This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why does Spider-Man (Comic) redirect here?-- Heathcliff 01:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
This is completely WRONG. "Peter Parker: Spider-Man" is a COMPLETELY different title than "Spider-Man"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 ( talk) 17:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I've commented-out (but did not erase; it's still there) a phrase about Spider-Man #1 being the best-selling comic book of all time. That's quite a claim and I believe it needs a citation. How many copies was it? Did this information come from Marvel, or from Wizard repeating Marvel's claim, or was it independently confirmed via the publically available circulation figures that the comics publish once a year? Golden Age comics used to sell in the millions — Superman and Captain Marvel in particular — so it's important to know from where this claim comes. A specific figure would be good, so that it can be compared to other available figures for confirmation. -- Tenebrae 04:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it me or was this article written to be the "Gospel according to a critical fan", especially regards Howard Machie? Where are the sources for the claim that Mackie was "widely" considered the weakest of the writers at the time? Also I recall the clone saga didn't have that many one calendar month storylines (and also Spectacular appears to have been the last book of the month).
...volume two of Peter Parker: Spider-Man was widely considered to be the more "readable" of the two due to the fact that the title did not suffer from editorially mandated crossovers with the equally controversial "Spider-Man Chapter One" and the John Byrne written "Spider-Woman" relaunch.
Erm what crossovers with Chapter One? And PP:SM had some naff crossovers of its own with other titles - issue 2 with Thor, an early one with some convoluted Avengers saga and so forth.
Does anyone with a full run to hand want to try giving the article a complete replacement? Timrollpickering 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of the POV material is from a recent and extensive anonymous edit. Ive restored the article to an earlier, more neutral, version. Hueysheridan 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is correct. The indicia for what you are calling volume 1, simply saying "Spider-Man", regardless of the change to the cover. Traditionally with comic books, the official titles and volumes follow what the indicia says, not the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 ( talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why does Spider-Man (Comic) redirect here?-- Heathcliff 01:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
This is completely WRONG. "Peter Parker: Spider-Man" is a COMPLETELY different title than "Spider-Man"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 ( talk) 17:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I've commented-out (but did not erase; it's still there) a phrase about Spider-Man #1 being the best-selling comic book of all time. That's quite a claim and I believe it needs a citation. How many copies was it? Did this information come from Marvel, or from Wizard repeating Marvel's claim, or was it independently confirmed via the publically available circulation figures that the comics publish once a year? Golden Age comics used to sell in the millions — Superman and Captain Marvel in particular — so it's important to know from where this claim comes. A specific figure would be good, so that it can be compared to other available figures for confirmation. -- Tenebrae 04:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it me or was this article written to be the "Gospel according to a critical fan", especially regards Howard Machie? Where are the sources for the claim that Mackie was "widely" considered the weakest of the writers at the time? Also I recall the clone saga didn't have that many one calendar month storylines (and also Spectacular appears to have been the last book of the month).
...volume two of Peter Parker: Spider-Man was widely considered to be the more "readable" of the two due to the fact that the title did not suffer from editorially mandated crossovers with the equally controversial "Spider-Man Chapter One" and the John Byrne written "Spider-Woman" relaunch.
Erm what crossovers with Chapter One? And PP:SM had some naff crossovers of its own with other titles - issue 2 with Thor, an early one with some convoluted Avengers saga and so forth.
Does anyone with a full run to hand want to try giving the article a complete replacement? Timrollpickering 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of the POV material is from a recent and extensive anonymous edit. Ive restored the article to an earlier, more neutral, version. Hueysheridan 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is correct. The indicia for what you are calling volume 1, simply saying "Spider-Man", regardless of the change to the cover. Traditionally with comic books, the official titles and volumes follow what the indicia says, not the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 ( talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)