Talk:Kevin Sydney

Merge

After reading all the discussion on this talk page there appears a consensus to merge the two articles into one article. The more popular choice for a merge target at this present time is Kevin Sydney. NOTE: While editors are encouraged to be bold, they are also expected to discuss and form consensus and to avoid edit warring. Hiding T 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that the page is taking some of the previous arguments into account. There is too much vagueness (or disagreement?) regarding Morph's origins, at least with it's current iteration it is a bit more clear that there is some ambiguity between the animated and comic versions. I for one feel that the animated and comic versions are very distinct, with common roots but a clear distinction between the two. - robertcoogan

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Morph?

Isn't Morph the same character as changeling? He was in the old cartoon, not sure about comics. Tyciol 06:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They sure are. Same character, different reality. Merger Proposed. 69.182.78.104 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support the merger, provided that Changling merged into Morph and not vice versa. At this point, Morph has the longer and more significant history. Inkslinger 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should probably look like Blink (comics)

I'd support the Morph too, but since both characters are so radically different, maybe it should stay like this. Also, just for curiousity, when was it confirmed that Morph was Changeling?

opposed - distict characters with their own distict publication history. 66.109.248.114 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, Morph is pretty much an independent character, extremely different from Changeling.--Gonzalo84 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As it has been apporximatly 2 months since the last addition to the discussion, I move discussion be closed with no consensus met. ````

Please see discussion regarding(Merging Alternate Versions of Characters)

Copied from Morph (comics)

"then morph went to take down proteus alone but portus knocked the steel plate out of his head and took over Morph's body." I've edited this and removed "alone". Morph was with the Exiles, and Longshot was right alongside him when Morph "buffed up" and attacked Proteus - he even says that Longshot cancels out Proteus' reality altering powers. Scarlettspiderg 17:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The grammar and composition in this article are pitiful. I added the "cleanup" tag so motivated people can help. Unfortunately, I am not one of those motivated people. Here is a typically dreadful passage: "A fairly good baseball player, a friend, a good student. Morph always used his power to keep everyone at ease with him, being at ease with someone as himself only."24.61.12.141 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been seeing this "style" of writing in several comics-related articles. Take a look at the "Modern Age" section of Kara Zor-El, for example (unless someone's already fixed it). Could there be a comics-fan editor around "here" for whom English is a second language, who doesn't necessarily realize how bad their writing is? - Pennyforth 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Home Earth

Has it not been defined as to which Earth designation the Morph of the Exiles calls home?--RedKnight 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

it's Earth-27. it's where he, Thunderbird and Magnus all came from. Whoever originally put it as Earth-58163 is thinking about Proteus from the House of M universe.

I put the Earth-58163 because I thought that House of M Proteus was a resurrected 616 Proteus. Also, IIRC, all the original members of the Exiles came from different universes, so I doubt Morph came from Earth-27 (Magnus' universe).

Debut

Should Morph's debut be listed as the first episode of the X-Men animated series from the 1990s (just as Firestar's first appearance is listed as Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends)? --- 65.215.37.164 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Changeling

Article should definately be merged with Changeling (Marvel Comics). Alternate versions of the same character. Structure similar to Blink (comics) with Exiles version being the main article. (posted by 69.177.251.209)

I agree that this article should be merged in the way suggested above. -Freak104 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. That was a little hasty don't you think. Particularly considering there was a previous merge discussion that failed to meet a consensus. Stephen Day 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Changeling and Morph are two distict characters with two separate histories. They shouldn't be merged. Stephen Day 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Stephen. Anyway, IMO, if they *are* to be merged, I'd say merge Morph into Changeling because one came before the other. But I oppose merging in this case. BOZ 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see reversing the merge direction being a more acceptable solution. If someone had expanded the "other versions" section of Changeling to include the various Morphs based on Changeling I don't think there would be many raised eyebrows. The only issue I could see arising from that would be that eventually someone could have argued (fairly effectively) that Morph was such a distinct series of characters that they deserved their own entry. The advantage of merging the Morphs into Changeling is that you can sort the character history out - Morph is an X-Men animated series character (based on the Earth-616 character, Changeling) whose success resulted in other Morphs appearing in two other Marvel dimensions (and apparently another Morph retconned into post-WWII Earth-616). The resulting Changeling entry would then provide a reasonable overview of the development and history of the various characters. While I think keeping them separate would be the way forward reversing the direction of the merges would get less opposition and would result in a better history of the characters that I feel would be most useful to the average reader. (Emperor 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Comment This would be acceptable to me and would ease all of my concerns. Stephen Day 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a drastic step, but somewhere in Wikipedia's guidelines it says to be bold in edits. The Changeling article was barely more than a stub. The Morph article had more about Changeling (pictures and longer descriptions) than the Changeling article itself, so it made sense to move what little wasn't already in the Morph article over. It follows the example established by the Blink article, and the main stream version did come first but is the lesser one in that article. Changeling has been out of the main stream universe for so long that he barely even got a mention in the Marvel Universe Handbook for the Dead; most references to this character are to the current character from the Exiles. I realize there was no consensus, but it was two for and two against. Hardly what I would call a deadlock, because no one really was checking the Changeling article. I think the time it took for you to notice the Changeling article as gone proves the point that no one looks at it. I was bold in my edit, and I stand by my decision. I took a stub and merged it into a good article to improve both. My change improved Wikipedia, because stubs are relatively useless. -Freak104 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but with a merge vote already having taken place, don't you think it would have been a better idea to have announced the merge vote on the Comic project page? It would have given you a better idea about wether or not it was a direction the two articles should go in. Stephen Day 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Two articles? I don't know what you're referring to. There was the full article about Morph, which included LOTS of information about Changeling, and the stub about Changeling. The article about Changeling wasn't going anywhere because the character is dead. This helps Changeling get visibility, and reduces the number of stub articles. -Freak104 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't agree that the Changeling article is a stub. There's enough infomation there to categorize it as a start. That's beside the point though as they are still two separate characters. Even if Changeling (Marvel Comics) was little more than a few sentences I would still oppose the merger on those grounds.

Blink (comics) has been mentioned as an example, but I don't think the two cases are comparable. Both versions of Blink are esentially the same character. Other than the fact that they have the same real name and the same powers that really isn' the case with Changeling and Morph. They are similiar and one is admittedly an update of the other, but there are way too many differences. Stephen Day 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the development of Morph he was an X-Men animated character based on Changeling who proved popular enough to be an Earth-295 character with a separate history - they can to all intents and purposes be considered different characters. The bulk of the Blink article is on the Earth-295 character as the Earth 616 one was a throwaway character really only worth a passing mention (although Marvel does give them two separate entries - [1] [2]). (Emperor 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

There is insufficient evidence for Changeling and Morph being the same character. Best thing to do would be go to the source - I e-mailed Marvel about it, asking that very same question, and not mentioning Wikipedia in any way. The development of the tow characters does not suggest Morph was a character based on Changeling.(robertcoogan 13:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose The character is distinct enough to warrant its own entry. If there is more information on Changeling here then the simple answer is that it should be moved over to the Changeling article. (Emperor 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

It's not a vote. Merge them per WP:WAF guidelines.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Who said anything about this being a vote? Stephen Day 18:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: Zythe has a good point. Go to the WP:WAF page, because Changeling (Marvel Comics) does not have notability. All of the information in the Changeling article is contained within the Morph article, plus the Morph article has more about Changeling. The Changeling article is just a useless stub. -Freak104 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Changeling was used as a character by Marvel Comics for close to ten years and was then used in the explanation that brough Professor X (inarguably a very significant character) back from his comic book death. These two things together add up to notability in my book. As Emperor says just below here, Changeling (Marvel Comics) should be expanded, not merged into Morph (comics). Just because something is a stub (I'd Ive already stated that I don't think it is a stub - something that has yet to be refuted) doesn't mean the subject matter is non-notable. Stephen Day 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And as I say above that is an argument to edit the material from here into there. Its worth noting that neither is comprehensive. It should be easy enough to satisfy notability for Changeling but it can't be done until all the relevant information is in the right entry and that entry is expanded to give a complete run down of his appearances. (Emperor 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Changeling is little more than a stub; it has no information that is not already contained in the Morph article, and it has little information anyways. And yes they are the same character. Why else do they reference each other in the Other versions sections? Those sections in comic pages aren't for similar people, they're about the same person in an alternate universe (House of M, Age of Apocalypse, and Days of Future Past are prime examples of what commonly goes in that section). -Freak104 22:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment One is an update of the other character, that doesn't make them the same character. Why are there separate articles for Marvel's Hyperion from Supreme Power, or the Golden Age Superman?. Its because those two characters are different enough from their alternate versions and have a significant enough individual history that a separate article is warranted. So are Changeling and Morph.

As for it having no more inforation that what is in the Morph article. That is the case right now and that wouldn't be the case if Emporer hadn't advised me to hold off on editing until after this debate was over. The Official Handbook of the Marvel Univere: Deluxe Edition from 1985 has a two page entry on Changeling. There is a lot there that could be added to this article and if it isn't merged into Morph (comics), it will be. Stephen Day 22:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - All Changeling/Morph/Kevin Sydney references should be combined onto one page pere Wikipedia and Comics project guidelines. AS for the claim that these characters are too different to be combined, isn;t that waht makes them alternate versions of each other? AoA Cyclops doesn't get a seperate entry just because he was a one-eyed villian. Please tell me you didn't just compare a third tier character like Morph to a worldwide icon like Golden Age Superman that had 30+years in a solo book. Perhaps this needs to be looked at by a neutral arbitrator whose only interest is following Wikipedia guidelines. -- 12.76.154.62 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Superman refernece was a little over the top, but what about the entry for Supreme Power's Hyperion? Stephen Day 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, you're right I have become to emotionally involved with this argument and its time to back out. I still believe my position is right and the only thing I can do is let my arguments stand as they are. If that's not enough -- so be it. :) Stephen Day 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• No merge - This discussion comes mere days after the most recent tags for merger between these two characters where removed, following a no-concensus decision. The discussion should really be carried out on the Changling Talk Page. I still feel these characters are wholly separate and different, evidence by publication history and character biography. I wonder where this level of discussion was 3 months ago. Regardless, I still vote, no merge. 66.109.248.114 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, to follow guidelines - I had pulled myself out of this discussion for a few days because I was too emotionally involved, but thankfully someone backed me up. "All Changeling/Morph/Kevin Sydney references should be combined onto one page per Wikipedia and Comics project guidelines." I think that sums this problem up pretty well. Emotions need to be taken out of it and guidelines followed. (I realize that IP address only has the one edit, but it is not a sockpoppet, I don't do that. If I had taken the time myself to look up Wikipedia guidelines I would have posted them as myself.) -Freak104 11:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Nope, not a sock puppet, I'm just on dial-up. But like Zythe^{Talk to me!} mentioned above, this viloates WP:WAF guidelines. It also goes against Project guidelines and could qualify as WP:Fancruft. Because of the guideline viloations this may also qualify as a consensus exception WP:CONEXCEPT. This should probably also be applied to the Mariko Yashida article. -- 12.76.136.200 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - I tried proposing this months ago and still support the merge, thanks for bring the discussion back to life. -- 69.183.15.244 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, does this end the debate and allow the merge to be completed? -Freak104 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe consensus was reached.66.109.248.114 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say opinion is pretty much split down the middle. Given that this vote started shortly after a previous merge proposal resulted in no consensus this shouldn't be much of a surprise. I'd suggest leaving it a few months and if it does get put back up for discussion I'd suggest reversing the direction of the merge - the various Morphs could be considered as variants of Changeling (it seems the change in name was purely a practical issue - if they'd been the same name there wouldn't have been this discussion) and it would also help better explain the history of the various Morph characters which I don't feel this current entry actually does (I had to go to the MCDP to get the various characters straight in my head). So although I can see a good arguement for keeping them separate I can also see that merging Morph into Changeling might be the most satisfactory solution. (Emperor 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Concensus not necessary. If you look at previous posts you will see that having these as separate articles violates Wikipedia guidelines. I think that is what 66.189.137.113 tried to show with his/her edit, but unfortunately he/she went about it in an inappropriate way. There is no room for debate anymore; Wikipedia guidelines states that they have to be merged. The reason for this post and my previous post is to determine which article title should be the one used for the merged articles. And please don't post comments about not merging them, it won't change Wikipedia guidelines. Freak104 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure why there is the need to state things like "there is no room for debate." According to the definition of guideline and "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." While I don't feel this case is really important enough to count as an exception it certainly leaves the door open for debate. Equally if anything is failing the Comics Project guidelines on alternate characters it is this entry - Morph is an alternate version of Changeling and should have started life as a section over there and been split off if it took on a life of its own (following Comics guidelines on this). The problem is the were both started 4 years ago before such things were bolted down - so we have to deal with the cards as dealt to us and the question to ask is: If this had been part of Changeling from the start would people be asking for the Morph information to be split off to its own article? Personally I tend to lean towards trimming the fat and keeping things together.

So what to do? Well as I've said I'd probably support a merge of Morph to Changeling (and a few people opposing the merge from Changeling to Morph said they might look more favourably if the merge directions are reversed). As note in the previous paragraph if we were starting this all today Morph would be part of Changeling (following the guidelines on alternative characters) and as I've said previously the Morph entry doesn't do a great job of explaining the actual characters history and development (Morph as originally a character in the X-Men animated series for starters - albeit one based on Changeling, with the change of name being made for copyright reasons). I sketched out a clearer "other versions" section over on the Changeling entry [3] and the different bits on the characters from here could be easily slotted into the relevant sections over there.

Although probably not acceptable to everyone (and they have a reasonable arguement for keeping things as they are) I think practically and conceptually this would be the best possible solution that would result in a solid entry which would also give a good overview of the history of the various characters. (Emperor 13:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

I have supported this merge for a while, but I had always supported it as Morph becoming the sole article. I now support Changeling as the sole article to help bring an end to the discord (hopefully). Can people agree that Morph should be merged into Changeling (as Emperor suggested)? I hope the answer is yes. Freak104 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Merging Morph (comics) into Changeling (Marvel Comics) is acceptable. Stephen Day 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yeah I'm OK with making Changeling the main article. I would suggest making the Exiles Morph the first entry under "Other Versions" since he is the most prominant version. -- 69.183.15.244 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm also in agreement that keeping Changeling as the main page is acceptable for the merge -- 12.76.152.87 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would disagree, that consensus is necessary, particularly for instances like this. The pages recommended to be merged are non-duplicated and they do not overlap in material. Both characters and pages have developed past the point reconciliation. Guidlines in themselves due not dictate action, they are merely a trend to follow, which would be a disservice to both articles in this case. I want to note again, that if a merge were to go thru, it should be Morph into Changling, and we are having this discussion on the wrong page. No merge. 66.109.248.114 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of merge 2.0

Comment Consensus is necessary, it prevents any one group from monopolizing the entry, and avoids edit wars. This in itself is more in keeping with the Wikipedia guidelines than anything else. This has led to a minority reverting and monopolizing the entry to suit their own opinions. robertcoogan 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:robertcoogan. The edit summary of Morph reads "Moved all the information over. Concensus not needed, Wikipedia policy required merge, concensus to merge into Changeling article." Recent administrator User:Emperor, (congratulation to you Emperor), stated "I'd say opinion is pretty much split down the middle. Given that this vote started shortly after a previous merge proposal resulted in no consensus this shouldn't be much of a surprise." The admin stated the point of "no consensus; however, I would dissent from the admin in stating that with the idendification of no consensus there is a clear and long established precidence by Wikipedia of a "keep" or "no action" to follow. The evidence of no consensus is clear in the ongoing discussion of who should be the primary character. The pages should be split, as the merge was not done properly. {-210.233.211.96 (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}

Thank you! Hopefully reason will win out on this one. (robertcoogan) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcoogan (talk

Keep the split Aforementioned article with Eric Lewald doesn't mention the later comic version of Morph. He only discusses the origins of the animated version. There still isn't anything to connect the two characters. {`-210.233.211.96 (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)}

Fix up

I'll start a new section for discussing polishing this entry up. One thing I think we should look at is having the X-Men animated character first in other versions. It is unusual but as it stands it is important for the Morph character's history as they first appeared in the animated series. As this is considered one of Marvel's Earths (921031) it isn't that much of a squeeze to put it in there. Either that or more in the section with the animation character above other versions. (Emperor 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Emperor's suggestions. I just made the major edit/move/merge so that the clean-up process could finally get started since the debate was over. I never claimed to have done a perfect job with the merge, it does need clean-up. Freak104 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Any preference on whether to have it in other versions or above? I think we can go with the former as an exception to the general guidelines as it is important for getting the character development straight.

Oh I also brought over the Exiles Morph infobox as that is OK (as far as I'm aware) and helps give a good snapshot of the character). (Emperor 03:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Bringing the infobox over was a good idea. And I think you have a point in maybe getting the 'Other versions' into chronological order so that their development is more understandable. Freak104 12:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't list the XM:TAS Morph under "Other Versions". If you want it listed before the AoA/Exiles Morph's, I think moving the "In Other Media" section above "Other Versions" would be a better option. -- 69.183.15.244 05:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Merge

I think this is a step backwards. How many fans of Morph have no idea who Changeling is? The Wikiguidelines are -not- set in stone. Lots42 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Before the merge would have been the time to bring something like that up. The merge is done, and now we are working on fixing it up. Look at the above sub-heading and see what you can do to help. Freak104 12:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I -thought- I already brought it up beforehand. I can still have the opinion it was the wrong thing to do. Lots42 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Debate is always open. Who knows - at some point in the future this might be split back off again. As Changeling's name was changed to Morph purely for copyright reasons alone it does make sense to have Morph under Changeling as they are just other versions of the character. Obviously this doesn't rule out a separate article for Morph but it would have to be as an exception to the comics project guidelines on alternate characters and I am unsure Morph is distinct enough to warrant their own entry (similar powers, same general design, etc.) but there is always room for discussion. If there are major/specific concerns then fire away.

I would support tagging a sentence onto the lead that says something like "Due to copyright reasons other versions of Changeling in the Marvel Universe went by the name Morph" so people following a link in aren't thrown. (Emperor 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Picture?

Can anyone find a picture of Changeling to put in his superhero box? The article would look a lot better if there were an image at the top of the article. Freak104 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change?

Should the article be changed to "Kevin Sydney" so there isn't so much confusion/controversy over the title of the article? -Freak104 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed much confusion/controversy. It seems fine as long as the lead is specific. (Emperor 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Morphanimted2.png

Image:Morphanimted2.png 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 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Morph/Changeling separate characters

Can someone please cite the reference that Morph and Changeling are the same character? Been following this character for a long time. Never have known of the connection, other than they have shapeshifting ability!

(robertcoogan 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I suggest that you scan through the above text before making controversial page moves and deleting large bunches of text. It's important to establish consensus, and you removed all the text from an established character from Wikipedia. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no consensus based upon the aforementioned discussion. Even he merge was made without any sort of agreement on how exactly the merge would be made. Move that the characters be made distinct. There is more than enough information to justify making this the case. (robertcoogan 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Then I suggest that before the merging of two separate characters a link other than them having the same name be established.

(robertcoogan 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

This is not vandalism, there only needs to be a justification for the change.

(robertcoogan 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

The approach has been to use single article whenever possible and practical. Keep as one article. Doczilla (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> On praticle matters, what is in place now may work. And at least the most egregious aspect, the obliteration a complete section of the original article has been avoided.

I've pointed a few things out on the Morph talk page, namely that:

1. The TV show and AoA characters are Alternate version of Changeling.
2. The TV version doesn't belong on the Morph page by any stretch.
3. The AoA version does have a reason to be mentioned there.
4. The First Line character most likely should be moved, but under an "Other characters" section, not an AV.

By the same token, the section here for the Exiles Morph should be compressed with a {{main}} added. - J Greb (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Morph/Changeling a Consolidated (Merge) Discussion

I would like to identify the current discussions and provide this a the point the have a cohesive discussion about these separate matters. First, that a merge discussion from Sept. 07, ended had not concluded. That the current page of Morph should exlude the AoA and TV versions of the character. I have reposted merge tags to hash out this discussion. Previous discussion recommended a Morph to Changling merge, a Changling to Morph mere, and User:J Greb has suggested on the Morph talk merge to Kevin Sydney.

no merge - as stated above and in previous discussion around the wiki world on this and similar matters. These two specific characters, though connected, have to disticitive character biographies and publication history, that are at this point irreconcilable. (evidenced by the continued merge/separtion/"who should be first?" comments. Both articles would be better serviced to keep separate with references to both. I would cite precidence of Supergirl/Powergirl, Kal-L/Kal-El, and Dr. Doom/Doom 2099. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

Comment Be careful with citing examples since a lot of what there is to pick from are splits that were not made, or kept, purely on "it's a different character". Some — like Batman, Superman, Supergirl, Doctor Doom, Hulk, etc — it's a size issue, some — like Vision or Whizzer — there is the issue of publisher, and there is the MoS pref based on multiple code names (Marvel's Speed Demon being separated from Whizzer).

And even if you pick from those that don't fall into those criteria, it still comes down to 1) are they comparable to this situation and 2) if they are, is that a good reason not to merge. - J Greb (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with a few hedges. Right now, there isn't a size issue for the topic, even with a reasonable publication history (which is needed in any case for any article(s) that come out of this). And of the 5 iterations covered (X-Men, TV, AoA, First Line, and Exiles), 4 are treated as a linear development: the X-Men character was used as a starting point for both the TV and AoA versions, there may be references for AoA taking bits of the TV version, and the Exiles version is based on the AoA one. This makes for a unified publication history, the real world context the article needs. As 66.109 mentions, that makes me think that the merge would be better served with the article going under "Kevin Sydney" with specific redirects pointing to the article sub-sections. The odd character out, First Line, needs a lot of fleshing out since the character is not mentioned in the First Line pr The Lost Generation articles.
  As for the hedges if the articles are kept separate:

• Both article need publication histories, even if there is a lot of repetition.
• "Changeling (Marvel Comics)" would need and "Alternate versions" section, even if the three listing there just have short lead-like blurbs with a {{main}} or {{seealso}} to the sections "Morph (Marvel Comics)". (And yes, if a cite can be found for it, the Morph from Exiles is from Earth-1081, making it and AV of the mainline Changeling.)
• "Morph (Marvel Comics)" would need to be restructured. Reason being that "Other versions" or "Alternate versions" give a connotation that the first one presented is the "original". "Other characters" or sectioning by series/source avoids this.

- J Greb (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. If we can get the excessive story details edited out, there's just not enough content for 2 articles. Doczilla (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No merge There is still nothing to suggest that the two characters are the same. The two articles by themselves do have enough information (based upon prior edits which were undone) to warrant two separate pages. Just because there are similarities between the two characters and even some blurring of facts, doesn't justify a merge.

So far the reasons put forth for the merge are:

"there may be references for AoA taking bits of the TV version, and the Exiles version is based on the AoA one" If there are references to show that the two characters are the same, then why hasn't someone provided a link to them? I realize that some of you feel as strongly about this as I do, but please offer some proof other than your opinions.

"ther's just not enough content for 2 articles" They certainly looked long enough before. Is there a minimum/maximum rule? The shorter of the two (Changeling) looked long enough to avoid being labeled a stub. But if not, then why merge the two just to save the Changeling material? If it's a stub, it's a stub. Delete it.

"having these as separate articles violates Wikipedia guidelines" and "Wikipedia guidelines states that they have to be merged" How so? Can you point out these guidelines that say this needs to be done?

It's a shame that it has now been reverted to the unsupported changed version. This merge was not done in the spirit of collaboration at all.

(- Robertcoogan (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Comments

1. Please step back and re-read the comments made specifically with 66.106's re-list/revival of the merge discussion.
2. With regard to this, it has not been put forward that they are the exact same character. The closest it's come is that:
   • Changeling (1960's X-Men character) was adapted by the writers of the X-Men animated show into a character called Morph (1992). Different continuities, different stories, different characters, but the later is a use of the former "In other media".
   • Changeling (1960s again) was used and modified, along with all the X-characters for "Age of Apocalypse" (1995). The TV show may have influenced the name choice, but so could the green kid at DC. However that hashed out, the AoA character was initially Changeling in an altered time line, then later a version of that character from an alternate reality/timeline. Both cases are "Alternate version" of Changeling.
   • Morph (AoA) was used as a template — visual appearance and personality — for the character in Exiles. Based on the information in the Morph article, Marvel has IDed the character as coming from a 3rd alternate reality. This makes the character and "Alternate version" of both Changeling and the AoA Morph.
3. The above is material that is important in the "Publication history" of the characters, regardless of the end result being 1, 2, 3, or more articles. And, if more than one artle, that PH would likely be repeated almost in whole.
4. For reasons for splitting articles please see WP:SPLIT, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Article series, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Articles on alternate versions of characters. And Doc's nutshell is just about dead on — copy-editing the TV and Exiles versions to reduce the cruft leaves an article that covers the topic but is well below even the "moderately large" threshold. And to be hones, even a flat merge at this point yields a coherent article well under the point where the size might eventually justify splitting.
5. Deleting the Changeling article guts most of the real world, and a fair chunk of the in-universe context, for any of the later versions. Deleting it isn't an answer, reasonable or otherwise.

- J Greb (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

weak merge StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

comment - I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Changeling and Morph are indeed the same character, but citing something from the '90's is gonna be a mission. I do remember that reading in an interview that Changeling was called Morph in X-Men the Animated Series because DC Comics, owned the name (Changeling) at the time, we now him as Beast Boy. Marvel may have had the character first but he had been out of circulation for years. Later, Morph was used during the Age of Apocalypse, again because DC was using the name Changeling again. Now trying to find a cite for that's is gonna be a honkin' one, short of contacting Marvel or one of the handbook writers/Jeff Christensen - side note: it has been confirmed that the handbooks are canon. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They don't even particularly overlap in their histories. The original Changeling died long before the cartoon introduced Morph. The cartoon was gone before Age of Apocalypse Morph. Age of Apocalypse was long before Exiles. Honestly, I think putting these together as a single article tells the most coherent overarching story and presents all of the versions in appropriate historical context. Doczilla (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge again and again and again.... because they are the same character, have always been the same character and always will be the same character. Lets move the article to Kevin Sydney to avoid this ongoing merge/split nonsense. Here's an interview with Eric Lewald (Story Editor of X-Men) [4] for one source. Wizard #41 (Jan 1995) Page 36 also has info about Changeling/Morph being the same. -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And the last reference you'll need, Astonishing X-Men #1 (March 1995) Page #27, Rogue and Quicksilver joke about how Morph used to be called Changeling and had the "the ugliest purple headpieced costume". Merge em up -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommend merge, but with Morph as the main character with Changeling as an earlier version lower on the page. Although Morph was sourced from Changeling his development has produced a distinct character. Very different from the earlier (original) Changeling. Don't think even Eric Lewald would agree that the characters can be considered one and the same now. Morph just has roots in that character:

"I may have dug him up, I don’t remember). In fact, in the books, the character was named 'Changeling.' We were forced to come up with a new name because there was a D.C. character with that name." - Eric Lewald

They were just looking for someone to bump off originally. Morph has become the dominant (defining) character of the two. There just needs to be a distinction, with actual reference to the why of how the character of Morph was created on the merged page. (-Mikethefireman (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

While I agree that the Exiles character has more information to work with, I still think it's better to put the fictional character bios in publication order. That is the most neutral method, "picking" one over the others involves a value judgement, something we're supposed to avoid (I believe WP:NPOV covers that...). And that would be after the unified publication history (real world context for the works of fiction).

That being said, for ease of search, merging under "Kevin Sydney" allows for redirects from "Changeling (Marvel Comics)", "Morph (comics)" (I'm still not sure why the dab suffix is (Marvel Comics) for that one), "Morph (X-Men TV series), "Morph (AoA)", and other variations to point to the specific relevant iteration. - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be referenced according to the most likely search criteria. Morph is the more familiar character, so Changeling should go at the bottom. A compromise might be to put the overall title as Morph (Marvel comics), and then list Changeling's info first with a brief paragraph above explaning the link. (- Mikethefireman (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

I don't care which character the article is named for (although our guidelines and exemplars say that if it's not patently obvious, we go with his "real" name which would be Kevin), but tell the story in chronological order: Changeling, cartoon Morph, Apocalypse Morph, Exiles Morph. That's encyclopedic. Doczilla (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, MERGE!!! Why did these get unmerged without a discussion?! They were merged before and it should be automatic that they go back together, because there was NO discussion to separate them. 144.92.58.223 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because one editor decided to take control of the subject matter. Pairadox (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the current suggestion for a merge purposal by Doczilla, a Kevin page listing the characters linearly. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

If you look at the previous merge discussion (a mere scroll up on this very page), you'll see that it was NOT just one editor who decided to take control of the subject matter. So actually look into the matter before throwing wild claims around. (Also if you look above you'll notice a post suggesting the changing of the name to Kevin Sidney as Doczilla has secondarily suggested.) I too support the merge and agree that the article should be called 'Kevin Sidney'. 144.92.58.224 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I always find it amusing when people assume bad faith in that I haven't researched the topic. Not only did I read the above thread, I also looked at the article page history and the contribution history of the editor in question. What I saw was an article that was relatively stable for four months until one editor comes back after an extended break and immediately starts separating the articles with no discussion, then proceeds to edit war over it until the page has to be protected. So yeah, I stand by the statement about why they were unmerged. Pairadox (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 144.92.58.224 was a little hotheaded in his accusations, but he is correct that it wasn't just one editor. I was one of the people involved in the previous merge discussion, and it was annoyingly LONG but a decision to merge was reached in the end. I support a MERGE, because they should never have been split. Whoever split the articles violated policy by not having a discussion before the split. I also support the name change to Kevin Sidney (as I previously had suggested). Freak104 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and rename to Kevin Sydney. I supported the merge to Changling (Marvel Comics), but if it prevents this argument from coming up over and over then perhaps Kevin Sydney is where this article belongs. Stephen Day (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Morpexilesjpg.jpg

Image:Morpexilesjpg.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) 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Morphanimted.png

Image:Morphanimted.png 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) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone please look at an edit

this. I'm not knowledgeable about this at all, and stumbled upon this page accidentally when investigating recent contributions by a vandal. Thanks, Enigma ^message 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the TV version have the real name Kevin Sydney?

I know that the original Changeling version and the Exiles version were both called Kevin Sydney. Did the version in the X-Men animated series also have this name? 112.213.143.67 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Morph's real name is never mentioned in the animated series. --2600:1008:B00F:6439:611B:6BA5:BCBC:4D3F (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@112.213.143.67 the Marvel Encyclopedia from 2022 says the Changeling real name is Unknown. 71.178.144.73 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Fictional Character Biography is poorly written

Besides revealing the plot in a convoluted way, this article does not do any justice to the trials this character had to face. The entire section does not seem to fit an encyclopedic style and tries to smooth over the story. To distinguish from an article in fandom.com, this article may need to be worked on. NK (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

where are people getting Kevin Sydney from?

I'm looking at the Marvel Encyclopedia entry from 2022 for The Changeling and it says Factfile Real Name = Unknown. no where in this book is Kevin Sydney mentioned not even the Index. 71.178.144.73 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

Should change the non binary thing, as even the reference they put says nothing about the creator or editor confirming anything, they also do not use they/them in the show. 2600:1000:B147:6E3A:AC9B:F8A8:B404:9714 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024 (2)

Yeah, just thoroughly went through the “sources” for this non-binary thing, and nowhere in those pages does it even say anything about the voice actor saying morph is non-binary. This need to be changed. 2600:1000:B147:6E3A:AC9B:F8A8:B404:9714 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Go through it again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Name change discussion from "Kevin Sydney" to "Changeling (Marvel Comics)"

Having taken a look online and in some print sources, although the name Kevin Sydney is associated with the character, it appears that the Main Marvel Universe version of the character (from Earth-616) was never provided with a real name within the comics themselves. It wasn't until Marvel published an encyclopedia in 2004 that he was named "Kevin Sidney", with an "i" instead of "y". In fact, only four years later, another encyclopedia from 2008 outright states "Real Name: Unrevealed, likely Kevin Sydney", discussing how the character is named Kevin Sydney in the Age of Apocalypse and Exiles universe, but that this is probably not the case for Earth-616. Moreover, the Marvel Encyclopedia from 2019 outright states that his real name is "Unknown". Taking this into account, I wonder if the article should be rename to "Changeling (Marvel Comics)"?

The one issue I see with this change is that Changeling has barely 50 appearances across comics, whereas his Exiles counterpart, who is named Kevin Sydney / Morph is far more prominent. What do we do when a comics character is more well-known for one of the alternate universe counterparts? What is the common name in this situation? Changeling, Kevin Sydney, or Morph? PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Morph is not confirmed to be Non-binary

Someone keeps reversing the edit im making about morph being non binary, cause the only person who has said that is the actor, whose opinion is not canon. The “sources/references” that have been put “proving” this to be true also say nothing of the sort. 72.92.249.71 (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The Gizmodo source links to a preview from Empire Magazine about the then upcoming series. The preview from Empire Magazine says "Speaking with Empire, [showrunner Beau] DeMayo and supervising producer Jake Castorena introduce the (old) new MVPs of the MCU.". In the Morph section it says "who is nonbinary". It seems clear Empire Magazine which I assume is an RS by itself is saying that this info came from DeMayo and Castorena, not the actor who doesn't seem to be mentioned at all, which I assume is why Gizmodo also presented it as a simple undisputed fact. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve read through the article several times. Beau demayos name isn’t even mentioned. And the “proof” simply leads to a twitter page. This need to be changed. 72.92.249.71 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That ENTIRE article simply says “fans WANT him to be non binary.” 72.92.249.71 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No. The Gizmodo article says "But, in a new preview from Empire Magazine, it was also confirmed that Kevin will now identify as non-binary in the new show". This doesn't say anything about fans or the actor. It says it was "confirmed" in a preview from Empire Magazine. Since Gizmodo is a reliable source, frankly this is good enough. But anyway, if there's still any doubt, the Gizmodo article links to a tweet where the text in Empire Magazine is mentioned. Most likely, appearing below that main tweet is another tweet where the whole preview is displayed [5]. From that tweet, we can see in this preview the words I mentioned above appear where it's made clear this is coming from the show runner and supervising producer. Of course, you could also view the preview by obtaining a copy of the Empire Magazine article the preview appeared in. So even if you're not willing to take Gizmodo's word for it which you should since it's an RS, we can see that they actually came to a fair conclusion since they were basing it on what the show runner and/or supervising producer told Empire Magazine about the character. Either way, there was never any reason to think Gizmodo came to the conclusion based on what fans wanted or what the actor said. P.S. Since you keep referring to "sources" but AFAICT, the only source directly used in our article seems to be Gizmodo, I assumed you'd already read the Empire Magazine preview before now. If you hadn't read the main source that Gizmodo themselves said was where the confirmation ("confirmed") occurred, I don't understand why you made such a big deal over the sources you'd gone through or read when you missed such a fundamental source. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)