Talk:Vulcan (Marvel Comics)

Headline text

The Star Trek References: More then likely, the name Tal Shi'ar was influenced by Shi'ar.(Green Herring 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

More Pics

if anyone has pics of Vulcan from the Deadly Genesis storyline, can they plz add them to th Vulcan page?--Kitsune dxb 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I can scan some of the pages if you want and post links...but I have no idea how to add them so you'll have to do that.

http://img50.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmendeadlygenesis01page206pa.jpg http://img467.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan00310gj.jpg http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmdg05114ja.jpg http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan00147vk.jpg http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmdg06241xp.jpg http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmdg06299ox.jpg http://img146.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uncannyxmen477010ar2.jpg http://img77.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uncannyxmen477006pk3.jpg http://img63.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uncannyxmen477013sb8.jpg

question about vulcan's powers

If Vulcan had power level to that of Galactus, per Prof. X comments, then why did Vulcan lose out to Gladiator?65.69.188.137 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Prof x never said he had powers equal to galactus he just said vulcan was beyond omega level but that is just a mistake and we all know nothing among humanity even its mutants can touch galactus.--Vipa Human 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the comic book ever say that Vulcan absorbed anyone's powers besides Darwin. It seems that he was able to absorb Darwin's powers only because Darwin was trying to save him. The two other teammates have been killed before they were buried. The time-manipulating teammate was killed before she was burried, so that isn't really condusive to Vulcan being able to absorb her powers. Also, the earth manipulator also died before they were buried and her last act was to actually bury them. As she did so, she died. Darwin never actually died before they were buried, paving the way for Vulcan to absorb his powers.

Also, Darwin was the only personality in Vulcan that was later separated from Vulcan. There was nothing in Vulcan other than Darwin, or the other teammates would also be separated from Vulcan.

Finally, Vulcan has never exibited time manipulation or earth manipulation powers even when he was one with Darwin. When he fought with X-Men, he only exibited his energy powers and highly adaptive powers. He didn't stop time, or move the earth. Not as I remmember. So, I don't think that when he and Darwin was separated, that he lost any powers other than Darwin's. He just never had any other powers. Thus, I'm thinking of removing the "possible time and earth manipulation" powers from the info box for the above reasons. Nothing will be done before we discuss. If you all disagree, please discuss. (RossF18 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

If I remember correctly, it was said that Vulcan absorbed Sway and Petra's energies. Vulcan uses Petra's power, as he creates a stone hand to grab the crashing shuttle and holds Marvel Girl and Cyclops captive in stone. However, I just read the Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire, and it appears that he lost his telekinetic and telepathic powers. Ophois 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

i propose a merge

with the article Third Summers brother, since they are the same person.Phoenix741 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• NO MERGE I say that they shouldn't be merged. Vulcan is the third Summer brother, but there is the potential for more than just 3 brothers. Third Summers brother should be renamed 'Additional Summers brothers' because there might be more. Freak104 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Freak104

yea, Vulcan was basically ripped from his mom's belly in order to be born, and then she died, i really don't think there is any chance that a #4 will show up.Phoenix741 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You say that like you know that Vulcan was the 3rd one to be born. I agree that no more would come after him, but there is nothing that says more couldn't have come before him. Freak104 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• NO MERGE I disagree. There are too many incognites yet for anyone to claim for sure that Vulcan and the 3SB are one and the same. For one thing, the scenario that Claremont set up in X-Men: The End has not been proven wrong; for another, we do not know for a fact that Sinister even knew about Vulcan's existence. Luis Dantas 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• MERGE Why don't we put a section up in the Vulcan page describing this. Like under a contoversy heading. If the third summers page had was longer, then i would not even be thinking about this, but due to its short length, we should add it all together to save space on wikipedia.Phoenix741 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• strong NO MERGE - Vulcan is a brother to Scott and Alex, and the third male child to be revealed; however, the Brothers article is about the development of a subplot through X-men books. Although, Vulcan is an integral part of this subplot, he is not exclusive to it, as both Gambit and Adam X were also key in the evolution of this phenomena, and the plot was key in their own character establishment and development. The final note is that technically Vulcan is a Summers by name alone, as he's Scott and Alex's maternal half brother. I do feel that elements of the article should be included in to Vulcan's article, rather than being placed in trivia section, as the topic is clearly part of the character creation. 66.109.248.114
• Oppose. I oppose a merge. The plotline about the Third Brother, and the speculation surrounding it (including characters like Gambit and X-Treme) was around long before Vulcan came. --DrBat 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• NO MERGE (RossF18 14:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Second Merge Proposal

I've recently deleated another merge proposal as per the discussion above. If one reads the third-summers brother article, note the possibility:

Currently, it was revealed that a third brother was Vulcan. However, whether Vulcan is THE third brother that Mr. Sinister was talking about is unknown. Furthermore, despite the naming of this occurence as "the third Summers brother", Sinister never says there are only three brothers, but just says "brothers", meaning that there could be more than three, again with Vulcan perhaps not being the brother that Sinister was referring too.

So, again, there should be no merge since while Vulcan is A third brother, there is no conclusive evidence that he is THE third brother or even one of the brothers that Sinister was talking about. Besides, the discussion in the third Summers brother article encompasses all of the theories over the years that included Gambit and Adam X, something that needs its own article and should not be encourporated into Vulcan article. A brief mention about the third Summers brother controversy should be noted, but not in the lead paragraph and not naming Vulcan as THE third brother because someone else could still be THE third brother that Sinister was referring too. --RossF18 (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MergeThe thing is that Vulcan was created with the express purpose of being the Third Summers brother. Lead-up interviews by Ed Brubaker for Deadly Genesis establish this. I'll try and post them here, but that's the whole reason Vulcan exists. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go: [1]. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a stretch. Lead-up interviews? Plural. All you had was one interview that said at the very end:

But we're also going to finally tell the story of the Third Summers Brother. That's one of the secrets that Xavier has been sitting on for a while, and when fans read this story, they are going to go -- "Oh my god, it's been right there in front of me for years!

Again, all Brubaker said that they were going to tell the story of the Third Summers Brother. You're basing you're merge entirly on that one line and ignoring everything else anyone says. Mr. Sinister never said that Vulcan was the third brother and he didn't even says that there were three brothers period. He just said that there were brothers. So, let's not play semantics and just say that the title of the article is misnamed since the article is really discussing the possibility of multiple Summers brothers so the title of the article should really Summers brothers, not the Third Summers Brother. Once more, you keep ignoring what everyone says above. Just because Vulcan was the third Summers brother revealed, even if Vulcan was created for the "express purpose of being the Third Summers brother" (with the express purpose being your words), that doesn't warrant the merging of the article that is talking about the whole history of the Third Summers brother plot line that included Adam X and Gambit. I hope you're not suggesting merging the entire dicussion including Adam X and Gambit. If not, then you shouldn't really merge. You can merge the part about Vulcan but to just blatantly ignore over 10 years of speculations and plot lines by deleating the entire article and just talking about Vulcan is rather rash for just one editor. --RossF18 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I found other articles; I though one for now would establish the point. You need to ignore what the characters say in the stories because, well, it's not real. What Mr. Sinister suggested and how it can be interpreted is irrelevant because Marvel can retcon whatever they like. Obviously clues could point to other characters being the third Summers brother, but Marvel and Brubaker have ignored that and said, "Vulcan is the third Summers brother. Deal with it". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

oppose merge - I agree that Vulcan is the 3rd brother, and that there was an editorial initiative to provide a character that would fit contextually into that criteria; however, even with additional materials discussion the editorial intiatives, we can not dismiss the source material pointing to additional characters and the secondary sources that support those claims. I agree with User:RossF18, that contextually the article should stay, specifically as the Wiki articles are the to reflect the characters/storylines as they are now, but the greater picture through time. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

NO MERGE!! This was shot down before, why is it being rediscussed? Future writers could decide to add a fourth (or more!) brother, because the existance of Vulcan as a third Summers brother does not mean there are no other siblings in existance. Writers in the past have said things in interviews that end up being untrue later because another writer decides to ignore them. While Brubaker is the writer no more brothers will pop up, but who knows what writers will do once he's gone. Maybe to keep this merge proposal from popping up we should change the article name to "Additional Summers brothers" or something. Just a thought. -Freak104 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No merge as above (how lazy am I ;P) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No merge this is still a yet to be resolved storyline. Perhaps a better title for the article is "Unknown Summers Brother" as there is now an established third. -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No Merge While Vulcan eventually fulfilled the plot line, the fact remains that the plot's various incarnations and aborted attempts are notable in their own right. It could get converted to be more in line with the other major plot pages, but it should remain on its own. EvilCouch (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No Merge but Rename to "Additional Summers brothers" or "Unknown Summers brothers" as have been suggested in previous comments. Hopefully renaming the article would stop people from trying to merge the article into Vulcan, because (as EvilCouch said) the other attempts to introduce another Summers are notable in their own right. Notability is all that is required for an article to deserve being an article. 144.92.58.224 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed with consensus of no merge with recommendations of moving Third Summers brother to Unknown Summers brother or Additional Summers brother. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening

The two of us seem to be at logger heads over this and I guess the appropriate thing would be to seek help. I've posted a request for help at the comic project board as a first step.

Hopefully this can be settled agreeably. :) Stephen Day (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

2 observations:

1. "Fictional comic book character" is a little redundant if not confusing. "Comic book character" is sufficient, and "fictional character" is consistent with the exemplars and other articles.
2. This is possibly the first time I've seen "shared universe" in a comic book character article. Frankly, it's a term that is more appropriate in the article for the Marvel Universe than an article on one of the characters.

Personally, I'd prefer:

"Vulcan (Gabriel Summers) is a fictional character that appears in the comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character was created by Ed Brubaker and Trevor Hairsine and first appeared in X-Men: Deadly Genesis #1 (cover date). He is the son of Corsair and younger brother of Cyclops and Havok. He was recently revealed as being a 'Third Summers brother'."

As this is closest to the exemplar. - J Greb (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like:

"Emperor Vulcan (Gabriel Summers) is a fictional character, a super villian that appears in the comic books published by Marvel. Created by Ed Brubaker and Trevor Hairsine, his first appearance was as a silhouette X-Men: Deadly Genesis #1 (2005); his first full on-panel appearance was X-Men: Deadly Genesis #2 (2005)." Rau J16 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My preference is still

"Vulcan (Gabriel Summers) is a fictional character in Marvel Comics' shared universe, the Marvel Universe. He first appears in X-Men: Deadly Genesis #1, and was created by Ed Brubaker and Trevor Hairsine. He is the son of Corsair and younger brother of Cyclops and Havok. He was recently revealed as being a "Third Summers brother"." Stephen Day (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Marvel Universe article already mentions a shared universe, is mentioning it here necessary? Rau J16 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is another possible path to get to that link. Why force somebody to jump articles when its possible to have both links right at hand though? Stephen Day (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because i still do not think that it is necessary. I still stand by the conviction that some people will not click the link, which will only make the heading more confusing to said people. Rau J16 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the purpose of having links though. If somebody is confused about a term they click on it. The only reason why somebody wouldn't click on that link in my opinion would be if they weren't confused. I just can't see anyone saying to themselves, "I'm confused about this term, I can click on the link provided, or I can remain confused. I think I'll remain confused." Stephen Day (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to underestimate the laziness of the common man, one look at that page and i can think of ten people off the bat that would pass and remain confused. Not everyone enjoys finding something new and will even on occasion put themselves in discomfort to avoid learning(tragic i know, but ive seen it) Rau J16 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if somebody is that lazy, then there is going to be a number of other things in this article that they are going to be equally confused about. Shi'ar and Eric the Red (comics) aren't that well defined either. Your hypothetical lazy person is going to be just as confused about these two thngs as well.

Why deprive others of information that could be available to them?Stephen Day (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent ←)

Stephen,

Another way to look at it is to ask "is the concept of 'shared universe' pertinent to this article?"

To be honest, I don't think that it is. Not for this character, and not for any character where many hands do the writing. For articles on the setting or the publications, yes, definitely since it is a primary aspect of those topics. But not here where it would be hard pressed to be called a secondary aspect. - J Greb (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point about the Shi`ar, and the fact that we cannot go into it here(which i took was implied) requires it to have a link. But the Shi`ar are paramount to this article, where as "shared universe" simply explains that the Marvel Universe is one, even though its article says it as well. Also the parts of the article that reference fictional beings are aimed at the people who are interested in them, and 9 out of 10 times they will know who the Shi`ar are. Greb also makes a good point here as well. Rau J16 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It goes to defining the enviroment in which the character exists. Its an enviroment that seems to me to be part and parcel of any character that exists in a shared universe. What are the main defining characteristics of Vulcan and any DCU or MU character? He is a fictonal character, he exists in a comic book universe and he can be interact with any other character in the shared universe he exists in.

J Greb, you defined him as a character where many hands do the writing. I see that as another definition of a shared universe character. It is a part of what makes the character what it is. I feel its very pertinent and if I didn't, I wouldn't be arguing this hard. Stephen Day (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

With all of the articles stating the same universe, isn't the same message conveyed? The environment the character exists in is the Marvel Universe. The defining characteristics of any comic book character are the characters actions, not where they exist. Rau J16 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that simply stating that the character exists in the Marvel Universe is clear enough when dealing with somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter. Its possible for a character to exist within a fictional universe that isn't a shared universe. Discworld or The Lord of the Rings being two good examples of fictional universes that are the result of one singlar vision.. It still seems to me to be more acurate to state it in the opening.

Your second point: The character of Vulcan exists because he is the brother of two characters created by two separate creative teams. He came into existance because of a storyline started by a third craetive team and was created by a forth creative team. This character with this publication history couldn't exist outside of a shared universe. The concept of the shared universe is integral to understanding the character itself. Stephen Day (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is true to exist in a fictional universe but not a shared one. But you cannot do both at the same time. I feel that stating that they are in the same universe is clear enough. Stating that they are all in the marvel universe is like saying shared universe but with less words.

It is possible that an idea could be mentioned in Earth-616, but first appear in the Ultimate Marvel imprint first(i know this is not the case, but run with it). The concept of a shared universe is not integral to the character, but to the stories within the books. Look at the Exiles, each is from a different universe, but the fact that Betsy is from a shared universe has next to no bearing on her now. Rau J16 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct when you say that a character whose story stretches across different universes doesn't exist in one single shared universe and I'm not claiming that a link to "Shared Universe" should be used in these cases. It should be used only when talking about characters that exist almost strictly within one shared universe.

In particular Vulcan, given his unusual publication history, is a character where the link is particularly useful. Stephen Day (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) I am going to concede on this, i can not think of anymore counter arguments. But i want it noted that I do not approve of it, and should it come to a vote for consensus(which i doubt), i will vote by my convictions. Rau J16 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If, and when, a consensus is found regarding this issue, I'll go along with it. If it goes against me, then so be it. I will note though that I do respect your opinion in this matter. Its just that I completely disagree with it. Stephen Day (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, i totally agree.(sorry, kid moment) Rau J16 04:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support having "... is a character in the Marvel Universe." Marvel Universe, when you click on the link, has in the first line, the link to Shared Universe. Marvel Universe is a specific type of shared universe and the link should link to it. Having a statement " is a character in the Marvel Comics shared universe" does not provide a link to Marvel Universe article. It provides a link to Marvel Comics Corporation article and to the shared universe article. This is improper in my opinion because people would want the Marvel Universe article and if they then want the general article dealing with shared universes, they can click the link in the first sentence of the Marvel Universe article instead of clicking on shared universe article and then searching for the Marvel Universe article. A metaphor would be if a person was looking for a particular type of owl in Harry Potter, you'd provide a link to the particular owl's article, not to the general owl article and then have the person look for the particular type. The person would be looking for the particular type of owl, and if they then want to read the general owl article, they can proceed from there. So, this article should read Marvel Universe in my opinion.--RossF18 (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like, we can have a ref after Marvel Universe, and then in the Notes explain that it's a type of shared universe with a link. This is how it's done, and it's a compromise (and clear).--RossF18 (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. It's fairly ridiculous. Just say the character appears in comics published by Marvel Comics. It's more straightforward, less fannish, and less esoteric. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are two possibilities here. One no one answered because it was fine the way it was. Or two, that you called all of our hard debating ridiculous. I know that this discussion did not start here, but ignorance is no excuse for rudeness. To read the discussion from the beginning, see this. Rau J16 01:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I completed the assessment - it was missing a publication history (which I've now added) but still needs more references. I have added a number of interviews, and there may be more material that can be retrieved from them but it could do with more primary references just so we know what issue that even happened in. Obviously throw in more secondary references if you have them as there is room for an expansion of the PH to look at character development (the planning and background as well as how he changed across the stories). So keep plugging away - it is getting more solid and should be a good B soon, with plenty of potential to go further. (Emperor (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Looking through the article again I'd sugget splitting off a couple of sections to The Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire and X-Men: Emperor Vulcan (there are interviews and reviews we can use to add more out-of-universe material to them), trim the plot back (do we need all that Deadly Genesis material when we have the article) and work on expanding the publication history. Throw in plenty of primary sources (it isn't really clear when certain events occurred), as well as any others you find, and it should easily make a B and be set for going further. (Emperor (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

I think that Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire should get its own Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.158.9 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the latest proposed merge

This is in reference to the latest attempt to merge the "Third Summers Brother" article with the Vulcan entry. While Vulcan is indeed the third Summers brother, the long-dangling plotline merits its own entry because Vulcan is only a small part of the subplot's history. Jfgslo's previous claim that the article lacked a reliable source was fixed, in my view, by inserting a reference to an article by comic creator Robert Weinberg about the subject. Moreover, just how much of the Third Summers Brother entry can be considered a part of Vulcan's publication history if the subplot was introduced 13 years before the character of Vulcan was even conceived? talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)--Gokitalo (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vulcan (Marvel Comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015195321/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=101434 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=101434
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702095308/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=116737 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=116737

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)