Talk:Bucky (Marvel Comics)

Winter Soldier shb

If Bucky is indeed really the WS, should a picture of him as the WS replace the main shb image? --DrBat 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My view is no, because the original Bucky costime is more linked with the character - the WS isn't calling himself Bucky, and the article is titled Bucky, not the Winter Soldier, after all. The picture of the WS in its own section is probably the better location for it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Winter Soldier's ID is unconfirmed at present time

According to the writer himself:

In 2005 issues of Captain America, it was revealed that Bucky may be alive. As series writer Ed Brubaker told an interviewer, "Well, it sure seems like it's Bucky, doesn't it? Of course, people have seemed to be Bucky in the past and turned out not to be, haven't they?" Newsarama: "Did He, or Didn't He? Ed Brubaker on Captain America #6"

Please stop reverting qualifiers regarding the possibility of Bucky being the Winter Soldier. The intel gathered by SHIELD (which does not, BTW, confirm the WS's ID) could be false. Disseminating false information to the other side is part of what the intelligence community calls "tradecraft." Or have we forgotten the false intel about WMDs that led us into a war?

Moreover, Cap used the Cosmic Cube to make the Winter Soldier "remember who he was." The Cosmic Cube is a virtually omnipotent, reality-altering device. Cap, out of his own guilt, may have very we;; unconsciously used the Cube to make the Winter Soldier believe he was Bucky, memories (from Cap) and all. That certainly seems a valid interpretation, and goes along with what Brubaker wrote and his caginess in the interview above.

If you're going to revert, pls register and come to this Discussion page. That's the Wiki way. — Tenebrae 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Winter Soldier's ID is confirmed

Saw that someone inserted a confirmation by Brubaker. Thanks for the citation!! I've already reverted my edits, so all references consistently confirm Bucky = Winter Soldier. Cheerio! -- Tenebrae 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the lawyer, I guess....

Hmmmmm......I'm guessing this article about James "Bucky" Buchanan Barnes has nothing to do with famous Las Vegas lawyer James "Bucky" Buchanan?

http://www.nypost.com/tv/59613.htm

http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/las_vegas_law/index.html

The Winter Soldier (search)

I noticed that Wikipedia doesn't redirect to this article or Show it in a list of search results when "the Winter Soldier" (capitalized in any fashion or simply lowercase completely) is typed into the search bar. Perhaps something should be done about this? Ace Class Shadow 06:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created a disambiguation page at Winter Soldier and a redirect at The Winter Soldier to it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'll excuse my French...BITCHIN'! Ace Class Shadow 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Shouldn't Bucky's origins be updated to the Brubaker ones? I don't do it cause i'm not an expert, but someone should try to mix the two without contradicting the new ones, that, being the latest, are also for now the "truer". Admenom

Aphorism

The aphorism mentioned at the bottom also includes Gwen Stacy. Notable that two of the characters are the ones that shaped Spider-Man's character. Anyway... I think Gwen Stacy goes in that list of people who stay dead.

I was coming here to discuss that very thing. See, this "aphorism" or what-not has no "official" wording; there is no definitive version of it. Yes, I have seen Gwen Stacy used for the aphorism (and so far, only clones of her have walked Earth-616 since her murder -- right?) and of course, Uncle Ben has stayed dead in the mainstream Marvel Universe, but Jason Todd and Bucky ... They lost their place in this aphorism quite some time ago! The aphorism is so compromised and dead, I think we should stop putting it into articles (except the actual Comic book death article). It's in quite a lot of articles, currently.

BTW, I have the story with the alternate-universe Uncle Ben being dropped into the mainstream MU by a devilish, female, future "Hobgoblin" from the year 2211. It was in the short-lived comic titled Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. This alternate Ben Parker was swiftly murdered by an evil, inhuman "Chameleon", also from the year 2211. It's a decent story, but you have to start reading it in a FNSM TPB, then switch over to the Spider-Man: Back in Black TPB to finish reading it. The fun is mostly in Spider-Man reluctantly joining forces with Flint Marko, the Sandman. I'll end my digressions now. --Ben Culture (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

President Acrobat

Is there a source for the claim that President Buchanan was an acrobat (and hence Bucky's name)? While this history could, of course, just be in the Marvel Universe, I can't find any real-world reference to it and would be curious to see a footnote in the article sourcing it in the comics. Inkslinger 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Winter Soldier

He's all grown up now, time for him to move out and get his own place. --Basique 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And the primary picture should be Bucky's most notable, not most recent. --SparqMan 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the same character, so in following the WP:CMC guides, it's the same article, with a name that covers all versions, if possible. And yes, a picture as Bucky belongs as the main picture. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WINT001 400star.jpg

Image:WINT001 400star.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 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bucky image

In response to the anonymous-IP editor who says "media coverage" should affect the superherobox image: Media coverage has absolutely nothing to do with an encyclopedia or its standards and policies. Facts — and facts include images — do not get changed because of topical passing fancies.

In this particular case, WikiProject Comics' consensus policy as stated here is, "the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume". --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it applies to legacy characters. Regardless of an image being "classic," that doesn't necessarily correlate to "most recognizable." For instance, when Kyle Rayner was infected with Parallax during the Sinestro Corps War, his article reflected that in the main image. When he reverted back to a Green Lantern, his article reflected that as well. With Dick Grayson, by your logic, shouldn't his article's main picture be of Robin and not Nightwing? No, while Bucky is the holder of the Captain America name and legacy, his main image should reflect that. --CmdrClow (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles may have it wrong, which is why we don't cite other Wikipedia articles.

And in any event, Robin shows ... Robin. (The original — not a later or current one.)

"Not sure it applies to legacy characters"? I'm not sure what you mean, but the policy doesn't make an exception. Spider-Man has pretty good legacy.

Not sure where "classic" comes from, but the most universally recognisable image of Bucky is the image of Bucky.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Dick Grayson (who's most well known as being Robin) has a main pic of him up as Nightwing. "Other Wikipedia articles have it wrong" isn't an excuse. Since this is universally editable, that's not a valid point. The point is, when a character takes up a mantle, the article changes because of it. Spider-Man is still Spider-Man when he's in the black costume. Bucky is not the Winter Soldier or Cap's sidekick anymore. He's the new Cap, and the article is duty-bound to reflect that regardless of what you personally think. If a policy is to apply, it must apply to all WikiProject Comics articles, which is something it clearly doesn't do. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You say, "If a policy is to apply, it must apply to all WikiProject Comics articles, which is something it clearly doesn't do." I'm not sure you mean to say that if a policy doesn't apply to some articles that it shouldn't apply to any. And it any event, a policy, by definition, applies to all articles.

I think "duty-bound" might be a bit strong, and evokes an emotional appeal that doesn't address WikiProject Comics policies and guidelines. By your logic, we should have had a different image of Bucky when he was the Winter Soldier — and should replace the Hulk's SHB image with an image of the Red Hulk. Or, to use your example, the Robin article should have the latest Robin, not the most universally recognisable one.

And that's the point. The image of Captain America is universally recognisable as that of Captain America. Bucky's image — and the one I'm sure Marvel continues to use in all its licensing agreements and trademark applications — is the costume of Image:Bucky.PNG.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because those are SHB pages. This one is most definitely not. The more logical image would be one similar to Flash (comics), showing all of them in one image. But since this is one character who has taken up the mantle, his article should reflect his current state. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. We're talking about SHB images — and the policy, I don't know how it could be clearer: We don't put the flavor of the month(s), but the "universally recognisable" image of a particular character. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Badly worded, my point applied to disambiguation or group pages. --CmdrClow (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about what's current or recent - in fact, "recentism" is strongly discouraged. I'm not clear on the policy, but my personal opinion is that the most recognizable appearance of a character is what should be used in the SHB. This article is called "Bucky", thus we need a picture of Bucky, not Bucky as Captain America. For about 40 years, Bucky was the icon for "dead sidekick", and thus he was static in that mold. Now he's back as a living being so he has changed and grown as a character for the first time since the 1940s; if Barnes continues to make notable appearances in the Marvel Universe, he may deserve a James Buchanan Barnes article. Maybe he already does, if for no other reason than that he has multiple code names (leaving the Bucky article as a page about all the characters who have been known as "Bucky"). In such an article, any image of James Barnes will do, and in fact a recent one may be preferrable.

But, you can take all of that as my 2-cent opinion; I won't be hurt by whatever picture winds up getting used in the SHB. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above statement is correct in that a James Buchanan Barnes article should be created. From what I can see this argument has been created due to the fact that both camps are seeing this article in two different ways:

1) The article is about the character Bucky and should refect how that name has been used historically.

2) The article is about Bucky, the most prominent super hero identity of James Buchanan Barnes and should prominently reflect that character's current status.

The true problem is two fold; the identity of Bucky is bigger than James Buchanan Barnes and, as he stands now, James Buchanan Barnes is bigger then the Bucky ID. As things stand there is a huge need for there to be two separate Bucky and James Buchanan Barnes articles. While I agree that the character is most recognized as Bucky, the level to which he is now being recognized as the Winter Soldier can't be shoved to the side either. Stephen Day (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another 2¢ and a bit more...

• The character does have an almost default recognition as "Bucky" , not as "Winter Soldier", and definitely not as "Captain America". As far as Tenebrae's contention goes... point 4 also speaks to "a clearly-defined primary costume". For this character, the "Bucky" outfit fits the bill, not today's new suit.
• CmdrClow's examples ring a little hollow - By all rights the Rayner article should not have had the images cycling through the 'box. And the Grayson article covers a topic that defaults to both "Robin" and "Nightwing" for recognition. Using the "current" default isn't a stretch in that context. (Or in other words, "New Cap" may be valid 10 years from now if Barnes is still in the role.)
• There is a valid concern with the "Other characters of the same name" section ("Legacy"). This is perhaps the only article I've seen where the dab is a section in an article for a major version of a character instead of a separate page allowing for expansion of lesser versions.
• The more I see this particular type of debate — "Which 'box image for a character with two or more code names/looks?" — the more I think most of them should default to "None" when there isn't a clear "iconic" version (not the case here) or it's become a recurring point of contention (looks to be heading to that point here). Then an image of each codename can get hashed out as spot images.

- J Greb (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping the Bucky suit image. We have little way of knowing how long this will last, despite Marvel's intentions. Remember, Jean Paul Valley was going to be Batman, Superman was dead, Hal wasn't coming back, They'd never gimmick MJ and Peter, Uncle Ben would never be a clone or come back... Comic characters come back, Steve Rogers could too. Per WP:COMIC guideline on SHB's, per the various essays against Recentism, and per WP:CRYSTAL, I feel we keep the image which has 66 years of historic cachet, and can add the Barnes in new CA suit later in the article. ThuranX (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

captain america

since he is the new cap, should this article be renamed? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, definately not. There's an argument for a separte article for James Barnes, but this article shouldn't be renamed. Stephen Day (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Under those circumstances, shouldn't captain america redirect here instead of steve rogers? Or should steve rogers have his own article? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither. Both articles are fine as is. Avoiding recentism is a useful guideline. We can build up the section on Bucky as Cap there, give it more depth here, and if this lasts a few years, split both sections out over to a new article, and disambig or redirect as needed. ThuranX (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt over what to name an article because a character has used multiple superhero names, we go with the character's civilian name -- and that's still Bucky. I wouldn't mind renaming the article Bucky Barnes on the grounds that there are other uses of the word "Bucky", but that has absolutely nothing to do with his status as Captain America. The articles in and of themselves are fine. Steve Rogers has always had the Captain America article even though there's a lengthy list of former Caps. There's no reason whatsoever to split Bucky into multiple articles. Doczilla (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I think we should rename the steve rogers article "Captain America (Steve Rogers)" like we do with DC comics pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RC-0722 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both ideas above-- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what are you saying? BTW, get a combine and we'll go race the Amish. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If' (moderate if...) there is a "Captain America" dab page similar to Flash (comics). Otherwise the Cap article should remain as is. - J Greb (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But by using that example, yyou are suggesting that captain america is a title, not a person. Is that what you mean to suggest? RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The general reading of the article naming guidelines that the Comics Project uses is along these lines:

• If the subject of the article is the singular use of a term, then the title just uses the term. Beast Boy is a good example of this — the character is the only use of the name, so there is no confusion.
• If the subject of the article is the primary use of a term, then the title just uses the term. Superman is a good example of this — the character is the primary use of the name, so there is little or no confusion.
• If the subject of the article is not the only or primary use of a term, then the title gets a clarifier added in parentheses. Flash (comics), Atom (Ray Palmer), and Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) are good examples of this — the name can be confused with other articles. "(comics)" is used when the conflict is with other areas, "(Company)" is used when more than one publisher has used the term, and "(Secret ID)" is reserved for cases where the same publisher has multiple character that used the same code name and there would be confusion with out the notation.
• If the subject, for characters, has had multiple code names, there is an attempt to stay with the iconic name (the one intrinsically associated with the character) without notation unless the codename is iconic for multiple characters or the subject of the article had multiple code names of equal weight. In those cases the secret ID is used, by itself. Dick Grayson and Wally West are good examples of the later case. Both had 2 code names that are intrinsically linked to the character and shared by others.

Right now, with regard to this article and Captain America a few of things would have to happen before the articles get a name change.

• Both would need dab articles (see "Flash (comics)" for an example of this). This is since more than one Marvel character has had the code names "Bucky" and "Captain America"
• A consensus would need to be reached that we aren't short circuiting a primary linkage between character and name.
• A similar consensus would need to be reached as to if there is a single code name primarily linked to the character to use or if it needs to be the Secret ID.

For this article, those really aren't hard criteria to reach. Barnes has had 3 code names at this point, the "Legacy" section should be moved to a separate article, and there is room to point out that Marvel has a history or pushing a replacement Bucky (similar to what has worked at DC with the Robins).

For Captain America it will be an uphill battle. Yes, the character has had 2 other code names, and yes there have been other characters put in the Cap costume, but... The "Legacy" section exists in a separate article already, there really hasn't been a move to permanently replace the character (remember, the jury is still out on the current situation), and, the biggie, there is a fundamental, entrenched, iconic link between Captain America and Rogers. That in and of itself is going to be a strong argument not to rename the Captain America article.

- J Greb (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (sorry if that rambled a bit...)

Just a suggestion... RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should take a moment and applaud J Greb's analysis. If it isn't part of WPC article-naming conventions yet, it should be. It's well-thought-out, with apt examples, and is written in a clear manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(applaud). Now you need to tak a break, get a combine, and go race the Amish. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There's no need for personal attacks, RC-0722. J Greb, excellent thoughts and presentation. ThuranX (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CAPA011 covcol.jpg

Image:CAPA011 covcol.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) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolverine: Origins

What about all the retconning from Wolverine: Origins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.80 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• And where's all the info.? (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Herobox

Should be changed to use the character's used identity to avoid confusion with readers. This means changing the header on the box of this article to read "Captain America" and using an image of Bucky as Cap that conforms to icon rules, the closest of which being Alex Ross' cover to Captain America #34. --CmdrClow (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And as pointed out last year, the 'box should be related to the characters most iconic presentation. For this character that is the "Bucky" ID, not the newly added Captain America one. - J Greb (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then go back and change

• Wally West
• Dick Grayson
• Kyle Rayner
• Jean Loring
• Roy Harper (comics)
• Donna Troy
• Garth (comics)
• Sinestro
• Robin (Tim Drake)
• Jason Todd

He's been Captain America for well over a year now, and there is no sign (as of yet) of Steve Rogers returning full-time. Go back and change all of those other articles, and find other people to corroborate your position, and if you're successful with changing the articles and not having a single revert, then you will have made your point adequately and definitively. The only editor objecting to the changes I made has been you, and the precedent exists in numerous places as I have illustrated. I see no reason to start making exceptions now. The only reason that it hasn't happened for more Marvel characters is because legacy hasn't been as big of an issue as it is with DC characters. That doesn't mean that Marvel articles shouldn't conform to the same standards. --CmdrClow (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets see... on that list of yours:

• Wally West - 20+ years as the Flash and ~20 prior to that as Kid Flash. At the time the article was written the character was iconically linked to both IDs and has been relatively stable since.
• Dick Grayson - Has basically had this argument since there is equal weight to both the Robin and Nightwing IDs. There is a consensus that the "younger" ID (20+ years as opposed to ~45) stand in the 'box. Or are you suggesting that with the rumored changes this will need to be readdressed?
• Kyle Rayner - Iconically the character is a Green Lantern. And as pointed out last year, it really should not have had the rotating 'box with, at the least, Parallax.
• Jean Loring - Yup, likely that the Eclipso image shouldn't be in the 'box. But that is a discussion to be had at Talk:Jean Loring. And actually there was the start of one there from `07 which no one followed up on.
• Roy Harper (comics) - Again, yup. The image, if there is one, should be sans costume or Speedy (marginally the iconic of the 3 IDs). Also again, that's a discussion for Talk:Roy Harper (comics).
• Donna Troy - Hasn't been "stable" image-wise for 20+ years. And the kicker is that the particular costume highlighted is used linked with the character being called "Troia" ans just plain Donna Troy (which is also being used for the 'box title).
• Garth (comics) - Another case that should be hashed out here - Talk:Garth (comics)
• Sinestro - You aren't serious are you? Or is the a point to the image needing to be the black and blue instead of the black and yellow? If that's the case, then again, the talk page for that is the one associated with that article. And that issue has little bearing on this one.
• Robin (Tim Drake) - Same as Sinestro I believe.
• Jason Todd - And this one is the same as Harper.

And you know what, just because these articles, and others that are examples of both formats, exist in these states doesn't mandate that they be "fixed" before this is kept in the state prior to your bold edit.

And generally the process is when an editor makes a bold edit, such as changing the standing infobox, and that edit is reverted, they have to provide evidence that consensus with regard to that article supports the change. Not the other way `round. As it stands, you are the only one that wants the change, there is currently no consensus for the change, there fore the article should stand as is.

- J Greb (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're going by personal definitions of what is "iconic." What does that word even mean? Exactly what does the policy to which you're referring say? There is no such thing as unstable iconography, if something is iconic, then it is simply definitive with no challenge to it whatsoever. Iconicity is the conceived similarity or analogy between a form of a sign (linguistic or otherwise) and its meaning, as opposed to arbitrariness. You seem to arbitrarily assign iconography to whatever you see fit which does not befit the tenets of an iconic image. If you choose to see WWII Bucky as iconic, and I choose to see Cap Buky as iconic, then we're both giving existential definitions of iconography, which is oxymoronic. --CmdrClow (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clow, you want "today's" look at the expense of the long standing aspect of the character, and damn anyone that says different.

The infobox guideline is for the "...most universally recognisable appearance of a character..." ([1]). And yes, editors have described this as the "classic version" or the "iconic version", and it could even be stated as " the most used version". For this character that's the Bucky costume, not the Captain America one. - J Greb (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting my point. I want an image representing the character's most recognized form now, and in the Marvel Universe now, in his own title, New Avengers, and Secret Invasion, as well as every Dark Reign tie-in, that is as Captain America.My main point is that your "guideline" is bogus because it can be interpreted in many, many different ways. People have different values of iconography. Mine isn't more valuable than yours, but yours is also not more valuable than mine. But given Bucky's high stature and status of importance in Marvel as Captain America, I think that's the more appropriate image. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Renaming?

Because this character has had three different aliases in the past four years, I am of the opinion that it should be renamed to something like James "Bucky" Barnes, or James Barnes (comics). Bucky can be devoted to the various carriers of the name, similarly to what stands with the Robin (comics) and Kid Flash articles. Thoughts? --CmdrClow (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with this. It should be like the Dick Grayson article. It's a character that has grown and had multiple identities he shouldn't just be recognized only as Bucky. Besides, according to Marvel Comics he's going to stay Captain America for a long while.Vaf2675 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

http://marvel.wikia.com/File:Captain_America_600.jpg

I recommend that as a new pic for the infobox, as it show Bucky in his classic WWII getup, as Winter Soldier, and as Cap. It's the cover to Captain America #600 by Steve Epting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.155.128 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice art. Nicely weighted away from the bulk of the character. - J Greb (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bucky (Marvel Comics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Reduced from "Top" to "High". Character is associated with a "Top" importance article (Captain America) but is not as important as that subject. — J Greb 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A split happened, since no one did anything about the new article I will accept that.

I have reverted back the article to a version which makes much more sense now with the separe Bucky Barnes article. I hope people will stop adding back all the surperflous material which belongs in that article. There is no need to have the exact same text in two different places. Someone said that there was material which didn't have anything to do with that which was removed but I have checked and I couldn't find any, if there was, add it back, not everything.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bucky. 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/20051217075035/http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/CAp/BuckyBarnes.htm to http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/CAp/BuckyBarnes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123720/http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CapAmerica/Cap06.htm to http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CapAmerica/Cap06.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213115442/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=93450 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=93450

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) 03:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bucky (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bucky(comics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bucky(comics) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18 § Bucky(comics) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)