Jump to content

Talk:Eternals (comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apocalypse and Cannonball

[edit]

Aren't apocalypse and cannonball eternals? --Torourkeus 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannoball and Apocalypse are EXTERNALS!?! They are mutants born with an EXTRA gene to practically be Immortal. They do not have the genetic potential as Eternals, but can genetically enhance themselves i.e. En Sabuh Nur when he met Saul and entered the Celestial ship in Mongolia. moshun11 moultrie11@hotmail.com

Highlander

[edit]

I'm removing the stuff about the makers of Highlander suing Marvel of the Eternals because no source is cited and due to the fact that the Eternals were created by Marvel over a decade before the first Highlander movie, I'm sure the anon user is making this story up. -- Crevaner 01:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the details to hand, so I'm not sure whether or not it has any basis in fact - but the concerns (which may or may not have reached legal action) were regarding the Externals - the immortal mutants noted above - not the Eternals. The only connection between the Externals and Eternals is the choice of name, which may have been an attempt by Rob Liefeld to link the two groups thematically. The Externals talk page has some comment on the Highlander claim already.Mrph 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd

[edit]

It says that the article can't be edited because of vandalism, but the vandalism was left in (that ugly, unnecessary, and virtually blank table). That is strange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.55.206 (talk • contribs) 13:32, March 26, 2006 (UTC)

You realize the vandal they are talking about is you dude. Originalsinner 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha... you User:70.50.55.84 thought you were correcting my English with realise/realize. I'm not attacking you or nothing it's just that's how we Kiwis spell "realise" with an s and not a z. Kinda like harbour/harbor and how herb (name) and herb (plant) are pronounced the same. Originalsinner 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spell harbour with a u, because that's how the OED spells it - just as they spell "realize" with a z. 70.53.111.188 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the presence or absence of the table is essentially a content dispute. However, the page's history shows that a majority of active editors support its presence, and it appears that an anonymous user, editing from multiple IPs, has been edit warring, and has also violated the spirit of the three-revert rule. That said, I quote from Wikipedia:Protection policy:

"The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one."

I encourage all editors to discuss the presence or absence of the table here, in a civil and respectful manner. Discussion is always preferable to reversion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

I wonder if it might be an idea, in the Notes in the table, to mention what issues the info comes from. Looking at the Ikaris entry, it makes it look as if all that stuff is from Eternals #1. At least, it seems that way to me. Biff Loman 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polaria

[edit]

Did Sigmar really have a laboratory in an arctic maritime museum in Tromsø, Norway? I find it hard to believe, partly because I think the comic takes place a long time before the museum was founded, and partly because I can't imagine Marvel knowing this detailed information about the world outside the USA. But I can't be sure, as I've never read the comics. JIP | Talk 10:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Directory material

[edit]

I have removed all the material copied from the Marvel Directory as it is Copyvio. Im aware that the article itself noted the source of the material but I dont see how that means that it is fair use, unless permission has somehow been gotten. Also as the most of the material at Directory webite has been copied from the Marvel Handbook, as I presume this info is, then Marvel would be the ultimate rights holders not the sites webmasters. If it is somehow true that proper permission has been obtained, then it should have been noted here. Hueysheridan 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know Archeville, you are really pushing the limits of fair use here, if not going over the line. You have simply moved around a few phrases and words, though many parts of the text remain identical to the Marvel Directory entry and the layout (in terms odf information conveyed) of each paragraph is identical.
Personally, I would be much more comfortable if the text was completely rewritten (using the directory info as a source) from the real world perspective i.e. "in Eternals vol. 1 (May, 1976) by Jack Kirby so and so happened while in Eternals vol. 2 (0ctober, 1986) by Peter B. Gillis and Sal Buscema so and so was given a new costume etc." which would conform to Wikipedia's wider standards and be a much better article (not to mention being free of any hint of plagiarism) to boot.
However I am no expert on how far you have to go in rewriting before content is judged to be non-infringement so Im referring the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Hueysheridan 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that ("Such-and-such happened in Strange Tales #23") done on any other character entry? I've never seen it done like that; most of the entres I see here seem to be written more in the same style as an OHttMU entry (with stoylines being mentioned, but not individual issues). Dr Archeville 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know its a widespread problem with entries which deal with comic book characters. Doesnt mean that its alloweed though. Examples of well written articles include recommended ones like Batman. Hueysheridan 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how 'bout now? Still limit-pushing? If so, let me know and I'll remove it myself (though the 'Marvel-stub' would need to be left on). Dr Archeville 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if the Marvel Directory info is copied directly from the Handbook, then it should be removed. The reason it was added was because that bare-bones version really sucks. I can't rewrite it myself, because I have only the original series (I hate the later stuff). Biff Loman 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new edit of the Eternals article is not as blatant a rip off as the last two, but it is again clearly just paraphrasing from the Marvel Directory entry. Its made obvious by the fact that once again the information is conveyed in the exact same paragraph structure as in the Handbook entry (well thats at least true of the first 4-5 paragraphs, which is as far as I read). Like I said before and (as was made clear at the Wikiproject talk page) the best way to be clear of all this would be to use the directory as a source, but also look to other sources and cite issue numbers in connection with each claim (preferably also with a listing of the main creators involved and cover dates). I have deleted the history section twice already, and so it would not be appropriate for me to do so again. However I have already brought some wider attention to this whole matter at the wikiproj talk page, so hopefully there are still other more experienced editors watching the page who will review it and amend it as necessary. Hueysheridan 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of separate history sections, one on the original Kirby series, and another on the later work of others. The Eternals, obviously, have changed a lot since the original run. I have all of 19 issues and the Annual, and could do that part of it. Someone else would have to write a new history for the later additions. Todd Bridges 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

[edit]

Does everyone else like this New Eternals image? I hate it. Although not a fan of Romita, Jr. I would rather have that back up than a cover from what is probably the worst Eternals comic ever made. IMO, of course. Todd Bridges 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it's not the best image (regardless of what one may think of the story-line), but it does depicted the Eternals (empahsis on the plural form). The Romita, Jr. image is just of Ikaris -- only one Eternal. And besides, it's already used on the Ikaris character-article. If someone can find an image of more than one Eternal, then I support that. I just think an article on the Eternals warrants an image that's descriptive of the group itself. Bhissong 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong[reply]

Concerning the article image, I replaced the "New Eternals" image with the varient cover to the new mini-series by Oliver Copiel. It depicts Ikaris, Sersi, and Makkari, so it's more indicative of the group. Any thoughts? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Bhissong 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Bhissong[reply]

It's better. It doesn't really depict the whole group, but it's the closest we're going to get. I definitely prefer it to the New Eternals cover. Todd Bridges 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just use ANY Jack Kirby cover--4.250.18.254 02:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one I pulled from the Grand Comic-Book Database. I've set it as a separate thumbnail. I don't care about which pic's at the top. Someone else can change if they care. I'm still working on trimming the giant table down to where it should be. Too much of that info should be in separate articles.

--El benito 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines and ages

[edit]

The Eternal ages mentioned in the first issue of the new (Neil Gaiman) series don't seem to match those listed here - Makkari is said to be much older that previous stories suggest. One panel also makes it look as if Sprite was one of the very first Eternals? As the story is still ongoing and this is (potentially unreliable) info provided by one of the characters, it may not be worth mentioning it here yet - but it's something to think about once the series is complete. Mrph 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiman's series has a number of differences to preestablished continuity. Such as - all the Eternals (around a hundred) were created by the Celestials at the same time; each has a distinct power the others don't possess, Olympia is in Antarctica instead of Greece, the Eternals are confined the Solar system, they don't need Zuras, Thena or whoever is the Prime Eternal to create a Uni-mind (the very nature of which is different as well). His take seems to be a complete reimagining of the the Eternals rather than just a retcon. Though it has ties to the Civil War storyline it remains to be seen if this will become the new official take on the Eternals.--65.113.254.238 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Eternals moved to Eternals (comics)?

[edit]

Especially since Eternals is now just a redirect... ???--DrBat 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the mover: "Wikipedia does not use plural forms as titles, when possible." What does that mean? This really needs an admin to delete Eternals so we can move it back tho. rst20xx 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree about the plural. It's the title of the book - surely that takes precedence? Otherwise surely we'd have "X-Man", "Of Mouse and Man", "The Grape of Wrath" and "Star War"... Mrph 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose someone might be planning to add the Doctor Who Eternals, as they've been name-checked again in the new series. But still... Mrph 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but this isn't why it was moved, and also this hasn't happened yet - move should occur if/when that happens. And btw there is an X-Man :P rst20xx 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping this issue as something similar came up over The Authority and it was eventually moved to the more logical address from Authority (comics). If there are other Eternals then folks can make a disambiguation page and link it from here. As it stands it seems a bit silly. (Emperor 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

Okay, the table in this entry has grown rather massive, mostly due to the amount of notes given per characters. Recalling that each line in the table should link to a separate profile article, we should trim down the individual info on this page to a more managable amount. We need a one or two sentence blurb, not Ikaris and Sersi's likes and dislikes of each other. I'm going to set about this, but in order to do it properly, we need to make sure that any deleted information was already available on the linked page. That might take a small slice of forever, so I'm asking anyone else interested to step in and help.--El benito 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As a starting point, how about concentrating on the characters who are currently being featured in the Gaiman series? At this point in time they're the 'major' ones - and their own pages are being reviewed and amended/improved on a regular basis anyway. I'll take a stab at a couple in the next few days. --Mrph 23:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion (When/How incorporated into 616)

[edit]

The back of the hardback reprint collection of Kirby's original series makes mention of how the Eternals (and Celestials and Deviants) were eventually incorporated into the core/616 Marvel Universe. Should that info be included in the article? (I see no reason why it shouldn't.) --Dr Archeville 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Trivia' section does have some info on this - if we've got more, it might be worth adding it. In particular, I'd like to see a note about how Starlin's Thanos etc were linked to Kirby's Eternals. --Mrph 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - that whole retconning of Starlin's characters needs to be mentioned as such, and not given the impression that they were always "Eternals". -- Beardo 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move - so where should it be? Eternal, Eternals, Eternals (comics) or The Eternals?

[edit]

As you can see, the page has been moved to Eternal (comics). Most(?) of the links haven't been updated, though. Is this the best name for the article? Should it be moved back to Eternals (comics), or should it go to The Eternals, to match the the title of the series itself? As noted, Wikipedia doesn't usually include plurals in article names... but as also noted, we don't alter plural series titles (Defenders, X-Men, Champions etc). I'd be happy to move it back, or to The Eternals... but it'd be good to know the general opinion on this before it goes to a formal move proposal. --Mrph 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is definitely about more than one Eternal. However, it's about the classification as opposed to a single title. I don't think it matters whether or not there is a 'The', but it certainly needs to be plural. 'The Eternals' was the title of the original series, but Neil Gaiman titled his recent 7-issue-mini 'Eternals'. Gavroche42 15:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar issue came up over The Authority see here. I say move this to The Eternals but make sure we disambiguate to Eternal which I note points here via Eternals. (Emperor 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The user who made the move did the same to Inhumans, stating "no plural for species". However, the articles are supposed to deal with the fact these are also the features' titles. The preceding article "The" isn't relevant for article naming - it's the singular/plural that is the issue. So both Eternals and Inhumans need to be changed back. --Pc13 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is about the series AND the characters, I think the name ought to be Eternals. The Eternals would be OK, too, but not my preference. Eternals (comics) is not currently necessary as there are no other Eternals articles from which to disambiguate. Eternal (comics), however, is just plain wrong. --GentlemanGhost 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original editor may have been working from a guideline about the naming of species (I have no evidence, but it seems to be the convention). I think this is a case for WP:IAR so that the names can be plural to incorporate the series but omit "The." CovenantD 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be split into two articles, one for information on the species (ad perhaps brief info on the various Eternals series), and one for info on the Gaiman series? Sorta like what's seen in Sentinel (comics) and Sentinel (comic book)? --Dr Archeville 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if that's necessary. The existence of the mini-series can be noted in the Publication history section, and the events in it can go in the fictional biography section. As long as events are properly sourced to the correct issue, it should be easy to tell what happened when. CovenantD 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Series?

[edit]

What with the end of the miniseries, I was wondering if there was any information about a new series being started, I.E. if one is actually starting and, if so, what is the proposed release date, artist and writer, et cetera. It occurs to me that this would be a valuable bit of info to include in the article, if anything is known. 192.251.125.85 07:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roster?

[edit]

Isn't that a bit pointless? You've got a link to the list of characters anyway, and as the Eternals are not really a team like the Avengers or the X-Men, but are an offshoot of humanity, it's meangingless. 70.50.54.186 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trade paperback

[edit]

I want to add Thor: The Eternals Saga, volume 1 and 2 in the list of TPBs. While it is not a collection of an Eternals comic, it is a key part of their continuity as well as the story that introduced them in the Marvel Universe. --Leocomix 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. (Emperor (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eternals-1.png

[edit]

Image:Eternals-1.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 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Neweternalsapocnow.png

[edit]

Image:Neweternalsapocnow.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 10:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eteranls varient cover.jpg

[edit]

Image:Eteranls varient cover.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 ensure 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) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eternals vol 1 issue 5.jpg

[edit]

Image:Eternals vol 1 issue 5.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 ensure 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) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

[edit]

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) 16:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - needs a lot more referencing. (Emperor (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

v4 Cancellation

[edit]

Emperor, I see you initially put an end date to v4, then reverted yourself; you were almost certainly correct, as issue #9 is solicited for March shipping (May cover date), and there are no further solicitations. Unfortunately, since Marvel neglected to note that it's the final issue in the March (May) solicitation, and they haven't commented on it anywhere I can find, we're stuck without a cite. However, once they actually say something somewhere we can cite, then -- in reference to your edit note on your self-revert -- May 2009 would indeed be the correct date (especially since you changed the start date to match the cover date rather than the ship date).JFMorse (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that I wasn't the one who added the end date to the current series [1]. I did have a look around and not appearing in the April 2009 solicitations (for comics cover dated June 2009) might only mean the comic has slipped a month (which is annoyingly common these days). It might be true but as far as we can tell it is currently just guesswork and inferring this means the title is cancelled is original research. I am keeping an eye out for news and it is worth noting that the news The Eternal was cancelled came out in the solicitations and you would assume something similar might happen (or a lack of the title raising questions). What is interesting is that it makes the trade a bit odd and if cancelled at 9 issues we might see them pulling it and re-releasing it later, which might be worth watching - you would think Marvel might let the writers pull all the threads together in a couple more issues which would at least bulk it up enough to get them another volume. Anyway all shots in the dark until we get a source. (Emperor (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, my mistake -- looked to me like you'd added it then undid it.  :) But yeah, it's got to sit as is until some form of confirmation crops up. JFMorse (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It has been cancelled as Joe Quesada has confirmed it in his Cup O' Joe column [2]. I'm looking around for another source as I'm pretty sure the bots automatically remove links to MySpace blog links but if I can't find anything else I'll give it a shot. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I added it but I suspect a robot will try and remove it so I'll keep an eye out for a better source. (Emperor (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Kirby?

[edit]

In the "fictional biography" section, the most mention of any of the events in Kirby's original run are covered by exactly two sentences. Can't we do better than that? MultipleTom (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eternals (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eternals (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Eternals (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:

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) 10:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Uni-Mind

[edit]

The Uni-Mind doesn't meet WP:GNG, and is an aspect of the Eternals anyway. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Untitled The Eternals Film" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled The Eternals Film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Untitle The Eternals Film" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitle The Eternals Film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eternals_(comics)&oldid=1201818666"