Talk:Alternative versions of Wolverine

Merger

This article should be merged with the original Wolverine article. Even though there are many alternate version of Wolverine, we don't have articles to list alternate Captain Americas or Spidermen.--Gonzalo84 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue the precedent is in Alternate versions of Spider-Man, Alternate versions of Superman, Alternate versions of Batman, Alternate versions of Wonder Woman etc. Their articles are all very large and they're all the company's flagship characters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this discussion is old, but Gonzalo84, the Wolverine article is already too long. Merging the many alternate versions of Wolverine into it would make it even longer. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, there is no deadline, and Wolverine is a very notable character inside comics and outside of it, being one of two mutants to get their own spinoff solo movie. Notthegoatseguy 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing Alternate Wolverine

I think there's missing another Wolverine from a parallel universe, one in which he isn't captured by the weapon X project guys and ends up gettin' some answers with the ones in charge, never getting adamantium inserted in is body in this parallel universe, the only problem is that I can't the recall where I saw it. Apontas 6:47 am, 14 May 2007 (GMT)

Sounds like an issue of What If? where Wolverine fights Weapon X. 60.240.41.159 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What If? Vol. 2 Iss. 62 is the issue I was referring too. Wolverine defeated the team sent to take him in and so another test subject was chosed for the adamantium bonding process, with predictable results. If this is not the story the above was referring too, then so be it. 60.240.41.159 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Wolverine

The rest of the Ultimate characters' pages have been reestablished, and thus Ultimate Wolverine should be reinstated. Thoughts? Mihara 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated or not, I feel it needs to be dramtically rewritten. Lots42 08:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The general idea is that Ultimate characters who are drastically different from their 616 counterparts should get their own pages assuming they have enough history for a seperate page. For example, Nick Fury is black, younger, and has appeared in every single core Ultimate title and many of the mini series, so he deserves his own page. Luke Cage is also drastically different, but his appearance was a couple cameos in one Ultimates 2 arc. If Wolverine's origin becomes very different, maybe he'll get his own page. For now, this is fine. Notthegoatseguy 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Two different topics

Wolverine's article is long enough as it is. Alternate Wolverine being on it's own page is cool in my opinion.

And would anyone object if I added the alternate-future Wolverine -skeleton- from Future Imperfect. After all, it actually affects the plot.

Lots42 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Exiles85.jpg

Image:Exiles85.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newmangaverse2.jpg

Image:Newmangaverse2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UltLogan.jpg

Image:UltLogan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed edits

I am attempting to clean up the article to the standards outlined in the manual of style, as well as removing any original research. I am tagging things as needing sources in line with verification policy, and shortening plot summaries to better fit with policies on plot summaries and balance. I am also editing to introduce the present tense used when writing about literature. I am hoping that these edits, when finished, will help move the article towards our standards for encyclopedic quality as found at WP:GA and WP:FA. Hiding T 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the deleated information was sourced with specific issue numbers. You've deleated things without prior discussion. You've also did not edit the plot summary to shorten it; you just deleated broad sections without any effort to fix it. If you do not have the time, put up a tag at the top of the article that says that the article has in-universe type writing and allow others to fix it. You're free to deleat of course, but given that you're original deleations where without any discussion, so was the revert. Go ahead and introduce present tense and make improvements. But at this point, all you've done is deleat without any discussion.--RossF18 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to discuss before I edit, that's a core principle on Wikipedia per being bold. I do not intend to tag the article as in-universe, I intend to fix it myself. I am not deleting anything, I am however better organising material and removing redundancy and irrelevancy. If you look at the edits I have made you can see I have already edited for tense and in-universe material, so I reject your notion that I am simply deleting. However, given you have reverted the article again, I am going to widen the pool of debate as you are acting in a manner counter to collaboration. Hiding T 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you say so, then it must be true. I'm reverting because your definition of "better organizing material and removing redundancy and irrelevancy" is deleating the past 2 years of Wolverine's history in the Ultimate universe. Yes, he was in the the spy for Magneto in the early story arcs, but you've deleated any mention of his current loyalty to the X-Men, something that is hardly redundant and irrelevant given that he was initially a spy. Uncanny X-Men has over 20 hardcover volumes compiling multiple story arcs each, but you seem intent to take out everything but his early history. Wolverine's history in the Ultimate universe is beginning to be extensive with just Ultimate X-Men approaching 100 issues with Wolverine appearing in almost every one, not to mention his involvement in other story arcs. Two paragraphs is too short and having 4 paragraphs is not redundant or irrelevant. You also seem to change you arguments to suite the situation. First, you claim that you're deleating only the unverified things, even though you deleated even the verified points. When I pointed this out, you pretend like you didn't make the argument that you never deleated for the wrong reasons and just move on with new reasons that fall in line with your deleations. Then you say that you can be bold in edits. Well, how's your bold deleations different from my bold edits too? Collaboration? You're hardly the person to talk about collaboration given that you chose to be "bold" without any discussion and then blame people for being equally bold with their own edits. You seem to like using Wikipedia's format for your own good and when other people use the same format and rules to make edits that you don't like, you point other regulations that these people violate (namely me). How can your edits without dicussion be "being bold", while my edits violate collaborative spirit of Wikipedia? Hum. Both can't be true. --RossF18 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ross, first up, I am sorry if I have irked you in anyway. Is it possible we can put aside any other issues, and just work towards improving the article in line with our policies? Let's take it step by step. Now, you have an issue with me removing some information which I said was not sourced, even though it was. Let's move this back a step. I said I removed some information because it lacked sources, but I removed some information because of the need to reduce plot summary in line with WP:PLOT. I am not changing my arguments to suit what I did. I did what I did for many different reasons. I am sorry if I was not clear enough for you, but I was unsure which part of my changes you were referring to. Now, if the only issue you have with my edits is that I removed plot detail you feel is necessary, we can work that out. Is that the only issue, or were there other aspects to my edits that you did not appreciate? Hiding T 11:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the initial plot about Wolverine's beginnings in the Ultimate X-Men, the following plot should remeain, at the very least:

In the Ultimate X-Men/Ultimates crossover miniseries, Ultimate War, Captain America claimed to have worked with Logan during World War II. According to Cap, prior to the Weapon X project, Wolverine was Corporal James "Lucky Jim" Howlett of the Canadian Air Force. Ultimate War #4 reveals that Wolverine is invisible to radar due to the modifications made by Weapon X. He also has a history with the Black Widow, although the nature of this is left unclear; all that is revealed is that she is bitter towards him over it.[1]

In Ultimate X-Men #75, Ultimate Cable reveals a set of Wolverine-like claws, and claims that he doesn't "pop" them for just anyone. He also addresses the character he is speaking to as "Bub."[2] It is revealed in Ultimate X-men #76 that this Cable is a future version of Wolverine that has come back to kill Professor Xavier. He has apparently lost his healing factor over the years, as he is in a stage of advanced age (Not normally possible with his healing factor), as well as sporting a bionic arm. Wolverine has currently left the X-Men to seek out his wife alongside Sabretooth.[3] In Ultimate X-Men #84, Bishop invited Wolverine back to the X-Men and Wolverine accepted.[4] Ultimately, Wolverine stabs Bishop in Issue 90, after Bishop stops Storm and Dazzler from being able to stop Angel from being killed by Sinister.[5]

The Ultimate Wolverine, after the main universe Wolverine, has the largest history. To delete essential plot points (like him being Cable and working with Bishop in the future) is not good, to say the least. I do not see the Ultimate Wolverine section of the article as having any superfluous plot points. It's not going into too much detail. It's just bare bones, which is proper. Making the article flow better, language and grammar wise, is one thing, but taking out essential plot points from an already bare bones article is not right. Compare it to the Wolverine: The End section. That section is longer than the Ultimate section and it's only about 6 issues. That's way too much plot. Here, Wolverine appears in at least 100 different issues throughout Ultimte universe, not just Ultimate X-Men. So, if anything, the plot section should be expended, not deleated. --RossF18 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Right, the reason I cropped a lot of that is because either I did not understand it, I did not think it was important or it seemed to be original research. So from my point of view it needs rewriting to better convey the points to a reader.

So, for instance, why is it important that Captain America worked with Logan during World War II? How is his relationship with Black Widow of note? Has the future version of Wolverine/Cable actually lost his healing factor or is this speculation? Is Bishop a traitor? Does Wolverine kill him? Is Wolverine currently in the X-Men or currently searching for his wife with Sabretooth and not in the X-Men? Why is the stabbing of Bishop important? Who are we writing thsi for and to what purpose? Hiding T 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Point by point:

1.Why is it important that Captain America worked with Logan during World War II? It shows Wolverine's age, and compares him to the regular universe version. There too, Wolverine is very old. In the Ultimate universe, they were supposed to change things up, but they chose to keep Wolverine very old too.

2. How is his relationship with Black Widow of note? I'd agree that this can be taken out.

3. Has the future version of Wolverine/Cable actually lost his healing factor or is this speculation? It's not speculation and the citation is Ultimate X-men #76-77.

4. Is Bishop a traitor? Bishop is working for Wolverine/Cable from the future and did what he did to bring about/stop certain events in the future. Issue 90 of Ultimate X-men.

5. Does Wolverine kill him? Yes, it appears from he last few pages of issue 90, as Bishop is lying on the ground and bleeding profusely with no one helping him that he is dead. If that's too speculative, we can leave off that he was stabbed by present day Wolverine and that no one is helping him and Bishop has no healing powers.

6. Is Wolverine currently in the X-Men or currently searching for his wife with Sabretooth and not in the X-Men? Ultimate X-Men team associated with Xavier School has been disbanded by Ultimate Cyclops and Wolverine was recruited by Bishop for a team that would take the fight to the enemy. The whole "searching for his wife with Sabertooth" is not correct. While searching for his wife is speculation and needs to be taken out, the part about Sabertooth is a simply incorrect since the two are enemies in the Ultimate universe too and to my knowledge the two are not doing anything together. It is true, however, that there was a confrontation between the two and Storm, where Sabertooth told Wolverine that Sabertooth is his son. Anything as far as the truth of that statement would be speculation, but given that it's coming from Sabertooth, it's still suspect. Wolverine and the rest of Bishop's team did destroy a lab where they were making clones of him with the sample that Sabertooth got from him.

7. Why is the stabbing of Bishop important? Bishop was the team leader and without team the future of the team is uncertain. Also, it creates a paradox of Wolverine/Cable from the future sending Bishop into the past to form this team, and then Wolverine himself, in the past, stabbing Bishop, meaning that, in all likelihood, Wolverine/Cable sent Bishop to be stabbed. Shows ruthlessness on the part of Wolverine in the future, only being concerned with the mission, not with Bishop's life.

8. Who are we writing thsi for and to what purpose? This is not a fan/Marvel wiki. This is written for a casual reader who picks up an issue and doesn't understand what's going on or a parent who wants to know what his/her kids are talking about. At least that's what I think. --RossF18 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've hopefully rewritten to address both yours and my concerns. Is that any better than before? Hiding T 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleation of Article

I'm of the opinion that this page should be scrapped completely and all appropriate information should be incorporated into the appropriate related articles, ie. Ultimate X-Men, Age of Apocalypse. Yes, there's a lot of info here, but a large problem this page has is that there is very little here based on real world notability. It's mainly plot summary that can be condensed. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it needs to be done well because I'm somewhat impressed with the article at Ultimate X-Men. Hiding T 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The new edit is much imporved. I would disagree that this page needs to be taken out. Alternative versions articles are fairly standard for mainstream characters with extensive multiple universe histories. It's done to shorten the main articles of these key characters. If these alternate versions articles were deleated, it would just make the main pages of these characters longer. As far as moving alternate version histories of characters to pages that have series history, i.e., Ultimate X-Men or Age of Apocalypse: (1) these pages are about the actual comic book series, not about the characters. Ultimate X-Men page is about the actual Ultimate X-Men comic book. It's history, publication run, very brief two/three line description of characters, etc. Same with Uncanny X-Men, and all the rest. These pages are not intended to have bios of all characters ever involved with the series. (2) Think of the scale of the article if all the histories of every character were moved to the series pages. Think of the main stream universe article like Uncanny X-Men and if all the character bios where moved to one single page. You may argue that it's not the same thing because the alternate version bios are much shorter, but the principal is the same. Just because these alternate bios are short doesn't mean they should all be moved to Ultimate X-Men or Ultimate Fantastic Four, etc. The bios are associated with the character. Thus, alternate version pages that correspond to each character.--RossF18 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming the "alternate versions" of these characters are notable enough to write about in the first place. As I mentioned above, why not just mention the character differences in the appropriate story article ("Days of Future Past", Wolverine: the End, etc.)? You'll only need to cover the basic details anyway, unless there is extensive secondary source analysis of the iteration of the character. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that any version of a main X-Men character such as Wolverine, the original X-Men team, the 1975 team, etc. would be notable enough to have a write up, no matter how short it is. Also, while you can go ahead and write up a very very very brief mention of the character differences in the appropriate story article, an encyclopedia that is meant not just for the fan but also for a lay person (so to speak) needs to have an easy way for a reader to read about all the iterations of the character, thus the alternate versions article for the main/biggest characters in the Marvel universe. Not many lay persons would go searching for a particular story line like Wolverine: The End or Days of Future Past. They will just search for Wolverine or Storm or Cyclops. When you combine this reasoning with the fact that the alternate versions articles would be too long to be placed in the main article, and you get the rationale for having a link in the main article to the alternative versions article for the lay person. If you want to provide basic details of these character in EACH of the story lines, including EACH Uncanny X-Men storyline (afterall, consistency is key in my opinion), please go ahead. But having a brief mention of these characters in the actual storyline article doesn't diminish the importance to have one article that includes all the versions for the lay person who will not search through hundreds of different storyline and tens of different universes that some characters have been involved in. And we shouldn't make them do this. --RossF18 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"I would argue that any version of a main X-Men character such as Wolverine, the original X-Men team, the 1975 team, etc. would be notable enough to have a write up, no matter how short it is." No, they are not inherently notable. The stories the various version appear in are more notable, since there is often secondary sources like sales figures and critical commentary. And yes, general editors would search for the stories, because that's the logical place to look for, say, details about Wolverine in "Age of Apocalypse". I know Kingdom Come (comic book) gets a number of edits about the variations of the main characters that appear within.WesleyDodds (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you then want to move all the main pages to the Uncanny X-Men article? Moving Ultimate Wolverine (and other Ultimate characters) to the Ultimate X-Men page would require, by your reasoning, moving all of the 616 Universe character bios to the Uncanny X-Men/X-Men/New X-Men pages. You're going to be in charge of that? Please also read my entire post. I never said anything about anything being inherently notable. And as far as people who know nothing about comics searching for story arcs instead of characters, you're going to have to prove that to me since I do not take your word for it. Take a person who just saw the movie X-Men for the first time. He/she wants to know about Wolverine. Guess what she'll search for? He'll or she'll search for Wolvorine, not for Days of Future Past story line, not for Messiah story arc, not House of M story arc and not for Ultimate X-Men. So, with other chracters. Your claim that "general editors would search for the stories, because that's the logical place to look for, say, details about Wolverine in 'Age of Apocalypse'" doesn't hold up given that many general editors don't know about Age of Apocalypse or even Ultimate X-Men in the first place. If they want to know about Wolverine, why would they search for a storyline they know nothing about?--RossF18 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that much of this "alternate version" material is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion in the first place. Much of it isn't. If an editor searches for Wolverine and wants details about that character in "Age of Apocalypse" or Ultimate X-Men, there will be a link to Age of Apocalypse or Ultimate X-Men in the article, if either is worth mentioning in the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An no, I'm not proposing a merges as suggested by "by your reasoning, moving all of the 616 Universe character bios to the Uncanny X-Men/X-Men/New X-Men pages". I'm saying delete most of it altogether, and incorporate what is notable (which would be very little, depending on the article). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Following up on your comment, Hiding, all that one really needs to know about Wolverine in Ultimate X-Men is already in that article. Add in details like the difference in appearance and that'd be pretty much it. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Extend my merge argument to deleations. If you were to deleate this article for not being "worthy of encyclopedic inclusion in the first place", then why include comic book material in the first place. Some people might argue that comics are not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. If Alternate versions of main characters are not worthy, why no deleate the main articles also and just have a brief mention of them in Uncany X-Men, etc. articles. While I can see how some alternate universe versions of WOlverine are clearly superfluous, i.e., where he appeared in 1 or 2 issues in a 6 story arc. However, Ultimate X-Men is a significant alternate universe and main characters in that Universe should have a place in ALterante version article. I will also say that this is getting us nowhere. You say deleate, I say keep. I'll continue to say keep and you'll continue to say deleate. Unless we get more imput on this, nothing should really be deleated. --RossF18 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men is certainly notable, but Ultimate Wolverine really isn't, at least enough to warrant his own article. That's what it comes down to. The most logical choice would be to describe the character briefly in Ultimate X-Men or in a related character list article. We really don't need three paragraphs for Ultimate Wolverine, nor is there any real reason to write about the various versions of Wolverine that appear in Exiles. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and I have the opposite one. How are you determining notability? Number of issues a character appeared? Popularity? Do you have any third party evidence to back up your claims on the lack of notability. I don't have any evidence about presence of notability, but you saying that this character is not notable enough to have three paragraphs written is your own value judgement. If you go by issue numbers however, while main universe Wolverine has many more issues, Ultimate Wolverine has more than 100 himself in which he appeared, so if you go by appearance numbers, Ultimate Wolverine is one of the most notable characters in the Ultimate Universe. Now, I hope you're not making a claim that the Ultimate universe itself is not notable. If Ultimate universe is notable, than one of the characters that appears in at least 100 issues of that universe is also notable. Also, I have yet to see anyone in this discussion say that Ultimate Wolverine deserves his own article. We're discussing, at least I thought, deleation of the Alternate versions of Wolverine article. This is not about Ultimate Wolverine's own article, but an article about all the alternate versions of Wolverine that should be kept.--RossF18 (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wesley here, but can't work out if there is some middle ground that would be acceptable to all. Hiding T 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) I'm not sure if this would be a feasible solution ... but I was reading thru the Fictional character biography page of Spider-Man and that page includes MC2 description, as well. What if (comic book allusion fully intended) the large ficitional biography descriptions were relecated to the fictional character biography pages, and the Alt version, merely enumeralted the various alt version publications. It would it solve the issue but it would at least gather a the fictional summaries for this character to one area. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

But even the main article for Wolverine doesn't have the history of the character on the main page, I don't think. The history of 616 Wolverine has its own page, I think. So, it wouldn't even make the summaries all in the same area. I still kind of fail to see the issue. It's standard throughout the comic book articles to have an alternate version page with all of the descriptions for a character with a large alternate histories. --RossF18 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Weaponx1.jpg

The image Image:Weaponx1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

X-Men Forever

It might be worth including a section on the version of Wolverine from Chris Claremont's new X-Men Forever series. I'd add it myself but I haven't read any of the issues fully yet. I believe this version of Logan was killed in the first or second issue of the title. Cyclonius (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Age of Apocalypse

I changed the inner references to the character to 'Weapon X' rather than 'Wolverine' The name change is mentioned in the same paragraph, and in the AoA, 'Wolverine' refers to a different character. --88.218.163.128 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Amalgam

People keep adding, then being reverted, that in the Amalgam Universe, Wolverine was fused with Batman to form Dark Claw. This is a fact. If you want some issues, try Dark Claw #1, Legends of the Dark Claw #1, Lobo the Duck #1, JLX #1, and Marvel vs DC #4, (I believe) and the first Access Miniseries, which I think is All Access #1-4. 60.240.41.159 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)