Talk:Vision (comics)

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Versions[edit]

As has been indicated by other posters, the alternate version is past tense and too long. It is also far too conversational and has a considerable amount of unsourced POV, with spelling and grammar errors. There is also poor use of images, with odd placement and some being inappropriate. While the other version is suitable for a fan site, the information needs to be presented in a style adheres to Wikipedia policy. Hence the currect version.

Asgardian 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may need to be cleaned up.

It does not need to be completely rewritten, like you're attempting to do. --DrBat 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it did. There was an incorrect tense, large passages of opinion (called POV), few sources and poor grammar. You've already been advised of the glitches by others. There's also the large chunks of white and the clumped use of images. All the information is still there in the new version, but without the "tell the story" aspect in blow-by-blow fashion. Passion for a character is a fine thing, but when using Wikipedia the information must adhere to a certain style. It's all in the guidelines. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be a chaotic collection of fan pages.

Asgardian 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cleaning the page up is one thing. Wiping it all out and replacing it with your own version is another.

The other version was, unfortunately, a mess. For all the reasons stated. All the information is still there, but in a more succinct form. Study the other version. It is full of POV and unsourced statements. It reads like a fan entry - not a Wikipedia article.

Asgardian 10:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, with the exception of noncontroversal moves, all moves must be put up for discussion beforehand. So far, everyone but you thinks the golden-age Vision should have a separate article. It's also directly against wiki-policy to copy and paste the contents on to another article, as you keep on doing.--DrBat 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some policy about putting unrelated topics into the same article? Like jellyfish and screwdrivers? Isn't there any place we can point to show that what Asgardian is doing is wrong? I'm not saying that Golden Age Vision should have a separate article; I'm just saying that he shouldn't be in an article about modern Vision.

The GA character is called the Vision, and as such deserves a brief mention on the page with the other Visions. Let's face it, there's almost nothing on the character anyway.

Asgardian 10:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then let him have a brief mention. He used to have a great brief mention in the form of a link to his article but you keep messing that up. — Lilwik 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no article at all, but a stub. What little relevant information is in the main article. Streamlining.

Asgardian 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub because it should be a stub until someone comes up with more details or it is decided it isn't noteworthy enough and gets removed entirely. Are you going to unilaterally merge The Mask and The Mask (DC Comics) next just because one of them is a stub? — Lilwik 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the rest of it, though. I actually think I like using Image:Avengers-194.jpg as the main Vision image. It certainly illustrates him more completely than Image:Tpbvision.png. — Lilwik 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It certainly does. A full body shot with his powers in use.

Asgardian 10:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page and edit history[edit]

Where did the talk page and the edit history go? Who is bouncing this article from one name to another without knowing how to do it right? Doczilla 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Asgardian — Lilwik 09:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to split[edit]

Since this article just keeps floating from one name to another, discussions are getting fragmented. Anyway, the vote on whether or not to split into Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) is over at Talk:Vision_(Marvel_Comics)#Vote:_To_split_or_not_to_split. Doczilla 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]