Talk:Annihilation (comics)

message: Is Quasar really a "fan favorite"? I mean, if that were true he'd still have a series, right? I think he's the favorite of some fans just like every super-hero has some fans. -Kevingarcia 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quasar?

message: These summaries need some serious shortening. As it stands, individual issues are taking as long to summarize as entire miniseries should. Phil Sandifer 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure they could get shortened further, but I've tightened up Silver Surfer and Super Skrull.  TheronJ 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shortened all four, but wouldn't take offense if anyone wants to shorten them still further.  TheronJ 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening

message: I changed "Goothab Omega" to "Godthab Omega" in Ronan's summary. The lettering in the comics looks like "Goothab" at first glance, but when you look closer, you can see that the third letter is actually a "D".
AbeBeer 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Correction

message: Umm, since when is the Negative Zone "outer-space"? I mean, they didn't retcon Annihilus' origins did they? WookMuff 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outer space characters?

message: When you folken get to the page, please comment one way or the other, about the (mostly cosmetic) changes made by me to the page.
1. Individual Issues of "Annihilation" were re-formatted to be easier to find/read by potential viewers (Namely, by boldfacing the individual Issues).
2. All spelling errors that I could find were corrected (I don't yet know how to activate Wiki's version of Spellcheck, if ti has any).
3. Looking at the previous discussion notes, I located any verb tense "errors" that I could locate and corrected them to the present tense: I, too agree with those who believe that the entirety of the article should be written in present tense.
4. Added my own complete summary for Issue #5 (shorten it as well as you can, if you feel the need to).
 
Don't mind constructive criticism...one way or the other.
Thanos777 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a valid turn of phrase (although I can't remember if it's the exact wording used in the comic) - see the Suing for peace article. --Mrph 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping out  

message: Alrightee then...made some changes to the artice per the suggestions of others in this Talk Page.
Feel free to comment as you see fit; also, feel free to shorten the summaries of the individual 'chapters' of this miniseries as you see fit (but please keep in as much relevant information as possible).
Thanos777 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Changes 

message: ...and #6 is out, it might be time to remove the 'future comics' warning on the article (unless it would be better to wait until after the 'Heralds of Galactus' miniseries?) and maybe review what additional changes, if any, still need to be made to the article? I'm wondering if it might be worth putting this forward for the WP:CPR peer review and/or article assessment process - opinions? --Mrph 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now that the dust is settling...

message: As the United Front was disbanded before the end of the series, I'm not sure it actually warrants an article of its own. --Mrph 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: aye, but instead of merging the content of the united front article, why not just redirect it? because this article itself is becoming too long if we are to incorporate its content †Bloodpack† 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree about the length of this article and the need to reduce it - I should have made this clearer in the proposal. Merging and then removing duplicated information should bring the imported text to a manageable size, though - United Front's not a large article anyway. --Mrph 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal - merge 'United Front (comics)' into this article

message: *Merge --Mrph 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: *As it turned out, the United Front was quite short-lived... and appears to leave no lasting contribution to the Marvel Universe beyond the general changes of Annihilation. There's not really enough information to justify an article, from my point of view. --Mrph 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: aye, but instead of merging the content of the united front article, why not just redirect it? because this article itself is becoming too long if we are to incorporate its content †Bloodpack† 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree about the length of this article and the need to reduce it - I should have made this clearer in the proposal. Merging and then removing duplicated information should bring the imported text to a manageable size, though - United Front's not a large article anyway. --Mrph 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Discussion closed with a decision to MERGE --Mrph 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: I've added a (condensed) version of this information back into the article, as I don't think this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue any more. 
* One of the collections has already been published and the others are solicited on Marvel's website and in print publications
* Although Annihilation Conquest hasn't been published, it has been announced - whether or not it ever makes it to print, that's notable. Having said that, I'd be in favour of keeping this section brief as it already has its own article.
* On a similar note, I think adding a mention of the second Super-Skrull limited series - initially announced, but then cancelled before publication - might also be appropriate. Marvel may have changed their plans, but the announcement was made.
Sound reasonable? --Mrph 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just one note, can you please "cite" where all of these collections are announced? †Bloodpack† 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have the ISBN for a book, do we also need a source to cite when stating that it exists? I can dig out the Previews or Marvel.com references if need be, but that doesn't seem to be the general policy, although I could be wrong - after all, we don't cite sources when stating that a particular issue of a comic exists, we just mention it as Daredevil #123 or whatever, don't we? (Wikipedia:ISBN mentions that hoax ISBNs have been abused in the past, but doesn't seem to have a definite answer). Thanks! --Mrph 23:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, as i understand, wikipedia is not a primary source. Using words like "Marvel announced" or "its been announced" deems a citation as to where exactly it was announced. Wont hurt if we cite these statements. I, for one, do not technically understand ISBN stuff. When i clicked this link, i takes me to the ISBN article. I looked for the Annihilation book in it, but all i see is the ISBN policy and stuff. My only point is, for a person like me who does not technically understand ISBNs, I tend to seek for a direct source/reference or footnotes attached in statements like "Marvel announced" or "its been announced". No problem with me, i just want to look for additional reading. Btw, are all these books collected already published? †Bloodpack† 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two hardbacks are out, as is the first issue of the new Nova ongoing series. Annihilation:Conquest is still a little way off, though, and the third hardback isn't due for another couple of months. --Mrph 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequels and spin-offs

message: :Image:CoverANNIHfinalpaint.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) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CoverANNIHfinalpaint.jpg

message: :Image:HeraldsofGalactus.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) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HeraldsofGalactus.jpg

message: I was just passing through - I don't have a ton of knowledge about the source material - and I noticed "under-used" in the first sentence of the article. Such a term implies editorial judgment - the opinion of whoever wrote that particular piece of the article.
Who said the characters are under-used? Maybe the were used just right or too much in this limited run. Upon what external research is that statement based? 
This is by no means a big deal, but I found the sentence jarring. Can it be changed to something a little less suggestive of a personal opinion. Perhaps they are "rarely" used (or some variation of that)?  
66.190.204.51 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "under-used" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Annihilation (comics). 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/20121007102146/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=6479 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=6479
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Marked it checked.  --GrantBnet (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Annihilation (comics). 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  tag to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=52874
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523092410/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/115109319131670.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/115109319131670.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124735/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=52298 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=52298
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) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified