Talk:Hyperion (comics)

Article to be merged into Hyperion (comics)

• One word "NO", The Hyperion article be to big and Mini-series should have they only article !--Brown Shoes22 16:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you created the article, as the user below correctly states. Over 50% of it was also "blow by blow" recounting of issues, which is not Wikipedia's style. Just the GIST. They can be merged and it would remain quite manageable. The other Hyperions have their history recounted without becoming a saga. Brief and sourced sentences work.

Asgardian 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• YES. The mini-series article is badly named to begin with, its creator is known for creating mushroom articles without rhyme or reason, and what happens in the mini-series can be properly explain in a single paragraph, thus it can be moved to the Supreme Power section in the Hyperion article. --Pc13 10:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would suggest the same thing here as I suggested in the discussion to merge the Nighthawk miniseries. The main Hyperion page is huge already, especially the section for Hyperion III. Also, the profiles for the other Hyperions have some plot summaries, but they seem to be crucial moments in their histories, which the Supreme Power miniseries isn't really. If anything, I think that maybe Hyperion III should be given his own page, and the miniseries page can be merged into that. I've seen it on other wikis for superheroes with many incarnations, like the Flash or Green Lantern. Pitr 12:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. The Blur already has his own page, so new pages for Hyperion (Supreme Power) and Nighthawk (Supreme Power) would be the proper place to talk about the minis. --Pc13 12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Untangling things...

Two things we might need to look at here...

• Firstly, the "Squadron Supreme" vs. "Supreme Power" definition is going to get increasingly murky as time goes on, now that "Supreme Power" is now retitled - and as Supreme Power is now also an Earth-616 supervillain team with its own Hyperion...
• Secondly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) is very clear about avoiding roman numerals when identifying different versions of a character. Which leaves us with even more problems when describing which is which. --Mrph 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on this one. But, untangling this takes time. Dr. Spectrum has been fixed, I've created the Squadron Sinister and touched up both Hyperion pages. I think with the change back to Squadron Supreme as a title it really has to be one page. With just one appropriate image and the right information - not blow by blow accounts - it can be accommodated. Heck, many of the other articles for teams are longer.The overall goal is to make things less confusing for new readers, not more so.

Asgardian 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More untangling

• Could someone please straighten out the Earth-712, Earth-717, Earth-S business? One seems to be a type-o and another a nickname for the first. Someone who follows this stuff or can point to an authoritative source refactor this article to land on a standard? I say the first time an earth is mentioned it should either be a link, or have a once sentence description or both.

Abilties

First, read the Hyperion page carefully. Hyperion is an Eternal, so he powers are from his heritage. This is actually a mistake on the Hyperion Page. I will change this on the page. As for Superman's healing factor, I will update it as well, since we have a verifable source. T-1000 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The powers and abilities section does mention that the Eternal version has certain extras courtesy of his heritage.

Asgardian 09:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pb-210

Where is the vulnerability to this isotope of Lead?

Proposed redirect

I respectfully suggest that any move to reduce the article for the Supreme Power character to a redirect to this page not be done by fiat.

Looking at the edits that have been made to lead up to such a move, it looks like the editor is deliberately collapsing different characters into one.

As it stands, the JMS variation is better developed and better used that the Thomas originals. Moving that into this article would wind up making this information and addendum to the current usage.

At this point it is probably best to leave the articles cross-linked, with the lead dab replaced on this article.

Further, if potential confusion is an issue (and likely it is), then two other existing pages could be fixed to clear that:

1. Hyperion -- the (comics) under pop culture could be changed to (Marvel Comics); and
2. Hyperion (comics) -- the redirect should go to the Hyperion dab, not to this article.

- J Greb 06:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be the main article. Yes, the JMS incarnation is currently being used more, but the Thomas originals came first and have been used longer.

Also, moving this article to (Marvel Comics) is redundant because all of the Hyperions are Marvel Comics. --DrBat 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The trend towards elaborate articles allowed for the newest incarnation of characters without tolerance toward the more established, older versions having their own articles...seems to have a "what have you done for me lately". That said, we know that Wikipedia is not plot summaries which the JMS article very much appears to be. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

Could some one tell me why the hades we've got an edit war forming up on this?

• The war between the edit boxes seems to be a fundamental coding problem within Wiki. Tiredgamer 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell all three images more or less meet the Project guidelines for use. The only one that has a quibble point with the Squadron Supreme cover is the inclusion of the other characters. In this case though the image is structure in such a way that Hyperion is the focus.

- J Greb 06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A "reboot"?

While the universe of Supreme Power has been established as a separate reality, where exactly has it been stated that it's a "reboot" of the classic Squadron Supreme--i.e., a new version intended to supplant the original? The classic SS still exists in Marvel continuity--their appearances in Exiles after Supreme Power debuted is proof of that. And with Ultimate Power tying in SP with the Ultimate universe, and Marvel's stated policy that the Ultimate and "Prime" Marvel universes will stay separate, it seems unlikely that the SP Squadron will be taking the place of the classic version; if, say, Brian Michael Bendis wants to do a Mighty Avengers story featuring the Squadron Supreme, he's likely to use the classic Squadron. Unless a citation can be provided establishing the Supreme Power version as Marvel's new definitive version of the Squadron Supreme, I'm dubious that "reboot" is the proper description in this context; as long as stories featuring the classic Squadron are still being published, they have not been supplanted and thus not "rebooted".

I do want to say that, besides that little nit I spent a paragraph picking, this article as a whole is a great improvement! I kinda want to apologise for all the material that I added for a version of Hyperion that ended up being little more than a footnote--but then, how was I to know that Marvel was going to boot Nicieza off of Thunderbolts and force him to leave plot threads unresolved? --Pennyforth 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rework the articles to state Earth-31916 is in addition to rather than a replacement for Earth-712. That said, this is getting very confusing and we're really going to have to tighten up these links and settle this. Getting the articles in line and removing all that "tell the story" is my first priority. Thanks for the compliment on Hyperion - it takes a great deal of time to source the stories and get it all in succinct, chronological order. The flipflopping and cover mistakes Marvel made with the two Squadrons has made it very challenging!

Asgardian 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. As I've said before, thanks for listening. -- Pennyforth 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. Also, if the other image is in fact the Earth-712 version, then fair enough.

Asgardian 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Small point/problem on the current image... at best it skirts general project useability guidelines. See here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use"

Since the image was created for use with the Marvel Handbooks it hangs up there. An argument may be made that since it is the cover, it doesn't count in the same way as the interior art for the Handbooks. I'd agree with that if 1) the article was about the Handbook sereis, and 2) the cover wasn't cropped.

As it stands... of the four, I think this one is the least usable.

I'd still like to know though, was there a guideline issue with the panel image, or was it just a case of personal taste?

(As far as that goes... personally, of the 3, panel, Exiles, and Squadron Supreme, I prefer the 3rd. Hits the bases for the character, reinforces it as a comic book character, the series syncs with a major point of the article, and it is structured to focus on Hyperion.)

- J Greb 06:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Given the relative sizes of this article and Hyperion (Supreme Power) and the structure of this article, it makes a degree of sense to merge the two into on article.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the newer team be brought over in an "Alternate version" section, but as a full part of the article.

Any other thoughts? - J Greb 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Same problem. Once Hyperion makes more appearances there will be an information blowout. The more I think about it, the more they should stay separate.

Asgardian 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on this: You, as the editor that went through and did sever trims to the FCBs to reduce the "tells the story" aspect, are arguing that the potential material (ie story) from the next years worth of comics justifies keeping the splits?

- J Greb 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The trims were necessary, and even succinct recording of what is to come will build up over time. Given the high profile of the character it wont take much.

Asgardian 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is just as likely that it with take 5 or 10 years to get enough similarly condensed material on the Straczynski version to make a unified article overly long. Or that Marvel will cancel the related books within the next 12 months.

At this point, with all three articles, it's "crystal balling" to say the split is justified because of what may happen. Right now, we've got 3 articles that are at the Start/B class point (the non-Straczynski related ones), on that is heading to that point (Supreme Power Nighthawk), and 2 that are barley Starts. - J Greb 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote Merge. Merger tags have been added to page 69.182.78.104 08:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge - The pages are 'short', but long enough to be articles in their own right. I think they're fine as is. If they were half the length, I'd agree to merge, but this is good. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

-NO MERGE AGAIN - same reasons. Distinctively different characters.20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if an icon character like Captain America has his Ultimate counterpart on his main page, then a much lower tier charactter like Hyperion doesn't need to be split into two pages.

Oppose Merge - This is simply not prudent nor a valid application of "alternate versions" do to the volume of information. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After 2 months with no addition to the discussion, I move that discussion be closed with no merge.

Please see discussion regarding(Merging Alternate Versions of Characters) -- [[

Sidebar

Thanks to GG for moving the table. I've no problem with where it goes, so long as it doesn't create large chunks of white in the article.

Asgardian 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(separated as this is a different topic)

You do realize that

1. The purpose of a side bar is to get the information as close to the point where it occurs in the article as possible; and
2. The image can be set to reside on the left of the article, thereby removing the whitespace due to stacking.

- J Greb 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. Whoever is sticking them in should do this.

Asgardian 08:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.

I have changed it again and moved the image per J Greb's suggestion above. It kind of squeezes the text, but at least it stacks nicely. --GentlemanGhost 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks GG, but Asgardian's point here is valid, I should have flipped the image initially. It was stupid (my word) of me not to. - J Greb 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Defender-13.jpg

Image:Defender-13.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 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unmentioned mini-series

About four years ago I read a four, maybe six comic mini-series that contained both Hyperion and Nighthawk. The series dealt with the genocide in Darfur. Hyperion was a puppet of the US Gov't and Nighthawk was a wealthy African-American who doubled as a Batman-like superhero who tried to solve the Darfur mess with both his money and alter-ego. The two would fight each other and also struggle with the best way to solve the genocide. Excellent series. Maybe this isn't enough to merit mention, Nighthawk was the bigger star, but thought I'd bring it up.

Anybody know what I'm talking about? I guess I could edit it, but I don't remember too much about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.171.19 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hyperion (comics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated as low importance and start class - although there's plenty of information in the article, it's mostly fictional biography with relatively little real world background - and is not in the preferred WP:CMC/X format. The article also uses Roman numerals to disambiguate the different versions, something that's specifically discouraged by the WP:CMC guidelines. --Mrph 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2018

Post by banned sock puppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
leed doesnt need extensive bio removed specific bios from lead for each character. that belongs in the main article DoubleChine (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC) @DoubleChine: - great, you finally started a talk page discussion. But you still need to self-revert your last (and 3rd consecutive) revert and leave the page the way it was, prior to your edit-warring. Allow others from the community time to discuss your edit and perhaps come to a consensus in regards to it. I realize you're new here, but you cant just keep repeatedly cramming your edit in, just because you think you are right. We have these guidelines for those who also think they are right, but it turns out they are wrong. Thank you - theWOLFchild 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC) bios of the character are already mentioned in the lead. the lead is not the place for extensive bios DoubleChine (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)− Right now that entirely besides the point. You need to self-revert to WP:QUO and stop edit-warring. Then discuss your edit. - theWOLFchild 20:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC) I'm removing from the lead what's essentially a duplicate post. the lead is not for bios. DoubleChine (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, well... you need to achieve a consensus for that first, and only if you get that, then make your changes. Otherwise, leave it be. - theWOLFchild 14:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Mass removals of content

Recently, an editor (DoubleChine) that just joined WP, went on to remove mass amounts of content from this article. He was reverted, then edit warred, was warned, continued edit warring and was blocked. The article was restored.

A short time later, another editor that had never edited this page, placed multiple tags on it. They were reverted (per wp:drivebytagging) and requested to engage on the talk page. They instead went on to remove mass amounts of content, similar to the previous editor. These edits were reverted and the editor notified of the discussion on the talk page. They still have yet to post here, but have resumed editing to remove mass amounts of content, only now spreading the removals over more edits, removing more smaller amounts, that still add up to the previous amounts removed.

Could this editor, with the unusual username of Namenamenamenamename (ping), please stop what they are doing and start engaging on the talk page? Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 06:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Specifically, what you said was to either give reasons for my tags on the talk page or to fix it myself. I did the latter, and you reverted the edits. I then made some of the edits again, explaining my reasons in more detail, and avoiding the header, which is what you seemed to specifically objecting to in the conversation with DoubleChine. I feel that the edits I have made have been constructive and improved the quality of the article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is quite a bit content removed, which was an issue here just days ago. As such, I had thought that perhaps you'd opt to discuss what should be changed and/or removed and why, giving others a chance to weigh-in. But if you feel you have improved the article, I'll take your word on that and leave you to your editing. Hopefully it doesn't become an issue again. Thank you for the reply. - ^theWOLFchild 07:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)