Colu was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 17 October 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Brainiac (character). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Skull Diodes
If Superman #167 was Brainiac's first appearance with skull diodes, why does he have them on the cover of Action #242?
incidentally.) 68.162.208.203 is right about the name being an Easter Egg, but the fact they chose that name must be significant; if it was "David Conners", I'd be advocating adding the character to the
Eradicator article.
Daibhid C22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
I remember that episode of Smallville. They were introducing the Eradicator, right?
In 'Vessel', Jor-el refers to Fine as the BrainInterActive Construct (Brain-i-a-c). Is this worth mentioning?
Although we all try and forget the movie, should Superman III be included as a appearance of Brainiac? My understanding is that the super-computer was derived from his character.
The "Brainiac (comics)" page is getting too long. I think to shorten it a little, the "In other media" section should have its own page titled "Brainiac in other media" or "Media adaptations of Brainiac". -
Mediadimension —Preceding
comment was added at
01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)reply
This section needs condensing. There is too much detail in the plot summaries. This is not supposed to be a substitute for watching the series.
CovenantD15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Um...that what is it supposed to be? It's a fictional character history! If you would rather move the section to another article, you might as well say so rather than say the sources are "unverifiable". ---
User:Johnnyfog.
A character history doesn't supercede policy on fictional universe articles. There are better ways to describe the character history without detailing events in each episode they have appeared in. It's called "out-of-universe" information, found from reliable sources, not information obtained from merely viewing the episode. I know Gough and Millar have discussed Brainiac many times during the course of Season 5. BTW, please tone down your comments and be a little more civil, you didn't have a reason to lash out at CovenantD. To the point, if it's "unverifiable" that doesn't mean that it needs to be moved, that means that you need to find sources that back up your information, otherwise it's considered speculation because anyone can think anything they want by merely watching the episode. That is why Wikipedia states that direct observation of the media is not a valid source. You can mention what happens there, but you shouldn't present it as fact if no one else backs it up. But Cov's right, the entire section (not to mention the verification) needs slimming. That character was on the show for 1 season, and not even every episode and yet that section is larger than most of the others that contain information from mediums that the character has been around longer.
Bignole
Fibonacci Numbers
This is most likely a coincidence, but it seems that every numbered Brainiac with the exception of Brainiac-12 (who logically would have been numbered as such solely to connect him to Brainiac-13), as well as a few others if given numbers that logically fit their place in Brainiac's history, fit the first several numbers in the Fibonacci sequence. Is this worth a mention? It's a bit of a reach for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one we see calls himself Brainiac-21...
Pre-Crisis Braniac in Post-Crisis Universe (from "Brainiac" article)
The information here is very confusing with very bad wording. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this storyline should rewrite it. I have no idea what to write because I have not read the story.
76.107.71.11403:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Likewise the Pre-Crisis section needs some fine tuning to clarify that it is Brainiac 2 whose real name is Vril (sentence belongs in previous paragraph). Or is it? Man, this is one messed up character.
Asat07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Quite confusing. This lists Braniac's alter ego as "Vril Dox" whereas, on the Vril Dox page, the textbox says that Dox's real name is Vril Dox II. On the Vril Dox page, the name Braniac 2 is not even mentioned once. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that article should be entitled either Brainiac 2 or Vril Dox II. I suppose this is not the right place for me to ponder that but I still concur that Braniac is a confusing fellow indeed.
Czar Baldy Bald IV23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I do not think the section added
here should be in this article. 1)This article is for Brainiac. He does not appear in that show. At least not to where the above addition mentions it. 2)It contains unsourced speculation. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to discuss it here. I'm removing the section again.--
Rockfang (
talk)
23:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Do we really need overly detailed plot summaries of the episodes he appear in? It seems very unencyclopedic, and it's an issue with many DC Comics characters' articles here. Really, all we need is a brief overview of the character's appearances in other media. I edited the OM section but J Greb reverted my edits.
DCincarnate (
talk)
20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Do we want overbloated plot summaries, no.
Should there be some type of summary when no article exists that provides it, yes.
Your request for a single, specific POV on television plot summaries with Mysterio notwithstanding, what you did here, and most of what you've just done to
Bizarro is not removal of OR or redundant information but deletion of content. (The "and Bizarro is alluded to in..." is a fair cop if there are no secondary sources — interviews or reviews — that draw such a conclusion and are cited.)
Are there articles on the books, episodes, and/or films that fairly cover:
How the character was handled.
Provide a reasonable summary of the plot and involvement of the character.
Provide an image of the character if the depiction is markedly different from the iconic comics version. Or if the depictions is iconic in its own right.
Bluntly, simple lists with one or two sentence blurbs don't do that. Well done "In other media" sections/articles should, or they should point explicitly to the articles and the sections there in, that do.
(And yes, I'm suggesting you revisit your 15k purge of Bizarro and restore a chunk of it.)
This section should be at least a third its current size, if you cannot reduce it, then please move the bulk of the material to its own page. --
Xero (
talk)
18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The suggested image falls short on the guidelines. Specifically with the near monochromatic green color scheme and the "Head and shoulders" only view of the character. The current image
Image:SupermanCv219.jpg isn't much better, having an issue with the character "curled up". Nor are three of the four previous 'box image (suggested or actually used) that are still in the article:
Image:Action868.jpg - The view is side on and the character is mostly obscured by the "techno-cocoon".
All six, including
Image:Vridoxpost.png, all run afoul the guidelines intent that an iconic, immediately recognizable image be used. Action 242 and 544 may be the closest to iconic, but they really haven't been the character's look for 20+ years. Vridoxpost.png is in the same boat, though it is next longest and most recent stable "look". The last three are effectively "and the new look this story is..." with both Roux and Action 868 coming from the same story arc.
With all of that, yes, the Superman v2 219 art should be change, but Roux piece is not a suitable improvement (it maybe a better image for the "Return" section, where Action 868 should be).
Brainiac is a problematic character because there have so many incarnations of him. It's quite difficult to find an image of Brainiac's "standard look". However, Cameron Scott's suggestion is good. Nothing fuzzy about the image. It's just Brainiac, green and bald.
DCincarnate (
talk)
20:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I can live with Cameron's suggested image providing requirements of
WP:FUC or whatever we call it now are met, but I agree with J Greb that there needs to be a wider discussion regarding what the info box image is for.
HidingT22:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Wider than this article, Hiding? Or wider discussion here at this talk page? To the latter end, I go back to the editorial guidelines. "It is felt that using the most universally recognizable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume, and using a noteworthy image, either well discussed or used in many other sources, or a promotional piece of artwork the copyright holders have released for promotional purposes fits this purpose best." Taking a look for Brainiac images on Google, it seems to me that the old school images of him with the electrodes on his head are more common and immediately identifiable. While he might not consider an EKG to be a fashion accessory anymore, I think the more traditional look for Brainiac is the way to go for the infobox.
As for a fair use rationale, I'm sure any one of us would be glad to help with that, Cameron. There are a couple of comics-specific FUR templates: {{Comic cover rationale}} and {{Comic panel rationale}}. I also saved a rough draft for my own use which has a few common reasons why a particular image is considered significant. --
GentlemanGhost (
talk)
22:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm agnostic on which image was used, I just suggested that as it was one that didn't have the visual problems of the others suggested. I think the bigger problem (as you correctly raise) is this question of which "version" we should feature - his "look" seems to change every 20 years or so? (and then quite a few in the last ten years). If people can agree on *which* version they want, I'm sure I can find a suitable pose... --
Cameron Scott (
talk)
22:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The one you found actually looks like a better fit than either Roux or the current 'box image - as DCI points our it's crisp and clear. It als is evocative of the "classic" look. As far as the image requirements go... It shouldn't be more than 300px across, the templates GG points to are good starting points, and you should include the series and issue you scanned the image from.
As for a "wider discussion", it may be a case of needing to nail down why exactly we've got images in the infoboxes. If that's the case, then it is a discusion for the MoS talk page. -
J Greb (
talk)
01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
My thoughts, either:
One of this era but turned towards the viewer - an internal scan?
It strikes me the latter might be the best as it shows a couple of Brainiacs - which could cover the concerns about his changing image. (
Emperor (
talk)
03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC))reply
I agree with Emperor's suggestion- the image showing multiple Brainiacs would be more appropriate, especially since both of the versions contained in it are pretty iconic in and of themselves.
Nutiketaiel (
talk)
14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I did have a look around for a larger version of the image but couldn't find one, which may mean that if we go with this then we'll need a fresh scan. I will double check to see if I have the issue. (
Emperor (
talk)
16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC))reply
All online images seem to come from the same scan which looks to have some discolouration on it and none of them are large enough to properly trim it down. I did some giggery-pokery and
this is what it would look like (just of better quality).
That is just from the material available to us - I suspect we could find a better image from within a comic and I'd suggest going with the classic pink outfit if we can. (
Emperor (
talk)
19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC))reply
Brainiacs.jpg can reasonably go - the section include a pointer to the Indigo article, so litle reason to include an image of that character here. And it essentially becomes a plot point issue - it can be covered well enough in the article text.
SupermanCv219.jpg is similar... a limited version of the characters appearance that can be covered in text.
Just a side note, but since the image included present the theme that Brainiac is presented as either robotic looking or as a green skinned alien, it might be reasonable for an image from Smallville to show that James Marsters wasn't required to wear prostetics or massive make-up.
Briefly, after Robin and Jimmy Olsen discover a secret cave which contains three bottled cities similar to Kandor, it is suspected by Superman that Brainiac was responsible for shrinking the cities. However, it is found that the tThe cities were taken by Brainiac A, a precursor to the evil Brainiac. Brainiac A was not evil and uses the shrink ray to capture and imprison criminals. I believe that the story finishes with the speculation that perhaps one day Brainiac and Brainiac A would perhaps meet. However, I don't think this was ever developed and this story was Brainiac A's only appearance.
The new 52 section looks like it was written by a 3rd grader that writes at a 1st grade level. I made basic spelling adjustments, but the punctuation, structure, and tense is atrocious.
129.139.1.69 (
talk)
20:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Is Brainiac a weapon of mas destruction? Yes
Brainiac destroys planets once he is done learning about them. If Doomsday counts as a weapon of mass destruction Brainiac; who is usually more robotic than alive should count as a weapon of mass destruction. I doubt the word was ever specifically used though it's a somewhat recent term.
CensoredScribe (
talk)
21:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Simple but IMPORTANT fix to Third Sentence
The third sentence (entire second 'graph) of the article reads, with no context or explanation:
"'Cirius' or 'Sirius' designed the Brain Interactive Construct at University."
I haven't got any idea what this means, or how it regards Brainiac. Nothing else in the intro illuminated it for me. (I'm not knowledgeable abt. the subject matter.)
Can this sentence be either clarified (for relevance) or deleted?
PS. Perhaps this was a well-meant but vague attempt to address the comment "Backstory - Real World" above?