Talk:Kraken in comics

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Deletion proposal

• Oppose: While this article clearly needs work, particularly in terms of citing secondary sources, it references a series of characters that have been part of the publishing company Marvel Comics for decades. While it is a fictional character, so are Spider-Man and Ebenezer Scrooge, or, to give two much less prominent examples, Lobo (Dell Comics) and Destroyer (Keen Marlow). This article needs to make clear the character's notability, but to delete only or primarily because it is a fictional character seems like a great stretch not supported by Wikipedia:Notability That guideline notes (footnote 7) that "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'," which suggests to me that articles on fictional characters are allowable and that there is even a proscribed manner of dealing with minor characters. -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the same reasons listed above. There have been various Kraken's in the Marvel Universe including an ongoing supervillain using that name in the pages of the Secret Warriors comic. While not as popular as Dr. Octopus or the Red Skull, I still think theses characters are deserving of mention.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring;

Further to this, these characters are mentioned at the Kraken in popular culture article, with the DC Comics players to come. I'm opposed to an outright delete, but believe the information should be presented in a clear, concise form without the fannish exposition and image overkill. Please also note that the frame of reference is the "Kraken", so any old giant octopus - even Monstro - doesn't cut it as that is not the focus of the article. If someone says " Hey, there's the Kraken!", then that is relevant. Thanks Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you follow an Afd decision ? The result is keep ! Ok, the article needs restructuring. No problem with that but you cannot merge it in Kraken in popular culture because the two characters are not as the aquatic monsters, they have nothing to do with the myth of kraken. Futhermore, if you copy some refs about comics, you have to copy also the writers and cartoonists. I propose as in the AfD a section about the aquatic monters without writing Kraken I, Kraken II, ... 85.68.155.72 (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the result was keep, but that means keep the information, and the relevant information at that. In thinking about it I agree that the characters have no place at the main page. That said, the actual monsters called the Kraken can certainly go there, and should go there as they are references to actual beast and comics are most certainly popular culture! As to writers/artists, sure, if that's what the preference is (although I checked no less than fifteen comic articles, and all had comics cited but no creative teams. No matter). Thebladesofchaos (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cite comic. We should rewrite the section Aquatic Monsters and add some mentions in Kraken in popular culture.85.170.153.138 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the most vocal about keeping this page during the discussion, but I wouldn't mind seeing a merger with the Kraken (DC Comics) page (I page that I myself created). I'm against simply putting it into the Kraken in popular culture page. The reason is, that would require a section that would be too big for that particular article. It would require alot of infomation to be removed which I think wouldn't be right given how this (and the DC article) are not written as a fan style page. I was thinking of maybe merging the 2 Kraken pages (Marvel and DC) into one page and calling it Kraken in Comics? I also think the tag that was put on this page asking for more secondary sources should return, because that is one of the biggest complaints about the article and is legtimate. I do feel it needs some more sources (but I believe it has enough to warrent a non-deletion and it seems the final verdict of the discussion agrees with me) for the tag to return.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this page is very much "written as a fan style page". Removing the numerals is the start, but there is also the issue of language (too casual), unnecessary plot exposition (and unnecessary descriptions in some cases) and image overkill. Then there's the information: the article should be about Kraken-related creatures/characters only. Octopi do not qualify and are a different kettle of mollusc. Take another run at it in the next day or so before I have another try. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely support a redirect to Kraken in popular culture because "Kraken in Comics" (whatever the publishing house) is not a notable subject, because, as established in the AfD, there is no "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". I don't have any problem with merging this article with "Kraken in DC", but I don't think it will lead anywhere as the projected article won't have any valid secondary sources either. But I think that until more people are involved in the discussion, redirecting now may lead to an edit war, so we should first let the discussion unfold a bit.
However, the various templates I included in the article are perfectly valid, and if the article is going to stay whole until the redirect, then it will keep the templates, and I warn 85.68.155.72 that if (s)he tries to remove them again, (s)he will be reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One more time, you forget the characters. I do not see the link with the legend of the Kraken. I do no think that a merge with DC Comics will change the problem. Where is the section in universe style ? need of refs, where ? 85.170.153.138 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you can't "see the link with the legend of the Kraken" when the first sentence of the article is "The Kraken is a name given to several aquatic monsters inspired by the legend of Kraken".Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I also find it of concern that 85.68.155.72 only edits this article. I hope there is no sockpuppetry involved. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you always creating chaos and confusion ?85.170.153.138 (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the IP magically appeared when the article was AfDed, and seems quite familiar with the WP jargon and how to edit. Suspicious indeed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a request for the article to be semi-protected, which will knock out the IP addresses. User names only! BladeofOlympus (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, a major reworking minus weak language, repetition and other unnecessary items. I suggest bringing the DC Comics material into this. BladeofOlympus (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Giantdevilfish's suggestion I have done this. BladeofOlympus (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also replaced the Supergirl image as it was difficult to see the villain, and the Wonder Woman cover is also more evocative. Regards BladeofOlympus (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags

These are no longer necessary and are also erroneous. The article is written in an out of universe style, and those are the sources in question and are therefore appropriate. Unless another example is found, the article can stand as it without change. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one who is erroneous. The article is NOT written in an out of universe style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction explains that "out of universe" means including secondary information about a work, that is, the context of creation, the author's intentions, etc. Since we don't find anything of that in the article, it doesn't have a complete "out of universe" style.

And, of course, the sources currently included in the article are NOT appropriate at all. I'll let you read pages like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:GNG so that you can understand it better.

To conclude, don't touch the tags again, as they are perfectly valid.139.140.210.30 (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Separation into different articles

I think we should separate this page into two pages one for the ones associated with Marvel Comics and One for the ones associated with DC. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I second this motion. Fluffyroll11 is right. The Krakens from Marvel Comics and DC Comics should have their entries separated from the other comic book Krakens. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Support There is no reason why they are in the same article. Even the disambiguation makes no sense, (character) is nonsensical in this case since it's not one and the same character. (comics) made was more logical but still not ideal, they should just be split.★Trekker (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Someone needs to fix this. I'm willing to do an article about Kraken (Marvel Comics), but somebody has got to take care of the rest.Voicebox64 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kraken (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530185018/http://www.comicvine.com/kraken/29-13408/ to http://www.comicvine.com/kraken/29-13408/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Biggest Frankenstein article I have ever seen

I have now moved this article to a title and subject which makes sense. I have no idea how anyone thought it was ok to have an article focused on two different publishers interpetation of a mythological creature and each publishers other random characters by the same name in a single article, and then accept that the article was moved to the nonsensical disambiguation (character), as if it was about a single character. Mess.★Trekker (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This article was originally separated into two separate articles (one for DC and one for Marvel) covering the monsters and Characters with the name Kraken. It was well organized and well written. But then some editor (who eventually got banned) merged them together into the poorly written patchwork monstrosity that this article became.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that makes more sense. I think the two creatures can maybe be slip into articles again, but the characters with the code name are not really notable, they should be redirected to list articles for each publishers.★Trekker (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)