Talk:Nightcrawler (character)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge

Per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Proliferation of Ultimate character articlesWP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article.--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, Kusonaga 08:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Dr Archeville 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: Admittedly different BG, but same powers, same look, little other difference. -- Newt ΨΦ 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No Merge--Mr Wednesday 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Ultimate chars don't need separate articles. -Markeer 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge T-Man 09:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC) some ultimate char deserve thier own pages, this isn't one of them.
• No Merge --Rocketgoat 04:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC) The homophobe aspect of Ultimate Nightcrawler is just as important a difference as the gay aspect of Ultimate Colossus is, and the decision was to keep Ultimate Colossus a separate page.

I do not see such a merge discussion, and the "homophobe" aspect of Nightcrawler is small, whereas being gay is a major part of Colossus. --Chris Griswold 09:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• No Merge: Ultimate Characters are their own characters, simply based on 616 counterparts. 616's Nightcrawler deserves his own page, a page not muddied by lengthy explanations of alternate versions. The information is strongest separate. --miharakamikazi 07:29, 14 July 2006

Closed with CONSENSUS TO MERGE CovenantD 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

Once again the Ultimate characters are their own person. Their becoming a bigger hit than any of the other Ult Universes. Let them be.Mr Wednesday 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not "their own person," they're just revamps of other characters. They're different verisons of the same character (like from any What If...? or Exiles comic), and so all belong on the core character's page. --Dr Archeville 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$

Afilliations

Shouldnt Nightcrawler's current Afilliation be Uncanny X-men, rather than just X-men? Come to think of it, All the characters have just "X-men" in their afilliation... And just a little question, Do all four of the X-men teams opperate in the X-mansion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Pikmin (talk • contribs) 21:09, August 26, 2006

All of the X-Men teams are called the X-Men. Uncanny X-Men is the title of a comicbook. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Drinking Buddies

I wonder if it would be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that Nightcrawler apparently enjoys going barhopping with Wolverine and Colossus (or, when Colossus was believed dead, going out with Wolverine and raising a glass to their fallen comrade and drinking buddy). I've always thought it was interesting (and highly amusing) seeing the devilish blue furball going to the bar with Wolverine (doing his best to abuse his liver while his healing factor keeps him perfectly sober) and Colossus (the comparatively innocent Russian farm boy), getting sloshed, and debating religion. In the course of some of these little misadventures, they've had a "friendly" fight with Juggernaut and stopped an alien invasion. It made for some very fun 1-shot filler comics. --64.218.89.101 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the drinking with Wolverine is a pretty important detail of the character. The hide and go seek, with the loser buying the winner beer; the bar fights; etc. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since noone has objected, I'm going to make a very brief mention of it in the article. 64.218.89.103 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect German question

There used to be a section in Nightcrawler's entry that pointed out some of the frequent mistakes writers have made when they had Nightcrawler say things in German. Does anyone know why that section was removed? Gokitalo 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i hadn't noticed that. somebody should put that back in --ichliebezuko

Translations

I moved the various translations of Nightcrawler's name into their own section; they did not merit a place near the top of the article. Unfortunately, I had to format them as a list. Also, the original was often ambiguous: "In older Greek translations, he was called Nightwalker"? I left this as is. This should be untranslated into Greek and, better yet, be replaced with the modern translation. The Hungarian also used the past tense: could this be clarified? --Allispaul 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that here in Mexico (Spanish) we don't call Nightcrawler like that, in previous printings it was called Merodeador but newer printings (differen publishers) use his original name (thanks god). Vicco Lizcano 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just had to re-delete that same paragraph from the top of the page again; I guess someone really wants it there. Noclevername 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the polish translation he isin't calld "Nocny Łowaca" (Night Ranegr). His name isn't translated and is given as "Nightcrawler", at least in 90's comics and in X-Men TAS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.160.143.4 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Shouldn't we have the German translation? I mean, that's his natonality.

2 Dingers

Someone should add how Nightcrawler has two peckers. An writer for the X-men comics states that he does in the bonus features for X2 X-Men United.

That was Chuck Austen's idea of a joke. Kusonaga 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What on God's green Earth are you two talking about? --Chris Griswold 08:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Austen made a joke that Nightcrawler actually had two johnsons in an interview for X2. Kusonaga 08:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn;t it at least be "zwei Schwänze"?--Chris Griswold 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How the hell did THAT come up? Perhaps it would be an interesting point as a "trivia" note Floating Banana 07:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nocturne

I believe it should be mentioned that in an alternate reality Nocturne is alternate Nightcrawler's daughter. It may not be the same nightcrawler, but she still percieves him has father. My first cite for this was the Marvel wiki, however since the page on Nocturne states so, I've noted it. Floating Banana 07:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

teleporting with additional mass

does night crawler have to hug (grab tightly) the person he is gonna teleport with him and why???? cause in x-men legends 2 he has to hug when telepporting someone and in x-men united he hugs rogue and storm and prof. X when teleporting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.225.101 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I think he has to hold them atleast - to my knowledge his teleportation ability basicaly allows him to teleport his person and anything attached to his person (ie, he can not, for instance, teleport a sword from the enemys hands into his own). This makes sense to me, seeing as his ability involves he, himself, moving through "wormholes" in reality, so to speak. Using this concept, he would only have ability to teleport anything he physically touches.

Why he hugs? simple. If he is moving through the portals sub-conciously, that tells us movement between spots IS required, to a minor degree. If he was to touch someone, and COULD teleport them with him, he would move. They, on the other hand, would not. They would get stuck in the other world, not a good thing. He most probably hugs them in order to insure they move along with him, and so he does not let go. Floating Banana 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment, though I was under the impression that Nightcrawler couldn't move when he was in the "other world". Although it would make a lot of sense, for example on X-men 3 the game, if you were standing on a pipe and teleported to a pole Nightcrawler would appear in a different position when he re-appears.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimatenightcrawler.jpg

Image:Ultimatenightcrawler.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nightcrawler.jpg

Image:Nightcrawler.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Every little bit helps

If my research is right..NIGHTCRAWLER #8 Cover By: Darick Robertson Written By: Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa Penciled By: Darick Robertson...confirms that Kurt was raised in Bavaria. Lots42 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. If the issue actually notes that, go ahead and include it (all we need is the issue number, though). ou did the heavy lifting, so you get the honor of adding it. good work, Lots! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here be cruft

Y'all might have noticed the plethora of citation needed tags that have sprouted up in the article. I am the one who placed them there. There is a ton of speculation and uncited information in the article and it cannot remain that way. There is uncited info dating back to February, and that is totally unsatisfactory. I am going to wait a week, and see if some enterprising soul jumps in and starts replacing the tags with solid references. If naught happens I will probably go through and start trimming a lot of the fat and uncited from the article. Please do not remove the tags unless you are putting references back in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, people will be sure to remove tags in line with our policy, and would appreciate it if text is removed likewise. Hiding Talk 11:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that tagging information you do not have at least some suspicion might not be true is disruptive. Furthermore, most of the tags are in plot summary sections, where convention (and consensus) is to assume that the primary source (in this case X-Men comics) is being used. Although I would, for superhero comics articles, prefer a more real-world model that identified plot arcs, widespread convention goes against this, and the use of fact tags in these cases is inappropriate.

To this end, I have reverted your tagging. I agree that the article has some cruft - this can generally be removed on the grounds that it is excessive in-universe detail, however, and the misuse of the fact tag is not required. Go ahead and remove sections you think are crufty. That said, looking at the article, I think you tagged some of the least crufty sections - as in most superhero articles, the alternate versions section is absurd, the powers section is insanely long, etc. The plot summary does not seem to me unreasonable for a character with 30 years of history, specially given that it actually gives appropriate weight to all of the eras of the character's appearance. Phil Sandifer 12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Being fairly unfamiliar with the character, I saw bits in there (the least crufty parts) that needed citation. Despite the fact that it is a comic book hero, newcomers to the character are going to want to know where certain plot and character development bits took place, and indeed that certain bits took place at all. It isn't that I thought they were false - I would have used a 'fact' tag instead - I thought that those places where people are going to want to reference that needed - you guessed it - reference tags. Other comic book articles provide the level of citation I tagged, and this article - 30 years of character development or not, deserves the same treatment. With respect, i am going to undo your revert. I will also attend to the crufty bits throughout the weekend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Hiding

I noted your reverts of my cn tag placement in the article, and it appears you were correct in removing some of them. However, while WP:LEAD says to try and avoid citations in the Lead, it doesn't banish them altogether; I should know, I fought long and hard to have them removed completely, and was unsuccessful. Therefore, I know that avoiding citations in the Lead requires one of two things - either stating things in a general enough manner that the statemetns aren't likely to be be questioned/contested, or to break the rules and ignore the rules altogether. I cited what needed citing. This edit removed citation tags asking for verification of information that either did not appear in the article or wasn't cited within the article. Your next two reverts I am willing to concede might provide satisfactory information about the book (though not enough for the listed artists). Your last revert draws attention to the idea that all of the events descrbed in the ensuing passage all occured within the same issue - and they did not. This is why it seems fairly important that, when plot points develop, to cite a reference point inthe comic. You are free to discuss the matter in the article discussion page, but I have reverted the two instances I have drawn attention to here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<my response> Thanks for your message. I completely disagree with your reversion, since as you sate, all the information within the lead is located elsewhere within the article. It is better if it is sourced in the main body rather than the lead, per our guidance at WP:LEAD, and I feel it would be better if you tagged the appropriate areas within the article body. For example, tag the paragraph which starts When Nightcrawler was first submitted as a character, it was for DC's Legion of Super-Heroes within the Nightcrawler (comics)#Characteristics section. For the fact that he appears in a number of video games, you either need to remove the whole section listing those video games, or you need to remove the cite needed tag, they can't both be correct, and if you believe the former needs a citation then you are disputing the veracity of the whole list of video games presented within the article, which again you should tag. As to the tagged statements regarding Nightcrawler's origin, again, these are summaries of statements within the Nightcrawler (comics)#Origin section, and the tags would be better placed there per above. As to the citations requested for the sentences reading During the battle with Vulcun (Uncanny X-Men #486) Nightcrawler helps get the injured Professor X and Darwin back to their spaceship.

While there, trying to save Professor X, Lilandra sent the ship on its way back to Earth, leaving half the team behind You state they didn't all happen in the issue cited. I will take your word for it, but ask if you know in which issues the events did happen? If so, please state them here so I can add them to the article, or perhaps even be so kind as to add them yourself. Regarding all your reverts of my edits, I don't edit war, so I won't revert, but I'm disappointed you reverted me rather than seeking to discuss and find a mutual consensus. Can I take the opportunity to recommend the bold, revert and discuss cycle. You were bold, I reverted, the next stage would naturally be discuss. Otherwise edit wars can break out and it can look like one person is trying to impose their opinion over all others. I'm happy to help build a consensus, and I've outlined my position here so that others can decide which position is better for the article and perhaps take the appropriate action or join the discussion. Thanks for your time, Hiding Talk 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely free to disagree with WP:LEAD, but you still have to follow it. If you wish it to change, I direct you there to discuss altering the current guideline (which follows MOS, ie. actual policy) - Lord knows I've tried enough times. Currently, WP:LEAD says that complex material (such as is likely to be found with a fictional character with a thirty-year publishing history) likely to be questioned has to be cited, often repeatedly Honestly, I completely agree with you in regards to WP:LEAD, but the policy is what it is, and that means that if the info needs citing, it gets cited. the only way to keep it out of the Lead is to edit the lead to be more of an overview as opposed to an outline of what is to follow. I tag both the Lead and the uncited material in the article because - as is what happened - the information gets eventually removed from one place as uncited and remains in the Lead. Also, I don't tag paragraphs or sections, as I consider that to be lazy, and seeing a long section with a 'citations needed' tag can be daunting to an average user; my method specifically targets the problematic statement(s), and it can be cited or removed. Info shouldn't be included if it cannot be supported by references. See Midnighter for a pretty good example of a cited comic book character. Note in particular that the Lead has citations.

Actually, I specifically noted at least one instance wherein the information was not located in the body of the article, contrary to what you noted in your response. As well, I noted with citation tags those plot descriptions which seemed to denote assumptions or personal deductions about characters or events.

Unfortunately, I do not know which article the events that only partially took place in #486 occured. You happened to note one of the few issues I still have and was able to dig up. If I had the run of issues, i certainly would have added it. As for my reverts, you should take heart that I only undid two of the four reverts you performed. While you follow the BRD model of editing toconcnesus, I have found that discussing first tends to find a lot of common ground. However, when i add cn or fact tags, i am pointing out clear deficiencies in the article that can be discussed. As you are disappointed with the method by which I undid your reverts, you should note that I contacted you on your user talk page to discuss them, and am calmly discussing them now - this despite my own disappointment that you didn't discuss your issues with me regarding the tags before reverting them. I have no interest in edit-warring either; I have to follow wiki policy and guidelines. if there is uncited information that the unitiated (to Nightcrawler) would like to know about, then we need to provide it, If key developments are revealed, then we need to note where they occur. We illuminate the path for the reader, which is very different than providing an assessment of the plot, which is akin to not only providing a ride along the path, but also pointing out those parts which we find important.

A lot of this is somewhat moot, as I will probably be working to ease out the bloat and the cruft this weekend, which will likley catch more than a few tags or statements which would provoke a tag of one kind or another. If you wish, we can work on this together. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. I think our approaches are far too different to work together to be honest. I have a different understanding of policy to you, and I think it's best if one of us just walks away. You don;t seem to have grasped a number of my points, and the debate is starting to circle, so if it's all the same to you I'll just bow out. I'll keep an eye on the article and pitch in where I can. Hiding Talk 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly disappointed to see you go. I would have thought that using the discussion page to corral the rough spots would have helped to avoid trouble spots. I look forward to your future contributions here, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't need no steenking citatations

In who's right mind do we need proper citation for the fact that Nightcrawler has been in numerous comic books and video games. Mind you, I only recall two video games, perhaps a third. Hell, two is a number. --209.172.22.187 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, i will avoid the answer that meets your goofy little attempt at incivility and go for the straight answer: it's called the rules. You make a statement in Wikipedia, you back it up with a citation. No citation, no statement. I hope that helps you, and encourages you to be a hell of a lot more civil in the future, as it doesn't really encourage anyone to play nicely with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removed

I've pulled this from the article, as per WP:TRIVIA. If someone can properly cite it, it can return to the article after being prose-ified. Not before, though

Trivia

• In one X-Men issue, Nightcrawler quoted that Star Wars was one of his favourite films, partly because half the cast looks like members of his family. Colossus replied by saying, "Especially the Wookie, eh?".
• Nightcrawler's birthday is in November, which is probably a nod to the fact that he was first introduced in a November issue (Nightcrawler #12)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Parents

So here's something that puzzles me. In the Age of Apocalypse, Nightcrawler's parents are shown as being Sabretooth and Mystique, yet in the 'cannon' his father is shown as Azazel. Now, it's a comic, and a Marvel comic at that, so continuity may be tenuous at best, but I'm curious as to whther or not this has ever ben treated as I have not read the comics where Azazel is ever mentioned. --Morbid-o 12:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In the AoA relaunch Gambit's father is Mr Sinister. While AoA should be just normal continuity branching off from Xavier's death, for some reason the writers think it's a what-if playground.

One thing to keep in mind is that AoA happened long before it was established that Azazel was Nightcrawler's father. Is it specifically stated in the AoA comics that Sabretooth was Nightcrawler's biological father? After all, in the normal continuity, Mystique cheated on her then-husband with Azazel, as it was implied that she couldn't have children with a normal human.--MythicFox 07:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was her husband at the time who was the problem, not her. I've never read that she couldn't have children with normal humans. 147.240.236.9 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Roy

In normal continuity, it has ben stated that her husband was sterile, and unexciting, and that she used her shape-changin abilities to have a number of affairs. I never said it was "explicitly stated" that Sabretooth was his father in AOA, but the fur in the genes is a good clue, and the regular books were pointing in that direction at the same time as well.-wakefencer

I've always had problems with seeing Sabretooth as Nightcrawler's father, because

a) It would mean Mystique went back to Sabretooth after she gave birth to Graydon Creed for a second child and as Sabretooth recognised Mystique as Leni the first time they met in Sabretooth #1 by her scent, he should recognise her. and b) Sabretooth isn't really that "furry". His bodyhair is the same as a normal human. Just my opinion though Dizzy D 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

if anyone figures out kurt's real parents, submit it immediately. i am thouroughly confused--ichliebezuko

I'm confused too. If I find anything on this, I'll tell you guys. In the meantime, i'll jsut be clueless. A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)