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

Fictional supervillain[edit]

Is there such a thing as a nonfictional supervillain?Coemgenv (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This sentence makes no sense:

"The Vision, however, destroys Ultron with the aid of the Avengers, similar to Wonder Man, whose brain patterns he was given." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planet Ultron[edit]

Um, what about the planet Ultron?

See Ultron (disambiguation). You can create an article on it, if you wish.


I'm wondering which incarnation the Ultron in Runaways would be.

  • That Ultron described himself as having been defeated by the West Coast Avengers. The Ultron models manifesting during the period the WCA were active were #12, #13 and #14 (The "Ultimate Ultron").

Ultron's current status[edit]

So, aside from the "Ultimate Ultron" storylines, what is the latest news on Ultron? What iteration (in current continuity) is Ultron currently at?

Currently (as of March 7th, 2006), Ultron exists as a female, 'born' out of Tony Stark at the end of Mighty Avengers #1. --Dr Archeville 01:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was this close to writing "besides the fact that it is being drawn by Frank Cho" right after the "female for unknown reasons" part.
The last time Ultron has been seen chronologically at this time (June 27, 2009) was as his Phalanx-Ultron version was being destroyed by Phyla-Vell in "Annihilation: conquest" #6.

Oedipus complex[edit]

This article doesn't really deal with Ultron's motivations; from his earliest origins he hated Hank as his father and reached out to Jan as a mother/lover, or at least with some indications of desire. I'll check my sources, but this mental conflict seems a significant motivating factor in Ultron's behavior.--Erikacornia 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO it's correct. it's so called Oedipus Complex... (it's not casual that the mate was named 'jocasta').. -- 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links with Vision[edit]

"Having created the Vision, he sees the android as his 'son', thus meaning that he feels a certain connection to Wonder Man- whose brain patterns were used to create the Vision-, the Grim Reaper- Wonder Man's brother (And also the first human connection Ultron ever made after his 'father'- and the Scarlet Witch - the Vision's wife - due to their own links to the Vision)."

Is just me, or is that totally incomprehensible? Jariola 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the characters family tree?[edit]

This I'm asking about for all the characters, especially in the maximoff/wagner/darkholme family tree, or why completed family trees don't exist (victor mancha being Wiccan and Speeds Uncle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Avengersv3n20.jpg[edit]

Image:Avengersv3n20.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 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) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Reworking article at present as several appearances are missing and many statements have no sources. As for Alternate versions, just the gist, without unnecessary detail and sources in text which flips the universe tense. Asgardian (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I don't think anyone will have issue with the additions to the FCB as I add exact chronology, dates and references. By doing this with notes on the no. of the Ultron upgrade, there is no need for the not-so-well written Incarnations sections. We will talk about what is still out with one of the bottom sections, but not today. No need for that straight off the bat.

Asgardian (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FCB is done. That's how it should look - tight, succinct plots with accurate sources and correct tenses and no flipping in and out of universe. The Phalanx image was a casualty as it really offered nothing new: that's just a pose shot of Ultron, and not too dissimilar to the main image in the SHB. The image to add if anything is the shot from the Iron Man cover, which I will try to find as it shows a different version of Ultron. The Phalanx info was also trimmed to what is necessary. There's no need for unnecessary plot extrapolation (clumsy, usually with POV and also a spoiler) when the gist, offering a teaser, is sufficient. As to in and out of universe, references get bracketed and stay out of the FCB information, and creator comment is for the PH, in this case on the article page for Annihilation Conquest.


Asgardian (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female Ultron[edit]

The 2007 date of the Mighty Avengers storyline that depicted the Ultron that morphed out of Iron Man and resembled Janet Pym was removed, with the Edit Summary "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH." Where, when and by whom was it decided that dates can only be in Publication History sections? Is this is a WP guideline, policy, part of the MOS, or a consensus ruling? Can someone provide a link to the derivation of this? After I left a message regarding this question on the Talk Page of Asgardian, who made that edit, he edited the passage slightly, referring to it as a "Clarification as per request", but did not restore the date, nor answer my question about this rule about dates and PH's, so I'm not sure if this is a reference to the message I left. Can someone fill me in? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edited the passage as per the request re: the background on Ultron's invasion of IM's armour. As to the date, it goes the source in the reference parentheses. Otherwise, we are flipping both in and out of universe in the same paragraph. Dates are suitable (and essential) for the PH, but not for the FCB, as that should be a piece of prose that relays the in-universe events. Hope that helps.

Asgardian (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dates are perfectly suitable for Fictional Character Biographies, since they cannot be completely divorced from the publications that depicted them. A brief mention in the beginning of the paragraph gives historical/contextual clarity to it, telling the reader when it occurred, and does not constitute any "flipping". Don't you think it's confusing to the reader without it? Even an in-universe reference like "Following the events of the Civil War..." Would that be more acceptable to you? Nightscream (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you didn't respond to my last post above, or on your Talk Page, I thought perhaps you'd be satisfied with the compromise. But if you have a problem with it, then we should continue discussing it. You stated in your Edit Summary, "Added a "then" which was all that was needed. No Marvel titles in FCB." First of all, there is no policy or guideline that I know of that prohibits titles in FCB, nor have you cited any. It is not appropriate for one user, without discussion, to make such declarations by fiat. In fact, Wikipedia policy strictly frowns on writing articles on serial fiction from an in-universe perspective, and specifically points to such articles as Captain Marvel (DC Comics) as an example of how to properly write an article on a comic book character the Example Articles section of that page. If you look at that article, it treats major events in the character's history in the context of Publication History, and does not give it a separate FCB. Lastly, I would point out that even if you reject this, the Civil War is an actual event that has been referred to as such within the stories, and is therefore not just a title. If you look closely at my edit, in fact, you'll see that I did not italicize that name, for that very reason (though I did accidentally quote it). If you want to discuss it further, that's fine, but refusing to do so, and continuing to revert it, using your own made-up rules, rather than citing policy, is not the way to resolve an edit dispute. If the information I've cited here does not convince you, please let's continue to discuss it here. Nightscream (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Animated film[edit]

Regarding this edit, Asgardian, who deleted it, claims that it is "fancruft". Fancruft refers to material of importance only to fans of the subject. It carries the implication that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism, may be therefore regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. It is often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research.

In my opinion, it is reasonable for a section like this to contain a small amount of information pertaining to the plot synopsis. I do not think it is important only to fans, any more than any other material in the article, and I myself am not a fan, as I have not seen the film. It is not poorly written, nor does it exhibit any of the other aforementioned qualities.

I would like to discuss this with others here, to see what the consensus is. Nightscream (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the bit about Ultron having been created by Stark in that movie would be worth noting, but not so sure about the rest. Dr Archeville (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the first sentence was fine. The rest can be learnt from visiting the article on the film, so probably is redundant. Hiding T 21:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In the film, Ultron was created by Tony Stark (Iron Man) to preserve world peace, but a programming flaw causes him to attempt to conquer it. The Avengers attempt to stop him, but are killed, except for Iron Man, who raises their children in secret. Years later, the teenaged children are able to defeat Ultron with the help of the Hulk." That seems a little involved for the summary nature of the article section. How about something like this: "In the film, Ultron was created by Tony Stark, but when he goes mad it's up to the Avengers' teenage children to oppose him." I can add that if people think its useful. "Fancruft" is just a away of indicating superfluous detail I think. Erikacornia (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Model numbering?[edit]

Model numbering has since been corrected... perhaps we should number the later versions as well, so female Ultron becomes number 19, Phalanx-Ultron becomes 20, etc.

Avengers/Invaders-Ultron is a bit of a problem, but I propose Ultron-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salkafar (talkcontribs)

Can I ask where you are getting your info as to what numbers the Ultron models are? And please don't forget to sign your posts, its just polite. Thefro552 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get the numbers from the comics themselves. For instance, in his Deathlok appearance, he refers to himself as Ultron-11; in the Runaways, he refers the West Coast Avengers; and in the "Ultron Unlimited" issues, his number appears on his forehead. In fact, in that story, it was a gimmick. - Salkafar July 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salkafar (talkcontribs) 12:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've done some clean-up work on the article but it's still pretty poor - far too much plot summary and far too little real world analysis and critique. However at least the article is factually correct in that it doesn't present a distorted and plain wrong introductions to his origins - in that the reader no longer get the impression from this article that the flashback in #58 of the avengers occurred before his first real world appearance in issue 54. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Scott (talkcontribs) 20:15, 27 October 2008

Well Mr. Clean-Up, in the first instance please sign your comments. We also now have to rework many of your "additions" as was the case on Galactus due to poor grammar etc. Not good.
Asgardian (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main image[edit]

The Infobox image is horribly pixelated. Either it should be reduced, or a larger one should be found. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pym needed?[edit]

Under the film description it says that Pym will not be in it, Is this really necessary to note in a page not about Pym? TacfuJecan (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While this page is not about Dr. Hank Pym, the fact that Ultron is his creation in the Marvel comic book universe, it is worth mentioning this potential divergence between the cinematic and comic universes. drschloss (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mention of James Spader to portray Ultron in "The Avengers: Age of Ultron"[edit]

This statement has been added, removed and had the omission subsequently reverted. It does not belong in the introductory article section/article brief as the subject of this article is "Ultron" as it relates to the Marvel Comics' character in the "Avenger" series of comic books. The character as it relates to a movie including this character is of no relevance to the general topic, in particular the actor who plays or portrays such character is of even less significance. User IP cites "rvt" as a reasoning for adding this statement in the article brief. I do not know what "rvt" is, please elaborate. Jchap1590 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's short for "revert". The article's lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, so it is appropriate to mention something briefly in the lead that is elaborated on in the body of the article. (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you revert edits, you should clarify why you undid the edit. "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." The mention of an actor who will portray the character, which is the subject of this article, directly conflicts with these guidelines. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Furthermore, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The elaboration of this statement is non-existent within the article as there really is not elaboration required. It is not a significant enough statement to represent the article, in summary, as a whole. This statement DOES NOT belong in the article lead. It is too distantly related to the character of Ultron as it relates to the context of the article. I will be removing this statement from the lead, once again. DO NOT revert this edit, it is inappropriate to have this statement in this section. Jchap1590 (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't restore it, User:Suzuku did. Although, for what it's worth, I agree with that action. (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how long you've been here, but considering you don't know hat "rvt" means, I'm assuming not long. Take a look around the articles. Nearly every single comic book character article, from Spider-Man to Quicksilver, has who portrays them in live-action films in the introductory paragraph. This IS relevant to the character, and is worth putting in the introduction header. We've done it for years. Now please don't make this into a thing. Suzuku (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It ought to be included. There should be two sentences. One saying Ultron has been adapted into other media, mainly animated series, and a second saying James Spader will portray him in live-action The Avengers: Age of Ultron, in which he is expected to play the role of the major villain. Fairly standard practice. Just don't mention the movie as the "only" time the character has been adapted, even though it will clearly be the most significant by miles in terms of viewership.Zythe (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that "rvt" stands for revert, what I didn't understand is what that was supposed to mean in terms of justifying why the edit was undone (which is what I was specifically asking for clarification on). While I am aware that article leads often include details about comic book characters being adapted to other media, those cases are not directly comparable to this one. The information about James Spader, the measly half-a-thought originally included in the article lead, was a mere bullet point. It wasn't "significant" enough to include in the lead and that's why it would have been better to just make a mention in another section. These are exactly the reasons why I put a note with my edit to discuss here on the talk page before further editing on the subject(which you did not do, Mr. Suzuku). This is why we have talk pages, I've "been here" long enough to know at least that much. The (now) two sentences still seem a bit lacking but I will yield at this juncture in an attempt to avoid further stepping on any toes, as I obviously don't know what a concise summary should encompass. Jchap1590 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for being reasonable. Suzuku (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plot summaries[edit]

Hey, Triiiple Threat, that is a lot of useful information you are taking out, maybe you could explain why? ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of what was taken was excessive in-universe details. Also this is a character article, not an article on the respective works. So the focus here should be on the make up of the character not rehashing entire plot summaries, which by the way are non-free content. We have strict guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT on how to keep these details to minimum. Characters articles are not an excuse circumvent these guidelines and retell these plots in as much detail as you wish. So please, undo your revert and add as much analysis from WP:THIRDPARTY as you want but keep the in-universe details to a minimum.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My issue is how much you were taking out. Maybe you could leave a little bit in? ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Spader[edit]

I am editing the page of James Spader and would like some feed back on my ideas. If there is any way some one can check out the bottom of his talk page that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshewuh2 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for new image/s depicting Ultron's current state[edit]

Would it possible to include an image showcasing one of Ultron's modern depictions? I find it hard to believe that we'd have a photo of his "female" version from his Mighty Avengers run as opposed to Annihilation: Conquest despite the latter being a story that focuses more on his character and his goals. Most notably, I would like to request a new image depicting the character's recent shift in portrayal by becoming merged with Hank Pym as one collective being in the Avengers: Rage of Ultron Original Graphic Novel, and his recent return in Uncanny Avengers. Demented-P (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image deletion nomination(s)[edit]

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) 21:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MCU link in lead[edit]

Just pointing out that our articles on Loki, Iron Man, Nick Fury, Captain America, Black Panther, Spider-Man, Thanos, Black Widow and Falcon, among others, link directly to Marvel Cinematic Universe in the lead rather than Marvel Studios. This article has also linked directly to the MCU in the lead for at least the past year, so any change away from that requires consensus. -- Calidum 19:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the MCU's Ultron worthy of his own article?[edit]

A draft for the character is currently in review, and I believe, as one of the core enemies of The Avengers in the film series, he's worthy of his own article. Consensus? GlumboMcShunbo (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As that would be a WP:CONTENTFORK and given the draft has very limited depth to justify a separate article, in addition to it not satisfying the guidelines of WP:MCUCHARACTERS, a separate article is not necessary at this time. The draft should not have been submitted for AfC review and I have undone it, as it should only be done after editors who worked on the draft agree on it being ready for review. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it does satisfy the guidelines of WP:MCUCHARACTERS, as Ultron is the title character of Avengers: Age of Ultron. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One can argue the Avengers are the title characters. Regardless, the draft is in no quality to meet WP:GNG to stand on its own with the lack of information there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Trail, that draft is in no shape for the mainspace. The Recpeption section currently has one line. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]