Talk:Warren Worthington III

Move

Move to Angel (comics)? --DrBat 18:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - you really should check these things first (Re: Discussion). - SoM 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. From the comments below it doesn't look like there's any need to move this. --NormanEinstein 13:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hellfire Club

The page says he is a part of it but doesnt describe why other than that its a family thing. Can we get more on it?please ---Charlie

Well, that's pretty much the extent of it, during the phoenix saga he mentions he has a membership in the hellfire club, which is heriditary, and uses it to get the x-men inside. Membership of the Inner Circle is not what warren is refering too. There's also an issue from the 90's where he's invited to apply for the inner circle by shinobi shaw, but declines. warren was never an active member Impulse 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment/Question - What is his ACTUAL codename right now? As I recall, his official codename's remained Archangel constantly since his time in X-Factor, but they've vacillated back & forth in the text itself since he got his original wings back in the mid-1990s (infamously, the Archangel/Psylocke: Crimson Dawn mini had "Archangel" in the title, and constantly used "Angel" in the text). Which codename is being used in Excalibur right now? - SoM 19:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, you're right. The solictations state he's Archangel. Still, you'd wonder why he'd keep the name with all of Apocalypse's programming gone (the blue skin, metal wings, ect).--DrBat 11:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he just doesn't want a demotion :) - SoM 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Depowerment

Is he indeed depowered? The current text does not make that clear at all, despite the status saying so. Luis Dantas 23:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, he seems to be, but it hasn't been dealt with in a story yet. - SoM 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Round 2?

This article needs to accurately reflect the moniker he currently goes by. It should have a subsection devoted to his time as the Archangel because this is ridiculous in its current form. Other articles that reference this state that he currently goes by "Angel" once more and this seems to be the consensus across the internet in terms of searches... so do the math. 63.18.194.231 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This inconsistency still exists and should be dealt with. Nowhere in the article does it suggest Warren retaking the Archangel name, yet it refers to him by this old moniker when talking about his importance in a future storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.226.94 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could Warren be a Cheyararfim?

In the Marvel Universe, Cheyararfim are angelic mutants dating back to biblical times, who fought a demonic race of mutants called Neyaphem. One of the weaknesses of the Neyaphem, was their succeptability to the blood of the Cheyararfim, which caused their bodies to break down. Now, when Nightcrawler got hurt, and Warren tried to use his blood to heal him, Nightcrawler's body began to break down. Since Nightcrawler is part Neyaphem (from his father, Azazel's side), it would only make sense that Warren is a Cheyararfim, right? --Hecko 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Logically speaking, yes. But the concept of Cheyarafim only appeared in one of Chuck Austen's most vilified stories, which most people prefer to forget ever happened. As such, it's unlikely to ever come up again in comics, and therefore will probably remain far too obscure for general consumption.

LOL did you really spell Seraph(im) like that? Or was it in the Comics like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.176.153 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Category: LGBT comic book characters?

Should this really be one of his categories? It only applies to one of his alternate versions, and a pretty obscure one at that. Much as I love Neil Gaiman, I don't think the category belongs on this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chancemichaels (talk • contribs)

Agreed, it doesn't apply to the the main character. Removing. EVula 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And I quote the criteria for the LGBT comic book character category: "This is a category for comic book characters who either have been or are currently being portrayed as being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgendered (LGBT)". Warren, or rather Werner, absolutely fits. If it's not minor enough to warrant inclusion in an article about Archangel, then it's not too minor to include in the category. The category isn't some sort of sweeping judgment. Characters don't have to be queer enough to be included in it. It's not as if the portrayal is in dispute. He is portrayed as gay in 1602, it is part of the article on Archangel, for the purposes of collating information, why should that iteration be excluded? I'm putting him back in. Perceive 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to put it back in, you might want to re-write that part of the entry - it was only after carefully reading the entire page that I found the one minor reference to LGBT. Without rewriting that section, the category tag is useless to a researcher. --Chancemichaels 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Heh, I tried rewriting it but it got reverted. If the categories gonna be there, someone has to put it in the article. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Proliferation of Ultimate character articlesWP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article.--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Merge--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge per nom. EVula 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Dr Archeville 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No Merge Mrwednesday 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge not enough difference between chars -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed with CONSENSUS TO MERGE CovenantD 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The Ultimate characters are becoming a thing of their own. Let Ultimate Angel be his own man.

Including X-Men: Children of the Atom miniseries

Warren's early years pre-Xavier recruitment are best described in the Children of the Atom miniseries covering, among other plotlines, Warren's experience upon discovering he was a mutant.

LGBT

This article does not belong in the category LGBT characters. Archangel is not gay; a minor derivative of Archangel is kind of gay in that "I'm in love with a gender bender in a fictional story, but it all turns out OK because she's really a girl" kind of way. List articles are preferable to categories in this instance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge The Fallen (comics)

This character has a very small article. It should be merged into this main article like Ultimate Angel was. Plus, unlike the Ultimate version, there is little chance that this character's history is going to change much anymore. I support a MERGE. Freak104 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't know where the former discussion on this went; in any case, this has been discussed before, at length, and there was no consensus to merge. The Fallen (comics) is of a perfectly acceptable length and there's no compelling reason to merge, given what a different character The Fallen is. — madman bum and angel 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose These are two characters that are not reconcilable. They have very separate and distinct publication histories and character backgrounds. The previous discussion is listed under Talk:Angel (Marvel Comics). 66.109.248.114 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the other characters that are listed in the 'Other versions' section have "very separate and distinct publication histories and character backgrounds." That is why that section exists. Why does The Fallen get a whole article, but the other Other versions don't? It is Fancruft. This violates WP:WAF guidelines, and goes against WikiProject Comics guidelines. They should be merged. Furthermore, Ice-Man and Goblyn Queen from the Mutant X series work well merged into the main articles. Why should this one not be merged as well? Freak104 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support While they do have different histories and backgrounds, that's true of any alternate version of a character. 216.106.36.31 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge The discussion to merge Brute (Hank McCoy) with Beast (comics) has agreed that the two need to be merged, and this is exactly the same situation. It should be merged. 66.189.137.113 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge The Ice-Man and Brute (Hank McCoy) mergers have worked out quite well and Fallen is no more notable than those two characters. The Fallen is unlikely to ever be a major character in anything again and the merged page will be safely within the page size restrictions. These should definately be merged. -- 69.182.73.240 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak merge the character doesn't seem to have had much of a history that isn't covered in the Mutant X entry with a paragraph or so here. While the comics guidelines don't say every alternate version should be merged into the "other versions" section (and I see the argument about them being a distinct character - although it is more like they are a mirror image/evil Angel version rather than someone radically different) so I'm leaning towards merging. (Emperor 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

So in support are Freak104, 216.106.36.31,69.182.73.240, myself, and Emperor (partially). Against the merge are bum and angel and 66.109.248.114. So does this qualify as concensus to merge it since the majority are for it? 66.189.137.113 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd let it run a bit longer. It was only just posted on the Comics Project notice board [1] (where I spotted it) so I'd suggest leaving it a week or so and see what other feedback we get (my weak merge could change to weak keep if a solid arguement emerged which would lead to no consensus so I'd like it to be clearer one way or the other). There is no need to sort it out asap so we might as well give everyone a chance to offer their thoughts. Also if there has been a previous discussion it might be worth someone digging that out so we can see what was previously said (I looked and found nothing though). (Emperor 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Emperor, while I support the merge, this should really stay open at least until October. I just took a look at Pages that link to The Fallen (comics)[2] and the Fallen page is practically orphaned. Only 5 actual Wikipedia articles point to the entry with all the rest being talk pages or redirects. There's really no reason to keep these split. -- 69.182.73.240 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to keep it open longer, that's why I asked. Plus, I'm not the guy to merge them anyways (I would probably mess it up somehow). What are the 5 articles that link to Fallen? Knowing what they are might influence whether it deserves to remain its own article or not. (Plus, how do you look up what articles link to a specific article?) 66.189.137.113 06:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"What links here" in the toolbox on each page shows incoming links. For Fallen these include Warren Worthington III which is the merge proposal as well as Iceman, Beast and Goblyn Queen(All 3 have Mutant X versions merged), the Mutant X page, and Bloodstorm. -- 69.182.73.240 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Result was: MERGE -- 69.182.73.240 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

X-Men Legends

I have the PS2 version of X-Men Legends and I haven't seen him anyhere. Is he in some other version or is this a vandal? --74.171.62.47 (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallen2.jpg

Image:Fallen2.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) 06:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Generationm4.jpg

Image:Generationm4.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) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Message to all

Hope everyone understands what I did here. Please let me know if this was a mistake. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Archangels Comic

Where is the article for the short lived "Archangels" christian comic?71.55.13.10 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Supergrimm

Wolverine and the X-Men

Where's all this new info coming from? The FIRST episode hasn't even aired, much less the third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.147.135 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Switching to metal wings

Is it just assumed he can switch which wings he uses, or is their actual evidence to back it up?Darquis (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He's shown multiple times in the past couple of years of continuity that he can switch at will. 66.189.115.6 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Image caption

The editor who made this "fix" left a note on my discussion page asking for an explanation as to why I reverted it. Here it is: that "fix" gave no justification to remove the content. If anything, it is a removal of valuable information, not a "fix". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your actually contradicting yourself. Your getting annoyed because I wrote "fix", when you yourself simply reverted with no explanation. At least I wrote something, quite unlike you have. I apologize for the "fix", but please remain civil and next time, do this in a mature manner that does not involve random reverts. -- A ^talk/_contribs 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor point... but its "Cover art" or "Promotional art". The cover would have everything as published - background, other characters, trade dress, etc.

And A... I've left some comments on your talk page regarding this.

- J Greb (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Antihero ?

It describes him as an antihero. Isn't he mostly a hero ? What warrants the anti- tag ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Warren Worthington III

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Warren Worthington III's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "next":

• From Chris Claremont: Scott Brown (2003-05-09). "The NeXt Level". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2008-02-18.
• From X-Men: Brown, Scott (May 9, 2003). "The NeXt Level". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
• From X2 (film): Scott Brown (2003-05-09). "The NeXt Level". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2008-02-18. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 30. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)