Talk:Venom (character)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recreated talk page from redirect

Since we now have Venom (comics) and Venom (Eddie Brock) as two distinct articles, they should really have two different talk pages - no point in redirecting this to Talk:Venom (Eddie Brock), especially as that now complicates things such as comicsproj template settings. --Mrph 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The first apperance is wrong... if you want it to be Eddie Brock when Venom was first called Venom that is Spider-Man 300. But if you are talking about the suit its first appearence was Secret Wars number 8... either way you want to do it what you have as a first appearce is wrong. If you actually want the first appearance though it's Amazing Spider-Man number 299 in the last panel.

Sorry to say you are wrong about Venom's first appearance as Eddie Brock. It was actually Web of Spider-Man 18 followed by Web of Spider-Man 24 then Amazing Spider-Man 298 to 300. However they symbiote's first appearance was Amazing Spider-Man 252 not Secret Wars 8, which shows the origin of the alien costume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.199.110 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man

He was never the original host for Venom since it wasn't called such until it left him. He shouldn't have an individual section here.Darkwarriorblake 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, D, can you anything other than complain? Anyway, it's part of the symbiote's history. I'll take another look but...gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've barely been here in a month so I don't get what you're whining about. Darkwarriorblake 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Three words: Eddie...Brock...Junior. But whatever. You dont- er...it doesn't matter. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Someone change the top image. It is not common of Venom, find something more common and typical of the character.--Viridis 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it; the most recent one looked like the Juggernaut. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but that picture is the symbiote alone, and Venom would be the symbiote with a host, I think? That picture is used for Symbiote (comics), aswell. How about the one used for Venom (Eddie Brock)?--Viridis 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Television Synopsis

The Television section deserves to be commended for its level of detail (anyone reading it hardly needs to see the episodes now), but needs a great deal of work on its style. There seems to be missing words, lack of consensus on spelling, switching back and forth between past and present tenses (present is the correct choice) and long convoluted sentences that can be very difficult to follow. I just attempted an edit, but it is really a bigger job than I have time for now. Additionally, where it is ambiguous, I can't really help, not having seen the episodes in question.

A. Boisvert 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)amboisvert

I firmly believe that in this section it needs to be emphasized the reason for Eddie's hatred for Spider-Man is more clear and realistic than in the comics. The TV writer had Spidey directly responsible for an explosion that caused damage to Eddie's workplace, which Eddie's boss blamed him for (season1 episode 3 Return of the Spiderslayer). Also Unlike the comics,Spider-Man directly interferes with Eddie's journalism pursuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.11.45 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Angel

Removed a link to what I presume was the wrong Angel Medina (a professional wrestler, and current police officer). If it actually is the same guy moonlighting as an artist, and I'm wrong, please fix. -AS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.61.111.132 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Film - Eddie Brock dead?

Why is there a section about the Spiderman 3 Eddie Brock possibly being alive? I clearly saw Eddie Brock being skeletonized by the bomb spidey threw at the symbiote, in much the same way the board members from spiderman 1 were. Am I the only one who noticed this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.26.105 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Possibly, because I didn't. --Gundor Twintle Fluffy

I just saw it today. He was most definitely fried to the bone leaving behind only symbiote residue, which also burned into nothingness. Liz-Prof. still has a bit though. Detha 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing (though my girlfriend insists she did) the scene with part of the symbiote going through the cracks in the construction site, maybe there is different versions? But there is still part of the symbiote in Dr. Conner's lab so maybe he's not dead that way?? Also, where is the citation for the quote about the character not being dead in 4?

All this is pure speculation and/or original research and does not belong here in the first place. --R. Wolff 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the final film is not identical to the screener version I have... there is no skeleton in that version. The bomb explodes, there's a big fireball, and it dissipates and there is just a small fire on the floor that seems to burn up the last scraps of the symbiote. My reading is that if Harry Osborne can survive one of those bombs right next to his head relatively uninjured (other than some scarring), it seems that unless there is a body visible, a similar bomb exploding and leaving no trace of Brock is not conclusive evidence that he is dead. Particularly with the symbiotes protective properties. If people think that it is 100% clear that brock and the symbiote are dead, then I suppose it should be written that way. I suggest a vote. TheHYPO 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest watching the scene closely in the best quality available. A screener may lose some detail. --R. Wolff 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Brock isn't skeletonized in my movie, but Harry should of vaporized to. Also, there was ment to be an SP4. In the first movie , when the men were skeletonized the bombs used by Norman Osborn were different from Harry's . Jan 1, 12:20 am 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.13.164 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

End of film vote

This is a vote on whether it is appropriate to indicate in the article that Brock/Venom are "killed"/"destroyed" at the end of the film, or juyhtiytjytoje;ytujist "apparently destroyed" or similar wording. Feel free to vote, and leave a short comment if you wish (one liners please), but extended discussion should please remain above this vote. TheHYPO 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently destroyed unless there is more in the final cut that is not in the screener I've watched. TheHYPO 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Burned down to a skeleton, which then vanished into dust as if caught in the focus of a nuclear blast! (Because that's exactly what happened on screen.) --tjstrf talk 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently destroyed just because he's a highly marketable character.--Sherwood-Nightshade 06:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• That has no bearing on this discussion though. They can, and I agree probably will, retcon whatever explanation they want to for either Brock or the symbiote's revival if they feel like it, but that doesn't change that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we don't get to speculate as to what they will do in the future, even if we think we can make a really good guess. So until they bring him back, he's dead because they showed him dead. --tjstrf talk 06:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Destroyed. By writing anything that contains the words "apparently" or "seemingly," we'd actively imply he survived, which there is absolutely no clear evidence for. tjstrf above me already stated my further arguments. --R. Wolff 16:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but remember when Dr. Connors was looking at a piece of the symbiote? There is no further mention of this again in the movie once Dr. Connors calls Peter about his findings. So who knows if Dr. Connors killed the symbiote piece or if it’s still contain in his lab. If you remember the piece was moving and assuming it's alive too. Could this be Carnage symbiote that would later escape in a future film or somehow the reintroduction of Venom?

I can tell you that the explosion isn't even given enough screen time with Brock for it to show him disintegrate in this screener. Perhaps they expanded the shot to avoid just such an disclarity. I do believe screeners are often pre-final edits of the films. I obviously would defer to the theatrical cut TheHYPO 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an upcoming sm3 spin-off starring venom. that's proof enough that he's alive

Worth keeping in mind, once more information surfaces definitely worth mentioning in the article. --R. Wolff 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently Destroyed" I recently rented SM3, and I watched my favorite parts (the parts with Venom) in slow motion. Once the bomb goes off, it shows the fire expanding, then it flashes to Peter, NOT showing Venom at all, then the small piece of the symbiote burning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch it frame-by-frame. It's thereMavrickindigo (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comics or TV?

Was there ever a scene in any comic book that parallels the scene in the film where Parker is asleep, and wakes up in the symbiote, looking at himself (black suited) in the windows of a skyscraper? I can swear I've seen it before... might have been in the Animated series, but I thought it was comic based... But since Parker got the costume on the alien planet, it wouldn't make sense for him to ever be surprised looking at himself in a window in that suit. But maybe when it came back later? Ever happen in the comics? 74.102.119.57 05:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in the animated series. 75.84.185.89 06:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No,it never happened in the comics.I don't remember the series that well but it might of happened.The 3rd film wasn't based on the comics andyou might just have a case of De Javeu.

Actually, while he never wakes up, there was at least one instance in the comics in which the suit took him swinging in his sleep. It was pretty funny.

It should be noted in the tv section, that there were several improvements made to Defining Eddie Brock's reasoning for wanting revenge against Spider-Man, compared to in the comics. In the Comics there was little build up, yet in the tv show several episodes show Spider-Man directly interfering with Brock, and even costing him his job(on more than 1 occasion). In the comics Brock blamed Spider-Man's reveal of the real Sin Eater for his being exposed as a fraudulent reporter, where as in the animated series both Spider-Man and Peter Parker were directly a thorn in his side on numerous occasions. I think this is very important to note because in the tv series there was no Sin Eater, and we actually see the events that form Eddie's hatred rather than just hear about 1 instance. Please allow me to edit the section. Thank You.76.110.11.45 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.11.45 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Fair use rationale for Image:Aliensymbiote.jpg

Image:Aliensymbiote.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.

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 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding lolilovesvenom.livejournal.com as an external link, its a fan comic based on the symbiote with humouristic stylings.

Alternate versions

Was there an Amalgam Comics version of Venom. I have trouble recalling or finding any information as one, but I feel such a prominant character (particularly in the 90's) would have likely been utilized then.66.109.248.114 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no Amalgam version of Venom. There was, however, an amalgamed Carnage/Bizzaro character known as Bizzarnage who appeared in an issue of Spider-Boy. (Specimena 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Wrong First Appearance

I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm posting this here instead of changing the page. The first appearance you have listed for Venom is incorrect. It was not ASM Vol 1 #300. Eddie Brock's hand is shown being covered by the symbiote on the last page of ASM 298 as a cliff-hanger. A subsequent cliff-hanger is the final page of ASM 299, in which Venom stands before Mary Jane saying, "I'm home!" It's picky, I know. But this is an encyclopedia so I think it should be right. For reference, I'm reading these comics one-by-one via the Amazing Spider-Man Complete Comic Book Collection.

-Agreed. Besides (if I can remember this off of the top of my head) wasn't there an even earlier appearance in Web of Spider-man 18? That was where Eddie Brock pushed Peter Parker in front of a moving subway train without activating his spider-sense. ASM 300 is the 1st FULL appearance of Venom although the others were actual 1st appearances. There should be a change from ASM 300 or at least an explination of his earlier cameos.

Fan reaction?

There needs to be some info on fan reaction. What about Venom has kept him so popular? What was the motivation for creating this character? --24.249.108.133 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Name is spectacular. Venom is not very good name, but the charakter become more populär if the creater has thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.164.119.27 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

i think its because venom is so crazy ,i mean dude he eats people. (thelastsybiot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelastsybiot (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

HE IS THE DEVIL SPIDER-MAN - HIS EVIL SIDE... That with the "people eating" cames later.. after the movie "Aliens". Many villian become darker and edger after so many years. The Lizard, Venom and carnage eat humans, Sandman become good, Electro become crazy, Kingpin become a softy side... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.216.145 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bomb adjustments

I think I know why the explosion was smaller with Harry, and bigger with the symbiote. The symbiote may be flammable so when eddie brock was killed with it, he was partially bonded, he was in the explosion. - User:Hyuuga-sama23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)hyuuga-sama

no it was because people keep bothing the director to put venom in the third movie,so he got pissed and said fine but his dieing and harry dindt die because he was suposed to help spidy [thelastsymbio] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelastsybiot (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Venom.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Venomoviepic7.png

Image:Venomoviepic7.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brideofvenom.png

Image:Brideofvenom.png 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 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 22 (Venom movie)

This reference is extremely misinterpreted, I believe. The article doesn't state that a Venom movie is being made. It simply says that Topher would have no interest in starring in it if it was made. DurinsBane87 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you should know, Spider-Man producer Avi Arad, in a one-on-one interview with someone or other, stated that a Venom spin-off IS in the works... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but the specific cite I was talking about was misinterpreted. DurinsBane87 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Venom (Eddie Brock) Merge?

Someone has posted merge tags but there is no discussion so here it is:

• Keep bot this entry and Venom (Eddie Brock) are big enough as they are (and Eddie Brock needs a trim down) so it makes sense to keep them seperate. (Emperor 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
• Keep them Separate both articles are too big to be merged. Gman124 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• "You've got to keep them separated." - Eddie is too big to fit into the article. In addition, there are now two other characters to be called Venom in continuity, (which is part of the reason Venom was split off). Finally, Eddie has in both in earlier and current publications, existed as a separate character without the Venom symbiote. -66.109.248.114 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: While both articles could use a lot of trimming, it is too much to fit onto one page. Notthegoatseguy 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Really everyone else said it all already.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed with consensus of no merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

Venom 2099 Merge

• merge - it appears an ambitious editor merged the two; however, the original 2099 page still exists. The tag states it been on since May. I vote merge, due to lack of notarity, and could easily be incorporated into the Venom page as is. As Venom 2099 has not his own book, only featured in a few Spiderman and Punisher books, my vote is for merging. (As a partial merger has already taken place, I wanted to place this notice of discussion here prior to redirecting the page). - 66.109.248.114 04:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No merge at least not on this page. If someone wants to create an 'Alternate versions of Venom' article, a merge there would be appropriate, since it's unlikely this character will ever pop up again.Notthegoatseguy 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

comment- the Venom page currenlty functions as a Venom (alternate versions) as it includes both summaries of Eddie, Spider-man, Angelo and Mac, amongst others. A new page for alternate versions, altough currently a popular edit, would be needless, due to the small size of the article and the how it functions as host, for all those named Venom in comics. 66.109.248.114 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Agreed, the 2099 character is the same alien in the future and should be regarded as an alternate version.

Venom (Angelo Fortunato) merge

no mege Angelo Fortunato is separate character and venom page is already too big. Gman124 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - The character only appeared in two issues. That is neither notable, nor is it significant in the greater schemem of Venom. -66.109.248.114 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Merge Non notable character, seperate page doesn't add any expanded information.

MERGE Non-notable character who has no chance of returning, so the stub of an article that exists will not get longer. No reason to keep it separate. -Freak104 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to offer a great reason to keep them apart. Consensus says to merge them. -Freak104 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aliensymbiote.jpg

Image:Aliensymbiote.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) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EXVenom.jpg

Image:EXVenom.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) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiped from Existance?

I have a question: With the changes made by Mephisto, wouldn't Venom be wiped from existence? I keep hearing this, is it true?Mavrickindigo (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing canon to say that he has. So until something concrete is shown we won't know, and we can't include any speculation in the article. -Freak104 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

She-Venom merge

Like the two characters above, very minor and would be better served in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.199.231 (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article on the symbiote itself, or is this it? It seems like there could be an article for both, with She-Venom there. If not, I'd merge her here.

Also, why are there summaries of the What If appearances of Venom? Not to knock anyone's effort, but this article is really long and that section seems crufty. My $0.02. joshschr (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbiote (comics) is all about the symbiotes as a species. This article is about Venom specifically. -Freak104 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a merge can trivially be undone if She-Venom does reappear and become a significant figure in her own right. Until this happens, though, a merge seems appropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go along with that. Hiding T 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge the articles and delete the What If stuff like joshschr suggested. 144.92.58.224 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

question-To anyone's knowledge did either of the She-Venoms ever have their own series, or take over for Brock as the main character in the mini's in the '90's? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Response to question the most recent She-Venom had her own series, but Venom showed up in the end. It was that short lived series that started with all of the other 'Tsunami' series.

Merge Reading what other people have written, I change my mind. They should be merged. If She-Venom reappears the articles can be split up if necessary, but for now there is no reason to keep them separate. -Freak104 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the only person to ever post any objections to this merge, but now I support it. So we have 100% support of the merge. The merge was proposed over two weeks ago. Can we do the merge now? -Freak104 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If she has her own series, and she was not a supporting character to Brock put featured primarily or indipendently, that may make her notable enough not to be merged. In that light, I pose a weak, no merge. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

Response to the 'Response to question': I would have to say that Freak104 is only technically correct, because for a lot of that series the reader was meant to be confused whether it was the real Venom or this She-Venom, and it certainly seemed more like Venom than previous incarnations of She-Venom. Furthermore, the series was called Venom, not She-Venom.

Merge They can be separated if She-Venom ever becomes important in future stories, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. -144.92.58.223 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The most recent response resolves any reservations I would have against a merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

It appears that the only two people to ever oppose this (I being one of them) have now agreed that it should be merged, and this discussion has been open for a month now. That is more than enough time to discuss this, and now this discussion is closed with a consensus to MERGE the articles. I will take care of the merge momentarily. -Freak104 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Venomtbolts.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Move Mac Gargan to main hosts?

I think Mac more than qualifies, he's been the host for a few years now and it doesn't seem to be going back anytime soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.59.123 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eddie was the host a lot longer than Mac and is returning to the comics in october... they won't have eddie without the symbiote. I think chanes are, Mac will only have the symbiote for a few more months. 82.1.68.117 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This would constitute a major status quo change for a Thunderbolts character - and I can't see that happening outside of the Thunderbolts title itself. Anyway Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, and Mac Gargan is the current host and has been for a long time now. He's worn the costume a lot longer than Spider-Man did. MultipleTom (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Creators

This section needs amending somewhat. David Michelinie did not create the alien costume, his involvement was to create Eddie Brock, an opponent "host" for Spider-Man, and give the merged entity the name "Venom". The alien costume idea was conceived by a great number of people. Jim Shooter brought it to the table after receiving a letter from a fan suggesting that Spider-Man get a black costume (and said fan was actually paid a flat one-off royalty for the idea), which the character would somehow gain on an alien planet in the "Secret Wars" crossover. Roger Stern suggested that the black costume was alive (which is perhaps the most significant contribution). Stern plotted the first issue involving the black costume, and Tom DeFalco wrote the rest of that story arc. Mike Zeck (not McFarlane) came up with the design for Spider-Man's costume, which was modified a little by Ron Frenz (I think it originally had some red in it). MultipleTom (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)and he was the best drawing a have seen es lo mejor

True, Michaline came up with the idea to pass the suit on to another person, Eddie Brock, and make him a villain. McFarlane modified the existing design, adding the claws and fangs to create Venom, although Bagely's design from the 1990's is arguably the most fameous depiction of the Eddie Brock Venom. There's a link somewhere in the article quoting a comment Michaline made about his initial plans for Venom, so it's all relevent. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Secret-Wars-Black-Costume.png

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Venomamazingspiderman299.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Justification for changing the "First Appearance" citation

The importance that some editors have given to Secret Wars #8 (December, 1984) as the character's first appearance is wrong. The black costume first appearance is generally credited as Amazing Spider-Man #252 (May 1984) which is the character's earliest possible in-story published appearance. Technically the costume design (with superficial differences) actually debuted even earlier, in Marvel Age #12 which was published with a March 1984 cover-date.

Secret Wars #8 only features one of the symbiotes first chronological appearances. I know that that issue has been heavily promoted by Marvel and various others as the character's "first appearance" but that was just a gimmick highlighting the costumes supposed in-story origins. Amazing Spider-man #252 actually debuted the costume a full seven months previously (and Marvel Age #12 two months previous to that).

If in-story chronogical first appearances are to be cited as actual first appearances then Wolverine's first appearance should be credited as 2001's Origin #1 rather then 1974s Incredible Hulk #181. Indeed even by this dubious criteria Secret Wars #8 would not be Venom's first appearance as multiple subsequent comics have depicted the symbiotes pre- Secret Wars #8 origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.252.17 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gene Pool?

In Venom's origin, it claims that the rest of it's species banished it so that it wouldn't pollute their gene pool. However, symbiotes reproduce asexually, so how could the pollution be possible?66.41.44.102 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask the writers of Planet of the Symbiotes.Mariomassone (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As if they would even answer if we did ask, so unless you have some actual information to add, don't comment.66.41.44.102 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If no explanation is given by the writers, then asking the question here is pointless.Mariomassone (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it is not a forum, that is not what I'm trying to do, I am trying to ask a question and have the people on that visit Wikipedia answer it. If I intended to get the answer from the writers, I would have asked them on their websites, but I know that there is an extreme unlikelyhood that they would answer or even notice that I asked the question. Wikipedia is just the next best thing to that.66.41.44.102 (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, then it can only be deduced that it is simply one of many Marvel continuity problems; such as the fact that the symbiote originally de-powered spiderman, rather than boost his strength as it did with Eddie Brock.Mariomassone (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The symbiote didn't depower Spider-Man: it did nothing for him. It was just a costume that could change shape and produce its own webbing. 173.180.72.42 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

"the first host it merged with before its evil motives were clear"

Thats in the opening, now its hard to follow because of alternate universes and whatever but I thought it was established that the symbiote wasn't originally evil, just desperate for survival and it was hosts with darkness inside tehm like Spider-Man and Eddie that made imposed more evil intentions onto it. Hence why MC2 Normie Osborn made it into a force for good. Is this not true? If not, should the statement not be changed anyway? Im pretty sure its a creature fighting for survival rather than an actual, intentionally evil creature.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ASM #300

Somewhere in the article, probably in the Eddie Brock section, it should be noted that ASM #300 is the first full appearance of Venom, the villian. If someone could add the in, or let me know where it is most appropriate, I will provide a citation. --Darktower 12345 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Except it isn't, ASM #299 is. MultipleTom (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to disagree with you, as would any hardcore comic collector. ASM #299 has brief images of Venom's outline, and then a single shot of Venom in the final panel. This is officially referred to as a cameo, and not a feature. As you can see at [[1]], issue #299 sells for about one quarter the price of issue #300, due to Venom's first full appearance in #300. Would you reconsider your stance on the matter? --Darktower 12345 22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, we could cite both the creation of the character, in #298, and the first full appearance, in #300, within the Eddie Brock section. Does this seem the most appropriate course to everyone? --Darktower 12345 22:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What? He makes a full appearance in #299. An entire page is devoted to him, and he appears 'off-panel' on the previous one. That is more than enough. What price the comics sell for is neither here nor there. By the time #300 came out, the character had already appeared. MultipleTom (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In comics, a full appearance refers to a character being a major player in the book, and appearing on a large number of panels. A one-panel appearance is considered a cameo, as a character shown so little would have to have played a minor part. Does this help you better understand the wording? --Darktower 12345 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will add in a very brief mention of both issues in the Eddie Brock section, as they are relevant information, and if you find the edit inaccurate, please revert it and we can discuss further. --Darktower 12345 03:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand the wording, I just think you're wrong about this. It's like saying Flash Thompson's first appearance wasn't Amazing Fantasy #15 because he appeared in two panels. Rubbish. This "first full appearance" BS is just made up by speculators to increase the value of the comics they're trying to sell. MultipleTom (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

There seem to be a lot of images (11), which doesn't seem a reflection of minimal use of non-free content. Looking over the first two I'd suggest removing would be She-Venom and the box image being replaced with Brock's. The other media pics seem not to being compelling images, either. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

I've removed some of the lower quality/unimportant pics, plus fixed the formatting of the rest. --Darktower 12345 20:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

amazing spiderman not secret wars

Could we please stop changing the costumes first appearence to Secret Wars #8. The costume actually appeared months earlier in Amazing Spiderman #252. 174.124.206.174 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The earlier date of ASM is confirmed here, here and here. The later date of SW is confirmed here. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Versions

I propose splitting Venom's other versions off into an article of its own entitled "Alternate versions of Venom" as done with Cyclops, Punisher, Magneto and Spider-Man. Venom has appeared in alot of alternate universe publications, and is a popular character, so it may make the article easier to read if his alternate versions have their own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.150.129 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Split -Splitting this section into is own article would make the Venom article easier to read, and a more reasonable size. It has worked with other marvel characters, such as Wolverine. Venom has got a lot of alternate versions...Wikikaye (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't Split -It seems very extreme to move about 1/3 of the page's content. Making a page shorter won't make any of the sections easier to read, it will only make it harder to find the information being moved. Other Spider-Man villians, who are obviously more closely related to Venom than any of the X-Men characters, such as Doctor Octopus, Mac Gargan, Rhino (comics), Mysterio, and Sandman (Marvel Comics) all use the current Venom format of listings alternate versions on their main article. --Darktower 12345 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Split: In order to make the page easier to read. Venom makes alot of appearances throughout the comic's multiverse, and having another page for all his alternate versions would be a good idea.92.25.181.2 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• If the other versions of Venom gets any bigger I do recommend an Split. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• It has been split. Here is the article. Let me know what you think if you don't like it then you can easily change it back. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Venom Infection

In "Secret Invasion: The Infiltration (Issues #7-11)", i believe Stark's Iron Man armour identifies the symbiote infection suffered by the Avengers as a viral variant created from a sample of the Venom Symbiote. Should this be mentioned in the article?

Maybe just a brief mention about it being related on this article, you could add a more detailed synopsis at Symbiote_(comics)#Mighty_Avengers, where it's already touched on. --Darktower 12345 22:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Venom's strength

User 92.254.251.170 continues to change the phrasing of the statement about the Symbiote augmenting the host's to something that doesn't really make sense, which is that "Venom" has superhuman strength. I thought I'd bring this up here in case anyone had anything to say, including the several users who have undone the edits of 92.254.251.170 so far. --Darktower 12345 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed that statement there in the first place. The Venom Symbiote, alone, hasn't shown the ability of super-strength without a host, but it is fairly obvious, and widely accepted, that, when bonded, it does augment the strength of its hosts ggctuk (2005) (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed in powers it says the symbiote can lift 13 tons. I am not aware of it ever being stated in any of the comics the strength of the alien without a host. Can you give a reference and if not maybe it should just be stated the symbiote has super strength of an unknown level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.199.110 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge She-Venom and Venom (Angelo Fortunato)

The article She-Venom contains information that is essentially the exact same as the information presented on this page, with minor wording changes, and is based on very minor hosts of the symbiote.
The article Venom (Angelo Fortunato) is also based on a very minor host of the Venom symbiote, and as can be viewed on this very talk page, was merged before after a consensus was reached. The article contains very little that is not already present on this page, and is not based on a noteworthy character. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Against: Separate characters. --Darktower 12345 01:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge - there was clear consensus earlier [2] [3], and while consensus can change, there is nothing pointing to ANY substantive change with either the characters or the articles. Honestly, I thought the two were already merged. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC).
• She-Venom was merged per consensus both here and below. -Sharp962 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Symbiote (comics) merge

Recently, I was reading Symbiote (comics) and there were significant quality issues. The article seem to be primarly composed of & focusing on Venom and Carnage. I can understand this as they're the most prominent characters; however, article was written nearly completely in-universe and lack any 3rd party sources. One key reason for this is because there are none for Symbiotes as a topic; although, such sources exist for Venom and Carnage.

The arcticle is currently a hodge-podge of conjecture and information gleened from the two character's articles. Rather than synthesizing information gathered from Venom/Carage and primary sources, the symbiote article could be merged into the respective articles of the two characters, where the fictional species could be placed in a more effective context. The context would be where information on the fictonal species would be supported and illustrated by the two characters who would likely introduce the concept of comic book symbiote to real world audiences. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Merge where relevant - that means merging where it is clear that the articles mirror one another but keep the Symbiote article separate as it should include other non-Venom and non-Carnage symbiotes. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes: She-Venoms, No: Symbiote (comics) - It's probably an alright idea to merge all of the Venom articles, but definitely not the symbiote article. Venom and Carnage both have decades of comic history, and there is no reason to merge these two unique characters. Additionally, and no offense meant here Sharp962, but there is quite a lot of primary source information on the symbiote species as a whole. The species, independent of Venom and Carnage, has even invaded the Earth twice. If there's a lack of info on the symbiote page, it's only for lack of effort by the community. --Darktower 12345 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles She-Venom and Angelino Fortunato should be merged here. But no to Symbiote (comics) even though it's a poor article. There needs to be a article that focuses on the symbiotes itself. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Particularly in response to Darktower, but other as well. I just want to caution and offer reconsideration for the deletion. "The species, independent of Venom and Carnage" is a clear reflection of an interpretation of the 'in-universe' nature which both biases and skews the article negatively (from an encylopediac nature). As the article stands now, there is no differentiation between 'symbiotes' and or Carnage and Venom (ala all of the original research is from Venom or Carnage stories). Even with Toxin or She-Venom storylines, all information is still coming from Venom or Carnage. Let's just merge to place symbiotes in the proper context, as a thematic device. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

You have been misinformed. There are 7 named symbiotes (that I can think of) other than Venom and Carnage, but the race as a whole has invaded twice. --Darktower 12345 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am recommeding Symbiotes be merged TO Venom/Carnage, not for Venom and Carnage to be merged together.' -Sharp962 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

So you'd like Venom and Carnage articles to exist, but not Symbiotes? --Darktower 12345 03:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -Sharp962 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

If ever to be merged. It should merge in this article not Carnage (comics). − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What about a brief paragraph expanding on the topic in the Venom article, w/ redirects to follow-up? Sharp962 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

It sounds like with the 3 to 1 vote against, we're dropping the merge request. Adding a little background on the race itself in the Venom article with a link the the full Symbiotes article sounds like a nice idea though. Does everyone agree? --Darktower 12345 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this notion of including a bit of info about the Symbiote race where it applies to each character here, and then adding a link to the Symbiote article. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Solution for Image Problem?

Judging by the bot posts, there's a problem with interspersing the article with pictures, so why not create a collage of Venom's various forms and use that as a picture and rationalize it as showing how the character has changed over time? 173.180.72.42 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The only bot that's posted in the past month changed the name of a category... there's no need to change any images. --Darktower 12345 22:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, then... Why not add a picture of the Black-Ops. Symbiote Spider-Man to go along with Eddie Brock's and Mac Gargan's Venom forms. IGN has a picture of him/her. 173.180.72.42 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty obscure in my opinion, does that version go by "Venom?" Let's see what some other users have to say if that's alright. --Darktower 12345 09:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's aight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.51.128.20 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if he/she calls him/herself "Venom", but Gargan got away with calling himself "Spider-Man" for a year and a bit. Aslong as (s)he's wearing the symbiote, that's really all that matters. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

*Sigh* here we go again

"He has become so popular that he is seen as Spider-Man's arch-nemesis, in terms of his popularity" yes, that was a IGN poll, try asking on other sites, like the official Marvel site or others, and we may get a different result. And we're basing the second link on a blog? seriously? it is often disputed who is Spidey's true nemesis and the Goblin, Venom and Doc Oc have all proven themselves on that spot from time to time. Personally I despise Venom, I think he's quite overrated, and I'm sure a lot of people will agree (and disagree) with me. The Green Goblin was created to be Spiderman's Joker and he has:

-Beat Spiderman numerous times (more than most). -Killed Gwen Stacy. -Killed Ben Reily, who Spiderman thought off as his brother. -Turned Peter's best friend against him. -Put Flash Thompson in a coma. -Was the cause of the Clone Saga. -Made Peter believe Aunt May was dead, mentally scarring him for years. -Dropped a building on Spiderman. -Created the Hobgoblin and many more Goblin threats. -Was a basic funder for the Spider Slayers.

But I'm not biased, and I'm not gonna got put THE GOBLIN IS SPIDEY'S ARCHENEMY!!! in his page. I think a more neutral point of view would be "one of his greatest archenemies" because I think is the Goblin, others that is Doctor Octopus and others that yes, it's indeed Venom. Hell, even in the archenemy page it's stated that all three have, proven themselves to be archenemies. (200.106.220.170 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

There are three sources on the article reflecting Venom's status as Spider-Man's arch-nemesis, including one directly from Marvel. Collectively, the sentiments of the owners of the character and the hundreds involved in the IGN poll outweigh your own in this matter. --Darktower 12345 04:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, how many votes there in IGN? 100, yeah not a lot to confirm that as a fact in Wikipedia. In fact in one of the sources, that blog, the comments below are very divided, showing that, in fact, not EVERYONE thinks the same. IGN is just one of many opinions that you can get. That's why this is biased and should be changed to a neutral standpoint, because we're pretty much contradicting ourselves with what this page says, and others say (archenemy page, that also has links). (200.106.220.170 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

There is no contradiction, as an entity may have more than one archenemy (see [4]). This, along with Marvel stating the Venom is Spider-Man's archenemy, leaves no reason to change the statement in the article. Also, in the IGN poll, it turns out I was actually misinterpreting the 100-figure, which was actually percent. There were over 2 billion votes. --Darktower 12345 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Evil Intentions?

The opening paragraph in the article says "Spider-Man was the first host it merged with before its evil motives were clear." The symbiote's motives were not initially evil. It just wanted a host, but the fact that an alien parasite was living on him freaked Peter out and he rejected it. The symbiote only became evil after bonding with Eddie Brock. 173.180.89.129 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence but Brock wasn't evil as merely a man who had been hurt badly by misfortune. On the other hand, I would say that MacGargan was the one who corrupted it. He was the first evil host of significance for the Venom Symbiote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogno5 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jdogno5.

These are personal points of view, and cannot be added to the article unless it can be attributed to a reliable, published source. We should remove any unattributed reference to any character being "evil", which I just did. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Awaiting discussion... --Darktower 12345 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As a start, let me say that this character is a Spider-Man character, so the Spider-Man article is more or less the model. If Bibliography of Spider-Man titles exists, then it makes sense to do it here (or on a separate article which would be made before the content is deleted here). Only if the Spider-Man equivalent is deleted will it then make sense to then do that here. --Darktower 12345 19:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've left a message at the WikiProject Comics talk page, as it was there that the Bibliography discussion took place. - SudoGhost™ 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there some sort of policy for the vague we don't have family in the infobox comics character edit summary left by User:Brian Boru is awesome? I didn't want to revert it without discussing it first. - SudoGhost™ 19:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If nobody has an opposition to the edit, I'm going to go ahead and restore the family information. If anyone has information as to why the information does not belong, please feel free to discuss it. - SudoGhost™ 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in support. --Darktower 12345 02:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well:

• It's hidden text.
• The parameter was removed from the infobox template years ago as plot minutia.
• Even moving it out into visible text, it is still plot minutia that is neither notable nor important in providing a general understanding of the characters.
• And honestly, assigning genders to the symbiotes verges on fan driven OR.

- J Greb (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• As per WP:CMOS#LSECTION these lists don't belong in articles focusing on characters. It's a list of appearances (AL) so it should go. Period. Right now the AL is the only nod to anything other than the character. That leaves two options:
  1. Move it to Bibliography of Spider-Man titles or a new List of Venom (comics) titles without a {{main}} (a "See also" section would work though).
  2. Actually start reworking this article to cover both the character and the various series. That doesn't quite fit including the minis though since there would actually have to be a source' that can be cited that they constitute Venom vol 0.
• "Delete that article then delete this section" is a bad position to argue from. The existence of an article does not automatically mean like article sections work. Or that they are as notable. Even arguing that like sections in other articles exist has the same problem. You may want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. And "Start somewhere else" is also a non-starter since ALs have been removed from character focused articles.
• "family" as a parameter in the infobox was removed long, long ago. Adding it or keeping it eithin this article is a pointless exercise.

FWIW, chipping out the list is likely the easiest answer. The only proviso being that if it is AfDed for notability it gets merged to the Spider-Man publications list. It isn't the best answer - that would be overhauling this article and its focus - but it gets the issue settled.

- J Greb (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points, I did the work for 1. ensuring that no content was lost. --Darktower 12345 01:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Venom in Spider-Man 3

"Venom appears in the 2007 feature film Spider-Man 3 played by Topher Grace and serves as the main antagonist. Eddie Brock is portrayed from the beggining as shallow, superficial and vindictive as well as willing to cheat to get ahead along with being an insuferable flirt. His vindictiveness is amplified to murderous hate under the influence of the symbiote. Despite the Symbiote influencing its host, it cannot make them do something that they would never potentially do (as stated in many comics and other sources)).Eddie Brock is another freelance photographer working at the Daily Bugle shortly before Spider-Man joins with the Symbiote and a rivalry ensues between Peter and Eddie over a staff job. Eddie is in love with Gwen Stacy(however that does not stop him flirting with Betty Brant, who is not interested in him), though she only thinks of him as a friend. Eddie faces public humiliation after creating a fake photo of Spider-Man robbing a bank which would be exposed by Peter. As a result, Jameson angrily fires Eddie for creating the fake picture, despite his dislike of Spider-Man, as Eddie's photo threatened the Daily Bugle's credibility. While Spider-Man abandons the Symbiote in a church bell tower, Brock had been in the church praying for Peter's death. He discovers Spider-Man's identity and the Symbiote falls onto Brock, transforming him into Venom. He uses his new-found powers to attempt to kill Peter as revenge for his public humiliation. Stumbling across Sandman in an alley, Venom suggests that they join forces to rid themselves of Spider-Man once and for all, to which Sandman accepts. Venom then kidnaps Peter's girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson, and uses her as bait to lure Spider-Man into a trap. Venom engages Spider-Man alone (proving to be both his equal and opposite in combat) before Sandman joins the battle and both Venom and Sandman overpower Spider-Man and are almost successful in killing him but are stopped by Harry Osborn who eventually manages to defeat Sandman, leaving only Venom, who, after giving Spider-Man a vicious beating, prepares to kill him before Harry intervenes and is fatally wounded by Venom in the process. Peter stops Venom by releasing Brock from the Symbiote by building a cage of hollow metal poles around him, hitting them to create a makeshift sonic weapon, and weakening the Symbiote. Peter then throws a bomb from Harry's glider into the Symbiote to destroy it for good. Eddie, trying to prevent its loss, jumps towards the bomb to knock it away just as it detonates, killing himself and the Symbiote in the explosion. Unlike in the comics, Brock is influenced by the Symbiote but appears to have more control over it. Also, despite having a vendetta against Spider-Man, Brock was also a man of honnor and principles (comics)."

May I ask what of that I've stated that isn't reliable or verifiable?

--Jdogno5 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why you had to make the above posts on two different talk pages? You already put it on the Eddie Brock talk page, and that's where I responded to it. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How is Patricia Robertson a host when she was never host to the Venom symbiote?

She was host to a clone. Create an article for her or create an article for the mini-series but she doesn't belong here Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't really think either the clone or Patricia is notable enough for either of their own articles, but I wouldn't oppose if you think you could pull up enough detail to make something like that yourself. Until that happens, this article happens to be the closet relation, and no one wants to lose any info. --Darktower 12345 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well her thing was a ...18-20 part series. It could probably have an article. There are a lot of Venom stories which could do with an article really. But there are also a lot of minor characters with articles. I'll research it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Family List

Last time this was brought up, SudoGhost and I voted to keep, and J Greb made a point about getting rid of it. It ended up being kept until just recently, where there has been some confusion. I'm bringing it back up to avoid edit warring, and ensure that the Wikipedia policies are not being subverted. We can vote below. I don't currently have a strong opinion either way. --Darktower 12345 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Straw poll or an attempt to override the consensus about templates in general - not to use unsupported paramaters - and the particular infobox template which no longer supports the parameter?
  - J Greb (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll... that's what the bold headings are for. If you have a link to an overruling consensus about unsupported templates that would suffice too. --Darktower 12345 07:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw my name in an edit summary, so I thought I should maybe comment on this. Concerning my previous comments about "family" in the infobox, I had no idea why it was being removed. I had no idea that there wasn't a family parameter, and apparently didn't check back on this talk page when that was explained. The information doesn't seem to serve any purpose sitting in an infobox parameter that doesn't display anything in the article, and I don't see any parameters that would be an appropriate substitute for family. However, the information is already present in the Template:Symbiote Family and Hosts, albeit at the bottom of the article. - SudoGhost 07:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then it sounds like we have two people in favor of getting rid of it and I don't really care (I'm just opposed to people making changes against an existing consensus without bringing it back up). Since there's no opposition I guess I'll go ahead and remove it. --Darktower 12345 07:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Someone should fix up the categories, a lot of them are stupid and you can't apply the categories of each of Venom's hosts, they have their own pages (and the ones who don't are really minor characters anyway). Stuff like Fictional Italian-Americans should be removed.24.191.7.238 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

New categories go at the bottom, not the top, just so you know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013

Venom playable character marvel super hero squad online 2013 24.55.165.82 (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please provide the exact text of the proposed edit to this article, clearly indicating what needs to be changed, added, or removed. Please also provide reliable sources to support the change. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Truth in Journalism" - Short Film directed by Joe Lynch, Starring Ryan Kwanten

A short film by director Joe Lynch is centered around Eddie Brock/Venom. This seems appropriate to add to the "Film" section.

Source(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7YDYL6oECjU&list=UUNgSkSyLpwJckPsCcpDc2Ow, http://screenrant.com/venom-truth-journalism-short-film-video-review-interview-adi-shankar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.31.128 (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll add it. Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a page made for the short film? A Wikipedia Page? can someone please make this? Thanks! 71.188.17.123 (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2013

The article cites Screenrant.com's erroneous description of "Truth in Journalism" as influenced by "Belgian cult mockumentary 'Dog Bites Man.'":

http://screenrant.com/venom-truth-journalism-short-film-video-review-interview-adi-shankar/

The Wikipedia citation is correct, but Screenrant's author got it wrong. The film is "Man Bites Dog," described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Bites_Dog_%28film%29

Note that the very first answer in the interview refers to "Man Bites Dog."

The link provided in the article is to a Wikipedia article for an Australian television program called "Dog Bites Man." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Bites_Man - Please see previous for the correct link.

Thanks. 50.165.151.80 (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Source: http://collider.com/adi-shankar-venom-truth-in-journalism-interview/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.123 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014

Please add the following category (reason is self-evident): Category:Comics about spiders

[[Category:Comics about spiders]]

71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Spider-Man has a selectable Venom suit Kiru990 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Flash Thompson update

Should be noted Flash Thompson/Venom is currently a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy. WikiAnfanger (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)