Talk:Defenders (comics)

Grant Morrison?

Article referenced makes no mention of Grant Morrison. Citation needed or remove claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpremsrirat (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean up external links

Is there any way we can clean up the external links list? Most of them go to the same site. Giant89 02:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Unconfirmed claim

The article states, "Several of these seemingly-deceased members later returned as the mystical Dragon Circle. This team only appeared once, in issues #3-4 of the relaunched Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme series."

I think this is false. If I recall, this lineup (Valkyrie, Interloper, Manslaughter, Andromeda) appeared in a storyline in Marvel Comics Presents (and possibly elsewhere), and may have even gone by the name "Defenders" (Cf. Marvel Comics Presents #37). Could this be stated in another way that clarifies exactly the presence of this lineup? KSchutte 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Something should be said about the cult status the series received after Gerber was the writer. As a series, it had profound influence of the British writers and the whole Vertigo line. --Leocomix 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Something should be said about Gerber period. As one of, if not THE most influential writer in the history of the series, it's strange that his run is not mentioned.

This seems especially wrong considering that Kraft has his own section. When one imagines "The Defenders", I think Gerber's version is likely the most definitive. The Headmen story is probably the most famous story arc in the series' history. And his take on the team as outsiders and misfits influenced not only the rest of the book's writers, but many others through the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.211.176 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

History

I rewrote the part on the origin of the team to include relevant parts and remove others. The inclusion of the Undying Ones crossover and the two-part Sub-Mariner in the Essential Defenders volume makes it clear that these two stories are the founding of the team. The Undying Ones storyline is just a crossover without a team. But it established the precedent for Dr. Strange recruiting Sub-Mariner and Hulk to face supernatural menaces, which is the basis of Marvel Feature 1. It introduces Barbara Norriss (later host to the Valkyrie). The Undying Ones are the first threat faced by the team in Defenders 1. Sub-Mariner 34 and 35 is a team since it has more than two characters. Additionally they are all written by Roy Thomas, who is the clear creator. No artist can be named as a creator for two reasons: 1) all the characters already existed 2) Marie Severin, Herb Trimpe, Sal Buscema and Ross Andru share an equal authorship. If I had to name one, I would rather choose Sal Buscema (penciler of Sub-Mariner 34 and 35 and Defenders 1) because he defined their look more than any other. Previous meetings by the characters (such as Tales to Astonish 100) are not part of the team founding.

Fair use rationale for Image:Defenders 34.jpg

Image:Defenders 34.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ULTMTSV2006 COV.jpg

Image:ULTMTSV2006 COV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Defenders 34.jpg

Image:Defenders 34.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

the new "mark millar: Fantastic four" defenders?

why aren't they mentioned here??? 202.142.190.245 (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the story is rather new such that not all details are available. Spshu (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seperate organization

I sorry but you, Brian Boru is awesome, continually mix up the different organizations of Defenders teams in the Defenders article. Either you have one infobox with each field with a subfield ie. -- First appearance Non-team: Marvel Feature #1 (December 1971) Team: Defenders 125 Initiative: Last Defenders 1, etc. or have one infobox for each Defenders team. This avoids the mashup of incongruent information with the first appearance of the original non-team with current membership of the Initiative founded team. To have it all mashup will confuse readers. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC) (move from user talk space since it was wipe out by the user but is relavent to this article. --Spshu (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Mediation required?

Someone needs to get Spshu (talk · contribs) and Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs) to come to an agreement regarding these team infoboxes they keep adding and then deleting... -- Stoshmaster (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I indicated the reason for the multiple infoboxes on Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs) talk page and indicated a compromise. He did not respond and has reverted the mult. infoboxes into the mashup single infobox, which is confusing. I reverted and posted a request at an administrator's talk page to step in. Spshu (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that 5 infoboxes seems excessive when some of the teams only merit a couple of paragraphs, which means the boxes "stack" pushing the Initiative one much further down that page away from the actual section it refers to. The boxes only contain the first issue they appeared in and a link to the membership and they aren't adding much to the page. It might be that using "noimage" could kill the height issue but I wonder how wise it is to have so many infoboxes in such a small space. (Emperor (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

OK, I used the noimage tag in the infoboxes and add more detail. If this still is too much, I will go with the intergrated single infobox. Spshu (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Under "Legacy"

There is currently a claim that Wolverine, Spider-Man and Iron Fist were all ex-Defenders. I believe none of them were (Luke Cage, however, did participate in a few of the early Nighthawk stories). Sources would be welcome. Luis Dantas (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

infobox

There should be just one infobox at the top. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There were several team that used that name, the original non-team, the "New" Defenders" team, "Secret Defenders" total random team, and the Ultimate alternative universe team. Plus the inclusion of the Offenders. --Spshu (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you are not give a reason, you are giving the result that you want. On a Comic book based wiki then each would have their own article, where as on Wikipedia they don't qualify. --Spshu (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

With one infobox you get some sort of mash up as the box is edit with the various version information gets writen over other versions as I have seen take place on that article. Spshu (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this:

Infoboxes are generally to be used as an initial summary/nutshell for the entire article, not each section. They are also tied to the main topic of the article.

That's the general reason consolidating down to one 'box is a good idea. There are a few others:

• The "New Defenders" and "New Jersey Defenders" are just extensions of what Thomas and Andru created, nothing more, nothing less. "New characters" or "New creative team" or "New number 1" does not alter that. These amount to "fan milestones" in the topic which are given undue weight by inserting the infoboxes.
• "The Offenders" get two lines of text within the article. Including the issue title, number, writer, and artist in those lines is better than cramming in an unneeded infobox.
• The "The Ultimate Defenders" is the only set that has information to add to the infobox - and that can be done with the one at the top of the page. And yes, the Ultimate members list can be moved to a section on List of Defenders members.

- J Greb (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see the various teams section as "sub-articles" as they don't qualify for their own article (on Wikipedia) but would now that would be "undue weight". All these teams have in common is the name. This is more than a new creative team , new characters, or new number 1. There were several changes in creative team over the first 124 issues but no infoboxes were place in the article for them and I would be opposed to that. New Defenders while an offshoot of the Defenders they are not the same concept: the Defenders are a non-team, the New Defenders a official team. The New Jersey Defenders while recongizing the previous non-team and attempt via Nighthawk to use members from that incarnation, conceptually, an Intiative team that goes independent. Just because Marvel continues to recycle the Defenders name to keep the trademark doesn't make them the same team concept as create by Thomas and Andru. Spshu (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight is different than a content fork.

Creating separate articles for each "version" of the team is content forking. This can be valid if there is a substantial reason to create the other article. Generally that relies on the parent article being long and potentially complicated and the offspring article being well referenced, of relatively good size, and by being split off elevates the length and confusion with the parent. Right now, splitting off the "milestones" is not needed and would mostly be creating plot only articles.

Undue weight is putting something into the content of an article to bolster or elevate a section or point beyond its relative importance within the article.

Inclusion of 4 secondary infoboxes does just that. And in a consolidated 'box, including the information from 3 of those sub 'boxes would do the same thing. And to be honest, the odd one out would barely be justified for inclusion in the consolidated 'box on the grounds that we are treating all the Ultimate re-interpretations as new creations.

Some of what you put forward as to how the Defenders stories that Marvel published have shifted tone or focus over time, provided there is a secondary source to be cited rather than the musings of a Wikipedian, does have a place in the article. But that place is as part of a "Publication history" not justifying fine grained infoboxing.

- J Greb (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a question though: why is the infobox at the top about the team and not about the comic? Wouldn't an infobox, with the various issue totals, publication dates and prominent creative teams be much more preferable, especially in line with Wiki policy? Kusonaga (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight is the misjudgement made, not the result that can accur like you consider infoboxes and I consider another article with in the whole design of the Wikipedia. Additional, several of the infoboxes uses duplicative fields like the one I have been test out on my Sandbox, there is a combined Template:Infobox comics team and title which is a combine 'box. The one for the comics series Kusonaga suggests we have to do it in a more manual way. Kusonaga, the Defenders span over several series in order - Marvel Feature Vol.1, Defenders Vol.1 (includes Non-team and "New" team), Secret Defenders, Defenders Vol. 2/The Order, Defenders Vol. 3 Limited Series, and the Last Defenders, so the series infobox by itself may not be good enough. But, Why isn't X-Factor in this article too, J Greb? This might be a case in which undue weight that leads to another article instead of just a infobox, as X-Factor was "just" an "extensions" of the New Defenders as X-Factor replaced the Defenders on Marvel's publishing schedule and the remaining members of the New Defenders became members of X-Factor just like from the non-team to the "New" team just they retitle it and restarted it from issue 1. And, Brian Boru is awesome, we haven't come to a concensus yet, so you should not have undid my last edit. Spshu (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Why isn't X-Factor in this article too..." is over reaching.

Bluntly: The topic of this article is the team referred to in Marvel's comics as "The Defenders" and/or the publications titled The Defenders published by Marvel, which would be August 1972 - February 1986 (vol 1), March 2001 - February 2002 (vol 2), and September 2005 - January 2006 (vol 3). Dressing it up with extra 'boxes steps outside of good formatting for Wikipedia. Marvel Database or Marvel Universe Wiki might be better places for it. But then again, as you originally inferred, those are also the places where the infoboxes would be where they belong - top of the page in separate articles.

- J Greb (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

X-Factor is a direct offshoot and was a direct replacement of the Defenders series they are like the non-team to team transition in issue 125, so I am not overreach by your logic. So now in effect, you admit that you are over reaching in say all these different version of the Defenders are one and the same. In your logic, only if the New Defenders were call some thing totally different would they qualify for an infobox + their own article. I stated that these different version of the Defenders would have their own article on the Marvel Database and Marvel Universe Wiki thus can be be seen as "subarticles" at Wikipedia thus qualifying for their own infoboxes. The other version were called by (in some cases marginally) different names: "New Defenders"/X-Factor/Dragon Circle(mention on membership page), "Secret Defenders", the Order, and "Last Defenders", "New Jersey" Defenders or Defenders Intiative team.

You don't even want to use a single infobox in a shared manner, which would be a logical compromise (baring that the information does get mashed up again). In a comic team infobox isn't the Members field for the active members and since the non-team still can be considered to be operating since its is completely informal (for example, HULK #11 against the Offenders), then which team should have been show in the members field, when the intiative team was operating then which 'non-team' or the intiative team members should have been in that field?

In framing the discussion in another light. In your logic, then on the Robin (comics) page, only one character should be list in the Characters field not any of the others who held the role of Robin down playing the fact and miss leading WP readers that there have been multiple characters that have used the Robin name.

I would agree there is some formating problems in having too many boxes. In the Defenders article case, the only clear problem is with the Offenders' infobox conflicting with the New Jersey Defenders' infobox. I guess I was hoping some where down the line more info might be filled in to match the space it takes up. Spshu (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Spshu, I'm tired of the continued stretching of the argument to the absurd you are engaging in.

1. Articles are of limited scope. The scope here, by title, is Marvel's Defenders. At best that is the team(s) of that name and the publication of that distinct title.
2. Articles are supposed to be structured to putting undue weight on sections, points of view, or particular points. Slapping in infoboxes is adding weight by implying importance, deserved or not.
3. Comparing articles on a name/title passed through a number of characters to one on a team is, at best, comparing lemons to limes. That is, we're still dealing with elements in works of fiction as topics and writing articles using Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Outside of that one does not equate to the other.
4. What magazine Marvel replaced which other magazine with is a fine end point within a publication history section. That same section is a good place for critical commentary on what the writers and artist achieved with the magazine. There is a start of that type of a section in the current article, but it needs work. And that work, and sticking with WP:WAF and WP:PLOT would leave a very much reduced "Fictional team history".
5. What goes into an article needs to trace back to a source without interpretation, supposition, or theorizing by Wikipedia editors. That all falls under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and it can include arguing for special treatment of a section as "artistically different" based on an editor's opinion.
   • And it is worth noting that "new/different character(s) taking a used name" and "shifting characters in and out of a team" are different things. The first can generally be delineated from the primary source since character X isn't character Y. The second relies on interpretation, something that would need to be cited from secondary, third party sources.

- J Greb (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware that The Defenders team spans across quite a few titles. Working those title into a single infobox however, would not be much of a problem. It is done in other articles as well and as noted, it should be The Defenders titles that are the topic of the article, not the fictional team histories. In this case, the infobox would be concerned with those comic books actually entitled The Defenders.

Another matter entirely, but I feel I should correct you when you say that X-Factor is an off-shoot of The New Defenders. This is blatantly untrue. The premise of X-Factor, which would feature the original X-Men, was thought up in the Marvel offices. To get that team back together (and a host of other reasons, surely), The New Defenders was cancelled, so as to facilitate the move back to the X-titles for Beast, Angel and Iceman. That is the only connection between the two titles. X-Factor is neither thematically or canonically an off-shoot of The New Defenders, or even publishing wise. Kusonaga (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

IIUC the prime "X-Factor is a Defenders extension" was that X-Factor was placed into the slot opened in Marvels print run schedule when The Defenders was cancelled. Hence my comment that trying to add it "is over reaching". - J Greb (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to Spshu, really. I agree with you. Kusonaga (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)