Talk:Rogue (Marvel Comics)

Which of the X-Men had met Rogue?

Corrected a small error in the X-Men section which stated that of the active duty members of the X-Men at the time when Rogue joined, Storm was the only one who had met Rogue. Nightcrawler had also met and fought Rogue in the same issue in which Storm had met her. 107.144.133.225 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll double-check the issue when I get home, but I'm 99% sure you're wrong. Only Storm, Wolverine, and Carol Danvers even went inside the Pentagon (where the entire encounter with Rogue took place); Nightcrawler was outside in the car.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I double-checked and it seems my memory failed me; Nightcrawler gets involved in the situation in the Pentagon only briefly, but he does meet Rogue. Going to restore your edit now.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move to the "Rogue (Marvel Comics)" title. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 18:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Rogue (comics) → Rogue (character)Rogue (character) – Per 2017 update to WP:NCC. DarkKnight2149 21:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: To understand some of the debate going on below, I would recommend taking a look at the multiple consecutive move discussions that began with Requested move 5 April 2018 at Talk:Joker (character). It involved Zxcvbnm, Netholic, myself, and the several users tagged below. DarkKnight2149 05:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) Too generic a name to use the generic disambiguation (character). There is also Rogue (character class) which can easily be confused._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Rogue (Marvel Comics), per Zxcvbnm's suggestion. We should avoid confusion with Rogue Trooper, the British comic book character. Dimadick (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Are there actually any other characters called "Rogue"? I'm not aware of any. And am sorry to say, but a relatively obscure character named "Rogue Trooper" stands very little chance of being confused with this Rogue (even by name alone). I don't even think you could add a Not to be confused with template at the top of the article, because it would fall under "disambiguating things that aren't ambiguous." DarkKnight2149 08:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I should, however, add that it would be viable to place a Disambiguate template at the top of the article for Thief (character class) (which Rogue (character class) redirects to). I would only support a full move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) if there is a singular character named "Rogue" that this character would reasonably be confused with. A character class with a different article name and a supervillain team are similar enough to warrant a disambiguation at the top of the article, but not enough to convince me that the (Marvel Comics) DAB is necessary for the title. DarkKnight2149 08:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The main character of Rogue Trooper is indeed called Rogue, so he could plausibly be referred to by Rogue (character)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The main character appears to be pretty obscure and doesn't even have an article of their own. This is clearly the primary topic, and most people searching for a character named Rogue are almost certainly searching for this character. This was also discussed at move discussions at Talk:Joker (character), and the consensus was that the existence of minor characters of the same name that lack articles of their own do not warrant an alternate DAB. (character) is the proper title here. DarkKnight2149 18:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Pretty obscure" doesn't really mean anything. Unless there is absolutely no chance of it being confused, it should not use such a disambiguation. I don't really understand what's the 5 alarm emergency to use a more vague disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

They stand very little chance of ever being confused. It was already determined (more than once) at the move discussions that you and Netoholic repeatedly opened at Talk:Joker (character) that the existence of minor characters that aren't even notable enough to have their own article do not warrant an alternate DAB. This Rogue is easily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and (character) is the correct DAB per past discussions and repeat community consensus. The fact that the two of you are still pushing this at other articles is pretty worrisome. DarkKnight2149 20:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" anything, it's the guideline. Quoting WP:NCC here directly: If a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate. I would advise you to stop being WP:TENDENTIOUS yourself and listen to the many other users here who have pointed out how you are wrong. It seems like you are blowing this way out of proportion to be "right"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is determined by consensus, and the section you are referring to only applies when multiple characters of equal notability have articles of their own (see Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics)). Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NCC, and the multiple overwhelming consensus at Talk:Joker (character), the correct title is Rogue (character).

You and Netoholic opened three back-to-back move discussions (one after another) at Talk:Joker (character) using the same reasoning you are here, while trying absurdly hard to get the title changed. You were met with overwhelming opposition each and every time, and now the two of you are going from article-to-article with the same proposals. That's definitely disruptive, and this should honestly be dismissed per WP:SNOWBALL. If you want to change the consensus, I would recommend opening a larger discussion at WP:COMICS. Otherwise, this is exactly civil WP:POV pushing. Take your own advice and listen to other editors. DarkKnight2149 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should also mention that your comment about "listen to the many other users here who have pointed out how you are wrong" is highly hypocritical and holds no water. Besides you and Netholic, the only user that has formally supported you is Dimadick, and he most likely wasn't aware of the previous discussions. That's pretty much the only support you have, as far as "other users" go. Even Darkwarriorblake was just making a complaint about the circumstances that led to WP:NCC being changed in 2017, and not a formal vote about you being correct. Please do not exaggerate your circumstances. DarkKnight2149 05:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to do with Netoholic's actions and often heavily disagree with him in move discussions. Suggesting that we engaged in some kind of shadowy cabal is outright ridiculous. Per WP:TAGTEAM, Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. There is no conspiracy here nor any sort of evidence that we are working together in any way._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please demonstrate for me where a "shadowy cabal" was suggested. Using strawman fallacies to try and WP:GAME the discussion is also disruptive. The two of you opened three consecutive move discussions at Talk:Joker (character), and a fourth one elsewhere, and were met with overwhelming opposition. By the end of the fourth move request, several editors were even complaining about the ridiculousness of the situation and the discussion was closed by an administrator per WP:SNOW. An administrator had to specifically say not to open another move request at that article because of it.

Whether or not the two of you are "tag teaming" is irrelevant. Both of you have continued to make the same move requests at other articles, despite the consensus being overwhelmingly against you in multiple consequentive discussions. I don't see how you can justify that. If you want to change consensus that badly, I would suggest opening a larger discussion at WP:COMICS instead of making the same requests at other articles and hoping no one notices. DarkKnight2149 05:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) - "Rogue (character) could apply to several media characters, the RPG and other archetypes. -- Netoholic @ 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note - This matter was already been discussed before at Talk:Joker (character), where Netoholic and ZXCVBNM opened multiple move discussions pushing the same reasonings they outlined here. Given that this is the exact same subject matter, I'm indiscriminately notifying everyone (regardless of their position) involved in those move discussions for a more clear cut consensus: @Dekimasu: @Erik: @Argento Surfer: @TheJoebro64: @Darkwarriorblake: @Tenebrae: @IagoQnsi: @Katolophyromai: @Old Naval Rooftops: @Rreagan007: @Cuchullain: @Paine Ellsworth: @SmokeyJoe: @Amakuru: @Cambalachero: @SnowFire: @Ribbet32: @No such user:

Everyone is tagged regardless of their positions (except for one user who I have a two-way WP:IBAN with), so there was no selective choosing here. If the exact same subject matter has been discussed before in a move discussion, the right thing to do is to notify everyone involved in the previous one. DarkKnight2149 19:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both options on an argument applicable to this page only; Rogue (Marvel character) would be my suggestion, but open to other options. (In other words, as a supporter of Joker (character), this is not an endorsement of moving that article as well to include needless disambiguation, I haven't changed my mind.) Rogue / Thief as a character class in games is certainly a relevant possibility, and more generally, there may be a missing article on the literary archetype of the rogue. I see from the disambiguation page that Lovable rogue exists as a bad stub; possible that article should be moved to Rogue (archetype) and expanded, since it seems like Joseph Campbell, etc. should have plenty of material on the idea of Rogueish characters in fiction. Re the "(Marvel Comics)" suggestion: is there someone called "Rogue" in other comics who is actually notable? If not, I don't understand why "Marvel" needs to be added. Regardless, "comics" is misleading as a disambiguator since surely more people have known this character thanks to TV/movies/games/etc. than actual comics at this point. (Note: Came here due to Dark Knight's ping above.) SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to hold back replying here to avoid accidental bludgeoning, since this discussion is pretty small, but to answer your question - No, there is no other notable comic book character named Rogue. The closest thing is a supervillain team, and that's something that would only warrant a Not to be confused with template at the top of the article. This is a near identical situation to the move discussions at Talk:Joker (character), so I honestly don't know why WP:SNOWBALL wouldn't apply here. DarkKnight2149 19:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Re the "(Marvel Comics)" suggestion: is there someone called "Rogue" in other comics who is actually notable? If not, I don't understand why "Marvel" needs to be added. There is nothing called "Marvel", because the publisher is Marvel Comics. "Marvel Comics character" is too long, per WP:CONCISE, so it's just "Marvel Comics"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Marvel is referred to as just "Marvel" constantly in the Marvel Comics article, as well as other media. I'd say that if we're invoking WP:CONCISE, "Comics" is less helpful and more misleading than "character" if we're looking to cut a word. We have Henry Howard (Rhode Island politician), not Henry Howard (Rhode Island and Providence Plantations politician), so no need to have the full title. SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I would probably go with Rogue (Marvel Comics). I am probably going to have to do something similar with Joker (character) because the same person keeps derailing its FA nominations by claiming that the article isn't about the comics character and needs coverage of the character in other media. Then I point them to Joker in other media and they ignore that and derail the nominations until they're inevitable delisted. This person is an idiot. But that is the world we live in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We would need to go back and change WP:NCC to what it was before the major 2017 WP:COMICS discussions for this preference to be valid. Right now, the current WP:NCC dictates that (character) is what we should officially go with. DarkKnight2149 21:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Rogue (character) looks OK to me per nom. Even if there is another obscure character by thay name, this is primary over it and it doesn't even have an article anyway. No need to add superfluous disambiguation  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose due to Rogue (character class) which can easily be confused. Support alternate move to Rogue (Marvel Comics) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (character). Anyone searching for character class will see that as an option, and a hat note (or link to the DAB page) can fix that for the few who miss it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The difference between "character" and "character class" is tenuous at best. If I told someone "I'm making a rogue character", they would assume I was creating a character that was a rogue. IMO, the existence of the other Rogue character doesn't even matter in this case, because it's still too easy to confuse the D&D class._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Rogue (character). I personally wouldn't be opposed to Rogue (Marvel Comics), but this seems to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JOEBRO64 00:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: there's a general consensus to move away, but no consensus on which title. I'm relisting this to get a few more opinions on the best title assuming a move. Sceptre (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "(character)" disambiguation as Rogue (character class) exists and almost any RPG game will have a rogue character, either as a class, or a specific character. Do support "(Marvel Comics)". --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics) due to the existence of Rogue (character class). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics). It is about Marvel. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics) per above. – Levivich 16:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rogue (Marvel Comics)--Ortizesp (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. I can understand but don't quite agree with the argument about Rogue (character class) - no one knowledgeable about that subject would think Rogue (character) referred to it. And there don't appear to be any other articles on characters of this name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image deletion nomination(s)

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) 22:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox!

So I was wondering if we can change the infobox image to this one? (Marvel) I feel the new image better represents the character's appearance than the current one, as everyone has a different depiction depending on the version they have watched or read. The new image better serves this purpose by showing the most famous depictions of the character.Lililolol (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, the current image is more faithful to the live-action actress than to the comic character. And it's been over a month, is nobody going to object? Lililolol (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Lililolol (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Rogue in other media isn't long or notable like those of other characters, so I suggested merging it into this article. Lililolol (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom. I agree with what they've said here. There's no SIZESPLIT concern and coverage for specifically alternate incarnations does not exist. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment "isn't long or notable like those of other characters" Not that surprising. Rogue is one of the most popular Marvel characters introduced in the 1980s, but her entire comic book book history amounts to 44 years of appearances. Her list of adaptations amounts to 4 television series (and a cameo in a 5th one), 3 films (and a cameo in a 4th one), and 25 video games. Compare that to characters like Iron Man . He is about two decades older than Rogue, has had speaking roles in 24 television series (and cameos in several others), and roles in a rather large number of films. Dimadick (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.