Talk:Red Hulk

Merge

This article is very light on actual real world content. Editors seem intent on including speculation about the character's identity, and on writing an overly long plot summary which substitues for issues missed by readers. Instead, this article should be considered for returnign to a redirect to the main Hulk article. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason the Red Hulk was taken out of Hulk (comics) is because people were placing unwarranted speculation in that article (see this edit where i removed said speculation from Hulk's article)... this article is only a holding place anyway as in two/three months this hulk's real identity will be revealed and this article will be merged.. this was previously a redirect page that got changed every time somebody suspected some one else was this hulk.. i suggest we leave this information here to save people cluttering Hulks article and wait until his true identity is revealed.. plus Red Hulk isnt Bruce Banner or The Hulk so to redirect there would be wrong and confusing to occasional readers. --- Paulley (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand you concern for speculation regarding the character and that is something as editors here we have to keep and eye on and remove. --- Paulley (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the page was not repeatedly moved and edited. It was a stable redirect for a long time before you edited it into a highly speculative article; most of what I keep cutting out of here's being added by you. The reality is that this entire article could be distilled down to one paragraph in the other article, and in fact, that was how it was being handled. Remember that emphasis should still be on real world content, not in-universe plotlines. ThuranX (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirect was pointed to Rick Jones for over a month with no justification what so ever until it was pointed to hulk after issue two where Jones was revealed to be A-Bomb. After i created a quick stub article by removing much of the speculation for multiple paragraphs in the hulk article, you came and removed what you considered to be OR and publisher promoted information, which after looking at the edits i agreed with (i did not run back here and revert you or anything did i?)... afterward User_talk:67.180.225.161 added more speculation which you reverted and i agree with your decision to do so. There are several referenced real world elements regarding characterization and publication history, and yes i agree the powers and ability section need to be changed from its in-universe style while the fictional biography (well the title states its fictional but i could be changed also) is considerably condensed. When i came to Hulk article i was greeted with this [1] if i thought it was being well handled i would not have bothered to write this stub. --- Paulley (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I do note that you are working co-operatively, and I'm not picking on you personally in that regard. As for the Hulk diff you link to, I respond with this. I have been trying to give material a little time to coalesce on the Hulk page before reverting stuff out, lest I be too readily accused of WP:OWN violations. I pulled out the spec when it became clear that no improvements were readily forthcoming. A bit of patience being worth it. I'm willing to give this a little time, but if this storyline resolves soon, I really think this should redirect to the appropriate section of the main article. ThuranX (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As soon as it the storyline is resolved this paged will be merged with the result, of that we can be assured no matter what the outcome. I never thought any differently on the subject. I just thought it would be easier to managed and source information regarding Red Hulk in a place that steers it clear of Bruce Banner and his Hulk. When the character is revealed the information here should be a lot easier to transfer over into that characters relevant sections. --- Paulley (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jabberwock

Does anyone see a similarity between the Red Hulk and Jabberwock from Project Arms? Both are reddish, both are calculating and tactical, both emit flames when they get angry, both have a tendency to get angry, both have the same colored hair to an extent.Metalraptor (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Hulk doesn't emit flames, he emits Gamma Radiation. And the other things are common in comics. Red is a popular color. And black hair is everywhere. Even on the floor. Rau's Speak Page 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't emit flames or gamma radiation, he emits heat. That's what the comics indicate. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actual Power

The article first says Rulk emits increasing levels of gamma radiation upon becoming angrier, then contradicts itself later by saying he emits heat. Infrared radiation/heat=more or less interchangeable. Gamma radiation/heat=no relation. Which effing power does he have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.214.209 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Identity

The source provided for his identity even states that it might not be true. Unconfirmed information has no place on wikipedia. Rau's Speak Page 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about facts here, not reader perception, and specifically not your personal beliefs. The fact is that JQ said it in an interview. The fact is no one but a select few people know the truth of this statement. It does not matter if anyone on this planet thinks or assumes it's a joke. You making edits based on your personal beliefs is the definition of 'unconfirmed information'.

Furthermore, the source obviously questions the validity to maintain balance by both pointing out your logic (a joke or not) and providing the facts. You state concerns that the source and the information is misleading. I counter that having the cited source included maintains a sense of levity to the questionable nature of the quote from JQ.

I think we all know that Ares isnt going to be Red Hulk (if it is my face will be very blue after this post).. However, the source provided isnt sourcing Red Hulk's identity, its sourcing that "JQ said... Ares"... and that is true the source provides confirmation that in an interview JQ said something about Red Hulk and Ares. --- Paulley (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't say for certain that he is Ares. I think that it is misleading to even suggest that he said that. People might get the wrong idea. I know the wording doesn't say that it is confirmed, but it is still misleading. Rau's Speak Page 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess maybe I am misunderstanding the point of Wikipedia, but I was under the impression it was about providing information. This information is valid, regardless of whether the storyline proves it to be true or not, JQ did actually say this, and it should be included as information on this article.

Well if people actually read it and look at the source then it shouldnt be.. though i can understand that a casual reader who did not read it fully could get the wrong idea but, to be blunt, that's not are problem. It clearly says that he "suggested it was Ares" and the source clearly states that this could be a miss truth. --- Paulley (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about providing verifiable information. It's one of the core policies. WP:V. Is a miss truth the same thing as unconfirmed? Because if it is, then that means it is unverified. If it means something else, please elaborate. Rau's Speak Page 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well like i said the source confirms and verifies that JQ said something... until we can prove he lied that's all that sentence says. --- Paulley (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But saying he said something that is unverified is trivial. Rau's Speak Page 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

True. I agree with you there -- Paulley (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that for all intents or purposes, with no evidence to the contrary; Joe Quesada revealed the Red Hulk's identity in that interview as Ares. The source material questions the seriousness of the statement, but does not alter the context or modify the tone of the original quote. Regardless of any comic fans' feelings, this may very well be the case and is relevant to this article until knowledge to the contrary comes to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoklyptk (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont like the term revealed... the comic or the actual creators will reveal the truth later, what the sentence is telling the reader is that JQ said something and the source confirms that he did indeed say that thing he said, what he said means nothing at the moment. Which can be considered trivial; fan or not. This one claim from JQ isnt enough to confirm an identity and i have stated, we could not merge this article to Ares on that statement alone, the same way we couldnt put that Red Hulk's real name as Ares or even state on the Ares article that he is Red Hulk. --- Paulley (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought they revealed that the Red Hulk was Doc Samson? Why is there nothing about that in the article. It's in Hulk 4 and 5. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

they havent revealed anything yet. they found Doc Samsons coat that is all... it just another red herring.. Until we actually see Red Hulk transforming he has no confirmed identity --- Paulley (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It might well be Doc Samson, although I personally doubt it because the mystery of the Red Hulk's identity has sparked a lot of interest. I doubt they'd want to reveal the identity too soon because they'll want to milk it for all that they can. As of the latest issue, it's not Ares since he's a member of the assembled team that's going after the Red Hulk. As I said, it might be Samson but I look for Marvel to pull up some sort of twist and have it turn out to be someone that no one expects. Whether that's a good idea or not would, of course, depend upon who they wanted it to be.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not Samson, when he appeared in Thunderbolts there was no Red Hulk to be seen, even when Samson was fighting. *SIGN* 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is it could be anybody, and until Loeb actually shows us who its is, we dont know.. this is not a place to discuss speculation and the article is no place make up ideas.. (noting the recent repeated Glenn Talbot/Red Hulk edits).. --- Paulley (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On IGN's report from San Diego Comic Con, there is preview art for the upcoming issue of Hulk. The art definitively shows that Red Hulk is Doc Samson. Click on the 6 pages and read them in order. It's Doc Samson and the article should be updated as such. http://comics.ign.com/articles/100/1007581p2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.81.227 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Read them, thanks for the tip, but that doesn't prove it's Doc Samson. It could very well be another red herring, Domino just saying it looks like Samson (or someone else with green hair) isn't proof. Until it's revealed in the comics (and I doubt it would be revealed in a promo), we shouldn't speculate. Dayewalker (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually picked up the issue? it shows samson and a few other men meeting with a man wearing a trench coat and baseball cap, then samson and the other men leave while the man in the coat transforms in to red hulk which domino ends up watching, he however has light colored brown or blondish hair not green.

I agree. To say: "In the "Code Red" story arc,[8] Mutant assassin Domino, investigates Rulk, learning that the human form of the Red Hulk apparently has green hair.[14]" is just wrong. The green haired character (possibly Samson) is not the character that Domino observes transforming. That should probably be changed somehow. I do believe Domino now knows Rulk's identity but even that is left unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.160 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The madder he gets the stronger he gets?

It is said that the madder the Red Hulk gets the hotter he gets, do we know if his strength increases with anger as well? The K.O. King (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Bruce Banner stated the madder he gets the hotter he gets in KSH but no information of strength level has been revealed so far. --- Paulley (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Its definitely not Ares and neither doc Samson! Its only a speculation but Red Hulk could be that dead S.H.E.I.L.D. agent Quartermain! Just a speculation though and you might be not interested in speculations!

vol

Just a correction: the Hulk series Red Hulk is in is volume 4, not 3. v1 lasted for 6 issues starting in 1962, volume 2 was renamed from another comic that Hulk had been a feature in and ran as Hulk from 1969-1999 or so (don't quote me on that end date), v3 started the same year v2 ended and was recently renamed Incredible Herc about the same time that Hulk v4 started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.230.60 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there is a case to be made against giving it a volume at all; considering its not really a Incredible Hulk title. -- Paulley (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually where it is called just "Hulk" that would make it volume 3, after the two previous just "Hulk" titles: the 1979-81 magazine originally called "Rampaging Hulk" and renamed just "Hulk" with issue 10 and the 1999 reboot which became "Incredible Hulk" volume 2 with issue 12. Ttenchantr (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that became "Incredible Hulk" Volume 3. Volume 1 was the short-lived original series that lasted 6 issues, Volume 2 was the former "Tales to Astonish", Volume 3 was the John Byrne-led relaunch that later became part of the Marvel Knights line and is now "Incredible Hercules", and the current series would be Volume 4, if one were to give it a volume number. oknazevad (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right in pointing out that I missed out an "Incredible Hulk" volume, but remember, the current book is called "Hulk" not "Incredible Hulk" so it should be "Hulk" volume 3 for the reasons I stated above. Just like "Uncanny X-Men" and "X-Men" or "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man," "Incredible Hulk" and "Hulk" are separate titles.Ttenchantr (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the current series would be Vol. 2, not Vol. 3. What you seem to consider Vol. 2 was actually called "Hulk!" (notice the exclamation point). And Ttenchantr is right, "Incredible Hulk" and "Hulk" (and "Hulk!") are different series and thus do not continue volume numbers.--BigBang616 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

move

to Rulk! since that's what he's bein advertised as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.8.122 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Being advertised and actual names are two drastically different things. *SIGN* 06:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

agree, i oppose move as well. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Case in point - Check out Doctor Who (name of the show and how he's referred to in the popular media) versus The Doctor (the character's actual name, such as it is)24.73.221.242 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First appearance

Right now the character is listed as debuting in Hulk #1 - is it worth noting that appearance was only in flashback, and the character didn't properly appear "on-screen" until issue #3 (I believe)? --68.38.200.195 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heroes

It says that the Red Hulk was mentioned on Heroes ep 10. However it was first mentioned in the episode before that in the japanese comic book store. I remember thinking at the time that maybe they were in some parallel universe where the Hulk was red instead of green (evidently that is not the case now I did a search on Wikipedia) not sure if someone wants to change it to two episdoes rather than just eclipse part 1. Dark verdant (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

im in the process of rewriting it -- Paulley (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, cleaned up all the inaccuracies and poorly wikied stuff.. made mention of the important fact of Loeb. --- Paulley (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Identity, con't.

An editor has tried to reestablish the Identity section, which was removed long ago, when it was demonstrated that Quesada's jokes about it being Ares were just that - Jokes. The section has a discredited joke and the standard fanboy 'we don't know yet'. As such, it was removed months ago. There being no consensus to reestablish it, and the above identity section being clear there was none months ago to retain it, I have again removed it.ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor is intent that the section stay, but has declined to use the talk page. This is likely to be a problem, because including a section that admits it says nothing at all does not belong in the article. ThuranX (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we don't know if it was a joke or not. At the time of the interview, it could have full well been the intended truth. Saying it is a joke is speculation and was added to the section when it wasn't intended. The word "jokingly" has been removed.

Second, I have tried discussing this with you on your talk page, and my own. Here are the entries:

From your page, me to you:

If you look in the history, the 'characterization' section (which I altered to identity recently) was already a source of contention and it was decided it would stay. This was MONTHS before you came along and made the edit (without giving a reason).

When you clarified, you suggest the section has "innuendo" or "speculation" - it was fact that Quesada referenced it in an interview, and it is fact that the identity is unknown. Leaving the section as is gives no speculation as to the identity, but instead clears up rumors.

Please leave it alone.

From my page, you to me (and my reply):

Stop it. The section says NOTHING. Quesada made a joke. The section says 'quesada made a joke, it was shown to be a joke. We know nothing, and we're writing that only the writers know here on wikipedia.' It's a useless, uninformative section, and does not need to be included. ThuranX (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you stop it. This has been a mainstay for months and now it must go because you decree it to be so? And when asked to discuss you delete instead of replying on your own talk page. You keep coming up with reasons that do NOT justify the section's removal. The section alleviates rumors about identity and clarifies to the READER (not the editors) that this is not the case and the identity is unknown. It stays. --Apoklyptk (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally - the change to this page went without an explanation, and I did not notice. Mid last year it was agreed between editors to keep the "characterization" section intact. This is why your edit has stayed for so long. Had I noticed before I would be doing then what I am doing now. This section clears up rumors and establishes for the READER that the identity is unknown. We are stating what is known at this point in time simultaneously. Thus, this section is informative for the READER.

--Apoklyptk (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. It appears that we've found the one Marvel Zombie who thinks Red Hulk is still actually Ares, and that Joe Quesada only speaks perfect truth. The section adds nothing to the article, and the info shouldn't be in there. You blame me for taking it out, if I did, it must've been months ago and stood without complaint, but I cant' recall doing it. If it's stood for months, then you need to provide a cogent argument for inclusion of discredited information and the unneeded 'we don't know anything' statement, which is "bad" writing and never should be used in any wikipedia page. ThuranX (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's resort to profanity. If you want to see the prior arguments made for keeping it/chucking just look higher on this very page (where it was agreed to stay). I see you made further revisions, and I thank you for abiding by WP:PRESERVE. Though I would contend that including a sentence stating that the identity is unknown will dissuade others from coming in with theories as they did before. As such, I am adding this sentence back in. If you see grammatical errors, please revise at your leisure. --Apoklyptk (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Thuran is correct. An obvious joke made about the identity does not a section make. However since the identity mystery is central to the character set-up, if done properly you might convince me that it could be an idea to add a paragraph that simply lists the factual explicit clues without further comments. Preferably if there has been creator interviews or feature articles which (in seriousness, as far as entertainment hobbyism can go in that vein) go into this specific point. Dave (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This was mulled over already in the above Identity section with other editors. Both of you please read it to see why the conclusion to include it was reached. I will try to sum it up, though. Saying that what Quesada said was a joke is in and of itself speculation. For all anyone but him knows, he could have very well thought he was dropping a big reveal in an interview that was changed later. Once you recognize that Ares=joke is an OPINION - you can see that this particular section is important, as it establishes proof that the identity has yet to be revealed. Just because readers of that comic or ourselves know this, does NOT mean that some casual Hulk fan does as well. I know if I were casually curious about the Red Hulk, and I came on this page to see who his identity was - and I see nothing - do I assume that the article writers don't know? No - I assume this wikipedia page is incomplete. You can see proof of this train of thought in the continuous edits by people listing their theories about the identity. It's much better to just flatly deny a rumor/red herring and state that it is an unknown.

On another note, I am very tired of defending this. All of the rebuttals and conclusions were arrived upon in the middle of 2008, - and the fact that it keeps getting deleted over and over and over again is exhausting. please do not be lazy - read the prior discussion and from there contribute your thoughts. Just blatantly deleting entire sections is not following WP:PRESERVE. Thanks. --Apoklyptk (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read it. Rau opposed it, and Paulley conceded that included unfounded spec which cannot be confirmed means it shouldn't be included, and called it trivial. Now two more editors concur that it should not be reintroduced, finding it even more trivial in light of the clear refutation presented in the comics. I'm removing the section. Four editors oppose it, you,and the IP you were before registering support it. While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do. Four editors agree it should be out for the same reasons. it's gone. ThuranX (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do.

And why exactly does this make an exception? Because you say so? Furthermore, the section being 'trivial' is your conclusion, one not shared by everyone else. David A. was even willing to accept an alteration of the section to keep it included. Until you can propose an alternate phrasing of the section, I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up. There's not a consensus just because you say there is one, and I will not stand for just complete and total removal of an entire section.

On another note, your attitude is very insulting and your behavior is disruptive. You do not own this site, article or me. In addition to your tone, your constant use of "stop it", "it's gone", etc. is very arrogant and I have had enough. You're an editor, just like the rest of us. Act like one. --Apoklyptk (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You misread me. I didn't state it was an exception, but a case wherein the comments of editors constitute a consensus based on agreement about the nature of the material itself, not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. Further, per PRESERVE, irrelevancy and inaccuracies should be removed, which is what has been done. You have failed to make any case at all for keeping material which has been shown to be wrong, and which was based only on a joke, and which had opposition to inclusion before, and has more now. Unless you can make a case for keeping it, there's no reason to keep it. ALl youv'e done is shout over and over that I'm wrong, and declare an edit war " Until you can propose an alternate phrasing of the section, I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up. ". You need to explain, in clear terms WHY the material should stay after being discredited. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I already have explained my case, over and over and over again. When my argument remains the same and yours adjusts every time you reply, then who is "discredited"?. If you haven't gotten my point by now then I really don't know what to tell you and you are in fact employing an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. The section dispels rumors STARTED by Quesada. Almost all of the many arguments you have presented are only sensible if you assume that everyone reading this entry are readers of the comic and are following the story.

Also, I didn't miss-read you - please stop being manipulative about this. Attempting to gather support for your stance when their thoughts and yours are not one and the same is unethical and muddies the discussion.

Here are the facts: I instituted part of this section mid 2008. After some revisions and discussion, it was agreed to keep it intact (compromised with some changes). Towards the end of the year, you remove it without discussion or reading the discussion page to find its relevancy. Now, I am here again to defend this entry, and instead of compromising and coming up with an alternative (which I have TRIED to work with you on - see your own damn talk page) instead you just keep deleting it. If that's not instigating an edit war, I don't know what is.--Apoklyptk (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But why do you want this to stay so badly? It doesn't contribute anything interesting to the page? On the other hand the mystery element itself could be worthwhile. If you wish to keep it, go around, and look for feature articles and interviews on the Red Hulk. Then write down any clues mentioned there. Dave (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input David. As I have mentioned before, to the non-reader this is a way to clear up rumors. It is an assumption that JQ's comment was a joke, for all we know he could have thought that's where the story was headed at the time - the interview was way before the issue where Ares shows up. The point of this section is to avoid speculation by way of dispelling a rumor that was propagated by JQ himself. I do not believe that this section is saying "we know we don't know", I think it is saying, "you might have heard it was this character, but in fact it's not and it hasn't been revealed". This is informative to the reader.--Apoklyptk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

there was never a consensus to keep it. Further, since the insertion, the situation changed. Quesada's comment was discredited. There is no value in noting 'Quesada once joked that it MIGHT be Ares, which was disproved when Ares got his ass beat by Rulk an issue later.' It says 'we don't know anything, except that the creators enjoy making misleading jokes about it.' It adds NOTHING to the article. You never made a convincing argument for it, and I don't see a consensus above. You need to convince me now that it's relevant. Thus far, all I see is an editor rabidly defending his edit ,which he's too proud of to see gone. Further, the 'clues mentioned' approach, David, will result in him saying 'that IS the clue', and any real research beyond would be Synth. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I don't "need to convince" you of anything. What you "need" to do is go back and actually read what I write instead of continuously replying that I'm not giving any justification. I've mentioned the word "rumor" what, 6 times, and every single reply you come back with the word "joke". You're not reading this discussion, you're only firing off every time you delete and telling me I need to justify it. How can a discussion be had when you don't listen? This is the last time I am going to ask you to either contribute an alternative or stop being disruptive and move on to other things.--Apoklyptk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read what you wrote. It comes down to 'i made an edit and I want to see it stay.' See your comment on 23 Jan "I'm here to defend it". That's great, but it's been removed by three editors and argued against by two. You claimed the old consensus was to stay, which I do not see, but it is clear that current consensus is that it's out. Bold Clone removed it, I've added one extension to the plot summary to clarify, in context, that the identity is unknown, that's as much compromise as I'm willing to deal with. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)It seems that any point this section ever had in being on the page is long gone. It's an obvious joke by Quesada, as if an industry secret would be revealed in such a way. Any possibility the comment had of being accurate has been disproved, so it doesn't belong here. Dayewalker (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the LAST time I'm going to say this. Calling JQ's comment a joke is speculation and opinion. If you are removing this section because you believe it was a joke, you have the burden to disprove it as a serious comment to make it fact.

Also, let's make something clear - I do not care if 100 people oppose this. The removal of an entire section based off of fanboy beliefs is not how Wiki should be edited. I will also say this one last time: To the casual reader, this section clears up rumors that JQ may or may not have started intentionally (again, disprove) and asserts the fact that the identity is unknown.

So, again, either make appropriate changes to this section you're satisfied with to preserve it if it bothers you, or leave it alone; else prove your beliefs about JQ's motivation. Until one of these two things are satisfied, I will continue to place it. All further questions about my further revisions should reference this final entry.--Apoklyptk (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Above, you are invoking WP:IAR, WP:ILIKEIT and actively refusing to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. Your edit has been removed by 5 or 6 editors now (I don't recall the count.) Multiple editors have spoken out against your edit. You tried to get me blocked for bringing this matter tot he talk page and for other people reverting your edit. You're edit warring now. You know it, and as you've said, you don't care. All other editors see this as, at best, 'rumor, refutation of rumor, we dunno', and none of them want that in the article. I offered you compromise wording, which you've refused. As such, it looks like this is going to end either with 5 or 6 editors requesting you be blocked for edit warring, or with the page protected, most likely in a version you do not prefer. Neither outcome is one I'd like to see. Please accept that consensus is that your edit, if it was ever welcome here, is no longer welcooem here. Consensus has changed. please move on to other ways to improve this article, of find other articles. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely love how manipulative you are. Instead of replying to any of my points because they make yours invalid, you resort to throwing Wiki guidelines in my face. This is the fourth time you've done this in our "discussion" (known to you as my challenges to your self-important sense of authority). The truth is, the only person violently against this is you. Again, I ask that you do not attribute your thoughts as others', you're pretty good at that. Maybe you should do a wiki search for reading comprehension, and then try again to reply to what I wrote. --Apoklyptk (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. You haven't made any points to respond to beyond the 'It's you opinion that it's a rumor, that it's been discredited, that you jsut don't like it'. You need to find some context to show it's more than a joke, and that it was his intention. Demonstrate that he believed it fully, but the editorial and plot direction changed after he said it. Demonstrate that he really believed it was the goal, and that the writers had to change it; that would be relevant to the creative process. Further, I don't feel any obligation to respond to you seriously, after all "I am here again to defend this entry" and then later "I do not care if 100 people oppose this... I will continue to place it." These are a declaration of edit warring. With that opposition, it is clear that no one is going to be able to get you to stop, so I'm done replying to you. There can be no Good Faith in the face of that. ThuranX (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)ThuranX, I understand you and this editor have had problems before. I encourage both of you to just let the past go, and if this is to be discussed, to start over. I've made a new section below, I hope both of you will comment. Dayewalker (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is our only problem. And no, I won't 'let the past go'. That would be fucking stupid. It would set us back to ground zero, with all prior discussion and consensus to remove the section set aside for a SECOND consensus immediately on the heels of multiple editors saying no. How many 'resettings' and 'do overs' will you call for? As many as it takes for inclusion to win? Good to know, Every time inclusion wins, I'll be setting it aside and RESTARTING the discussion, by calling for you to let the past go. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, please calm down. Not sure if you've noticed, but I agree with you. Just so everyone can understand and we don't have to keep reopening long-closed discussions, I thought I'd sum it up below and start over. Since we've already had two edit war reports on this, I'm trying to get everybody actually talking without blocks being issued. I appreciate your comment below. Dayewalker (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? "So we don't keep reopening long-closed discussion, and keep restarting it, I'm restarting it." That's as sensible as 'I'm beating my wife to make her stop making me beat her'. And I'd like links to the two edit reports you reference. ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The two edit warring links are here [2] and here [3]. Luckily, neither resulted in a block, but if this comes up again an admin probably won't be thrilled with this page resulting in anotehr edit war.

If anyone wants to talk about consensus, we don't need to discuss a consensus from last summer that's already been overturned, do we? There's really no reason for you to get upset with me for trying to calm everybody down and discuss this civilly, especially when I agree with you. The consensus on this page is in the section below. Anyone who would like to discuss it can do so below, but continually referring to last summer's consensus as irrevocable doesn't help us more forward. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I knew about the one reporting me, but not yours on him. I've shown him the policies, asked him to read them, even explained some in simple terms. It's simple: We have a new editor emotionally attached to an edit and unwilling to ever let it go. Nothing short of blocks is going to change his attitude; I'm not even sure that will work. I think you're dead wrong to give him a fresh start and make us all jump through the hoops of explaining this ti him again, but hey, go nuts with it. ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I reported him to edit war, where an admin declined to block him because he thought he didn't understand policy. I personally disagree with the admin's take on the matter and think Apok's behavior warranted a block. However, in a show of good faith I decided to lay out the current consensus below as a relatively uninvolved editor in no uncertain terms to try and show Apok where we were, and why his edits are reverted and reported. Dayewalker (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Identity, the new consensus

We've had two rounds of edit war reports over this subject, so let's all start over again. There may have been consensus to include this fact earlier in the character's run, but right now it appears to be against including the Quesada quote, at least in its current form. I take this from the multiple editors who have removed it, rather than the single editor who continues to revert and replace it.

As consensus is against it, I'm removing it and bringing it here for discussion.

Marvel Editor in Chief Joe Quesada suggested Red Hulk's identity was Ares. However, issue five of the Hulk series contradicts this as Ares is seen on a team heading after Red Hulk.

Let's discuss civilly, and see if there's anything to be gained here. As I've started the discussion, I'll reiterate my comments that this certainly seems to be an obvious joke by Quesada, and not worthy of mention. If there was an ongoing "Who is the Red Hulk?" storyline with clues and tips, perhaps then it would be worth a passing mention. As it is, it doesn't add anything to the article. Your thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur entirely with removal. There's no value in discredited rumors being presented here. Even assuming it's not a 'rumor' but just a statement, it was a speculative statement ' maybe it is ares', which has since been proved wrong. We have no evidence that this was the intended editorial direction and that it was changed. We have consensus against inclusion from numerous editors. It should stay OUT. ThuranX (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I also concur. The comment was clearly a joke. This would be like including the repeated "Mr. Muggles is the most powerful hero on the show" joke that the Heroes writers keep throwing into interviews.Nerfthewarmech (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References

GA?

I had a look through this in detail with an eye on improving this to shoot for the GA. I have done some copy editing to tweak anything obvious, some other thoughts on other things that might need addressing/fixing:

• The series is referred to as Hulk but looking over things this seems to be at least the second Hulk series so should this be Hulk (vol. 2)? The comics citations in the footnotes certainly say so and this should be consistent and clear
• Section headers. These should be fairly stable and having "open" headers like "Hulk #7–current" is unwise. Is there not a better way of doing this?
• I'd keep specific quotes from the reception out of the lead. Something noting mixed reviews and high sales would suffice.
• No mention of King-Size Hulk? This is on the character as well as Hulk (vol. 2) so it does need a mention. They are also mentioned in the "Dark Reign Files" - anyone have that and if so is it worth including?
• Keep an eye out for too many of the same word in any one section/paragraph - "battles" seems to be a favourite but here it is "defeats". Other words to use include: "bests," "vanquishes," etc.
• Bearing in mind I haven't read the comics but does this: "green Hulk battling a group of Wendigos and the Avengers in Las Vegas." Mean there was more than one Wendigo (as it seems to imply) or it is a group comprising Wendigo and the Avengers?
• Is there nothing we can use the IGN interview for that is in the EL section? Seems a waste of a resource
• This needs something to make it flow better: 'To further distance the character away from the original: "Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."'
• We might need some more sales numbers - how big was the drop off after the first issue? Have the sales stabilised. gone up or down? The ICv2 site has them all [4]
• It might need a double check for consistency of dates. At the moment we have 2008-05-30, January 6th, 2009 and September 3, 2008. I'd recommend going for the last one for publication and the first for accessdate but the important thing is consistency. Also as most footnotes are templated then it'd make sense to do them all that way to keep them consistent in format too.
• It is categorised to Marvel Comics mutates but do we know that? Could it be a fancy robot, could it be an alien?

Sources

I also did a quick look around for more sources:t'd

Interviews:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Reviews:

• More at CBR (the one given is more an overview as part of a column, still useful but there is the main ongoing review in the reviews section): 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 - I must have missed some
• Newsarama: 1
• Comics Bulletin (always good for reviews): 1, 4, 10 - might be more but for some reason the drop down menu work so I can't access the review archive (might just be me so give it a go)

I'll obviously keep an eye out for more material and might do another couple of passes on the article as there are bits that could probably do with a fine tune (as mentioned above I think the lead might need a tweak or two). Seems to be pretty solid - the onyl concerns about pitching for a GA are that it has been the subject of disputes (although that seems to be resolved and changes like that should be done after discussion) and only has 10 issues under its belt so a reviewer might want more material to have accumulated (although we have taken articles based on less issues to a GA but some, like Spider-Man: One More Day had a lot more background material, although there is probably more material for that and I have posted it above). So it is doable but will need more work. Anyway see what you think. (Emperor (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for taking a look. I'll work on your suggestions soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if want to do sales for every month.[12][13]etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It would get a bit too detailed for an ongoing but the first issue is important and then what it drops to and the level the sales settle down to. If issues #6, 7 and 8 are pretty much the same you can skip the details. (Emperor (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Recent edit

Hi Asgardian. I' thinking about taking this article to GAN, and I'm not sure your latest edits are getting it closer to that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm tempted to revert back to the previous version - there are a large number changes [14], some might be an improvement but many seem to be detrimental - you removed "(vol. 2)", the collected editions, you shortened the WP:LEAD when it needs to be longer, you added back in Marvel Comics mutates, then changed it to characters which is redundant given the Marvel Comics supervillains category, etc., etc. Although some changes might be moving the article forward this is certainly a case of one step forward but two back. In future you might want to add your edits incrementally so if anyone disagrees with any specific change it doesn't mean all your hard work is wasted. (Emperor (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

With all due respect, deleting material is kind of Asgardian's MO around here. If you disagree with his changes, feel free to revert, readd, or rewrite anything you feel could be improved. He didn't show line-by-line what his objections were or discuss them on the talk page, so he doesn't appear to be seeking to change consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just heading off to bed and that comment was going to be one of my last edits of the day. However, I've now reverted it.

I'd recommend Asgardian do the changes in increments and explain their objections as they go along - one big edit for numerous reasons, some of which seem controversial, doesn't give anyone a chance to address individual issues. So it meant I could only deal with the changes en masse and as the net result seemed to be to degrade the article I reverted. (Emperor (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

This one is easy:

Red Hulk, referred to as Rulk in comic narration, is a fictional character that appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character first appeared in Hulk vol. 2 #1 (January (abbreviate date) 2008) and was created by writer Jeph Loeb and artist Ed McGuiness. The Red Hulk was created to generate buzz prior to the release of the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk. (unsourced opinion) Initially, Loeb and McGuinness created the story "The Strongest There Is", which featured the original Hulk besting various characters in the Marvel Universe. (says who?) Editor Joe Quesada then informed them that he had an idea for a Red Hulk, and he wanted the story to be a mystery. (source?) In the resulting comic, the Red Hulk kills long time Hulk foe the Abomination, and battles other Marvel characters. It is revealed that the Red Hulk was created by Thunderbolt Ross and Doc Samson. (Last two sentences DO NOT belong in what should be an encyclopedia standard article - no weak storytelling in a lead)

The Red Hulk has been described as "absolutely uninhibited, tactically intelligent"[1] and "Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."[2] (PH - not here) The character's powers are similar to the original Hulk's, including superhuman strength, speed, and durability. In contrast to the original Hulk, instead of becoming stronger when angry, the Red Hulk emits increased levels of radiation. (Powers and Abilities) Comics featuring the Red Hulk have sold well, but received mixed reviews. (Says who and in Reception anyway) Reviewers have described it as fun, but lacking in character development. (Same) The Red Hulk has been featured in a video game and a number of toys. (There's a section for this as well - in short, blatant doubling up of same info)

If some information is to be incorporated in the lead, it should be sourced and not just repeat what comes later. A rewrite is probably necessary. The attempt at rewriting the PH was also weak as it just became a colloquial FCB. Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as dates vs. vol 2 and whatnot, I don't have an opinion.

Stuff like "The Red Hulk was created to generate buzz prior to the release of the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk. (unsourced opinion)" is sourced later in the article (to USA Today in this case). There's a bit of drama over whether statements in the lead should have a citation follow them, or if being sourced in the body of the text is enough. I think the latest consensus is don't cite unless it's a quote. I don't care either way.

" In the resulting comic, the Red Hulk kills long time Hulk foe the Abomination, and battles other Marvel characters. It is revealed that the Red Hulk was created by Thunderbolt Ross and Doc Samson. (Last two sentences DO NOT belong in what should be an encyclopedia standard article - no weak storytelling in a lead)" This is the summary of the PH section. All sections should be summarized, including the main plot points. Not sure what you mean by "weak storytelling", but if you have better wording, that's great.

"The Red Hulk has been described as "absolutely uninhibited, tactically intelligent"[1] and "Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."[2] (PH - not here)" I think this is kinda the crux of our semi-edit war. Everything that's in the body of the article should be summarized in the lead. I think you've seen WP:LEAD, and if you have, and still disagree, please cite which parts of the lead are incorrect per it. Please show me you understand the lead sections. Maybe cite some relevant sentences from that quideline showing what should be improved.

My last comment applies to the rest of your comments. Here's my quick understanding of how a lead should be (per our guidelines): it should cover all major aspects of the article, and introduce nothing new. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Having rewritten or added to the leads of a number of successful GA candidates, I can attest to the truth of Peregrine's last statement here. GA reviewers expect a lead which summarizes the whole article, and introduces nothing which does not appear again later in the article. It may seem repetetive, but this is the standard for GA's and FA's. BOZ (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Asgardian, have you ever tried to take an article through the good article process? It's what we're shooting for with a number of comic articles, and it really teaches one a lot about how an article should look. Would you like to team up on this one? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The langugage is still far too colloquial, so I'll try a rewrite. Also, while the character is new, there's no need to try and include every scrap of information if it makes the article more fannish and less encyclopedia standard. Check out the lead paragraph for the Hulk. Asgardian (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Let's see what we have to do to get this one up to GA, and then maybe we'll all have a better idea how to work together to do the same with further articles. BOZ (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The language is now far less colloquial with better sentence structure, as before we just had the gist of the stories, rather than "then he did this and this", which is pointless anyway as blow by blow of summaries of every occurence is impossible, particularly if this character is a stayer. I restored the Bibiliography with the new info as that needs to be upfront and easy to access for the laymen.

The Heroes mention is really weak and unless someone can source he episodes and air dates is just personal research. The Dark Files mention is also of little interest, as many characters have been drawn or written about in a one page pin-up without even rating a mention. As it stands, it is improved but still needs some minor work. Asgardian (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wan't to tighten thing, that's great. Just don't remove all the info. If the character lasts a long time, we'll remove as we add. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Collected editions

I had moved the collected edition info into the PH section, using them as the names for the subheaders. The section just seems a bit sparse and list like, which is why I merged it. I don't have strong feelings about it, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It might need bringing back if we make this a character/title (or even title depending on how the story plays out - this article is also pretty much about Hulk (vol. 2) and if they go and reveal this is an existing character, not sure how the hints and teases are playing out there, then it will need refocusing). (Emperor (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that the lead is too long especially as most of it is mentioned in the sections below. I see no point in quoting the writer twice, or giving a character history recap in the lead paragraph. --- Paulley (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark Reign Files

Anyone read this? I haven't read it, so I'm not sure how to integrate the sentence about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hulk (vol. 2) or (vol. 3)?

In the lead and infobox it says "Hulk (vol. 2)" and in the bibliography it says "Hulk (vol. 3)". I thought it was the former but clearly someone thinks it is the latter. The important thing is consistency. (Emperor (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

It is Vol. 2, not Vol. 3. I have corrected this. Many people are apparently mistaking "Hulk!" (which was called "Rampaging Hulk" until issue # 10) as "Hulk" Vol. 2. However, the exclamation point at the end of the title means this is a different series and thus the current series is Vol. 2.--BigBang616 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rulk's Sources

I added that Rulk has a new toy in the marvel universe toyline proof here: *http://www.cooltoyreview.com/Hasbro_MU_028RedHulk.asp

• http://hasbro.promotions.com/furyfiles/init.do
• http://www.hasbro.com/marvel/en_US/universe/shop/details.cfm?guid=EC3A2FE6-70DA-1014-A387-CE7AF7E614AC&product_id=24114&src=endeca

But I don't know how to source it on the page. Can anyone help? Drayco90 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Hulk in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2

Note, the source I have listed is an IGN one. This is because the official announcement is on the VIP section of the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 website, which is restricted to people who have VIP passes. This means the general public will not be able to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieNewton (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Forums are not reliable sources, nor are websites with restricted access. Nightscream (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true. I saw it on the VIP part of the website to. 15:33, 14 August 2009 75.27.39.106

It doesn't matter. WP:V and WP:RS prohibit use of portions of websites that are restricted, or require registration from the public, as these are not considered reliable. Using a webhosting service like ImageShack is also unacceptable, because there is no way to verify that the image authentically comes the official site. Your assertion that it does constitutes Original research, which is also prohibited. And please sign your posts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This has also been going on with supposed citations for TV shows. The sites are not reliable. Asgardian (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Nightscream. If the general public cannot see the sites then they shouldn't be used as sources as they cannot be verified. Dark verdant (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

V and RS do not restrict sources that are restricted, or cost money, or are hard to obtain. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL forbids sites that require registration. Wouldn't that also apply in principle to V, CS and RS regarding online pages used as sources? (I could've sworn it was those policies initially.) Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've actually argued that it should before, but it does not matter. Here's recent quote from the reliable sources noticeboard. "WP:V says things must be verifiable, but that does not mean personally verifiable, by you, right now, without any effort or cost on your part. This is like citing a book that costs $25 to purchase, or citing a rare manuscript that is only available at the Bodleian Library in Oxford (which, since I live in NY, would require me to spend hundreds of dollars to personally verify)." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Publication history

There is a current edit conflict between myself and Asgardian over the Publication history section. I left a message on Asgardian's Talk Page two days ago explaining the rationale for my edits, and offering to begin a consensus discussion, but he has not responded, though he has continued to revert the article, again using his deceptive euphemisms in his Edit Summaries, against Wikipedia policy, which requires edits to discuss their conflicts. Whether he participates or not, these are the four individual points of conflict:

Wikilinks.

In his last edit, Asgardian states that he "fixed" a link. I'm not sure which link he was referring to, but in this passage: "Although possessing all the abilities of the original green Hulk, the Red Hulk does not grow stronger with anger...", Asgardian insists on wikilinking the words "green" and "red". A relatively minor point, but I don't think these words need to be wikilinked in this context. Doing so does not constitute "fixing" a link, since nothing is "broken". What he has done is overlinking, and not "fixing" one. Asgardian also wikilinked Frank Cho's name in the paragraph that mentions the "split books", despite the fact that he was already mentioned in the paragraph immediately before it that mentions King-Size Hulk. Terms should not be wikilinked more than once per section. This may have been simply an oversight on his part.

Identity info.

I think information on the Red Hulk's human identity should be kept together. This is why I favor this streamlined wording:

The character's human identity is unknown but it has been revealed that in human form, he is a man with green hair, and that General Thunderbolt Ross and psychiatrist Doc Samson were involved in his creation, as well as A.I.M. creation MODOK, as part of a gamma-powered Super Soldier program.

Asgardian insists on breaking up the info in this passage, by mentioning his green hair two paragraphs after the rest of the info in the above paragraph. I don't think there is any rationale for this.

Dates and Issues.

For some reason, Asgardian seems to have some personal aesthetic aversion to mentioning issue titles, numbers and dates in the text, insisting that they only be mentioned in the ref tags. There is no rationale for this, and doing so makes the material read poorly. Remember, this is a Publication history section. Saying, "Several issues are split books" makes the material historically decontextualized, and makes no sense to a reader who may want to know when these issues were. In the past, Asgardian has attempted to claim (falsely) that consensus discussions determined this guideline. In fact, this discussion, which he claimed was the one in question, did not raise the issue until I went there to inquire about it on February 13 of this year. When I suggested that some mention of issues and dates for particularly relevant passages was reasonable, and not every single issue, the response I got from Emperor was:

Makes sense - I don't think there is a big need for sentences saying "the character appeared in Hulk #36 (June 1963), Thor (vol. 2) #8 (April 1969)" and on and on. There were two problems with what Asgardian was doing in relation to this: Stripping out pretty much everything else leading to long listy sentences. Flesh them out and use the relevant bit for identification and footnote the rest.

I agree. Mentioning that the supporting book King Size Hulk was in 2008 is reasonable. Mentioning that the split books were Issues 7 - 9 makes sense. Saying, "Several issues of the title are "split books" makes no sense. Which issues? When? And how many is "several"? Also, is it appropriate to use the present tense for out-universe material, when the books is no longer in that format? I cannot see any rationale for not simply saying that it was Issues 7 - 9. Asgardian insists removing such info is part of keeping the section out-universe. But the reverse is true: How is removing references to issues and publication dates "out-universe"?

Asgardian also insists on referring to the green hair as having been revealed in a "recent" issue. WP:DATE#Precise language instructs us not to use such vague terms, but to use more precise language.

Citation info.

Including the names of authors in the citation information is an obvious practice of WP:CS. I see no rationale for not including them, but Asgardian insists on removing them, again, without providing any reason. Nightscream (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian's refusal to discuss, and preference for edit warring here isn't a good sign of anything.

On the four points:

• Wikilinking - full agreement with Nightscream. I'm not sure what sort of point Asgardian is trying to make, but it's not working.
• Identity issue - state that the mystery of the Rulk's identity is an ongoing theme of the stories, and then present information in chronological order by revealed. Don't over-emphasize this without real-world citations to back up the importance of the In-universe clue-dropping.
• Dates and Issue Numbers - I agree that particularly notable issues should be enumerated in the text, not all. I'm fine with dating the King Size Special, I'm not fine with calling it 'supporting' as Asgardian did in the diff at the lead of this section, and I'm fine with noting with run was split-issues. As well, the lead para of the article ought to note what issue he debuted in. Beyond that, the pub hist should have the same first issue, and then have numbers to clarify the split in titles that happened at issue 600. Other than those five instances, I can think of no place where an issue number's needed. (I may be wrong.)
• Citation - Authors names belong in citation, absolutely. That's the point of Citation: What was said, where, and by whom.

I hope this helps. ThuranX (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I was asked to comment here.
    • Red and Green should not be linked. There's a guideline that will say the same thing. Probably MOSLINKS or something.
    • It just depends on how you want to write it. I kinda agree with TX's comment above, though.
    • It would be good to have a date every so often to ground the info.
    • Include the authors, obviously. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with information being in chronological order per se, at least in general. My main point with regard to his identity is that that info should not be broken up. We can put the part about his having green hair in human form after the mention of Thunderbolt and Samson's involvement, if you really feel it's that necessary, but I don't think they should be separated by two paragraphs. I also question the gravity of it being in chrono order if A. the two issues, or sets of issues, are only separated by about issues (as opposed to aspects of PH that are years or decades apart) and B. issue numbers are only mentioned sparingly in the text, which I agree with. All of the issues to date can be considered to be in the same general time period in terms of storyline, and will be considered especially so in hindsight with years to come. A general chrono order is one thing but thematic relevance of material is also an important criterion, I think. Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave you an option that alleviates your concerns, it seems you just want all the 'clues' together, which isn't helpful to the rest of your ideas. as for them being "only separated by about issues "(sic), that's irrelevant. One consistent style can address it, unless there's a valid prose-related way around it (interruption for a flashback issue, or a deliberate pacing technique of the writer addressed in the article, for example). In this case, there isn't. Tell it straight, the reader will get it. Breaking it up won't matter if you present it as an ongoing mystery. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't presenting it as an ongoing mystery constitute "telling the story", and be more in-universe, and not adhere to WP:What summaries aren't?? Nightscream (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's out of universe, because it's the order it was published in. If you want to tell all quickly, just find a source at comicbookresources.com, silverbulletcomics.com, etc. that talks about it. Back when I was adding refs to this article, they were pretty easy to find. There probably a summary of the clues, with some commentary on it out there. Probably more than one, actually. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already given some thoughts but here is what I think on the issues:

• You shouldn't link to something as obvious a primary colours
• ThuranX's solution seems to be one I can get behind - it is not in-universe as it reveals the information in the order they appear in the comics - if you want to draw all the information on the "mystery" together then you should do so in a separate section like "identity" but you'd need to make sure you are not straying into [[WP:OR] territory, so you'll need to make sure you have good sources for this, but reviews (as PF says Comic Book Resources and Comics Bulletin should have them and they may include discussion on the drip feed of clues about the identity)
• It makes sense to mention issues if it fits into the flow of the piece. It is worth noting that this is the kind of thing that satisfies WP:WAF, in which you have to treat the comic as the work of fiction it is and helps avoid in-universe wording.
• If there are disputes about the formatting of references then use the relevant template, in this case {{cite web}}

Hope that helps. (Emperor (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Okay, I put the identity info in chronological order, but kept it together as part of the same paragraph. Is that a fair compromise on that point? Nightscream (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think the best way is to draw the clues together in a separate section (it won't work within the PH) - the identity (and background) of the Red Hulk is the overarching theme of the series and it makes sense to pull the information together if you can get some good sources together.

Also I agree we should mention the issues and there has been some back and forth but the current version ("The character was introduced in 2008 in Hulk #1") still needs work - perhaps "Hulk vol. 2 #1" or, better, "in 2008 in the first issue of the second Hulk series".

I gave the wrong link above {{cite web}} is very useful (and is worth doing now as you go along rather than doing it in a batch later). What I meant was {{cite comic}}. (Emperor (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

You have compromised on some of the technical points, and that's always good. That said, you - and others at time unfortunately - keep tripping over your own shoelaces by making accusations, which is at the least uncivil. Please, no more mention of terms such as deceptive or assumptions about what I am doing. That's not a good way to open proceedings.

Secondly, I was surprised you felt the need for this given that you were compromising on many of the technical improvements I suggested, and incorporated many of my comments. The main thing I try for is consistency, which is something Wikipedia lacks. With this in mind, I've made a few tweaks to maintain the overall quality. Please note that I didn't double up on a author link, but rather pulled one. Also note that we don't use weak terms such as as well.

Language must be clear, apply present tense where possible and be out of universe across the article. This means paragraph for paragraph. The mention of an author is odd, given it doesn't happen anywhere I else that I know of, so we need to again be consistent. Note too that Loeb is already mentioned in the PH as being the writer. That's one of the reasons for the section. As for linking colours, I think that's an assumption, but so be it. Always remember we write for the laymen, who may not know who the Hulk is, much less his red counterpart. Hope that helps.

Asgardian (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I went and found citation for a statement introducing the identity mystery, and added that to the paragraphs about the initial premises for the Red Hulk. I also reworked the Domino identity thing into a lead for a couple lines that can encompass 14 to 17. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Making accusations is "uncivil"? Nice try. In reality, it is not uncivil to merely point out behavior that one has actually engaged in. Nothing I have related about your behavior is untrue, but if you can explain what statements of mine about your conduct is untrue, then by all means, do so. Did you not ignore my initial offer to discussion while continuing to revert the article? Yes, you did, and I provided the diffs to illustrate that. Did you not claim to be "fixing" a link in the Summary for an edit in which you did no such thing? You seem to be making a deliberate confusion between accusations that are false, or at least, not firmly substantiated, and legitimate instances in which your violating the spirit of collaboration or policy is violated. The former is indeed to be discouraged. The latter is not, and is the only information I related about you. You engage in manipulation when you attempt to deliberately confuse the two. So please, no more logical fallacies like this, okay? Pointing out policy violations or disruptive editing is part of the enforcement of policy, and not a violation of it. Besides, if taken to its logical extension, if any accusation is a violation of Civility, regardless of the merits of it, then your accusation that I violated Civility is itself an accusation, right? No one here is fooled by your manipulative attempts to twist policy around or rewrite history, so stop trying.

Regarding the content of this dispute. you reverting disputed portions of the article. If you did this because you thought this discussion was resolved, then you did so against the consensus that developed here. Four people here stated that "red" and "green" should not be linked, yet you linked them again. They also agreed that some issue numbers should remain in relevant spots, yet you removed the issue of the character's first appearance from the opening sentence of the PH section, and mention of which were split books. I reverted this.

I have a question for the others that I need clarification on: ThuranX said we should "state that the mystery of the Rulk's identity is an ongoing theme of the stories, and then present information in chronological order by revealed." Does this mean that the revelation of Rulk having green hair in human form can be moved to the second PH paragraph, in order to be tied to theme of that paragraph's last sentence? Or must it remain at the bottom in order to maintain chrono order of the entire series?

ThuranX, the character does not emit increasing levels of gamma radiation. He emits increasing levels of heat. This is explicitly established in the book. Nightscream (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? How many ways does 'Leave the information in chronological order to maintain Out Of Universe style' have to be presented? It is clear to me that just like Asgardian, you want the article to be a certain way, and will not stop until you get it your way, no matter how much work towards compromise other editors do. I spent a fair amount of time finding references to present the material in the OOU style, and your first, reaction is to say 'well, that's very nice, but can we do it my way anyways?' No, we cannot. It has been explained why not, but it seems that you are more interested in provoking or prolonging a conflict with Asgardian. As to the heat/radiation, I'll find the issues again, but I'm pretty sure that tracking his radiation trail was discusses, and the fact that there was greater residual radiation in places he had fought, from his emission of more rads, thus 'hot'. ThuranX (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "can we do it this way", or anything to that effect. I merely requested clarification on that point from you and the others, because I wanted to know if your dissatisfaction with my version was because the part about his green hair was mentioned before Thunderbolt and Samson's involvement in the same paragraph, and wanted to place it after it (albeit in the same paragraph), or if you wanted to not merely be one after the other in the same paragraph, but in a different one. You've made your feelings on that point clear, and I just wanted to make sure that that's the specificity that the others had in mind, nothing more. Your incivility and accusation are not warranted, since I was merely asking questions, which is part of what a discussion is, and has no bearing on the matter with Asgardian.

As for the radiation/heat thing, it is explicitly established in Hulk #6, when he's having his knock-down, drag-out fight with green Hulk. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim made, there is no clear consensus on format. I am building on the version by ThuranX , which presents a style now used in many, many articles. It is clear, concise, and avoids repetition of citations. I think someone is becoming too close to this. Please think about what ThuranX said above. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. Four people in this section agreed on it and two other of the four points raised, while a different four agreed on the point about the identity info. Two others, J Greb and BOZ, also agreed that dates, titles, etc. are okay as long as they're not given too often, when I took the discussion to the Comics Project in February, as I linked to above. That's six. Since I contacted about 21-22 people about this discussion, unless the others show up, that's a consensus. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates while describing the plot

I think we should include them. It grounds it in the real world, without having to click on a ref link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was tried, and with multiple appearances it becomes a date minefield and almost impossible to read. In terms of pure aesthetics alone, the other way, now used in a great many articles, is preferable. That said, thank for commenting. Consensus has not been reached, despite a claim to the contrary. Asgardian (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we take it to the comics project? I'd like to know either way, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It may help to reread this: this discussion (where again someone is putting words in my mouth. Heh). Following the suggestion of Cameron Scott, I think the best approach is a solid out of universe PH. To assist in doing this, I place all the sources in footnotes unless there is some special reason to mention the particular issue in a sentence. To show the naysayers I deliberately wrote an article (Abomination) in the in-sentence style and it becomes dry, didactic and hard to read. It needs to flow and be "easy on the eyes" to the layman. Asgardian (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So that's why that aritcle reads so funny. Is there no middle ground where we occasionally tell the reader the year? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So you mean you did that on purpose to make a point? I've said elsewhere that, while I think including the mention of comics and years what you did there (and in other similar articles) was pretty close to the articles title. There is absolutely no reason including mentions of the comics as a work should be an eyesore and I hold up examples of those articles as how not to do it that way. I find this admission profoundly disturbing. (Emperor (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I actually began in the long ago by doing this, but as another user pointed out, it once again became a laundry list of dates and hard to read. For the longer articles, I've used sub-groups that mark the decades (eg. 60's; 70's etc.), but with something like Red Hulk, footnotes seem to be the best option. I also commend ThuranX for using the name of a story arc as opposed to naming the issue up front (since it is sourced at the end of the sentence anyway). This is easier to read, and it can become problematic if you have to start naming multiple, non-sequential issues. The overall goal is consistency. Asgardian (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I took it to the Comics Project in February, Peregrine, as illustrated by the link I included in my first post in the above consensus discussion, which Asgardian just repeated above, and you yourself were a part of that discussion. Emperor, J Greb, BOZ, and myself agreed that some titles, issue numbers, dates, etc. are reasonable, as long as there's not too much of them. You said putting them in ref tags made it read more smoothly, but here you've said we should include them. Six people now agree that some of them should be included. So we have multiple discussions of this in various places (Emperor also expressed the same thing about titles on my Talk Page in October 2008.) There's nothing wrong with more discussion, but since we already have four people who say they're okay with them (six if you include the discussion we had on the Project page), what exactly would be accomplished?

Asgardian talks about "minefields" and "laundry lists" that are "impossible to read". We're not talking about "laundry lists" of dates, we're talking about occasional mentions of them for important issues. That's a reasonable compromise between a laundry list and the complete removal of them that Asgardian insists on, and is not "impossible to read". What's hard to read is history text that makes no mention of the time period for proper context. When someone reads something like "some issues are this or that", how are they supposed to know what it's talking about, when it doesn't mention which issues, or how many issues, or at least the year that they came out? Darting between the text and the Footnotes is not a natural way to read. When was the last time someone saw, listened to or read any type of "history" of anything that did not mention dates, general time periods or places at least occasionally. At least ThuranX provided some context with the alternative of a story arc name. I'm fine with this.

In any event, I thought this discussion was concluded when Asgardian and others started editing the article, but Asgardian has been editing it against consensus. His assertion that there isn't one is false, as seen by a read of these TP discussions, which he wants to continue simultaneously with his reverts. And not only has he reverted it, but he has done so in a blind, knee-jerk fashion, reverting not just the matter of the issue number/date, but even my modification to a repeat cite with a ref name tag. This is clearly disruptive editing, so I've locked down the article until we can get a more clarified consensus, or an idea of what we desire from another discussion on the Project. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion the page.[15] It's a somewhat fine line, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You got the link right. It's the section titled "Stand up and take notice!", but the matter of titles/issues/dates does not begin until my February 13, 2009 post in that section. Nightscream (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember that now. I was speaking to the fact that there can be too many dates and issue numbers. Lately, I think dates are more important than issue numbers. The layman doesn't know that much about issues, but everyone knows what a date is. Also, did you protect this page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Colossally bad pagelock, NS. You're an involved editor using Admin buttons. Instead, please unlock, and report Asgardian for edit warring; he's been blocked for it before, and jsut above, admits to a prolonged edit war with multiple editors in June on Abomination to make a POINT, demonstrating a propensity for edit warring by bragging about another EW while waging one here. DO not block him, either, because again, you're involved. Just report it. It's clear enough for any uninvolved admin to see it. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with ThuranX here. Nightscream, you have once again ([16]) become involved in a dispute and used administrator privileges to try and enforce your point of view. Despite your accusations and claims, there is still no consensus. Peregrine Fisher and I were having a civil discussion on the issue, and despite this you jumped in and locked the article. This is not administrator conduct.

ThuranX, I did not accuse you of anything. If you reread the relevant section, you will see that I complimented you on your addition. As to the Abomination, you are mistaken. There was no bragging, and I wrote that article with sources in the article well before June (when you were cautioned for incivility, yes?). I used it as a valid example of how this method can detract from the article.

That said, I have not been involved in edit warring, and neither has ThuranX. We have been trying to improve the article, and despite this Nightscream has become personally involved and used administrator privileges to muddy the waters. This is not appropriate, and needs to be the first issue addressed.

I am happy to discuss the issue at WikiComics, but not with someone who uses their administrator privileges as a blunt instrument if it goes against them. The other administrators will be informed and may need to review said user's status. Asgardian (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. - even if the article is unlocked, I'll leave it alone until we resolve this. Peregrine Fisher, sorry we got interrupted. Perhaps we can continue this at WikiComics. Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I"m too pissed to properly comment now, but that's going way too far, Asgardian. You know full well who IS involved in this edit war, and because I said you were, you've decided to imply that I'm the other party. I'll write more about this obnoxious lie later when I'm more calm, but this is the most distorted, cheap tactic I've ever seen you use. ThuranX (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a cheap, and disgusting tactic, Asgardian, one I feel you engaged in simply to bully others out of your way, esp. in light of my noting that you've admitted to a POINT-based edit war at Abomination. You know full well that you and Nightscream are the opponents in this edit war, the page history bears it out, and since you have decided to lash out at others, instead of solve this, I feel it is my responsibility to report the entire matter to the Edit War Noticeboard, rather than deal with this bad faith behavior. ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian, why did you edit my post above by adding unnecessary brackets to my signature, thus delinking it?

As for the article, you should've left it alone after we reached a consensus, and after Peregrine indicated he wished to continue the discussion. Not now, after you've already indicated a tendency to edit against a consensus and during a discussion, an act that violates WP policy, and for which you have previously been blocked. You're free to deceive yourself into thinking that this will somehow affect my status. The truth is that it will only further reflect badly on you.

Thuran, all I did was lock the article to prevent further edit warring until the content dispute is resolved, since Asgardian was reverting against consensus, and during a continued discussion, since Peregrine appears to wish to continue further discussion. Locking an article for this reason is one of the rationales provided in the fly-down menu when applying page protection to an article, and I chose this option specifically so that I wouldn't have to block him. Locking an article is not an endorsement of a particular version of an article, and it will be lifted the moment this dispute is resolved. As for reporting it, I did report Asgardian's behavior some days ago to User:Mangojuice, who told me earlier this year, during the last round of policy violations by Asgardian, that he would be assist the next time such a matter with Asgardian arose. So far as I've seen, however, Mangojuice has not responded. But I'll try contacting him again. Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:J_Greb#I.27m_not_saying_I_told_you_so... - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As to delink, if I did, that is an honest mistake, and I apologize. ThuranX , you've been warned in the past re: being uncivil, and your language is inappropriate. As to your claim, about making a point, I posted a link here to your Talk page which disproves the theory (note that I haven't used an inflammatory terms such as lie):

[17]. Also take note of what I said here, which (shock!) was a compliment:[18]

Nightscream, I've seen what User:Mangojuice said and see no need to link it here as the goal is not to humiliate you. Unfortunately, however, I have to say, as others have said, that you should not have used administrator privileges when in dispute over an article. Irrespective of what you perceive to be the circumstances, it is inappropriate.

Finally, there was no edit warring from myself (or for that matter ThuranX, who despite being quick to draw his six guns means well). There have been no constant reversions, only improvements. There is, as I and now User:Mangojuice have also pointed out, no clear consensus on editing style. Perhaps we can now start again. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"There have been no constant reversions, only improvements." More euphemisms. The "improvements" you edited in included again removing all mentions issue numbers and dates, despite the fact that everyone else here opined that some of them should be kept in obviously appropriate areas. Your only response is to ignore this, and to argue that any mention of them will lead to a "laundry" list or "minefield" of them, which is a non sequitur. Acting as if the passage "The character was introduced in 2008 in Hulk #1" is "unreadable" is, IMO, an exaggeration. Nightscream (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why the discussion needs to go to a wider audience, as we agree to disagree. WikiComics, yes? Asgardian (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's TWICE now you've done it! Yet again, in an edit war between you and NIGHTSCREAM, You've painted ME with the edit warring brush - 'I'm not saying here nad now that ThuranX was edit warring at all" when there' no discussion of that is not unlike the old 'have you stopped beating your wife?' trick. It's dirty, and you know it. ThuranX (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But since four people there back in February agreed that some dates should remain, and four people did here, for a total of six, and none of the other 20+ comics-related editors responded, how do you think we should proceed?

Also, I'd like to ask you a question to clarify: Do you you feel that any and all mention of dates and issue numbers outside of reg tags are "unreadable", and constitute a "laundry list" or "minefield"? Is it your opinion the the passage I quoted above is unreadable? (Just want to make sure I understand your position.) Nightscream (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's bring it all to the table at the appropriate forum, where it can get a fair hearing and more input from others, as not everyone might find their way here. I'm happy to answer questions, but let's do it in the right place. Asgardian (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I started a new one here. Just out of curiosity, how many people do you feel would be the required minimum for a consensus? Nightscream (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no easy answer to that one. It becomes a case of "whoever shows up", and even then 5 -6 people (which seems to be the limit) is hardly a majority. Given the number of characters - irrespective of the company - there are undoubtably people out there we've never encountered doing their own thing on articles we may have no interest in/have yet to see etc. Does what we decide apply to them? Further to this, how to gain consistency over all the articles? Tough questions, but the more people we can rope in, the better. I was encouraged by the discussion and number of players here

[19]. If this level of discussion could be achieved, I'd be very happy. Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Hair in Human Form?

I'm just going to say that stating that Domino observes the Red Hulk has green hair in human form is just an incorrect statement. The Green haired character (possibly/probably Doc Samson)she observes goes away and Domino observes a man with a baseball cap on his head transform into the Red Hulk. That characters hair color is indeterminate. I am going to edit this to make it factually correct. To back this up, I am providing links to scans from the two pages before the transformation. In the 1st one [20] you can see that there IS a character with green hair. Note that everyone else is wearing a hat. One of the men in a cap and long coat points and presumably argues with the green haired character who is standing next to a taxi cab. On the next page [21] Domino observes the cab drive off and the HATTED and overcoated man walk to an alley and transform into Red Hulk. There is absolutey NO way to determine the hair color of the man who transformed. TheBlueHeel

Oh, I dunno. From the upper right panel of the second picture his hair looks gray.

Anyway, the notion of a sentence or two listing the known more explicit "clues" with issue references could be an idea. I suppose these being: That the character has received some form of military training, that the Gamma Base eye-scanner recognises him, that he blames the Hulk for the death of a loved one (leaving him "heartbroken"), and now that he has ties to MODOK, and a project to create gamma-ray mutated soldiers, and considers himself a patriot. Character disclusions due to appearances next to Rulk are irrelevant, given the commonly appearing life model decoys.

(Btw: As has been pretty obvious for quite a while, Thunderbolt Ross, John Ryker, and the Talbots (3 to choose from) all fit into the presented pattern, but I suppose that the first two are the only ones that would make Rulk work as a character after the eventual reveal.) Dave (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That depends on whether or not you consider Ross' appearance on the end of issue #6 as Rulk just hallucinating. If he was real, you can cross him from the list. If he was a hallucination, then Rulk (god how I hate that name) is likely Ross. --188.33.243.114 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's where the all-purpose LMD's come in. Going by the Fall of the hulks specials he almost definitely seems to be Ross, and Ryker seems plenty busy with his own projects, whereas Talbot and Betty seemed genuinely sad about Ross' supposed 'death'. How that can fit with Red She-Hulk being very clearly teased as Betty (as in the "Ultimate Marvel" world) is anyone's guess. I rather enjoy most of the Loeb stuff anyway. Dave (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Then again, now Red She-Hulk is so heavily hinted as(/described exactly like, including the compulsive fixation, and being beaten by Jen in the past) She-Hulk's ongoing beat-up toy/"archenemy" Titania that it almost makes no sense if it turns out to be anyone else. The writers seem to enjoy this game-playing. Of course the problem is that if they throw sufficiently blatant hints out there, final out of the blue revelations eventually make very little sense. Dave (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Orange Hulk" in Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes

• Most of the secret characters in the MvC series have mysterious origins; not sure of how this would be sourced, but perhaps it's at least inspired by Rulk? >_> JuJube (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be inspired by the gray and green Hulks. Whatever the case, we need a source for any info on inspirations/influences. Nightscream (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, well Hulk's alternate color is already gray. It was just a thought. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Still Red Hulk?

Is he still refered to as Red Hulk, or is he only refered to as Rulk now? I don't follow the comic myself, so I'm not sure. If he only goes by Rulk now (IRL & in-universe), should the page be moved to Rulk (which currently redirects here)? I'm still new(ish) at Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something here. Tainted Conformity (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's still referred to primarily as "Red Hulk." --There are no names left (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Merchandizing Section Removed?

I noticed that the lines about the character also appearing in toy merchandise has been removed, was there a discussion for that? The Red Hulk has appears in at least two toy lines (Marvel Universe and as the build-a-figure in one set of Legends). It seems peculiar it was removed, so I've brought it here for discussion to see what happened. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:128.104.truth removed mention of toys from the Lead on January 13, asserting that there were no toy merchandise. I didn't know if that was true, but there was no source that accompanied that passage in the Lead, nor any section further down in the article, that I know of. I did some Googling, and found at least three action figures and one statue, so I restored it, with sources. Nightscream (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)