Talk:Galactus

The Real Name of Galactus

Since there seems to be misconceptions about the real name of Galactus I thought it was time to hear out the differing viewpoints.

My position: Galactus' real name is Galactus, not Galan. It is spelled out clearly in Super Villain Classics #1: The Origin of Galactus. When the sentience of the previous universe embraced Galan it stated that they would both die at the universe's end but they would survive through an heir born of their union, that heir being Galactus. Galactus is the result of a union between Galan and the sentience of the previous universe. People seem to think Galactus is simply Galan empowered when in fact Galactus is a something different, Galan being one part of the whole that is Galactus. Galactus isn't Galan granted the Power Cosmic like the Silver Surfer is Norrin Radd granted the Power Cosmic, there is a distinct difference.TheBalance 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie

The preview of the upcoming Galactus movie is an obvious hoax. The production values are horrible. I propose a removal.

As a fan of the Silver Surfer, I resent this talk of his being merely a "stooge" of Galactus. He rebelled, didn't he? --LMS

So, why don't you update the info? cascardo

---

ok, is EARTH X considered cannon? Because in that, one of the main roles of Galactus is to stop the Celestials from breeding... Should that be mentioned?

As it says on the page, Earth X lies outside the Earth 616 continuity. It is worth mentioning in any case, however, so it has been added to the page. --Lowellian 00:55, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Gladiator as Herald?

Can someone provide the issue where Gladiator is shown to be a Herald of Galactus? I can't seem to find the issue where it is shown. - Doc X

Johnny Storm as herald of Galactus

I don't recall anyone ever calling Johnny Storm "Invisible Man" during that brief period that he possessed his sister's powers; the FF, Quasar, and Galactus were the major characters in that story, and all of them called him by variations of his real name, which is the norm for the FF anyway. Seems silly to invent the name just for a wiki, so I'm changing the note. Manticore 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right in saying it wasn't in the comic, but it was in a solicit. I'm not too bothered though. - SoM 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Does Galactus specifically target inhabited worlds?

I'm a bit confused on this issue. In his original appearance (FF #49), it is stated that Galactus only choses planets based on their chemical content, and that most of the planets he consumed were indeed uninhabited. I know that subsequent reinterpretations of Galactus (eg Ultimate Marvel's Gah-Lak-Tus) have him specifically target living worlds, but is this currently the case with the 616 Galactus? Kurzon 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the only time this has been the case with 616 Galactus was during the Galactus: The Devourer mini. In it he wasn't even consuming the energies of planets anymore, but rather only the life forces of sentient beings. He somehow became addicted to them even though they offered him no sustenance (and going so long without a real feeding was killing him). After the multiverse was remade during the Abraxas saga Galactus has been back to normal, targeting planets with the necessary forms of energies that he requires whether they are inhabited or not. MrBigB 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Annihilation

I have read Silver Surfer: Annihilation # 1 - 3. The current writeup states Galactus' history has been retconned, this may be a bit premature. I have not read SS:Annihilation #4, but as of #3 we didn't have enough information about the "cosmic war", or Tenebrous or Aegis to determine if anything about Galactus has been retconned. All we have are alot of questions with no answers. TheBalance 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

the physical looks of the ultimate gah lak tus are similar to matrix's sentinels anyone noticed?

Revision

The article badly needed revision, as it was:

• Written in past tense

• Very verbose with far too much "tell the story" - these are entries are not the place for blow by blow accounts of what happens in a particular issue or series. The new reader only needs the GIST, and preferably without too much HOW so as not to spoil the story.

• Steeped in point of view - far too much. Enthusiasm is good but statements must be supported.

• Lacked references - these are worth gold, as they tell the new reader where to find the stories, and also substantiate claims (eg. "most powerful, the fastest etc)

• Rife with images, and most were nothing special. Each has to have a "wow" factor, such as the image in the SHB.

• Packed with side clutter that isn't suitable for the entry. Listing every cultural reference is not practical - Batman and Superman would need pages and pages! Just the gist - introduction, biography, alternate appearances, in other media and references is fine.

Remember, it is fine to like a character but these are not fan sites!

203.46.189.91 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it's obvious by now that your massive rewrite is going to be reverted, I'd suggest you try another tactic. Bring up each section you want to change here, first, so that you have consensus BEFORE implementing the change. Or make incremental changes, so the article isn't undergoing a major change all at once. Maybe start by adding references, since that's a pretty uncontroversial change. For what it's worth, I agree that the previous version is in sad shape, but when this many editors have reverted you then it's time for you to stop what you're doing, take a step back, and try something different. Simply announcing the problems and making major changes with discussing the changes is not going make your edits stick. CovenantD 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The forum is open then. Thoughts?

203.46.189.91 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim the forum is open and yet try to make your massive rewrite stick yet again. Why don't you try cleaning up and/or referencing what is already there as opposed to your total rewrite? There are several sections of the older edits that are vastly superior to your re-write such as the Lead section, and the Rebirth and Powers and Abilities sections. You also omitted the Physical appearance section and picture, that is a unique aspect of Galactus that deserves mention. Manssiere 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'll copy what you have said here and replay to each sentence:

:You claim the forum is open and yet try to make your massive rewrite stick yet again. Why don't you try cleaning up and/or referencing what is already there as opposed to your total rewrite?

• I did try a clean-up and did use references. All the relevant information is still there - it is the only the past tense (a lesson I had to learn), POV and the huge "tell the story" components that have been culled. Unfortunately, while we may like a character, we can't have blow-by-blow accounts on what happens in issues or series - that's the domain of fan sites, not Wikipedia. The relevant moments in Galactus' history are mentioned, and now even sourced. Finally, at the risk of offending, the sentence structure and grammar aren't very good - this is what needed the most work. All the information is still there, but in most cases in one as opposed to three sentences. Brevity is the key.

Asgardian 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several sections of the older edits that are vastly superior

I'll stop you right there as that is an emotive claim and very POV. Very hard to prove, especially when a technical analysis of the entry says otherwise.

Yes, portions of the older edits are superior. Manssiere 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not, hence the rewrite. Poor sentence structure, use of grammar, dead links and POV are all fact.

Asgardian 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

to your re-write such as the Lead section,

• I'm happy to include the Lee quote (heck, I'd like a Lee quote for ever Marvel character), but it has to be sourced.

Sourced. Manssiere 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

and the Rebirth and Powers and Abilities sections.

• I have to disagree. This is where some of the verbosity lies, especially in Powers and Abilities. It is stated at the beginning of the paragraph that Galactus is all-powerful, and backed by a source. If readers are told that he can do anything, then they don't need a blow by blow account of HOW he can put this power to use. Another example is superstrength. If the Hulk is credited as being the strongest mortal on Earth and can match Thor etc, then that's enough. We don't need a list of all the things the Hulk can lift as we have already been told he's very, very strong. We get it.

Asgardian 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You also omitted the Physical appearance section and picture, that is a unique aspect of Galactus that deserves mention. Manssiere 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

!!!

• Every comic book character is unique, but Wikipedia articles don't devote a section to what they look like with and without costume etc. The main image plus support picture show what the character looks like. Example - does the Iron Man entry have a shot of Tony Stark taking on/off his helmet? This kind of thing is again best left for a fan site.

No, every comic book character does not have a singularly unique trait such as this. Galactus appears differently to different people and the picture provided shows this. Manssiere 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things - the text was not very clear and I missed that, and secondly the image is too small. The link to the larger original is also dead. I'll have to try and find and scan another copy and rewrite and reinsert a sentence or two on this. That's all it needs. Brevity, brevity, brevity.

Asgardian 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) \Asgardian 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to subdivide this to deal with the various sections. Add as necessary. CovenantD 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SHB

The shortened version of the powers is better, no doubt. CovenantD 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The shorter version needs to be reworded a bit for clarity. Manssiere 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I don't totally agree that the old section was better. It made two unsubstantiated claims, for instance. On the other hand, the revised version was lacking some of the technical points that are vital for fictional characters, namely the assertion up front that they are, in fact, fictional. Also the template {{Marvel Universe}} (which expands to [[Marvel Comics]] [[Marvel Universe|Universe]] was created specifically for the lead section after discussion at the Project talk page. I like to see it used because it provides a link to both the out-of-universe comic book company (Marvel Comics) and the in-universe overview article (Marvel Universe) right up front. CovenantD 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see very little wrong with the original lead section. A reference needs to be found for the "have them fight God" statement, but I've read about that in numerous interviews with Lee so it is true, it just needs a reference. The finest Lee/Kirby collaboration is opinion, even if comic industry people will tell you that really is the case. Manssiere 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fictional character history

The Rebirth section needs to stay as is. The rest could use sources and clean up. Manssiere 04:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a section that needed tightening up. A first time reader is just going to go "huh?" The image is also inappropriate as it doesn't gel with the paragraph or the overall article.

Asgardian 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is irrelevant, the original writing is sourced, linked and far more informative than your rewrite. Manssiere 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is gone, and the sourcing has some problems. From my understanding, Marvel.com is a wiki and the information from there should not be treated as authoratative. Secondarily, the source itself relies on the Handbooks and "corrections" of unknown origin. We should take the info directly from the stories. Asgardian's version is superior in that respect; on the other hand, it eliminates any mention of the Phoenix. CovenantD 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Powers and abilities

The previous version was way too verbose; the revised version is too brief. Some examples to illustrate the scope of his power is not inappropriate. CovenantD 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Physical appearance

His manner of appearing different based on the physiology of the viewer is fairly unique and should be reflected here. CovenantD 06:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Writers vary on that. John Byrne clearly established what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that the standard shape drawn is not his physical form despite illusions that cloud other people's perceptions. An awful lot of writers have presented that as his real form (statues found on alien worlds, etc. We need the Byrne page with the multiple images. We need the shot of Galactus's unhelmeted face too. Doczilla 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Most writers simply do not address the issue at all. Oeming recently reaffirmed this trait during the Stormbreaker mini, it still stands. Also, many humanoid races see Galactus similarly to how Marvel earth sees him, as evidenced by Byrne's artwork. It has been suggested that Galactus' "true" form is how he appeared to Eternity in SS Vol. 3 #10, as he has been seen in this form on at least 3 occasions. TheBalance

Alternate realities

The shorter versions are better. The all link to more extensive articles anyway. CovenantD 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Appearances in other media

I remember that i saw a reference on The Tick

Quotations

Must go. Very unencyclopedic. CovenantD 04:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits of the user Asgardian

While the article has reached considerable length, I personally find the edits of Asgardian to be insufficient as well as being utterly uninformative. The origin of Galactus is incomplete-there is no mention of Eternity or any other forces that played a role in the creation of Galactus, which is an ESSENTIAL part of his character and cannot be omitted. These “concise” edits glaringly omit such important facts as these.

In general I see three broad issues regarding this:

-The article must be condensed. Yes. But wikipedia is a public access site. Asgardian, the entry for Galactus does not belong to you alone. Therefore you have repeatedly found your sweeping edits to be reverted time and time again simply because there are users here who disagree. Persistence in imposing your edits will simply get more reversions. If you wish to have drastic changes in the article then it should be discussed here.

-Sentence structure. To be frank, I found the overall quality of the article to degrade with the sweeping. There is a fine line between an entry being verbose and an entry being encyclopedic in tone. You have focused so much on limiting the word count that the entire article now reads as a hastily compiled essay that is more quantity than quality.

-Content. You will find many entries in Wikipedia to be of an exhaustive and extensive character. Users come to this site to find information on a particular subject or topic, without having to do tedious and time-consuming research on the internet to get a good grasp of the topic in question. The entry for Galactus before your edits did a superb job of introducing a prospective reader on the history of the character, his origin, major storylines, capabilities, and the like. Your edits lose these traits and in general, the article is no longer as informative as is was, and the reader is left with only the vaguest idea of the subject matter, and is in fact compelled to do further investigative research simply to flesh out gray areas.

Again, anyone can edit this article. Condense it if you like. But do not impose sweeping changes on the entire piece and expect others to adhere to them without question-you are not the only one that knows how to write well, as you assume. Mobb One (talk · contribs)

• I agree 100% here. Asgardian's edits may reduce the article length and provide references but those are it's only advantages. The revised article as a whole is too brief and uninformative. TheBalance 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, anyone can edit the article. It certainly needed it. What many of you fail to grasp is that comic-related entries are meant to be informative but also concise, without reciting what happens in a blow-by-blow account. This is the sticking point - what some view as essential is really not relevant to the article and can be sourced by a curious new reader courtesy of accurate references. Prime examples are Powers and abilities - which is far too long - and the Earth X entry, which is very much a case of "tell the story", and almost of it is unnecessary (it is not even mainstream continuity). If every entry had an account of all issues/series they would be verbose monsters! The reader just needs the GIST. A little more thought also needs to go into image selection as well (something I learnt early on). Is Galactus without his helmet really worthy of inclusion? No. Again, do any other armoured characters have a shot of them without their helmets? Iron Man? Titanium Man? No. It needs to be relevant. I admire the passion shown here, but Wikipedia is not a fan site.

By the by, take the emotion out of the responses. Someone said a very silly thing that can get you bounced from Wikipedia. Fight with logic, not emotion.

Asgardian 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well considering you've basically edited Galactus' origin to the point where it's saying: 'Galactus used to be this guy named Galan, then he died, then he was Galactus', I fail to see how your 'concise' edit helps any. You completely edit out the how and why he became Galactus. HalfShadow 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Two things. One, almost all of the information in the Alternate Versions entries is padding and unnecessary. Wiki requires the GIST, not blow by blow accounts that spoil the stories. Two, some of the sources cited for Galactus' origin are dubious and it is not necesarily canon.

Asgardian 05:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

By the by, HalfShadow, that was a very immature comment to place in the Edit column. How old are you? 10? Poor form given I incorporated both of your suggestions into the Celestial entry.

Asgardian 05:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)