This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
There's a lot of stuff in the article that amounts to little more than blind guessing. For example the idea that "The stress reality feels due to the action of Robin going back in time and then returning causes the apocalypse" is entirely baseless. The series is intentionally ambiguous. I think the plot summary should be cut down if for no other reason than to weed out the wild speculation it contains. - jmscstl
Although this article is accurate and informative, it could use some quality clean-up:
Started work on the page, tidied up parts as well as expanding it.The plot summarries do need some extensive cleaning up. It would be good if we could list the artists who worked on each volume as well. I intend to return to carry on work on it. Logan1138 16:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
~I was the one who extended the Invisibles entry a while back. I understand what you two are saying about the length of the summaries, but like the person below me, I really do believe they shed light on the plot of the series like no other source on the web. If things are changed, I hope that at least the parts concerning the Hand of Glory and Jack Frost's destiny are left in since they are two of the most confusing elements in the story and not even "The Bomb" fansite has been able to thouroughly explain them. Thanks for all your feedback.
I had a good read through my issues and yes, i changed my mind and i agree, the summaries are very good and needed. I only tweaked a few things, added some Wki links and added images to break up the text and illustate the summaries. I really don't see much, if any further work being done on it. However i still intend to come back and credit the artists who worked on the series. Logan1138 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think the detailed summaries help in the understanding of the series. I've looked around the internet and have yet to see such a large and detailed summary of the invisibles, that sort of "explains all" and I think the summaries deserve to be there to help people understand what exactly happened in the series. Even the website the bomb does not provide such a detailed play by play of what went on in the comic book.
spoooooillleerrrrsss....
whatever
Which year was it published!?
As it stands (02 December 2005) I think it is an excellent summary of the series -- lucid and informative. I've spent the last week re-reading The Invisibles from start to finish, and it STILL took this article to help me decipher the last twelve issues. I'm not sure where the idea that John = Quimper comes from, but that's part of the fun, isn't it? Good work all, and thanks!
Thanks.I think i speak for everyone who has worked on this and say it's good to see it's so appreciated. Logan1138 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
video game... inhaled as a gas... intentionally not included?
~It was just a metaphor for how the Invisibles were playing a game. The whole series wasn't actually a videogame.
The section is a nice idea but it might be a better idea to create a seperate page for them to be listed as such. It doesn't seem neccessary to list every character in such a way. Plus a seperate page could be better spoiler protected. Thoughts? Logan1138 15:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
~Makes sense.
Ok then, i'll move the characters section to a seperate page and slap spoiler tags,etc on it. Plus it'll help keep the size of the main article down as it's getting a bit big now.
Logan1138 11:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some analysis on the philosophies presented in the series, the illusion of human struggle and the subjectiveness of reality and the inevitability of the future and the search for freedoms and all that. I'd do it but I'd immediatley fall into endless run-on sentences with pop journalism sentiments and heavy bias. :)
I'd do it, too, but I have no idea how to word any of it. ;)
If it us added, then I suggest it is included in an "anlysis" section after the plot summaries. Solofire6 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll try! Tell me what you think. :) Solofire6 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I added in some ideas I learned from a friend of mine who's like an Invisibles guru. Solofire6 22:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of references to popular culture and conspiracy theories in particular. Should a page be made for such things - especially those that aren't the center of the plot ? Like the inclusion of Rennes-le-Chatteau. Or real life people who appear or are mentioned, such as the scene with John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe and how Princess Di refused to give birth to the Outer Church's new king thing. Thoughts? Atropos 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd argue the phrasing of what members of the team are active at the end of the series, since at that point the entire reality collapses in the supercontext. 6_9 Invisible Queen 12:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Listing the members is unnecessary. There is a page for that and this a page about the series, not the actual organization. Solofire6 01:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone wanted to get this a peer review and eventually up to GA or even FA status? I think the series definitely deserves it and the article is already pretty good. Atropos 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
i am removing List of Invisibles Characters from the Category:Fictional anarchists because the article should be included there, not the list of caracteres. If you consider that they are not anarchists, please remove it, i don't know anything about this comic. I'm also leving a not in Talk:List of Invisibles Characters, thanks -- Cacuija ( my talk) 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
How can there be an article of such length about The Invisibles with no mention of Gnostic ideas? 193.91.181.142 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (Nick)
Most of the analysis is verified by the series itself.
Exactly. For example, I'm sure Helga's translation of the 64-letter alphabet is seen as unverified. It's not stated that by learning the 64-letter alphabet she becomes enlightened, but it is stated earlier on in the series. Both Sir Miles and Cell 23 say that the 23-letter alphabet limits human ability to express abstract thought since they cannot properly name/describe the reality of the world they inhabit. The Invisibles see reality for what it is briefly when Cell 23 exposes them to words derived from the 64-letter alpabet in Counting to None. Plus, the Grant Morrison interview in Anarchy For the Masses: The Disinformation Guide to the Invisibles confirms a lot of what is said in this article. Solofire6 07:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the series IS very self-explicative and provides analysis of itself; however, it is also very open to a wide variety of possible interpretations by its own admission. I think it would be nice to have an analysis section of some type Jowe27 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article, because it's uncited, and sounds like original research. See WP:OR for my reasoning. Something is original research if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". I don't think anyone did this maliciously here, but this section is an analysis that isn't attributed to a source. The comics alone can't be cited, because the comics don't explicitly analyze themselves. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally understand about the Analysis, but are the trade summaries OK? Solofire6 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
References
Image:Invisibles1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In Volume 2, Issue 3 appears as a comic book King Mob is reading in issue 4, Mob even insults the writing. I think this is noteable, especially given the whole 'nature of reality' Grant has done. Lots42 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
As a plot summary, 7,000 word slabs of text present two problems for Wikipedia, both of them pretty serious.
The most important concern is that at this length any straightforward description of the plot amounts to a derived work. The second concern, still pretty serious, is that it's impossible to glean anything about the plot except by reading the whole thing. There is far too much detail. A much shorter version trimming all but the most important details is essential.
I've removed the long summary meanwhile.
Please replace with a briefer plot summary that can be licensed under the GFDL, written to Wikipedia standards. -- Tony Sidaway 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
--I agree, this is a very complex work, it requires a very complex (or at least quite full) summary to begin to be useful as an overview/summary of the work. A short, brief, succinct one just wouldn't cut it. That's not in the spirit of the work being addressed at all.--
Erikacornia (
talk) 01:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
DC announced [1] that the complete INVISIBLES OMNIBUS will be published in Summer 2012. Should this be mentioned in the article, or do we wait until the publication happens? Madam Fatale ( talk) 16:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Invisibles. 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) 07:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
In my collected vol.1 edition, the title of the first arc is given as "Dead Beatle$." This alternate title should probably be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C481:4640:35CD:6FCE:7F79:2E8E ( talk) 06:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
There's a lot of stuff in the article that amounts to little more than blind guessing. For example the idea that "The stress reality feels due to the action of Robin going back in time and then returning causes the apocalypse" is entirely baseless. The series is intentionally ambiguous. I think the plot summary should be cut down if for no other reason than to weed out the wild speculation it contains. - jmscstl
Although this article is accurate and informative, it could use some quality clean-up:
Started work on the page, tidied up parts as well as expanding it.The plot summarries do need some extensive cleaning up. It would be good if we could list the artists who worked on each volume as well. I intend to return to carry on work on it. Logan1138 16:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
~I was the one who extended the Invisibles entry a while back. I understand what you two are saying about the length of the summaries, but like the person below me, I really do believe they shed light on the plot of the series like no other source on the web. If things are changed, I hope that at least the parts concerning the Hand of Glory and Jack Frost's destiny are left in since they are two of the most confusing elements in the story and not even "The Bomb" fansite has been able to thouroughly explain them. Thanks for all your feedback.
I had a good read through my issues and yes, i changed my mind and i agree, the summaries are very good and needed. I only tweaked a few things, added some Wki links and added images to break up the text and illustate the summaries. I really don't see much, if any further work being done on it. However i still intend to come back and credit the artists who worked on the series. Logan1138 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think the detailed summaries help in the understanding of the series. I've looked around the internet and have yet to see such a large and detailed summary of the invisibles, that sort of "explains all" and I think the summaries deserve to be there to help people understand what exactly happened in the series. Even the website the bomb does not provide such a detailed play by play of what went on in the comic book.
spoooooillleerrrrsss....
whatever
Which year was it published!?
As it stands (02 December 2005) I think it is an excellent summary of the series -- lucid and informative. I've spent the last week re-reading The Invisibles from start to finish, and it STILL took this article to help me decipher the last twelve issues. I'm not sure where the idea that John = Quimper comes from, but that's part of the fun, isn't it? Good work all, and thanks!
Thanks.I think i speak for everyone who has worked on this and say it's good to see it's so appreciated. Logan1138 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
video game... inhaled as a gas... intentionally not included?
~It was just a metaphor for how the Invisibles were playing a game. The whole series wasn't actually a videogame.
The section is a nice idea but it might be a better idea to create a seperate page for them to be listed as such. It doesn't seem neccessary to list every character in such a way. Plus a seperate page could be better spoiler protected. Thoughts? Logan1138 15:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
~Makes sense.
Ok then, i'll move the characters section to a seperate page and slap spoiler tags,etc on it. Plus it'll help keep the size of the main article down as it's getting a bit big now.
Logan1138 11:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some analysis on the philosophies presented in the series, the illusion of human struggle and the subjectiveness of reality and the inevitability of the future and the search for freedoms and all that. I'd do it but I'd immediatley fall into endless run-on sentences with pop journalism sentiments and heavy bias. :)
I'd do it, too, but I have no idea how to word any of it. ;)
If it us added, then I suggest it is included in an "anlysis" section after the plot summaries. Solofire6 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll try! Tell me what you think. :) Solofire6 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I added in some ideas I learned from a friend of mine who's like an Invisibles guru. Solofire6 22:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of references to popular culture and conspiracy theories in particular. Should a page be made for such things - especially those that aren't the center of the plot ? Like the inclusion of Rennes-le-Chatteau. Or real life people who appear or are mentioned, such as the scene with John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe and how Princess Di refused to give birth to the Outer Church's new king thing. Thoughts? Atropos 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd argue the phrasing of what members of the team are active at the end of the series, since at that point the entire reality collapses in the supercontext. 6_9 Invisible Queen 12:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Listing the members is unnecessary. There is a page for that and this a page about the series, not the actual organization. Solofire6 01:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone wanted to get this a peer review and eventually up to GA or even FA status? I think the series definitely deserves it and the article is already pretty good. Atropos 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
i am removing List of Invisibles Characters from the Category:Fictional anarchists because the article should be included there, not the list of caracteres. If you consider that they are not anarchists, please remove it, i don't know anything about this comic. I'm also leving a not in Talk:List of Invisibles Characters, thanks -- Cacuija ( my talk) 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
How can there be an article of such length about The Invisibles with no mention of Gnostic ideas? 193.91.181.142 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (Nick)
Most of the analysis is verified by the series itself.
Exactly. For example, I'm sure Helga's translation of the 64-letter alphabet is seen as unverified. It's not stated that by learning the 64-letter alphabet she becomes enlightened, but it is stated earlier on in the series. Both Sir Miles and Cell 23 say that the 23-letter alphabet limits human ability to express abstract thought since they cannot properly name/describe the reality of the world they inhabit. The Invisibles see reality for what it is briefly when Cell 23 exposes them to words derived from the 64-letter alpabet in Counting to None. Plus, the Grant Morrison interview in Anarchy For the Masses: The Disinformation Guide to the Invisibles confirms a lot of what is said in this article. Solofire6 07:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the series IS very self-explicative and provides analysis of itself; however, it is also very open to a wide variety of possible interpretations by its own admission. I think it would be nice to have an analysis section of some type Jowe27 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article, because it's uncited, and sounds like original research. See WP:OR for my reasoning. Something is original research if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". I don't think anyone did this maliciously here, but this section is an analysis that isn't attributed to a source. The comics alone can't be cited, because the comics don't explicitly analyze themselves. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally understand about the Analysis, but are the trade summaries OK? Solofire6 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
References
Image:Invisibles1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In Volume 2, Issue 3 appears as a comic book King Mob is reading in issue 4, Mob even insults the writing. I think this is noteable, especially given the whole 'nature of reality' Grant has done. Lots42 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
As a plot summary, 7,000 word slabs of text present two problems for Wikipedia, both of them pretty serious.
The most important concern is that at this length any straightforward description of the plot amounts to a derived work. The second concern, still pretty serious, is that it's impossible to glean anything about the plot except by reading the whole thing. There is far too much detail. A much shorter version trimming all but the most important details is essential.
I've removed the long summary meanwhile.
Please replace with a briefer plot summary that can be licensed under the GFDL, written to Wikipedia standards. -- Tony Sidaway 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
--I agree, this is a very complex work, it requires a very complex (or at least quite full) summary to begin to be useful as an overview/summary of the work. A short, brief, succinct one just wouldn't cut it. That's not in the spirit of the work being addressed at all.--
Erikacornia (
talk) 01:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
DC announced [1] that the complete INVISIBLES OMNIBUS will be published in Summer 2012. Should this be mentioned in the article, or do we wait until the publication happens? Madam Fatale ( talk) 16:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Invisibles. 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) 07:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
In my collected vol.1 edition, the title of the first arc is given as "Dead Beatle$." This alternate title should probably be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C481:4640:35CD:6FCE:7F79:2E8E ( talk) 06:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)