Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team)

Untitled

Why doesn't this article go into the events of the 62 issue series? Why no details about members like Replica, Talon, Hollywood and Yellowjacket?

This article needs some major work.

--Ksofen666 04 February 2007.

2008 Series

Why was information regarding the forthcoming Guardians of the Galaxy series removed? Destroda (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, as stated before, we cannot "crystal ball" on Wikipedia. The mere fact that someone posted an interview with someone speculating:

Recently, Guardians of the Galaxy editor Bill Rosemann was interviewed on IGN.com. He stated that events spawning out of Annihilation: Conquest will forge the new team and series. The cover for the first issue was shown with Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Rocket Raccoon, Phyla-Vell (Quasar), and Adam Warlock. When pressed further, Rosemann revealed that Cosmo, from the new Nova series, may also be a part of the team.

is enough. The new information can be included, in the correct format (not tables that disrupt the entire article) when it is published and certifiable fact. I would suggest starting by replacing the old image and inserting the new into the SHB. Let's by all means update it, but we need to do it the right way. The first effort disrupted the text on a grand scale.

Asgardian (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced information

Asgardian, explain why you remove all the source information from this article that is sorely lacking in the information that I provided regarding the original future alternative time team including its expansion team? I am going to reundo your edit and try to change the table so the change in the team infobox's effect of adding space is reduced. I will remove the 2008 series as you above statement indicates. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK...I've had to remove the speculative paragraph in the introduction as that it what it is - speculation. On Wikipedia there is no provision for "crystal balling" - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is proved when we look at the paragraph and see:

Another team in the mainstream Marvel Universe current time will be published using the same name is scheduled to start May 14, 2008. This team will feature many characters from the 2007 - 2008 Annihilation: Conquest series. Team members include: Rocket Raccoon, Star-Lord, Drax the Destroyer, Wraith, Quasar (Phyla-Vell), and more. The new series is scheduled to be written by Dan Abnett & Andy Lanning, along with artist Paul Pelletier.

So, at this stage, we cannot have conjecture passing for what is yet to be hard fact. Things can and will change. Once the first issue is released, then by all means add a paragraph and image, although I would suggest a separate article.

Moving on, the tables have been pulled as they disrupt the text and that's not how team members are listed. It would be a fiasco if such a thing were attempted for the Avengers or X-Men. Check out Avengers to see how it is done. Finally, the Annual reference seem a bit out of whack. Right year?

Asgardian (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are going on about "crystal balling" when we know that another team will be published under that name that is not conjecture as comic books are planned out six months+ ago. In any regards, this is not what I am referring to as that is discussed in another section on the talk page. As it is not what I am refer to hence the new talk section, regarding your heavy-handed removal of sourced information.

Team members are list in that fashion; just that the Avengers' and X-men's lists are a separated articles as they are longer. Show me the Wikipedia standard on list superheroes team members. You also remove any information about the 2nd 31 Century Guardian of the Galaxy team nicknamed Galactic Guardians. I will get the year corrected (it is 1991), still that is a minor error and does not negate the information within. Spshu (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I cannot see how WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here. The series is scheduled to be started in two months. Given the amount of time that printing and distribution generally take, I cannot help but think that the series has already been substantially written and created, so saying that work which has almost certainly already been completed qualifies as predicting the future seems to me at best dubious, and at least to my eyes a misapplication of that policy. Certainly, we have had information regarding the expected members of teams whose stories have seemingly been created, if not yet published, before. The information on the Galactic Guardians and the team membership tables also seems to be basically reliable. I cannot see why they were removed in the first place. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created a page for Membership with a link, which solves that issue. That's what should have happened in the first instance - never on the main page as that is dedicated to narrative. As for the speculative 2008 information, that is what it is - the future. It hasn't happened yet and things can and will change. Such speculation was removed by several posters such as myself from the main Avengers article on the Mighty Avengers as it was all hearsay and conjecture. When the series is published, the information can be inserted in expanded form.

Asgardian (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think the new page is unnecessary (and was there a consensus reached on this?) I tend to agree on the 2008 team as I couldn't find a good source for it. I'm sure, given how close it is, one should emerge soon. Whether that warrant the removal of the text or the addition of {{fact}} might be a moot point but I think we can afford to wait for a reference (and Dan Abnett can always manage to task a clone for an interview - I'll look around for one now). (Emperor (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

There really wasn't consensus for the rosters to be moved, however, it is a reasonable, if bold, action. Given there should be more added to the article with regard to the upcoming when it comes out (note: the short mention in the PH is warranted as it is what Marvel is putting in place). Having the tables there will be a little unwieldy. Also, splitting them now doesn't really knock either down to a stub. - J Greb (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK cool. I've sourced the next series and there is a tonne of stuff in there (and a link to an earlier quick word with an editor) if anyone wants to expand that - I knew DnA would do an interview at some point in the run up to the series. I'll keep an eye out for more. (Emperor (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Information about new series. Possible things that need to be added to the article.

Yes, there may be some crystal balling and conjecture here... that is why I am discussing this... mainly to see possible key points of what may be needed to add to the wiki article. Per this article, the new series IS connected to the old series...somehow:

"NRAMA: And you guys chose the name Guardians of the Galaxy, yet this sounds very different

from the old comic of that name, which took place in the distant future. Is this tied to it at

all?...

AL: Yes. We won't spoil things by explaining how that works.... a story direction that will

link the two together in quite an important way."

They also show that issue Clint Langley's #2 cover and it has, what looks like, Captain America's shield on the it (kind of like Major Victory in the original Alternate Future Guardians of the Galaxy). To be continued.... feel free to add to this discussion of possible things that need to be added to the article. Antmusic (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Since it is now an issue, here we go.

At present there are two distinct sets of characters that have used/are using the team name. The one with a fair chunk of history and the one that has just been minted. Both have distinct line-ups and hence visual representations. The question has become: which gets an image in the article, let a lone the infobox.

We've got a few options (please note that the difs that are linked are done so only for image use examples, the text may likely be the "wrong version"):

1. The "classic" only and in the 'box [1] - Reasonably short article with the bulk of the information deriving from the older team.
2. The new only and in the 'box [2] - Reasonable short article with a new version currently on the shelves.
3. Both, neither in the 'box [3] - The article, regardless of length, is discussing 2 different sets of fictional characters. Not placing into the 'box does not ascribe a preference, but including both serves illustrating each where it is discussed in the article.
4. Both, "classic" in the box (no example) - As with #3, but highlighting the original grouping.
5. Both, new in the box (no example) - As with #3, but highlighting the current publications.
6. Neither (no example) - Short article that cannot justify an image. Characters can be viewed in individual articles, if they exist.

I'm not a fan of #1, #2, or #6. #1 and #2 are opposite ends of "recentism" — focusing on or ignoring the "new" simply because it's the new. #6 just moves the article backward.

I have the same "recentism" problem with #4 and #5. Though they do service both versions of the team, each version of the article has an inherent POV "push".

I prefer #3 since it is a relatively neutral presentation. AS for length... to be honest, yes, the article is short, but it is trying to cover 2 separate things. I think there is enough flexibility to allow for 2 image in this case. (I don;t think we would be able to get away with more than 2 though.)

- J Greb (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article needs an image, and they are available. Having the new image in the SHB is no problem as much of the FCB I wrote covers the original team, so both get attention. Two images, however, is a tad much for an article this size. I suppose there could be two articles, citing Guardian I and Guardians II?

Asgardian (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The two options I'd favour:

• If the SHB must have an image (and I see no reason not to) then the guidelines say it should be the classic team, who have the most coverage and history. J Greb's option #4
• If not then no image could be the way to go. J Greb's option #3

Personally I prefer the first option but wouldn't lose any sleep over the second if that gets consensus (after all there doesn't seem an ideal solution so those seem like the best compromises) - I don't see the others being justifiable by guidelines or precedent. (Emperor (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No image? One or the other, but there must be an image. That's not really an option and I can't see anyone ever pushing for that. In fact, there wasn't even a conflict over the initial change of image. This one should be settled quickly.

Asgardian (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it is the classic line-up then, which would be the one that best accords with the guidelines.

It does look like DnA are linking the two teams but they are quite different and another option (which might be slightly further down the line) would be to split them, not an unreasonable solution for two teams with different line-ups, etc. I have reviews and sales figures for the new team and we could already produce a reasonably well-rounded article that might be tricky to do now (do we create two sections for each team and then list the publication history, plot and reception under each one? It is a bit clunky but better than mixing the two indiscriminately and would set things up nicely for a split. (Emperor (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Well, we can split them, but the FCB for Team B would make the article little more than a stub for a while. The titles would also have to be very clear, such as Guardians of the Galaxy (1969) and Guardians of the Galaxy (2008). Not impossible.

Asgardian (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As the talk seems to have stalled, I have resolved the situation and split the two with links, which should keep everyone happy. Two things, a search of the GOTG will go to the original Page, as I think it should, with a link to the Modern. Yes, the Modern is rather light-on at present, but with a few issues there will be more substance.

Asgardian (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good... the only quibble may be the dabbing of "(Original)" and "(Modern)" on 2 points:

1. The phrase shouldn't be capitalized unless it's a title, ie "(comics)" and "(DC Comics)".
2. Since the consensus seems that Silver Age team is the more likely/proper search target, and has a hatnote, it shouldn't need dabbing.

But the split itself is a good solution. - J Greb (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think the dabbing needs work. The most obvious distinction is that the original team is from Earth-691 and the modern one is Earth-616 but I am unsure people would necessarily be au fait with the Multiverse (I do wonder if we can take a leaf out of the film world where they have 1969 film, 208 film, but I am unsure how it would apply to teams). However, it is "time neutral" as we could easily see a third team some time in the future which means the naming would need up dating. Might as well find a way to future-proof it.

I am unsure if it is the more likely search term - the modern team is going to be getting all the "heat" and is actually more likely to be the one currently being searched for. Given how radically different the teams are and how the current one leads on from Annihilation: Conquest some people will be arriving at the new series with little or no knowledge there was of the original team they share a name with. So as it stands it is not an unreasonable state of affairs and puts the decision in the hands of the reader/searcher. (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

I suppose yet another clarification is possible, but I think waiting until the story with Vance Astro is concluded is wise, as this may effect things.

Asgardian (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it is early days yet and it sounds like they have a few cards up their sleeves (like the story behind Knowhere) and it looks like they are going to drip feed information in. They were planning on a Guardians series before Annihilation: Conquest came along so it could be they will o a crossover when the bring the whole original team back and links/connections will be clarified. So it is worth waiting for things to settle before making any lasting decisions (although I still think they should be lower case). The important thing for now is that we have separate articles and we can expand them both when it would have been clunky before. (Emperor (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Requested move

Guardians of the Galaxy (modern) → Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 team) — I believe that it is better to distinguish the teams by year of debut, similar to the Legion of Super-Heroes articles. Marcus Brute (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Guardians of the Galaxy (original) → Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team)

 Done--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (1969 team). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thewhig.com/2017/04/25/sylvester-stallones-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-character-has-a-big-future-in-the-mcu
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://screenrant.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-original-team/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725033851/http://www.comics-db.com/Marvel_Comics/G/Guardians_of_The_Galaxy/index.html to http://www.comics-db.com/Marvel_Comics/G/Guardians_of_The_Galaxy/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)