text:
Talk:Juggernaut (character)

Image of Juggernaut
That's a pretty lame picture of Juggernaut. I believe it would be worth considering obtaining a better one.

Remember the Picture of the Juggernaut before this one? Where he is on top of a car and is smashing it? There were mountains in the backround? Can we change it back to that one? That one is the best pic of the Juggernaut.

 * Further to this, the latest image feature just the Juggernaut in a full frontal pose. If anyone can find and source another one, fine. Just needs to be a frontal shot with no other characters. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Naysayers should also read this before reverting. The image of the character grappling with a beast fails as not full frontal; contorted and has another character, which are according to the Guidelines not desirable. Asgardian (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if someone can find another one that meets the criteria, fine. Just be able to provide a source and the artist. Asgardian (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the old image can be found? I'm at a loss to where to find it on the internets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.211.118 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
User:Asgardian continues, as he was done on other pages, to mash-up the fictional and the real-life by removing the "Fictional character biography" subhead and proceeding to blend in-universe and real-world material in a confounding jumble. I support User:Ghidorah's efforts to revert this non-consensus insistence that has caused trouble at Rhino (comics), Abomination (comics), Awesome Android and elsewhere. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * An inaccurate and even inflammatory statement. Had Tenebrae actually checked, he would have noted that the PH and Biography have been split as per consensus. I even stated this in an Edit Summmary . The corrected version was also supported by another editor here: . All Tenebrae is "supporting" is what User:Ghidorah is trying to push: a version that is lacking many crucial appearances; has mistakes; missing sources; filled with colloquial language and an overemphasis on the most recent issues, which of course may be all the younger fans have read. I have repeatedly advised the user of the issues at his Talk Page:.

Tenebrae has also rather oddly tried to encourage this user - who may be a sockpuppet for a repeat offender - to join in a "Request For Comment" on myself. Despite a claim of neutrality, the faux pas above says otherwise. Asgardian (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * how is Juggernaut fighting Colossus in a bar a crucial appearance Ghidorah (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That is a minor question and answered on your Talk Page. Asgardian (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know that User:Ghidorah is a sockpuppet. How do you know this? -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 * His appearance was, like that of EmilBlonsky, (a proven sockpuppet of DrBat) was extremely convenient. A check reveals that the two are apparently not related (although who can say in cyberspace), so it may be another issue (just ultra young or medical condition etc.). Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Further to this, feel free to add to the corrected version. I have been adding something each time while trying to maintain it, as our fellow editor seems hell-bent on reverting to an inferior version, full of all the mistakes I have already pointed out. He/she doesn't seem to realize that the old version has already been revamped, and that it cannot read like a colloquial fan site. Same thing has been going on over at Deadpool if you're interested. Asgardian (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The fact that two editors favor a version that Asgardian keeps reverting while making unproven accusations against an editor seems a serious and significant breach of consensus and Wiki etiquette. I'm going to ask for help on this. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Asgardian, you're a fine one to talk about sockpuppets since you've had one or more yourself. --DrBat (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * !!! DrBat, you've just been unblocked. That was not relevant, civil or wise. I'd advise restraint. Asgardian (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Pointing out your own history with sockpuppetry? You keep on talking about how I'm "guilty of this offence" like you didn't do the same thing (and my alternate accounts were never used to bypass restrictions, like yours were).--DrBat (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am talking about. There was no need to say anything here. Don't create strikes against yourself over nothing. Let's move on. Asgardian (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then stop talking about me being using sockpuppets when you've done worse. --DrBat (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Two editors favor a version of this article that one editor, Asgardian, continues to revert in a manner that does not conform to WikiProject Comics MOS. Asgardian has also made contentious, unproven claims about one of the other editors (see immediately above). --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Once again, see the links above. The revised article is Wiki-correct, which Tenebrae knows. He is welcome to make additions if any are required. I have repeatedly attempted to mediate with the second user, as the link above indicates. It was also perfectly reasonable to ask for a Checkuser if sockpuppetry is suspected, as there has been a recent rash of this behaviour, with DrBat being found guilty of this offence. I would also ask Tenebrae to desist from making inflammatory and inaccurate statments. There is no "serious and significant breach of consensus and Wiki etiquette."

I am trying to deal with a user who appears to have an obsession with this article, given the fact that they only appeared recently and as per their Edit Summary fixtate on it :. Their use of langugage would suggest one of three possibilities:

1. An editor intent on deliberate vandalism. 2. The editor is very young and does not understand Wikipedia rules and practices. 2. The editor has an undisclosed medical condition.

I would ask Tenebrae to assist, rather than exacerbate, the mediation process here.

Many thanks

Asgardian (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * how about none of the above? i already gave you my reasons: id rather you just add to the previous version instead of just completely replacing it with your version, erasing the work of everyone before you --Ghidorah (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * If you looked closely you would see that the revised version incorporates all the relevant information. You have yet to acknowledge the weaknesses I have pointed out. Asgardian (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * youre still replacing everything that was written before with your own version Ghidorah (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * We're on the RfC Noticeaboard page. Please let the mediation process take its course. I would ask how Asgardian details of another editor's age and "mental condition." That last seems a remarkable claim to make against someone. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Not really. One editor with a serious medical condition is already known to us. It is one possibility. Age should be fairly obvious. Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that accusing other editors of mental illness can been construed as a form of personal attack or harassment, and such comments have a history of resulting in blocks. Dekimasu よ! 14:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 * How dare any one editor insert his own contentious and dispute version and unilaterally declare it "Wikicorrect," which is not any official term that I can find on Wikipedia policy pages. And then to threaten other editors, as Asgardian has done? Asgardian, if the RfC has not generated comments, then we move on to the next level of mediation. We DO NOT unilaterally declare ourselves "King of the Hill." Go up the mediation ladder — DO NOT revert when other editors are far from in consensus with your personal version.

 * I think I speak for many editors when I saw how frustrated we are by one editor who engages in frequent edit wars here, at Rhino, at Abomination, at Awesome Android and elsewhere, and despite this cannot seem to learn that other editors do not universally find his edits helpful. Nor his behavior. When an editor finds himself in frequent edit wars with not one but a number of others, how can that not be cause for self-reflection? -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes regarding World War Hulk
May I just add that the fight between World War Hulk and the newly empowered Juggernaut was not a fair fight. The particular issue was World War Hulk - X-Men #3 of 3 of the Marvel Limited Series. During the fight at the X-Men Mansion Professor X calls out to the Juggernaut that they cannot continue to fight without undermining the foundations of the mansion (as a huge crater had been formed that was soon to cave-in on top of the injured Beast who was in the cellars below). It was during this time of hearing his step-brother's pleas that the Hulk launched Juggernaut through a wall and into the nearby lake. I feel this has to be included in the article as it is not indicative of the events that led up to Juggernaut's 'stoppage' as earlier described. Juggernaut had a conscience and the Hulk had used it against him, thus Juggernaut was not utilizing his full potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyB144 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Further to this the contributor writes "Juggernaut is tricked by Hulk who uses Cain's own strength against him..." yet in no way explains 'how' the Hulk manages to trick him, all the while at the same time failing to take into account that Professor X inadvertently turned the fight in Hulk's favor by distraction together with the imminent threat of losing the mansion and the people within. I feel that you have overlooked a crucial aspect of the story by merely putting it in such a way as to make the fight immediately forgettable, in that it was Marvel's intention to make this one of his last great acts of heroism highlighted (specifically) with Juggernaut's refusal to accept Xavier's thanks. This is a critical moment - it may be construed alternatively (and which is rather more plausible) that Juggernaut had 'intentionally' lost to Hulk for the welfare of others.

New topic
I apologise in advance if this is in the wrong place and/or if you wanted me to go about adding the reference myself, but the issue you need whereupon Skaar hits Juggernaut into space is Incredible Hulk #602

Protected
I've protected the page.

Please use the talk page to resolve the content issues, rather than edit warring.

If you feel that a consensus has formed, please let me or any other uninvolved admin know.

And of course, any other uninvolved admin may alter or remove the protection as they see appropriate, just please frop me a note on my talk page. - jc37 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * (Note: The following two posts were posted on my talk page. Moved it here in the hopes that discussion can continue.) - jc37 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. This one is unfortunately nuisance value. Despite repeated attempts at advising Ghidorah as to editing practices, this editor continues to revert, despite my making some suggested changes and that version being supported by another editor on several occasions. I am a tad suspicious as this editor appeared out of the ether recently and it appears only remains on Wikipedia to attempt to maintain an inferior version of one article.

I was surprised by Tenebrae's involvement in a simple matter, but was not when there was no discussion over what were very straight forward edits, which have again been supported. Ghidorah's blind reversions and unwillingness to cooperate seem to be the issues here.

Regards. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 * ive already explained why
 * instead of just improving the pre-existing article, you've completely rewritten it with your own version, erasing everything that came before it Ghidorah (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again you fail to acknowledge to everything that was explained to you here. The revised article incorporates what can be used from the old, as you've been told. We do not, however, keep incorrect or weak material. That may be fan preference, but it is not Wikipedia policy.

You could be blocked for violating the spirit of the 3-Revert Rule, as you come out of left field after no editing for days and perform three blind edits, despite consensus being against you. There is then no activity on the account once more. This is not collaborative or helpful.

Asgardian (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 * you're also guilty of 3RR
 * and what consensus? the only person who agrees with you is dcincarnate --Ghidorah (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Not here or anywhere else that I know of. Yes, another user agrees. That aside, you have failed to acknowledge any of the points raised. Asgardian (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here regarding the "spirit of the 3-revert rule despite consensus against it". Asgardian most definitely does not follow this practice in regards to the Dormammu article, and has a long history of edit-wars and bans because of this. (This is just the tip of the iceberg, as he usually manages to rationalise his way out of it.) I've tried to again give the benefit of doubt and to reason with him recently, but it doesn't appear to help. Dave (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dishonest edit summary
Asgardian here gives the simple edit summary "Added 3rd party source" — even though this edit was a COMPLETE REWRITE reverting the article to his controversial, edit-war version. This is a blithely dishonest edit summary, and one more example of Asgardian's contentious and disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest you be civil and please consider the case history. Asgardian (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Going by that my experience is that your given rationales generally have extremely little, if anything, to do with what you actually do, which other editors have noticed as well, whereas Tenebrae is one of the most honest and most sensible editors I've ever encontered in Wikipedia, I'm obviously inclined to take his word for it, and, as multiple editors have also told you, always stating "civility please" when anyone simply points out exactly what you are doing, is not remotely acceptable either.

 * For anyone else's interest, here is that old list of a fraction of Asgardian's past offenses that I had the energy to look up at the time. Feel free to pass it around and add multiple instances of your own:

 * Asgardian being a proven sockpuppet user, which turns suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits:

 * Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring, before starting to simply do one revert a day or so to get away with it, regardless if this is in direct violation of consensus, like in the Dormammu case:

 * Newer conflicts:

 * User: J Greb noticing that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it: "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia."

 * User: Nightscream noticing Asgardian's tendency for dishonesty, to then accuse anyone who points if out for "incivility", which given that he does what he always does makes it impossible to even respond:

 * Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down:

 * Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos he will eventually revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so:

 * (This proved prophetic, as most recently User:Duae_Quartunciae [warned] him of a ban if he continued to remove valid references, and he left the pages Dormammu alone for a few weeks after this, but then returned and did exactly the same thing all over again, despite that nobody agreed with him, with my main problem being that he essentially replaced referenced exact quotes with personal opinions.)

 * In addition, there was this old hint that he finds this behavior funny: ""insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you?"

 * That said, I have been reluctant to view him as a troll, since he does seem to try doing much more useful things than simply being a neverending nuisance for everyone in this "community", myself in particular, despite User:Tcaudilllg another editor asking me if I considered him as one given that some of his tactics correspond to those of a sophisticated troll, and have given him chance after chance to find compromises, and he has occasionally made minor attempts in this regard, but generally just completely reverts to the same version over and over. Recently we tried again, with the deal being that I'd keep my temper in check/stay as polite as I can, and give benefit of doubt, and him supposed to prove that he's willing to change, and turn more trustworthy and compromising. I'd be fine with if he simply changed for the better, and stopped deleting references, or reinsert factual errors, and for a little while he seemed to make some effort in other cases such as The Stranger, but reasoning and compromises (i.e. rewrite the sentences for better structure if you wish, but keep valid references and accuracy corrections, and don't reinsert speculation if there are better alternatives available) haven't worked very well so far with either Dormammu, Mjolnir, or even this page, although I don't really have much problem with his version here. Dave (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Dave, you've made a number of inaccurate statements that are easy to argue. Again, I'd refrain from making emotive statements and try and come to terms with what has ben explained to repeatedly re: Wiki conduct and style.

I have also yet to see the original dissenter refute any of my points, which were explained in an amicable fashion.

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * "Original dissenter"? "Refute any of my points"? Unclear who and what you mean. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Ghidorah. This user seems to only exist - as has already been shown from evidence - to insist on a weak - also demonstrated - version of the article. There was no RFC. No one was interested in commenting. 10 days went past. The article was also brought up to speed - also demonstrated - and then had a cherry added on top in the form of a third party source. Seriously, why are you even trying to argue this? Asgardian (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm very interested in the "easy to argue" part. As for why anyone bothers to argue, well, as seen a small sample of above, you frequently indefinitely force through agendas that nobody agrees with, without a trace of compromise. That does get to others after a while, and if ewven Tenebrae gets somewhat upset with your tactics this should be taken as quite noteworthy. Dave (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * You have a very limited grasp of the situation here, and your own history is still a great concern. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I've already explained myself. --Ghidorah (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, you've offered almost nothing. That said, I am now taking formal steps to deal with this situation as it has become ridiculous and needs attention. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you always do that, and as seen in BOZ's page, you have been warned multiple times by admins and editors alike that it is entirelly unwarranted and "self-serving" way to use "fear" as a manipulative weapon. Dave (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * That was not a sensible thing to say. Asgardian (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean in the "something to use as a weapon" against me sense? Not really, given that I'm not the one who said it in the first place. I'm literally quoting the admins you contacted the last time around, as linked to within BOZ's page above. Dave (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued edit warring
I've reverted the article to the last version before the edit war between Asgardian and David A started. From what I can see, Asgardian has simply continued to reinsert the same disputatious, non-consensus version as always, with tweaks and tucks here and there, but essentially the same material.

I've asked admin BOZ to consider protecting the page again. Since that would be the third protection in a short period of time, I wonder if, for the sake of the article's stability and to save other editors' time, that the warring parties be blocked from editing this article for a cooldown period of three to six months, as happened with me myself and Scott Free at John Buscema. If I remember correctly, I may even have suggested it myself. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, your edit is the issue here, and has only created problems were there were none. The article was completed and left alone for some days before this unnecessary reversion. The changes were laid out - one at a time as requested - in the Edit Summaries, and a fully formed and accurate PH was added. As was also pointed out, there is now also more detail in the Biography. There was an attempt at a blind revert for no reason, and it was prevented. So, please study the comments I made to DrBat here: as it all still applies. The removal of valid information does not help. Please feel free, however, to add to the more complete version. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * By the by, can we have no more emotive accusations such as "same disputatious, non-consensus version as always", as the information is all entirely valid. There is also no edit war. Just add to the extra information presented, as removing it is again, counter-productive. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The Asgardian version is so disputatious, it even continues to flaunt the basic grammar of formal outlining, to which an encyclopedia should adhere. Just because an editor who disagrees with him may have taken a couple of days off for the holiday, or was concerned of running afoul of 3RR, does not give de facto permission to keep a disputed version up. There is more than ample reason than over a half-dozen editors are involved in an RFCU to rein in Asgardian's increasing anti-collaborative and contentious behavior.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Once again, and this is what outside parties will notice, I'd suggest you begin by actually helping on the article. All you have done is perform another blind revert. If you think the grammar needs work, then fix it. Demonstrate. Do not, however, delete valid information that is vital to painting a full picture of the character. Unfortunately, your action here is the increasing anti-collaborative and contentious behavior. Please, think it through. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I have done that. You reverted anyway. I've pointed it out in edit summaries. You've ignored it. Why do you think so many editors have signed on to an RFCU about your behavior? Because it's fun and easy for us to do? Because we get some sadistic enjoyment out of doing so? Why can't you face reality? You tell me: Why are so many editors, many of them experienced and responsible editors, doing that? In all seriousness, what do you think the reason is? -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, you haven't. Try, section by section. Again, please do not revert legitimate information. What has been ignored? We would seem to have dispensed with the problematic editor, and another has been told not to make blind reverts. So, that only leaves you. Let us work this out. This can be done, yes? Re: the RFC, the "many" editors are not as experience as you might think. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I sincerely wish you would have answered my question: "What do you think the reason is that this RFCU exists?" Self-reflection ... that's not too much to ask for given all the time you've taken from us. -- 207.237.230.157 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits: Offering to work with Asgardian
With my edits just now to this article, I hope to reach out to Asgardian, and demonstrate how editors can work together by giving reasons for each edit, rather than going in wholesale. I don't know whether I'll be rebuffed, but, to me, this free encyclopedia for everyone in the world is too important not to have anyone who can reasonably edit do so. During his three weeks of being blocked, I'm hopeful that I can provide things like the following without having to worry about an edit war.

Now, the version that Asgardian was reverting has its own problems, most notably a mashup of the types of the material that should be found separately in the real-world "Publication history" and in the present-tense, in-universe "Fictional character biography" (or whatever one chooses to call that section. Me, I'll go with the phrasing people spent a lot of time hashing out, with reasons for each of the three words).

I've just worked on the intro and the PH on this initial pass. The PH can sill use some injections of real-world creator names, but I wanted to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible for now.

Below, I've taken two sections of Asgardian's edits, and given each the edit that I've done today, followed by very specific reasons for each edit. I can only hope this effot helps shed some light and reduce the heat.

 * Asgardian edit

Debuting in the Silver Age of comic books, the character has appeared in over four decades of Marvel publications, featuring prominently in the X-Men titles and starring in the one-shot publications Juggernaut #1 (April 1997) and Juggernaut: The Eighth Day #1 (Nov. 1999). The character has also been associated with Marvel merchandise including clothing; toys; trading cards; animated television series; video games and a feature film.

 * My edit

Debuting during the period historians and fans call the Silver Age of comic books, the character has appeared in over four decades of Marvel publications, featuring prominently in the X-Men titles and starring in two one-shot solo publications. The character has also been associated with Marvel merchandise including clothing; toys; trading cards; animated television series; video games and a feature film.

The lead is a general overview; it doesn't have to get bogged down in laundry lists of specific titles, particularly of minor one-shots over a decade old. I've also used the standard phrasing we have throughout the Project that defines "Silver Age of comic books" in context for general readers, for whom Wikipedia policy says we write.
 * Why

==Publication history==
 * Asgardian edit

=== Origin ===

Writer Mike Conroy stated "The characters who debuted during the early years of Marvel's mutant X-Men have been remarkably long-lived, and Cain Marko is no exception."

The character debuted in a storyline in X-Men #12 - 13 (July - Sep. 1965), and throughout the first issue of the story rampaged largely unseen through the X-Men's defences while Professor X related the villain's origin in a series of flashback sequences to the team. Marko is the step-brother of Charles Xavier, and developed an intense dislike for his sibling which was only exacerbated when Xavier's mutant abilities began to develop. While the pair served in the US Army and were stationed in Korea, Marko found a hidden temple dedicated to entity Cyttorak. On entering Marko finds and holds a huge ruby, and reads the inscription on the gem aloud: Whosoever touches this gem shall be granted the power of the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak! Henceforth, you who read these words, shall become ... forevermore ... a human juggernaut! The gem channels Cyttorak's power into Marko, transforming him into what Xavier - witnessing the event - called a "human Juggernaut".

After an initial defeat, the Juggernaut returned in X-Men #32 - 33 (May - June 1967). The character reappeared in Doctor Strange #182 (Sep. 1969); Amazing Adventures #16 (Jan. 1973) and Hulk #172 (Feb. 1974), and in keeping with the strong focus on continuity in the Marvel universe the combined stories formed a narrative that tracked the development of the Juggernaut's powers.

The Juggernaut returned in X-Men #101 - 103 (Oct; Dec & Feb. 1976), the relaunched title that featured the first generation of "new" X-Men. Storylines in Spider-Woman #37 - 38 (April & June 1981) and Amazing Spider-Man #229 - 230 (June - July 1982) explored the Juggeranut's relationship with ally Black Tom Cassidy. The X-Men and Spider-Man proved to be regular foes for the character, with storylines in Uncanny X-Men #183 (July 1984); Marvel Team-Up #150 (Feb. 1985) and Uncanny X-Men #194 (June 1985). The Juggernaut guest-starred in Secret Wars II #7 (Jan. 1986); battled an all-new generation of mutants in X-Men #217 - 218 (April - June 1987); and appears in a flashback story in Marvel Saga #21 (Aug. 1987) and a humorous episode in Excalibur #3 (Dec. 1988).

The Juggernaut also participated in the Acts of Vengeance storyline in Thor #411 - 412 (both Dec. 1989) and returned in Thor #429 (Feb. 1991). Other memorable appearances included an encounter with creator Cyttorak in X-Men Unlimited #12 (Sep. 1996); Juggernaut #1 (April 1997); the "Eighth Day" issue Juggernaut: The Eighth Day #1 (Nov. 1999); Avengers vol. 3, #23 - 25 (Dec. 1999 - Feb. 2000); an attempt at reformation in Uncanny X-Men #410 - 413 (Sep. - Dec.. 2002); X-Men #162 - 164 (Nov. 2004 - Jan. 2005) and an encounter with step-brother Xavier in X-Men: Legacy #219 (Feb. 2009).

The magazine Wizard ranked the Juggernaut #188 on their list of the "Top 200 Comic Book Characters of All Time". In 2009, Juggernaut was also ranked as IGN's 19th Greatest Comic Book Villain of All Time.

 * My edit

The character debuted as an antagonist of the titular mutant superhero team in X-Men #12-13 (July - Sept. 1965). In the first of these issues, he rampaged unseen throughout the X-Men's headquarters as the team's leader, Professor X, related the character's origin in flashbacks. After an initial defeat the following issue, the Juggernaut returned in X-Men #32-33 (May-June 1967), then fought the sorcerer Doctor Strange in Doctor Strange #182 (Sept. 1969); the X-Men member the Beast in Amazing Adventures #16 (Jan. 1973), and the Hulk in The Incredible 'Hulk #172 (Feb. 1974).

After the canceled X-Men returned in the mid-1970s, the Juggernaut returned to fight new iteration of the team in X-Men #101-103 (Oct. 1975 - Feb. 1976). Storylines in Spider-Woman #37-38 (April & June 1981) and The Amazing Spider-Man #229-230 (June-July 1982) explored the Juggeranut's relationship with ally Black Tom Cassidy. The X-Men and Spider-Man proved to be regular foes for the character, who appeared in Uncanny X-Men #183 (July 1984); Marvel Team-Up #150 (Feb. 1985) and Uncanny X-Men #194 (June 1985). The Juggernaut guest-starred in Secret Wars II #7 (Jan. 1986); battled a new generation of mutants in X-Men #217-218 (April-June 1987); and appeared in a flashback story in Marvel Saga #21 (Aug. 1987) and in a humorous episode in Excalibur #3 (Dec. 1988).

The Juggernaut also participated in the Acts of Vengeance storyline in Thor #411-412 (both Dec. 1989) and returned in Thor #429 (Feb. 1991). Other appearances included an encounter with his creator, Cyttorak, in X-Men Unlimited #12 (Sept. 1996); The Avengers vol. 3, #23-25 (Dec. 1999 - Feb. 2000); an attempt at reformation in Uncanny X-Men #410-413 (Sept.-Dec. 2002); X-Men #162-164 (Nov. 2004 - Jan. 2005); and an encounter with his step-brother Xavier – the X-Men's leader, Professor X -- in X-Men: Legacy #219 (Feb. 2009). He also starred in two solo [[one-shot (comics)|one-shot publications, Juggernaut #1 (April 1997) and Juggernaut: The Eighth Day #1 (Nov. 1999).

 * Why

Standard outline form does not include an A) subset if there is no B) subset, as I've noted many times, so I del'd the "Origin" subhead. The Juggernaut's history isn't so long and convoluted that his PH has to be broken down into small chunks. Also, the opening quote has got nothing to do with a factual roadmap of the character's appearances, and read as some sort of chapter heading or epigram that is not encyclopedic WP:TONE Del'd "in a storyline": He's a fictional character; it can't be anything but a story that he's in. Better to say what role he served in the story – in this case, antagonist.

Added description of the X-Men, for general-audience reader. Changed "Sep." to "Sept." as per WPC style (and as I've noted to Asgardian many, many, many times).

Don't need to give his fictioanl origin here – that's for the FCB.

"A series of flashback sequences" can be shortened to "flashbacks."

Since he's primarily an X-Men foe, naming his non-X-Men protagonists gives information about his range; a non-comics-fan wouldn't know who starred in Amazing Adventures, for example. Also, both the cover title and the indicia title of that Hulk comic book is The Incredible Hulk, which is also as it's listed at GCD.

Del'd "and in keeping with the strong focus on continuity in the Marvel universe the combined stories formed a narrative that tracked the development of the Juggernaut's powers." First, this is OR without a citation. Second, this could be said of virtually any major character in modern serial fiction … that as the narrative continues, we learn more about the character and, in superhumans' cases, about their powers.

At the beginning of the next paragraph, I brought forward the point that X-Men had been canceled and relaunched, which a general-audience reader would not know. The same sentence gives the added information that there is a new version of the team.

The rest of this paragraph is almost exactly as Asgardian wrote it, with small changes to avoid using the word "storyline" twice in two sentences; to tone down the hype-y phrase "all-new" to simply "new"; and to change the present tense "appears" to the past tense "appeared."

The last paragraph is also mostly as Asgardian wrote it. I del'd "memorable" as POV; moved the solo appearances to their own, separate sentence; defined Xavier for general audience; and del'd "the 'Eighth Day' issue", since without context, I (let alone general readers) have no idea what that means. Also, throughout, I did some minor c/e.

I moved the Wizard part to the intro. It could arguably go somewhere else, but it really didn't belong under "Publication history."

So those are my reasons. Anyone, obviously, is free to add/edit this material, but for the sake of trying to reach out to Asgardian during his three-week block — in an attempt to get him to see how and why other editors have legitimate reasons to disagree with many of his edits, and that his may not actually be "wiki-correct" (to use his term) — please do as I've done and try to give reasons so that Asgardian can see that we're trying to do collaborative, good-faith work. Thanks. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Images
Unfortunately, DrBat insists on making blind reversions with no discussion (over two editors at present), and so the current compromise has been hammered out. The image of the Juggernaut with the Exemplars is more relevant as this ties to the character's origins and why he has the relationship with the other Exemplars. DrBat's choice is fairly poor as the Juggernaut can hardly be seen, and his rationale that the image is crucial because it tells of the character's redemption is fairly weak as it was only temporary. This change necessitated the removal of the film image to avoid picture overkill. Further comment is sought. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * 1. The "No discussion" thing is crap. I've given my reasons several times. Furthermore, you said that "If it was a new costume etc. then fine."
 * 2. What other editors preferred the Exemplars image over the X-Men one? Furthermore, is the Eighth Day crossover really more important to the Juggernaut's character history than his redemption?
 * 3. How is keeping your image and removing mine a "compromise"? --DrBat (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * In the first instance I would ask you adhere to good-faith and not post emotive statements such as "The "No discussion" thing is crap." (See here as well : ).

 * As to your reasoning, you have blindly reverted on several occasions and have not even provided an Edit Summary. You've been spoken to about reverting for the sake of it before by BOZ. You know this. I also said if another image could be found that was truly signifcant, then it could be used. The Exemplars example is very relevant for all the reasons I have stated, as it supports the text and helps explains why the Juggernaut is what he is. Your current choice features a minute shot of the Juggernaut, who is obscured by other characters. The claim that it shows a reformed character is also dubious as it was very temporary.

 * When I sourced the Exemplar image, and stated that all that was required was the artist, 24.148.0.83 kindly helped out. You then ignored that and reverted on his good work. That was rude and again, uncivil.

 * Keeping the Exemplar image was a compromise as I was prepared to accept there being another image present, even though the article really doesn't need it. Until others comment, it was the best compromise possible to prevent you from making another blind reversion. Given that you were also banned for using a sockpuppet to try and undo some of my previous edits, I would have really have expected better. We need good faith and solutions here. Thank you Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Seeing as how you once created sockpuppets to get around a block, you're one to talk.

 * Furthermore, once again, you said the image would be okay if the Juggernaut was in a new costume. But if you want, we can always go back to the #161 image.

 * As for the Juggernaut's reformation being temporary; it still lasted five years and was an important part of his character. Furthermore, it may not be over since Juggernaut will be joining the Thunderbolts this year. --DrBat (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above back and for and the article, some questions, observations, and two very strong requests: - J Greb (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Request 1: That both of the above editors learn to consistently indent their posts to a conversation. To the the one that most consistently has a problem with it - not indenting can make it damn hard to decipher who you are responding to and in some cases which point as well. It is not that hard to as one or more colons at the beginning of each block of text you are posting. And yes, I'm deliberately de-denting this post as it is nor a specific response to the thread so far.
 * Request 2: Please do not take this post as a reason, excuse, blessing, or other justification to immediately flip images in the article without a full discussion. It isn't.
 * Observation 1: File:Juggernaut2.PNG fills the end requirements of an infobox image quite nicely. The file page itself has some problems. It is unjustifiably over sized - there is no reason for it to be wider than 300px. It also has a faulty file sourcing, a very faulty one. The Marvel Universe Character Bio no longer uses the image, if it ever did. Based on the images that are there, even if the file page had been pointed to there is nil as to where that wiki got the image from.
 * Observation 2: Images within an article are supposed to be there because if they weren't it would hinder the readers understanding of the topic. We tend to get away with playing lose with that with comic book character articles in that it is hard to clearly describe some costumes, visuals for powers, and objects. Showing that a character is/was a member of this group or that one, the apparent primary function of File:TheExemplars.jpg and the secondary one for File:Uncannyxmen437.jpg, doesn't need and cannot support the use of an image.
 * Observation 3: In the same way, the cover of the comic in which the character first appeared, or on which the character first appeared, can only be justified if something about the cover other than the character appearance on it is being discussed. I know this one is a bitter pill for us comic geeks who tend to feel that "first appearance" is notable and significant in it own right and worthy of depiction. Within the Wikipedia context, that is not enough. And yes, this means that File:Uncanny12.jpg, as currently used, fails Non-free content criteria, which is policy.
 * Observation 4: As mentioned with Juggernaut2.PNG, there are issues with the image files themselves:
 * Uncanny12.jpg - It is over sized - 300px tends to be the size for covers as published, 1/2 sourced - the original publication is noted but not where the file came from, and lacks a "Fair Use Rationale". The last, even though it is a "legacy" image could get it put up for deletion.
 * TheExemplars.jpg - It is also over sized - and in cases of artwork only the tendency is for 250px, all but unsourced - the comic was the art used in needs to be specified as well as the URL link pointing to where exactly on Comic Vine the image is, and the "purpose" is les than justifiable. In this case the lack of sourcing can get the image deleted.
 * Uncannyxmen437.jpg - Again over sized and mildly miss labeled - a cover is what appears on the comic when published and includes trade dress, UPC, branding material, etc. The file is art for the cover, not the cover.
 * Observation 5: In general, character articles shy away from including images of costume changes, especially when minor. And a color change from red-brown to silver is minor.
 * Question 1: Which is related to Observation 5. How long did the "silver" costume last? And was it related to the "...the Juggernaut's power begins to wane..." comment? Could that point be expanded and justify an image of just Juggernaut in the modified costume?
 * Question 2: Based on costumes being hard to describe, shouldn't there be an image of the Ultimate Marvel Juggernaut? Granted there may be a need to actually discuss the character in the article as well, but isn't the fact that the characters visually distinct need to be clearly shown?

 * I'd be willing to get rid of the Larocca image if we got rid of TheExemplars.jpg and Uncanny12.jpg as well.
 * If you google "Juggernaut2 site:marvel.com" you can see that Juggernaut2.PNG was the image originally used on their website. That being said, I uploaded a smaller version. --DrBat (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment per request: I agree with J Greb's assessment.  Looking at the three images in question, I am in favor of removing all three.  The first appearance is not sufficiently notable and itself, the image is obscure, only showing the back.  Even as someone who is familiar with the Juggernaut's distinctive costume, it took me a minute to figure out what I was looking at.  The Exemplars image is confusing to me, because I don't understand what his role was on the team and how an image of that would facilitate that understanding better than a simple sentence.  And as for his role in the X-Men, in the grand scheme of things, while it was 5 years, the use of the character was probably not prominent enough of a conversion to warrant an image.  As similar examples, neither Magneto (comics) nor Emma Frost require images depicting their conversions, and arguable, both were just as much of major villains, if not more, in the major X-Men franchise and their switch to good was far more extensive (i.e. Magneto leads the New Mutants, Emma Frost runs Gen X and becomes a central multi-title character as the headmistress of Xavier's school).  The main image is fine, so long as it can be appropriately sourced (and perhaps resized). I'll try to flip through a 410 and give it a write up if I find it.Luminum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Good comments. Yes, I realized early on the image for the SHB was not truly from the comic - it is a touched up version. The image in the comic looks quite different. If we can find another suitable alternative, that would be great.

An Ultimate shot could work (this is what the character looks like: ) if an appropriate image could be sourced. The main SBH image; and Ultimate image and possibly the film image would be fine.

Thanks for injecting some reason into the equation. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * DrBat has gone ahead and removed all the images, although I think it would have been best to leave it for an uninvolved party. I'd like someone else to review the Ultimate Juggernaut image before moving on. Thank you Asgardian (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * What's the problem now? Both users suggested removing the images. --DrBat (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * As for Ultimate Juggernaut image, I recall what he looks like and while it is distinctive, I think he only appears once.  The summary in "other versions" seems to support the brevity of his character in the series.  If that is the case, then distinct or not, I don't think it needs an image.  Generally, given that his head is still the gigantic dome shape, I think it is a relatively minimal difference.  Also, I understand that you and Dr.Bat are having some conflicts, but his action was the endorsed by two other editors and I think we all agree that it is the correct action here.  I understand tensions are high, but please try to separate the conflict from the actions taken.  If his actions went beyond the discussion, then there would potentially be an issue with being an "involved" party.Luminum (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 * My point goes to something I mentioned previously to several others about being smarter editors. Yes, a course of action was suggested, but it would have been better for an uninvolved party to remove the images as it maintans a neutral status quo. That said, let us see what else can be found. Asgardian (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Nutshellish...
 * I put the requests in to forestall immediate removals in favor of comments. Since two editors other than those two involved in the conflict had commented and the two involved agreed, the next step is/was actually acting on it.
 * Ultimate Juggernaut - that version of the character got some use - - over 5 titles and it looks like 6 arcs. As for the image... I can't seem to get into photobucket to see the one Asgardian is pointing to, though there is one at the Comic Book db link I'm pointing to.
 * I should have noticed, and mentioned, the removal of the film image. Having that image seems like a good idea since, like the Ultimate version, it is a distinctly different visual for the character.
 * - J Greb (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 * OK, have tweaked the film image. It would have been better to have a tad more discussion on the UJ image, but since DrBat when ahead and put it in, I added some missing information and placed it where it wasn't on top of the film image. That's probably as good as things can be, I would think. Asgardian (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Looks like we have a winner! Thanks to all for the input! Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thunderbolts is NOT speculation
Before it gets removed again I want to point out that MARVEL itself is the source of the information stating that Juggernaut will be in the upcoming revamp of Thunderbolts, so this is NOT speculation. -- Spidey 104 contribs 02:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is not a shill for Marvel. Nor is it proper to include information on plot in an article that is based on a book, comic, film, game, etc that has yet to be released. Since "things can change" and "bait and switch" solicits can be posted, especially with comics. Is this going to happen here? Yeah, it's unlikely. But, since we do not work on a deadline, anything that looks like plot information can wait for after the shelf date of the comic. And to be clear, that is the day that the retailer is supposed to put the issue on sale for the general public.
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Here, here. J Greb is completely correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Juggernuat's Intelligence...
should it be mentioned that he can be easliy out smarted? after all his offical ratings gave him a "2 out of 7" for Intelligence?(. (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Video game plot
Before reverting again, it would be helpful to have discussion here. WikiProjects Comics guidelines are to not have video game plots recounted at length in comics-characters articles, but simply to note the character appears in a particular game and to note any unusual circumstances — but not to give a plot, which properly belongs in the bluelinked game's article. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Rtkat3 has reverted three times, including once after I asked to initiate discussion here. This is a WP:3RR vio. Please see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to concur that we really don't need a full paragraph of plot details for every appearance in every video game (and cartoon appearance, and even movie appearance in most cases) in character articles. For most cases, it should be sufficient to state "Juggernaut appeared as a villain in "Super Awesome Marvel Game", but is also an unlockable character." If we get a RS which states more about the character, such as how they are integral to the plot or something, we can use that RS to add more, but really we don't need a bunch of detail here. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a mutant
Shouldn't it be made more clear that Juggernaut isn't actually a mutant. I know it's covered in the character biography & the powers and abilities section, but I feel it should be made clear in the introductory section of the article that he isn't. Anyone just skimming the first section and the info in the little box would probably think he was Asaspades (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd have to agree. I think it should be made very clear to the average passer by that he (to the best of my knowledge) is the one mutant that isn't actually a mutant at all. Infact, no where on his entire wiki page is it explicitly stated that hes not a mutant. It only says he was "empowered" and "transformed" by the Crystal Gem of Cyttorak. However, in the film section it says "In this version [X-Men: The Last Stand], HE IS A MUTANT with no explicit connection to Charles Xavier" and his powers also seem to be affected by Leech (the cure) in the film. Which leads me to believe that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Not that I'm surprised the film contradicts the comic books. Maybe a mutation is a mutation, no matter the cause. But I guess that all boils down to whether or not his powers come and go with the gem... like when Onslaught managed to rip it out and chuck him across the country. Either way, the cause of his mutation/powers is a major defining characteristic and worth mentioning up front, especially since its unnatural. 74.177.183.72 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Juggernaut super humanly endurable?
DangerousGame has suggested the category:Fictional characters with superhuman durability, I think its a different ability from super human strength, and would be part of Juggernauts power of unstop ability, even if the ability does come from the Crimson Gem of Cyttorak. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Juggernaut (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603030126/http://www.wizarduniverse.com/051308top200characters2.html to http://www.wizarduniverse.com/051308top200characters2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304153701/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/19.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/19.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109143445/http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/file/588241/15963 to http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/file/588241/15963
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923145920/http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/575527/24552 to http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/575527/24552
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410012930/http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/game/561477.html to http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/game/561477.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126192152/http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/914643/32724 to http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/914643/32724

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Did Juggernaut join the X-Men?
Based on this edit, it's not clear to me if the first paragraph under Juggernaut (comics) which says "Marko remains with the X-Men" means that he had actually joined the team, or if he was just allied with them for a time. 2601:241:4280:161:5D87:8F2A:6A6C:FF7C (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the answer, the change being made is under the team affiliations heading of the infobox. Even if he wasn't a full-fledged member, he was affiliated with the team for a time, starting in 2002. Affiliate doesn't definitively mean member. Also, here is a link to a Marvel solicitation in which they say Juggernaut has joined the X-Men. NJZombie (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's clearer now! 2601:241:4280:161:201E:BCA9:CC4C:84F4 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Juggernaut (character)


text:
Talk:List of Catch-22 characters

Untitled
Yossarian's a MINOR character?! I'm moving it. --cuiusquemodi 02:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are the reasons for wanting to merge all characters to one page? I oppose it, each character is a subject worthy of an article of its own. --62.251.90.73 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

too many articles
Merge them all. There are dozens of articles about characters from this book (see links from Catch-22). The effort is admirable but it's really way too many articles. There might not even be that many articles about LOTR characters. Phr 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That LOTR is not as well documented yet or there aren't enough LOTR characters that warrant an article is no reason to remove Catch-22 articles. These articles are all pretty extensive, the information is accurate and specific on the subject. They really describe the nature of the character and do not tell the same story again. So there is no reason at all to remove them.--62.251.90.73 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge all. Place the content in one article; most are only brief and can be abbreviated by removing context which would be unnecessary if all were together e.g. "[X] is a character from Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22". SM247 02:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge all. I was surprised to see a full article on every character -- would it be preferable/more convenient to have them on one page, anyway? Is anyone going to search for them separately?

I say merge most. Yossarian should get his own article, and maybe a few of the other important ones, like the chaplain, Milo, and Cathcart; but there's really no reason why the maid with the lime-colored panties deserves her own article. Wehpudicabok 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, tell me why you did that. Catch-22 is one of the most important novels of 20th century. The "cast" within is ENSEMBLE, that is why so many characters need their own articles. Where is all this useful and colourful information now, since you deletionists have "merged" everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.108.161 (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up Catch-22
I'm beginning an effort to merge the majority of Catch-22 character articles to this list. Comments and help are welcome. -- Comandante    { Talk }  18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a majority of the work, and should be able to finish later today. -- Comandante    { Talk }  21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes I've finished the merging of the character articles. Each character mentioned on the list should have a brief desription or a link to another article describing multiple characters. Hopefully this will keep Catch-22 and everything related to it in some semblance of organization. In any case, I'm done here, and will finish up with some adjustments to the main Catch-22 article. -- Comandante    { Talk }  02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Aarfy
From the article:

"Old Aarfy has never paid for it" he often says in reference to prostitutes. He often and openly commits rape, because he says he can tell which girl is "nice and clean" and which isn't.

Are either of these instances of the word 'often' justified? From my memory each of those things happened only once. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He talks about he and his fraternity brothers used to date rape the townie girls when he was in college, and laughs about it. Bkatcher (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clevinger
It seems to me that Clevinger is a significant character in the novel, and ought to be listed as such. Lieutenant Scheisskopf, on the other hand, is amusing but sort of minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steambadger (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. I also find the part about Clevinger to be a tad grammatically incoherent. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC) I can't remember if Yossarian describes Clevinger as having "lots of intelligence and zero smarts" or as having "lots of intelligence and zero brains". It might be useful if someone were to tell me the answer. 198.200.115.29 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Korn
Obviously enough, Lt. Col. Korn is cynical AND sarcastic - not cynical and humorless. quote from the book: "Colonel Korn inquired with sarcastic seriousness, mocking Colonel Cathcart. 'No, sir,'", another one: "Were you describing some mystical experience you've had?" - that's a humorless person? Sarcasm is a kind of irony, irony is a kind of humor. The difference is best shown on two background characters of the novel: while Scheisskopf's humorless, Korn's sacrastic. further reading: "Lt. Colonel Korn, the bemused and sarcastic power behind the throne" from http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Catch-22-Part-1--Colonel-Cathcart-263326.html, and http://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=colonel+korn+sarcastic&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ... btw, only pages that state that Korn's humorless are those directly quoting this article on english wiki... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxquis (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

cheif white halfoat
i think we need to list the fact that he wanted to die of pneumonia and not any other way 166.250.2.248 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed tag
not sure which you mean here: inline citations to Catch-22 or citations to secondary sources that analyze the characters? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I believe I added the tag as part of a series of copy edits but looking back at it, it does seem most of the information is just descriptions present in the book and not a lot of analysis that would require outside sources so for now i'll remove the tag. TKOIII (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:List of Catch-22 characters


text:
Asena

Asena is the name of a she-wolf associated with the Gokturk foundation myth. The ancestress of the Göktürks is a she-wolf, mentioned yet unnamed in two different "Wolf Tales". The legend of Asena tells of a young boy who survived a battle; a female wolf finds the injured child and nurses him back to health. The she-wolf, impregnated by the boy, escapes her enemies by crossing the Western Sea to a cave near the Qocho mountains and a city of the Tocharians, giving birth to ten half-wolf, half-human boys. Of these, Yizhi Nishidu becomes their leader and establishes the Ashina clan, which ruled over the Göktürk and other Turkic nomadic empires.

In certain cultural narratives and mythological accounts, the character of Asena, with its symbolic association to a she-wolf, is denoted by the name "Bozkurt" (meaning Gray Wolf in Turkish), embodying a significant archetype with multifaceted connotations.

Modern era
With the rise of Turkish ethnic nationalism in the 1930s, the veneration of figures of Turkic Mythology, such as Bozkurt, Asena and Ergenekon was resurgent.

The Turkish Air Force's Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker tanker squadron is nicknamed Asena.

Leader of the Turkish nationalist İYİ Parti Meral Akşener is nicknamed Asena.

title: Asena


text:
Talk:Cantor Fitzgerald

Tinfoil Hat
Well, congrats to the wack job that added the Cantor-Fitzgerald tinfoil hat theory to the article. It has brought HUGE disrepute to the Wikipedia via an Instapundit link. Good job - hope you're pleased with yourself. Danlovejoy 02:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Complain, complain, complain... but here at Wikipedia we believe in fixing problems instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining about them. You know more about Cantor Fitzgerald? Type it in yourself! This page is now posted as in need of attention. Let us demonstrate our updating skillz... Alba 17:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Danlovejoy has a good point. If you go though the history on this article, the mindless drivel portion was added in 2003. The editors either skipped it or agreed with it. This tinhat stuff does make wikipedia look like a partisan hackjob.

I have kids who use Wikipedia. However, I've shown them where political and current events are often about people's postering more than information. Encarta is a better source of objective information than wikipedia except where it gets into subjects that don't make the 'real' encylopedias. You can't find magna discussions in paid ones, but you do here. However, they don't have the hack jobs that you find here.

A minor note to Alba, skills is spelled with an 's' at the end, not a 'z'. My 7 year old wonders why people don't spell correctly here. --Jmcnamera 18:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Inform him the plasticity of the English language is one of its strengths. Then segway into a life lesson on how there is more than one right answer; and/or the appropriate context and subtle meaning of informal spelling. PS: How do you spell "segway"? :') - RoyBoy 800 00:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Segue, but I also think skillz was being used in an ironic/playful way. I have sympathy for employees of this company and for their families.  It's unfortunate that some people don't and have to construct a fantasy world.  It's even worse when they try to bring that fantasy world to an encyclopedia (when it belongs in an uncyclopedia). Ufwuct 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Does the talk page look like the main article? People can spell however the hell they want on talk pages. It's not doing you, or anyone else for that matter, any harm. But point taken about tinfoil hat people. We have an issue with one at Sydney Hilton bombing at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)antor

'''Fitzgerald lost 658 employees (all of the employees in the office that day), or about two-thirds of its workforce, considerably more than any other of the World Trade Center tenants or the New York City Police Department and New York City Fire Department. The company was able to bring its trading markets back online within a week.'''

Am I the only person that finds this statement cold,mercenary and really shocking.58.178.33.222 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Name
I am moving it from "Cantor Fitzgerald Securities" to "Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." which is how the firm refers to itself in press releases. JuntungWu 14:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harassment case
I tweaked the attribution of harassment to make it clear TheStreet.com reported the allegations but did not report the alleged harasment as fact. This case is fairly old, however, with the story from TheStreet.com dated 1997. Have there been any more recent developments?

NPOV
Holy Moses. I came here to see if I could learn something about Cantor Fitzgerald, and I find an article half of whose content is dedicated towards criticisms of the company.

I know very little about this company, but I am sure that they have contributed more to the financial world than a series of scandals. Perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge of them could expand the company info section, and maybe give the criticisms section a POV brushup? SmartGuy 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And now it reads like the company marketing page. 140.247.240.221 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Still reads like the company marketing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedia1234567890 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit
Why did Cantor file a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia? 218.186.9.1 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok i just read this which answers my question. 218.186.9.1 06:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article, and I wondered about it too. Should be added to the article, why they filed a suit against Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.85.50 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First Sentence
"Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. . is a global financial services firm at the forefront of financial and technological innovation." sounds a lot like straight up advertising, changing it to be more neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.139.12 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I removed a few of the "global" and "in the world" references. Where else would they be? In a parallel universe? Seriously, any kid can create a web site that claims to be "worldwide" now days, so does not convey any information whatsoever. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Investment bank?
Cantor is not an investment bank. It's a broker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.102.59 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Steaming Mad
While Fox News can state "Some executives at Cantor Fitzgerald are steaming mad at their boss, chief executive Howard Lutnick for quietly pocketing a chunk of a $135 million settlement the company received from American Airlines (AAL) over negligence related to the 9-11 terrorist attacks that killed more than 600 of the brokerage firm’s employees", lifting it verbatim and inserting it with only a citation and no quotation marks is pretty dodgy. I am rewriting it.GeeBee60 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cantor Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for https://hashtalk.org/topic/5725/500-rememberhashlets
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for https://hashtalk.org/topic/36666/remember-hashlets/6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly Badly Sourced Section?
The section "Relations to Tether and Terrorist Financing" had been blanked so I restored it, but then noticed a few edits earlier someone removed it saying it wasn't reliably sourced. So I'm not sure if it belongs in the article or not, good sources aren't my expertise on this site :P If someone could have a look to see if it belongs or not, that'd be super helpful! AshLooming (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cantor Fitzgerald


text:
Bart Gets an "F"

"Bart Gets an 'F" is the first episode of the second season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It aired originally on Fox in the United States on October 11, 1990. In this episode, Bart Simpson fails four consecutive history exams, and the district psychiatrist recommends he repeat the fourth grade.

Written by David M. Stern and directed by David Silverman, "Bart Gets an 'F marks the first appearance of Mayor Quimby as well as a new opening sequence. It was the third episode produced for the second season. It was chosen to be the season premiere because it prominently features Bart, who enjoyed popularity during the early 1990s.

Due to the success of the first season of The Simpsons, Fox decided to switch the show's time slot to Thursday at 8:00 p.m. ET where it aired opposite NBC's The Cosby Show, the number one show at the time. Throughout the summer, several news outlets published stories about the supposed "Bill vs. Bart" rivalry and heavily hyped the first episode of the second season. Some critics predicted "Bart gets an 'F would do considerably worse in the ratings than The Cosby Show. However, the episode's final Nielsen rating was 18.4, and a 29% share of the audience placed it second in its time slot behind The Cosby Show with an 18.5 rating and 29% share. The episode finished eighth in the weekly ratings, but was watched by an estimated 33.6 million viewers, making it the week's number one show, in terms of actual viewers. It became the highest rated and most watched program in the history of the Fox network and remained so until 1995. It remains the highest rated episode in the history of The Simpsons.

"Bart Gets an 'F received positive reviews from television critics. Entertainment Weekly ranked it 31st on its 1999 list of "The 100 Greatest Moments in Television".

Plot
At Springfield Elementary School, Bart presents a book report on Treasure Island, but it soon becomes obvious that he has not actually read the book. Mrs. Krabappel tells him to stay after class. As a punishment for not doing the assignment, Mrs. Krabappel makes Bart write “I will not fake my way through life” on the chalkboard 100 times. Additionally, Mrs. Krabappel warns Bart that there will be an upcoming exam on Colonial America. On the day of the exam, Bart feigns illness to avoid taking the test, as he has not studied. After asking Milhouse for the test answers, he takes the test but gets an even lower grade than Milhouse.

Homer and Marge meet with the school psychiatrist, Dr. J. Loren Pryor, who recommends for Bart to repeat the fourth grade. Scared for Bart's academic future, Marge and Homer support this idea, but a terrified Bart vows to improve his grades.

In desperation, Bart asks Martin to tutor him, promising to improve Martin's popularity in return. Bart teaches Martin how to play pranks and slack off; Martin discovers he prefers Bart's lifestyle to his own and breaks his promise to Bart. To buy more time to study, Bart prays to God for a miracle to avoid the next day's test at school. A heavy snowfall occurs overnight; the next morning, a snow day is declared throughout Springfield. As Bart prepares to play in the snow, Lisa reveals she overheard him praying and urges him to make good use of his answered prayer. Bart reluctantly studies while everyone else is having fun in the snow; however, Bart is unable to focus on his study material and begins hitting himself, believing the pain will force him to focus.

Despite his best efforts, Bart fails the next day's test by one point. Bart breaks down in tears and compares his failure to George Washington's surrender of Fort Necessity to the French in 1754. Edna is impressed at this obscure historical reference and gives him an extra point for demonstrating applied knowledge. Bart is so ecstatic when he receives a barely passing grade (D-minus), he runs through Springfield, announcing his success. When Bart returns home, his parents post the test on the refrigerator. Bart remarks that "part of this D-minus belongs to God".

Production

"Bart gets an 'F was the first episode of The Simpsons written by David M. Stern. David Silverman directed it. Over the summer of 1990, Bart was characterized by some parents and conservatives as a poor role model for children because of his rebellious nature. Several American public schools banned T-shirts featuring Bart's image with captions, like "I'm Bart Simpson. Who the hell are you?" and "Underachiever ('And proud of it, man!')". Several critics thought the episode was a response to these controversies. However, executive producer James L. Brooks responded it was not, but added, "we're mindful of it. I do think it's important for us that Bart does badly in school. There are students like that. Besides, I'm very wary of television where everybody is supposed to be a role model. You don't run across that many role models in real life. Why should television be full of them?" Sam Simon commented, "There are themes to the shows we did last year, important themes, I think it's a tribute to how well we executed them that nobody realized we had a point." Bart says "Cowabunga" for the second time (the first time being in "The Telltale Head"). This was commonly associated with Bart through its use as a T-shirt slogan. Mayor Quimby makes his first appearance in this episode, without his trademark sash that says "Mayor". The sash was later added because the writers feared viewers would not recognize him.

The episode was the first to feature a new opening sequence, shortened by fifteen seconds from its original length of roughly 90 seconds. The first season's opening sequence shows Bart stealing a "Bus Stop" sign, while the new sequence features him skateboarding past several characters, introduced during the previous season. Lisa's bike ride was cut, replaced by a one-second whiplash pan of Springfield showing other characters, before Homer's car pulls up in the driveway. Starting with season two, there were three versions of the opening: a full roughly 75-second version, a 45-second version, and a 25-second version. This gave the show's editors more leeway.

David Silverman believes the animators began to "come into their own" as they became used to the characters and were able to achieve more with character acting. During the scene where Bart delivers a speech saying he is "dumb as a post", Silverman wanted to cut quickly from several angles to give a sense of anxiety. Martin Prince's design was changed several times during the episode. There was a different model with larger eyes and wilder hair designed for the scene where Martin betrays Bart and runs off. Silverman describes the "Snow Day" sequence as one of the hardest things he ever had to animate. It features several long pans showing many characters engaging in various activities difficult to time correctly. Bart's fantasy where he sees the founding fathers of the United States uses muted colors and variations of red, white and blue. Silverman also had to work hard to make Bart cry without making his design look too off-putting; for this reason he is shown covering his face with a piece of paper.

Move to Thursday

The first season of The Simpsons had finished as high as fourth in the weekly ratings and was the Fox network's first series to rank among a season's top 30 highest-rated shows. Bart quickly became one of the most popular characters on television in what was termed "Bartmania". Due to the success of the show's first season, Fox decided to switch The Simpsons' time slot hoping it would steal ratings from NBC's "powerhouse" line up, generate more advertising revenue, and lead to higher ratings for Beverly Hills, 90210 and Babes, which would follow the show. The show was moved from its 8:00 p.m. EST Sunday slot to the same time on Thursday, where it would compete with NBC's The Cosby Show, the number one show at the time. Many of The Simpsons' producers, including James L. Brooks, were against the move. The show had been in the top 10 while airing on Sunday and they felt the move would destroy its ratings. Brooks commented: "Suddenly a show that was a hit is fighting for its survival, [...] We're not fighting Cosby, we just want to get healthy ratings. There have been two weeks in my life when a show I was associated with was number one in the ratings, and on Sunday night, we had a chance to be the number one show in the country. I don't think we have a chance on Thursday night." An ad for the show in TV Guide spoofed this, with Homer attempting to wrestle his son away from clinging for dear life to "The Simpsons" logo, with Bart remarking "I'm not moving to another night just because some network dude says so!"

"Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish" was the first episode produced for the season, but "Bart Gets an 'F aired first because Bart was popular at the time and the producers had wanted the premiere to be an episode involving him. It aired opposite the fourth episode of the seventh season of The Cosby Show titled "Period of Adjustment", which saw the addition of Erika Alexander to the cast. The first 13 episodes of The Simpsons had been rerun several times through the summer, and Fox had promoted the first new episode heavily since May. News outlets had published stories about the supposed "Bill vs. Bart" rivalry.

Nielsen rating
Reruns of The Simpsons that aired in the Thursday time slot against new episodes of The Cosby Show were ranked as low as 73rd in the weekly ratings (compared with third place for The Cosby Show). Several critics predicted "Bart Gets an 'F would do considerably worse in the ratings than The Cosby Show. Greg Dawson of the Orlando Sentinel wrote he would "bet dollars to plain-cake doughnuts (a Homer pet peeve) that even a fresh Simpsons won't come within five rating points of Cosby, which could get a 30 share in a power blackout." Fox executive Peter Chernin said they were hoping to establish a foothold on Thursday night and "if we're really lucky and very fortunate, we're going to come in second place".

Early overnight ratings figures for the original broadcast of "Bart Gets an 'F in 24 cities projected that The Simpsons had a 19.9 Nielsen Rating and 30% share of the audience, while The Cosby Show had a 19.3 Nielsen Rating and 29% share. However, the final rating for the episode was an 18.4 and a 29% share of the audience. This placed it second in its time slot behind The Cosby Show, which had an 18.5 rating and 29% share. At the time, NBC had 208 television stations, while Fox had only 133. It finished eighth in the weekly ratings, tied with Who's the Boss?, while The Cosby Show finished seventh. The rating is based on the number of household televisions that were tuned into the show. Nielsen Media Research estimated that 33.6 million viewers watched the episode, making it the number one show in terms of actual viewers that week—The Cosby Show was watched by 28.5 million viewers and finished seventh. It became the highest rated and most watched program in the history of the Fox Network. It remained in that position until January 1, 1995, when a National Football League playoff game between the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears achieved a Nielsen Rating of 21.0. It remains the highest rated episode in the history of The Simpsons.

Cultural references
Bart's slapdash book report was on the Robert Louis Stevenson novel Treasure Island, while Martin presents Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. Later on, Martin makes remarks about the forecastle of the Pequod in reference to Moby Dick. During "Snow Day", the citizens of Springfield sing "Winter Wonderland". The scene where everyone in Springfield gathers around the town circle, holds hands and begins singing is a reference to How the Grinch Stole Christmas! "Hallelujah", the chorus from George Frideric Handel's Messiah, can be heard when it starts snowing.

Reception
The episode has received positive reviews from television critics. The authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, wrote, "A cracking opener to the second season – especially memorable for the sequence in which Bart prays for school to be cancelled the following day only to find himself exiled from the ensuing winter wonderland." Virginia Mann of The Record felt it was "not as wildly funny as last season's best episodes, [but still] well-done, humorous, and, at times, poignant." The episode was praised for its emotional scenes. Tom Shales wrote the episode is "not only funny, it's touching" and praised it for the scenes where Bart prays, writing "There are few if any other entertainment shows on television that get into philosophical matters even this deeply. The Simpsons can be as thoughtful as a furrow-browed Bill Moyers pontification – yet infinitely more amusing." The Miami Herald's Hal Boedeker felt it "pulls off a finale that's thoughtful without being preachy, tender without being sappy. Despite the tears, the show keeps its edge. And the way TV usually smears on the schmaltz, that's quite an achievement." Phil Kloer of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote "The episode does a good job of emphasizing the importance of studying without getting gooky. For all the talk about the anarchy of The Simpsons, the show sometimes has smuggled in an occasional message, as it does again." In his book The Gospel According to the Simpsons, Mark I. Pinsky writes "Bart gets an 'F offers the most detailed portrayal of the dynamic of prayer on The Simpsons." Steve L. Case later included the episode in his book Toons That Teach, a list of 75 cartoons that help teach biblical lessons.

The episode was ranked 31st on Entertainment Weekly's list of "The 100 Greatest Moments in Television", with Bruce Fretts noting it "stands as classic irreverent family TV". In 2007, Larina Adamson, a supervising producer on The Simpsons, named "Bart Gets an 'F as her favorite episode of the series. In 2010, the BBC named "Bart gets an 'F as one of the ten most memorable episodes of the show, calling it "insightful and poignant".

title: Bart Gets an "F"


text:
Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 5

Introduction. Beginning an article with a definition
A quick trawl through the top 200 New Articles revealed ten articles, 5%, where the author plunges straight into a description of the topic, sometimes a very specialized description, without setting the context. This would seem to be about the average proportion at any time.

See for instance JHOVE or Starting fluid. Similarly articles on Bill Belichick and Troy Brown do not actually reveal what sport they are involved with. Or again, the article, Fossil, Inc. does not identify the country. (ok, I do know that Texas is in the USA but it is not always obvious and Wikipedia is supposed to world wide.)  Or another example, Functional leadership model has no context whatsoever. There seems to be a need for another section to Clean Up to deal with articles that are OK but need a quick, terse, sentence at the beginning to state clearly what the article is about. If the concensus should be to create such a section I am offering to help organize itping 06:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Missing Listings
The entire listing for June 28 seems to be missing! Can someone please restore it? Jam2k 13:46, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Category malfunction
I am seeing lots of articles in Category:Cleanup that when I click on them, think they are not actually in that category. (They think they are in Category:Wikipedia cleanup, which is where they are supposed to be.) Is anyone else seeing this? It's been this way for weeks now, and I've been unable to fix it. -- Beland 13:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Not sure if this is the cause, but I've seen a similar thing: if some page (hereinafter "the including page") includes a template that includes a link or a category, and the template is changed after the last time the including page is changed, to remove the link and/or category, then the target of the link will still show the including page on its "What links here", and the category will still show the including page as being a member. This state of affairs persists until the including page is edited again. (I'm too lazy to report this as a MediaWiki bug, which it clearly is - when a template is changed, everything that includes it ought to have its links, etc, re-computed.) Noel (talk) 19:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Grammar
I suppose this is a branch aspect of cleanup, but see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Grammar more about my proposal for this project. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multiple tags
Small usage issue here. I just implemented the new proposal in a page I came across: Tonio Selwart. Initially I put two cleanup tags on adjacent lines, but the visible result was that the boxes appeared without intervening space (they shared a border), and they have different widths. Perhaps the comment in the box "It's OK to use in combination with any of the above tags" can address the suggestion to include a blank line between them, and could the boxes be designed with the same width? David Brooks 18:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution would probably be to include in the Template definitions themselves a small top and/or bottom margin outside the bounding box. Also, it would be nice if the margins on the sides were uniform, so if you use multiple tags, the lines on the sides line up neatly. -- Beland 20:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit page
Can the articles-by-date be reinstated - useful for those of us who do not wish to scroll through all the possibilities.212.85.6.26 14:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Man, oh man
I realise this page needed a cleanup itself - a thorough shakeup, in fact - but I have to say that it now takes ten times as long to list an article as needing clean-up, and ten times as long to find ones that have been listed. Before it was possible to skim down the page and find three or four items and tidy them up all within an hour or so. Now it takes nearly that long just to hunt down exactly what needs to be done with one article. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of the "improvements". The vfd page was reorganised well, with separate talk pages linked into one main article. The same thing here would have been logical.

And no, I didn't comment when the shake-up was being planned, because I didn't know one was - there was no indication in the article itself - perhaps a little note at the top saying "Organisation of this article is imminent - see discussion on the talk page" might hve been helpful. Grutness|hello? 00:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup pages
A combined list of recent additions is needed - by heading or otherwise. Otherwise it is too time consuming to go through all the pages to find something which one can contribute to.

Also - Wikipedia cleanup page and talk page appear under every heading, including the one on articles of dubious importance.212.85.6.26 18:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clean up reversion
Suggestion:

As Wikipedia is a democratic set up perhaps people could revert to the date system if they find it easier to use/alert others to potential problems.

If the stop on adding new queries by date is a temporary one while there is a reworking in progress, there should be a note to that effect.

title: Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 5


text:
MRA

MRA may refer to:

Medicine and science

 * Magnetic resonance angiography
 * Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist
 * Monoamine releasing agent
 * Multiresolution analysis

Organisations

 * Madison-Ridgeland Academy
 * Maharashtra Rationalist Association, an organisation in India
 * Marketing Research Association
 * Mauritius Revenue Authority
 * Metal Roofing Alliance
 * Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority of Western Australia
 * Microcredit Regulatory Authority
 * Monland Restoration Army
 * Moral Re-Armament
 * Motorcycle Roadracing Association
 * Mountain Rescue Association
 * Mugi Rekso Abadi, a media company in Indonesia
 * Myanmar Restaurant Association
 * Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military History (abbreviated MRA in French), a museum in Belgium

Other

 * Mail retrieval agent
 * Market reduction approach
 * Member's Representational Allowance in the United States House of Representatives
 * Men's Rights Activist (or men's rights activism)
 * Minimum reception altitude
 * Mutant registration acts (comics)
 * Mutual recognition agreement
 * Northern Mariana Islands, US territory, ITU country code

title: MRA