Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Discuss chronologies for characters in the main "Marvel Universe"

Moderators: Col_Fury, michel, Arthur, Somebody, StrayLamb

Locked
loki
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:37 pm

Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by loki »

Her last appearance as Marvel Girl is listed, FF3 49, and her (re)birth as infant Valeria in FF3 54 is listed. But she's got an appearance between the two of those. In the 'Nuff Said issue, FF3 50, Sue visits the doctor for a check-up on her new/several months old pregnancy, and makes her stomach invisible so they can see the child inside her. Not only do we see the fully formed baby Val, but she opens her eyes and looks back at the people who are with Sue. So

FF3 49
FF3 54

should be

FF3 49
FF3 50
FF3 54
JephYork
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:10 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by JephYork »

She should also be getting bts apps for every time we see a pregnant Sue.

-Jeph!
wolframbane
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1051
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:34 am

Re: Gaea in Wolverine: Bloodlust

Post by wolframbane »

JephYork wrote:She should also be getting bts apps for every time we see a pregnant Sue.
-Jeph!
Which brings up an interesting point. Should we count the BTS appearances of unborn children whenever the pregnant mother appears? This would affect the appearances of Cable, Franklin Richards, etc.
User avatar
Somebody
Director
Director
Posts: 3389
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by Somebody »

Looong discussion on unborn children in Archive 30, started by Jeph pushing for foetuses to get BTSes then as well. Russ' objection was largely on the basis that he didn't want to get into the philosophy of abortions (although he allowed for on-panel appearances like the Morrison Xavier vs. Cass Nova 'Nuff Said flashback), and Paul O'Brien thought it "artificial to describe pregnant bulges as "appearances"" and suggested annotating the mother's chronology instead.

PS: Anyone put together a full chronological listing for the Chrysler Building yet? :)
JephYork wrote:She should also be getting bts apps for every time we see a pregnant Sue.
Every single time, sir? Even when Sue was pregnant with Franklin? :p
JephYork
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:10 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by JephYork »

You know exactly what I mean, Somebody. :p

Did the conversation ever get settled? I know we listed unborn children in the Index -- Nathan Summers, notably.

(EDIT: Although I see we accidentally left him out of UXM #200. Aaaaaaargh.)

-Jeph!
Michael
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:41 am

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by Michael »

Currently, Nathan is only listed as behind-the-scenes in UX 200. That's a special case- Maddie goes into labor and then the scene shifts to outer space.
User avatar
Somebody
Director
Director
Posts: 3389
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by Somebody »

Something about Valeria Richards - how come Marvel Girl/Valeria von Doom's appearances are incorporated into the same listing? I know they're nominally the same, but surely this is as clear-cut a case for a split listing ending/beginning in "See..." (as with, for example, Hank Pym's various IDs) as you'll get, since she's literally reincarnated with no apparent memory of her life as Valeria von Doom...

[Plus, the name of Sue's stillborn child was "Valerie Meghan [sic] Richards" (seen on the death certificate in FF3 22). Franklin then somehow reincarnated her in an alternate future as "Valeria von Doom". In a slightly-disturbing sequence, he finally knocked Sue back up with her again, and she was ultimately reborn as "Valeria Richards". If we're listing her in one go, she should be "Richards, Valerie Meghan/Valeria von Doom/Valeria Richards" since that was her first legal name.
JephYork wrote:Did the conversation ever get settled? I know we listed unborn children in the Index -- Nathan Summers, notably.
Not obviously. Here it is:
All the way from archive 30 wrote:Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 16:42:33:

Now, I realize that I'm not as up on the Spider-Man universe as the X-men universe, but ... can someone explain a few things to me?

First off -- I see an entry for "Parker, May II". I'm assuming that this is BABY May, since "Parker, May III" appears to be the Aunt May Impostor (with a lone appearance in ASM #400).

Now, May Parker II is said to appear in S-M #75 and ASM #422-BTS. I don't have the latter issue, but I do have Spider-Man #75, and I can't find the baby's appearance -- is it possible that this is a mistake, and the MCP should point to the previous week's ASM #418, where baby May is (still?) born, and taken to Europe by Alison Mongraine?

Also, this brings me to another question -- apparently it's NOT the MCP policy to give unborn characters their own BTS listings for the time they're inside their mothers ... but, SHOULD we?

I mean, take X #121 as an example. The "camera", positioned INSIDE the womb, shows us the conception and growth of the embryonic/fetal Charles Xavier. It shows him DOING something -- attacking his twin sister in the womb. THAT appearance needs to count -- it's important.

But should EVERY pre-birth appearance count as a BTS appearance? I mean, the character is THERE -- inside the mother, and the mother is right there on panel. In many cases, the fetal character's presence actually makes in impact on the STORY -- and isn't that the definition of a BTS appearance? An off-panel character that nonetheless affects the story?

If we decided to do things this way, then we should chronicle the character from the moment the mother announces that she's pregnant until their birth. For example, baby May's "first BTS appearance" would be Spectacular #220 (I think), and would continue up until the birth in ASM #418. Spider-Man's "first BTS appearance" would be "Untold Tales of Spider-Man" #minus-1, where May Parker discovers she's pregnant -- Cable's would be "X-Men and Alpha Flight" #1. And so on!

I actually DO think that we should chart characters this way -- if we've been know to chart characters' spirits (and corpses) after DEATH, why aren't we tracking them as fetuses too?

I don't think this change would affect too many characters' either, so it's not THAT big a workload to take on. What does everyone think?

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Cook on January 16, 2003 at 17:53:12:
In Reply to: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 16:42:33:

I think it's a valid proposition. Without the Xavier example, the need to note these appearances might be questionable, but that is definitely an important appearance that should be noted. The same goes for Cable in X-Men/Alpha Flight. The fact that Maddie was pregnant became a plot point immediately, and affected that story from the moment that Xavier detected the baby.

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Russ Chappell on January 16, 2003 at 18:47:01:
In Reply to: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 16:42:33:

> If we decided to do things this way, then we should chronicle the character from the moment the mother announces that she's pregnant until their birth. For example, baby May's "first BTS appearance" would be Spectacular #220 (I think), and would continue up until the birth in ASM #418. Spider-Man's "first BTS appearance" would be "Untold Tales of Spider-Man" #minus-1, where May Parker discovers she's pregnant

I'm gonna assume you meant "Mary Parker" here...

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 21:07:52:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Russ Chappell on January 16, 2003 at 18:47:01:

>> Spider-Man's "first BTS appearance" would be "Untold Tales of Spider-Man" #minus-1, where May Parker discovers she's pregnant

> I'm gonna assume you meant "Mary Parker" here...

Yes. Yes, I did.

So, how 'bout it? :-)

-Jeph!

* * *

Marking milestones
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 16, 2003 at 21:04:15:
In Reply to: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 16:42:33:

In our last exciting episode, Jeph! spake:

> apparently it's NOT the MCP policy to give unborn characters their own BTS listings for the time they're inside their mothers ... but, SHOULD we?

> should EVERY pre-birth appearance count as a BTS appearance? I mean, the character is THERE -- inside the mother, and the mother is right there on panel. In many cases, the fetal character's presence actually makes in impact on the STORY -- and isn't that the definition of a BTS appearance? An off-panel character that nonetheless affects the story?

> If we decided to do things this way, then we should chronicle the character from the moment the mother announces that she's pregnant until their birth. For example, baby May's "first BTS appearance" would be Spectacular #220 (I think), and would continue up until the birth in ASM #418. Spider-Man's "first BTS appearance" would be "Untold Tales of Spider-Man" #minus-1, where Ma[r]y Parker discovers she's pregnant -- Cable's would be "X-Men and Alpha Flight" #1. And so on!

> I actually DO think that we should chart characters this way -- if we've been know to chart characters' spirits (and corpses) after DEATH, why aren't we tracking them as fetuses too?

I confess that I assumed fetuses were already part of the Project, but never thought to look it up. I wholeheartedly second Jeph!'s suggestion with an additional one. Things like this, I think, should be annotated. I'm not saying Russ should go all Jess Nevins on the Project (well, that's a discussion for another time), just that each listing should note 1) birth, 2) wedding(s) & divorce(s), 3) death(s) and 4) resurrection(s). If we're cataloguing fetuses, the -BTS might be a dead giveaway on certain characters, but on others the distinction with post-birth -BTSs would blur.

Besides, I'd love to see all the places Wonder Man and came back died marked off. :->

- StAkAr Karnak, adding straw to the camel...

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Paul O'Brien on January 17, 2003 at 06:20:36:
In Reply to: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 16:42:33:

I would say no, except in those rare cases where an unborn character is actually doing something or influencing the action (the usual example being telepaths). I think it's artificial to describe pregnant bulges as "appearances".

For those characters whose pregnancies were genuinely documented over time in stories, it might be appropriate to have a crossreference to the mother's entry with a note as to the period during which she was pregnant.

* * *

Symbiotes on the ultrasound
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 17, 2003 at 08:28:42:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Paul O'Brien on January 17, 2003 at 06:20:36:

Paul O'Brien spake:

> I would say no, except in those rare cases where an unborn character is actually doing something or influencing the action (the usual example being telepaths).

Behind the Scenes appearances don't necessarily influence action in a story.

> I think it's artificial to describe pregnant bulges as "appearances".

How is it artificial? Either the character is there or they are not.

> For those characters whose pregnancies were genuinely documented over time in stories, it might be appropriate to have a crossreference to the mother's entry with a note as to the period during which she was pregnant.

If you wanted to annotate a character's entry:

ASM x (Mary Jane revealed to be pregnant)
ASM x (birth of baby May)

That'd be fine for the mother. OTOH, if the policy wasn't reciprocated with the fetus, it'd be ignoring a genuine appearance of a character, no matter how insignificant the appearance was.

If we had a scenerio where a parasite inhabited a character and then later came into its own as a character, the parasite's early appearances would likely be included in the Project. This may be the case with symbiotes like Venom and Carnage. While fetuses and parasites are different animals, I think their situations are close enough for comparison.

- StAkAr Karnak

* * *

Re: Symbiotes on the ultrasound
Posted by Jhaeman on January 17, 2003 at 11:32:56:
In Reply to: Symbiotes on the ultrasound posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 17, 2003 at 08:28:42:

I have no objection to a brief annotation noting when a character is revealed to be pregnant, and a second when a fetus is born--I tend to favor annotations of all important events (weddings, deaths, new costumes, etc.) because I think it helps a lot when trying to place an issue if you can scan the list and get a feel based on where these events happened.

However, I'm rather dubious of putting BTS appearances every time a pregnant character shows up in a comic. Except for Charles Xavier's one exception, it simply seems rather obsessive and of little value-- and it will involve philosophical issues that will likely begin a huge flaming debate about when a fetus becomes a "person" and thus worthy of inclusion in the MCP (though that may now be impossible to avoid at this point).

On a different note, the inevitable discussions of when certain characters had intercourse with each other so as to pin down the last possible moment conception could occur (as are already popping up) strike me as somewhat . . . weird.

* * *

Re: Symbiotes on the ultrasound
Posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 12:11:44:
In Reply to: Re: Symbiotes on the ultrasound posted by Jhaeman on January 17, 2003 at 11:32:56:

> I have no objection to a brief annotation noting when a character is revealed to be pregnant, and a second when a fetus is born

Are you referring to placing the annotation in the MOTHER's chronology, or the fetus'?

> However, I'm rather dubious of putting BTS appearances every time a pregnant character shows up in a comic ... it simply seems rather obsessive and of little value

I've heard the MCP itself described that way. Value? that's subjective. Obsessive? Of course we are!

> --and it will involve philosophical issues that will likely begin a huge flaming debate about when a fetus becomes a "person" and thus worthy of inclusion in the MCP

Hopefully not. And, hey, we have two HORSES on the MCP (Aragorn and Valinor) -- are they "worthy" of inclusion? Does the fact that they ARE included give us precendent to include fetuses?

> the inevitable discussions of when certain characters had intercourse with each other so as to pin down the last possible moment conception could occur (as are already popping up) strike me as somewhat . . . weird.

How so? It's just good chronologizin'.

In the case of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, talking about sex has nothing to do with it. Their parents -- Magneto and Magda -- were separated in CX #12/2, and never saw one another again. Therefore Magda MUST have been pregnant in that issue.

And, as for bringing up sex between Mystique and Sabretooth in XU #40/2 ... well, they HAD SEX ON-PANEL, and Mystique ended the story by saying "I'm pregnant"...

I'm not trying to get prurient, I'm just discussing the book's on-panel subject matter, and the writer's INTENT -- to document the conception of Graydon Creed -- versus a previous book, and ANOTHER writer's intent to infer the same event.

Trying to stay PG here ... but I don't see anything wrong with a fact- based discussion of conceptual events, and a list of characters' fetal appearances, properly annotated as such.

-Jeph!

You want to get prurient? X #121 showed Charles Xavier's father's semen.

* * *

Re: Symbiotes on the ultrasound
Posted by David Smith on January 20, 2003 at 08:30:27:
In Reply to: Re: Symbiotes on the ultrasound posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 12:11:44:

>> --and it will involve philosophical issues that will likely begin a huge flaming debate about when a fetus becomes a "person" and thus worthy of inclusion in the MCP

> Hopefully not. And, hey, we have two HORSES on the MCP (Aragorn and Valinor) -- are they "worthy" of inclusion? Does the fact that they ARE included give us precendent to include fetuses?

Not to mention a Sabertooth Tiger (Zabu) and a Bird (Redwing) :-)

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 09:23:40:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Paul O'Brien on January 17, 2003 at 06:20:36:


> I would say no, except in those rare cases where an unborn character is actually doing something or influencing the action (the usual example being telepaths). I think it's artificial to describe pregnant bulges as "appearances".

As for "influencing the action" -- much of Peter's side of the Clone arc revolved around his wife's pregnancy. They took Lamaze classes, they talked endlessly about the baby -- heck, Peter hung up the webs for the longest time he EVER has, just because of that "pregnant bulge".

And as for an unborn character "actually doing something" -- how about kicking? Baby May did that quite a bit, too.

I guess we'd better weed out all the OTHER documented MCP appearances of characters who neither did anything, nor influenced the action in a particular issue, too...

I don't think it seems "artificial" in the slightest to document a character's pre-birth appearances ... completeness is what the MCP is all about! We document flashbacks of them as infants, we document their corpses and their disembodied souls. Let's SOMEHOW indicate their time as fetuses, too.

> For those characters whose pregnancies were genuinely documented over time in stories, it might be appropriate to have a crossreference to the mother's entry with a note as to the period during which she was pregnant.

Well, first off -- like I say, how many characters is this actually going to affect? Ten, maybe? I can really only think of the above-mentioned four: Spider-Man, baby May Parker (II), Cable, and Professor X. Oh, and Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, whose mother MUST have been pregnant already when she ran from Magneto in CX #12/2.

In most other cases, I'm betting that a flashback of a character's pregnant mother comes closely alongside a flashback of them as a young child in the same issue.

I know it's not typical MCP policy to annotate the listings, but I've seen it done -- Aunt May's early chronology is heavily annotated. If it'd make things feel less "artificial", I'd be up for an annotation during the pre- birth period.

For characters whose mothers we follow through the pregnancy, two annotations should do it -- one for the announcement of conception, one for the birth.

CABLE / NATHAN CHRISTOPHER CHARLES SUMMERS / NATHAN DAYSPRING ASKANI'SON
X&AF 1-BTS (mother discovers she is pregnant)
X&AF 2-BTS
UX 197-BTS
UX@ 9-BTS
UX 200-BTS
UX 201 (born)
...

And for characters whose mothers we DON'T follow, but need to drop quick flashbacks of a pregnant mother in, something like these:

SPIDER-MAN
UTOS -1-BTS (mother announces she is pregnant)
PPTSS 225/2-FB
...

QUICKSILVER
CX 12/2-BTS (pregnant mother)
A 186-FB (born)
...

(For Prof. X's entry, no such annotations are necessary -- the camera sees INSIDE the womb. X #121 is a full on-panel appearance -- Charles Xavier's first.)

If you wanted to include a link to the mother's entry in tha annotation, or simply to list the mother's name, that would probably be good too -- although if a fan picks up the issue in question, they can probably figure it out.

I still think we should do it. Otherwise, how can we consider ourselves "complete"?

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Administrator on January 17, 2003 at 10:01:43:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 09:23:40:

When I originally anylyzed the -1 Untold Tales of Spider-Man, I did list a behind-the-scenes appearance for Spider-Man, but I did it as a joke, more than anything else. I was a little nervous about getting into philosophical issues. I don't believe that listing ever made it to the public.

If we were to have a case of a fetus attacking its twin, though, it would be hard to deny a listing, which tends to open the door. We should entertain anyone's thoughts on the matter.

> Well, first off -- like I say, how many characters is this actually going to affect? Ten, maybe? I can really only think of the above-mentioned four: Spider-Man, baby May Parker (II), Cable, and Professor X. Oh, and Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, whose mother MUST have been pregnant already when she ran from Magneto in CX #12/2.

Franklin Richards.

> CABLE / NATHAN CHRISTOPHER CHARLES SUMMERS / NATHAN DAYSPRING ASKANI'SON
> X&AF 1-BTS (mother discovers she is pregnant)

I'd be more inclined to annotate the point where the *readers* discover the pregnancy.

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 10:23:11:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Administrator on January 17, 2003 at 10:01:43:

> I was a little nervous about getting into philosophical issues.

I can understand that -- however, if we properly annotate it, there's no need to MAKE it a philosophical issue. We clearly label where we're talking about an unborn child, and leave the viewer of the site to determine if that's an "appearance" they want to bother picking up.

> If we were to have a case of a fetus attacking its twin, though, it would be hard to deny a listing, which tends to open the door. We should entertain anyone's thoughts on the matter.

Well, you've got my vote to proceed. ;)

>> I can really only think of the above-mentioned four: Spider-Man, baby May Parker (II), Cable, and Professor X. Oh, and Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, whose mother MUST have been pregnant already when she ran from Magneto in CX #12/2.

> Franklin Richards.

Oh yes. Well, at least all the work is done for him...

>> CABLE / NATHAN CHRISTOPHER CHARLES SUMMERS / NATHAN DAYSPRING ASKANI'SON
>> X&AF 1-BTS (mother discovers she is pregnant)
> I'd be more inclined to annotate the point where the *readers* discover the pregnancy.

Yes -- that's what I meant. In both cases I listed, Madelyne Pryor and Mary Parker dicovered their pregnancies on-panel -- however, I see your point. Women are pregnant for a few weeks at least before it's detectable -- and there's no way to know, or determine, how far back their actual pregnancy goes. So of course, our chronologies should begin at the issue where the pregnancy is announced to the reader (or, in the case of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, the final time both parents-to-be are together).

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 10:36:24:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 10:23:11:

>>> CABLE / NATHAN CHRISTOPHER CHARLES SUMMERS / NATHAN DAYSPRING ASKANI'SON
>>> X&AF 1-BTS (mother discovers she is pregnant)
>> I'd be more inclined to annotate the point where the *readers* discover the pregnancy.
> Yes -- that's what I meant. In both cases I listed, Madelyne Pryor and Mary Parker dicovered their pregnancies on-panel

Whoops! No she didn't. Although she DID discover her pregnancy thanks to her newfound magic powers off-panel sometime DURING X&AF #1, the story point I was referring to is the point at which PROF. X discovers her pregnancy, and Madelyne makes it public. Russ and I are on the same track -- the chronology shouldn't begin until the readers have proof that the mother is pregnant.

Perhaps "(mother *announces* she is pregnant)" would be a better annotation.

Oh, and a note on reader proof, using Graydon Creed as an example -- I was going to list his "first fetal appearance" as taking place in "Sabretooth" #3-FB, as that would have been the final time Sabretooth and Leni Zauber/ Mystique slept together. But XU #40/2 throws some doubt on that -- Sabe and Mystique sleep together again in that issue, and Mystique claims to be pregnant. Just because we've decided that Graydon needs to be 35 in order to run for president, and therefore LIKELY was conceived in Sabe #3 instead of XU #40/2, doesn't mean the books agree -- we've got evidence, but no PROOF. Graydon could simply have falsified his age -- we know he's done other criminal things in the name of his presidential bid. This is a case where we SHOULDN'T annotate anything...

(And, hey, I just noticed -- "Sabretooth" isn't in the MCP key. Does it fall into the Gap? I hadn't realized...)

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Administration on January 17, 2003 at 17:09:44:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 10:36:24:

> Perhaps "(mother *announces* she is pregnant)" would be a better annotation.

Well, the reason I brought up the distinction is that the readers may know *before* the mother.

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 21:24:26:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Administration on January 17, 2003 at 17:09:44:

> Well, the reason I brought up the distinction is that the readers may know *before* the mother.

Ahhh yes. Of course.

Are you thinking of a particular example? Or are we talking about pregnancies that can be inferred, like my Magda example in CX #12/2?

I can't think of a book offhand where the reader is TOLD flat out that a character is pregnant, but the mother is still in the dark...

Nonetheless, yes -- when the READER discovers it, in whatever fashion -- that's the point at which we should begin chronology of the fetus.

-Jeph!

* * *

Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 18, 2003 at 07:30:55:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Administrator on January 17, 2003 at 10:01:43:

The Administrator spake:

> When I originally anylyzed the -1 Untold Tales of Spider-Man, I *did* list a behind-the-scenes appearance for Spider-Man, but I did it as a joke, more than anything else. I was a little nervous about getting into philosophical issues. I don't believe that listing ever made it to the public.

Philosophical? In that case, Spider-Man has never made an appearance. We only have millions of pages showcasing printed copies of inked copies of artists' pencils depicting their interpretation of a fictional character in red tights.

I just think it's silly that a book called "Untold Tales of Spider-Man # Minus One" would not contain an appearance by Spider-Man. Just because the reader and the webslinger are separated by a wall of flesh (effectively a person standing in-between you and Spidey) doesn't mean he isn't there. What if he were in another room?! Horrors!

I understand that some may feel that a fetus may or may not be a person. The MCP can just say "fetus" and then "birth". It doesn't have to touch whatever thorny issues there might be because no one can deny that Spidey (or whoever the case may be) was that fetus at one time.

OTOH, I don't know what we might do about stillborn characters. I don't know the details of Sue Richards pregnancy with her first daughter (I know there was a WHAT IF about her), but I'd see value in a listing of her "appearances", for completeness' sake, if nothing else.

If someone was adamant about the issue, the same arguement applies to after-death appearances. What do you mean Mar-Vell has been seen since his death? He's in Kree-Valhalla or Kree-Purgatory or Kree-Nirvana - he should be reincarnated by now - or actually, he ceased to exist when he died and only decaying bones are left. Any new appearances are only collective hallucinations.

There's talk of a precedent for Charles Xavier. Is that only because there was a camera in his mother's womb? What if a pregnant Mrs. Xavier was shown standing next to a pregnant Mrs. Parker? Would we count one BTS and not the other?

> I'd be more inclined to annotate the point where the *readers* discover the pregnancy.

Sort of like not listing appearances of Norman Osborn until he was revealed as the Green Goblin?

It makes no difference if a character acknowledges an appearance or not. Was he/she there or not? If the Invisible Man skulks about for 3 issues before he reveals himself in #4, does that mean the first three BTS appearances don't count?

What are we talking about here? Being as politically correct as possible so as not to step on a toe? Or upholding the integrity of the Project?

- StAkAr Karnak

* * *

Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations
Posted by Jhaeman on January 18, 2003 at 13:45:36:
In Reply to: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 18, 2003 at 07:30:55:

> I understand that some may feel that a fetus may or may not be a person. The MCP can just say "fetus" and then "birth". It doesn't have to touch whatever thorny issues there might be because no one can deny that Spidey (or whoever the case may be) was that fetus at one time.

> What are we talking about here? Being as politically correct as possible so as not to step on a toe? Or upholding the integrity of the Project?

I might as well walk into the fire here . . .

I don't think having respect for the widely-varying beliefs of the MCP community on such a sensitive topic is being "politically correct", or if it is, I don't think being "politically correct" is a bad thing.

Saying that a fetus should be in the same list of an adult (or at least born) character is, in effect, saying that the fetus and the character are the same thing--that there is no difference between them. Regardless of whether we believe this to be true or false, it goes to the core of the abortion debate--are women committing infanticide or simply disposing of a mass of unwanted cells within their own body? Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree? Is there a good reason only the fetus gets a listing? Why not list the sperm of the eventual father and the egg of the eventual mother? After all, we know they will eventually be joined, just as know we that this fetus will eventually be born. If, in fact, we believe the fetus is the same as the character, it should make no difference whether the fetus is born or not before we list it; but since the fetus is simply the growth of egg and sperm joined together, why do we need to wait until the egg and sperm are joined in order to list them for the character?

And now there is talk of listings for fetuses who never were born (such as Sue Richards'), what will the listing be:

RICHARDS, SUE FIRST STILLBORN FETUS
FF 234

And a character who has an abortion? Does that fetus get listed too?

DOE, JANE FIRST ABORTED FETUS
XMEN 981

--------

Some people will think they have easy answers to these questions--others will think there are no answers. But the point is there is a reason to walk softly; these are important issues to people, as least in the United States as witnessed by the past thirty years of political debate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that listing fetuses may be a project or a debate for another day, just as listing New Universe comics or other characters with a tenuous relation to the Marvel Universe is a task for another day. Right now we still have two large gaps, a long list of comics that people can contribute to, and new books pouring in daily. Yet 70% of the posts are about side issues such as the calendar (something I like, by the way, but should probably have its own site or section of the site)--and now we're going to hypothesize about when people last had sex, the length of alien or magical pregnancies, etc.? We should focus on what we're good at, and when we get caught up and have plenty of time to do something else, we can discuss and jointly find a good way to expand the MCP even further.

* * *

Pandora's thalidomide
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 18, 2003 at 14:53:02:
In Reply to: Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations posted by Jhaeman on January 18, 2003 at 13:45:36: Jhaeman spake:

> Is there a good reason only the fetus gets a listing? Why not list the sperm of the eventual father and the egg of the eventual mother? After all, we know they will eventually be joined, just as know we that this fetus will eventually be born.

Conception is the earliest event where a character is an *individually* traceable thing. Tracking a fetus has value because outside events can have an impact on the fetus. Trauma the mother undergoes or medication she takes affects the fetus also. Music the mother listens to can sometimes be remembered by the child once born. Things like these can be plot points.

> And now there is talk of listings for fetuses who never were born (such as Sue Richards'), what will the listing be:

> RICHARDS, SUE FIRST STILLBORN FETUS FF 234

I haven't read the stories, so I couldn't recite details, but she had a name in the WHAT IF stories. Let's say her name in the WHAT IFs was Mary. The MCP's entry would read:

RICHARDS, "MARY" FF xxx-BTS (existence revealed) FF xxx-BTS FF 234 (stillborn)

> And a character who has an abortion? Does that fetus get listed too?

My opinion would be yes. Something like:

DOE, (UNNAMED)
COMIC 1-BTS (existence revealed)
COMIC 2-BTS
...
COMIC 9-BTS (abortion)

A story may be about a character reflecting on the decision she made to abort and it would be nice to know when it was that she carried the fetus.

> listing fetuses may be a project or a debate for another day, just as listing New Universe comics or other characters with a tenuous relation to the Marvel Universe is a task for another day. Right now we still have two large gaps, a long list of comics that people can contribute to, and new books pouring in daily. Yet 70% of the posts are about side issues such as the calendar (something I like, by the way, but should probably have its own site or section of the site)--and now we're going to hypothesize about when people last had sex, the length of alien or magical pregnancies, etc.? We should focus on what we're good at, and when we get caught up and have plenty of time to do something else, we can discuss and jointly find a good way to expand the MCP even further.

While I have little interest in a lot of stuff that comes up on this board, I can't deny that the majority of it enhances the process. Decisions made in tangental matters, like this one, affect how books are chronologized. If we waited until everything was complete until moving on, then we'd have double work when we have to go back and reanalyze books. It is a different matter than other timelines or the New U in that this issue, at least, has a direct bearing on what we are doing right now.

- StAkAr Karnak, who notes the irony in how prolific he's been since resigning the Board...

* * *

Political Correctness?
Posted by Jeph! on January 18, 2003 at 15:40:54:
In Reply to: Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations posted by Jhaeman on January 18, 2003 at 13:45:36:

>> I understand that some may feel that a fetus may or may not be a person. The MCP can just say "fetus" and then "birth". It doesn't have to touch whatever thorny issues there might be because no one can deny that Spidey (or whoever the case may be) was that fetus at one time.

> Saying that a fetus should be in the same list of an adult (or at least born) character is, in effect, saying that the fetus and the character are the same thing--that there is no difference between them.

We're not necessarily saying that. Let me run an example past you here:

The MCP lists appearances of characters' dead bodies. Bodies without souls -- clumps of cells without life force. Are we endorsing the opinion that these bodies are "equal" to a living person? No. We're acknowledging that AT ONE TIME that body -- those cells -- BELONGED TO the character.

That's the closest example to the "fetus" scenario I can think of. We list corpses with no difficulty at all -- why not go the other direction, and list the clump of cells that belonged to the character PRIOR to their "life"?

As another example, we list appearances of characters who have "switched minds" -- for example, every appearance of Cassandra Nova's mind inside Prof. X's body counts as an appearance of Prof. X AND Cassandra. The MCP condones the listing of characters' PHYSICAL FORMS, regardless of whether or not that form is currently occupied by that character's soul. Also similar to your fetus/person argument, and another example of how we simply sidestep the philosophy behind it. We list the physical body -- the clump of cells.

And by the way, as I've pointed out, the MCP also lists two HORSES. Are we somehow trying to say that these horses are "equal" to people? Of course not -- we're just listing horses.

Are you saying that a fetal version of a Marvel character has less right to be on the MCP than a horse?

>Is an acorn the same thing as an oak tree?

Is a child the same as an adult? No. So why don't we go ahead and separate characters' listings into "child version" and "adult version"?

> Why not list the sperm of the eventual father and the egg of the eventual mother?

Because it's goofy. Why don't we list a character's corpse behind the scenes every time someone visits their gravesite? Because it's takes the "BTS" concept one step too far -- as does your suggestion, in the opposite direction.

Both Magneto's clone Joseph and Nate Grey, X-Man, died while saving the earth, and their bodies were dissolved and became a part of the earth's magnetosphere and energy. Why don't we list EVERY SINGLE MARVEL COMIC that takes place on earth after their deaths? Surely there were some particles of Joseph or Nate floating by in the background.

Because it's ridiculous.

Noting every appearance where a character's mother is DEFINTELY pregnant with them is an easy, cut-and-dried thing. Your egg-and-sperm suggestion is spurious -- intentionally so -- and doesn't really help make your case.

And, if you want to get technical, while women are born with all their eggs, men are NOT born with all their sperm -- it would be literally impossible to spot the point at which the specific sperm that will become a character is generated by the father. So, nyah.

> And now there is talk of listings for fetuses who never were born (such as Sue Richards'), what will the listing be:
> RICHARDS, SUE FIRST STILLBORN FETUS
> FF 234

It's always been MCP policy that characters who do not have NAMES do not get listings. I think we're pretty safe in that regard here.

> And a character who has an abortion? Does that fetus get listed too?

Does it have a name?

> there is a reason to walk softly; these are important issues to people, as least in the United States as witnessed by the past thirty years of political debate.

Absolutely. But, seeing as all we're doing is TALKING about the POSSIBILITY of doing this -- and we've already flagged the need to differentiate between born and unborn characters -- I'd say we ARE walking softly.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that listing fetuses may be a project or a debate for another day

If we put it off, we may never come back to it. The ball's already rolling right now -- and it's not like we're all busily working on something else. (At least, not in a group on the board.) Let's discuss it! We don't actually have to IMPLEMENT it the day after we come to a conclusion -- so why not talk now?

> Right now we still have two large gaps, a long list of comics that people can contribute to, and new books pouring in daily.

I agree that we've got a boatload of stuff to do -- but why should that stop us from thinking about new possibilities? The gaps aren't getting any LARGER if we wait -- the only workload that grows are the new books. And they'll still be coming out regardless of when we discuss this.

> and now we're going to hypothesize about when people last had sex

No, we're not. Has anyone seen any evidence of that? The ONE time I mentioned sex, it was SHOWN ON PANEL -- that's hardly "hypothesizing". All other topics I've raised have been DIVINING the point at which a character was DEFINITELY *ALREADY* pregnant -- ie, the last time the parents ever saw each other. Not trying to pinpoint the spot at which they BECAME pregnant...

What I'm doing is the exact same thing as trying to divine the appearances of a body-hopping parasite or possession based on the times its prior hosts were last together. If you put it in sci-fi terms like that, the MCP has handled cases like it a million times. (Malice? Mary Purcell?)

> the length of alien or magical pregnancies

I haven't seen anyone bring THOSE up.

I think you're missing the point -- we're not going to SPECULATE about WHEN a character got pregnant or HOW LONG they've BEEN pregnant before we find out about it -- we're going to pick the first point at which it CAN BE PROVEN that the character is pregnant, and list forward from there. It's a totally different thing.

> We should focus on what we're good at

Are you saying we're bad at this? It's chronologizing based on facts and evidence from the books -- no different than any other form of inferring a character's BTS presence in a book.

> and when we get caught up and have plenty of time to do something else, we can discuss and jointly find a good way to expand the MCP even further.

If we're so pressed for time, like I say, there's no reason we have to IMPLEMENT this now. But what's wrong with DISCUSSING it now? Deciding what to do -- then, when we DO have a spare moment, doing it?

Personally, I don't think we'll EVER have "spare time". Might as well talk about it while we're all thinking about it.

And, seriously -- if we're worried about somehow angering anyone who might stop by the MCP and see us equating a fetus with a grown character, a simple paragraph in the FAQ could cover all our bases -- something like "the MCP does not take sides on whether a character is a 'person' while still inside the womb or not. However, we feel that our purpose includes archiving all definite appearances of the PHYSICAL FORM of a character -- from embryonic and fetal life, to appearances of possessed characters or other characters who are currently minus their souls, to dead bodies."

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Political Correctness?
Posted by Andy Holcombe on January 18, 2003 at 20:35:52:
In Reply to: Political Correctness? posted by Jeph! on January 18, 2003 at 15:40:54:

> And, seriously -- if we're worried about somehow angering anyone who might stop by the MCP

Since we're organizing the appearances of gods, cosmic entities (some predating the creation of the universe), demons, other-dimensional beings, alternate timelines, and aliens, those of a mind can already find plenty to take offense of.

* * *

Pleasing everybody?
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 18, 2003 at 20:37:23:
In Reply to: Political Correctness? posted by Jeph! on January 18, 2003 at 15:40:54:

Jeph! spake:

> if we're worried about somehow angering anyone who might stop by the MCP and see us equating a fetus with a grown character, a simple paragraph in the FAQ could cover all our bases

I agree.

> something like "the MCP does not take sides on whether a character is a 'person' while still inside the womb or not.

There is precedent for the MCP venturing an opinion on moral/ethical issues, in the case of stating in the FAQ "we don't have any problem with adult oriented material, and believe that there's room for it on the Web".

In any case, regarding a hypothetical FAQ notice:

> we feel that our purpose includes archiving all definite appearances of the PHYSICAL FORM of a character -- from embryonic and fetal life, to appearances of possessed characters or other characters who are currently minus their souls, to dead bodies."

This definition is insufficient in that it does not address appearances of a character in 'ghostly' form, Such as Captain Mar-Vell (who has made appearances both in corpse and ghost forms).

Maybe something along the lines of:

"Leaving it up to the reader to interpret stages of existence as they wish, the MCP endeavors to serve as a record of all substantiated appearances of a creature in each form it takes."

- StAkAr Karnak

* * *

One point
Posted by David Smith on January 20, 2003 at 08:23:28:
In Reply to: Political Correctness? posted by Jeph! on January 18, 2003 at 15:40:54:

>> And now there is talk of listings for fetuses who never were born (such as Sue Richards'), what will the listing be:

>> RICHARDS, SUE FIRST STILLBORN FETUS FF 234

> It's always been MCP policy that characters who do not have NAMES do not get listings. I think we're pretty safe in that regard here.

Except, wasn't it a recent plot point of the Fantastic Four that Sues recent child (Valerie) is the previous "stillborn" child (i forget the detatils, it was rather convoluted)

* * *

Valeria
Posted by Jeph! on January 20, 2003 at 12:17:15:
In Reply to: One point posted by David Smith on January 20, 2003 at 08:23:28:

>>> And now there is talk of listings for fetuses who never were born (such as Sue Richards'), what will the listing be:

>>> RICHARDS, SUE FIRST STILLBORN FETUS
>>> FF 234

> Except, wasn't it a recent plot point of the Fantastic Four that Sues recent child (Valerie) is the previous "stillborn" child (i forget the detatils, it was rather convoluted)

Yeah -- I actually remembered this late last night! FF3 #49 revealed that Franklin went back in time somehow and "took" the baby to safety -- when the dust cleared in that issue, Sue was once again eight-nine months pregnant, apparently with the SAME CHILD. Sue gave birth again -- and the baby lived -- in FF3 #54. They named her Valeria, as per Franklin's suggestion.

Of course, it should be noted that this child is NOT Valeria Von Doom -- she's Valeria RICHARDS. Valeria Von Doom was from the future, and claims that Doctor Doom was her father (although the plot that followed, of Reed posing as Doctor Doom and marrying Sue, seems to have been implying that Valeria only THINKS Doom was her father).

In any case, the distinction should be made -- Valeria von Doom MAY be an alternate future version of Valeria Richards, but until we have proof that she is, we can't tie her chronology to either baby Val's or the fetus from FF #234.

So, yeah -- Sue's "stillborn" fetus from FF #234 SHOULD get a listing!

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations
Posted by Administrator on January 18, 2003 at 19:01:32:
In Reply to: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 18, 2003 at 07:30:55:

>> I'd be more inclined to annotate the point where the *readers* discover the pregnancy.

> Sort of like not listing appearances of Norman Osborn until he was revealed as the Green Goblin?
> It makes no difference if a character acknowledges an appearance or not. Was he/she there or not? If the Invisible Man skulks about for 3 issues before he reveals himself in #4, does that mean the first three BTS appearances don't count?

I'm not sure if you're understanding what I was saying, or if I've misinterpreted you, but it sure sounds like there's a misunderstanding here.

You've quoted me above in my reply to Jeph, where he stated that the BTS listings should begin at the point where the mother discovers she's pregnant. I was saying, "not necessarily."

For instance, in Uncanny X-Men #1031, Kitty Pryde's doctor (and thus, the readers, since we're reading it) discovers that Kitty is pregnant. In Uncanny X-Men #1032, he passes the news along to Kitty. I was proposing that the BTS listing begin with #1031, *not* when the mother discovers the pregnancy.

Re: your example above, if we have some way of determining that the Invisible Man was skulking around in the previous three issues, he gets a BTS listing. But we don't go back further than we have a way of determining to begin the BTS listings.

I don't want to give Kitty's baby a bts listing for Uncanny X-Men #1030, on the *assumption* that she was probably pregnant before the doctor discovered it, because, unless Marvel is going to show Kitty having sex for the first and only time, there's no way to stop how far back we carry the assumption. I don't want to make *any* assumptions like that.

If, in Uncanny X-Men #1033, the story reveals that Kitty was pregnant in #1030, then we can carry the BTS listing back to that point, but if they don't reveal it, then we don't. This is entirely consistent with the Invisible Man example above.

All of this, of course, can be rendered moot, if we decide not to go down this path.

* * *

Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on January 18, 2003 at 20:15:25:
In Reply to: Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations posted by Administrator on January 18, 2003 at 19:01:32:

The Administrator spake:

> I'm not sure if you're understanding what I was saying, or if I've misinterpreted you, but it sure sounds like there's a misunderstanding here.

> we don't go back further than we have a way of determining to begin the BTS listings.

Ah. My bad. We're in agreement here; this has been the policy all along.

> I don't want to give Kitty's baby a bts listing for Uncanny X-Men #1030, on the *assumption* that she was probably pregnant before the doctor discovered it, because, unless Marvel is going to show Kitty having sex for the first and only time, there's no way to stop how far back we carry the assumption. I don't want to make *any* assumptions like that.

Given Marvel Time, I agree.

> All of this, of course, can be rendered moot, if we decide not to go down this path.

If.

- StAkAr Karnak

* * *

Assumptions, and the "Kitty's baby" scenario
Posted by Jeph! on January 21, 2003 at 12:20:55:
In Reply to: Re: Subjective pregnancies and collective hallucinations posted by Administrator on January 18, 2003 at 19:01:32:

> I don't want to give Kitty's baby a bts listing for Uncanny X-Men #1030, on the *assumption* that she was probably pregnant before the doctor discovered it, because, unless Marvel is going to show Kitty having sex for the first and only time, there's no way to stop how far back we carry the assumption. I don't want to make *any* assumptions like that.

Actually, even if that explicit scenario DID occur, and Marvel showed us the ONLY time Kitty's EVER had sex -- meaning, the only time she ould ever have become pregnant -- you STILL can't give the baby a BTS listing for that issue.

Conception, the egg and sperm meeting and burrowing into the uterine wall, can take as long as five days -- that's one of the reasons the morning-after pill works. Unless the landmark issue where Kitty has sex ALSO shows a scene of her "six days later", you can't assume that she's definitively pregnant YET in that issue.

> All of this, of course, can be rendered moot, if we decide not to go down this path.

Most of the replies I've seen so far have been pretty positive...

-Jeph!

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by Sean Curtin on January 17, 2003 at 19:39:57:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 09:23:40:

> I don't think it seems "artificial" in the slightest to document a character's pre-birth appearances ... completeness is what the MCP is all about! We document flashbacks of them as infants, we document their corpses and their disembodied souls. Let's SOMEHOW indicate their time as fetuses, too.

While we're on the subject, I've always thought that the MCP ought to have some notation to distinguish appearances of deceased or deactivated characters from those of living ones.

-- Sean Curtin

* * *

Death! Death! Death!
Posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 21:37:05:
In Reply to: Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Sean Curtin on January 17, 2003 at 19:39:57:

> While we're on the subject, I've always thought that the MCP ought to have some notation to distinguish appearances of deceased or deactivated characters from those of living ones.

Are you thinking of annotations of some sort, or are you thinking of a change in color along the lines of the red entry for a character's first appearance?

Personally, I'd go for an annotation -- it may be bulkier, but it will certainly be easier to read, and have viewers clicking back to the Key less often...

Maybe something like this? -- a made-up entry with a range of various possible post-death annotations:

CHARACTER-X / UNLUCKY BASTARD
COMIC 33-BTS (conceived)
COMIC 36-BTS (pregnant mother)
COMIC 37-BTS (mother announces her pregnancy)
COMIC 64 (born)
...
COMIC 500 (dies)
COMIC 501 (dead body)
COMIC 504 (spirit)
COMIC 507-BTS (funeral)
COMIC 508-FB-BTS (gravesite) *
COMIC 550 (returns to life)
...

Etc etc. What do you think? Is that the sort of thing you're talking about, various annotations to denote all the various types of post-death appearances?

* Is it stretching things to call an appearance of a character's grave (assuming they're buried there, as in the case of Uncle Ben) to be a BTS appearance of that character's dead body?

Hmmmm? It's REALLY pushing things, but (a) that character is affecting the story, as we're likely seeing mourners "talking" to them, and (b) we KNOW their corpse is there -- it's six feet off-panel, but it's there. That's about the best a corpse can hope for, in terms of a BTS appearance.

Personally, I'm hoping we say "no" on that one -- but I just thought I'd bring it up. ;) Think about it.

-Jeph!

* * *

annotations
Posted by Arthur Stein on January 18, 2003 at 13:21:25:
In Reply to: Death! Death! Death! posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 21:37:05:

> Personally, I'd go for an annotation -- it may be bulkier, but it will certainly be easier to read, and have viewers clicking back to the Key less often...

Annotations get my vote!! a lack of perceptual sensitivity to certain colors (aka color blindness) effects 10% of the male population to some extent. Annotations are good for everyone!

* * *

Re: Death! Death! Death!
Posted by Sean Curtin on January 18, 2003 at 17:37:31:
In Reply to: Death! Death! Death! posted by Jeph! on January 17, 2003 at 21:37:05:

> Are you thinking of annotations of some sort, or are you thinking of a change in color along the lines of the red entry for a character's first appearance?

The latter. I'm not sure which would be easier--annotations of the sort you suggest, or a short notation indicating that the character isn't alive or "active". An indication that the character only appears as a dead body or ghost would remove a lot of potential confusion in the chronologies of dead characters.

> * Is it stretching things to call an appearance of a character's grave (assuming they're buried there, as in the case of Uncle Ben) to be a BTS appearance of that character's dead body?

Well, some characters have funerals listed as BTS appearances; it's not much of a stretch to add the character's grave as a BTS appearance.

-- Sean Curtin

* * *

Re: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices
Posted by DCW3 on January 17, 2003 at 15:37:24:
In Reply to: Baby May and MCP pregnancy practices posted by Jeph! on January 16, 2003 at 16:42:33:

> First off -- I see an entry for "Parker, May II". I'm assuming that this is BABY May, since "Parker, May III" appears to be the Aunt May Impostor (with a lone appearance in ASM #400).

Shouldn't the May impostor be listed as "May Parker II" and baby May as "May Parker III"? After all, the impostor first before the baby was born but after she was conceived. I suppose it's up for debate and depends on one's feelings on the whole "labeling fetuses" issue...but I believe that the Parkers didn't decide to name their baby May until some time after the impostor's death; shouldn't that count for something?
User avatar
Russ Chappell
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Contact:

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by Russ Chappell »

Ah, what a glorious discussion. Worthy of the Hall of Fame.

This a policy issue though, and should be decided by the Directors.
I can't promise you that things will improve, if we make changes;
I can promise you that they won't improve, if we don't.

Image
Adventures in the Marvelous Zone! A Girl's View of the Marvel Universe
JephYork
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:10 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by JephYork »

Eight and one half years ago, I said:
If we put it off, we may never come back to it.
I find that funny.

-Jeph!
User avatar
Russ Chappell
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5669
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Contact:

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by Russ Chappell »

JephYork wrote:Eight and one half years ago, I said:
If we put it off, we may never come back to it.
I find that funny.

-Jeph!
Looks like you were mistaken. :wink:
I can't promise you that things will improve, if we make changes;
I can promise you that they won't improve, if we don't.

Image
Adventures in the Marvelous Zone! A Girl's View of the Marvel Universe
Paul Bourcier
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: Valeria Richards - overlooked appearance

Post by Paul Bourcier »

I vote we count fetuses as BTS if we see the pregnant mother and the fetus is named at some point. The pregnancy needs to be established, but it doesn't need to be visible. What if the pregnant mother herself is BTS? Does that automatically make her unborn child BTS?

However, I don't know that this is a high priority unless someone volunteers to do the research and documentation on Marvel's pre-born characters.
Paul B.
Locked