Talk:Secret Wars

The article Battleworld was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 September 2024 with a consensus to merge the content into Secret Wars. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

wouldnt it be better if the order of toy line and comics was reversed. Yes I know the concept of a toy line came first, but it wasnt until the series was conceived did the toy line come together. 151.196.39.142 06:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article link to the video from the Secret Wars Reenactment Society? --LA2 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think probably not, as its not official and probably should be treated as if it were a fanfic story. If the clip somehow became a phenomenon or super-popular in its own right then it definitely would qualify for inclusion, but it hasnt (or has it?, I dont know this is the first Ive seen or heard of it). A link here is probably more appropriate. It is pretty funny thou

I don't know enough about this new mini-series Beyond! to write much about it, but it's obviously an homage/parody/reference/whatever related to Secret Wars. Would someone in the know about Beyond! care to add an appropriate paragraph about it in this article, please? -- Pennyforth 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think someone should write a paragraph about the alternate storyline detailed in what if 114 Freezing the mainstream

The old entry read like a fan entry and contained POV, original research and unnecessary exposition on details such as toys and epsiodes of animated series. A mention that they exist is sufficient. In a similar vein, the Plot outline needs to be brief and to the point, with sources. It is now more Wiki correct, although even leaving in the list of players is generous as these are meant to be articles and not lists.

Asgardian (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from these comments, I've ramped up the common sense and added tables as opposed to "laundry" lists. I've pulled the Beyonder as while he's non-aligned, he's the ringmaster. Added qualifier re: X-Men so their separate grouping makes sense, and reworked the tie-in issues as it read like a 10-year had wrote it. Bumped the nice Spidey image to the bottom where it fits nicely. Now looks pretty sharp!

Asgardian (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning recent edits [1]: Mentioning where a new hero came from, that wasn't there at the start, as well as two villains, is important. Both Spider Woman and the two women Dr. Doom turned into super powered villains, came from the suburb in Denver. So a short mention of that, keeps the reader from being confused. And Galactus isn't a non-aligned entity. He was one of the villains. Ultron wasn't aligned with them, turning against them, and having its mind wiped but body reused by Dr. Doom. Dr. Doom himself went off on his own straight away, and only bothered with them when he had too, not bothering to free them from prisoner when he walked past them, not really caring. So this whole labeling of people as non-aligned, makes no sense at all. Everyone please post your opinions please, after seeing the difference. Dream Focus 09:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I think plot summaries for these massive crossover events should be painted in broad strokes. The finer details you seem to want to include would likely fit better in the individual character article. Also, "your" version is choppy, the other version has a much better flow to it. AniMate^draw 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dream Focus has a point. That said, the plot summary is a sea of blue. I'm thinking it's better to listify the characters or cut back on the linking quite drastically or rewrite to avoid so many blue links being next to each other. Or something. Let me go read up at the WP:MOS. Hiding T 09:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've cut back on links to characters I'd expect a general audience to be familiar with, and left links to characters where that further enhances the summary or explains points. Guidance is that "It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder." So I've edited in that spirit. Will have a think about the villains next. Hiding T 10:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means highlighting common words without a reason, not the names of characters. Not everyone will be familiar with every character there, and thus being able to link over to them to read about them, is something of value. I recent read an article about the red hulk, wondering about that, seeing him in a few comic books, and then clicked on links to other characters I had never heard of, which the long term readers of the Hulk series probably would be. The Secret Wars is the first I had ever heard of the Wrecking Crew. I think we need the links for the character names. And the article is about the content, not the style. For those who want to read in detail and get all the information, not just glance over something. Dream Focus 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means adding links that are of high-value. A link to Captain America in this article is not high value. Most people are aware of Captain America. A link to Spider-Woman is high value though, because a lot of her origin is based on this story-line. Links are not made for convenience, but for their value. If you notice, I left the link to the Wrecking Crew. And we don't need to link to both Iron Man and Jim Rhdes, the link to Jim Rhodes is the specific one we need here. Readers can get from Rhodes to Iron Man if they desire, much as they can get to the Human Torch from Fantastic Four. It's all about building a web, rather than making each page an index. And I appreciate you've asked for comment on the content. But style is content. And if you notice, my first comment pointed out that I agreed with your approach. Hiding T 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone ought to expand the second What If? story. Summing it up with Doctor Doom taking over the universe is 1) too short, and 2) leaves out the end result of the story, which Doom sacrifices Beyonder's powers to restore Earth. That being said, the second bullet point needs a more detailed summary like the first What If? scenario. NorseNinja (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all the tie-ins being announced, shouldn't the 2015 Secret Wars be given its own page? 50.81.156.221 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is "Marvel Superheroes Secret Wars" but the first line uses "Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars" and there certainly seems to be a space in the logo on the covers...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title was given as Marvel Superheroes Secret Wars but in the comic itself there was a space in the word Super Heroes so I am requesting to change the name. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]