinion. We didn't guess this when we put it in the handbook. We didn't miss a retcon. This was checked after the newspaper seen in The Crew, and after Patriot's statements in Young Avengers, so both of those were taken into account, and neither of them overrules the timeline as it stood. We specifically asked senior editorial regarding the order of events, and they confirmed the order since seen in multiple handbooks. It hasn't changed since then. And I hate to make a such a big deal out of it, but I don't particularly like people trying to claim the handbooks got it wrong just to win their arguments.

Sunturion isn't wearing armor. Nor is he energy housed inside armor like the LoSH's Wildfire. He's a being of living energy, more like the Living Laser, Monica Rambeau (when she's in light form) or Klaw, and both his human look and his armor look are facades, forms he adopts. There was a Sunturion armor made, which we saw in an issue of Daredevil, but Iron Man Annual #9 clarifies that was created in the hopes of reintegrating the then-dissipated energies of Sunturion; it wasn't the suit he had been wearing, because he isn't wearing a suit.

616 does not come from "the publication date of the first issue of FF #1." Because Alan Moore and Alan Davis have differing accounts, we have conflicting versions of who came up with it and what (if anything) it stands for, but neither one corroborates the FF hypothesis. So please, let that discredited theory die.

Sidney Osinga
Jun 27, 2009, 01:14 am

  Stuart V wrote:

"Devil Dinosaur is of above average intelligence, at least for a dinosaur."
No, he's not. He's of above average intelligence, period. Don't let his inability to speak (Nextwave clone notwithstanding) fool you. Devil is human level smart, no question. Devil plans ahead. An animal, even a smart one, might remember stuff, it might react to stuff, they might even plan to handle a past problem if they encounter it again (such as storing food for winter), but they don't anticipate potential future events they might one day encounter and then plan for them - that requires the ability to both comprehend the future as a concept and to imagine stuff you haven't personally experienced. The best example (but not the only one) of Devil doing this is in his own series, when he faces flying alien robots. Devil has previously scouted out the valley he lives in, noticed a region of geysers, and filed away that location so that in the off-chance he ever faces a flying opponent who won't come down to ground level to attack and instead attacks from out of Devil's reach, then Devil can lead them to the geysers, make sure his opponent is in position, and then kick a boulder into the blowhole to trigger an eruption at the correct moment (using tools, not taking chances on random eruptions), so that the flying attacker will be struck by a high velocity blast of boiling water. That's forward planning for an unlikely to happen event that he's never seen or experienced, but one Devil nonetheless conceived of.

That makes sense. He is a mutant after all, and his increased intelligence is part of his abilities. Furthermore, he has shown the ability to understand when people talk to him. And he has shown greater comperhenion skills than an animal would possess. In the Fallen Angels mini series, he was teleported to two alien worlds from his home to modern day Earth and the planet Coconut Grove without reacting negatively.

Anyways, I guess the point is that there is a difference between an animal having above average intelligence and one having human level intelligence.

Michael Regan
Jun 27, 2009, 09:32 pm
I'm dying for more Stuart

John H
Jun 28, 2009, 12:04 am
How about the Braddock twins as mutants or whatever they are? I thought that they were not mutants. But her association with the X-Men confuses the issue.
But is Jamie Braddock a mutant?




Stuart V

Jun 28, 2009, 06:23 am

John H wrote:

How about the Braddock twins as mutants or whatever they are? I thought that they were not mutants. But her association with the X-Men confuses the issue.
But is Jamie Braddock a mutant?

That one's murky. Prior to joining the X-Men, nobody ever checked Betsy over with a mutant detection device, but she definitely triggered them around the time she was first with the X-Men. Brian, however, isn't a mutant. Jamie is in the 198 Files as a mutant, but I can say outright (since we discussed it amongst the Handbook writers at the time) that his presence there is more down to O*N*E*s assumption that if his sister is a mutant and he has powers then he too must be a mutant - now, they could be right in that assumption, but they could also be wrong. The 198 Files was written as an "in-universe" document, and hence there's a few cases where the info there is deliberately just a little off, because there's information the in-universe scribes wouldn't be privy to.

Is Betsy a mutant? Her powers developed late for a mutant (she was in her 20s), and appear to have been initially triggered by psychic contact with Dr. Synne, an agent of the Mastermind computer. But none of that precludes her being a mutant - Polaris was a similar late developer whose powers required outside stimulation to active. Mastermind later told Betsy and Brian that their powers come from their father being from Otherworld. So, some people assume that means they are hybrids, like Namor, which makes them a kind of mutant. But that too has its problems. There are normal humans on Otherworld, as well as all the mystical races, and James Braddock appeared to be one of them. He's not the same species as Merlyn and Roma, as far as we know, because Merlyn apparently isn't an Otherworld native - he says he "established Otherworld" in Excalibur #50. We've had no signs that there's any other members of Merlyn's species on Otherworld than him and his daughter.

I've seen some people say Betsy has telepathic powers because that's a natural ability on Otherworld. Nope. There's a few telepaths on Otherworld, but it doesn't appear to be that widespread a phenomenon (though James might have been one, though there's no evidence of it).

Where does that leave us?

Brian's powers are magical. We've seen how he got his original powers, and we saw how his body was rebuilt from scratch to give him his later powers and make them innate. Brian does not trigger mutant detection devices. He's not a mutant, and he's the only family member we are reasonably sure about.

Jamie's powers were activated by magic. Nobody has ever scanned him with a mutant detector, afaik, and frankly, given his ability to manipulate reality, it wouldn't matter now, as he could presumably make them detect him even if he's not a mutant, or not detect them even if he is.

Betsy's powers were activated indirectly by a computer built by her father, a computer that has the same manipulative streak as Merlyn and Roma. The first time she checked out on a mutant scanning device was when she was with the X-Men; at that point in time Roma was forging links between the X-Men and the Braddocks because she needed them tied together and for the X-Men, with Betsy among them, to die in order to trigger the formation of Excalibur. Betsy being considered a mutant helped that plan, and Roma is perfectly capable of making Betsy trigger mutant detectors even if she isn't actually a mutant.

And so it comes back to: We don't really know. Our evidence for mutant is inconclusive - Betsy detects as a mutant, but we know Roma has the ability to mess with that and had the motive to do so - but our evidence for non-mutant is effectively circumstantial - Roma has the ability and motive to have engineered it, but we have no actual hard proof she did so. Any assumptions about Jamie hang on Betsy's status. All we can be certain of is that the Braddock siblings had their lives manipulated from the off by some very powerful and devious individuals, which means that even now, anything we think we know about their origins may be subject to revision.

DrGoodwrench
Jun 28, 2009, 08:58 am
I know it's on one of the other threads here, but you might want to include the thing about Le Peregrine's non-Avenger status which confused me for a time.

John H
Jun 28, 2009, 11:07 am
I just realized from reading the discussion in this thread, Jamie's powers are pretty formidable. They seem similar in a way to Roma's and Merlin's. Roma made the X-men invisible (to certain kinds of detection) after reviving them in Dallas, whereas Jamie made Betsy invisible after he revived she. And Merlin did the same to Brian in CB&MI:13 (though not invisible).
If Jamie had not gone mad, would he be on a level with Roma?
Was it ever stated how Jamie lost his mind?

Also, is Meggan related to the fairy folk?
She was shown to have a connection to the ancient race the Neuri. But I never thought she was a fairy.

Michael Regan
Jun 28, 2009, 11:20 am
Jamie was torchered and drivin insane by the cyborg Doctor Crocodile. He now views the world around him as nothing more than a dream which he does not wake from.

Stuart V
Jun 28, 2009, 01:41 pm

DrGoodwrench wrote:

I know it's on one of the other threads here, but you might want to include the thing about Le Peregrine's non-Avenger status which confused me for a time.

Not sure what you mean on that - le Peregrine isn't an Avenger, never has been afaik.

DrGoodwrench wrote:

Also, is Meggan related to the fairy folk?
She was shown to have a connection to the ancient race the Neuri. But I never thought she was a fairy.

No, she's not a faery as far as we can tell. That's another common mistake people make. She's a mutant. She's not connected to the Neuri as such - she's connected to natural energies, including magical energies, which is what gave her and the Neuri an affinity for one another, but there's no other known connection between the two. The only people who have called her faerie were using it as a descriptor rather than a statement of knowledge (e.g. she looks a bit like a faerie, but they didn't know her genetic/racial background, they were going on looks) and were people who came from magical backgrounds (and thus were likely to tailor their descriptions into the frames of reference they are familiar with). We've had several writers call her a mutant in the text, we've had Meggan identify herself as a mutant, and we've had at least two individuals with scanning capability and knowledge of both mutants and magical beings identify her as a mutant. Chris Claremont even said in his introduction of Meggan to U.S. audiences that those who didn't know better might think she was a faerie, but she was actually a mutant.

John H wrote:

I just realized from reading the discussion in this thread, Jamie's powers are pretty formidable. They seem similar in a way to Roma's and Merlin's. Roma made the X-men invisible (to certain kinds of detection) after reviving them in Dallas, whereas Jamie made Betsy invisible after he revived she. And Merlin did the same to Brian in CB&MI:13 (though not invisible).
If Jamie had not gone mad, would he be on a level with Roma?
Was it ever stated how Jamie lost his mind?

  Michael Regan wrote:

Jamie was torchered and drivin insane by the cyborg Doctor Crocodile. He now views the world around him as nothing more than a dream which he does not wake from.

Michael's got it mostly right. Jamie was tortured, though on Doc Croc's orders rather than by Croc himself; Croc's witchwoman did the actual work. And to be fair on Croc, Jamie was both a pretty unpleasant criminal, and Croc's punishment was being done to rehabilitate him, not for any less noble motives. It's just Jamie got broken out mid-process. By his last appearance he did seem to have regained some understanding that the world wasn't all a dream, and even a measure of his original decency (he did, after all, sacrifice himself to save his sister and the human race).

There's a difference between Roma & Merlyn's powers, and those of Jamie, Mad Jim Jaspers, and other reality warpers. Roma and Merlyn are/were powerful mages/scientists, and could use that knowledge to perform some incredible feats. Jamie, Jaspers, etc, can just change the world around them at a whim; they don't need to understand how their powers work, they can just innately do it. J & J's upper power levels are theoretically much higher than Merlyn and Roma, who win out as much because of their devious planning abilities as their raw power..

Zach Kinkead
Jun 28, 2009, 01:47 pm
Isaiah Bradley was a victim of experiments to recreate the Super Soldier Serum, not to create it. It's simply a timeline issue - Steve Rogers was already active as Cap before Pearl Harbor, and had been active with the Invaders from December 1941. Isaiah didn't enlist until February 1942.
It probably doesn’t help any that the characters themselves keep making that mistake.

Stuart V
Jun 28, 2009, 02:34 pm

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

It probably doesn’t help any that the characters themselves keep making that mistake.

To be fair, the original plan with The Truth was to have Isaiah and co come first. The decision to move the series into 616 after the story was underway scuppered that, because the 1942 date of The Truth didn't gell with the 616 dates for Rogers becoming Cap. And yes, Patriot in particular believes his grandfather was experimented on first, which can be put down to a lot of people not knowing the comparative dates of the two sets of experiments. Steve presumably either didn't realise it either, or was just too polite to correct Elijah - after all, the when it happened to Isaiah and the others from Cathcart is less important than the wrongness in what was done.

John H
Jun 28, 2009, 05:52 pm
Speaking of Jamie and Mad Jim Jaspers... the Scarlet Witch's mutant "hex" powers had been described as manipulating time on some level. In Byrne's Avengers West Coast, it was explained when Pym did an experiment.
And then it was described as manipulating Chaos Magic.
And then as reality warping, resulting in House of M/M-Day.
I don't know how her power was described before all of this, pre-1989, except to say it was a probability hex.

Zach Kinkead
Jun 28, 2009, 07:39 pm


  Stuart V wrote:

Patriot in particular believes his grandfather was experimented on first, …[Steve] was just too polite to correct Elijah - after all, the when it happened to Isaiah and the others from Cathcart is less important than the wrongness in what was done.

Yeah, Patriot was exactly who I was talking about. Sometimes the chip on that kid’s shoulder seems less about disgust over what was done to his grandpa and more about him not being recognized as the original Cap. Steve isn’t the type of guy who’d take that away from someone just for the sake of being technically correct.

Sidney Osinga
Jun 28, 2009, 07:55 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

DrGoodwrench wrote:

I know it's on one of the other threads here, but you might want to include the thing about Le Peregrine's non-Avenger status which confused me for a time.

Not sure what you mean on that - le Peregrine isn't an Avenger, never has been afaik.

I think he means that Solo Avengers #6, Hawkeye granted Peregrine honorary membership for the duration of a fight. It was a joke and Hawkeye was being employed by Silver Sable for the mission, not as an Avenger. However, some people do believe that it did mean that Peregrine actually became an Avenger.

skippcomet
Jun 29, 2009, 06:28 pm

  John H wrote:

Speaking of Jamie and Mad Jim Jaspers... the Scarlet Witch's mutant "hex" powers had been described as manipulating time on some level. In Byrne's Avengers West Coast, it was explained when Pym did an experiment.
And then it was described as manipulating Chaos Magic.
And then as reality warping, resulting in House of M/M-Day.
I don't know how her power was described before all of this, pre-1989, except to say it was a probability hex.

It is a shame that, since Avengers Finale, the Scarlet Witch has been treated as little more than a plot device for stories about other characters. But that's probably not an appropriate discussion for this particular forum.

Stuart V
Jul 1, 2009, 02:30 pm
Some more, strictly speaking old ones and pet bugbears of mine, but I still see them crop up from time to time, so I may as well reiterate them.

"Captain Britain is a recovering alcoholic."
No. Brian's been seen to drink heavily maybe three times, all under stressful circumstances, and only been seen to be really drunk once, when he'd literally witnessed his sister's death over and over on television. He did quit drinking, but that was because he realised that when he gets drunk it makes whatever mood he is in much worse (if annoyed, he can get belligerant, if sad he gets maudlin), and Brian dislikes not being in control of himself, both because he's got an overwhelming sense of duty/doing the right thing, and because he recognises someone with his kind of power is dangerous if not in control of themself. He quit without any difficulty, and, tellingly, many years later had an alcoholic drink while rejoining/inflitrating the Hellfire Club, but only had one and went back to being teetotal without any problem. An alcoholic can't have "just one drink."

"The current Union Jack, Joe Chapman, was originally intended to be gay and the lover of Kenneth Crichton (Spitfire's son)."
This is based on three things in Joe's first appearance - he's an art student, he was in a college wrestling team, and he (or Kenneth) made a comment about the other one being a heavy sleeper. Yes, clearly this means he is artistic (which is automatically a euphemism for being gay), he likes putting his arms round other men, and he and Kenneth must have slept together, which of course can only mean they had sex. There's absolutely no other way anyone could possibly interpret that information. They couldn't just be college roommates, be good at art and yet straight, and the wrestling comment couldn't be there to explain why Joe would subsequently prove a capable hand to hand fighter against Baron Blood.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. In the same first appearance Kenneth identifies a girl to Joe as the woman he is in love with and wants to marry. If the intent was to hint that Kenneth was Joe's boyfriend, that's a funny way to go about it.

There's several characters who are gay (including the Brian Falsworth Union Jack), and yes, more gay characters would not be unwelcome, but there's never been any evidence Joe is gay, and it wasn't hinted at in his early appearances, as some like to claim. And both the story's writer Roy Thomas (http://imwan.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=17498) and artist John Byrne (http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21065) have confirmed no intent to suggest he was.

Stuart V
Jul 3, 2009, 12:48 pm
Another one. Mutant Growth Hormone, despite the name, can be derived from non-mutants. In Alias MGH was being made using Mattie Franklin's DNA. Mattie is not a mutant, she's a magical mutate. Hence we have a confirmed example of non-mutant MGH. This has a corollary: the Owl using his own body to produce MGH does not mean the Owl is a mutant, as many online sites have subsequently claimed (conveniently overlooking Mattie, who no one tries to claim is a mutant). The Owl has occasionally been wrongly identified as a mutant, but his origin was clear - he's a mutate who took a formula to get his powers. The Owl is not one of the 198.

Michael Regan
Jul 3, 2009, 01:06 pm
Great clarification on the Owl, one that I've commonly gotten incorrect.

Perhaps some clarification on Mutant, Mutate, Superhuman, and perhaps even Magical Mutate are in order :Yes:

bigvis497
Jul 3, 2009, 02:05 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

Great clarification on the Owl, one that I've commonly gotten incorrect.

Perhaps some clarification on Mutant, Mutate, Superhuman, and perhaps even Magical Mutate are in order :yes:

I always thought an entry on just the mutant race in genral would be sweet. Make it a nice big one ala the Gamma Mutates/Demons/Vampires entry, it doesn't have to have head shots of everyone but a complete list would be nice.

Zach Kinkead
Jul 3, 2009, 09:16 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Another one. Mutant Growth Hormone, despite the name, can be derived from non-mutants. In Alias MGH was being made using Mattie Franklin's DNA. Mattie is not a mutant, she's a magical mutate. Hence we have a confirmed example of non-mutant MGH. This has a corollary: the Owl using his own body to produce MGH does not mean the Owl is a mutant, as many online sites have subsequently claimed (conveniently overlooking Mattie, who no one tries to claim is a mutant). The Owl has occasionally been wrongly identified as a mutant, but his origin was clear - he's a mutate who took a formula to get his powers. The Owl is not one of the 198.

I always wondered about MGH. It struck me as odd that you’d get “mutant” anything out of Mattie since the kid got her powers supernaturally. I did always assume that the Owl was a mutant though. I figured he was just a “technical” mutant in the Cloak and Dagger sense.

Of course, if MGH really WAS made from mutants then most of it would have become worthless after HoM and that probably would have sparked a pretty big gang war … which could have made for a pretty interesting story if only because it would have lead to something as unlikely as a Daredevil/X-Men crossover.

gorby
Jul 4, 2009, 05:06 am

  Stuart V wrote:

This has a corollary: the Owl using his own body to produce MGH does not mean the Owl is a mutant, as many online sites have subsequently claimed (conveniently overlooking Mattie, who no one tries to claim is a mutant). The Owl has occasionally been wrongly identified as a mutant, but his origin was clear - he's a mutate who took a formula to get his powers. The Owl is not one of the 198.

The claim of the Owl being a mutant predates the MGH. He was stated as a mutant in the first OHotMU, but this was corrected in the Deluxe Edition. So, between 64 and 83, Marvel regarded him as a mutant, implying the confusion.

Stuart V
Jul 4, 2009, 05:41 am

gorby wrote:

The claim of the Owl being a mutant predates the MGH. He was stated as a mutant in the first OHotMU, but this was corrected in the Deluxe Edition. So, between 64 and 83, Marvel regarded him as a mutant, implying the confusion.

Not from 64 - to start with he wasn't a mutant. The original OHOTMU got it wrong, and the Deluxe corrected it. The recent MGH bit just added to the confusion.

Andy E. Nystrom
Jul 4, 2009, 10:59 pm
If memory serves, Christopher Priest (Jim Owlsley at the time) incorrectly treated the Falcon as a mutant in Falcon#1, with the result that this is another thing people keep getting wrong (this was discussed a fair bit on an Avengers listserv I used to belong to).

Eric J. Moreels
Jul 5, 2009, 01:23 am

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

If memory serves, Christopher Priest (Jim Owlsley at the time) incorrectly treated the Falcon as a mutant in Falcon#1, with the result that this is another thing people keep getting wrong (this was discussed a fair bit on an Avengers listserv I used to belong to).

I think it was because Falcon was attacked by a Sentinel in #2 that people started assuming he was a mutant because of his telepathic link with Redwing (even though IIRC that was created by the cosmic cube?)

Stuart V
Jul 5, 2009, 07:34 am

  Eric J. Moreels wrote:

I think it was because Falcon was attacked by a Sentinel in #2 that people started assuming he was a mutant because of his telepathic link with Redwing (even though IIRC that was created by the cosmic cube?)

Correct. A malfunctioning Sentinel identified Falcon as a mutant, but as Jarvis specifically pointed out in one of the Annuals, that was a malfunctioning Sentinel, and Falcon's only innate power comes from the Cosmic Cube.

As an addendum to the note that the Owl doesn't belong on the various 198 lists, there's a couple of mutants people keep missing off those lists. We've seen that these individuals set of Cerebro and are confirmed mutants; we've seen them since Decimation and they have retained their mutant abilities; one half of this duo has had a handbook entry which specifically states they are mutants that have retained their powers. Heck (and here's the biggest clue to their identities), Beast even confirmed that every mutant in their specific subgroup of mutantkind has remained powered. But, I guess because people don't automatically realise they are mutants and don't always think of these characters as having powers to begin with, nobody lists them.

Anyone care to guess who I am referring to?

DrGoodwrench
Jul 5, 2009, 09:49 am

  Stuart V wrote:

As an addendum to the note that the Owl doesn't belong on the various 198 lists, there's a couple of mutants people keep missing off those lists. We've seen that these individuals set of Cerebro and are confirmed mutants; we've seen them since Decimation and they have retained their mutant abilities; one half of this duo has had a handbook entry which specifically states they are mutants that have retained their powers. Heck (and here's the biggest clue to their identities), Beast even confirmed that every mutant in their specific subgroup of mutantkind has remained powered. But, I guess because people don't automatically realise they are mutants and don't always think of these characters as having powers to begin with, nobody lists them.

Anyone care to guess who I am referring to?

Orphan-Maker is part of a duo, is a mutant, and has had a handbook entry. He also does not appear on the list of confirmed remaining mutants on Wikipedia (which I do realise is perhaps not the best source to use). Also, he wears armour, so people might not realise he's a mutant (and his mutant powers have not been revealed). I'm not sure that he fits the 'subgroup' clue, though, so I guess it's not him being referred to here.

EDIT: Having re-read the wikipedia page, I don'tthink Orpham-Maker fits after all, since it seems he has not been confirmed as still having powers.

Andy E. Nystrom
Jul 5, 2009, 11:51 am

  Stuart V wrote:

As an addendum to the note that the Owl doesn't belong on the various 198 lists, there's a couple of mutants people keep missing off those lists. We've seen that these individuals set of Cerebro and are confirmed mutants; we've seen them since Decimation and they have retained their mutant abilities; one half of this duo has had a handbook entry which specifically states they are mutants that have retained their powers. Heck (and here's the biggest clue to their identities), Beast even confirmed that every mutant in their specific subgroup of mutantkind has remained powered. But, I guess because people don't automatically realise they are mutants and don't always think of these characters as having powers to begin with, nobody lists them.

Anyone care to guess who I am referring to?

Withpout looking at the Handbook I'm going to take a stab anyway: Swordsman? He was part of the Fenris duo and their powers are linked together and can't be used separately. Andrea Strucker is now tanned hide but technically as such has still been seen fairly regularly; in fact the Swordsman's powers won't work without contact with what's left of her. And the only other mutant(s) I can think of from their sub-group still has his/their powers as well (the Collective Man).

ToddCam
Jul 5, 2009, 12:16 pm
Any word on *shudder* Team America/Thunderriders?

Stuart V
Jul 5, 2009, 12:27 pm

DrGoodwrench wrote:

Orphan-Maker is part of a duo, is a mutant, and has had a handbook entry. He also does not appear on the list of confirmed remaining mutants on Wikipedia (which I do realise is perhaps not the best source to use). Also, he wears armour, so people might not realise he's a mutant (and his mutant powers have not been revealed). I'm not sure that he fits the 'subgroup' clue, though, so I guess it's not him being referred to here.

EDIT: Having re-read the wikipedia page, I don'tthink Orpham-Maker fits after all, since it seems he has not been confirmed as still having powers.

Good guess, but no. As noted, his powers come from his armour, as he was a young mutant whose natural abilities (presumably) hadn't activated yet when Nanny kidnapped him. As such, it's hard to be sure if Orphan-Maker retained his powers or lost them.

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Withpout looking at the Handbook I'm going to take a stab anyway: Swordsman? He was part of the Fenris duo and their powers are linked together and can't be used separately. Andrea Strucker is now tanned hide but technically as such has still been seen fairly regularly; in fact the Swordsman's powers won't work without contact with what's left of her. And the only other mutant(s) I can think of from their sub-group still has his/their powers as well (the Collective Man).

Nope, not Swordsman. There's question marks on the Struckers anyway - though they've occasionally been called mutants, originally they were identified as having undergone genetic manipulation to get their powers, which would make them mutates.

ToddCam wrote:

Any word on *shudder* Team America/Thunderriders?

No word on their status.

DrGoodwrench
Jul 5, 2009, 12:29 pm

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Withpout looking at the Handbook I'm going to take a stab anyway: Swordsman? He was part of the Fenris duo and their powers are linked together and can't be used separately. Andrea Strucker is now tanned hide but technically as such has still been seen fairly regularly; in fact the Swordsman's powers won't work without contact with what's left of her. And the only other mutant(s) I can think of from their sub-group still has his/their powers as well (the Collective Man).

Did the Fenris twins have the x-gene? Does the fact that they were created with their powers by scientists preclude them from being true mutants? I'm not sure I'm totally up to speed on the current definition of mutant. I'm sure it used to be the case that a mutant had to have different powers to their parents. Is that still the case? If so, does that mean that Persuasion is not really a mutant or are her powers somehow different to her father's?

EDIT: Whether they are mutants or not was answered while I was writing this post. I'd still like to know about the Persuasion thing, though, if it's not OT.

EDIT2: Sorry if the questions at the start of this post seem a little aggressive. They're not intended to be.

ToddCam
Jul 5, 2009, 01:18 pm
The whole "born with powers but not a mutant" is one of the stupidest things in the world. Would bigots really care if Spider-Girl specifically has an x-gene?

Sidney Osinga
Jul 5, 2009, 02:07 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Correct. A malfunctioning Sentinel identified Falcon as a mutant, but as Jarvis specifically pointed out in one of the Annuals, that was a malfunctioning Sentinel, and Falcon's only innate power comes from the Cosmic Cube.

As an addendum to the note that the Owl doesn't belong on the various 198 lists, there's a couple of mutants people keep missing off those lists. We've seen that these individuals set of Cerebro and are confirmed mutants; we've seen them since Decimation and they have retained their mutant abilities; one half of this duo has had a handbook entry which specifically states they are mutants that have retained their powers. Heck (and here's the biggest clue to their identities), Beast even confirmed that every mutant in their specific subgroup of mutantkind has remained powered. But, I guess because people don't automatically realise they are mutants and don't always think of these characters as having powers to begin with, nobody lists them.

Anyone care to guess who I am referring to?

Cloak and Dagger?

DrGoodwrench
Jul 5, 2009, 02:18 pm
How about Devil Dinosaur and Moon Boy? Devil Dinosaur's had a handbook entry and they're both mutants. I'm not sure what the subgroup is, though. Non-human mutants?

Stuart V
Jul 5, 2009, 02:37 pm

DrGoodwrench wrote:

Did the Fenris twins have the x-gene? Does the fact that they were created with their powers by scientists preclude them from being true mutants? I'm not sure I'm totally up to speed on the current definition of mutant. I'm sure it used to be the case that a mutant had to have different powers to their parents. Is that still the case? If so, does that mean that Persuasion is not really a mutant or are her powers somehow different to her father's?

EDIT: Whether they are mutants or not was answered while I was writing this post. I'd still like to know about the Persuasion thing, though, if it's not OT.

Being artificially mutated doesn't prevent someone being a mutant - Wild Child is a good example of someone whose existing natural mutation got enhanced by further external mutation. Fenris might fall into that category, but the early stories had them being both anti-mutant and claiming to having been given their powers artificially.

Persuasion is a mutant - born with innate powers similar (but not identical) to her mutated father, powers which manifested during puberty.

ToddCam wrote:

The whole "born with powers but not a mutant" is one of the stupidest things in the world. Would bigots really care if Spider-Girl specifically has an x-gene?

Bigots, by definition, aren't people who reason logically. To some, the lack of an x-gene would make a difference - being born with powers is against God's plan, but getting powers accidentally is part of God's plan, and all that malarkey. However, you are right that other bigots wouldn't discriminate.

DrGoodwrench wrote:

How about Devil Dinosaur and Moon Boy? Devil Dinosaur's had a handbook entry and they're both mutants. I'm not sure what the subgroup is, though. Non-human mutants?

And that's the correct answer. Devil and Moon Boy were confirmed as mutants in the Fallen Angels mini-series. And they fit Beast's comment of "all the mutants from other timelines remain powered."

Stuart V
Apr 25, 2010, 03:54 pm
Reviving this with some more false memes.

Bloodscream's real name is Zachariah Ravenscroft. FALSE. This one has been doing the rounds on various wiki sites for a while, and shortly after it gets cleaned off one site (say Wikipedia), it gets added back on by someone cluelessly copy-pasting from another site (say Comicvine) which almost certainly got the misinformation from the cleaned site in the first place. We don't know Bloodscream's real name as of yet, and I'd appreciate anyone with membership on places like Comicvine removing it from there. Trying to kill this falsehood is like trying to kill a virulent bacteria; miss one spot during your sweep, and it'll breed and spread again, reinfecting all the places you disinfected.

Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's parents, were SHIELD agents. FALSE. This mostly originates because of a "Minus One" Spidey cover showing the couple with the words "Agents of SHIELD" emblazoned underneath, so at least it is understandable that people got this misimpression. But Tom Brevoort has stated in his blog that (1) he wrote the text for that cover, and (2) that he got it wrong. The actual story within shows the couple as CIA agents, not SHIELD. None of the couple's other appearances suggest them to be SHIELD agents, and indeed, until the recent SHIELD #1 (more on that below), the agency SHIELD didn't get formed until Peter was a teenager (it was formed after the FF got their powers), making it impossible for his parents to have belonged to it. Now, of course, SHIELD #1 has revealed that something calling itself Shield has existed for far longer, though again, it's a precursor to SHIELD (the agency we know). Could it later be revealed that the Parkers belonged to this? Sure, such a retcon is possible. But at the moment, and unless and until someone retcons it, the Parkers were not SHIELD agents.

VainInsect
Apr 25, 2010, 05:37 pm
Were there previous bearers of the titles Sorcerer Supreme and Brother Voodoo?

"Marvel Tarot" lists a whole bunch of names and dates for Sorcerer Supreme. Is that considered canon?

And I'd have to search for the link, I think I was at the marvelunapp site and it said something like "the brother voodoo of this (that particular) era".

Stuart V
Apr 25, 2010, 05:59 pm

  VainInsect wrote:

Were there previous bearers of the titles Sorcerer Supreme and Brother Voodoo?

"Marvel Tarot" lists a whole bunch of names and dates for Sorcerer Supreme. Is that considered canon?

And I'd have to search for the link, I think I was at the marvelunapp site and it said something like "the brother voodoo of this (that particular) era".

Yes to all three questions. There have been many previous Sorcerer Supreme. There was at least one prior Brother Voodoo. And yes, the list in Marvel Tarot is canon. It's an "in-universe" document.

VainInsect
Apr 26, 2010, 12:31 pm
Thanks for the reply Stuart.

In the Marvel Universe, not all psychics are mutants, right? SHIELD had psis, but I don't recall them being labeled as mutants. Betsy was a psi for STRIKE, but she wasn't a mutant when she first appeared... unfortunately that's the only example I can think of.

Phoenixx9
Apr 26, 2010, 12:35 pm
Moondragon, who possesses both telepathic and telekinetic abilities, as well as incredible fighting prowess, is also not a mutant.

Stuart V
Apr 26, 2010, 01:08 pm

  VainInsect wrote:

Thanks for the reply Stuart.

In the Marvel Universe, not all psychics are mutants, right? SHIELD had psis, but I don't recall them being labeled as mutants. Betsy was a psi for STRIKE, but she wasn't a mutant when she first appeared... unfortunately that's the only example I can think of.

Correct. Non-mutants can be psis, though generally not as powerful as the mutants. Psis who are not mutants (or, at minimum, not confirmed as mutants) include Madame Web, Betsy's fellow STRIKE psis Alison Double and Tom Lennox, Excalibur ally Emilia Witherspoon, most of SHIELD's Psi-Division, Libra and the above-mentioned Moondragon. Hellcat also used to have some psi-ability.

Michael Regan
Apr 26, 2010, 02:52 pm
Of course there is the question of the origin or source of their power if they are not mutants, but that is something else.

Andy E. Nystrom
Apr 26, 2010, 06:13 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Correct. Non-mutants can be psis, though generally not as powerful as the mutants. Psis who are not mutants (or, at minimum, not confirmed as mutants) include Madame Web, Betsy's fellow STRIKE psis Alison Double and Tom Lennox, Excalibur ally Emilia Witherspoon, Scotland Yard's Kate Fraser, most of SHIELD's Psi-Division, Libra and the above-mentioned Moondragon. Hellcat also used to have some psi-ability.

And there's an argument to be made for Spider-Man and even the Hulk being low level psis (Spidey due to his danger sense, Hulk due to his ability to always locate his birthplace and more importantly due to his ability to see astral forms)

VainInsect
Apr 26, 2010, 07:51 pm
Are X-Men: Hidden Years and Marvel: Lost Generation considered 616 canon?

Michael Regan
Apr 26, 2010, 07:57 pm
X-Men: The Hidden Years is certainly part of Earth-616 continuity, much like The Untold Tales of Spider-Man series. As for Marvel: The Lost Generation, I believe it is but I'm not 100% certain.

Madison Carter
Apr 26, 2010, 08:17 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

X-Men: The Hidden Years is certainly part of Earth-616 continuity, much like The Untold Tales of Spider-Man series. As for Marvel: The Lost Generation, I believe it is but I'm not 100% certain.

It absolutely is.

Michael Regan
Apr 30, 2010, 07:02 pm
The latest listing of designated Earths listed many preciously unassinged Earths, including movie and television adaptations of various Marvel proporties. Unfortunately it does not offer the option of indicating which other Marvel properties fall into the same reality.

What is missing is which cartoon series fall within the same reality as the X-Men (animated series) of 1992. I'm not sure if it is something that keeps getting posted incorrectly, but I have seen it posted in various different ways. I would expect that there are more than just a few adaptations that fall within a single continuity.

Andy E. Nystrom
Apr 30, 2010, 09:18 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

The latest listing of designated Earths listed many preciously unassinged Earths, including movie and television adaptations of various Marvel proporties. Unfortunately it does not offer the option of indicating which other Marvel properties fall into the same reality.

What is missing is which cartoon series fall within the same reality as the X-Men (animated series) of 1992. I'm not sure if it is something that keeps getting posted incorrectly, but I have seen it posted in various different ways. I would expect that there are more than just a few adaptations that fall within a single continuity.

Of ourse the challenge with those kinds of Earths is that crossovers like the 1990s X-Men/Spider-Man one are rare so it's hard to get a definitive answer.
The animated Spider-Man in the 1960s for example lived in a world similar enough to the Marvel Superheroes cartoons to be part of that world yet different enough to be separate. Unless someone from 616 or another comic book Earth actually goes there it's hard to know for sure.

Michael Regan
May 1, 2010, 08:54 am

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Of ourse the challenge with those kinds of Earths is that crossovers like the 1990s X-Men/Spider-Man one are rare so it's hard to get a definitive answer.
The animated Spider-Man in the 1960s for example lived in a world similar enough to the Marvel Superheroes cartoons to be part of that world yet different enough to be separate. Unless someone from 616 or another comic book Earth actually goes there it's hard to know for sure.

If there is any difference, or question, then I would be happy to assume a different reality. Much like the DC Animated Universe, X-Men (1992) shares a common reality with the Spider-Man (1994) cartoon among others, but this list varies from one source to another. Similarly, although I know that Elektra (2005) shares the same reality as Daredevil (2003) but even this has come into question in some cases. One of the more confusing aspects of mutliple itterations would be the insistance of many fans that Spider-Man (1967) share a reality with a much later adaptation, possibly the 1994 series I'm not certain.

Stuart V
May 27, 2010, 09:14 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

Of course there is the question of the origin or source of their power if they are not mutants, but that is something else.

The assumption is that psi-powers are a natural part of humanity. Every human possesses some degree of strength, intellect, ect. The normal human range is exceptionally wide, a bell curve with most people in the mid-range and few at the extremes. Normal humans can still be incredibly smart (Reed Richards) or exceptionally, indeed what might be considered superhumanly, strong, without any sort of mutation or external enhancement - they are just right at the top end of the bell curve. Some mutants get a "leg up" and are smarter or stronger than normal humans (often enough to move them above the human range on the bell curve, but not always - Callisto's strength is enhanced by her mutation, but not above the level a normal human could theoretically attain - unlike them she doesn't have to work at it though). Psi-powers are the same. The average human's level is so low as to be non-existent, but normal human range includes, at the top end, out and out telepaths and telekinetics.

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

And there's an argument to be made for Spider-Man and even the Hulk being low level psis (Spidey due to his danger sense, Hulk due to his ability to always locate his birthplace and more importantly due to his ability to see astral forms)

His birthplace wasn't a psi power - he was being drawn back to the Maestro's mind. But yes, his power to see astral forms may be a low level psi power, as would his cousin's ability to sense that she's being watched by beings from other realities.

  Michael Regan wrote:

The latest listing of designated Earths listed many preciously unassinged Earths, including movie and television adaptations of various Marvel proporties. Unfortunately it does not offer the option of indicating which other Marvel properties fall into the same reality.

What is missing is which cartoon series fall within the same reality as the X-Men (animated series) of 1992. I'm not sure if it is something that keeps getting posted incorrectly, but I have seen it posted in various different ways. I would expect that there are more than just a few adaptations that fall within a single continuity.

My recollection is that the 1990s Spider-Man and X-Men cartoons share a single reality, the DD and Elektra movies share one, and Iron Man/Incredible Hulk/Iron Man 2 and forthcoming Thor/Captain America/Avengers all share a single reality, but otherwise each cartoon or movie series is considered to be a separate reality from one another.

Stuart V
Dec 24, 2010, 10:39 am
A couple of new ones.

"The Hulk once lifted a 150 billion ton mountain range." This is a favorite one amongst those readers fond of "battle boarding" / "power gaming", who lock on to any examples of extreme power usage to try and prove this means the character is way more powerful than they are normally considered. But the above, referencing events in Secret Wars, falls down on several levels.

First, before anyone gripes, this is one of Hulk's greatest feats, no disagreement on that. This is the Hulk's equivalent of Spidey being trapped under Doc Ock's machinery in a flooding base; he's going way above and beyond his normal level, pushing himself to the maximum. It's massively impressive. But it's not indicative of his normal level, and he is not lifting 150 billion tons. The mountain range as a whole weighs 150 billion tons; if Hulk could lift it, then the heroes would be in no danger of being crushed. He's not lifting, he's supporting the weight, and there's a huge difference in that. When you jack your car up to replace a tire, is the entire weight of the car on the jack? No. A good percentage of it is on the other tires which are still on the ground. Most of the mountain range is firmly on the ground; that's exactly why the heroes are trapped, because there's no gaps for them to get out through. So most of the range's weight is being supported by the ground around the trapped heroes. If all of it was on the Hulk, even if he could cope with it the ground under his feet couldn't, and the concentrated force would drive Hulk into the ground like a nail into a wall.

The Hulk isn't even lifting up a small bit to form the gap the heroes are in; Iron Man and Hulk smashed that gap as the range fell onto them, creating a small cave directly above them; it's like the old movies of a building front falling down and a character surviving because they are just where the open window was, in the small gap between the heavy walls.

What Hulk is doing is buttressing the roof, to prevent their hastily formed cave from collapsing in on them. He's not taking the whole weight of the range any more than a supporting beam in a mining tunnel is taking the whole weight of the ground above the dig. He's still holding up tons of rock; given his strain he's taking the weight of more than a hundred tons of rock; it's still extremely impressive. But we don't have a quantifiable figure out of it, except to say it is nowhere near 150 billion tons.

Second one: "Valeria Richards' intelligence must be because of a mutant power. Marvel Girl, Valeria von Doom, wasn't that smart." Nope. Val is a mutant, like her brother, but her smarts don't necessarily come from mutation. Marvel Girl was smarter than Reed too, she just didn't make it so obvious - but she did solve quantum mechanic problems in her head for fun (FF Annual 2000), and she was smarter than Alyssa Moy, who is on a par with Reed intellectually (FF Vol. 3 #21). And current Val is Marvel Girl, regressed to infancy (FF Vol. 3, #50); it's not certain if she consciously has access to any of Marvel Girl's memories, but even subconscious access would explain some of the speed she's developed her manual dexterity (way above average for a kid her age) and scientific knowledge. So her brains could simply be natural, inherited from her father and paternal grandfather (who was, lets not forget, no slouch either).

Roger Ott
Dec 24, 2010, 06:23 pm
The Hulk one always gets me, too, because the good Dr. Banner even states on panel, "I'm just bracing it...I've got leverage!"

The cover, however, gives the impression that the Hulk is actually lifting the mountain and I think that's where a lot of the argument comes from. Artistic freedom on Bob Layton's part to make it a more dramatic scene, but that's all.

Michael Regan
Dec 24, 2010, 07:08 pm
Cover images have often been the source of interesting, and useless, arguments. I attribute it to the lazy "fan" who does not re-read issues, but instead scans covers to refresh their fractured memories.

Stuart V
Dec 24, 2010, 07:27 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

Cover images have often been the source of interesting, and useless, arguments. I attribute it to the lazy "fan" who does not re-read issues, but instead scans covers to refresh their fractured memories.

True enough. Just look at how many people insist that Peter Parker's parents were SHIELD agents, simply because the cover text got it wrong. The actual story never makes that claim.

Michael Regan
Dec 24, 2010, 08:25 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

True enough. Just look at how many people insist that Peter Parker's parents were SHIELD agents, simply because the cover text got it wrong. The actual story never makes that claim.

The worst is all the pre-Crisis DC covers, mostly Superman... but that is outside "our" realm of discussion ;)

DeadpoolRP
Dec 27, 2010, 05:28 am

  VainInsect wrote:

Are X-Men: Hidden Years and Marvel: Lost Generation considered 616 canon?

  Madison Carter wrote:

It absolutely is.

How about the various X-Men: First Class series? I know that their solicitations, along with various places on Marvel.com, have said that they're in-continuity, and I believe that at least some things from them have been referenced in handbooks. However, now I'm seeing a lot of people online arguing that they're not in-continuity. And I don't believe they're mentioned in the indexes, though I could be wrong on that.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

William Keogh
Dec 27, 2010, 12:48 pm
If they're being mentioned in the handbooks and by Marvel.com itself, they're in continuity.

Zach Kinkead
Dec 27, 2010, 02:09 pm

  William Keogh wrote:

If they're being mentioned in the handbooks and by Marvel.com itself, they're in continuity.

Not necessarily. Some of the recent HBs reference events in the 90s novels but the HB writers can’t seem to come to an agreement about if they’re canon or not.

Madison Carter
Dec 27, 2010, 04:26 pm

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

Not necessarily. Some of the recent HBs reference events in the 90s novels but the HB writers can’t seem to come to an agreement about if they’re canon or not.

Most of them are. We don't explicitely seek to not agree they're not canon - sometimes -- due to their nature -- we miss information regarding them when dealing with characters.

DeadpoolRP
Dec 27, 2010, 04:47 pm

  Madison Carter wrote:

Most of them are. We don't explicitely seek to not agree they're not canon - sometimes -- due to their nature -- we miss information regarding them when dealing with characters.

Good to know that most of those novels are in-continuity. I had no idea! I may be wrong on this (because I never read the book myself), but I remember hearing that a Generation X novel had an additional student or two in it. Does anyone know which novel that was and if it was in-continuity? Because if it were, wouldn't that mean we have some more Gen. X members to add to the official team roster in the handbooks? (And no, I don't believe I'm confusing the novel with the TV movie, which had some different characters but I'm quite certain was an alternate reality.)

And does the same go for X-Men: First Class, getting back to the original question?

Stuart V
Dec 27, 2010, 06:49 pm

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

How about the various X-Men: First Class series? I know that their solicitations, along with various places on Marvel.com, have said that they're in-continuity, and I believe that at least some things from them have been referenced in handbooks. However, now I'm seeing a lot of people online arguing that they're not in-continuity. And I don't believe they're mentioned in the indexes, though I could be wrong on that.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Initially we believed they were definitely in continuity, and indeed in some cases writers asked us for the odd bit of research help to make them as accurate to the era as possible. At some point a decision was made that they might or might not be; they are not out of continuity, per se, but they are not confirmed as in continuity except on a case by case basis where a non-First Class tale back references them - as has happened in at least a couple of cases.

  William Keogh wrote:

If they're being mentioned in the handbooks and by Marvel.com itself, they're in continuity.

Unfortunately you can't take Marvel.com as evidence of being in continuity - there were problems with moderating the Wiki there, and while that's now apparantly fixed, a fair bit of unchecked info is still up there, some of which is unquestionably wrong.

  Madison Carter wrote:

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

Not necessarily. Some of the recent HBs reference events in the 90s novels but the HB writers can’t seem to come to an agreement about if they’re canon or not.

Most of them are. We don't explicitely seek to not agree they're not canon - sometimes -- due to their nature -- we miss information regarding them when dealing with characters.

As Madison notes, most of the books are considered canon - it's just not always possible to reference them for one reason or another.

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Good to know that most of those novels are in-continuity. I had no idea! I may be wrong on this (because I never read the book myself), but I remember hearing that a Generation X novel had an additional student or two in it. Does anyone know which novel that was and if it was in-continuity? Because if it were, wouldn't that mean we have some more Gen. X members to add to the official team roster in the handbooks? (And no, I don't believe I'm confusing the novel with the TV movie, which had some different characters but I'm quite certain was an alternate reality.)

The TV movie was another reality, as you say, so Buff and Refrax are only members in that reality. Not sure about the Generation X novels, as I haven't read all of them, but I think you might be meaning the three mutants (Chill, Dog Pound, Recall) who belong to M.O.N.S.T.E.R., who helped the team out but weren't members of it. http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/adriancastorp.htm#monster

ToddCam
Dec 28, 2010, 12:25 am
In the updated X-Men Index TPB, there is one issue where they mention the characters appearing next in X-Men: First Class. #8, if I remember correctly. I guess that one issue must be so unequivocally canon they had to mention it. (Not having read the series at all, I can't say why this might be, but I suspect it might be whenever it was the X-Men met Ken Hale, as mentioned in the X-Men/Agents of Atlas LS.)

Stuart V
Dec 28, 2010, 10:20 am

ToddCam wrote:

In the updated X-Men Index TPB, there is one issue where they mention the characters appearing next in X-Men: First Class. #8, if I remember correctly. I guess that one issue must be so unequivocally canon they had to mention it. (Not having read the series at all, I can't say why this might be, but I suspect it might be whenever it was the X-Men met Ken Hale, as mentioned in the X-Men/Agents of Atlas LS.)

Yes, a few of the First Class comics have been back referenced in non-First Class titles, so they are definitely in 616 continuity. While I personally believe the others are too, we can't say for certain until they are either similarly referenced (in which case they are 616) or something comes along that contradicts them (in which case they are not).

New "Things people keep getting wrong"

"Psylocke is a telepath because she's half-Otherworlder and everyone on Otherworld is telepathic." With some then using this to form a false corollary as an implication that Brian is "brain-damaged" (or other, less polite terms), because he lacks this "common" power.

There's a whole debate to be had about whether Betsy and Jamie are mutants or not, but that's not what is primarily wrong with the above statement. Most Otherworlders aren't telepaths. We had a lengthy Otherworld saga, and we've met a lot of Otherworlders. Apart from the elf Jackdaw, who was noted as exceptional, few had psychic powers worth speaking of. Where most people get this "Otherworlders are telepathic" meme from is the end of Excalibur's Cross-Time Caper, when they end up at Saturnyne's base, the Omniversal Hub, and Phoenix mentions that there are too many telepaths about, and that telepathy is the standard mode of communication. But the Hub is NOT Otherworld. We saw the Hub at Saturnyne's trial, and Wardog identified it as an alternate Earth, which Otherworld is not. Plus, Saturnyne got transported BACK to the Hub FROM Otherworld after Merlyn's funeral. Otherworld is Roma's home, and Saturnyne is often there, reporting to Roma, but her own "offices" are on the Hub, which is a world full of telepaths.


 


My photostream (over 5.6 million photos!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24917258@N05/
 

2/13/2020 10:34 am  #2


Re: Things People Keep Getting Wrong - Original Version

More historical text from Comixfan:

DeadpoolRP
Dec 28, 2010, 03:42 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Initially we believed they were definitely in continuity, and indeed in some cases writers asked us for the odd bit of research help to make them as accurate to the era as possible. At some point a decision was made that they might or might not be; they are not out of continuity, per se, but they are not confirmed as in continuity except on a case by case basis where a non-First Class tale back references them - as has happened in at least a couple of cases.

Sounds like a weird system for determining whether a series/issue is in-continuity to me. Do you remember which issues have now been confirmed as in continuity, or is there a list somewhere I could look at?

Does Steve Rogers's mentioning that Dragon Man has acted like a pet for both the X-Men and Power Pack in (I believe) the recent Heroic Age: Villains files book confirm that the X-Men: First Class issue featuring Dragon Man as a pet/unofficial member is in continuity, then?

  Stuart V wrote:

Unfortunately you can't take Marvel.com as evidence of being in continuity - there were problems with moderating the Wiki there, and while that's now apparantly fixed, a fair bit of unchecked info is still up there, some of which is unquestionably wrong.

Actually, I wasn't referring to Marvel's wiki. I meant in news articles like this one:

http://marvel.com/news/comicstories.1151

. . . which apparently isn't up anymore. Oh well.

  Stuart V wrote:

The TV movie was another reality, as you say, so Buff and Refrax are only members in that reality. Not sure about the Generation X novels, as I haven't read all of them, but I think you might be meaning the three mutants (Chill, Dog Pound, Recall) who belong to M.O.N.S.T.E.R., who helped the team out but weren't members of it. http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/adriancastorp.htm#monster

That could be it. Thanks for the link—I'll have to look into it.

  Stuart V wrote:

Yes, a few of the First Class comics have been back referenced in non-First Class titles, so they are definitely in 616 continuity. While I personally believe the others are too, we can't say for certain until they are either similarly referenced (in which case they are 616) or something comes along that contradicts them (in which case they are not).

Are there any instances yet of issues being contradicted and therefore not in continuity, do you know?

Thanks for all of the info!


ToddCam
Dec 28, 2010, 06:50 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

 
Yes, a few of the First Class comics have been back referenced in non-First Class titles, so they are definitely in 616 continuity. While I personally believe the others are too, we can't say for certain until they are either similarly referenced (in which case they are 616) or something comes along that contradicts them (in which case they are not).

This begs the question: Why? Is there a reason this series is treated as "only if verified elsewhere?" I know this is not the case for other comics that take place in the MU's past, like the various Earth's Mightiest Heroes Limited Series. Is it just the costumes? Is it awkward placing?

Michael Regan
Dec 28, 2010, 07:08 pm

ToddCam wrote:

This begs the question: Why? Is there a reason this series is treated as "only if verified elsewhere?" I know this is not the case for other comics that take place in the MU's past, like the various Earth's Mightiest Heroes Limited Series. Is it just the costumes? Is it awkward placing?

I'm sure Stuart will reply, but I think it is more the overall presentation of the series. Many "retcon" series have been presented in a format to easily place the stories in the past even if exact placement is questionable. First Class is presented in such a differing format that it could easily be placed in a similar, but alternate reality like the Ultimate reality. Events and situations are not necessarily conflicting, just ... well, they feel different enough to make insertion into the past difficult to take in.

Stuart V
Dec 28, 2010, 08:09 pm

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Sounds like a weird system for determining whether a series/issue is in-continuity to me. Do you remember which issues have now been confirmed as in continuity, or is there a list somewhere I could look at?

I don't recall myself off-hand, except for the Gorilla Man story iirc.

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Does Steve Rogers's mentioning that Dragon Man has acted like a pet for both the X-Men and Power Pack in (I believe) the recent Heroic Age: Villains files book confirm that the X-Men: First Class issue featuring Dragon Man as a pet/unofficial member is in continuity, then?

Power Pack treating him as a pet always was 616, as it happened in their regular series. Not sure what the deal was in Villains, as I didn't write that entry; if it referenced back to the the First Class story with Dragon Man then I presume we've had confirmation of that one too.

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Are there any instances yet of issues being contradicted and therefore not in continuity, do you know?

None that I know of - there's the odd minor continuity clash, but you get as big or bigger continuity conundrums whenever a regular, definitely intended to be 616, series does flashbacks.

ToddCam wrote:

This begs the question: Why? Is there a reason this series is treated as "only if verified elsewhere?" I know this is not the case for other comics that take place in the MU's past, like the various Earth's Mightiest Heroes Limited Series. Is it just the costumes? Is it awkward placing?

I don't know for sure, as we weren't involved in the decision, but I suspect it was just to free up the writers from having to worry about the constraints of continuity. The writers were making great pains to be as accurate to the time period as they could (for example, see how on-target the Alpha Flight story was with its flashback involving the early days of the Flight, and who would and could have been a member at the time), but it was a lot of work. So now it is 616 if they want it to be (and I know they were still doing research to try to avoid continuity clashes), but if diverging from known continuity is needed for a story, they can diverge, and by making it a case by case basis for each issue, they can be out of continuity for an issue without making the whole series out of continuity.

But don't quote me on that, because like I said, it's my supposition, not confirmed fact.

bigvis497
Dec 28, 2010, 11:14 pm
Re: First Class & continuity

The way I see it, the X-Men of 616 did meet the Agents Of Atlas, Dragon Man, etc. but it doesn't neccesarily mean the First Class story is 616. The meeting could have happened in a nearly identical story that hasn't been told yet. The First Class stories could just be telling these long-lost tales with some modern twists.

So all the First Class stories "happened," they're just being told to us using certain "creative liberties." Which can explain why many of the characters act like how we know them now, which can often be quite different from how writers/artists depicted them at the time. And it would also explain any coninuity glitches that arise.

That's the attitude I take to pretty much any retcon-type story that isn't quite clear on whether it's 616 or not. To me, it makes sense, YMMV.

Zach Kinkead
Dec 29, 2010, 12:23 am
RE First Class, Novels, Pet Avengers, ect:

The more I read comics the more I appreciate the Image approach to continuity.

Savage Dragon has a Savage Dragon (obviously). Invincible has a Savage Dragon. G-Man has a Savage Dragon. Other books probably have one too. They aren’t the same Savage Dragon though they behave the same and have the same history unless otherwise stated.

Michael Regan
Dec 29, 2010, 08:55 am
The only thing in all this that I do not like is the possibility that the odd issue here and there may not be in continuity and the others are. Possibility only, of course.

Stuart V
Dec 29, 2010, 10:24 am

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

RE First Class, Novels, Pet Avengers, ect:

The more I read comics the more I appreciate the Image approach to continuity.

Savage Dragon has a Savage Dragon (obviously). Invincible has a Savage Dragon. G-Man has a Savage Dragon. Other books probably have one too. They aren’t the same Savage Dragon though they behave the same and have the same history unless otherwise stated.

And now we're in danger of drifting into a discussion of (fictional) multiversal theory, on which I have various ideas, some still very rough, based on observations from a lot of comics over the years. But that'd really belong in another thread entirely.

Michael Regan
Dec 29, 2010, 03:30 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

And now we're in danger of drifting into a discussion of (fictional) multiversal theory, on which I have various ideas, some still very rough, based on observations from a lot of comics over the years. But that'd really belong in another thread entirely.

I'll be waiting for the thread to materialize  :Yes:

Madison Carter
Dec 29, 2010, 03:44 pm

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

RE First Class, Novels, Pet Avengers, ect:

The more I read comics the more I appreciate the Image approach to continuity.

Savage Dragon has a Savage Dragon (obviously). Invincible has a Savage Dragon. G-Man has a Savage Dragon. Other books probably have one too. They aren’t the same Savage Dragon though they behave the same and have the same history unless otherwise stated.

heck, *Marvel* has a Savage Dragon.

Michael Regan
Dec 29, 2010, 06:59 pm
Savage Dragon technically predates his own title, and himself, in a title called Graphic Fantasy (I think) as the Spectacular Dragon.

  Madison Carter wrote:

heck, *Marvel* has a Savage Dragon.

He had a Marvel appearance, or counterpart? I don't even remember him teaming up with a Marvel character, unless you count the Epic team-up with Marshal Law.

Stuart V
Dec 29, 2010, 07:18 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

He had a Marvel appearance, or counterpart? I don't even remember him teaming up with a Marvel character, unless you count the Epic team-up with Marshal Law.

Counterpart, confirmed via the appearance of someone who tried to impersonate said counterpart.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/savdragi.htm

Madison Carter
Dec 30, 2010, 02:00 am

  Stuart V wrote:

Counterpart, confirmed via the appearance of someone who tried to impersonate said counterpart.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/savdragi.htm

and the "real" (or Marvel's counterpart, whichever you prefer to call him) Dragon showed up in Spider-Man Team-Up #5 as well, which was an unofficial crossover with a Savage Dragon/Destroyer Duck one-shot.

Michael Regan
Dec 30, 2010, 08:25 am

  Madison Carter wrote:

  Stuart V wrote:

Counterpart, confirmed via the appearance of someone who tried to impersonate said counterpart.

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/savdragi.htm

and the "real" (or Marvel's counterpart, whichever you prefer to call him) Dragon showed up in Spider-Man Team-Up #5 as well, which was an unofficial crossover with a Savage Dragon/Destroyer Duck one-shot.

Awesome! I love links like that!

Time to hit the back issue bins :dance:
(What would I do without you guys on here??  )

Roger Ott
Dec 30, 2010, 12:25 pm
There's also Incredible Hulk #431, where the Hulk has a fin on his head as a "disguise" and takes a gentle poke at the Savage Dragon...without actually mentioning him by name, of course.

Stuart V
May 13, 2011, 09:39 am
Quick one, strictly speaking an old rather than new one.

"The Vision is a synthezoid." No, he's not. He is, and always has been, a synthOzoid. It's frequently misspelled, but the very first Index explicitly noted that the E spelling is an error.

Stuart V
May 19, 2011, 12:23 pm
Another thing people are always getting wrong. Warrior Woman's civilian name. That's all I'm saying for the moment, but it's blindingly obvious what's wrong, in hindsight. I'll see if anyone can figure it out. Handbook people not allowed to play, as this has already been discussed amongst us, so they know the answer.

Roger Ott
May 19, 2011, 12:45 pm
Drat!

Michael Regan
May 19, 2011, 12:59 pm
Another thing people are always getting wrong. Warrior Woman's civilian name. That's all I'm saying for the moment, but it's blindingly obvious what's wrong, in hindsight. I'll see if anyone can figure it out. Handbook people not allowed to play, as this has already been discussed amongst us, so they know the answer.
Frieda Ratsel, alias Julia Ratsel Lohmer (IIRC)

I believe the German name Frieda equates to "peace" or "joy".

Ratsel is of German origin, possibly from Lower Saxony.

Stuart V
May 19, 2011, 01:16 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

Frieda Ratsel, alias Julia Ratsel Lohmer (IIRC)

I believe the German name Frieda equates to "peace" or "joy".

Ratsel is of German origin, possibly from Lower Saxony.

Nope. Julia is her given name - people thought it was an alias because she used it while posing as an English woman in her first appearance, but Master Man died saying her name - he loved her and was married to her, so he ought to know what her given name was, and he called her Julia. Frieda is a middle name. But that's not the common mistake I was referring to - it's much more of a forehead slapping moment when you realise.

Phoenixx9
May 19, 2011, 08:10 pm
:chin: OK, I'm gonna give it my best shots:

1) Last name "Ratsel"; people often called Nazi's rats or ratfinks, so "Ratsel" is a play on words meaning Rat?

2) "Krieger Frau" as Hitler named Julia, doesn't translate into "Warrior Woman"?

3) Julia Freida Ratsel's last name is NOT Lohmer because the final vows were never said by the potential bride and groom during the wedding, nor the proclamation of "husband and wife" by Hitler who was presiding over the wedding (was he some type of ordained minister?), because the Invaders burst onto the scene during the ceremony disrupting it and thus WW and MM were not fully, truly, legally husband and wife?

Andy E. Nystrom
May 20, 2011, 12:43 am
Here's my guess: it should be Rätsel rather than Ratsel (I've bolded the difference).

Angelicknight
May 20, 2011, 11:36 am
I will go with Andy on this one since the Master Man entry in the Handbook list her name under known relatives as Julia Frieda Rätsel Lohmer.

Stuart V
May 20, 2011, 12:10 pm

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

:chin: OK, I'm gonna give it my best shots:

1) Last name "Ratsel"; people often called Nazi's rats or ratfinks, so "Ratsel" is a play on words meaning Rat?

Nope.

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

2) "Krieger Frau" as Hitler named Julia, doesn't translate into "Warrior Woman"?

Nope - talking civilian name.

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

3) Julia Freida Ratsel's last name is NOT Lohmer because the final vows were never said by the potential bride and groom during the wedding, nor the proclamation of "husband and wife" by Hitler who was presiding over the wedding (was he some type of ordained minister?), because the Invaders burst onto the scene during the ceremony disrupting it and thus WW and MM were not fully, truly, legally husband and wife?

Arguably, but that's not something most people don't know. The Lohmer bit isn't the problem.

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Here's my guess: it should be Rätsel rather than Ratsel (I've bolded the difference).

There should indeed be an umlaut in Rätsel. But the umlaut isn't the problem.

  Angelicknight wrote:

I will go with Andy on this one since the Master Man entry in the Handbook list her name under known relatives as Julia Frieda Rätsel Lohmer.

Everyone has gotten this wrong, including past handbooks. Master Man's entry has the error too.

As in all things, it's always best to return to the information source, the original comics, and to read the reveal of her name more carefully...

Michael Regan

May 20, 2011, 12:46 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

As in all things, it's always best to return to the information source, the original comics, and to read the reveal of her name more carefully...

Well, I have the issues in question (IIRC) so I'll dig them out over the weekend.

Phoenixx9
May 20, 2011, 05:00 pm

Hmmm. This is a tough one!!

OK, here are my last 2 guesses:

1) Julia Freida RatZel: could the "S" in Ratsel have been a "Z" originally? I know people often justapose these two letters around like in the name "EliZabeth" where the "Z" is sometimes replaced with an "S"? I think this is what happened with Psylocke.

2) Wasn't Julia also known as Madame Mystery or The Mystery Madame? IIRC, I believe she used these names as well. Could they have been left off of the MM's entry (and possibly Julia's upcoming entry)??

Rob London
May 20, 2011, 05:49 pm

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

Hmmm. This is a tough one!!

OK, here are my last 2 guesses:

1) Julia Freida RatZel: could the "S" in Ratsel have been a "Z" originally? I know people often justapose these two letters around like in the name "EliZabeth" where the "Z" is sometimes replaced with an "S"? I think this is what happened with Psylocke.

2) Wasn't Julia also known as Madame Mystery or The Mystery Madame? IIRC, I believe she used these names as well. Could they have been left off of the MM's entry (and possibly Julia's upcoming entry)??

You're on the right track with that last one, but you're not there yet...

Stuart V
May 20, 2011, 07:28 pm

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

Hmmm. This is a tough one!!

OK, here are my last 2 guesses:

1) Julia Freida RatZel: could the "S" in Ratsel have been a "Z" originally? I know people often justapose these two letters around like in the name "EliZabeth" where the "Z" is sometimes replaced with an "S"? I think this is what happened with Psylocke.

Nothing to do with an s vs z, though you are right about Psylocke's name. Reprints for the US inconsistently changed the spelling, leading to a persisting S spelling error that dogged her for a couple of decades.

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

2) Wasn't Julia also known as Madame Mystery or The Mystery Madame? IIRC, I believe she used these names as well. Could they have been left off of the MM's entry (and possibly Julia's upcoming entry)??

Madame Mystery is an alias for her, and has been listed as such in the past. Master Man's entry doesn't need to list his spouse's aliases.

Phoenixx9
May 20, 2011, 07:33 pm
Well, the only other thing I can think of is a hybrid idea:

Was Julia Freida ever known as Madame Ratzel/Madame Ratsel?

Michael Regan
May 20, 2011, 07:39 pm
MinorIrritant is "Handbook folk?"

Stuart V
May 20, 2011, 07:57 pm

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

Well, the only other thing I can think of is a hybrid idea:

Was Julia Freida ever known as Madame Ratzel/Madame Ratsel?

Strictly speaking she said Madame Rätsel, but yes.

  Michael Regan wrote:

MinorIrritant is "Handbook folk?"

Yes.

Michael Regan
May 20, 2011, 08:19 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Yes.

Too many Handbook people need they access upgraded :ohwell:

Invaders #16, Warrior Woman was simply "Julia".
Invaders #17, she referred to herself as Madame Ratsel or Madame Mystery. After the accident she calls herself Krieger Frau / Warrior Woman.

Wait, they were never officially/legally married. The priest was killed before the end of the ceremony and they were pronounced man and wife by Hitler.

Stuart V
May 20, 2011, 09:22 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

Too many Handbook people need they access upgraded :ohwell:

Invaders #16, Warrior Woman was simply "Julia".
Invaders #17, she referred to herself as Madame Ratsel or Madame Mystery. After the accident she calls herself Krieger Frau / Warrior Woman.

Wait, they were never officially/legally married. The priest was killed before the end of the ceremony and they were pronounced man and wife by Hitler.

It's not her married name and whether it is legal or not that is the issue. The answer is in what you typed, but like everyone else, myself included all bar the last time I read the story, I read but did not truly comprehend...

Adding - it helps to take into account her profession prior to becoming Warrior Woman.

oenglish
May 20, 2011, 09:25 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

As in all things, it's always best to return to the information source, the original comics, and to read the reveal of her name more carefully...

Okay, you made me curious, and it is rather amusing. There's two "errors," in actuality.

First, Julia is intended as a fake identity, not her real name. Page 6 of Invaders 17 makes that pretty clear by putting quotes around it: "betrayal from within, as the girl called "Julia" turned out to have been hiding both a German accent and a luger."

Second, Madame Ratzel isn't her name, its her code name in German. Page 14 of that issue makes that clear as she says "Do not play innocent with Madame Ratzel, or Madame Mystery, as you would call me!" (yes there are umlauts on the 'a' in Ratzel, but I'm a lazy American and they're not on my keyboard)

So, someone took both of those and declared her Julia Ratzel? It's akin to Reed Richards going under the fake name "George" in his first appearance, identifying himself as Mr. Fantastic, and then having someone later note his real name as "George Fantastic."

Now, of course, later use of either/both of those could certainly have changed them from an error to canon. There's no reason you can't use your real first name to go undercover, and there's no reason your last name and your codename can't be the same thing. Still - whoever identified her as Julia Ratzel seems to have been reading a little too quickly.

Cute! And nice catch!

Stuart V
May 20, 2011, 09:36 pm

  oenglish wrote:

Okay, you made me curious, and it is rather amusing. There's two "errors," in actuality.

First, Julia is intended as a fake identity, not her real name. Page 6 of Invaders 17 makes that pretty clear by putting quotes around it: "betrayal from within, as the girl called "Julia" turned out to have been hiding both a German accent and a luger."

This one isn't the case now - it was assumed to be a codename, which is why she got the first name Frieda in the 1980s handbook. But when Master Man died in Cable, he died calling her Julia. Since he (a) wasn't present in London when she was undercover, and (b) should know her real name, she is Julia. A misreading that became canon.

  oenglish wrote:

Second, Madame Ratzel isn't her name, its her code name in German. Page 14 of that issue makes that clear as she says "Do not play innocent with Madame Ratzel, or Madame Mystery, as you would call me!"

And that's the answer. Ratsel is German for Mystery, and if you look at the sentence, you realise she is translating her spy codename, not telling him her real surname. How many people do you know who translate their real name into the language of the person they are meeting?
Someone took both of those and declared her Julia Ratzel. It's akin to Reed Richards going under the fake name "George" in his first appearance, identifying himself as Mr. Fantastic, and then having someone later note his real name as "George Fantastic."

  oenglish wrote:

Now, of course, later use of either/both of those could certainly have changed them from an error to canon. There's no reason you can't use your first name to go undercover, and there's no reason your last name and your codename can't be the same thing. Still - whoever identified her as Julia Ratzel seems to have been reading a little too quickly.

Yup - Julia has become canon, but Ratsel is just a misreading that no one spotted for 30 or so years.

  oenglish wrote:

Cute! And nice catch!

Thanks, though it was actually something Roy Thomas said that made me realise it. I'd made the same mistake as everyone else had all these past readings.

Andy E. Nystrom
May 21, 2011, 02:43 am
Neat! The bit about Julia made me think of a sub-topic: things that were wrong but which have been repeated so often that they've become canon anyway.

For example: if you read Man-Thing's first appearance, it seems clear that Ted and Ellen are just dating and don't really know each other that well. But then in the 1980s series Ellen was said to be his wife, and that's been repeated so often that it's now canon.

Other ideas?

Stuart V
May 21, 2011, 12:59 pm
The misreading that became canon that springs to mind is the health status of Ken Crichton. He let his friend Joe Chapman become Union Jack instead of taking the role himself because Joe was the stronger of the two, and thus had a better chance of surviving fighting Baron Blood. That didn't mean Ken was weak or sickly - indeed, Ken was part of the same university wrestling team Joe was on, and that suggests reasonable health. But people misread "Joe is stronger" as "Ken is weak" and he thus suddenly developed a debilitating anemia that was implied to have dogged his entire life.

Sidney Osinga
May 21, 2011, 01:43 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Thanks, though it was actually something Roy Thomas said that made me realise it. I'd made the same mistake as everyone else had all these past readings.

Just curious, what was that he said?

Stuart V
May 21, 2011, 01:57 pm

Sidney Osinga wrote:

Just curious, what was that he said?

I asked him if he'd like to supply some background information for Warrior Woman's entry in the Cap handbook. He kindly did so, including her surname. Since I'd thought, like everyone else, that he'd told us her surname already, I re-read the story, at which point I realised, "no, he didn't."

Andy E. Nystrom
May 22, 2011, 01:43 am

  Stuart V wrote:

The misreading that became canon that springs to mind is the health status of Ken Crichton. He let his friend Joe Chapman become Union Jack instead of taking the role himself because Joe was the stronger of the two, and thus had a better chance of surviving fighting Baron Blood. That didn't mean Ken was weak or sickly - indeed, Ken was part of the same university wrestling team Joe was on, and that suggests reasonable health. But people misread "Joe is stronger" as "Ken is weak" and he thus suddenly developed a debilitating anemia that was implied to have dogged his entire life.

I can't recall the exact details. but Roger Stern also mentioned Chapman's occupation changing as a result of him using a British term to describe his field that had a different meaning in the US. I'll try to find the interview with Stern; I think it was either in Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed or in Back Issue magazine.

Stuart V
Aug 27, 2011, 09:30 pm
Couple of quick new ones. Tangerine of Excalibur and Captain Britain & MI13 appearances - alleged by various places on the internet to have the real name "Tania Reen." Utter codswallop. And Sage, alleged to be Tessa Hartley, Tessa Niles or Tessa Basso, depending on which inaccurate site you read - not only have none of those surnames been used in any legit story, but Tessa isn't Sage's real first name, but an alias. In both Sage and Tangerine's cases, their real names remain unrevealed.

Stuart V
Oct 13, 2011, 06:44 am
More fake namery on Wiki sites: Venom's symbiote offspring. If you were to trust Wikipedia, you'd believe Venom's offspring included Scream, Lasher, Phage, Riot and Agony. A shout-out to Wikipedia user Crazy Penguin, who explains the truth very well (and so I'll quote and credit him, rather than paraphrasing him):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Symbiote_%28comics%29#LF_symbiotes
"Scream was never a fan name for the yellow symbiote character. She had an action figure produced in the Spider-Man: Venom: Planet of the Symbiotes toy line from 1996. The slim green symbiote character also had an action figure produced named Lasher. Unlike Scream, Lasher's name has never been used in a Marvel publication, but it still exists on an official Marvel product and so could still be considered his "real" name.
The other three Life Foundation symbiotes did not have action figures. There was an action figure called Riot, but that was a four-armed character who had never appeared in the comics and had a biography on the back of the box that made it clear he was not one of the five Life Foundation symbiotes.
Phage is short for Xenophage, an alien from the Venom comic books that is not a symbiote - it eats symbiotes. The Xenophage action figure was called Phage. I have absolutely no idea why a certain fan chose to use this name in reference to one of the Life Foundation symbiotes, it's a completely separate and unrelated character.
The name Agony comes from nowhere. It was just made up.
Allow me to reiterate, the only two Life Foundation symbiotes officially named were Scream (the yellow one) and Lasher (the green one), both in the action figure line. The only one to have their name carried over into the comic books and publications is Scream.
Officially the others do not have codenames until Marvel tells us otherwise."

Unfortunately Crazy Penguin appears to be outnumbered by the misinformed, as a glance at the history of the various symbiote pages (most of whom are listed under the fake, fan-cruft names) shows that whenever he (or anyone else) has tried to fix the pages, others have rushed to return them to being incorrect.

So, summarising. Scream is an official name. Lasher is not an official name, but, in the absence of an official name, does have some legitimacy for being used to clarify which symbiote is being discussed, based on it being used by the toy line. Riot, Phage and Agony are just plain wrong.

Roger Ott
Oct 13, 2011, 09:19 am
Welcome to the Internet, where everyone can be right just because they say so.

Grrrrrr....

Eduardo M.
Oct 13, 2011, 11:24 am
(rolls eyes) and I laugh when I think of all the times I put in correct info only for a Wiki admin to take it down.

Stuart V

  Eduardo M. wrote:

Oct 13, 2011, 12:38 pm
(rolls eyes) and I laugh when I think of all the times I put in correct info only for a Wiki admin to take it down.

I know that feeling very, very well. Contrary to Wiki's vaunted claims of accuracy and that bad info is normally quickly spotted and removed, my personal experience is that when I discover bad info and then check the page history, I find it has gone unchallenged for several years, despite an absolute lack of references to back it, but when I correct it, the accurate info is swiftly removed, even though multiple citations are provided to demonstrate that the revision is the correct info.

Sidney Osinga
Oct 13, 2011, 12:53 pm
I also see that the same article lists Dreadface (from Fantastic Four) as a symbiote, even though it has never been called one, and the entry for it in the recent FF Handbook said there was no evidence that it was one.

Wikipedia: the fast lane of the Misinformation superhighway.

Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 13, 2011, 01:56 pm
Probably the most amazing thing I've read in any of the discussion sections was that "OHOTMU references are invalid" (the non-Aarkus Visions). I'm pretty sure most people here consider the Handbooks (and Indices) to be the definitive source of valid info on Marvel Comics. In fairness to Wikipedia though, the comment was made by a rogue editor who's no longer allowed to edit stuff on Wikipedia.

Actually, to answer my own comment, yes, I realize that sources affiliated with the subject are considered invalid. I realize the bias there, but it's way too rigid a rule.

I see the Scourge of the Underworld entry credits the first seen Scourge as killing Titania. While he dressed in drag to try to kill Constrictor, the Golddigger disguise was a lot slimmer. Unless he had some shapeshifting ability (unlikely given his need for disguises), I'm inclined to agree with the Handbooks that it has to be Caprice.

Stuart V
Oct 13, 2011, 02:17 pm
Oh, and another one that's often wrong - not incorrect on Wikipedia (and other wiki sites, like Comicvine, because cut and paste and Wiki sites allow everyone to equally spread misinformation) at the moment, but only because I've personally removed it a few times. Emplate's "Hellion" who utilized "ebon energy" is not called Ebon; that's a fan name, employing the logic that anyone who manipulates a given energy must use that as their codename. Her creator named her Nocturne, and we confirmed that codename in the Handbook entry on Emplate's "Hellions."

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Probably the most amazing thing I've read in any of the discussion sections was that "OHOTMU references are invalid" (the non-Aarkus Visions).

"OHOTMU's are invalid/often wrong" is a favorite cry from those who disagree with what the OHOTMU says on a given point. Funnily enough, the same people often are happy to quote us when they think we support their argument; we're only wrong when we don't (thinking specifically of one person who insisted that Marvel had its own Omniverse, and used scans of OHOTMU entries that they were misreading to bolster their claim, but then decried OHOTMU's accuracy as soon as someone else pointed out the very clear OHOTMU note about there only being one Omniverse which included ALL realities, including all the non-Marvel ones). Rarely can the decriers actually provide specifics to back up this claim of "often wrong"; they either can't quote specifics, or else bring up something we can then demonstrate isn't wrong, or raise a handful of errors we've already admitted to and fixed. As anyone who frequents these boards knows, we do make mistakes, but we also admit them when alerted to them and correct for the next time. And I'm confident our percentage of accurate info to errors is extremely low.

ultrabasurero
Oct 13, 2011, 05:23 pm
This is just like when one person was so adamant about D-Man not being avenger and kept on erasing him from the list of avengers on wiki. Every single OHOTMU in the current run was used as a reference for inclusion, but this person kept on using outdated sources to support his claim. The person even went as far as trying to claim that the error-riddled "Marvel Encyclopedia" was a source that proved his point because the Avengers entry didn't list D-Man even though it didn't list the whole roster and mainly just glossed over the big names. The person also tried to use CA#349 as a source supporting his position that D-Man never joined.

Some people...

Stuart V
Oct 13, 2011, 06:06 pm

  ultrabasurero wrote:

This is just like when one person was so adamant about D-Man not being avenger and kept on erasing him from the list of avengers on wiki. Every single OHOTMU in the current run was used as a reference for inclusion, but this person kept on using outdated sources to support his claim. The person even went as far as trying to claim that the error-riddled "Marvel Encyclopedia" was a source that proved his point because the Avengers entry didn't list D-Man even though it didn't list the whole roster and mainly just glossed over the big names. The person also tried to use CA#349 as a source supporting his position that D-Man never joined.

Some people...

Perfect example of picking only the reference guides that support you, while insisting all the rest are wrong.

Phoenixx9
Oct 13, 2011, 06:12 pm
I hate it when they change the true information, thereby confusing newbies or those wanting to learn more about the character!

And even those who are familiar with the character, may think they missed some issues when they see the false info!

Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 13, 2011, 08:05 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Perfect example of picking only the reference guides that support you, while insisting all the rest are wrong.

Part of the problem, again, might be Wikipedia's rule against primary sources, especially since the Handbooks, with help from the writers of the comics, occasionally reveal info for the first time. By this logic, and the error-riddled DK books would be considered a valid refererence source because they're secondary sources, and a website that quotes the Handbooks would be valid because they're a secondary source. But the Handbooks themselves could be seen as primary sources, thus not valid according to the site rules. Which brings me back to my point above about the "no primary sources" rule being seriously flawed.

Stuart V
Oct 13, 2011, 08:27 pm

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Part of the problem, again, might be Wikipedia's rule against primary sources, especially since the Handbooks, with help from the writers of the comics, occasionally reveal info for the first time. By this logic, and the error-riddled DK books would be considered a valid refererence source because they're secondary sources, and a website that quotes the Handbooks would be valid because they're a secondary source. But the Handbooks themselves could be seen as primary sources, thus not valid according to the site rules. Which brings me back to my point above about the "no primary sources" rule being seriously flawed.

While I'd agree that "no primary sources" rule is flawed, I think that in the specific example quoted, it's just someone being obstinate and only counting as valid the stuff that backs his own argument. If the handbooks had supported his position, he'd have considered them completely valid, whether they were primary sources or not.

Phoenixx9
Oct 13, 2011, 09:14 pm
Well, one example that got carried over from somewhere is with Jean Grey as Phoenix.

I believe the original Phoenix entry for Jean as Phoenix in the Book of the Dead had a sentence: "Grey's added maturity and her years of practice in using her telekinetic powers had prepared her for handling her telepathic abilities."

This sentence has been copied throughout the years and I have seen it listed many times as "Grey's added maturity and her years of practice in using her telepathic powers had prepared her for handling her telepathic abilities." Now, this isn't the largest or most glaring mis-information out there, but, it doesn't make sense, so whomever first copied it wrong didn't catch it and neither did anyone after that.

Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 13, 2011, 10:24 pm
Just noticed another Wikipedia error. In 2006 someone noted that the image for Yellowjacket (DeMara) makes her look African American. That image is still there with no other images. Now granted the article doesn't mention her ethnicity, but someone who just uses Wikipedia as a resource would certainly conclude that she was black from the image.

Stuart V
Oct 14, 2011, 07:08 am

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

Well, one example that got carried over from somewhere is with Jean Grey as Phoenix.

I believe the original Phoenix entry for Jean as Phoenix in the Book of the Dead had a sentence: "Grey's added maturity and her years of practice in using her telekinetic powers had prepared her for handling her telepathic abilities."

This sentence has been copied throughout the years and I have seen it listed many times as "Grey's added maturity and her years of practice in using her telepathic powers had prepared her for handling her telepathic abilities." Now, this isn't the largest or most glaring mis-information out there, but, it doesn't make sense, so whomever first copied it wrong didn't catch it and neither did anyone after that.

And that's one of the big problems with the cut and paste culture that the internet enables. One person's mistakes would be copied by multiple people too lazy to do their own typing, never mind their own research (the same mannerless people who happily view other info sites that do their own scanning as just places to loot). And misinformation spread fast enough when people had individual sites, but with Wiki sites removing even the need to have enough gumption to set up a website, they've simply made the matter worse.

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Just noticed another Wikipedia error. In 2006 someone noted that the image for Yellowjacket (DeMara) makes her look African American. That image is still there with no other images. Now granted the article doesn't mention her ethnicity, but someone who just uses Wikipedia as a resource would certainly conclude that she was black from the image.

Yet more evidence against the "Wiki sites spot and fix problems quickly so their accuracy isn't endangered by their letting absolutely anyone add stuff" claim.

I don't dislike Wiki sites in theory - the idea of pooling information from many people to build a database of knowledge across many subjects greater than any one person could create is a nice concept. The trouble is, in practice what you find is that they let the immature play silly beggars, the lazy and rude scavenge info and pictures from both sites that do their own work (and thus hopefully have a decent standard of accuracy) and sites that have the same flaws as Wiki (and thus perpetuate and spread bad info with the good), and the utterly clueless have equal say with the experts on any given topic (and experts on a given topic are, by definition, always in shorter supply than the uninformed).

Stuart V
Oct 16, 2011, 08:42 am
A quickie, one even the Index has been guilty of. The Spirit of '76 was William Nasland, not Naslund.

Rayeye
Oct 16, 2011, 11:54 am
As a fan of Marvel's mutants, it irritates me sites such as wikipedia keep on listing a lot of characters whose source of powers hasn't been revealed/confirmed yet as mutants and other sites are simply copying it.
Debrii is an example of this as well as Puck (Zuzha Yu), and today I saw wikipedia also labeled Veil (Madeleine Barry) as a mutant.
 
Stuart V
Oct 16, 2011, 12:25 pm

  Rayeye wrote:

As a fan of Marvel's mutants, it irritates me sites such as wikipedia keep on listing a lot of characters whose source of powers hasn't been revealed/confirmed yet as mutants and other sites are simply copying it.
Debrii is an example of this as well as Puck (Zuzha Yu), and today I saw wikipedia also labeled Veil (Madeleine Barry) as a mutant.

I totally agree. I believe Debrii may recently have been confirmed as a mutant (can't recall for sure), but Wikipedia listed her as such long before there was any evidence for it.

Wiki is full of people's guesses and suppositions reported as fact. Even now they list Isaiah Bradley as Weapon I, when there's no evidence of that - he's after Rogers, who was Weapon I, but given the project got shelved with Erskine's demise and restarted, and that the original project was assigned the Weapon I name retroactively as newer Weapons projects got activated, Bradley could easily be part of a higher number project. In fact, given we don't know how rapidly they shifted through II to IV, the animal tests, the logical option fitting the info we have would be for Camp Cathcart's victims to be part of V or VI, identified as the Weapon experiments tested out on "ethnic minorities."

Michael Regan
Oct 17, 2011, 08:41 am
Mutant has always been the catch-all catagory for mutant powers since there is no origin needed. If no origin for powers has been revealed, they they automatically become mutants (falsely, of course.)

I also find it rather amusing only certain entries have a species catagory as it is (likely due to an oversight really, but still...).

Eduardo M.
Oct 21, 2011, 08:22 pm
I see one Wikipedia that some are saying the Hurricane that battled the TBolts in Civil War: the Initiative is Melvin Potter. This despite the fact that the Appendix lists Potter and the TBolts foe Hurricane as seperate people, even going so far as to say Potter and the TBolts Hurricane have nothing to do with one another.

what probably doesnt help is that in CiW:I, Hurricane is listed as "Hurricane II". This means either Potter ir Makkari are considered "Hurricane I". I doubt Wild West outlaw Harry Kane would be considered "Hurricane I". If he is, then that makes me wonder about Potter and Makkari

Stuart V
Oct 22, 2011, 12:00 pm

  Eduardo M. wrote:

I see one Wikipedia that some are saying the Hurricane that battled the TBolts in Civil War: the Initiative is Melvin Potter. This despite the fact that the Appendix lists Potter and the TBolts foe Hurricane as seperate people, even going so far as to say Potter and the TBolts Hurricane have nothing to do with one another.

what probably doesnt help is that in CiW:I, Hurricane is listed as "Hurricane II". This means either Potter ir Makkari are considered "Hurricane I". I doubt Wild West outlaw Harry Kane would be considered "Hurricane I". If he is, then that makes me wonder about Potter and Makkari

And this is a good example of why numbering is a system the current handbooks dropped for distinguishing between different people using the same codename. It simply doesn't work. Unless everyone is (a) aware of every person who used a given codename, and (b) agrees on the order they are counted in, then the numbering will not match from one list to the next. For the record, though I've been told Wikipedia will allow a post here to count as acceptable evidence apparently, but no, the Hurricane from Civil War: The Initiative is not, absolutely not, Albert Potter. Though we suspected as much considering his different powers and appearance, we made sure to check with editorial at the time, and were told that he was a brand new character. Who the writer of the story thought was Hurricane I is anyone's guess - there's at least 3 others (WWII Makkari, Wild West gunslinger and one of the Dark Riders).

Phoenixx9
Oct 22, 2011, 01:59 pm
Yeah, I've never been a fan of the numbering system because it can become confusing.

Even when it seems that there should be no confusion, it inevitably turns out that the numbering is different to different fans.

Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 22, 2011, 04:59 pm

  Phoenixx9 wrote:

Yeah, I've never been a fan of the numbering system because it can become confusing.

Even when it seems that there should be no confusion, it inevitably turns out that the numbering is different to different fans.

I used to maintain Roman numeral lists online for various Marvel and DC characters. It eventually because too unwieldy, especially after Hypertime made all the Elseworlds stuff canon. And there's also the matter of the different What If Worlds also being canon. Even if you lump all the versions with the same alter ego together, there were still about 100 different people who took up the Batman mantle at some point or another, most admittedly just for one adventure. I think Roman numerals can be fun if you're focussing on a small scale universe that's been around for maybe five years. After that you're asking for headaches.

Stuart V
Oct 22, 2011, 08:01 pm

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

I used to maintain Roman numeral lists online for various Marvel and DC characters. It eventually because too unwieldy, especially after Hypertime made all the Elseworlds stuff canon. And there's also the matter of the different What If Worlds also being canon. Even if you lump all the versions with the same alter ego together, there were still about 100 different people who took up the Batman mantle at some point or another, most admittedly just for one adventure. I think Roman numerals can be fun if you're focussing on a small scale universe that's been around for maybe five years. After that you're asking for headaches.

Even when there have only been two people who have used a given codename it can get confusing. Which Golden Girl is Golden Girl I? The one who debuted in 1947, whose adventures were set in the same year? Or the one who debuted in 1978, but whose adventures were set during WWII? Do you put them in real world debut order, or their universe's debut order? We might do the former, but if characters within the Marvel universe were numbering them, they'd certainly do it the other way round.

Eduardo M.
Oct 22, 2011, 08:17 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Even when there have only been two people who have used a given codename it can get confusing. Which Golden Girl is Golden Girl I? The one who debuted in 1947, whose adventures were set in the same year? Or the one who debuted in 1978, but whose adventures were set during WWII? Do you put them in real world debut order, or their universe's debut order? We might do the former, but if characters within the Marvel universe were numbering them, they'd certainly do it the other way round.

I've seen lists that put The Squadron Supreme Nighthawk before 616 Nighthawk and others that reverse them.

I'd dare someone to try and put numbers to all the Red Guardians.

Phoenixx9
Oct 22, 2011, 11:43 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Even when there have only been two people who have used a given codename it can get confusing. Which Golden Girl is Golden Girl I? The one who debuted in 1947, whose adventures were set in the same year? Or the one who debuted in 1978, but whose adventures were set during WWII? Do you put them in real world debut order, or their universe's debut order? We might do the former, but if characters within the Marvel universe were numbering them, they'd certainly do it the other way round.

Exactly!

In your example, Stuart, I would say Gwenny Lou Sabaki (the one who debuted in 1978 but whose adventures were set during WWII), because she is a favorite of mine, but really, it should be the one who debuted in 1947, no?

It just gets too confusing since every fan thinks of their favorite as the first one with the name, or they are unaware of previous characters who used the name prior to their reading of comics.

Madison Carter
Oct 23, 2011, 09:34 am
And then you get into legacy numbering and the issues caused there. Phoenix, for example, can get really confusing. Which would be Phoenix I, Jean Grey or the Phoenix Force itself, or the amalgam of the two? And then you have her alternate-reality daughter Rachel - do people who come from different realities count? And like someone said about Rachel elsewhere with her diverging the timestream and taking two different routes (Mother Aksani and returning to Earth as Marvel Girl)...And where does that leave Baron Zemo, who used the name in a completely unrelated guise at one point?

The only time in our run I've felt the need for numbering a line of characters was necessary was with the Scourge profile, simply because we have so little information about the members. And even then, people still get things wrong with it, applying the knowledge we had in the 1980s to it ("Scourge I responsible for ALL the killings until he died"...no he wasn't - it's long been established that Caprice was Golddigger for the Titania murder, and "Scourge II" dealt with others)

Stuart V
Oct 23, 2011, 10:11 am
Then there are brief imposters - where does the Acrobat fit into the numbering of Captain Americas, for example? Some wouldn't count him because he didn't wear the costume for long, nor with any sort of official approval? Others would, as he did use the name, albeit very briefly. And even if you discount imposters, what about Bob Russo and Scar Turpin? Both legitimate attempts to become new Caps, though neither had sanction nor did they last long. Some don't count Roscoe, because he didn't have government approval, but he did have Steve Rogers and Falcon's, and he's counted as an official Cap in the poster at the back of Cap #350. The point isn't whether you, the person reading this post thinks they count or don't count - it's whether every other person who ever tries to list the Captain Americas matches your opinion.

Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 23, 2011, 11:37 am
A couple of other interesting cases: with the Hobgoblin, aside from Kingsley, there's also the Imperial Guard member. And Kingsley routinely used patsies; of those, Leeds definitely counts, Donovan is more debatable but probably counts, but then Thompson is highly debatable since the authorities certainly saw him as such for a time, but he only "became" the Hobgoblin just before his arrest.

With Magneto, most people would probably count the robot who had a prominent role in one adventure, the first instance of a Magneto claiming to be Polaris' father. But if you're counting robots as Magneto, what about the one in an amusement park in Marvel Two-in-One who could only say "I am Magneto!"? Less twisted people would probably say no, more warped people like myself would count it.

Actually since the topic came up, here's how crazy my own efforts became during the 1998-1999 when I actually still thought this was a possible idea (I might someday revise these without the Roman numerals as a general character catalogue but I won't revive the numering system; again, last updated in 1999 so no 21st century characters). I'm sure I overlooked tons of characters and some alter egos hadn't been revealed at the time so these pages should be seen as "for Archive purposes". Actually some cases are missing here; I know I included the Magneto robots for example. Probably I sent the "newer" version to a listserv but something happened to prevent the "newer" version from appearing online. I recall a mishap of some sort did occur.

Marvel:
http://victoria.tc.ca/Recreation/Comics/MRN.html
DC:
http://victoria.tc.ca/Recreation/Comics/DCRN.html

Stuart V
Oct 23, 2011, 12:15 pm
There's also this Magneto
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/magnetor.htm

and who is Hulk I? Many would say Bruce Banner, but Xemnu used the name before him.

And then, as your list demonstrates, there are the slight spelling variations. Who is the first Bullseye? The Daredevil foe, or Bull's Eye, the assassin who fought SHIELD? And even if you discount him, what about the Deadly Dozen's Michael Miller, aka Bullseye, who debuted before the DD foe?

The other thing the handbooks avoid is calling anyone "the original" or "the first" XXX. Too many people say "the first Union Jack" when they mean Montgomery Falsworth. Yes, right now the Union Jack's are easy to track and number - we've met three, whose debut order is the same both in 616 and the real world. But it only takes a single story where we see, for example, Montgomery's father as Union Jack during the Boer War, to completely invalidate that. And since we've never seen exactly how Montgomery chose the name or came to don the costume, we can't say for sure he didn't inherit a legacy. While the "original" title is risky for any character, it's doubly so for any legacy character.

Phoenixx9
Oct 23, 2011, 12:41 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

and who is Hulk I? Many would say Bruce Banner, but Xemnu used the name before him.

Quite true!

  Stuart V wrote:

The other thing the handbooks avoid is calling anyone "the original" or "the first" XXX. Too many people say "the first Union Jack" when they mean Montgomery Falsworth. Yes, right now the Union Jack's are easy to track and number. But it only takes a single story where we see, for example, Montgomery's father as Union Jack during the Boer War, to completely invalidate that. And since we've never seen exactly how Montgomery chose the name or came to don the costume, we can't say for sure he didn't inherit a legacy. While the "original" title is risky for any character, it's doubly so for any legacy character.

Yeah, this is another good point to remember.

Your example is fitting because I have often wondered this myself about Lord Montgomery possibly inheriting his Union Jack title/costume.

Madison Carter
Oct 23, 2011, 04:29 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

There's also this Magneto
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/magnetor.htm

and who is Hulk I? Many would say Bruce Banner, but Xemnu used the name before him.

And then, as your list demonstrates, there are the slight spelling variations. Who is the first Bullseye? The Daredevil foe, or Bull's Eye, the assassin who fought SHIELD? And even if you discount him, what about the Deadly Dozen's Michael Miller, aka Bullseye, who debuted before the DD foe?

The other thing the handbooks avoid is calling anyone "the original" or "the first" XXX. Too many people say "the first Union Jack" when they mean Montgomery Falsworth. Yes, right now the Union Jack's are easy to track and number - we've met three, whose debut order is the same both in 616 and the real world. But it only takes a single story where we see, for example, Montgomery's father as Union Jack during the Boer War, to completely invalidate that. And since we've never seen exactly how Montgomery chose the name or came to don the costume, we can't say for sure he didn't inherit a legacy. While the "original" title is risky for any character, it's doubly so for any legacy character.

There was at least one other non-Xemnu Hulk in the pre-FF stories too.

And since I brought up Golddigger earlier, she presents another problem with the numbering system: Imposters who show up before the real thing. Caprice posed as Golddigger circa 1985 (our time). The real Golddigger, the one she most likely based herself on to get into the Grapplers, didn't appear until the early 1990s.

DeadpoolRP
Oct 23, 2011, 04:44 pm

  Madison Carter wrote:

And since I brought up Golddigger earlier, she presents another problem with the numbering system: Imposters who show up before the real thing. Caprice posed as Golddigger circa 1985 (our time). The real Golddigger, the one she most likely based herself on to get into the Grapplers, didn't appear until the early 1990s.

Same goes for Copycat, who appeared as Domino before Domino ever appeared . . .

Stuart V
Oct 23, 2011, 04:44 pm

  Madison Carter wrote:

There was at least one other non-Xemnu Hulk in the pre-FF stories too.

Of course! I'd forgotten him - Albert Poole in his giant armor.
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/poolealbertst.htm
and checking on the link to him there's also a pre-FF monster
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/hulkgloptta.htm

DrGoodwrench
Oct 23, 2011, 08:11 pm
Have there ever been multiple characters with the same name coming into being/the MU simultaneously? Because that would be another nail in the coffin for the number system.

Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 23, 2011, 09:19 pm

DrGoodwrench wrote:

Have there ever been multiple characters with the same name coming into being/the MU simultaneously? Because that would be another nail in the coffin for the number system.

I'm not sure if that's the case with completely different characters (though it wouldn't surprise me) but there's been cases like Turbo where different characters sharing the same armor/power suit have appeared together.

DC's Manhunter and Quality's Manhunter both appeared around the same time, which became a problem when Quality's characters got bought by DC. The Quality version is usually assumed to have come first due to cover dates (and at least before the latest history change Quality's was treated as first in continuity as a result), but they're so close together that it's conceivable that due to different date systems DC's came first.
Rayeye
Nov 2, 2011, 06:23 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

I totally agree. I believe Debrii may recently have been confirmed as a mutant (can't recall for sure), but Wikipedia listed her as such long before there was any evidence for it.

I'd really like to know where this was confirmed. Some wiki sites even say a picture from the Age of X arc confirming this, but all you see is a picture of a black girl (it was just a cameo, no mention of Debrii at all) who could just be anybody.

Stuart V
Nov 2, 2011, 08:59 pm

  Rayeye wrote:

I'd really like to know where this was confirmed. Some wiki sites even say a picture from the Age of X arc confirming this, but all you see is a picture of a black girl (it was just a cameo, no mention of Debrii at all) who could just be anybody.

And you've just shown why people should always double check the comics themselves, something I wasn't able to do in this instance, which is why I couched my comment with "believe" and "may have been" - that said, even with that wording to cover me from stating anything definitively, I should have made sure before writing.

I still have not been able to personally check the issue in question, but one of my fellow writers has, and he confirms that while she isn't named, there is a black woman in X-Men Legacy #245 who has Debrii's distinctive haircut, and who is being rounded up by anti-mutant forces. So it probably was Debrii there. However, and this makes the whole confirming her identity point moot, I was also informed that Age of X showed Spider-Man being rounded up too, and he's not a mutant. So if the anti-mutant types were rounding up non-mutants in their mutant purge, then even if it is Debrii in the X-Men Legacy scene, it's not proof that she is a mutant. So the origin of her powers officially remains unconfirmed.

Stuart V
Nov 3, 2011, 02:12 am
Another common naming error. It is the Casket of Ancient Winters, not the Cask of Ancient Winters. The former is the original name given in the comics, and, more to the point, the item is a box (casket), not a barrel for holding alcohol (cask).

Roger Ott
Nov 3, 2011, 10:04 am
Maybe the Cask of Ancient Winters is what the Asgardians used to help combat the effects of the Casket of Ancient Winters...

Phoenixx9
Nov 3, 2011, 11:33 am

Roger Ott wrote:

Maybe the Cask of Ancient Winters is what the Asgardians used to help combat the effects of the Casket of Ancient Winters...

...with Volstagg draining it dry! :shhh:

Stuart V
Nov 3, 2011, 05:55 pm
Another name confusion that seems to be picking up speed on Wiki sites, thanks to them just copying one another without checking the source material for themselves. Sgt. Tork, erstwhile ally of the Black Panther, is not Michael Tork. Michael Tork is Bloke of X-Force (later X-Statix). Sgt. Tork is Francis Bartholomew Tork.

Eduardo M.
Nov 3, 2011, 09:02 pm
I fixed the Debrii entry by removing her classification as a mutant. We'll see how long that lasts. I also fixed Hurricane's entry to note that the TBolts Hurricane is not Potter. I hope you don't mind Stuart but I had to mention you were the one who confirmed this. We'll see if that makes a difference

Stuart V
Nov 3, 2011, 10:12 pm

  Eduardo M. wrote:

I fixed the Debrii entry by removing her classification as a mutant. We'll see how long that lasts.

I give it a couple of days. If you'd instead put down that she was a Martian, that would probably go unchallenged, as it seems to be accurate information that Wikipedia has a problem with.
I also fixed Hurricane's entry to note that the TBolts Hurricane is not Potter. I hope you don't mind Stuart but I had to mention you were the one who confirmed this. We'll see if that makes a difference
I have no problem with you quoting what I say here, though I doubt it will carry any weight. Those who want to disagree with you will simply rule that I either (a) don't know what I am talking about, (b) am not a reliable source, (c) can't be verified to actually be who I claim to be, or (d) you can't quote a forum or personal blog (I've been told, in one of the funnier e-mails I received recently from someone arguing with a Wikipedian, that Wikipedia disallows personal blogs and forums, so that if, say, Peter David or John Byrne or BMB say something on their own sites, where you can be pretty sure it is them, that's not valid, but if a third party site reports they said something, even though you can't verify that they actually spoke to said site, that's acceptable).


 


My photostream (over 5.6 million photos!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24917258@N05/
     Thread Starter
 

2/13/2020 10:37 am  #3


Re: Things People Keep Getting Wrong - Original Version

Final historical text from Comixfan:

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 3, 2011, 11:19 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

I give it a couple of days. If you'd instead put down that she was a Martian, that would probably go unchallenged, as it seems to be accurate information that Wikipedia has a problem with.

If it helps, Wikipedia's reputation for inaccuracy is starting to spill into print magazines: Back Issue #51 noted a factual error regarding one of their interview subjects, Janice Chiang. I think it's telling that the interviewer opted to mention the error in the interview instead of trying to fix it on the page. The error is still there; curiously there's also a personal life section that just says that very little is known about her (no longer true after said interview; even if it were still true, why bother having a sub-section just to say you know nothing about the topic of the sub-section?)

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 4, 2011, 05:35 am
On another note, on a whim I decided to check out the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia. I'll say this much for them: they're at least pretty good at accurately respresenting the criticism against them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Michael Regan
Nov 4, 2011, 08:06 am
Speaking of "getting it wrong", has the home reality for the Pet Avengers ever been stated?

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 4, 2011, 03:05 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

Speaking of "getting it wrong", has the home reality for the Pet Avengers ever been stated?

What say we just make something up and then post it on Wikipedia?  :lol:


ToddCam
Nov 5, 2011, 10:24 am
Guess what? The fake Deadly Ernest character returned. I re-deleted it.

Stuart V
Nov 5, 2011, 10:52 am

ToddCam wrote:

Guess what? The fake Deadly Ernest character returned. I re-deleted it.

Well done. No surprise that someone put back the fake Deadly Ernest; if anything, I wonder how long the reinstatement of the false one would have stuck if it wasn't for you or someone else from this board who had been alerted to it. I just deleted fake names that had been added to the Outcasts, there unchallenged for over 3 years. And I see that the false names for some of the symbiotes keep being re-added, including by people who openly admit they are fan-made names, but who feel they should still be included anyway "because they are widely known by that name."

Eduardo M.
Nov 5, 2011, 11:25 am

  Stuart V wrote:

And I see that the false names for some of the symbiotes keep being re-added, including by people who openly admit they are fan-made names, but who feel they should still be included anyway "because they are widely known by that name."

are you kidding me? wow. that is obnoxious


Stuart V
Nov 5, 2011, 11:31 am

  Eduardo M. wrote:

are you kidding me? wow. that is obnoxious

No, not kidding. Here's the exact quotes (spelling errors and all):

"I realise that they were created by fans and are not thier official names but they are better known by these names now and could be considered canon considering what happened to scream. (Scream was a fan name for the LF symbiotes leader but in 1999 a comic was published refering to her as Scream. I'm jus gunna put it back to how it was until someone gives a reason why it should stay as it is."

"The fact is that these characters are better known by thier fan names and if anyone was really interested then they'd click the link and find out for them selves that the names are not official. If I was on the net and saw a link saying "Leslie Gesneria's symbiote" I wouldn't know what it means but if I saw "the Agony symbiote" I would, (and I know I'm not alone on that) and I think that at the end of the day that's what matters."

And yes, majorly obnoxious, and more evidence of why it's a bad idea to let just anyone edit.

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 5, 2011, 11:39 am
I decided to investigate further and see where other instances of the faux Deadly Ernest might be appearing.

Deadly Ernest's Facebook page quotes the erroneous Wiki version which is a huge problem in of itself because Facebook is widely known and Facebook pages quoting Wikipedia can't be edited as easily as Wikipedia itself.
www.facebook.com/pages/Deadly-Ernest/142844952395382

Also eNotes, which iroinically brags "study smarter" also uses the bogus Wiklipedia entry. Here there's an interesting question: were they quoting Wikipedia proper or Alpha Flight's wiki? (Yes, that's right, Alpha Flight has its own Wiki). Unfortunately I was reluctant to investigate further on that one because Firefox and Google are both claiming that the Alpha Flight's wiki is prone to attacking your computer. Regardless, eNotes also can't be edited directly. And re: Alpha Flight wiki, if the Deadly Ernest entry is inaccurate on a site with known viruses, I'm understandably not going to be the one to fix the entry.
www.enotes.com/topic/Deadly_Ernest
(I won't link to the Alpha Flight wiki due to the virus problem but it's easy enough to find)

Encyclo links to the current version but has a capsule aummary of the old version.
www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Deadly%20Ernest

All four of these (counting the Alpha Flight wiki on Deadly Ernest) came up in the first two pages of a Google search and without my typing in the bogus surname

Stuart V
Nov 5, 2011, 11:47 am
The problem is, all the wikis are prone to copying one another (heck, it's encouraged by their free user statements) and plagiarising other sites. So once bad info gets on one, then unless it gets removed quickly, it will (not may, will) spread across to others rapidly. And then it's like a weed - it will grow back if you remove it unless you get all of it in one go. Taking it off one site won't do it, as someone will just copy the bad info back in after seeing it on another wiki.

Eduardo M.
Nov 5, 2011, 12:50 pm
I've been visiting the Transformers wiki and its seems to be doing its own thing rather than just copying from other wikis. I actually find myself attracted to its tongue in cheek approach.

On another note, looks like my edits are still in play. Guess no one cares that much about Debrii and Hurricane to restore their fan-based history

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 5, 2011, 01:31 pm

  Eduardo M. wrote:

On another note, looks like my edits are still in play. Guess no one cares that much about Debrii and Hurricane to restore their fan-based history

It took a while for the Deadly Ernest fake info to be restored, so there's a good chance it'll still happen, once someone notices that the fake info is "missing".

I have to say, the Talk sections of Wikipedia pages are fascinating reads. You really feel the pain of those regular editors who are actually rational trying to reason with those who... have their own style of debating (one banned user even had 69 confirmed aliases). They're usually far more interesting than the actual entries they refer to.

Rob London
Nov 5, 2011, 02:03 pm

  Eduardo M. wrote:

I've been visiting the Transformers wiki and its seems to be doing its own thing rather than just copying from other wikis. I actually find myself attracted to its tongue in cheek approach.

I can confirm that the guys who run the TF wiki are cool guys, and keep a tight rein on the wiki to ensure it isn't flooded with fanon - and also maintain a sense of humour about it, because Transformers are kind of ridiculous. Unfortunately, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to wikis.

Michael Regan
Nov 5, 2011, 06:57 pm
It looks like the latest updates to the Sybiote talk page side with the delivery of only facts, unless CrazyPenguin and/or DeadpoolRP are any of you guys ;)

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

What say we just make something up and then post it on Wikipedia? :lol:

Just thought I'd ask as marvel.wikia has them as part of Earth-616. I questioned them and they posted this link as a confirmation https://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort/q/256769255956024499  but stated that any change will have to wait... so perhaps I'll change it.

So I changed the Universe catagory but I have no idea how to change the catagory heading other than reposting.

Stuart V
Nov 5, 2011, 07:39 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

It looks like the latest updates to the Sybiote talk page side with the delivery of only facts, unless CrazyPenguin and/or DeadpoolRP are any of you guys  ;)

DeadpoolRP posts here. No idea about Crazy Penguin.

  Michael Regan wrote:

Just thought I'd ask as marvel.wikia has them as part of Earth-616. I questioned them and they posted this link as a confirmation https://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort/q/256769255956024499  but stated that any change will have to wait... so perhaps I'll change it.

I'm afraid I have ended any involvement I have with Marvel Wikia (please note, they are an unofficial fan site, though you'd be hard pressed to realise that they aren't official, given how their site presents itself). There are some good people on there, but, apart from the usual problems associated with wikis and accuracy, sadly some of the site's policies make it impossible for me to support them.

DeadpoolRP
Nov 5, 2011, 11:57 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

DeadpoolRP posts here. No idea about Crazy Penguin.

Yeah, I reverted the last incorrect symbiotes change, but I think I may have gotten it wrong: apparently the LF symbiotes' colors were different in the toys than in the comics, and the ones I reverted to may be the toy colors, or something like that. I'll get around to researching it eventually, but if someone who's in the know (like you, Stuart) wants to fix it first, that would be great.

  Stuart V wrote:

I'm afraid I have ended any involvement I have with Marvel Wikia (please note, they are an unofficial fan site, though you'd be hard pressed to realise that they aren't official, given how their site presents itself). There are some good people on there, but, apart from the usual problems associated with wikis and accuracy, sadly some of the site's policies make it impossible for me to support them.

I haven't used Marvel Wikia much, but I've noticed that who they consider a member of the X-Men can be a bit wonky. Though at least they're not as bad as Comicvine, which lists alternate reality X-Men right alongside 616 members! CV did include Random, though, which makes me happy . . . ;)

Come to think of it, I know the X-Men entry on the wiki on the official Marvel site is pretty bad, listing a ton of official members as only honorary, etc. Are any efforts going into cleaning that up, or has it been given up on?

DeadpoolRP
Nov 6, 2011, 01:20 am

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

I have to say, the Talk sections of Wikipedia pages are fascinating reads. You really feel the pain of those regular editors who are actually rational trying to reason with those who... have their own style of debating (one banned user even had 69 confirmed aliases). They're usually far more interesting than the actual entries they refer to.

I'd refer you to some of the dumb arguments that have been directed at me on the talk page for the "List of X-Men members" page, but a lot of it has been edited out by the guy who posted it. Well, he mostly just edits out all of his insults and name calling, so you'd still get the basic idea . . .

Michael Regan
Nov 7, 2011, 08:37 am
I find myself bound by correcting errors made by others. I often find myself correcting minor grammatical errors with people in speech in the office.

I once had a director tell me that if someone were to speak of write incorrectly I should point it out, otherwise who will?

I will happily back you DeadpoolRP in areas I am familar with whenever you like  ;)

DeadpoolRP
Nov 7, 2011, 11:33 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

I will happily back you DeadpoolRP in areas I am familar with whenever you like ;)

Thanks, I'll let you know if anything new comes up, especially if it's stuff that's in the handbooks so you'll know it's generally right without even having to be familiar with it! ;)

I mostly edit stuff relating to the X-Men, Alpha Flight, and New Warriors (and music stuff, but that's a different story), so I don't know how well you keep up with those characters.

DrGoodwrench
Nov 7, 2011, 11:36 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

I once had a director tell me that if someone were to speak of write incorrectly I should point it out, otherwise who will?

Is that 'of' deliberate?

Phoenixx9
Nov 7, 2011, 02:52 pm

DrGoodwrench wrote:

Is that 'of' deliberate?

Yeah, I caught that as well, but wasn't 100% sure.... :dunno:

Michael Regan
Nov 7, 2011, 03:28 pm
Thanks, I'll let you know if anything new comes up, especially if it's stuff that's in the handbooks so you'll know it's generally right without even having to be familiar with it! ;)

I mostly edit stuff relating to the X-Men, Alpha Flight, and New Warriors (and music stuff, but that's a different story), so I don't know how well you keep up with those characters.
I keep up with far too many characters, and that includes many non-Marvel characters.

DrGoodwrench wrote:

Is that 'of' deliberate?

LOL, nice catch. of = or and I'm glad you pointed out my error ;)

Stuart V
Nov 10, 2011, 07:58 am
It's K'un-Lun, not K'un-L'un or any other variation. This has been spelled wrong a fair few times, even in past handbooks, so the error is understandable, but in 2004 the handbook writers were asked to gather together information on what spelling had been used where, after which editorial confirmed the original spelling used in Marvel Premiere #15 and many subsequent stories was the correct one. Any other version is a spelling error - stating that for the sake of the likes of those Wikipedians who like to argue that spelling errors are actually the new correct spellings - yes, there are people who claim that, c.f. the debate trying to convince people that Psylocke is Elizabeth, not Elisabeth. If Wikipedia had existed back in the 60s, there'd be some arguing that Spider-Man had been retconned to being Peter Palmer just because Stan Lee got the character's secret identity wrong a couple of times.

Michael Regan
Nov 10, 2011, 08:32 am
If Wikipedia had existed back in the 60s, there'd be some arguing that Spider-Man had been retconned to being Peter Palmer just because Stan Lee got the character's secret identity wrong a couple of times.
Not to mention Super-Man as a codename.

Stuart V
Nov 23, 2011, 09:53 am
Not sure this counts as frequently wrong, but I see a couple of the wikis carrying this rubbish so I am hoping to stamp this dodgy meme out before it spreads too far:

"Blackjack of the First Line is a human-looking member of the Deviants."

Unless something has cropped up in an unrelated title (e.g. not the issues he actually appeared in), there's no evidence whatsoever that Blackjack is anything other than a regular human. Quite where anyone could get the impression from his three appearances that he was a Deviant I have no idea; it's way out of left field.

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 23, 2011, 12:20 pm
In a previous post Madison noted a common Scourge problem, and I've noticed that this problem is in the Wikipedia article: the first seen Scourge is listed as Titania's killer. While the first Scourge to be sure have a history of cross-dressing (he was dressed as a bag lady when he killed Enforcer and as a nurse when the tried to kill the Constrictor) it has to be Caprice who killed Titania while disguised as Golddigger because the first Scourge doesn't have the right build.

Madison Carter
Nov 23, 2011, 01:33 pm
That's an issue dating back to people relying on the original arc and the Handbooks from the time, without bothering to pay attention to the stories that came after.

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 23, 2011, 02:22 pm

  Madison Carter wrote:

That's an issue dating back to people relying on the original arc and the Handbooks from the time, without bothering to pay attention to the stories that came after.

It's also an anatomy consideration. I mean, sure we give people a pass all the time re: Captain America hiding his shield under his clothes and Angel hiding his wings under his clothes. Still, even by those standards a man looking like Golddigger's a bit of a reach, even relying on the old sources of info.

DeadpoolRP
Nov 24, 2011, 11:35 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

I will happily back you DeadpoolRP in areas I am familar with whenever you like ;)

Well, it looks like it's time for you (and everyone else) to help back me up. The incorrect symbiote names keep getting restored, so I've again corrected them (and I believe I got the colors right this time), and I also linked to Stuart's post as a reference and discussed it on the talk page; however, I don't expect that to stick without some other people commenting on the topic, etc.

As an example, one response when restoring the incorrect information was "No toys? Then how do I own an Agony symbiote toy from the 90s?" despite the fact that I didn't say there were no toys, just that "These characters've never had these names in comics OR toys." However, in this case the user IS wrong: there IS no Agony toy. Instead, he must have the Scream, Lasher, or Riot toy and he just THINKS it's an Agony toy because he no longer has the packaging to verify the name.

Anyway, help me out if you have time. Thanks! Oh, and happy Thanksgiving!

Stuart V
Nov 24, 2011, 12:48 pm

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Well, it looks like it's time for you (and everyone else) to help back me up. The incorrect symbiote names keep getting restored, so I've again corrected them (and I believe I got the colors right this time), and I also linked to Stuart's post as a reference and discussed it on the talk page; however, I don't expect that to stick without some other people commenting on the topic, etc.

As an example, one response when restoring the incorrect information was "No toys? Then how do I own an Agony symbiote toy from the 90s?" despite the fact that I didn't say there were no toys, just that "These characters've never had these names in comics OR toys." However, in this case the user IS wrong: there IS no Agony toy. Instead, he must have the Scream, Lasher, or Riot toy and he just THINKS it's an Agony toy because he no longer has the packaging to verify the name.

Anyway, help me out if you have time. Thanks! Oh, and happy Thanksgiving!

Best of luck trying to get it fixed - I see that the person who changed the main Symbiote page is one "Spideyfan104", the same guy who tried to argue that Richard and Mary Parker were SHIELD agents based purely on a mistaken cover of a Minus 1 issue. When it was pointed out to him that Tom Brevoort had clearly stated on his blog at Marvel.com that he (Tom) had written that cover text and had made a mistake, Spidey104 argued that Tom might not know what he was talking about, and anyway, how could they be sure that it was really Tom and not someone just claiming to be him? This despite it being Marvel's own site and Tom's blog thereon (so who else would be posting under Tom's name), and Tom who wrote the original text (so if anyone can legitimately say it was an error, it would be Tom). Some people don't like to let the facts get in the way of their opinions.

Michael Regan
Nov 24, 2011, 01:40 pm

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Anyway, help me out if you have time. Thanks! Oh, and happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving? That was over a month ago  ;)

I made a quick post in the discussion thread (I am unable to login for some reason) but Stuart is correct, and I grow tired with regular misshandling of wiki-pages, and ignoring the concerns of many visitors to the site.

Michael Regan
Nov 29, 2011, 11:04 am
"Blackjack of the First Line is a human-looking member of the Deviants."
Looking at various sites I think I may have determined the source of this misinformation
Over the years the group gained and lost members, and fought threats such as the Red Front, the Yellow Claw, the amnesiac Sub-Mariner, the Nazi Rumor, the mind-controlled Venus, the lunatic therianthrope Howler, the criminal Typhoon, Axis, the Scythe, the vampiric Nocturne, Kang, Warlord Kro and the Deviants, Blackjack and Positron; the latter two later reformed and joined the Line themselves.
This text, or variations, appear on multiple sites. Looking at the cumbersome wording it could suggest that Blackhack and Positron are Deviants since many people do not understand proper usage of a comma.

DeadpoolRP
Nov 29, 2011, 11:24 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

This text, or variations, appear on multiple sites. Looking at the cumbersome wording it could suggest that Blackhack and Positron are Deviants since many people do not understand proper usage of a comma.

Unfortunately, if the people misreading that text learned comma usage from Marvel, that would explain exactly why they misread it in the first place: I constantly see incorrect comma usage in Marvel comics (especially recap pages!) and solicits, things like "the wizard, Merlyn, returns from Otherplace to create chaos," which is completely wrong. (By the way, that's an example I made up off of the top of my head, not something I actually read in a comic.) Someone needs to teach Marvel staffers (and people in general) the difference between dependent and independent clauses.

However, I have to object to the idea that the quote from the Marvel site demonstrates "proper usage of a comma." I'm an editor, and I find that sentence completely ambiguous. If "Blackjack and Positron" are a unit (that is, if the First Line fought them while the two villains were working together, making them effectively "one enemy unit"), then there should be an and before Blackjack. If Blackjack and Positron fought the Front Line on separate occasions, then this is an example of the ambiguity caused by not putting a comma before the and preceding the last item in a list . . .

Michael Regan
Nov 29, 2011, 12:45 pm

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Unfortunately, if the people misreading that text learned comma usage from Marvel, that would explain exactly why they misread it in the first place: I constantly see incorrect comma usage in Marvel comics (especially recap pages!) and solicits, things like "the wizard, Merlyn, returns from Otherplace to create chaos," which is completely wrong. (By the way, that's an example I made up off of the top of my head, not something I actually read in a comic.) Someone needs to teach Marvel staffers (and people in general) the difference between dependent and independent clauses.

However, I have to object to the idea that the quote from the Marvel site demonstrates "proper usage of a comma." I'm an editor, and I find that sentence completely ambiguous. If "Blackjack and Positron" are a unit (that is, if the First Line fought them while the two villains were working together, making them effectively "one enemy unit"), then there should be an and before Blackjack. If Blackjack and Positron fought the Front Line on separate occasions, then this is an example of the ambiguity caused by not putting a comma before the and preceding the last item in a list . . .

No, overally the comma in the example is used correctly. Interpretation is incorrect.

The "Marvel site" is very much wiki-esque in construction BTW.

DeadpoolRP
Nov 29, 2011, 12:58 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

No, overally the comma in the example is used correctly. Interpretation is incorrect.

The "Marvel site" is very much wiki-esque in construction BTW.

. . . so, which was it? Did Blackjack and Positron fight the First Line together or separately? While the comma and conjunction usage in the quote may not be (technically) incorrect (depending on which is the case regarding the two villains), it's still ambiguous, which is close enough to incorrect to be almost the same thing. As I said, I'm an editor (as in my profession/what I studied in college), and one of an editor's jobs is to look for ambiguity and reword it to avoid confusion. The quotation you've listed is confusing, no matter how well you understand commas. You shouldn't need to have read the source material to understand a summary of said material.

Michael Regan
Nov 29, 2011, 01:10 pm
Without dissecting the entire piece, I have focused in the section that I believe has resulted in the confusion:

"... Warlord Kro and the Deviants, Blackjack and Positron;"

In this case "Warlord Kro and the Deviants" is a meant to be a contained phrase. Incorrectly, the division could be made with "and the Deviants, Blackjack and Positron" indicating that the two characters are Deviants (taking this division litterally). Unfortulately marvel.wikia does not indicate Positron as a Deviant which does not confirm my suspicion of the origin of the issue. Whether they worked together or individually is of little consequence at this point (I believe they did. They did have a personal relationship in Marvel: The Lost Generation if my memory of the story is correct.), but I certainly see what you mean.

A reordering of those named could help clear it up for one thing, but unfortunately any corrections made to the linked text will obviously not be reflected on the multiple other sites which may have misinterpreted the wording.

Andy E. Nystrom
Nov 29, 2011, 03:48 pm
As an aside, though I suppose technically still on the topic of things people keep getting wrong, one other writing issue I see in a lot of Marvel comics is "that" being used where it should be "who".

To the point at hand, since Kro himself is a Deviant, a lot of grief could have been solved by saying, "the Deviants (including Warlord Kro),..." because then it would have been clear that only anyone named in parentheses was a Deviant. As Michael notes, that can be fixed at the source, but the problem has now spread like a weed.

DeadpoolRP
Nov 29, 2011, 04:02 pm

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

As an aside, though I suppose technically still on the topic of things people keep getting wrong, one other writing issue I see in a lot of Marvel comics is "that" being used where it should be "who".

Actually, neither of those is incorrect: using that versus who is a stylistic choice, though either can sound awkward in some situations (including cases where you use the "correct" form according to the using-who-for-people "rule"). Similarly, the possessive whose can be used in cases not involving a person or even a living thing.

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

To the point at hand, since Kro himself is a Deviant, a lot of grief could have been solved by saying, "the Deviants (including Warlord Kro),..." because then it would have been clear that only anyone named in parentheses was a Deviant. As Michael notes, that can be fixed at the source, but the problem has now spread like a weed.

Good point. An alternate solution would be to say something like "Warlord Kro and his Deviant army," though I guess someone could still misunderstand and think that the army is composed of Blackjack and Positron, though that would be a pretty small army.

Stuart V
Nov 30, 2011, 08:12 am
That wording that Michael found originates in the First Line handbook entry. I suspect he's right that it has been misread and is thus the source of the confusion, but Deadpool is also right that the phrasing, which appears to have cropped up as the entry was trimmed down from one draft to another to fit the available space, could be better. We'll amend it for the SC updates and any future entries. And yes, Michael is right about Positron and Blackjack working together - they were colleagues (and apparently more) both as criminals and later as heroes.

As for someone misreading, it shouldn't surprise me. After all, I found one Wiki that thought a minor Ultimate Iron Man character was named "Ith Leopold Yankee Thwine". Let's see who is first to spot what is wrong with that. And a Google search confirms this error has spread to at least one additional wiki-style site, because of blind copying/stupidity.

Michael Regan
Nov 30, 2011, 08:49 am
Ah, I think I remember that one. The character had a lisp and stated that "My name ith Leopold, Yankee Thwine" translated to non-lisp as "My name is Leopold, Yankee Swine" as he addressed Iron Man.

Stuart V
Nov 30, 2011, 08:59 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

Ah, I think I remember that one. The character had a lisp and stated that "My name ith Leopold, Yankee Twine" translated to non-lisp as "My name is Leopold, Yankee Swine" as he addressed Iron Man.

Correct. His name was Leopold. Not, as some believed, surname Thwine, first name Ith, and middle names Leopold Yankee. :rofl:

Sidney Osinga
Dec 1, 2011, 12:56 am
Looking through #7 of the Gamer's Handbook of the Marvel Universel (for TSR's Marvel Super heroes game), I saw that Warrior Woman was called Frieda Ratsel. While this could be because the book was written by games people and not Comics people (I assume), it could explain why some people believe Ratsel is her real name.

Rayeye
Dec 10, 2011, 03:38 pm
Somehow wikipedia listed the mutant Astra's real name as Beth Al-Reraph, but as far as I know her real name was never revealed. So I guess this is just another example of stupid fanmade wikispam.

Stuart V
Dec 10, 2011, 05:55 pm

  Rayeye wrote:

Somehow wikipedia listed the mutant Astra's real name as Beth Al-Reraph, but as far as I know her real name was never revealed. So I guess this is just another example of stupid fanmade wikispam.

I think so, but I'll double check with the other Handbook writers.

Eduardo M.
Dec 10, 2011, 06:35 pm
The hardcover entry for the Brotherhood of Mutants and Joseph's entry in the recent X-Men:EMH handbook don't show Astra as having any name other Astra.

Stuart V
Dec 10, 2011, 07:08 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

I think so, but I'll double check with the other Handbook writers.

And having conferred with other writers, they concur - Beth Al-Reraph is a fake name, made up by someone online and spread via unchecked wikis.

Andy E. Nystrom
Dec 18, 2011, 02:40 am
Just found another one, though in fairness this error I believe has been used in the comics as well: Wikipedia describes Hank Pym's initially becoming Yellowjacket as schizophrenia. His breakdown at that time would have been more properly called multiple personality disorder at the time and is called dissociative identity disorder today. Believing yourself to be someone else is not a characteristic of schizophrenia.

Clay Olsen
Dec 18, 2011, 10:38 am
One that always pisses me off is the confusion between Kang and Nathaniel Richards (Reed's father). People often seem to confuse the two as being the same person, rather two seperate individuals with the same name who both happen to travel in time.

Zach Kinkead
Dec 18, 2011, 01:23 pm

  Clay Olsen wrote:

rather two seperate individuals with the same name who both happen to travel in time.

This is why I love comics.

Eduardo M.
Dec 18, 2011, 11:03 pm

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

This is why I love comics.

ditto. Its also why my head sometimes explodes

DeadpoolRP
Dec 19, 2011, 01:41 am

  Eduardo M. wrote:

ditto. Its also why my head sometimes explodes

Sounds like something that can only happen in a comic: Your head exploding yet you're still alive (alive again?) to post that . . . ;)

Eduardo M.
Dec 19, 2011, 12:20 pm

  DeadpoolRP wrote:

Sounds like something that can only happen in a comic: Your head exploding yet you're still alive (alive again?) to post that . . . ;)

I'm lucky enough to have spare magic clone bodies lying around.

Michael Regan
Dec 20, 2011, 09:09 am
Rememeber, we really don't know Kang's true history, nor do we know that he has given us his real name. With is infatuation with the Fantastic Four it is possible that what we believe to be his real name may simply be a name he has given himself. His lineage to Reed may also be a fabrication.

Clay Olsen
Dec 22, 2011, 07:08 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

Rememeber, we really don't know Kang's true history, nor do we know that he has given us his real name. With is infatuation with the Fantastic Four it is possible that what we believe to be his real name may simply be a name he has given himself. His lineage to Reed may also be a fabrication.

I don't know about that necessarily... especially considering the Avengers Forever issue that was basically his autobiography (#9 I think). Its from his point of view, in his personal journal, speaking to nobody but himself (he's alone). Unless he's lying to himself (which doesn't make much sense) that's pretty definitive.

Michael Regan
Dec 22, 2011, 08:46 am

  Clay Olsen wrote:

I don't know about that necessarily... especially considering the Avengers Forever issue that was basically his autobiography (#9 I think). Its from his point of view, in his personal journal, speaking to nobody but himself (he's alone). Unless he's lying to himself (which doesn't make much sense) that's pretty definitive.

I was certain that was the overall understanding, but I defer to the consideration of one of the handbook writers for full clarification.

Rayeye
Jan 2, 2012, 04:16 pm
Another ridiculous thing: Xorn is listed as a Celestial at comicvine (and perhaps other wikisites).

Michael Regan
Jan 3, 2012, 08:52 am

  Rayeye wrote:

Another ridiculous thing: Xorn is listed as a Celestial at comicvine (and perhaps other wikisites).

I just took a look at comicvine and note that he is listed as a mutant. Such confusion may be derived from his Ultimate version (Earth-1610) where Celestials are not the space-gods we are familiar with, but instead they are humans which have been forced into evolving for the servitude of Xorn (Kuyan-Yin) in Celestial City.

Rayeye
Jan 3, 2012, 09:01 am

  Michael Regan wrote:

I just took a look at comicvine and note that he is listed as a mutant. Such confusion may be derived from his Ultimate version (Earth-1610) where Celestials are not the space-gods we are familiar with, but instead they are humans which have been forced into evolving for the servitude of Xorn (Kuyan-Yin) in Celestial City.

Ah I didn't know that.
That's the confusing thing about those membership lists at comicvine where they make no difference between 616-versions and alternate counterparts.

Eduardo M.
Jan 10, 2012, 09:22 pm
Debrii's "mutant" classification made a comeback. I changed it and noted that I did so because her mutant nature is so far unconfirmed as far as 616 is concerned.

Let's see how long that lasts

fesak
Jan 25, 2012, 05:04 pm
Pretty sure this mutant classification system is fanmade, or has it ever been used in comics aside from omega?
https://www.newsarama.com/15488-alpha-omega-explaining-the-x-men-s-mutant-classifications.html

Stuart V
Jan 25, 2012, 05:47 pm

fesak wrote:

 
Pretty sure this mutant classification system is fanmade, or has it ever been used in comics aside from omega?
https://www.newsarama.com/15488-alpha-omega-explaining-the-x-men-s-mutant-classifications.html

Utterly fan made.

Eduardo M.
Jan 25, 2012, 07:43 pm
.....great. Now Newsarama is using madeup ranking systems

Andy E. Nystrom
Jan 25, 2012, 08:19 pm

  Eduardo M. wrote:

.....great. Now Newsarama is using madeup ranking systems

Definitely sucks that a normally legit news source is doing it. The one silver lining is that Newsarama nowadays makes you click one by one for every point on a given list. I've stopped looking at their lists for that reason so hopefully enough other people won't look at it for the same reason. Too bad that only the blogs still have comments so this could be noted.

fesak
Jan 26, 2012, 10:21 am
That's what i thought, but thanks for confirmation. I suspect it won't be long until it finds it's way into the comics though since it looks like many writers use wiki-sites as their source of info rather than the actual comic books.
Most recent example being the Hybrid symbiotes fanmade names are now apparently in canon as of Carnage USA #2.

Andy E. Nystrom
Jan 26, 2012, 11:58 am

fesak wrote:

 
That's what i thought, but thanks for confirmation. I suspect it won't be long until it finds it's way into the comics though since it looks like many writers use wiki-sites as their source of info rather than the actual comic books.
Most recent example being the Hybrid symbiotes fanmade names are now apparently in canon as of Carnage USA #2.

If I was a Marvel writer I'd have the Handbook writers' phone numbers or e-mail handy and simply use them as a resource. That way odds are almost certain you'd be getting accurate info.

Stuart V
Mar 18, 2012, 05:29 pm

New one - Wikipedia and other sites would have you believe Turner Scholl, Castlemere and Mercedes were three Inner Circle Hellfire Club members who fought Wolverine during the X-Men: Original Sin story.

Not true. Castlemere was a member and fought Wolverine. Mercedes was a member, but didn't fight Wolverine. Turner was a member, but didn't fight Wolverine. There was a woman who fought Wolverine, but she wasn't Mercedes. And Scholl was a member and fought Wolverine, but his first name wasn't Turner.

Mercedes was a black haired Inner Circle member who showed up in X-Men Legacy #215. The woman who fought Wolverine was white haired and looked remarkably unlike Mercedes.

Similarly, Turner was an Inner Circle member who tried to poison Castlemere in X-Men Legacy #215 at a meeting of Inner Circle members discussing what to do about Sunspot quitting the Club. Castlemere killed him for the attempt, and lest anyone believe the online accounts that Shaw stopped Castlemere after he had merely wounded Turner, there's a panel with Turner's body and head skewered by Castlemere's energy spikes, and Shaw commenting that there are now two vacancies on the Inner Circle (e.g. Sunspot and someone else, seeing as the internet would have you believe Turner was A-OK). Scholl turned up in X-Men Legacy #217, and somehow got conflated to being Turner, despite minor details like (in rising order of importance) (a) Turner trying to kill Castlemere and vice versa while Scholl was allied to Castlemere, (b) Turner being tall and thin while Scholl was short and pudgy, (c) Turner having a full head of hair complete with ponytail while Scholl was totally bald, and (d) Turner being dead.

Rayeye
Mar 18, 2012, 06:56 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

Similarly, Turner was an Inner Circle member who tried to poison Castlemere in X-Men Legacy #215 at a meeting of Inner Circle members discussing what to do about Sunspot quitting the Club. Castlemere killed him for the attempt, and lest anyone believe the online accounts that Shaw stopped Castlemere after he had merely wounded Turner, there's a panel with Turner's body and head skewered by Castlemere's energy spikes, and Shaw commenting that there are now two vacancies on the Inner Circle (e.g. Sunspot and someone else, seeing as the internet would have you believe Turner was A-OK). Scholl turned up in X-Men Legacy #217, and somehow got conflated to being Turner, despite minor details like (in rising order of importance) (a) Turner trying to kill Castlemere and vice versa while Scholl was allied to Castlemere, (b) Turner being tall and thin while Scholl was short and pudgy, (c) Turner having a full head of hair complete with ponytail while Scholl was totally bald, and (d) Turner being dead.

Thanks for the clarification Stuart. I really confused me, especially after trying to find some info about these guys on the internet. By the way, the wiki site says Mercedes is also known as Black Queen, but as far as I know she was never called that.

Stuart V
Mar 18, 2012, 07:15 pm

  Rayeye wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Stuart. I really confused me, especially after trying to find some info about these guys on the internet. By the way, the wiki site says Mercedes is also known as Black Queen, but as far as I know she was never called that.

Correct - she was never called anything except Mercedes. People are leaping to conclusions, based on Mercedes (the one who actually was Mercedes) dressing in a black corset like Selene did when she was Black Queen. Trouble is, Tessa dressed the same way during her time at the club, and she was never Black Queen. I think the most you could reasonably argue is that Mercedes was not the White Queen.

Monolith
Mar 20, 2012, 08:10 pm
Great thread -- I've enjoyed reading through this.

Here's something I keep seeing: Cordelia Frost is "the Professor X of empaths", and a number of really specific descriptions of her empathic powers, which I've never seen in comics. Very fleshed out on MarvelDatabase and Comicvine, and I've reverted Wikipedia at least four times on her page, asking for citations before someone adds it back.

Andy E. Nystrom
Mar 20, 2012, 11:27 pm
Just noticed another Wiki error: The first appearance of Red Skull (Shmidt) is given as Captain America Comics#7 and of Red Skull (Malik) as #61. Admittedly the Handbook info on Shmidt hasn't been used in-story so that one's a bit of a grey area, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that the Red Skull in #61 is Malik (the Cap Index doesn't mention any Communist ties in the story description).

Stuart V
Mar 21, 2012, 03:42 am

  Monolith wrote:

Great thread -- I've enjoyed reading through this.

Glad you like it.

  Monolith wrote:

Here's something I keep seeing: Cordelia Frost is "the Professor X of empaths", and a number of really specific descriptions of her empathic powers, which I've never seen in comics. Very fleshed out on MarvelDatabase and Comicvine, and I've reverted Wikipedia at least four times on her page, asking for citations before someone adds it back.

Since Cordelia's not one of the characters I know well, I've checked with the other handbook writers, and, like yourself, we've not been able to turn up anything to support the Wikipedia claims. It's possible (in theory at least) that Emma may have mentioned something about her sister being an empath in a comic where Cordelia herself is absent, but the lack of specific citation suggests its just fan speculation, something that's all too common on Wiki sites.

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

Just noticed another Wiki error: The first appearance of Red Skull (Shmidt) is given as Captain America Comics#7 and of Red Skull (Malik) as #61. Admittedly the Handbook info on Shmidt hasn't been used in-story so that one's a bit of a grey area, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that the Red Skull in #61 is Malik (the Cap Index doesn't mention any Communist ties in the story description).

The confusion on Shmidt's first appearance is at least understandable, as Tales of Suspense #65 revealed a German agent posing as George Maxon while working for Shmidt was the guy who was unmasked as the Skull and killed in Captain America Comics #1. However, editorial was clear on this, I presume because someone higher up wanted to keep the symmetry of Cap and the Skull both debuting together - Maxon is only the Skull out in the field in that issue, while Shmidt is the guy we see in the Nazis' base. As for #61, we don't know his identity; it can't be Shmidt, who was in suspended animation, but Malik wasn't appointed the Red Skull until 1953, so that's not him in 1947 unless time travel or major retcon comes into play. Given the Red Skull in Captain America Comics #61 is working with American crooks in what amounts to a petty larceny scheme, I'd say it is most likely to be an unidentified US crook who just thought to cash in on the Skull's reputation, but that's speculation (and, admittedly, a poor disguise choice, akin to dressing as Ghostface if you live in the fictional reality of the Scream movies - you are asking to be shot on sight by a cop or panicked member of the public).

Stuart V
Apr 22, 2012, 05:13 pm
A really silly one, but it seems to be all over the internet. Galador's most famous Spaceknight is called Rom, not ROM. He wasn't always shouting his name, his name is not an acronym (even though it was inspired by one in the real world), and just because it is in capitals on the cover doesn't mean it is meant to be in capitals everywhere (by the logic of that last, he's not a Spaceknight, but a SPACEKNIGHT, the Avengers are actually the AVENGERS, and Nick Fury is NICK FURY). Comics commonly use block capitals text, but we don't assume all the other names given belong in block capitals all the time. Anywhere they didn't use block capitals exclusively (Bullpen Bulletins, letters pages, handbooks) called him Rom.

Mind you, try convincing people of this when they've believed it to be ROM since they were kids...

Eduardo M.
Apr 22, 2012, 08:29 pm
The Harvesters, the superhero group that appeared in Marvel Zombies Supreme, is listed on Wikipedia as being part of the 50-State Initiative. I read the tpb but saw no sign that there part of it. Is this wrong?

Stuart V
Apr 23, 2012, 09:18 am

  Eduardo M. wrote:

The Harvesters, the superhero group that appeared in Marvel Zombies Supreme, is listed on Wikipedia as being part of the 50-State Initiative. I read the tpb but saw no sign that there part of it. Is this wrong?

An interesting one. The answer is, yes and no. Any site listing them as part of the 50-State Initiative is wrong, because, as you rightly say, there is nothing in the comic that stated they were. I don't see them listed on Wiki, but I do on the Marvel Database and some other sites. Someone clearly looked at them and thought "they'd be appropriate for the Initiative's Kansas team" and just assumed they were.

However, the Harvesters are about to be identified as the Initiative's Kansas team in the Softcover 5 update. The difference is, the writer of the entry knew the comic had not identified the Harvesters as being part of the Initiative. Unaware of what Wiki was saying, he likewise thought "they'd be appropriate for the Initiative's Kansas team" and went to editorial for permission to confirm that, a piece of new bit of information.

So at the moment, them being listed that way by sites is still wrong - the team were not originally intended as part of the Initiative, nor identified as such. It will become true only once the handbook comes out.

Stuart V
May 7, 2012, 10:28 am

fesak wrote:

 
That's what i thought, but thanks for confirmation. I suspect it won't be long until it finds it's way into the comics though since it looks like many writers use wiki-sites as their source of info rather than the actual comic books.
Most recent example being the Hybrid symbiotes fanmade names are now apparently in canon as of Carnage USA #2.

Belatedly responding to this. Yes, you are right, we've sadly got another example of false internet info misleading a writer, who inadvertently made it canon. More proof of what I have said before - if you don't weed out the misinformation, you risk it becoming canon by mistake. So please, please, please, anyone who reads these threads, if you spot misinformation on any wiki you are able to edit (including Comics.org and Comicbook DB), then fix it.

On the symbiotes, while the names have become canonical codenames for the symbiotes now, they didn't do so retroactively - so the names are still wrong if applied to the original hosts. Just like Peter Parker didn't become Venom just because he once wore the symbiote that became part of Venom.

Zach Kinkead
May 7, 2012, 07:10 pm
I thought most of the “fanmade” names for the Hybrid symbiotes came from toy packaging*. While not necessarily canon, calling the information “wrong” seems a bit extreme when it has its origins in a Marvel product.

*Unless that’s another thing “people keep getting wrong”.

Stuart V
May 7, 2012, 09:25 pm

  Zach Kinkead wrote:

I thought most of the “fanmade” names for the Hybrid symbiotes came from toy packaging*. While not necessarily canon, calling the information “wrong” seems a bit extreme when it has its origins in a Marvel product.

*Unless that’s another thing “people keep getting wrong”.

That is, indeed, another thing people keep getting wrong. Of the five names applied to the Venom symbiote offspring:

Scream came from a toy, and was later officially applied to the character, as she was the only one of the group who survived any length of time.
Lasher came from a toy, and while not officially applied to the character in any comics, I can understand people using it; if that (or that and Scream) had been the only name applied, I'd not have called them fan-made.
Riot was a toy, but it was a four-armed symbiote that never appeared in any comics; the symbiote fans then misapplied the name to didn't have four arms and had an entirely different colour scheme.
Phage was not a toy. Xenophage was, but that was the creature that ate symbiotes, not a symbiote.
And there was no toy called Agony, so that one was entirely fan-made (as was Screech, another name some fans tried to give it).

DrGoodwrench
May 12, 2012, 07:17 am

I'm not sure this counts as something people keep getting wrong, but I see synthezoid is back in Hulk Smash Avengers #2.

EDIT: Oops. I hadn't noticed the new thread. Sorry.

Andy E. Nystrom
May 13, 2012, 02:15 pm
In the case of the Symbiotes, I wonder if the fanmade names could cease to be canon if editorial simply said, "We made a mistake" in the letters pages or something like that. I don't think anyone is claiming that Superman is an alias for Spider-Man just because of an error that occurred decades ago in Amazing Spider-Man, so perhaps if editorial so chooses this can be undone (I realize that even if so, we still have to wait for official word).

Madison Carter
May 13, 2012, 04:26 pm

  Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

In the case of the Symbiotes, I wonder if the fanmade names could cease to be canon if editorial simply said, "We made a mistake" in the letters pages or something like that.

Don't expect that sort of thing.
 


My photostream (over 5.6 million photos!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24917258@N05/
     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum