Talk:World War Hulk

Here we go...

With the crossover drawing near, I'm wondering if there are any lessons learned from Civil War (comics) and Annihilation (comics) that might make this article easier to structure/maintain. Suggestions? --Mrph 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

well, first is the formatting, it should be cleared as to what the formatting of this article will be. since this will be a major crossover, i say it has no diffenrence to the civil war in the sense that it also has an overview, publication, delays (if there will be any), synopsis, tie-ins, external links. but lets be careful not to over do it as to the previous civil war article †Bloodpack† 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I reckon we put Publication History in early, as WP:CMC consensus is that's one of the sections with the most 'Real World' relevance - and we can add any delays into that? I'd definitely agree about the risk of documenting every minor plot twist and every character involved...--Mrph 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant?

World War Hulk is a comic book crossover event, published by Marvel Comics and scheduled to begin in May 2007.[1] It was announced by Joe Quesada in 2006 that the Hulk will be the focus of the event.[2] I think it's safe to assume that the Hulk will be the focus of a story named after him, is it not? Kelvingreen 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording's clunky, but how much prior knowledge should Wikipedia assume? Adding "centered around the Hulk" just before the first comma might work as an alternative, allowing us to dump the Quesada blurb...? --Mrph 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An improvement might be something along the lines of 'centered around the Hulk's return to Earth to carry out a vendetta against those who cast him off and took everything from him.' I can't think straight right now, but I'm sure some knowledgeable editor can get the gist of what I'm saying. Also, I believe the page should be update to reflect current information (some of the info's outdated, like WWHulk prologue release date, and past tense that should now be present) 66.81.152.47 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)66.81.152.47 06:19, May 09 2007 (UTC)

The word "focus" makes it redundant because (of course) the article is named after the Hulk †Bloodpack† 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Bloodpackand Kelvingreen. For Fantastic Four: The End, we wouldn't need to say "it centers on the Fantastic Four".--Tenebrae 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue date

To those inserting an inaccurate May 2007 date for World War Hulk: Prologue: The postal indicia date, which is what hundreds and hundreds of comic books referenced on Wikipedia uses, is July 2007 for this comic. May is the on-sale date. Those are two different things. Thank you. --Tenebrae 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked that list, and there's no Incredible Hulk issue shown for October. Is this a mistake, or is the series coming to an end? Bluecatcinema 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

World War Hulk Checklist

Marvel has released their official checklist on the Marvel site. Should the tie ins be adjusted? Or do you guys want to add the link at the bottom? If no one has a problem with it, I'll adjust the tie ins with a footnote in about a week or so. --DavePretty 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a new url for the checklist: World War Hulk checklist Jason Quinn (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Solicitations disallowed as sources

Per WikiProject Comics guidelines. This is in place since information occasionally changes between a solicitation and the actual published comics. And solicitation dates are notoriously changeable. The footnotes in the intro graf are from solicitations, and need to be re-sourced for this reason. --Tenebrae 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor identification

It has been asked by an editor that others create ID accounts "so they can be identified." This is not necessary. The whole idea of wikipedia is an open system so that anyone can contribute without prejudice. That not only includes degrees and "expertise" but also ID names. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of concensus and general knowledge. Please be respectful of those who do not wish to have their IDs listed with their edits. It is their right, and their edits are as relevant and valuable as those who use an ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.32.99 (talk • contribs)

It's not a disrespect, it's called proper ethics and civility. True that wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, but on certain circumstances like debates on topics or arguments, it is proper to be identified by a log-in name. By creating a user account, it protects your privacy by hiding your IP address to the public. IP addresses are used by multiple internet users. One cannot identify another user if he/she is the same person by IP address alone. Then again, it's true that it's your personal choice. Lastly, please sign your post by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). Again, by asking you to sign your post is not a disrespect, it's called courtesy and ethics †Bloodpack† 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Proper ethics and civility?" I think you need to read the section on ethics and civility. Asking people to do what we do -as the unsigned editor wrote- is NOT necessary, and is condescending. Wiki does not require IP addresses, plain and simple. This is Wikipedia, not Club Wikipedia. I personally don't have a talk page because I'm tired of vandalism to my OWN page from self-righteous editors who love to promote POV wars. Kontar 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

wateva †Bloodpack† 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tie-ins

Forgive me if I'm just impatient or clueless, but what will happen with the tie-ins? Particularly things like WWH: Frontline and the miniseries like WWH: X-Men. Will they be given their own pages? I know the similar Civil War miniseries were. Will the events be recapped here as well, or only on those pages if it happens? Also, what about the issues of other comics that deal with it? Like Ghost Rider or Avengers: The Initiative? I'm sure they'll be covered in their respective articles, but would they go here as well? I ask because I've been checking on some of the individual X-Men profiles and a few of them (like Hellion and X-23) mention them fighting the Hulk, but apparently those events haven't been recapped here, nor has a WWH: X-Men article been created.

Again, sorry if maybe I'm just impatient or if this is something everyone else knows. I'm just curious.DNMN 06:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In my own humble opinion, this article mainly focuses on the 5-part series of the WWH, which means all events that will happen within the 5-part main arc series goes here (synopsis). Any related events happening in the lives of XMEN, Avengers, etc. and their participation in WWH goes on their respective articles, but this mainly focuses on the 5-part series. †Bloodpack† 23:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. I just wanted to clear it up for sure. Thanks.DNMN 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, this is the story of WWH. No one should have to go to each individual character (Ghost Rider for example), as those stories are pretty much incidental to those titles, and will be eventually shortened or erased over time as non-relevant events. The whole story should be here. --Kontar 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

synopsis

Just to be clear and as described in the initial sentence/paragraph of this article, WWH is all about the 5-part series, anything within the scope of events happening inside the 5-part book series, which means outside of that, including the events happening in the supporting tie-ins of this event (i.e. xmen, ghostrider, etc.) goes to their respective articles (characters) . Again, events happening within the 5-part book should be the focus of the synopsis. WWH frontline can be created as a new article. As for the other heroes' participation in this event, like ghostrider or xmen, etc. goes to their respective books/articles †Bloodpack† 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Added back in the synopsis as it took place in Issue 2, not other books.

Again, there is NO valid purpose for forcing wiki readers to look up the story of WWH in multiple articles. It should (as is) consolidated here. --Kontar 04:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

and the valid purpose would be? †Bloodpack† 05:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hulk and The Heroes.jpg

Image:Hulk and The Heroes.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 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the original cover for WWH removed? And why is this article using the retarded "purple pants" cover?? This is a story about the Green Scar, not the Rampaging Illiterate Hulk. Kontar 05:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

so? †Bloodpack† 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of cast of characters list

as per wikipedia NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodpack (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. You would include a cast list for a film or TV programme, so why not here? How is this any different? It's not the same thing at all as a "list of stats", and as long as it sticks to characters truly involved in the main series and doesn't attempt to list every Marvel character that appears in an "unspeaking cameo", it's a useful addition of data. 71.204.204.249 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition of the said section is unecessary as the characters involved can easily be incorporated within the synopsis itself. Pls refer to the WP:COMIC for more info as it is different from the movie or tv programme wiki projects. Thank you †Bloodpack† 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with User:Bloodpack. This is an across-the-line crossover. We'd simply be listing every major and several minor character in the Marvel Universe. --Tenebrae 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Deletions and synopsis

At this point I think it is important to discuss what constitutes "excessive detail" when it comes to a multi-issue cross-over event. Given that the storyline covers months of details and multiple points of view (each seperate series), we should come to a consensus on what should be included in the article and what should be left to the imagination or primary sources. There also seems to be an effort on the parts of some editors to delete material without consensus, so this is an attempt to find that consensus. Please chime in on your views of the organization, structure, and content of the article. For example, is one paragraph "excessive detail" when summarizing the 3 issues and over 80 pages of literary work (World War Hulk X-Men)? 24.9.20.149 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WPC MOS is against blow-by-blow, issue-by-issue synopses. Wikipedia policy is that articles be written for a general-audience, not a fan audience. There's no reason, unless we're on a fan site, to go into much detail other than where the Hulk went, who he encountered, and what the outcome was. And while I love comics, I don't know that in the grand scheme of things I would refer to "80 pages of literary work".

Let's take the graf in question. Original version read:

Reaching the moon, the Hulk defeats the Illuminati member Black Bolt. The Hulk proceeds to New York City, where he demands the presence of the Illuminati and that the city be evacuated. He travels to the nearby X-Mansion, home of the X-Men, where Illuminati member Professor Xavier, absent from the decision to send the Hulk off-planet, admits he would have agreed to do so. The Hulk proceeds to defeat several teams of X-Men, and the Juggernaut.

Edited version read:

Upon reaching the moon, the Hulk viciously defeats the Illuminati member Black Bolt. The Hulk proceeds to New York City, where he demands the presence of the Illuminati, using Black Bolt's broken body to taunt the heroes, while ordering that the city be evacuated. Leaving for a short while, he travels to the nearby X-Mansion, home of the X-Men, where Professor Xavier, one of the members of the Illuminati absent when they decided to send the Hulk off-planet, admits he would have agreed to send the Hulk away. The Hulk proceeds to defeat several teams of X-Men and Excalibur,and a weakened Juggernaut. After the Juggernaut regains his full invulnerability by evoking the demon source of his power, he battles the Hulk to a standstill, but the Green Scar defeats him by using his own momentum against him. The X-Men then convince the Hulk to leave as they have suffered enough persecution much like the form he was trying to avenge.

First, a couple examples of minor line-edit stuff. "Reaching the moon" and "Upon reaching the moon" say the same thing. No need for the additional word. "Leaving for a short while" is an unnecessary phrase -- we say "he travels to," which implicitly means he left. And whether he left for a short while (which means what, anyway? Several hours could be "a short while," relatively speaking) doesn't have any bearing on the touchstone event, which is that he extracts an important admission, and defeats a certain group of Marvel characters.

"Illuminati member Professor Xavier, absent from the decision to send the Hulk off-planet, admits he would have agreed to do so." The changed version does not say anything at all different, but uses more words to do it: "Professor Xavier, one of the members of the Illuminati absent when they decided to send the Hulk off-planet, admits he would have agreed to send the Hulk away." That's wordiness and overwriting.

RE: "After the Juggernaut regains his full invulnerability by evoking the demon source of his power, he battles the Hulk to a standstill, but the Green Scar defeats him by using his own momentum against him." The blow-by-blow specifics are unimportant and unencyclopedic. Would it have made a significant difference if Hulk had defeated Juggernaut by punching him? Kicking him? Tripping him? The salient point is, he defeats the X-Men and the Juggernaut. That's it. Why are the details of how he does so encyclopedically important?

I could go on, but do you see these point-by-points? --Tenebrae 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

References

I have a question

I just have to say first the Hulk will win but my question is what happened to the Hulk's sword I see it in all the comics except for the World War Hulk series except for in the first issue.The K.O. King 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well personally, i feel the hulk doesnt need any weapons, because hes already the weapon. Secondly, talk pages are meant to dicuss how to improve the article itself and not to discuss the subject of the article. Thank you †Bloodpack† 14:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay yeah I'm sorry and I know the Hulk doesn't need a weapon I just wondered what happened to his sword.The K.O. King 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

I have added a publication section following the format seen on the Civil War page though it may need to be updated and/or corrected.

There should be a World War Hulk : Front Line page or someone needs to create a Front Line (comics) page and merge the Civil War: Front Line page into it and include sections on both Civil War and World War Hulk. --Savre 04:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Rider

Is there anyway we could put where the Ghost Rider comic tie-in came on the World War Hulk page or does anybody even know where this tie-in came in at?The K.O. King 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

World War Hulk was in Ghost Rider #12-13 and seemed to take place sometime after the Hulk first arrives and probably lasted about an hour in Marvel time. --203.100.211.163 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So is there anyway we can put that on the WWH page or no.--The K.O. King 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Can definitely be done. Either with links to pages that have sections on the the WWH event or a section with synopsis for each tie in. --Savre 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanky thanky--The K.O. King 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ant-Man

Sorry to bother anyone but is there anyway we could put where the Ant-Man part of the series came in on the WWH page please.The K.O. King 01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know when the Ant-man part of the series is in world war hulk to put in the article.The K.O. King 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

The bit with Strange and Zom happens before the arena where Hulk has the Illuminati battle. --DrBat 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ant-Man/World War Hulk

Does Anybody know where the Ant-man part of the comic came and if anybody does can we put it in the article?--The K.O. King 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

An-Man stuff belongs in the Ant-Man section, unless he shows up in the actual WWH series.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But there should still be a ti-in section. Someone removed the tie-in section. Why? Who knows? People looking for the WWH ant man issues are gonna come here first rather than the Ant-man page (arguably) and also those will full out the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savre (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ant-Man was in the WWH series when he attacked the Hulk inside his body remember?--The K.O. King 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

World War Hulk #5

When does World War Hulk #5 come out I need to know?--The K.O. King 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 19 rv and Aftersmash - Keep, Remove or Own Page?

This article has suffered tremendously from plot-creep, and the synopsis right now is literally a blow-by-blow account when it includes a sentence saying that the Sentry collapses. This kind of overdetail is specifically prohibited. There is also much awkward writing, with a plethora of parenthetical phrases and a lot of fancruft of no interest or incomprehensible to the general-audience reader, to which Wikipedia aims. "The explosion of a warp core they had constructed"? The detail of a "warp core" makes no difference in encyclopedic terms, or to any general audience reader -- the salient point is that something exploded and caused such-and-such effect. The U.S. Army uses "adamantium artillery"? How can that possibly mean anything to a general-audience reader, and what difference does it make what kind of artillery they were using?

On a second point, I'm removing the "Aftersmash" section, which is WP:CRYSTAL and based on solicitations, which are disallowed. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How is Aftersmash not important, its all confirmed and everything. And tons of Comic themed pages use solitations to back up their arguments, so your reasoning seems flawed. Since the Secret Invasion page has infomation of 'The Infiltration' tie-in I think that Aftersmash should either be kept at the bottom or get its own page. I'll add it again for now, I want to know what others think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.33 (talk • contribs)

See policy against using solicitation material at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I havent been scrolling down this article because I havent finished collecting/reading the entire series and it might only spoil my reading. But the moment I saw users been adding exagerrated synopsis (through page history), I know its over detailed. Once I finished the book I'll take a look again and do some clean ups †Bloodpack† 05:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To go point by point. 'Tremendously' is another enormous exaggeration when everything is extremely condensed. Personal generalised pet key word terms like 'creeping' notwithstanding, the crossover itself does have a very confusing continuity structure. Very quickly noting down the existing key happenings was no different than what was there previously. Hercules & Co didn't exactly ally with Hulk's cause. Noting that Scorpion and Gamma Corps attacked is just as noteworthy as the X-Men or Ghost Rider among other things. Hulk didn't kill Miek as far as was shown. He wasn't intentionally trying to destroy the Earth. He lost control of his power and ordered Tony Stark to stop him. He didn't just arrive on Earth for no reason. Quickly describing the background for his misguided vendetta against the Illuminati, i.e. that he falsely thought that they were at fault for what was described as an exploding warp core, is extremely noteworthy, but I agree that changing the working term to a more real-world "rocket fuel engine" or similar might be preferable. Noting that Sentry was defeated is pretty necessary to go on in the description, just as much as Iron Man and Avengers, but imply that he flew away into space if it makes you happier. What I did was patch up inaccuracies in the timeline, accounts, and ones creating a biased rather than factual point-by-point. Adamantium artillery is just another batch of sensationalist nitpicking from you. I obviously don't care at all if you strick it out and simply mention that they made a very good showing due to extremely high-powered weaponry (possibly noting that the used a fictional virtually indestructible metal if you want to get wordy). That said your entire premise is partially flawed regarding crossovers as such. Unlike the characters, no non-comic book reader would ever be likely check them out in the first place, and if adamantium is mentioned in the book, it likely won't be any more confusing than here. Likely far less so, given that a direct link is provided. Why is this regarded as more confusing than mentioning Ghost Rider? I don't care about Aftersmash. I don't remember adding it, and don't see how it relates to the crossover as such as anything but free advertisement, which an idealistic free information refuge like Wikipedia should be firmly against.

I suspect that I'm wasting my breath and logic yet again. Dave (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the changes in question and agree with most of the shortened sentences, but reverted a few inaccuracies, or seeming plot holes. Dave (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had achieved compromise, but now David A., who gets into frequent edit wars on Hulk-related topics, has incrementally reverted to his previous versions with spelling errors, bad passive-voice writing, fancruft and overdetail which, despite his protestations above about who the audience is, still violates Wikipedia policy on writing for general audience. This whole "who's stronger, the Hulk or the Sentry" material belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of glass-houses. You've been far less interested in comrpomise in the past than myself. I have strictly changed complete inaccuracies. You keep reverting the page largely for frivolous irrational reasons, yet claim that this is somehow all right in comparison. I am not attempting to write an essaySpelling and sentence structure improvement is obviously something I have no objections against whatsoever. To use your own tone, User:Tenebrae hasn't shown himself to have a recurring very non-underhanded character. Regardless, the current point of content seems to be: " The betrayed Hulk, realizing his culpability in moulding Miek's character, is now loosing control of his power to the extent of threatening the entire planet Earth, and, in order to avoid catastrophe, tells Tony Stark to activate a series of satellite devices, that bombard him with experimental rays, eventually leaving him in his Bruce Banner form, comatose." This is completely correct. He was stated outright not to be mad so much as having a mental meltdown in the writer interview. He was not a rampaging threat at the time. He was asking to be stopped due to loosing control. This is relevant to the issue, but again, I suspect that there is no reasoning with you whatsoever, so my interest will quickly wane, and you will eventually be able to insert whatever unfounded inaccuracies you wish. Congratulations. Dave (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Poorly worded as it is ("a recurring very non-underhanded character", etc.), the above posting is filled with uncivil and rather remarkable accusations, and twisted logic — as just one example of the latter, the overdetail version talked about the Hulk "loosing [sic] control of his power to the extent of threatening the entire planet Earth", yet not being "a rampaging threat at the time".

Ok, point-by-point it is. I was going to watch a movie, but you keep dragging me into things that I don't have enough interest for. Regarding grammar, that is due to writing in terms of quick flow in a non-native language. When given time enough for continuously rewriting actual essays and using a Word spelling check function I've consistently topped the advanced English university courses I've attended. Regardless, no it isn't as you well know. In the past you've actively misrepresented my views to grab the 'right' kind of attention in public forums, attempted to get personally known editors that know nothing about the issue at hand to interfere, (with the result that you were told that I wasn't a problem) and enormously blown up minor issues, all the while using a very calculated and condescending tone. But all right, I'll give you benefit of doubt and say that, if this sincerely was not your intent with this seemingly cumulative effort, and I'm simply being distrustful in seeing underhanded scheming due to being attentive to patterns, even when these are unintentional, then I apologise for eventually turning grouchy and suspicious. (Paranoid?) Dave (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If User:David A would like to work out edits point-by-point, we might avert what looks like an edit war. But first we need to deal with the accusations and other personal invective. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a very reactive kind of person. I'm the height of civility until somebody is actively offensive to myself. Then I get annoyed. From my position you and Thuran were the ones who started using personal invective back in the old Hulk page that I gave up on when my rationales were ignored instead of disproven, just offering opinion in the place. Dave (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And for those just now tuning in, here is one of the things David A. objects to. I don't believe anything is factually incorrect, but if so, definitely point it out. (David A. did, for instance, note that "unprecedented" was incorrect, and "nearly unprecedented" was accurate):

The betrayed Hulk is now enraged to a nearly unprecedented point, and Tony Stark activates a series of satellite devices that fire on the Hulk, eventually leaving him in his Bruce Banner form, unconscious.

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Above reworded for grammar:

The betrayed Hulk is now enraged to a nearly unprecedented point, and Tony Stark activates a series of satellite devices that open fire and eventually leaves the Hulk in his Bruce Banner form, unconscious.

-Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The inaccuracy being that Hulk is stated outright by the writer not to simply being angry, but having an emotional meltdown of guilt, despair, etc, and that the previous phrasing seemed point-pushed as actively attempting to be a threat to humanity and being unwillingly brought down. That's all. That's it. It shouldn't be a sticking point, just changed to alternate terms. Currently it's fully acceptable.

Since David A., despite my asking for comments by other editors both here and on his own talk page, has chosen to ignore an attempts at multiple-editor consensus, I've just inserted what I think is a compromise version of the sentence in question. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You should be well aware that I didn't even see your comment, (being occupied here and with non-Internet stuff) and certainly had no time to answer it, before you gave this declaration of unwillingness to compromise. I even got two edit conflicts when pushing reply. (The second time for the second addition) Incidentally, I have no problem with the current version. Dave (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have come a little late to the party, but the current form of the article is very well written. Much of the speculation and fan-nonsense has been removed, but it still seems to have a little more blow-by-blow and in-universe style than necessary. I understand that the plot summary has condensed a great number of comic volumes, but some of the details, such as the failed attempts to arouse the Sentry and the mentioning of Skaar seem to be overkill, and relevant only to fans.--Kontar (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Took a lot of work and emotional toil to get it pared down even to what it is. The edit history will astound and dismay you.... --Tenebrae (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Black Bolt

After Secret Invasion, do we known if Hulk defeated the real Black Bolt or a Skrull? Barraki (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

infobox image

I have removed teh infobox image. No Non-Free Fair use rationale was given for it; if it stays up without one, it will be deleted. Please add NFUR before restoring image. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Planet Skaar

This section seems inaccurate and dated. These books have since come out and the information listed in the section is misleading and/or can be updated. Examples being "Skaar abandoning his planet" when he was infact exiled from the planet but had full intent to stay on the planet. Updated sections include the "Reed Richards will not be thrilled with his return." followed by a comment about a confrontation with his father. Grimbear13 (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This series of edits has changed all the major characters. It looks like vandalism, but I cannot tell because I haven't read the story. Can somebody confirm it and revert the change? Diego (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

General plot clean up

I've streamlined the plot some, and I'm removing the cleanup request. If anyone thinks it's still too bulky, please explain where before replacing it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on World War Hulk. 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/20070303111711/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=102627 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=102627
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721010401/http://comicnewsi.com/article.php?catid=99&itemid=9403 to http://comicnewsi.com/article.php?catid=99&itemid=9403
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083210/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=124786 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=124786
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529152001/http://marvel.com/comic_books/events/277/world_war_hulk to http://marvel.com/comic_books/events/277/world_war_hulk

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) 07:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)