Talk:Captain America's shield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (publisher): Marvel Comics work group

Contents 1 Wikiproject comics? 2 Destroyed in the Infinity Gauntlet storyarch 3 Bouncy, bouncy? 4 Thor 5 infinity war 6 Capturing Cap's Shield? 7 Error vs. Retcon 7.1 Contradiction

[edit] Wikiproject comics?

I'm always confused by that tag, especially when it appears on articles I've written. How is it part of this project when no one from that project has made any significant alterations to the article? Elijya 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor update: corrected the word "apoxy" to "epoxy". However, it is quite possible that the Hulk did actually use something called "apoxy". If anyone has read the issue in question, please correct or verify.--12.45.244.20 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Destroyed in the Infinity Gauntlet storyarch

I remember Thanos destroying the shield during the Infinity Gauntlet story arch. Is this considered canon? AlGorup 15:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it all got reset, didn't it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncy, bouncy?

Does it bother any other geeks that if the vibranium absorbs kinetic impact, then it shouldn't bounce when it hits something? It should absorb the energy and fall to the earth. Roygbiv666 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, I've got no answer for that. Elijya 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Marvel physics FTW24.17.214.242 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a citation stating that it absorbs impact? It would seem more likely that it doesnt absorb, but rather reflects most kinetic engergy, thus knocking back blows, and bouncing from walls with high velocity. 2:34, 14 March 2007

[edit] Thor

Since the whole thing involving Thor damaging the shield in a fight with Captain America was written around into becoming just another alternate reality/timeline, shouldn't it be deleted? Since the incident involving Thor transporting Asgard to Earth, taking over Earth, and battling what was left of Earth's heroes took place in an alternate reality, it's not really canon. The entire storyline involving Thor bringing Asgard to Earth was written with the purpose of, in the end, having the timeline altered so that Asgard wasn't teleported to Earth. So, as a result, everything that'd taken place after Asgard came to Earth never actually took place. This was Marvel's way of preserving continuity since the writers had Thor doing some things during the storyline that would've otherwise been out of the question (i.e. incinerating a large chunk of Captain America's shield and killing the Hulk and the Thing in a three hour slugfest, without access to the Odinpower via Doctor Strange's talisman, immediately after losing both his left arm and left eye in a fight with Wolverine. Odin's Beard 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was turned into an alternate reality or not is a kind of different question from whether the conditions were such that the shield could only have been dented in that alternate reality and not in the mainstream one. Put another way, does the fact that it took place in an alternate reality mean that the same physical/magical laws do not apply? Or putting it yet another way, does the fact that time was altered so that in the end events were reset make the action or its results any less "real", all other things being equal? That is to say, that the action is physically impossible and could never have happened in the mainstream reality?

There is a difference between saying "it took place in an alternate reality" and "it's not really canon". Saying it's not canon means that it totally never happened. Saying "alternate reality" means that it did happen, but got changed back due to mucking around with time or somesuch. That doesn't mean none of the events couldn't have happened, or didn't happen... it just got reverted. To torture a metaphor, reverting vandalism to an article doesn't mean the vandalism never happened, or cannot be possible.

Bottom line, though, is that I agree that this particular incident should be clarified to make it clear that it was in an alternate reality and let the reader decide for themselves how "valid" they want to take it. I've restored the paragraph but demoted it to the end of the section. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

)

[edit] infinity war

Should it be noted the shield Major Victory uses travels back to 'present day' during the Infinity War? It's the rare object that exists twice in one time period, heck the Tardis can't even do it.

Lots42 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm where does it say the TARDIS can't do that? It's present more than once on July 20 1966 in The War Machines and The Faceless Ones/The Evil of the Daleks. (And as well as the TV Movie there are a lot of stories in various spin-off media set on New Year's Eve 1999, featuring the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Doctors all on Earth at the same time.) Timrollpickering (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, shouldn't do it, at least as far as I knew back when I wrote that comment. I remember one Rose episode where she goes back in time to meet herself and all sorts of horrible, horrible thingies happen. Lots42 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capturing Cap's Shield?

What about opponents literally running off with Cap's shield? The teleporter Magick took the sheild for a little bit, hiding it at her school.

Lots42 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error vs. Retcon

Is it correct to say that the Adamantium/Vibranium alloy thing was an "error," since that is what the case was for so long, and Busiek's "clarification" in Avengers Annual 2001 seems to be just another retcon? Dr Archeville 17:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct, since as the article points out, the shield existed before Adamantium did, therefore any reference to it having adamantium in it is an error. Elijya 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My view is that it would only be a retcon if it was deliberate; as it was, the whole thing started with the OHTMU entry and it was propagated from there without the writers knowing any better, so it's more properly classified as an error. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to note -- my "clarification" in "Avengers Annual 2001" was merely a restatement of material established in 1985 in "Captain America" #303-304, which was the first full origin given to the shield. As such, subsequent references to adamantium in the shield are errors, since they contradict that account. That account contradicts the Handbook entry on the shield, but that entry was acknowledged as an error by the Handbook's editor. KurtBusiek 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the shield used to be made of True Adamantium which had vibranium in it, and then the more common vibranium in Wolverine was found years later while trying to duplicate his shield. Also a third adamantium which is like super steel but not indestructible (it even gets destroyed all the time, something about it being in alot of villain fortresses, gotta check that old Official Marvel Handbook thing again)? Highlandlord 12:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the adamantium thing I see my mistake in trusting the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. But I still don't see how it can't work as a adamantium-vibranium alloy, sure the guy making it didn't know what either metals were called, or where he got the one, and years later he reverse engineered True Adamantium out of it, it still makes sense than alot of other Marvel things. And how would adamantium come to exist if it wasn't in the shield waiting to be reverse engineered? Highlandlord 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Because adamantium isn't the same material as the shield. Adamantium was created while trying to duplicate the material in the shield, but adamantium is actually weaker than the shield's vibranium-steel alloy. Actually, you raise an interesting question that I've never found a satisfactory answer for: if adamantium did not exist prior to 1966, then how was it bonded to Wolverine's bones? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What don't you get, Khaos? Wolverine first appeared 1974, and there's no real indicator how long he had the Adamantium before then. He had a flashback appearence in World War 2 in X-Men #268, but he never unsheathed his claws then. Elijya 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I tagged the section as a contradiction section. I don't believe as editors, we can choose what is and is not an error with source material without the backing of a 3rd party. Using conflicting sources from the comics themselves to assert one claim over another is original research, which not only decreased the accessiblity of the article (it makes the section appear to contradict itself), but also is a violation of policy. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

I wholeheartedly agree with you and the editor above. The "error" terminology has to go. I've modified to make it more WP:NPOV and remove traces of WP:OR. Ford MF (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)