Talk:Galactus

Personality of Galactus

In the lede, it implies that Galactus feeds only on living worlds since he was introduced in the comics in the 60s. In his original appearance, the Watcher explicitly points out that Galactus could feed on non-living worlds too, but Galactus simply doesn't give a shit. This made Galactus a pure villain. It was in later comics that writers turned him into a predator that acts out of necessity, and who somehow serves an overall beneficial role in the Universe (perhaps tapping into our Judeo-Christian intuition that a god ultimately does what is best for all even if he seems cruel to some). BaronBifford (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid point. Could you try to find the scan with the Watcher's quote? David A (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

From Fantastic Four #49 BaronBifford (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. This seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. David A (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead, removing that inaccurate line. I also removed the analysis of the character, which belongs somewhere in the article body and is kind OR anyway. BaronBifford (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am uncertain if rewriting the entire lead is a good idea. It would probably be best if you simply inserted an issue reference to Fantastic Four #49 regarding that he was originally described as capable of feeding on any type of planet. David A (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That should go somewhere in the main body of the article, not the lede. BaronBifford (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the lead as I wrote it agrees completely with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead that you provided is both inaccurate ("colossal humanoid alien"...Galactus is NOT an alien, nor is he humanoid) and summarizes none of the key content from the rest of the article. The controversies/topics of genocide and manifest destiny, etc. are terms that the writers themselves (verbatim) and 3rd party analysis have used for the character. Thus it is not OR.Mobb One (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galactus. 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/20101007232709/http://www.reocities.com/brenni_au/JackKirby.html to http://www.reocities.com/brenni_au/JackKirby.html
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5v9dyZ1wf?url=http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20100504111741/http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/ on http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/02/19/a-year-of-cool-comics-day-50/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://marvel.com/news/story/19916/lego_marvel_super_heroes_on_the_way

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) 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Info Box Image

I'm adding this section as it provides the rationale for the image change. There are 3 clear reasons for a change:

• Per Guidelines, the image must where possible be only of the subject of the article.
• This leads into the second point: having a second character in the image confuses the issue. There are casual readers who know nothing about the character and might assume it is the smaller figure, and ask themselves why the character is cowering in front of this giant, how are we supposed to get a good look at him etc. It needs to be clear.
• The De Vito image is ideal as it is not only free of obstructions, but also illustrates why the character is called the "Devourer of Worlds", conveying a certain gravitas the other image lacks.

There was also a preference for this image in past Talk :[1].

Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Kinda shadowy, isn't it? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not mind replacing the inage with one featuring Galactus alone, but am uncertain if this one in particular is ideal. It is likely better than the old one though. David A (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I take your point. I chose this one as it conveys a certain sense of awe and dread that goes with the character's arrival. Although there is some shadow, it goes to my point and was obviously the artist's intention. There are also two other images in the article where the character's face can be clearly seen.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-Assessment to B-Class

I had made (in 2019) a request for the article to be re-assessed against the C grade. The only failing criteria mentioned in the previous "C" assessment was lack of references and citation, which had long before (i.e., before 2019, when I made the original request) been corrected. As none seem to have the time or desire, I have graded the article myself to B class, as, based off the required criteria, I believe the article more than satisfies. I've even made a quick benchmark against the Hank Pym B-Class article, and our Galactus entry has even more references and citations than the Pym article, which leads me to re-affirm our B-Class rating. Mobb One (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)