This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marvel 1602 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Marvel 1602 has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Can someone tell me when he broke the rules of the Watchers previously to 1602? I thought that up until 1602 came out it was generally accepted he had first broken them due to the arrival of Galactus. Daibhid C 23:13 26 April 2005 (UTC)
Er... I wrote a big thing on New World a few weeks back... why is it gone? (unsigned by 220.236.58.240)
I think this should be moved to Marvel 1602, or perhaps Marvel 1602 (comic) although the first would be better. My reasoning for this is that, on the spine of the trade paperback collection, it is titled as "Marvel 1602". I don't mean that the 1602 is just placed next to the normal red-on-white Marvel branding logo. Yes, that is there, but in addition to that is the title "Marvel 1602". It is also clearly "Marvel 1602" on the front cover. If anyone needs proof, I can take photos of the trade to show you. I know the Wikipedia policy is to be bold, but I'd rather have some discussion before moving a page. Satan's Rubber Duck 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
i linked all the character's names in "Plot" to their respective hotlinks but i'm not sure if this should've been done in "Plot" or "Characters". feel free to change it
Wikifried 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
...has just been created, but currently redirects here. So...is it worth adding here, or creating a full new article as with 1602: New World? Thanks! -- Mrph 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be a seperate artical, prividing that there is enough detail writtin on the plot, characters, stuff like that. Right now, the section looks like it will be too long to keep on the 1602 artical if it keeps at its current pace. If someone would make it a seperate arital ( or I could do it myself), I would have problem with it and probally would write a lot. I say go for it. Rhino131 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's A-R-T-I-C-L-E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpACatta ( talk • contribs) 01:19, March 4, 2007 (UTC)
Very fine article. The plot summary is a bit longish, but not bad enough to keep it out of the pack. Good job. Wrad ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time or the inclination to go over all the footnotes in this article, but footnote 8 for the quote "1602 is a watershed moment in comic book history that will be mentioned in the same breath as Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns" is taken completely out of context. I can only assume that someone was having themselves a little laugh. -- 76.69.143.73 ( talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)PopeUrban
Per WP:WAF, "Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research." Basically, we need to keep plot summary to a minimum; in fact, it's still somewhat too long right now. As for the characters, we cannot venture to say how much Gaiman was influenced by Elizabeth's real spymaster unless there are [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that make the connection, otherwise it is original research. As for the minor characters; if they don't play a part in the plot, we shouldn't mention them, (summary style). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted there is some original research in this but it is mentioned on good grounds and faith. If we were to restrict ourselves to sources other than ourselves it would take all the fun out of analysis and writing encyclopedias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' "purging" of this article is taking out a lot of information which not-so-well informed readers might appreciate. As for the secondary characters, well, mentioning the connection between Captain and Foggy Nelson would be handy to readers not familiar with the world of Daredevil.-- Marktreut ( talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added a section on academic criticism based on an article published in the recent issue of ImageTexT on Gaiman's work. However, since I co-edited that issue, I'm letting you all know so you can double check my work for COI issues. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good edit, and if you take no offense, I have corrected the homonym from "pair" to "pare". -- MartinezMD ( talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Reception is largely fine, with two sentence fragments culled as that is the writer inserting their point of view, not the quoted source. The Legacy component is actually PH material. The list of characters is unnecessary, as a link provides said list, and in the main article it looks fannish. Some of the related commentary was also unnecessary.
The Academis section also needs work, as while a fine effort means nothing to a layman. It needs to convey the same ideas in simpler terms.
Asgardian ( talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The main article already has a decent-sized character section. This article seems to mainly differ by enumerating every background cameo and such, and is bordering on fancruft as a result BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 21:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marvel 1602 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Marvel 1602 has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Can someone tell me when he broke the rules of the Watchers previously to 1602? I thought that up until 1602 came out it was generally accepted he had first broken them due to the arrival of Galactus. Daibhid C 23:13 26 April 2005 (UTC)
Er... I wrote a big thing on New World a few weeks back... why is it gone? (unsigned by 220.236.58.240)
I think this should be moved to Marvel 1602, or perhaps Marvel 1602 (comic) although the first would be better. My reasoning for this is that, on the spine of the trade paperback collection, it is titled as "Marvel 1602". I don't mean that the 1602 is just placed next to the normal red-on-white Marvel branding logo. Yes, that is there, but in addition to that is the title "Marvel 1602". It is also clearly "Marvel 1602" on the front cover. If anyone needs proof, I can take photos of the trade to show you. I know the Wikipedia policy is to be bold, but I'd rather have some discussion before moving a page. Satan's Rubber Duck 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
i linked all the character's names in "Plot" to their respective hotlinks but i'm not sure if this should've been done in "Plot" or "Characters". feel free to change it
Wikifried 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
...has just been created, but currently redirects here. So...is it worth adding here, or creating a full new article as with 1602: New World? Thanks! -- Mrph 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be a seperate artical, prividing that there is enough detail writtin on the plot, characters, stuff like that. Right now, the section looks like it will be too long to keep on the 1602 artical if it keeps at its current pace. If someone would make it a seperate arital ( or I could do it myself), I would have problem with it and probally would write a lot. I say go for it. Rhino131 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's A-R-T-I-C-L-E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpACatta ( talk • contribs) 01:19, March 4, 2007 (UTC)
Very fine article. The plot summary is a bit longish, but not bad enough to keep it out of the pack. Good job. Wrad ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time or the inclination to go over all the footnotes in this article, but footnote 8 for the quote "1602 is a watershed moment in comic book history that will be mentioned in the same breath as Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns" is taken completely out of context. I can only assume that someone was having themselves a little laugh. -- 76.69.143.73 ( talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)PopeUrban
Per WP:WAF, "Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research." Basically, we need to keep plot summary to a minimum; in fact, it's still somewhat too long right now. As for the characters, we cannot venture to say how much Gaiman was influenced by Elizabeth's real spymaster unless there are [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that make the connection, otherwise it is original research. As for the minor characters; if they don't play a part in the plot, we shouldn't mention them, (summary style). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted there is some original research in this but it is mentioned on good grounds and faith. If we were to restrict ourselves to sources other than ourselves it would take all the fun out of analysis and writing encyclopedias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' "purging" of this article is taking out a lot of information which not-so-well informed readers might appreciate. As for the secondary characters, well, mentioning the connection between Captain and Foggy Nelson would be handy to readers not familiar with the world of Daredevil.-- Marktreut ( talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added a section on academic criticism based on an article published in the recent issue of ImageTexT on Gaiman's work. However, since I co-edited that issue, I'm letting you all know so you can double check my work for COI issues. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a good edit, and if you take no offense, I have corrected the homonym from "pair" to "pare". -- MartinezMD ( talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Reception is largely fine, with two sentence fragments culled as that is the writer inserting their point of view, not the quoted source. The Legacy component is actually PH material. The list of characters is unnecessary, as a link provides said list, and in the main article it looks fannish. Some of the related commentary was also unnecessary.
The Academis section also needs work, as while a fine effort means nothing to a layman. It needs to convey the same ideas in simpler terms.
Asgardian ( talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Asgardian ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The main article already has a decent-sized character section. This article seems to mainly differ by enumerating every background cameo and such, and is bordering on fancruft as a result BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 21:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)