Talk:Aquaman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dweller in the Depths

Assuming that (reading at what Busiek said) the Aquaman mantle has passed on, and if we're not sure if the whole Dweller in the Dephts thing is permanent, at least we knows it will be long-lasting, why don't we put a redirect from Dweller in the Depths to Aquaman page? Eventually, if we decide to divide Aquaman between Aquaman and Aquaman:Sword of Atlantis, the Dweller Page can point to the First Aquaman, as a significant alias, like Vox (comics) to Mal Duncan DrTofu83 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have a redirect: Dweller of the Depths. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Long?

Does anyone else think this article is a bit lengthy? It's listed as one that needs to be condensed, and I have to agree. After all, this is meant to be a wiki. character article, not "the definite analysis of Aquaman and all things Aquaman." Anyone of the same mind? And if so, any ideas on what can go? Bhissong 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Bhissong

We've been talking about it. Take a look at Article size -- two headers above. ;) —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I skimmed right past it. I'll post there. Thanks.

Bhissong 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

OYL Aquaman

I've started a paragraph about the "New Aquaman" It's just a placeholder with the current information on "Sword of Atlantis". In time I think we can have, like on the Superboy page, an herobox, and if the page grows two separated pages. For now if anyone knows any previous appearence of the Dweller in the depths could spare them. DrTofu83 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that, BUT...

...Where Kurt Busiek has stated that the Dweller is indeed Orin, the original Aquaman? Personally, I wasn't aware of that interview.

FlavioTerceiro 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally didn't add that info to the OYL Aquaman Section. I found it, then I only "rearranged" the given info between the Orin and the Arthur section of the article. So, I think I too must ask to a confirm. I didn't remove the info 'cause it seemed to me possibile.

After reading it I found two possible traces

[[1]] Busiek talking about a "brand new role for Orin"

[[2]] Fans complaining for the new role

DrTofu83 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. But it's not certain.
Personally, i think we should remove it, or tag that section with something similar to the Civil War article:

This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain tentative information and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available.

Because, well, until Dweller says "I'm the original Aquaman", it's especulation. =D

FlavioTerceiro 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Entourage?

Someone is taking it upon themselves to delete every piece of information relating to the Entourage/Aquaman link. I find this to be frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.94.13 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The information about Aquaman's connection to Entourage hasn't been removed from Wikipedia altogether, it's just in a different place. It is located in the subsidiary article Cultural impact of Aquaman. It's always a good idea to check the history list of article changes; in this case, the person who removed your edit from the main article noted his reason and provided a link to this separate article in his edit summary. Hopefully, that lessens your frustration. Cheers, --GentlemanGhost 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think having separate linked articles like this is convenient. Unless each section that exceeds a certain length is referenced elsewhere, it seems to be a confusing layout. It means you have to follow a bunch of links to get all the currently relevant information about the topic. And a current pop-culture reference is surely a big reason that this article gets hits. --24.151.131.65 06:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is convenient either, but we have rules and recommendations to follow. And there's not a bunch of links. This is about one single link: Cultural impact of Aquaman. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I am not talking about this article specifically. If you read what I wrote, that is pretty obvious. Please point out where there is a rule that declares that it must be this way. The Batman article, for example, has a section with actual information in it called 'In Other Media' which gives information without forcing a link-out.24.151.131.65 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked info on "Other media" that would've to be added in here? Have you checked how this would affect this article size? And please, do not compare this article with Batman. That is a featured article, while this one is not. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no worthwhile debate here, I see...plenty of attitude though. Obviously Batman is a better article because it is better in almost every way. Especially the fact that it has information in each section and not just a link-out when it comes to something like the character's importance in "Other Media".

The Cultural impact of Aquaman article (which doesn't come up in a search if you forget to capitalize the "A" in Aquaman or if you *do* captalize the "I" in "impact", by the way) has too much information in it anyways. For example, it contains too much about the Aquaman plotline of Season 2/3 Entourage, which could easily be found by following an Entourage (TV series) link in an "Other Media"-style section. 24.151.131.65 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

1. Batman is a featured article.
2. All capitalized. Check Cultural Impact of Aquaman. Good point! Done.
3. You think there's too much info in there? So work on it! Go over there and edit it in a way it gets better! ;) Cheers —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"You think there's too much info in there? So work on it!" I am so tired of seeing this arguement. The person commenting isn't the one who put the articel together. YOU DID! You "WORK" here, not us! If you don't want to put in the time just say so.

Orin/Dweller

Because this has been questioned since May and no evidence has been provided to support it, I am removing all references to Orin being the Dweller. If you want it in the article, find a citation. Otherwise, it's out. No speculation. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages 08 and 18 from Aquaman 45. Is there any doubt now?
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1119/aquaman45p08vc8.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4083/aquaman45p18qa9.jpg

Split

I'm not entirely clear on how or why this article is being split. NetK, please explain your work here so everyone can understand. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, the golden age Aquaman was distinguished as a completely separate individual from the silver age version according to DC Comics publication references, specifically in All-Star Squadron and Who's Who. On 17 June 2006 UltimatePyro created an entry for Kal-L as a separate entry from the main Superman entry without contest, and this split works under a similar principal. Additionally, after events in the Crisis on Infinite Universe, the origin and much of the core persona of the silver age Aquaman was stripped away as the character was rebooted to his modern day version. Hope that helps. NetK 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I must point out this in an in-story split. In actuality, Aquaman stories were written under the assumption that they were writing the same guy the entire time when they were originally published. It's basically an editorial No-Prize to account for the actually new versions of guys like Flash and Green Lantern. It can also be argued that the reason Kal-L is a seperate page is because DC has used the character ever since Crisis as a tool whenever they wish to write stories about big events (the Kingdom, Crisis). From a promotional standpoint, he's notable, so he gets his own article. Of course that article should only cover the character from when he was first introduced as a different individual from the main Superman (an issue of Justice League, if I recall correctly) and the changes to his past incorporated later with issue citations. WesleyDodds 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The weight should always be on real world publishing history rather than fictional character history. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris and Wesley, I definitely agree that delineating between the two Aquamen is far more difficult than Flash. However, within the real world publishing history was at least a handful of appearences by a golden age Aquaman. As significant as Kal-L? Not hardly. But lacking merit? This is a slippery slope...at what point do we determine this? One perspective is not universally shared where this is concerned.NetK 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I think a probable and concise solution would be to make an "Earth-Two" article. Not separate pages would exist, but the earth two-versions of the characters can be mentioned on that page. WesleyDodds 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good idea.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article size

This article desperately needs to be reduced (WP:SIZE). There are too many unencyclopedic (useless) and repeated info. Take a look at sections "Modern Age" and "Modern origin and history". —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One section should eventually be broken off into a separate article, which will cut down the size: the Aquaman: Sword of Atlantis section. The "Modern origin and history" section should really be broken up and merged with both the "Silver Age" and "Modern Age" sections following Aquaman's publishing chronology as a guide, and presenting the "Modern Age" origin in that section to note how different it is from the Silver Age one. Other than the origin, there really isn't much difference between the Silver Age and Modern Age histories of Aquaman. Kaijan 14:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've integrated the "Modern origin and history" section with the "Silver Age" and "Modern Age" sections to remove some of the repeated information, but it still needs work. Kaijan 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created a sub-article (Cultural impact of Aquaman) based on a Chris Griswold idea on Wonder Woman's talk page. I think it's a nice solution in order to reduce the article. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the reference to it into a "see also" category... maybe a subarticle about history can be made... check back with me in 10 minutes. EDIT: Nevermind, instead I moved the characters section. Vellocet_Malchickawick

What about the extreme detail presented in the Golden, Silver, and Modern Age sections? It seems like these parts are awfully long, and too descriptive for a character article. Is there any desire to condense/stream-line these sections? That would reduce the size considerably.

Bhissong 18:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Agreed! —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 14:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the article should not be too long, however, it is important that the main article gives a complete overview of Aquaman. We can't just split off characters and pop culture articles have have them in a "See also" section. The characters section is pretty short, so I merged in back in. The pop culture scetion is great, but it still has to be mentioned in the main Aqua article, which is now done. The characters section is far too small to break away. If anything, break away "Character history" and write an overview in its place with a link to the sub article. Davey4 08:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, the introduction is excessively long as well. Davey4 08:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, instead of undoing things already decided and done, don't you think you could help in some other way? For instance, trying to reduce the excessively long introduction? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• "decided and done" - What does that mean? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, as I did, and I explained my actions which make perfect sense. You cannot just break off articles like Characters, as it is an important part of the Aquaman article. There are ways to deal with long articles, and that was not the right way to go about it. If you break away sections like Pop culture and Characters, don't just leave the information for dead on the main page - that does not help anyone. Davey4 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Article should be more like Superman

Superman is a featured article, and from what I can see, is the way a comics character should be layed out. I don't like it how Aquaman is just one massive in-universe biography, and stuff like supporting characters and pop culture and thrown out as See also links. There should be a section on creation and publiction in the Aquaman article, and a SMALL fictional biography. If all that info is really encyclepedic, then a History of Aquaman may be in order, but a huge in-universe bio should not dominate the main Aquaman article. What is most frustating is that Characters of Aquaman is only a See also link, whereas it should be like Superman#Supporting_cast. Sections like Superman#Adaptations_in_other_media and Superman#Musical_references.2C_parodies_and_homages are also good examples of what the Aquaman article could be. Davey4 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal sidekicks

Didn't he have a sidekick or two that were not humanoid? (Seahorse, etc.?)

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

no specific animal,everytime Aquaman needs he can call a different sea animal

No, he did have a specific giant sea horse named "Sea Horse" that he rode in the old Aquaman cartoon (and maybe the comics too? Not sure, I read marvel as a kid).

Homeworld?

I'm opening a section on this. I'm torn between the two sides, esp. in DC when I think of things like Hex in the future, Kamandi on Earth, Warlord in Skartaris, Amethyst of Gemworld, and so on. However, I also concede that Colu, Braal, and Tamaran are more likely to be the intended listings. Is it possible to find a clarification at the WP:COMIC page, or by asking there? Or is it worth considering a template wide change to 'Place of Origin', which would far better cover alternate earths, extradimensional 'areas', like General Zod's son, born IN the Phantom Zone, which is NOT a world, or Tefe, who I think was concieved within the Green itself. Instead of edit warring, let's figure this out. Atlantis is clearly ON Earth... 1? Prime? Earth? whatever it's called. It's a 'recognized nation' but it's such a different place, can it count as a 'world'? Well, since the Subdiego storyline, perhaps it can't. Esp. since we've learned of Poseidonis, and the numerous other cities under the sea. Thoughts? Policies? opinions? ThuranX 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting here since the start is a bit more indepth than the one at the project talk page.

I think this is more an issue with the template than this one article, but we can deal with it here if you like.

Nuts-n-bolts of this seems to be squabbling over the name of a variable the the vast majority of users will never see. The article presents the line as "Species" in the case here, and in most cases where species/race/nationality and point of origin are entered. If it is a burning issue, the variable and the PoO only heading can be changed.

If that is the case, may I suggest adding "Point of Origin" as a variable and changing the the default header to the same. That way we don't need to have a bot run and change every "Homeworld" to "Point of Origin" in the code. - J Greb 05:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea, but I'd suggest PLACE over POINT, just for ease of comprehension among most folks who are less likely to associate 'points west' as geography, when to even me, point of origin suggests either Geometry class or a parcel post. ThuranX 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "point of origin" it is an elegant solution, but I think we need it there alongside homeworld, instead of using it to replace homeworld. It is a variable no casual viewer ever sees, but Lesfer doesn't seem to get that. So what I'm going to do is just walk away from this one until consensus decided that the template be changed. --Basique 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What about establishing, on the templat itself via comments, that Either Homeworld OR Place of Origin is to be used, thus allowing significant specificity without confusion? ThuranX 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the PoO is added, it would make sense in the 'box verbiage to state "Use either...or, not both." It would also have to be spelled out that the PoO isn't supposed to be any finer than "Nation/region". I think the last thing we need all the 'boxes to sprout city designations... - J Greb 07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump: Orin/Arthur Joseph Separate Articles

Because of the extensive length, and since the last discussion was inconclusive, I am aiming for another discussion on a separate page for Arthur Joseph Curry. Thoughts? --CmdrClow 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep what I've said before: Before think about a split, an article resize should be considered. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Has one not been considered in the extensive amount of time that has passed? Besides, the size of the article would be considerably shortened if it were to separate the two iterations of Aquaman. --CmdrClow 19:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support shortening the article, esp. in light of recent issues and previews, implying that Arthur's actually Orin's clone or some magical simulacra... In light of such, the entire 'Arthur Joseph Curry' thing may become a relative footnote. Further, Cmdrclow, no one's stopping you from making an effort to shorten. ThuranX 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but I wanted to feel it out to see if I would be contested if I followed through. Since that is apparently not the case, I will move forward. --CmdrClow 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Aquaman (Arthur Joseph Curry) --CmdrClow 08:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that WAS the case. that's why two people wanted you to consider a shortening. Way to work as a team. Thanks for listening. ThuranX 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, why asking for opinions if you just ignore two of them and end up doing whatever you want? Nice. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one to see it that way. ThuranX 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're definitely not the only one. - J Greb 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with what I did then say so plainly. You said that no one's stopping me from shortening. I did shorten by moving the new character to a specific article. If you don't like what I've done, feel free to revert me. I thought I was following what you had wanted me to do. If not, then I'm sorry. No need to draw this out in some adolescent game of sarcasm. It's beneath all of you. --CmdrClow 01:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Throwing your choice back on us with an 'I;m only doing what you said' vibe is insulting to all of us, and to compound our distaste by saying sarcasm's beneath us... Self-revert. Shortening is NOT the same as splitting, and you are experienced enough to know that. ThuranX 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If one lends itself to the other, then what harm is done? You're putting words in my mouth, I am not saying that "I was only doing what you told me." I'm saying that perhaps the meaning that I interpreted was lost in translation, and I have apologized for that. Regardless, the new article has already garnered a "B" rating from WikiProject Comics, and seems to provide easier access to the information about the new character. Again, I'm not seeking an antagonistic relationship with any of you. I just saw this as an opportunity to both shorten this article (yes, through splitting) and present a simpler avenue for information on A.J. Curry. If for some odd reason that offends you, then I apologize, and if you feel it serves the needs of the encyclopedia to re-unify the articles, then be my guest. I will not contest you. But it seems that the article is doing well on it's own. You have even contributed to correcting it, Thuran. --CmdrClow 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut the sophistry. You asked for opinions about splitting the article to reduce it size and got two replies to compress it first. Before there were anymore voices added, you decided to do the split then justify it as it "compressed" the article. And you're acting surprised that the editors that voiced holding off on splitting, and another who didn't even get a chance to voice an opinion, are upset with your action. You did what you wanted to do and damn the other editors. I have to wonder why you even bothered asking for input. - J Greb 06:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, cut the melodrama. I misunderstood you guys and apologized for it. Just cut the extensive and useless comments, say you don't accept it, and do something about it. Or don't. People like you make the experience on this place completely unenjoyable, especially when an honest admission is met with such hostility. --CmdrClow 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't accept it, and we're offering you the chance to make things right by self-reverting. You seem intent on ignoring this to provoke, or prolong a disagreement. ThuranX 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of this response on my talk page from a member of WikiProject Comics and my growing distaste for this whole process (as well as your actions on participating in editing the article, Thuran), my desire to self revert has been eliminated. --CmdrClow 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see... You consider an opinion in your talk page supporting your split, but ignore three opinions against it in the article's talk page. I am a member of WikiProject Comics as well. So are ThuranX and J Greb. Curious... Anyway, at least I see your point now. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he actually listed the reasons for why it was a good change. Give me reasons pertaining to the article about why it's a bad change and your argument will have actual merit. --CmdrClow 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm distinctly NOT a member. I had a long drawn out problem with Phil Welch, so I refused to join up when invited. I work along side the project, but i've also argued with it. The fact that i edited the page doesn't mean I support it. I was reviewing it to look over what you did, and noticed a couple things, so I touched them up. It doesn't imply even a tacit approval. I'd still like to see it remerged. I've already done a bunch to shorten this article, shavign off I think about 1.5K in the intro and golden age alone. Further reviews of the silver and modern eras could take off an additional 1.5 or more, I believe. This would mean that readding the 5.5K of the other would put the total at about 34K, well below the 40K benchmark for split consideration. ThuranX 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By normal standards, it would still be a very large article. Unless there are some reasons to avoid malignance of some kind in either article, or if it somehow serves the readers better to have two (as of now, anyways) different characters, then I oppose reunification. The size issue has just become known to me through Maple Leaf's comments, so now I fully stand behind my decision for the split. --CmdrClow 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're bluntly saying you don't care about consensus, you did what you want, and that's that. Understood. ThuranX 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

With that statement, you're saying that there is no reason for the good of the encyclopedia or the article that the two should be one. With the size issue now brought to my attention, I oppose reunification. If you're so passionate about reunifying the articles again, put it on the A.J. Curry talk page. If not, then what's done is done. Let's leave it at that, unless you plan on doing something about it. --CmdrClow 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. ThuranX 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the page was at 35.8K before split, the new article took about 3.5, this article dropped to 32.2 after split, was further edited and revised to 30.6, readded article, now 4.5K, and after further edits, entire page is down to 34.2. This means that despite net increases in the Arthur Curry section, the entire page now contains more, tighter info at @1.5K in reduced size. There are still major sections needed edits, including history from Silver Age on, and power, and so on. I think that some careful revision an editing can get this page down to a respectable 30 - 31K, well below the size for any split. Further, given the speculation (which I removed from this article wearing my editor hat, but agreeing with in my fan hat), that Orin will soon be back, and given that Arthur's series has been cancelled, I think that in the next few months, we'll find that Arthur's a footnote, not a successor. ThuranX 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Joseph Curry

Hi there. It is not my intention to create dysfunction but I have noticed that there has been a lot of discussion with regards to Arthur Joseph Curry. I agree that Arthur is probably a footnote and not a successor but I feel that there must be a way to keep both sides happy.

• From the outset, if further discussion results in the decision to keep the article intact, it is important to respect the consensus.

• Curry must be part of the main article because he is now part of the Aquaman mythos. At the same time, I feel that it is important to respect the article size.

• Based on article size, there should be two or three paragraphs about Curry, but a separate article for Curry is reasonable. This is based on the premise and/or rationale that there can be further elaboration about the character.

• Case in point, one can observe the article for both Green Lantern and The Spectre. Each article discusses all the characters who have portrayed Green Lantern and The Spectre but each character has his own article as well. One could definitely make the argument that Crispus Allen is a footnote to The Spectre and not the successor as well, but he does have an article too.

- I am merely putting out some ideas and trying to ensure that all the points are explored before deciding whether to merge an article or have separate articles. Best of luck!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple Leaf (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign my comments. Maple Leaf 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These space concerns were noted in the above section, and consensus was not. In fact, YOU were invoked directly as trumping our consensus, which doesn't put fault or blame on you, but gives a sense of how things were handled. As you can see from my summarys, and the histories themselves, a great deal was done already to accomodate the space issues. That said, 33K or so is hardly too big for an article about a major DC character. 33K about say, Kilg%re or Kilowog (to name two DC characters starting with Kil, lol), would be ridiculous, but this article does a great deal in that space, and editors continue to improve it's size:value ratio. Had a solid, reasonable case been made, perhaps consensus would've changed. Unfortunately, the editor became obstinate (-ant?) instead, and so we reduced size, tightened the article, and then re-inserted the Arthur content. Despite all that modification, the article is still smaller. We will continue to tighten up, and thus negate the need. I could make other arguments agaisnt a separate article, including recentism, but I think that the good faith edits of multiple editors to accomodate all the info in one article speaks for itself. ThuranX 03:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside voice

CmdrClow asked me a couple of days ago if I would, as a regular WikiProject Comics editor with no previous experience with the Aquaman article, if I would weigh in as a outside voice.

From what I'm reading, everyone seems pretty much on the same page regarding the actual article content, which needs some tightening and, even with some additional material to plug in some holes, and can be made shorter. Everything looks resolved, in fact, so this might be taken as a post-mortem.

The area of contention seems to be a miscommunication regarding a section on the "new" Aquaman, who may or may not be a separate entity than the original. This section was split off into its own article on 07:52, 28 August 2007 — after a question was raised about whether it should be split off, but before any consensus was reached on that question. The consensus was against a split, and the section was merged back into the article on 03:11, 31 August 2007 — but only after much contentious discussion.

I think CmdrClow misinterpreted that there was a consensus; he wasn't hiding his efforts, and in fact wrote "Done" on this talk page. I believe he made an innocent error, which can happen even with someone who, like him, has been a Wikipedia editor for two years. ThuranX — with whom I've collaborated and have found to be a reasonable and honorable editor — and Lesfer — whose work I know in passing and has seemed solid — reacted with sarcasm. This provoked a defensive reaction in CmdrClow — who acknowledged his error and apologized for it, but did not self-revert.

I believe it might have been better for CmdrClow to have given action to his acknowledgment by self-reverting. But people generally do the right thing when they're properly encouraged and when we appeal to the better angels of each other's natures — and I think the sarcasm and unnecessarily harsh language in the immediate replies weren't in the spirit of good faith, and contributed to the snowballing effect of harsh words on both sides.

Again, I'm an outside voice only commenting because I was asked to mediate informally. The editors worked it out among themselves, so I provided post-mortem comments instead. In summary (and I've been guilty of this myself), harsh words were used when diplomatic and supportive language would, I believe, have gotten the same results sooner and with less acrimony. What the hell, it's like our moms always taught us: "Talk nice. People will listen to your more."

I hope this helps in some way. On a content-oriented note, I might suggest keeping the Arthur Curry section very short until many more settled facts emerge. But then, I'm not a big DC guy, so what do I know?  :-)     --Tenebrae 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Aquaman merger

Someone has proposed merging Characters of Aquaman with Aquaman. I am not so sure this is the best idea, as the Aquaman article is large enough already. The characters article could be cleaned up a bit, however, and I propose treating it like List of Batman enemies, Batman supporting characters, List of supporting characters in Superman, and List of Superman enemies, except that supporting characters and enemies are on the same page. Perhaps a table could be added? And also first appearence of character? Just a thought, but the page should not be merged. Rhino131 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Rhino, and that's a pretty good idea. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a move to "List of supporting characters in Aquaman" would keep things in line with other similar entries. I'd rather like to avoid turning it into a table - they do have their uses but a more prose-based approach tends to be easier to read and is also in line with other similar entries. But definitely a big no to the merge. (Emperor 14:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, I'm not so sure about villains as "supporting characters", but of course supporting characters are not villains, and there can't be seperate pages for both, so its either moved to a supporting characters page or kept as it is. As for a table, if moved to supporting characters page then no table, like batman and superman supporing characters page, but if its kept, then I would say yes. However, assuming we would make it like the batman and superman villains tables, then a first appearence for each character would need to be found, and that might be hard to do for some of them. Rhino131 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New Arthur Image

IS the new arthur image really better than the old one, in terms of the WP:COMIC guidelines? the new one is full body, so was the old, this one's mostly frontal, as was the old, but this one's dark and obscures the figure more with shadow than did the old one with water spray. Thoughts? And before anyone says anything, I'm not looking to pick a fight, go after, or drive awayCmdrClow. I just want to discuss this. I'd prefer to go back to the old one, but since I'm underwhelmed with all the art in the Sword of... stuff, I won't revert without consensus to revert. ThuranX 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with the points made. I'd also go as far as to say that the water spray is a less objectionable issue than the shadows and shifted colors in the one currently in use. - J Greb 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I just felt that the OYL image was just...better. It seems that the cover of Sword of Atlantis 40 is in a more iconic state. The other one seemed a bit too campy for the moods and stories associated with the character. If there was to be another main image for him, then you might consider the cover to Sword of Atlantis #54 [3]. That image is better in quality, and it's a bit more iconic. --CmdrClow 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that as a good compromise. Dodson's line is strong, his colors good, and the picture DOES depict a younger, more idealistic, and less ... scarred(emotionally)... character. It's slightly less frontal than the 'original' out of water image we had, but the clarity of color, line and atmosphere more than make up for that. I"m good with it, but let's allow 24-36 hours for J Greb and others to weigh in to build a stronger consensus. And thanks for understanding that I'm not after you in any way. ThuranX 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The cover image to Sword of Atlantis #54 is a nice choice. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the Sword of Atlantis #54 cover art (or cover) is a better fit thematically than #43. And given the character design, the angle and pose aren't really covering anything in the way of a chest design. - J Greb 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --CmdrClow 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

a fictional character cannot be a 'victim' of satire

n.b. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"n.b." means what? And yes, subject works fine too.you really could've done that as an edit summary, not as a section here. ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge: The Atlantis Chronicles

A drive by tagging for Merge of the The Atlantis Chronicles has happened. I'd oppose the merge, as the series is about the Atlanteans, not Aquaman himself. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Chronicles doesn't belong here. It may not be much of a page, but merging into Aquaman isn't an answer.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the merge to Atlantis (DC Comics). Seems a better option. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Far better, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. On the subject of the Atlantis page... the history, to me, makes no sense and needs fixing. (I've mentioned it here because I think this discussion page gets more traffic that the Atlantis one) Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It could do with a lot of the inline references moving to footnotes, as it does make it easier to read. (Emperor (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Split Between Orin and Arhur

Shouldn't Orin's Page and the New Aquaman Have different pages, because they are different characters? Also to free up room from this cluttered page. RyuKlinge 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not.

First step would be to run over all sections of the article to make sure it's nice and tight, no cruft, no redundancy, clear and cornice.

In doing that, care will need to be taken to proportionately weight all three characters.

After that, if it's still overly long, propose the split, but a reasonable one.

— J Greb 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Before think about a split, an article resize should be considered. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Best first step is to use Aquaman (Arthur Curry) as a link in and then things will stay rock solid after any possible future split. Expanding the publication history with interviews on character development would certainly help the case for a split. (Emperor (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

Edit Warring IP.

despite repeated reversions by two editors, a dynamic-IP using editor is insistent on adding his personal interpretation of a single panel of a comic and a mis-read interview. He ants to say there is now a third Aquaman. However, In-Universe citation is frowned upon, at beast. the Interview states that the author intends to re-imagine the character in a wider context, but not that he will be putting a third person in the suit and title of 'Aquaman'. As such, there is no factual basis for this inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the fight is over:

"Arthur makes his next appearance in the Final Crisis: Requiem one-shot at J'onn J'onzz's funeral. Arthur then appears in Final Crisis #3, now wearing his predecessor's original costume, answering Oracle's draft."

And:

"Arthur makes his next appearance in the Final Crisis: Requiem one-shot at J'onn J'onzz's funeral."

Right?

To be honest, the entire paragraph can go. There is zero indication as to who exactly is between Ollie and Bruce in the wake splash page. And that is the only appearance of a non-illusionary Aquaman in the present in the issue. That means it's an educated guess, at best, about who the character is. The same about Oracle's lines.

Maybe, maybe, there could be a section for "Final Crisis". Either under the PH or separate from both existing FCBs.

Beyond that, I'm less than impressed with the 3RR scrimmage going on. At this point in the past 24 hours we've had:

1. An IP split off part of the problem 3 times
2. ThuranX revert two of those splits and Bignole revert one
3. In that sequence, ThuranX decide that a goof faith edit should be called vandalism on the 2nd revert
4. The IP then give tit for tat in the next edit summary
5. different, close, IP removed 1/2 the problem 3 times
6. ThuranX revert two of those removals

Does that about sum this mess up?

- J Greb (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that assumes that there are three distinct humans behind the three, not two, IPs involved in this. And no, the difference is that the IP, unable to put in his pet fan theory that the Aquaman in FC3 is a brand new one ,based on a Grant Morrison interview which says nothing of the sort, has instead decided that then nothing at all should be put in, because it's not what he agrees with. Status quo ante applies, and the editor seeking change needs to substantiate it with real citation. Unfortunately, talk of reimagining and reinventing does not equal a new person inside the suit and name. The IP refuses to accept this, and so has gone from 'I want my way' to 'if I can't have my way, no one else can have anything'. Maybe I should have gone to RPP sooner, but by my count, I hadn't broken 3RR (two yesterday, three today, not 24 hour continuous, it's been a while since i've been in danger of 3RR, and wasn't deeply thinking on it). A review after your comment shows that may not be the case, however, the jumping of the editor to a new IP also invalidates some of that, because he demonstrates that he's not restricted by 3RR, and can and will instead keep going ad infinitum. ThuranX (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Short points:

• IDing the Aquaman costumes in FC:Req and FC is an assumption, either way.
• Content disputes are content disputes. They should be worked out here. Not through edit summaries.
• While to "reimage" or "reinvent" does not automatically mean "new character coming" neither does it mean "old character staying".
• The time stamps I see on you reverts of the two IPs - covering "guarding" the two FC sentences - run from 17:13, January 1, 2009 through to 15:45, January 2, 2009. That is 5 reverts within a 24 hour period.
• Assuming bad faith on the part of the IPs may or may not be warranted.
• And, "Two wrongs do not make a right". Regardless of your feeling or assumptions you stop when you are about to break the rules. The other guy doing it does not give you a right to do the same. The only caveat I've seen for that with the 3RR is blatant vandalism. This doesn't rise to that.

- J Greb (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never stated this is a new character. Simply check the question mark I've left on my first edit. Just as we cannot say this is a new Aquaman, we cannot say this is Arthur or Orin as well. 189.60.40.19 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless Final Crisis develops a significant Aquaman plotline, which AFAIK it hasn't, then why is this here? Artw (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't tend to mention appearances in crowd scenes unless it indicates something significant, like a new team line-up. It certainly doesn't seem to be we have enough information to justify there being a third Aquaman, but it is something that might be well worth flagging. The interview certainly has plenty of material we can use about the Aquaman he wrote in JLA and this new reimagined Aquaman. Whether it turns out to be a third Aquaman (and it certainly sounds possible this is an alternate version being shuffled into the deck to provide a return to a more old school Aquaman, but he is also specifically not revealing all his plans so there may be a surprise or two in store too) it does mean we have expanded the publication history to include more information on character development and if it reveals there is a third Aquaman we can always move the information around. Remember - there is no deadline and we have to add things we can prove not what we think we know and no one (or a kitten) is going to be shot if we wait until we are sure - let the fan sites and blogs chew over the exact wording and what it may or may not mean. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

Split for Character history?

I've recently been working on this article by trying to clarify and add missing information, and to try and condense what's here already. Unfortunately I've had a lot more success in the former. The article is getting large, and the bulk of this is in the character's extensive biography. It looks like it might be a good idea to split off a History of Aquaman article for most of that information--along the lines of the History of Superman article--which would be better than discarding the pretty thorough work that's been done here, and would let us reduce that part of the article to a quick outline. I'd be happy to do this, but would like to know whether there would be opposition or support before I go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.242.170 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brightest Day, Blackest Night

These sections are insanely long. Aside from the fact each has a main article link, there's no justification whatsoever that a single storyline's section should be longer than the encapsulations of whole decades above. This recentism throws the character's perspective and history completely out of whack and context, and doesn't help give average reader an accurate picture. I don't know the character well enough to surgically edit these sections down to few sentences, but it needs it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't believe he got his hand cut off again. What a ripoff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.28.56.90 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Aquifina?

In Aquamans origin story, it ends by saying his favorite bottled water is Aquifina (sic). What? Aquafina didn't exist until 1994 and Aquaman doesn't market bottled water. It doesn't even make sense that he would drink bottled water, I'm getting rid of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.244.30 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Powers

I've removed the 'powers' section from this article because there's nothing in it. For now. Let's fill that up, eh?

I can remember a few of his powers off the top of my head, but they'd all need to be sourced for citation. These are ones I remember from the recent New 52 series, but I can't remember which issue mentions them. If anyone can find out and source them, we can add them to the article.

- Physical durability, I remember that someone mentioned that he has dense muscle mass in order to survive under the sea, which results in greater strength or similar.

- Underwater ability, I know that he's seen to swim at exceptional speed, but can he breath underwater too?

- Telepathy. That's a biggie, because I know that in some stories it allows him to communicate with non-aquatic lifeforms.

- Those atlantean trinkets he has do things. In fact I just read in this week's issue that his trident does 'whatever he needs it to'. Vague.

What other notable ones does he have, both currently and in pre-52?

Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Powers and abilities section was technically always there...the four sections that followed (and including) the "Origin" section, were all under Powers and abilities before. Previously, someone renamed the "Orin" section to "Origin"[4] and removed a level for the header.[5] || Tako (bother me) || 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SpongeBob

What no mention of Sponge Bob? Mermaid Man from the Sponge Bob Square Pants TV show is an obvious parody of Aquaman, this must be worth a mention somewhere, or has it already been there and some irate Mermaid Man, sorry I mean Aquaman fan removed it?

What makes it obvious? Why is it worth a mention? Can you provide a source showing it's an intentional parody? This type of thing is usually removed as being unsourced, subjective, and ultimately trivial. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rankings by third parties

User:EasyTherePilgrim, you've been removing Aquaman's ranks on "Best" lists from Wizard and IGN because you believe them to be biased. You're replacing it with an unsourced claim that Aquaman is one of DC's top 6 characters, mentioning DC websites as sources in his edit summary. I (and apparantly many other editors who have been reverting you) disagree. Both Wizard and IGN are reputable third-party sources, and thier opinion very much belongs in the reception section. Wizard's lack of a current physical magazine (they are not out of business) does not remove their notariety at the time the list was released. DC's pages are first party and are more likely to be biased, since they have an inherant element of promotion. If you can find additional character lists from other third party sources which rank Aquaman higher, you're welcome to add them. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Argento Surfer, I find your logic to be backwards. Wizard and IGN are the ones with bias. And their opinions are obviously completely random, as their rankings are 94 places apart. How much sense does that make? DC, on the other hand, is totally 100% reputable and unbiased in rankings OF THEIR OWN CHARACTERS. It's not DC vs. Marvel; it's DC ranking it's own properties. And it's clear that DC considers Aquaman amongst it's top 6 properties. So here's what I will do. I will leave up your 3rd party rankings, but I will add DC's own in-house ranking of it's own property. I will give evidence, source it, list sales figures, etc. Fair enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyTherePilgrim (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to add more sourced content, go ahead and please do. However, removing sourced content - whether you agree with it or not - is never good. Per WP:3PARTY, it's exactly what we want to have an in article. Something that isn't related to the original publisher or content talking about that content. Rankings and such are seen as reception - much like reviews about books. You can add more if you want, but if you remove them from articles, you're just forcing the article to display a biased view on it. || Tako (bother me) || 00:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Tako, Ok, I will simply add some sourced content. This is actually all under the 'Reception and Legacy' section of the Aquaman Wikipedia page. It irks me to have to leave up the Wizard Magazine so-called rankings, but I will. For the life of me, I can't see how that is relevant to what's supposed to be INFORMATION on Aquaman. NOT OPINION. That list is no more credible than any random person's list. Roschach as the #6 all-time hero? #12-Snake Eyes, #13-Kitty Pryde #14-Jesse Kuster...some of the others ranked in the teens and 20's - Morpheus, Miracle Man, Yorick Brown, Marv, Cassidy, Fone Bone, Ozymandias. They have all these ranked ahead of The Flash and The Green Lantern. Clearly Wizard Magazine knows nothing about the history of comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyTherePilgrim (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree the rankings seem arbitrary. Perhaps the original articles specified some kind of criteria that would give the rankings more context. The two are more significant than any random blog's rankings because of thier larger distribution/readership, the same way a good review in the NY Times is more significant than a write-up in an author's local paper. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Argento Surfer, As you know, someone again reverted me in the 'Legacy and Reception' category. I'm thankful that you at least un-reverted one thing. But is there ANY way to convey the FACT that Aquaman is a Top-6 DC character. This shouldn't be rocket science. He's the #4 seller since the New 52 relaunch (more than Flash and Wonder Woman). He is #6 in Facebook 'likes'. DC themselves say this flat-out; on their webpage he's one-of-six in the 'Who's Who', in the DC Encyclopedia he has the 2-page spread reserved for only the Top 10 or so characters, the DC stamps, every promotion...I mean it's totally obvious. Shouldn't there be some way to reflect this?? Why is Wizard ranking him as #147 allowable, but this information I'm talking about in not? 3rd-party rankings are only ONE part of the 'Reception and Legacy'.EasyTherePilgrim (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The sales information can definately be put back. I didn't restore it because I'm editing from work and comichron is filtered. When I have time at home, I'll review it and update it. When you put in sales figures/positions, you'll want to include the month you're talking about, since these things change constantly. If you want to specify how his book sold compared to other DC books, that's fine, but you'll also want to include where the book fell among all the other publishers too. It's also good practice to cover multiple months to give the best indication of the book's performance. Say, the first issue, the fourth issue, and then something further out, like issue 25. This will tell readers how big the hype was for number one, how quick they fell off, and where it eventually leveled off.

The push from DC does seem relevant to the article, but it doesn't belong in the reception and legacy section. They can't really be trusted to receive their own work, you know? It can probably be worked into the New 52 section of the biography section. Here are a few links to 3rd parties mentioning DC's push to make Aquaman more popular:

• http://www.newsarama.com/6966-aquaman-evolution-from-laughingstock-to-new-52-rock-star.html
• http://www.newsarama.com/15433-a-laughingstock-10-reasons-aquaman-is-a-badass.html
• http://www.comicvine.com/articles/four-biggest-ways-dcs-the-new-52-has-changed-aquam/1100-143645/
• http://multiversitycomics.com/reviews/review-aquaman-26/

(You'll want to verify this, because these sites are also blocked for me. All I saw was what the google results gave me.)

The facebook information, while interesting, will always be opposed. It's continuously updating, so any claim from it like "xx number of likes" will always be incorrect.

I can tell you're trying to improve the article, and that interest in appreciated. Thanks for being patient and following wiki guidelines. If I can be of any more help, don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page :) Argento Surfer (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

From the link provided to show he was the #4 seller, he was the #44 comic; about the #20 DC comic. There's a clever editorial exercise there in only counting comics about particular DC characters.

DC are not an unbiased source. He might equally well appear on the front page in a last-ditch attempt to promote an underselling comic.

Parade is a RS, but that doesn't mean "Parade asks random bored people on Facebook" is reliable. I believe that the result is what they said, but I don't think it's a meaningful result. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

At least we know how we got their results. The Wizard and IGN rankings are very opaque, and for all we know were compiled by one person based on how well they liked the artist's depiction of the character in issue #3 of their series. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

LOCK THIS PAGE

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THIS PAGE GETS LOCKED SO THAT NO ONE EXCEPT THE CREATOR CAN CHANGE THE PAGE!! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE VANDALISING HIS PAGE!!! (talk) 09:34, 3 july 2014 (UTC)

Stop shouting, please. Pages generally have to see much more persistent vandalism before they get some degree of protection, and pages do not belong to any particular user. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring his first appearance

A couple of editors keep changing his first appearance from More Fun in 1941 to Action Comics in 1938, and they cite DC sources to back them up. But the pages they cite all list More Fun 1941 as the first appearance. Here's DCComics.com on Aquaman and here's the DC wiki on More Fun 73 and on Arthur Curry (Earth-Two). I get similar results on Comic Vine and the Aquaman wiki. I don't understand where the Action Comics edit comes from. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

[6] It appears Gfxohio first introduced the claim. 172.243.186.198 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Phew! I was worried I was completely misreading multiple sources! Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder?

In the The missing year through "Final Crisis" section, the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph says, "In the midst of trying to help his successor, Orin is murdered." Who murdered him? Why doesn't the passage say? I couldn't find a copy o Sword of Atlantis #50, which is cited as the source. Does anyone know who killed him, and how? Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquaman. 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/20110608020121/http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0 to http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)