MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:IDW Publishing

2011-06-20T02:32:46Z

70.17.201.68: /* Marvel + IDW? [citation needed] */

I'm thinking to start filling in a page for the "Infiltration" comics that have already come out. Would it be better to do the story-arc as one page, incorporating all 7 (including issue #0) issues, or would it be better to do a page per issue? If the latter, what naming convention should I go for? "Infiltration #0", "Infiltration #1", etc?--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could see it going either way for miniseries... If you make seperate pages, I would say they should be named after the issues themselves, as with the Marvel issue pages. But I guess it makes sense, at least early on, to put a miniseries entirely on one page. If we decide we want to split it up later, we can always do it later. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you guys don't mind me plunging ahead (I only just read this discussion page). I used the naming convention from the Dreamwave pages for the individual ''Infiltration'' and ''Stormbringer'' issue pages. --[[User:IMAGinES|IMAGinES]] 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviosuly humor is in the eye of the beholder, but am I the only one who thinks having "IDW WAS WRITTEN BY WHEELIE," in all-caps, stuck into the middle of a section of straightforward information isn't all that funny and shouldn't be there? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That looks like Vandalism. -[[User:EricMarrs|EricMarrs]] 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
: Well, I wrote it at the same time as adding all the other non-all-caps information, and you can ditch it if you want. I didn't really expect or desire it to stay. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At my LCS I saw some "Transformers Magazine" (I believe) IDW put out, anybody going to put up info on that? I understand it's primarily just samples of their other comics, so I personally didn't bother picking it up.

==We're way behind==

I was going over a few articles, we're WAY behind on the IDW continuity. Max Dinos, Spotlights and AHM. If I've got time over the next few days I'll do some, but I've a lot going on and it's quite a bit of work. Just saying, it needs a lot fo updating [[User:Eire]] 18.12 July 16 2009 (UTC)

== The Transformers (ongoing) article group naming? ==

The upcoming The Transformers series is out soon - have we decided what we are going to name its main article? Because there's a scattered amount of references on the wiki to "the upcoming ongoing comic" with no red links, and I don't know what to call it yet. "The Transformers (IDW)"? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 01:32, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Transformers (IDW comic). Following the style of [[The Transformers (Marvel comic)]]. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 02:51, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
::The series is called "Transformers: The Ongoing Mission" [?User:Eire]]14.14 Oct 17 09 (UTC)
::: Really, that's official? --[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 22:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
:While we're at it, what are we calling the Bumblebee miniseries? I put "Bumblebee (series)" as a placeholder on the pages for [[Zander Cannon]] and [[Chee Yang Ong]]. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 13:54, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
::How about a slight mod to "Bumblebee (miniseries)"; or [[Transformers: Bumblebee]] --[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 22:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

== Section about IDW's editorial policies? ==

Should this article include a section that discusses IDW's overall editorial policies, considering that various articles on individual titles and issues already include some details?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:18, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
:Not one that's as long as the one that's there now. Jesus. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 12:58, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::We need a page on "IDW editorial policies" just so we can put it in "Category: Things that don't exist." --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:44, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Yes please. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 14:03, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::Sometimes less is more. In fact, the more stuff we put in this section, the less IDW looks incompetent and the more we look like autistic jackasses. Rather than an exhaustive list of every single kind of one genre of mistake, how about we provide an example or two instead? Otherwise, this reads like a hit piece, and we reserve hit pieces for [[Pat Lee|would-be criminals]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:42, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::Second Walky's suggestion. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 15:17, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::Yeah. I'd say keep the first bit about Furman and McCarthy's lack of interaction as a example of editorial in general, the Cyclonus part (the stuff before Continuum gets brought up) as a writing example, and Blurr and/or Bumblebee for art. Probably Bumblebee, since no one ever said his randomly fluctuating VW designs were an error like with Blurr. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 15:31, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::Complete agreement, plus the usual "this is a boring morass of text" issue. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:32, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::I could probably trim down the Bumblebee section a bit with a few hours of sleep behind me. (Also: Would comparison images help?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 15:39, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
I know what that section is about, and even I can barely follow the bulletpoint on Bumblebee. Right now, that section just looks like a lot of general b*tching. I think most of this stuff is covered better in the individual articles for the issues where these things cropped up. Placed here, in a huge block, out of context, makes it all look like a message board rant of epic proportions. I say leave it off this page entirely, and only bring it up on the pages where it would be specifically on-topic (like Blurr's design problems in ''Bumblebee'' #2). --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 16:18, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:But then again, listing it only in the individual issues' articles makes it look like "okay, there's an error, big deal". Pointing out that there's a method to some of these problems gives it a bigger context. It'd be like only listing individual Dreamwave employees' problems with the company in their individual articles without having them pile up to a bigger context in the Dreamwave article proper. (And no, I'm not comparing Dreamwave's business system with IDW's editorial problems. I'm just arguing in favor of "individual problems are isolated incidents when treaded as such, but when put in context, they make up a bigger image".) I don't know how you can think it's "out of context" when this whole section ''is all about context''.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 16:40, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::Well, this is basically the opposite of Dreamwave. Dreamwave was one big business clusterf*ck that might seem downplayed if it were only mentioned piecemeal on individual author pages. IDW, on the other hand, is really a bunch of minor issues that only look like ''A BIG DEAL'' when you throw them all together like this.
::By comparison, think about Nel Yomtov's mis-coloring and block coloring in Marvel's comic. Would you also advocate a "Coloring Problems" section on the primary page of [[The Transformers (Marvel comic)]], listing in full the various ways he mixed things up? To me, that would draw undue attention to the matter, and make it seem like a much bigger deal than it actually was, like something that genuinely handicapped the Marvel book, when it really didn't. It's much better to address the various coloring issues on the individual issue pages, where we can nitpick to our heart's content.
::Yes, IDW allowed characters to be drawn with different bodies, or different sizes. This should be addressed somewhere. But it's really ''not. that. big. a. deal.'', and shouldn't be "spotlighted" in a massive dissection on the main page entry for the entire company. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 17:04, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Marvel issues were 75¢. Just sayin'. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:52, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::They were also printed on the cheapest paper possible and sold 8 times as many copies. Just sayin'! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:53, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::Those were also different times with a different target audience, a different market situation for comic books, a different pop-cultural status of the brand as a whole, and different methods of official communication between the editorial team and the audience. There are things older works get away with because of different standards for their times, but modern-day works can rightfully be expected to get considerably more flak for doing the same thing. Just sayin'.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 16:54, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
::The problem is, one can pretty easily create an artificial epidemic by creating a "list of problems." Imagine if we had a "Marvel editorial policies" section where we talk about how they couldn't get their colorist under control and then make a two-page list of every error Nel Yomtov ever made, and note how obviously Marvel didn't care because they didn't address any of these problems publicly. It quickly looks like a crusade on our part, especially if your admitted purpose '''is''' to create ammunition for fights. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:56, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::We do have a lengthy section about the problems of the [[Energon (cartoon)#Criticisms|Energon cartoon]], though. And a lengthy list of problems with the [[Omni Productions]] dub.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:02, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::The Energon cartoon is over and done with, which gives us a better sense of perspective versus the immediacy of some people's anger at IDW, plus it was a train wreck of several orders of magnitude over anything IDW has ever done. This IDW section feels like a vendetta. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:12, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::So does the [[The Transformers Continuum: The Definitive Chronology|Continuum]] article. And the [[Beast Wars Sourcebook]] articles.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:17, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::Why do you continue to ignore the idea of context? There's a huge difference between listing all of the errors present within a single issue on that single issue's page and listing all of the errors a company ever made in every single issue it published on its page. Beast Wars Sourcebook had a lot of errors. We note them on its page. Choosing to make a compilation of things that personally upset you on IDW's main article is another thing entirely. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:22, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I trimmed down the art section as best as I could.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:36, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Also trimmed down the "bad comics written by Andy Schmidt" section.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:44, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

A lot of this is making my ass itch. Furman didn't communicate with McCarthy and relied on an editor? Well, y'know, I'm pretty sure Jonathan Hickman didn't have a bloody teleconference with Mark Millar when he took over Fantastic Four, either. That's sort of ''how comics work'' when a new creative team starts. Indeed, "do not feel hampered by continuity" is pretty much comic book ''law'' these days, it's not some bizarre IDW thing. And I'm not seeing how "Andy Schmidt fucked up and didn't do the research when he wrote something" is a "policy". - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 18:21, 15 October 2010 (EDT)
: Agreed. The first thing isn't remarkable and the second thing isn't about editorial policy at all. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:50, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

==Transformers 3 prequel comic==
Sector 7 won't be a prequel comic to Transformers 3, but Foundtaion will be. Here is confirmation from IDW: http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/1009/20/idwdec.htm--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 23:43, 19 September 2010 (EDT)
:OK, my istake. Sector 7 is a prequel comic just like Foundation and Rising Storm are.--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 11:19, 22 Otcober 2010 (EDT)
::Yes, we get it. And chronologically speaking, Sector 7 WOULD be a prequel since it takes place before all three movies (except of course the Primes duking it out on Earth). --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 04:31, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

== Marvel + IDW? [citation needed] ==

TFWiki.net has been showing me this ad:

http://www.projectwonderful.com/img/uploads/pics/62823-1307500972.gif

The ad says, "Simon Furman wants to continue the original Marvel Comics run of Transformers, starting with #81. IDW says #81 will happen when this petition hits 10,000 signatures."

The ad links to:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?tf81idw

Is IDW actually paying attention to this petition, or is the petition just someone's wishing? or worse, phishing?[[Special:Contributions/70.17.201.68|70.17.201.68]] 21:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:IDW is well aware of the petition and Furman's desire.{{fact}} As for the ad, that's been submitted by a fan in hopes of getting more signatures. Anyone can submit an ad to TFWiki's ProjectWonderful ads, so long as they "bid" the highest. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 22:03, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::That was quick. Thanks, Detour. (...Still wouldn't mind seeing the source cited, though. Also, "IDW is well aware of [it]" does not necessarily mean "IDW gives a Rattrap's sass about [it]".)[[Special:Contributions/70.17.201.68|70.17.201.68]] 22:32, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:IDW Publishing

2011-06-20T01:59:22Z

70.17.201.68: /* Marvel + IDW? [citation needed] */ new section

Talk:The Transformers (Marvel comic)

2011-06-20T01:57:34Z

70.17.201.68: /* Marvel + IDW? [citation needed] */ new section

==Organization==

It's good to see some summaries showing up, but I think we need to think about how to organize things. IMO, there should be a "main" article for every comic book series which includes an overview and a list of issues. Each issue of the comic will then have its own article.

That does, however, raise the question of how to name the pages for comic issues, especially the original comic where even using issue names may cause conflict between the US and UK editions. I think that issue names are a better way to go than issue numbers, at least.

I'm inclined to say that the UK comic should be treated as the "real" comic series because of its additional material. The US comic is a subset of it.

A page for a UK comic issue then, in my ideal world, would be named after the issue. Among other information near the top of the article, it would state whether that UK story appeared in a US issue or not, and if so, what issue (number and name).

A page for a US comic issue has two possibilities: If the issue name was also an issue name for the UK version, there simply is no separate page for the US issue. If the US issue name was not duplicated in the UK (and I don't even know if that ever happened) then the US issue article should just redirect to the appropriate UK issue which reprints the first part of that US issue.

This all just off the top of my head, and shouldn't be taken as authoritative or anything. Still, I am really big on the idea of organizing things in a systematic way, and I think that this would make things a lot easier. I would welcome comments from others.

--[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(G.B. Blackrock: 2006/03/07 - 7:24 pm PST) While I can see the reason for wanting to make the UK comic primary, and the US comic a subset, that would pretty much make it impossible for me to complete any more entries, as I have no idea where the breaks would come in the middle of the US stories, even assuming I consulted a chart telling me which UK issue lined up with which US story....

If someone would set up a template, I'm happy to make my existing entries match the template. As it is, I'm creating stuff from scratch. Seemed necessary with so little existing on the board already.... [[User:G.B. Blackrock]]

(G.B. Blackrock: 2006/03/09 - 10:14 am PST) I've held off on making any further additions for the moment in hopes that someone else might come on with input. I certainly agree that a standardized organizational scheme would be helpful. I'm inclined at the moment to go ahead with my US entries, and let anyone who has the UK comics make their entries in the still-separate UK comics page. It would be a reasonably simple matter to link the appropriate UK issues to their US counterparts, but then I don't have to worry about incorporating UK continuity into the US line, since I don't have these issues.

Furthermore, while the UK continuity does ''mostly'' contain all of the US continuity, there are a few rather significant differences, such as the reason why Bumblebee was rebuilt into Goldbug.

For these reasons, I'm inclined to continue treating US continuity as separate from the UK continuity, and not as a subset. I am still open to other opinions, especially in regard to standardization.[[User:G.B. Blackrock]]

As I understand it, about 90% of the comic is identical between the versions (excluding the additional content for the UK comics). So it would be far simpler to just use the UK comics, and just mention any differences as they appear, when appropriate, within the article itself.

This is, of course, assuming I'm not mistaken, which I am quite often.--[[User:OctopusPrime|Octopus Prime- King of the Road!]] 19:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(G.B. Blackrock: 2006/03/09 - 4:56 pm PST) At the risk of sounding US-centric, I still think making the US entries a "sub-set" of the UK ones would cause more confusion than help. If someone can actually ''demonstrate'' how this would play out be actualy creating some entries that I could follow the pattern of, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.[[User:G.B. Blackrock]]

I don't think necessarily either need to be considered a sub-set; but over IRC, Jhi raised a few valid points. The headers for comic issue pages should give the US and UK issue numbers equal billing, especially if we're just going to have the UK issue list link to them. Individual articles should be about the story as it appears in ''both'' countries' issues. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My thought was to give the original publisher primacy, and list other versions of the same story below. So "Man of Iron" would list the UK printing up top, but the US reissues below, for example.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 00:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

==Main G1 comics==
It occurs to me that our current listing has one link for the G1 Marvel comics, but that the three separate DW comics (none of which have pages, it would seem) are given separate links. Either we should add the Marvel Headmasters, TFU, and the GI/Joe crossover (which was in the same continuity, even if it WAS later ignored) here, or we should consolidate the DW entries. The latter is my preference, but I'm wondering if that would create unforeseen problems elsewhere. Thoughts?--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

==UK "issue" pages==

(snipping a lot of stuff that's probably not of any further interest. People can get them back out with "history" if they disagree....)

I wonder if, especially for UK comics, we should change the links so that each UK issue links to a separate "issue" page, with the separate stories being linked as they currently are (all current comic pages are organized by story title). Besides the "back-up" features you mention, later UK TF comics often have TWO TF stories running concurrently, and the current system does not account for this well. But I'm not the best person to suggest an alternative. My expertise is in the US comic, which tended to have just one story per issue, and little else. The US comic even tended to break up story arcs into individual titles for each issue more often than not....

Shouldn't we have talked about merging the UK and US comics into one entry before actually doing it?....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:Should we have? It's easily fixed if that's deemed not acceptable. The real big change here was making [[List of Generation 1 comics|Generation 1 (comic)]] be a disambiguation rather than blurb on the Marvel US comic, because that is most certainly ''not'' the only Generation 1 comic, and it's probably not even the one that most people would be interested in.
:I decided to just fold the content in that article into Marvel UK, because do we ''really'' need two seperate pages on the two Marvel comics? If we actually do get enough content to warrant two articles, it's easy enough to split the two. But like I said, the major change her isn't the merge, it's putting a proper disambiguation page at the G1 comic link.
:Apologies for the alleged "UK bias" in the little blurb. I've never actually read any significant part of either Marvel comic, and know next to nothing about either, so I can say that definitely was not intended. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to have them merged, and the way it was done (leaving the US and UK sections separate within the same page) I can live with. I'm absolutely opposed to folding all the US stuff into the UK page, though, as I've said elsewhere. I do ''not'' see these two as the same entity, but rather as two distinct, yet often similar and occasionally overlapping, entities. I just would have liked to be aware of the change beforehand, is all.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written a bit more on the UK comic, trying to explain its format and its relationship with the US comic. I think I'm right in identifying the 'Perchance to Dream' storyline as the point where US and UK separate, but I can't remember when the original UK material dried up. Was it around #290? --[[User:Tribimat|Tribimat]] 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, I see it differently. I don't see the US and the UK as "separating," because I see them as ''already separate.'' They may look the same in many cases, but they're separate. This is borne out by the few, but significant, differences between them, such as how Bumblebee is turned into Goldbug. Clearly, there is room for differences of opinion on how individuals look at the canon, but the fact that there ARE these distinctions are part of why I oppose any attempt to force US stories ''into'' the UK continuity on this Wiki, which should essentially present the facts as they appear. (Incidentally, the way you describe the UK version in the actual article is fine with me)--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 03:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Seperating the UK and US comics would give legitimate space to discuss the various special features the UK comic had which had no counterpart in the US comic. Things like the letters pages answered by Transformer characters, fact files (which, in the early days weren't straight reprints of Transformers: The Universe), back up strips, competitions, humourous strips (Robo Capers, Matt and the Cat, Combat Colin - some of which had directly Transformer-related content). Sorry, can't sign this comment as I'm just a visitor.

==How to deal with UK issues with multiple stories==
I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with the issues in the UK (especially around the late-200s) that have more than one story contained therein. The current set-up probably won't continue to work for these issues. How's this for an option?

{|style="margin:0 auto;padding:0 auto" align=center id=toc
!align=center bgcolor=#6699CC|'''<font color="white">Marvel UK issues (lead stories):</font>'''
|-
|| [[Kings of the Wild Frontier|#284]] | [[Kings of the Wild Frontier|#285]] | [[Deadly Obsession|#286]] | [[Deadly Obsession|#287]] | [[Deadly Obsession|#288]] | [[Deadly Obsession|#289]]
|}

{|style="margin:0 auto;padding:0 auto" align=center id=toc
!align=center bgcolor=#6699CC|'''<font color="white">Marvel UK issues (back-up stories):</font>'''
|-
|| [[Assassins|#284]] | [[External Forces!|#285]] | [[The Lesser Evil|#286]] | [[Inside Story!|#287]] | [[Front Line!|#288]] | [[End of the Road! (UK)|#289]]
|}
Note that the back-up to UK #289 is a different "End of the Road" than US #80 (Which is actually entitled "The End of the Road," which may or may not seem significant.)--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
: Looks good to me. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

: Is there a way to get all information on a particular issue onto an entry for that issue? For instance, issue 213 will have a "US Story" link that refers to the relevant US strip (which will be identical for 214-216), a "UK Story" section that gives a full account of the UK strip (in this instance, I think it's Megatron's return to Cybertron with Ravage), and a "Back-up Story" section that gives a brief account of the back-up strip. I realise that the back-up stories in most cases aren't TF-related, but they were an integral part of the UK comic experience. I'll try to put an example entry together this week and you can see what you think.

: Incidentally, I take the point about the UK and US continuities not being the same. I'm not at all hung up on "canon" and am much more interested in detailing the things as stories. I just wanted to say that #255-60 is where the two parallel continuities go in completely and irreconcilably different directions. At some point I'd also like to write something about how Furman used his knowledge of what was happening in the US stories to foreshadow later events - the story 'Prey' and the return to Cybertron (UK #97-104) is a classic example, featuring both Optimus Prime's "death" and Megatron's madness.

: Now that I think about it, the letters page was often used as a vehicle for explaining how the US and UK stories fitted together. They should be an excellent resource for this sort of thing. When I've got access to the original issues again, I'll see what comes up.--[[User:Tribimat|Tribimat]] 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, my preference (other things being equal) would be to have the comics entries organized by issue number, but it was decided early on that it would be redundant to have separate pages for issues of the UK comic that were largely already duplicated on the US page for the similar story. (US stories tend to be 1-per-issue. This not often the case in the UK comic.) A compromise position was to make the pages story-specific, rather than issue-specific. This is working for now, but as I've already noted, appears as though it may be unwieldy as we look at UK issues in the future. I could do this issue-by-issue for the entire US series with no trouble at all, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that the US is the only, or even the "most correct," way of looking at it. I've argued fairly strongly for US comic integrity, but have tried to stop short of giving it "supremacy." It's just that the US comic is what I know. I know it fairly well. But I don't have the background to say much about the UK comic beyond what I know from the Internet.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've come across some issues of the UK comic that have two TF-related stories, but the "lead" story is just a reprint, while the "back-up" black-and-white story is new. (So far, I've only put links for #221-228 that fit this description) Under the rubric I proposed above, I've felt compelled to make the link in the main (i.e. "lead story") UK chart go to the reprinted story, while the new story is relegated to the "back-up" chart. This technically seems to work, but seems rather unsatisfying. Thoughts?--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I've decided that it would be simpler to only put 2nd stories in the bottom grid in the cases where one of the two TF stories contained has not already been printed in the UK previously. This means that some "back up" black and whites are actually in the top grid, but since these tend to be the stories featured on the front cover (since the "main" color story is a reprint), that makes more sense, I think.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 02:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

==The UK Annuals==
Hi. I was just wondering if there should be a space on this page for the UK Annuals and if so what format it should take? There were a couple of annual stories that linked heavily into the main UK strip so it seems like something that is needed for the sake of completion.

As each annual contains several stories and there are only a few of them I was going to suggest a seperate table for each annual with links to individual stories. Does anyone have any opinions/guidance on this?--[[User:Omnisvalidus|Omnisvalidus]] 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:As nobody has comented on this I have added the annuals in. [[User:Omnisvalidus|Omnisvalidus]] 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

==Issue Numbers, Issue Titles==
This is a very useful page, what with having all the issues linked by number. Unfortunately, it's also a somewhat difficult page to find. Few if any of the individual issues link back to it. Instead, they link back to [[:Category:Marvel_US_issues]], which lo and behold doesn't list the issue numbers.

So if you're browsing along, and suddenly find yourself on, say, [[Trial by Fire!]], good luck finding the page about the next issue. Shouldn't the issue titles in the category also mention a number, and shouldn't there be a sequential listing that all the issues link back to?

OR OR OR, as Sipher just mentioned, there's a "Next issue/Previous issue" box floating around on a few issues' pages. That'd at least provide continuity if it got worked onto all the pages. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

=="Comic" or "Comics"? (also, upper or lower-case?)==
A recent revision was made to the Marvel G1 link so that it wouldn't have to "redirect" to the actual site. I agree with this, in principle. However, it highlights an inconsistency, as we now have links for [[Generation 1 (Marvel Comics)]] and [[Generation 1 (Dreamwave comic)]]. One or both of these should be changed to resemble the other. Do we go with the singular "comic" or the plural "comics"? (Also, capitalization should be consistent. I'm assuming that lower-case is preferred. Indeed, I'd suggest "comic" as the preferable form, since the title of this very page uses the lower-case singular form.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
: "Marvel Comics" is the name of the company, so that is why it is capitalized. Dreamwave's company title does not have "Comics" in it, so "comics" is added so we know what kind medium the fiction is. The difference in capitalization between the two is INTENTIONAL. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know if I buy that explanation... Or, rather, even if you are literally sure it's intentional and aren't rationalizing a mistake, I don't think that explanation suffices. There is no need to specify the media type in the parenthetical. The two should match in structure, being either "Dreamwave" and "Marvel Comics" or "Dreamwave comic" and "Marvel Comics comic" (which sounds stupid). I'd also accept dropping the "Comics" part of Marvel's name since it's not really needed, and also that's not their name anymore anyway. That would give us "Dreamwave"/"Marvel" or "Dreamwave comic"/"Marvel comic". --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::"rationalizing a mistake"? Dude, I go through pages and FIX the capitalization it so it's that way, for that reason. This is almost entirely in the fiction sections of all the articles, but specifying "comics" in some fashion after "Marvel" after "Generation 1" is crucial, as, well, you know, the cartoon was co-produced by Marvel. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::So, obviously its intentional. Still, I'd rather see something more consistent. It looks more and more like this particular convention exists only because it's never been noticed as being inconsistent before. By all means, point out "comic" in some fashion after "Marvel." But I still think that "comic" is more appropriate than "Comics", the fact (is it still a fact? Steve-o suggests it isn't anymore.) of Marvel's name being "Marvel Comics" notwithstanding.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 05:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Having [[Generation 1 (cartoon)]] and "Generation 1 (Marvel)" co-exists bothers me.
:::I vote for "Generation 1 (Marvel comic)" and "Generation 1 (Dreamwave comic)".
:::There's probably 20 different articles that can be called "Generation 1 (somedisambig)". Just for comics we've had Marvel, Blackthorne, Benchpress (well, not really) 2 different manga publishers, Dreamwave, and IDW. And that's not even all G1 TF comics (Devil's Due's version of the TFU has a non-generic name that avoids it being chronicled under the generic 'Generation 1' label.)
:::Are there ''any'' other articles of this sort where we ''don't'' put the media type in the disambig? I think... in any franchise with more than 1 type of media, the media-type should be ''standard'' as part of the disambig.
:::Disambigs don't ''have'' to provide contextual information, but I think in G1's case, with ''so many'' articles, it's a good idea. Additionally, it would make the G1 articles better fit with the disambiging format used by other franchises. (For the most part other franchises don't have to deal with multiple publishers of a single kind of media, so their sub-pages are ''always'' disambig'd by type of media.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It really shouldn't matter that it's just "Marvel" now; we should only be concerned about the name in effect when the comics were actually being published. Unless we're retconning all instances of "Takara" into "TakaraTomy". [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps not, but I still prefer "Marvel comic" for the sake of consistency to "Dreamwave comic". "Marvel" is descriptive enough that everyone knows what's being talked about. It need not be precisely the name of the company.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

==Annual years and releases==

(I'm raising this here as there isn't a generic article for the annuals and it could affect all of them.)

It's my recollection that the annuals released 1985-1987 were always referenced as being the annual for the year of publication (e.g. issue #65, printed in 1986, has a caption referring to "this year's annual"), but from 1988 onwards the annuals are referred to as the next's years, even though the books themselves don't give specific dates (whereas other Marvel UK annuals for Action Force, Thundercats and Visionaries released in 1988 all explicitly say they're the 1989 annual). This has led to quite a bit of confusion over the years as to which annual is which. [[Transformers Annual 1986#Items of Note]] currently states:

''This was the first annual, published for Christmas 1985. Due to the 1985 print date in the cover it is frequently mistakenly referred to as the 1985 annual, however annuals are always printed at the end of the year before.''

Whilst this is the main practice, is there any evidence it specifically applied to Marvel UK in 1985-1987?

Also most of the annuals state they were released in December, but I recall the announcements and adverts for them tended to be in the summer. Further to this the annual released in 1987 is explicitly followed up in stories printed that autumn (issues 135-138) which would have been awkward if the annual wasn't yet on sale. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:The annuals usually appeared in the shops in August or September, believe it or not, so the 1987 annual appeared before ''Grudge Match'' did, and only a few weeks after ''Fire on High'' (the story to which it concluded). What confuses the issue for a lot of people who were kids at the time is that traditionally they didn't get the annuals until Christmas, whilst the comics seemed to often assume that kids would rush out and get them the second they came out. As for which album came out in which year, going by the copyright date seems to be a fairly accurate way of doing it, as that refers to the year in which it was physically published.--[[User:Werthead|Werthead]] 23:07, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::I did post something on this somewhere but it's gone astray. Looking through the comics from the time, the annuals (including other Marvel UK output) released in 1986 and 1987 are usually explicitly named as that year's annual. The 1988 release, however, is ambiguous with either "this year's" or "the [Transformers] annual". The 1989-1991 annuals were described with the following year's date.
::Within the annuals themselves only the 1991 release identifies itself in the copyright info as being the "1992" annual. It's notable that the 1988 release doesn't give a year when the contemporary Action Force, Thundercats and Visionaries annuals all identify themselves as the 1989 annual.
::The early Marvel UK practice appears to be in contrast to the general UK trend in children's annuals which is to use the following year, since they are targetted at the Christmand market (and it also gives leftover stock a longer shelf-life). [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 11:20, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

==Somes changes to the UK section==

I adjusted the UK section with more accurate information on the comic's format changes, which were more complex than originally stated. Most notably, the comic returned to a fortnightly schedule from issue 309 onwards, which is also when they ditched the three-strip structure and returned to the 'classic' format of one Transformers story and one back-up strip. Since I still have almost the whole run of Transformers UK comics in fairly good condition (issues #24-#332), I might take a look at going through the UK comics and adding in any missing information. On the issue of how 'canon' the UK/USA intermingling of stories are, my assessment is that the combined UK/US run is the 'correct' one, given that the later Furman comics refer to events in the UK continuity (Deathbringer, Xaaron, the UK 'creation myth' which appeared many years before in the US etc), with a nod at the headache-inducing Goldbug-creation issue.--[[User:Werthead|Werthead]] 21:58, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

==(Marvel Comics) vs. (Marvel comic)==
I think this parenthetical should change to "(Marvel comic)". It's always confusing to me when I'm linking here, since we don't say "[[Armada (Dreamwave comic)|(DW Productions)]]" or "[[Armada (Panini comic)|(Panini Comics)]]". - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 23:32, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
:Why not just (Marvel)? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 23:52, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
::Unless you're suggesting a sitewide change, that would still have the inconsistency problem. '''Edit:''' And now that I've actually ''read'' all that discussion I just moved from [[Talk:List of Generation 1 comics|Talk:Generation 1 (comic)]]... it looks like everybody but Walky who put in a vote was agreeing on "(Marvel comic)", with some pretty firm reasoning. So based on that, I'm going to go ahead and move the article. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:13, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Again, why two words when one will do? What other "The Transformers" by Marvel are we distinguishing it from? The same goes for Dreamwave and anyone else. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 01:48, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
:::To clarify... "Dreamwave comic" is meant to distinguish it from "Panini comic" or whatever other ''Armada'' comics exist. But in that context, the "comic" becomes unnecessary and should be dropped completely. The ONLY viable argument for keeping it is that Dreamwave also did the mini-comics that came with the toys, but a (mini-comic) disambig should be enough to distinguish between the two.
:::The purposes of a diambig is to allow the co-existence of similarly-named pages, and to allow the reader to figure out which one they're looking for -- not to serve as a descriptor of the page's contents. I say we kill the "comic", across the board. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 01:56, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
::::I see your logic, and the only counterpoint I can think of is that we ''have'' made concessions in our parentheticals for the sake of consistency within a small group. For instance, "Nightstick (Cyclonus)" used to be "Nightstick (Decepticon)", but part of [[Talk:Nightstick_(Cyclonus)#Move|the argument for moving it]] was that it didn't "fit" with [[Nightstick (Artfire)]] and [[Nightstick (Ricochet)]]. Likewise, the ''Shattered Glass'' pages used to be a hodgepodge of "(Shattered Glass)" and "(Timelines)" parentheticals, but they've since all been moved to the former for group-consistency, despite the valid logic that had made them different as individuals. And in this case, as Derik pointed out above, the disparity between [[The Transformers (cartoon)]] and "The Transformers (Marvel)" is kind of jarring. If we use the media in one, it seems fitting to use it in all. I admit that this is a judgement-call area, and I'm by no means steadfastly defending it. But if forced to choose between one or the other, I prefer keeping the media in. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 02:10, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::You know, we actually could move it to The Transformers (comic), since there's only one comic by that name.
:::::But regardless, it should be either The Transformers (Marvel) or The Transformers (comic). It makes sense just fine to me to first disambiguate by medium, then switch to by company only if a medium has more than one same-named series by more than one company. But using both medium ''and'' company in cases where either by itself would be sufficient is redundant and makes more work for editors.
:::::Alternatively we could think about switching to differentiating always by company if we really want to keep things consistent, since that seems like it would also produce only one word parentheticals most of the time, but I just don't see having both "cartoon" and "Marvel" as a problem really. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 07:23, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::''You know, we actually could move it to The Transformers (comic), since there's only one comic by that name.''
::::::That's so obvious, it never even occurred to me. It should absolutely be "The Transformers (comic)". Anyone disagree?
::::::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 12:57, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:G1_Vol.3_Issue0_1.jpg] --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:11, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::The "Generation One" subtitle pretty handily wipes away that problem! -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 13:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::[[The Transformers (Madman)]]. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:17, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::Ah, thank you. That actually brings up a good point: Nowhere in that article does it actually SAY it's a comic book. It even says "Cartoon continuity" (which is of course correct, but it still obscures the fact). It's not hard to intuit that it's printed material, but we should really be clearer than that. If we kept up the trend of including media-type in the parenthetical, then it wouldn't be a problem. But really, that isn't the parenthetical's job. What we need is maybe a standard addition to the infobox. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 01:31, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:As I'm going through *all* the Marvel comics, trying to clean them up, I'd appreciate it if the Jackass who moved the article could spend a bit of time fixing the millions of links too? Or should we hold off until there's another completely pointless page move? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 08:47, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::You DO realize we have a bot that's made just for fixing exactly this sort of thing, right? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 09:11, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Requests for moves can be put up at [[User:Deceptitran/Requests]]. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 09:18, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Well if I was the one moving pages for no apparent reason, the first thing I'd do is set the bot to fix the links. I can only assume that happened here...
:::...except it seems to have changed only the links to ''The Transformers'' (US) on each page. Most ''The Transformers'' (UK) links still point to [[Generation 1 (Marvel Comics)]] or [[The Transformers (Marvel Comics)]], either with or without the #Marvel UK rider. The whole thing's a clusterfuck right now and I was looking forward to basking in the gentle glow of victory, having uploaded the last of the Marvel UK covers last night. I just don't see the point of creating all the extra work for ourselves because someone is "confused" by the difference between (Marvel Comics) and (Marvel comic). --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 09:28, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== Marvel + IDW? [citation needed] ==

TFWiki.net has been showing me this ad:

http://www.projectwonderful.com/img/uploads/pics/62823-1307500972.gif

The ad says, "Simon Furman wants to continue the original Marvel Comics run of Transformers, starting with #81. IDW says #81 will happen when this petition hits 10,000 signatures."

The ad links to:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?tf81idw

Is IDW actually paying attention to this petition, or is the petition just someone's wishing? or worse, phishing?[[Special:Contributions/70.17.201.68|70.17.201.68]] 21:57, 19 June 2011 (EDT)