Talk:Miracleman (character)

message: I presume Marvelman's existence continued (despite the blatant plagiarism of Captain Marvel) because Fawcett couldn't afford to sue a British comic book producer; after all, they had been forced to cancel their main cash cow (Captain Marvel) in the 1950s after DC sued them.  Can anyone confirm this?  If so, then it can be entered into the Wikipedia entry for Marvelman.  Modemac
Forgot to mention that point. AFAIK, Miller was completely above-board and did his reprints with Fawcett's permission.  His supply of Captain Marvel dried up because Fawcett had been forced to stop publishing it. Why DC didn't sue Miller, I don't know, but the Captain Marvel/Superman comparison for the original suit seems a bit iffy to me anyway, and a derivative hero of Captain Marvel would be even iffier. Someone was distributing UK B&W reprints of Superman around then, it might even have been Miller. If so, why sue someone who's paying you royalties? US corporate lawyers may think differently, of course... 
(and thanks for that afternote, too. That there's a chance, that someday Gaiman might finish it, is good news) -- Malcolm Farmer
:The position was somewhat simpler - US copyright law didn't apply in the UK. Miller's problem was a drying up of material (though repeating earlier stuff was an option - interesting as to why he didn't take that option). Archiveangel (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fawcett not filing suit?

message: I have moved this article from Marvelman to Miracleman in order to conform with Wikipedia's most common name policy. —Lowellian (talk) 22:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
I have to be honest... I'm a little offended. This character originated in the UK and so should be titled under its original name. ---- Zestos 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree - it was only changed because of legal wranglings and the character was Marvelman for an awful long time, with the switch only really happening for the last handful of issues and the reprints. (Emperor (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow, way to assume good faith there buddy. Looks like there's plenty of arrogance to go around, no matter what country someone's from76.226.103.166 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: If we're going to have this much detail about the ownership dispute (I think it could be condensed a little, but it is pretty infamous in the comics world), we really need some references for this article. This book would probably be a good place to start, but I don't have a copy. ←Hob 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources needed! 

message: Could anyone expand further as to what exactly McFarlane is doing with this in Spawn?Logan1138 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Man Of Miracles"

message: Some aspects of the article need some fine-tuning.  For one thing, it says that when Leach left the strip and was replaced by Alan Davis, Leach's third ownership transferred to Davis.  Why is this?  Since when does ownership of a property transfer to the person who happens to be working on it?  Is this a British thing, or something?  Also, Dez Skinn's name is introduced into the article without any mention of who he is or what his relationship is to the character.  Even some brief mention or description of him and his place in the situation would be apt.
The rights were transferred to Davis because thats what happened. There was no specific reason other than that. Skinn has his own entry which goes in detail, as does Warrior, but a small description will be added.Logan1138 14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed

message: The Miracleman project consisted of giving someone a second body; when a telepathic signal was given the two bodies switched place in space and the mind was transferred as well. (This is akin to a tesseract but it's unknown if Alan Moore was aware of the concept at the time.)
No, it's not.  There's no relation whatsoever.  Yes, having one single, 4-dimensional body, could produce a similar effect, but the comic makes it abundantly clear that's not the case; and even if it was, the body would not be a tesseract, as it's not cubic.
So this comparison is entirely gratuitous, "let's sound cool and smart a bit", complete with an entirely gratuitous link to the tesseract article.  Please let's remove it.--LaloMartins 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what tesseract?  (gratuitous link) 

message: I removed this article from the good nominations page because it is not sufficiently referenced. joturner 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow; I just realized I was the one who nominated this article for good article status. So, I suppose this is just a retraction of that nomination; I didn't realize how insufficiently referenced this was. joturner 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was the one who nominated it. I'll see what I can do about the references. Iron Ghost 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Good Article Status

message: Would it maybe be a good idea to have a seperate article going into more depth as to the plot of the actual comics, especially as they're out of print? While it's understandable given the book's ligititious legiti troubled history, it does sadly follow the trend of most MM sources in that it barely mentions why anyone would want the rights in the first place... Just a thought :)
As an aside, the comment "by the few who possess a copy of the book" in reference to MM #15 sounds a little... dramatic. While it's hardly common and does fetch a pretty large amount of money, it wasn't, IIRC, avaliable in notably smaller quantities than the rest of the Olympus issues, it's just considered a key issue... Personally, I find the rule of thumb that you can hammer "Miracleman #15" into ebay 95% of the time and find a copy for sale as a good indicator that it's not ludicrously rare. Beyond that, it just seems like a pointless little phrase - why would those who haven't read it acclaim Totleben's artwork anyway, whether 5 or 5 million copies were knocking about? ;)
Tom Prankerd 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More plot details? 

message: :Image:Man of miracles.gif 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 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Man of miracles.gif

message: :Image:Hellspawn13.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hellspawn13.jpg

message: :Image:Miraclemanr23.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Miraclemanr23.jpg

message: :Image:Warriorsummerspecial.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Warriorsummerspecial.jpg

message: :Image:Marvelmanspecial.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Marvelmanspecial.jpg

message: As written, the character-rights ownership seems to be missing some details. Here's how I understand it from reading the article (assuming Dez Skinn really had the rights in the first place):
# At the outset, Skinn has 30%, Moore 30%, Leach 30%, and Quality 10%.
# Davis comes aboard. The article says "Moore, Skinn and Leach transferred part of their ownership of the character to Davis — with Skinn claiming 10% and Moore, Davis and Leach, 30% each". But this is contradictory; if those were the final percentages, the only way that would have happened was if Skinn gave 20% of his share to Davis, Quality gave all of theirs, and Moore and Leach did nothing. Is this in fact what happened? 
# The article then says "In 1985 Eclipse Comics bought the rights from Skinn". But Skinn only owned 10% at that time, right? So now we're at 30% for Moore, Davis, and Leach, and 10% for Eclipse.
# "Davis... gave his rights to Leach". So now it's 60% Leach, 30% Moore, 10% Eclipse.
# "Moore gave his 30% share to... Neil Gaiman... [who] divided them between himself and artist Mark Buckingham". So 60% Leach, 15% Gaiman, 15% Buckingham, and 10% Eclipse.
# Eclipse goes bankrupt, and McFarlane gets their properties.
So according to this, even granting McFarlane's claims, he only owns 10% of Marvelman/Miracleman, Gaiman owns 15%, and Gary Leach has 60%. Somehow I doubt this is the case. Can somebody more familiar with this clear up the article?—Chowbok ☠ 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be tidy - it's much more complex, and much easier that that. It seems Anglo owned the rights all the time, through Gower Studios he owned his stuff, rather than the 'work for hire' argument currently being implemented in the Kirby/Marvel argument Archiveangel (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights timeline 

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: "...an unknown anime-inspired hero, a younger Moran with platinum-light blonde hair as Kaworu Nagisa and an unbuttoned blue jacket."  Not even sure that qualifies as a partial sentence, but it makes no sense even with the inclusion of the rest of the sentence.  Additionally, there is no point in referencing Neon Genesis Evangelion and the young boy (Nagisa) so arbitrarily.
I have edited.214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gratuitous and Grammatically Atrocious

message: Why the tone and cleanup tags? Just read through and - though quite detailed in places - there's no glaring problem. --Air (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a few examples ...
* There's very few citations and refs for a subject that has literally hundreds of them
* everything's 'in-universe' - the character biography is mixed in with the publication history (and it jumps about and in places is contradictory)
* very skewed towards the Moore/Gaiman years - bearing in mind the Anglo years were among the biggest selling comics of the day, Marvelman was (and still is) the longest running British superhero, and there were over 740 issues and heaven alone knows how many stories (over 2000?)
* considerable number of unsupported statements (not exactly OR, but not backed up with reliable evidence)
* much use of words such as 'notorious' 'highly disturbing' 'unsettling' etc
* some glaring inaccuracies: # Warrior's legal troubles led to the character being licensed to an American publisher - no  (Eclipse) # Issues 1-6 reprinted all the Warrior content - no. Later on this is correctly contradicted, though not fully  # Issue 25 was completed (apart from colouring) but due to the collapse of Eclipse it has never seen light. - followed 2 sentences later by A few pages of issue #25 can be read at various sites online, and in George Khoury's book Kimota! The Miracleman Companion.  #lots of minor inaccuracies - even the publication details in the box miss L. Miller and Son.
* as much time is spent on the legal/ownership wranglings as on the rest, which while 'important' skews the balance again
* strange wording in places - #23 and #24 saw the resurrection of Young Miracleman and would describe the beginnings of trouble in Miracleman's idyllic world - would describe? they did.
* analysis of storylines, characterisations and concepts mixed into the history
* the end of the Anglo years - is there any citation for the availability of U.S. comics causing the demise? With under a year between this availability and Marvelman going reprint, I'd like to be sure this isn't OR.
* lots of departures from the style guidance.
Overall, I get the impression that this could do with a complete makeover, perhaps with the legal issues at least as a separate linked page, and definitely with a clearly defined publication history, fictional character biography and an extended section on the Anglo years. It's clearly an important milestone on several levels, which I'm not sure is reflected here. 
Apologies if this rubs anyone up the wrong way, just answering the question. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: What AA said - the article is a real mess (failing on all sorts of fronts), especially considering how important the character is and how useful this article could be in explaining complex publication and ownership issues. The upcoming rewrite should help it live up to its potential (no pressure AA). (Emperor (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's that then - inevitable I'd talk myself into a corner :-) still the stuff's still around from the Anglo work. Any ideas on whether to hive off the last 25 years of legal issues into a sub-page? Archiveangel (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone and Cleanup tags? 

message: This article is currently undergoing a major revision to address the issues raised above and include a 'publication history' section, a 'fictional character biography' section and a fuller bibliography. Unless there are major objections, the legal wranglings and ownership issues will form a new linked article, following the example of the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications article. Rationale being that it is one of the, if not the, most complicated copyright/trademark/ownership stories in the history of comics.
Any comments, views and suggestions always welcome, here or on my talk page. Thanks Archiveangel (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that seems sensible as the page is 40kb already and I assume you are going to be expanding and clarifying all sorts of areas so a split would soon seem a good idea and that seems the best place for it. The key will be keeping both articles focused so you aren't replicating too much information (if only so that when others come to drop in something they know where it goes and there isn't "mission creep" so the two articles start looking awfully similar, as someone will then come along and suggest a merge and... we'll just keep going round in circles. (Emperor (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, it should give the space back needed for other things. (repeated here for others - I'll be putting up a temp version on my area for a few days first, and notifying, so it can be checked for direction etc and improvement before publishing. CheersArchiveangel (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Great news, thanks for the detailed answer above. That's a pretty good draft of a To Do list : ) Inevitably if you know what needs fixed, the burden's on you to fix it ; ) But happy to help where I can. --Air (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  REVISION NOTICE - APRIL 2010 

message: Thinking about the images for the revision, would it be best-dressed with? 
* an Anglo-era image in the text box,
* a Warrior cover in that section (#7 or #16 - #7 is the best known, so perhaps #16 - I'd reserve the Marvelman Special cover for the legal page)
* one of the two Eclipse covers (my preference is for the Windsor-Smith #23)
* and perhaps the wonderful I'm back image Marvel and everyone else has been using for the new Marvel bit
I've no idea of the why's and wherefore's of this - but if nobody else tackles it, I will - could just do with advice on how to proceed: legal use/how to etc. although I guess I can fathom out how to for myself. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for revision 

message: I could do with some advice.
The re-write of Marvelman is proving to be something of a beast. I've been essentially swamped with material, and while the original article, which was missing many key elements (see the talk page for a rough list) ran to 40k, currently the rewrite is now pushing 50k even though I've hived off the complex legal issues to a separate linked page (as per the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications legal wrangling - the Marvelman issues are probably the most complex and far-reaching comics legal case since). The new version comprehensively covers Publication history - Fictional character history - Unpublished material - Other versions - Awards - Bibliography and creator, style, philosophy quotes as can be strongly cited (there's some 80+ footnotes/citations). My suspicion is that by end it'll be touching 60k. After 3 re-shapings and savage textual cuts, I can't see how to cut it further without removing key stuff, which will mean remodelling. Bearing in mind the characters historical 'keyness':
* is 60+k acceptable? Or should I be looking at hiving off such as the bibliography (although that's not particularly long)
* is there some other way of slicing it (I can't find any precedents)
* or is it just about being brutal?
Graphics are a problem - there's 4 at the moment which are tilted towards Eclipse publications. Bearing in mind the four distinct publication phases, I'd suggest that the box image should be a classic Anglo period one, with one of the Eclipse images replaced by a second-phase Warrior one, and either dropping the fourth (anthology reprint) one or replacing it with the 'I'm back' one used for the Marvel revival announcement. Suggestions?
I had hoped to put a copy up on my area by now, but it's taking longer than I thought. If it would help, the working version can be slapped up tonight and I'll give the link here (it's pretty solid in most areas but has notes and unpolished bits in some sections). I'm not deadlining this, it'll get finished when it's finished (and I'm having fun doing it), but I'd prefer to publish in a good condition, rather than rough it all out later and cause others' work. Views from the void muchly welcome, the sooner the better Archiveangel (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Best plan is to post on your userspace for comments. Cheers and well done for spending the time : ) --Air (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite advice 

message: Does anyone recall the Flip and Flop cartoons that rounded out the original comics?  Something about these would be nice, even if it's only a couple of lines.  I remember them fondly; but I was just a kid at the time, and now I can't even remember who wrote them. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Flip and Flop? 

message: I remember an Eclipse editor named Catharine Yronwode （I think） discussing the controversial graphic birth scene in some detail。 If anyone can find her account of the controversy online it would be a good citation。 I would google it but I can't as I'm in China ：（  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pignut (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably this? . Links to this interesting contemporary response: . Clconway (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial graphic birth scene citation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Marvelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120223063728/http://www.omelete.com.br/quadrinhos/miracleman-o-plagio-que-deu-certo/ to http://www.omelete.com.br/quadrinhos/miracleman-o-plagio-que-deu-certo/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Marvelman. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://omelete.uol.com.br/quadrinhos/miracleman-o-plagio-que-deu-certo/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 23:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marvelman. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905013308/http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman_article_117413.html to http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman_article_117413.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "Fictional character biography" section is currently only a synopsis of the Alan Moore years. The earlier (Mick Anglo) and later (Neil Gaiman) biographies are not represented there, and it's confusing how it starts. The Neil Gaiman biography appears under the History section, but it's out of place there because it continues the Alan Moore part of the synopsis. (I would fix it, but I have not read any of the comic.) --Dylan Thurston (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched biography