| Revision as of 18:04, 1 December 2006 editMrph (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,697 edits {{comicsproj}} updated - provisionally rated as mid importance, quality b← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:33, 2 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,237,850 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Comics}}, {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} | |||
| {{Comicsproj | |||
| {{afd-merged-from|Herald of Galactus|Herald of Galactus|9 September 2015}} | |||
| |class=b | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| |importance=mid | |||
| {{WikiProject Comics|importance=High|Marvel-work-group=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Merged-from|Power Cosmic|3 October 2012}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{archives|auto=no|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=100|index=/Archive index| | |||
| <center>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]</br>]}} | |||
| ==The Real Name of Galactus== | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| Since there seems to be misconceptions about the real name of Galactus I thought it was time to hear out the differing viewpoints. | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| '''My position''': Galactus' real name is ''Galactus'', not Galan. It is spelled out clearly in Super Villain Classics #1: The Origin of Galactus. When the sentience of the previous universe embraced Galan it stated that they would ''both'' die at the universe's end but they would survive through an heir born of their union, that heir being Galactus. Galactus is the ''result'' of a union between Galan and the sentience of the previous universe. People seem to think Galactus is simply Galan empowered when in fact Galactus is a something different, Galan being ''one part'' of the whole that is Galactus. Galactus isn't Galan granted the Power Cosmic like the Silver Surfer is Norrin Radd granted the Power Cosmic, there is a distinct difference.] 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(100d) | |||
| ==Movie== | |||
| |archive = Talk:Galactus/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| The preview of the upcoming Galactus movie is an obvious hoax. The production values are horrible. I propose a removal. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index | |||
| As a fan of the ], I resent this talk of his being ''merely'' a "stooge" of Galactus. He rebelled, didn't he? --] | |||
| |mask=/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| So, why don't you update the info? cascardo | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| ok, is EARTH X considered cannon? Because in that, one of the main roles of Galactus is to stop the Celestials from breeding... Should that be mentioned? | |||
| :As it says on the page, Earth X lies outside the ] continuity. It is worth mentioning in any case, however, so it has been added to the page. --] 00:55, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Gladiator as Herald? == | |||
| Can someone provide the issue where Gladiator is shown to be a Herald of Galactus? I can't seem to find the issue where it is shown. - Doc X | |||
| == Johnny Storm as herald of Galactus == | |||
| I don't recall anyone ever calling Johnny Storm "Invisible Man" during that brief period that he possessed his sister's powers; the FF, Quasar, and Galactus were the major characters in that story, and all of them called him by variations of his real name, which is the norm for the FF anyway. Seems silly to invent the name just for a wiki, so I'm changing the note. ] 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you're right in saying it wasn't in the comic, but it was in a solicit. I'm not too bothered though. - ] 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Does Galactus specifically target inhabited worlds? == | |||
| I'm a bit confused on this issue. In his original appearance (FF #49), it is stated that Galactus only choses planets based on their chemical content, and that most of the planets he consumed were indeed uninhabited. I know that subsequent reinterpretations of Galactus (eg Ultimate Marvel's Gah-Lak-Tus) have him specifically target living worlds, but is this currently the case with the 616 Galactus? ] 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the only time this has been the case with 616 Galactus was during the ''Galactus: The Devourer'' mini. In it he wasn't even consuming the energies of planets anymore, but rather only the life forces of sentient beings. He somehow became addicted to them even though they offered him no sustenance (and going so long without a real feeding was killing him). After the multiverse was remade during the Abraxas saga Galactus has been back to normal, targeting planets with the necessary forms of energies that he requires whether they are inhabited or not. ] 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Annihilation== | |||
| I have read Silver Surfer: Annihilation # 1 - 3. The current writeup states Galactus' history has been retconned, this may be a bit premature. I have not read SS:Annihilation #4, but as of #3 we didn't have enough information about the "cosmic war", or Tenebrous or Aegis to determine if anything about Galactus has been retconned. All we have are alot of questions with no answers. ] 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| the physical looks of the ultimate gah lak tus are similar to matrix's sentinels anyone noticed? | |||
| == Revision == | |||
| The article badly needed revision, as it was: | |||
| * Written in past tense | |||
| * Very verbose with far too much "tell the story" - these are entries are not the place for blow by blow accounts of what happens in a particular issue or series. The new reader only needs the GIST, and preferably without too much HOW so as not to spoil the story. | |||
| * Steeped in point of view - far too much. Enthusiasm is good but statements must be supported. | |||
| * Lacked references - these are worth gold, as they tell the new reader where to find the stories, and also substantiate claims (eg. "most powerful, the fastest etc) | |||
| * Rife with images, and most were nothing special. Each has to have a "wow" factor, such as the image in the SHB. | |||
| * Packed with side clutter that isn't suitable for the entry. Listing every cultural reference is not practical - Batman and Superman would need pages and pages! Just the gist - introduction, biography, alternate appearances, in other media and references is fine. | |||
| Remember, it is fine to like a character but these are not fan sites! | |||
| ] 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Since it's obvious by now that your massive rewrite is going to be reverted, I'd suggest you try another tactic. Bring up each section you want to change here, first, so that you have consensus BEFORE implementing the change. Or make incremental changes, so the article isn't undergoing a major change all at once. Maybe start by adding references, since that's a pretty uncontroversial change. For what it's worth, I agree that the previous version is in sad shape, but when this many editors have reverted you then it's time for you to stop what you're doing, take a step back, and try something different. Simply announcing the problems and making major changes with discussing the changes is not going make your edits stick. ] 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The forum is open then. Thoughts? | |||
| ] 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You claim the forum is open and yet try to make your massive rewrite stick yet again. Why don't you try cleaning up and/or referencing what is already there as opposed to your total rewrite? There are several sections of the older edits that are vastly superior to your re-write such as the Lead section, and the Rebirth and Powers and Abilities sections. You also omitted the Physical appearance section and picture, that is a unique aspect of Galactus that deserves mention. ] 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I'll copy what you have said here and replay to each sentence: | |||
| ''':You claim the forum is open and yet try to make your massive rewrite stick yet again. Why don't you try cleaning up and/or referencing what is already there as opposed to your total rewrite?''' | |||
| * I did try a clean-up and did use references. All the relevant information is still there - it is the only the past tense (a lesson I had to learn), POV and the huge "tell the story" components that have been culled. Unfortunately, while we may like a character, we '''can't''' have blow-by-blow accounts on what happens in issues or series - that's the domain of fan sites, not Misplaced Pages. The relevant moments in Galactus' history '''are''' mentioned, and now even sourced. Finally, at the risk of offending, the sentence structure and grammar aren't very good - this is what needed the most work. All the information is still there, but in most cases in one as opposed to three sentences. Brevity is the key. | |||
| ] 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''There are several sections of the older edits that are vastly superior''' | |||
| I'll stop you right there as that is an emotive claim and very POV. Very hard to prove, especially when a technical analysis of the entry says otherwise. | |||
| :Yes, portions of the older edits '''are''' superior. ] 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately they are not, hence the rewrite. Poor sentence structure, use of grammar, dead links and POV are all fact. | |||
| ] 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''to your re-write such as the Lead section,''' | |||
| * I'm happy to include the Lee quote (heck, I'd like a Lee quote for ever Marvel character), but it has to be '''sourced.''' | |||
| :Sourced. ] 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''and the Rebirth and Powers and Abilities sections.''' | |||
| * I have to disagree. This is where some of the verbosity lies, especially in Powers and Abilities. It is stated at the beginning of the paragraph that Galactus is all-powerful, and backed by a source. If readers are told that he can do anything, then they don't need a blow by blow account of HOW he can put this power to use. Another example is superstrength. If the Hulk is credited as being the strongest mortal on Earth and can match Thor etc, then that's enough. We don't need a list of all the things the Hulk can lift as we have already been told he's very, very strong. We get it. | |||
| ] 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''You also omitted the Physical appearance section and picture, that is a unique aspect of Galactus that deserves mention. ] 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)''' | |||
| !!! | |||
| * Every comic book character is unique, but Misplaced Pages articles don't devote a section to what they look like with and without costume etc. The main image plus support picture show what the character looks like. Example - does the Iron Man entry have a shot of Tony Stark taking on/off his helmet? This kind of thing is again best left for a fan site. | |||
| ::No, every comic book character does not have a singularly unique trait such as this. Galactus appears differently to different people and the picture provided shows this. ] 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Two things - the text was not very clear and I missed that, and secondly the image is too small. The link to the larger original is also dead. I'll have to try and find and scan another copy and rewrite and reinsert a sentence or two on this. That's all it needs. Brevity, brevity, brevity. | |||
| ] 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| \] 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, I'm going to subdivide this to deal with the various sections. Add as necessary. ] 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===SHB=== | |||
| The shortened version of the powers is better, no doubt. ] 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The shorter version needs to be reworded a bit for clarity. ] 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Lead section=== | |||
| I don't totally agree that the old section was better. It made two unsubstantiated claims, for instance. On the other hand, the revised version was lacking some of the technical points that are vital for fictional characters, namely the assertion up front that they are, in fact, fictional. Also the template <nowiki>{{Marvel Universe}} (which expands to ] ]</nowiki> was created specifically for the lead section after discussion at the Project talk page. I like to see it used because it provides a link to both the out-of-universe comic book company (Marvel Comics) and the in-universe overview article (Marvel Universe) right up front. ] 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I see very little wrong with the original lead section. A reference needs to be found for the "have them fight God" statement, but I've read about that in numerous interviews with Lee so it is true, it just needs a reference. The finest Lee/Kirby collaboration is opinion, even if comic industry people will tell you that really is the case. ] 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Fictional character history=== | |||
| :The ''Rebirth'' section needs to stay as is. The rest could use sources and clean up. ] 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That is actually a section that needed tightening up. A first time reader is just going to go "huh?" The image is also inappropriate as it doesn't gel with the paragraph or the overall article. | |||
| ] 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The image is irrelevant, the original writing is sourced, linked and far more informative than your rewrite. ] 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Personality of Galactus== | |||
| ::The image is gone, and the sourcing has some problems. From my understanding, Marvel.com is a wiki and the information from there should not be treated as authoratative. Secondarily, the source itself relies on the Handbooks and "corrections" of unknown origin. We should take the info directly from the stories. Asgardian's version is superior in that respect; on the other hand, it eliminates any mention of the Phoenix. ] 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In the lede, it implies that Galactus feeds only on living worlds since he was introduced in the comics in the 60s. In his original appearance, the Watcher explicitly points out that Galactus could feed on non-living worlds too, but Galactus simply doesn't give a shit. This made Galactus a pure villain. It was in later comics that writers turned him into a predator that acts out of necessity, and who somehow serves an overall beneficial role in the Universe (perhaps tapping into our Judeo-Christian intuition that a god ultimately does what is best for all even if he seems cruel to some). ] (]) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a valid point. Could you try to find the scan with the Watcher's quote? ] (]) 13:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] (]) 21:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmm. This seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. ] (]) 12:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I rewrote the lead, removing that inaccurate line. I also removed the analysis of the character, which belongs somewhere in the article body and is kind OR anyway. ] (]) 09:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I am uncertain if rewriting the entire lead is a good idea. It would probably be best if you simply inserted an issue reference to Fantastic Four #49 regarding that he was originally described as capable of feeding on any type of planet. ] (]) 10:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::That should go somewhere in the main body of the article, not the lede. ] (]) 12:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, the lead as I wrote it agrees completely with the ] section. The lead that you provided is both inaccurate ("colossal humanoid alien"...Galactus is NOT an alien, nor is he humanoid) and summarizes none of the key content from the rest of the article. The controversies/topics of genocide and manifest destiny, etc. are terms that the writers themselves (verbatim) and 3rd party analysis have used for the character. Thus it is not OR.] (]) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| ===Powers and abilities=== | |||
| The previous version was way too verbose; the revised version is too brief. Some examples to illustrate the scope of his power is not inappropriate. ] 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ===Physical appearance=== | |||
| His manner of appearing different based on the physiology of the viewer is fairly unique and should be reflected here. ] 06:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| ===Alternate realities=== | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007232709/http://www.reocities.com/brenni_au/JackKirby.html to http://www.reocities.com/brenni_au/JackKirby.html | |||
| The shorter versions are better. The all link to more extensive articles anyway. ] 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5v9dyZ1wf?url=http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20100504111741/http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ on http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://marvel.com/news/story/19916/lego_marvel_super_heroes_on_the_way | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| ===Appearances in other media=== | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| I remember that i saw a reference on The Tick | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ===Quotations=== | |||
| Must go. Very unencyclopedic. ] 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Info Box Image == | |||
| I'm adding this section as it provides the rationale for the image change. There are 3 clear reasons for a change: | |||
| * Per Guidelines, the image must where possible be ''only'' of the subject of the article. | |||
| ==Edits of the user Asgardian== | |||
| * This leads into the second point: having a second character in the image confuses the issue. There ''are'' casual readers who know nothing about the character and might assume it is the smaller figure, and ask themselves why the character is cowering in front of this giant, how are we supposed to get a good look at him etc. It needs to be clear. | |||
| * The De Vito image is ideal as it is not only free of obstructions, but also illustrates ''why'' the character is called the "Devourer of Worlds", conveying a certain ''gravitas'' the other image lacks. | |||
| There was also a preference for this image in past Talk :. | |||
| While the article has reached considerable length, I personally find the edits of Asgardian to be insufficient as well as being utterly uninformative. The origin of Galactus is incomplete-there is no mention of Eternity or any other forces that played a role in the creation of Galactus, which is an ESSENTIAL part of his character and cannot be omitted. These “concise” edits glaringly omit such important facts as these. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| In general I see three broad issues regarding this: | |||
| :Kinda shadowy, isn't it? ] (]) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I personally do not mind replacing the inage with one featuring Galactus alone, but am uncertain if this one in particular is ideal. It is likely better than the old one though. ] (]) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| -The article must be condensed. Yes. But wikipedia is a public access site. Asgardian, the entry for Galactus does not belong to you alone. Therefore you have repeatedly found your sweeping edits to be reverted time and time again simply because there are users here who disagree. Persistence in imposing your edits will simply get more reversions. If you wish to have drastic changes in the article then it should be discussed here. | |||
| :::I take your point. I chose this one as it conveys a certain sense of awe and dread that goes with the character's arrival. Although there is some shadow, it goes to my point and was obviously the artist's intention. There are also two other images in the article where the character's face can be clearly seen. | |||
| -Sentence structure. To be frank, I found the overall quality of the article to degrade with the sweeping. There is a fine line between an entry being verbose and an entry being encyclopedic in tone. You have focused so much on limiting the word count that the entire article now reads as a hastily compiled essay that is more quantity than quality. | |||
| Regards ] (]) 02:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image deletion nomination(s)== | |||
| -Content. You will find many entries in Misplaced Pages to be of an exhaustive and extensive character. Users come to this site to find information on a particular subject or topic, without having to do tedious and time-consuming research on the internet to get a good grasp of the topic in question. The entry for Galactus before your edits did a superb job of introducing a prospective reader on the history of the character, his origin, major storylines, capabilities, and the like. Your edits lose these traits and in general, the article is no longer as informative as is was, and the reader is left with only the vaguest idea of the subject matter, and is in fact compelled to do further investigative research simply to flesh out gray areas. | |||
| One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC). | |||
| Again, anyone can edit this article. Condense it if you like. But do not impose sweeping changes on the entire piece and expect others to adhere to them without question-you are not the only one that knows how to write well, as you assume. {{user|Mobb One}} | |||
| You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at ]. | |||
| *::I agree 100% here. Asgardian's edits may reduce the article length and provide references but those are it's only advantages. The revised article as a whole is too brief and uninformative. ] 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at ]. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first. | |||
| * Yes, anyone can edit the article. It certainly needed it. What many of you fail to grasp is that comic-related entries are meant to be informative but also concise, without reciting what happens in a blow-by-blow account. This is the sticking point - what some view as essential is really not relevant to the article and can be sourced by a curious new reader courtesy of accurate references. Prime examples are Powers and abilities - which is far too long - and the Earth X entry, which is very much a case of "tell the story", and almost of it is unnecessary (it is not even mainstream continuity). If every entry had an account of all issues/series they would be verbose monsters! The reader just needs the GIST. A little more thought also needs to go into image selection as well (something I learnt early on). Is Galactus without his helmet really worthy of inclusion? No. Again, do any other armoured characters have a shot of them without their helmets? Iron Man? Titanium Man? No. It needs to be relevant. I admire the passion shown here, but Misplaced Pages is not a fan site. | |||
| Sincerely, ] (]) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| By the by, take the emotion out of the responses. Someone said a very silly thing that can get you bounced from Misplaced Pages. Fight with logic, not emotion. | |||
| ==Re-Assessment to B-Class== | |||
| ] 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I had made (in 2019) a request for the article to be re-assessed against the C grade. The only failing criteria mentioned in the previous "C" assessment was lack of references and citation, which had long before (i.e., before 2019, when I made the original request) been corrected. As none seem to have the time or desire, I have graded the article myself to B class, as, based off the required criteria, I believe the article more than satisfies. I've even made a quick benchmark against the ] B-Class article, and our Galactus entry has even more references and citations than the Pym article, which leads me to re-affirm our B-Class rating. ] (]) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:33, 2 February 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Galactus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Herald of Galactus was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 September 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Galactus. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| The contents of the Power Cosmic page were merged into Galactus on 3 October 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives |
|
/Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Personality of Galactus
In the lede, it implies that Galactus feeds only on living worlds since he was introduced in the comics in the 60s. In his original appearance, the Watcher explicitly points out that Galactus could feed on non-living worlds too, but Galactus simply doesn't give a shit. This made Galactus a pure villain. It was in later comics that writers turned him into a predator that acts out of necessity, and who somehow serves an overall beneficial role in the Universe (perhaps tapping into our Judeo-Christian intuition that a god ultimately does what is best for all even if he seems cruel to some). BaronBifford (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a valid point. Could you try to find the scan with the Watcher's quote? David A (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- From Fantastic Four #49 BaronBifford (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. This seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. David A (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- From Fantastic Four #49 BaronBifford (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead, removing that inaccurate line. I also removed the analysis of the character, which belongs somewhere in the article body and is kind OR anyway. BaronBifford (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I am uncertain if rewriting the entire lead is a good idea. It would probably be best if you simply inserted an issue reference to Fantastic Four #49 regarding that he was originally described as capable of feeding on any type of planet. David A (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- That should go somewhere in the main body of the article, not the lede. BaronBifford (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, the lead as I wrote it agrees completely with the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead that you provided is both inaccurate ("colossal humanoid alien"...Galactus is NOT an alien, nor is he humanoid) and summarizes none of the key content from the rest of the article. The controversies/topics of genocide and manifest destiny, etc. are terms that the writers themselves (verbatim) and 3rd party analysis have used for the character. Thus it is not OR.Mobb One (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- That should go somewhere in the main body of the article, not the lede. BaronBifford (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Galactus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007232709/http://www.reocities.com/brenni_au/JackKirby.html to http://www.reocities.com/brenni_au/JackKirby.html
- Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5v9dyZ1wf?url=http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20100504111741/http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ on http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://marvel.com/news/story/19916/lego_marvel_super_heroes_on_the_way
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Info Box Image
I'm adding this section as it provides the rationale for the image change. There are 3 clear reasons for a change:
- Per Guidelines, the image must where possible be only of the subject of the article.
- This leads into the second point: having a second character in the image confuses the issue. There are casual readers who know nothing about the character and might assume it is the smaller figure, and ask themselves why the character is cowering in front of this giant, how are we supposed to get a good look at him etc. It needs to be clear.
- The De Vito image is ideal as it is not only free of obstructions, but also illustrates why the character is called the "Devourer of Worlds", conveying a certain gravitas the other image lacks.
There was also a preference for this image in past Talk :.
Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Kinda shadowy, isn't it? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I personally do not mind replacing the inage with one featuring Galactus alone, but am uncertain if this one in particular is ideal. It is likely better than the old one though. David A (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I take your point. I chose this one as it conveys a certain sense of awe and dread that goes with the character's arrival. Although there is some shadow, it goes to my point and was obviously the artist's intention. There are also two other images in the article where the character's face can be clearly seen.
Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Image deletion nomination(s)
One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).
You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.
You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.
Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Re-Assessment to B-Class
I had made (in 2019) a request for the article to be re-assessed against the C grade. The only failing criteria mentioned in the previous "C" assessment was lack of references and citation, which had long before (i.e., before 2019, when I made the original request) been corrected. As none seem to have the time or desire, I have graded the article myself to B class, as, based off the required criteria, I believe the article more than satisfies. I've even made a quick benchmark against the Hank Pym B-Class article, and our Galactus entry has even more references and citations than the Pym article, which leads me to re-affirm our B-Class rating. Mobb One (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories: