Talk:Norman Osborn
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | Norman Osborn was one of theLanguage and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status:Delisted good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Found this quote on Robot 6[1] from Tom Spurgeon at the Comics Reporter:
| “ | The reason Norman Osborn doesn't 100 percent work as a villain in the wider Marvel Universe is that a key and yet frequently under-appreciated aspect of the seminal Spider-Man comics revolves around the fact that Peter Parker frequently encounters adults. The vast majority of these adults are disappointments. Some are outright dicks. The Green Goblin is the ultimate dickish, disappointing adult, and thus Spider-Man's arch-villain (or shares that honor with JJJ, if you're inclined to read the comics that way). Here's the thing: Norman Osborn popping into his Green Goblin costume is the key to his particular brand of dickishness. It's like somebody's dad showing up at the end of the beach movie to drag race against the new kid in town, or popping up in a football huddle so that he can tackle the struggling but ready to win quarterback. It's a dick move, a total invasion into Peter Parker's world by someone who should know better. But when Norman comes up against other costumed villains as he does in this new Marvel stuff, he's an adult wearing an adult costume (that Iron Man thing) fighting other adults: a dick, but not a special one tied into some characters overarching theme. He's Jasper Sitwell on a bad day. | ” |
There was an edit made today by a user at 178.240.204.96 who changed the opening line from "Norman Osborn is a fictional supervillain" to "Norman Osborn is a fictional character". Is there a style or preference to this sort of thing? Does Norman Osborn not fall into the pure 'supervillain' category? I don't know enough to fix it myself, figured I'd ask.CaptainAngus (talk)01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. He is a supervillain. Every other supervillain article lists characters as either a villain or hero. Norman Osborn is a supervillain through and through. Even when he was acting as a hero in Dark Reign. He was still a villain. I understand if it's a case of him turning good for a story. But Osborn is a villain. He isn't as morally conflicted as other villains. He is sadistic and evil. He should be labeled as a fictional supervillain not just a character like literally every other superhero and villain article. Every other superhero and villain article including Lex Luthor and Doctor Doom has them listed as either a superhero or supervillain.138.88.227.232 (talk)02:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Osborn" can be read as "born in Oz", and "amplifying his own DNA" makes him green, just like the Wicked Witch of the West and the entire Emerald City. If there exist admissions or notable speculations about such a reference, it would be a cool detail for the article. (Yeah, I know that coolness is not the inclusion threshold for an encyclopedia...)Elias (talk)11:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this article does not meet thegood article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:
Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go toWP:GAR?Z1720 (talk)21:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At over 13,000 words,WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed orWP:SPINOUT. There are also uncited sentences in the article, and new information has been added since its GAN which should be formatted more effectively.Z1720 (talk)01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
