Talk:Limited series (comics)

message: those (6 to 9 l.s. issues) are just and plane limited series, genius.--T for Trouble-maker 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I would suggest that, especially given the controversy (and frankly, the impossible nature of resolving) around mini and maxiseries scope, these terms should be incorporated into this page.  We can easily then list all these series, creating one repository for them all. I look forward to comments. Dyslexic agnostic 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, having metaseries and metaseries (comics) makes entirely no sense.  I have cleaned up metaseries (comics) while the merger discussion happens, but clearly we need to consolidate these various headings, which are never used consistently, into the easist place to find them, namely here, with redirects for the relevant terms and proper disambiguation in metaseries and miniseries. Dyslexic agnostic 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Is there a good reason why this page is at Limited series (comics) rather than Limited series, when the latter redirects here? Hiding  talk 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None, except for the fact that all the wikis have to be redirected if we change it. Dyslexic agnostic 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All what wikis? Hiding  talk 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: That concept need several sources, I didn't find any comics authority using the term. It's indeed ok with manga, but in comics it's not that common. Remember that wikipedians aren't aloud to coin terms here, some good external authority has to coin it first (in this case it'd had to be quoted from wizard or some magazine or something published with dan diddio, avi arad or some big shot using the word. Other way the section would have to be erased.--T for Trouble-maker 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant Morrison's seven soldiers has been referred to as a meta series, although it's probably the only one just now.  Hiding  talk 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason why the term metaseries hasn't been used apart from with Seven Soldiers is cos there haven't been any other metaseries. Also much of your description of what a tie-in series is needs a rewrite tbh. rst20xx 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metawhaaaaat?? 

message: I have renamed the list of maxiseries to this more all-encompassing and less ambiguous term.  Hope all are in favour. Dyslexic agnostic 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for any confusion.  I always move talk pages with the article.  Some of the page moves by T-Man he did by creating new pages and shifting the contents.  I won't be making further moves, as we have only two pages now, limited series (comics) and list of limited series. Dyslexic agnostic 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of limited series]]

message: As per Hiding's request: limited series (comics) was created by me here on 12:25, 15 January 2006, using data from the then-sites maxiseries and miniseries.  At this time I added comic info to metaseries, dablinked miniseries to limited series (comics), and did the same for 
metaseries.  I didn't do anything to maxiseries that I can find, as T-Man's moves make it hard to find anything.  i didn't dlete maxiseries or miniseries at that time. Dyslexic agnostic 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of [[limited series (comics)]]

message: Of interest to the whole "maxi-series"/"limited series debate: I see in a 1988 Dc publication (Sword of the Atom Special #3) that the nine-issue Flash Gordon limited series was advertised as a "maxi-series". Dyslexic agnostic 06:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maxi-series

message: I'm still wondering why no one has made any input regarding where the term limited series came from. I know Marvel Comics was the first to make frequent use of it. Does anyone have any opinion regarding this? --Destron Commander 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term limited series 

message: It may be that DC is looking at the number of issues as large enough to warrant not using a variation of "limited series" to describe the title. For the most part these terms have been reserved for titles that run from between 2 and 12 issues, regardless of the publication period.
If the publisher is not claiming that the title is a "limited series", then it most likely should not be included here.
However, if, for this article, the criteria is that the publisher or creative team set a definitive end issue, then 52 would not be the longest running limited series. That designation would go to Dave Sim's Cerebus, which he decided, relatively early in its run, that it would end with issue 300.
::::::J Greb 09:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think 52 or the other weekly books should be included in this article. If having a pre-arranged end point is the criteria for a limited series, then 100 Bullets (100 issues) and Y: The Last Man (60 issues) should get mentioned first. Same for Ex Machina (comics), which ran for 50 issues with 4 specials. And where would something like Sandman (Vertigo) or DMZ (comics) fall, when it had a planned ending without a specified issue number? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An observation with ''52'' 

message: This article needs a thorough copyediting please.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyedit tag added 

message: The article claims that 52, a year-long 52-issue series, is the "longest running limited series." Then the article goes on to list Cerebus as a "limited series" of 300 issues. Either Cerebus needs to be taken off the list, or the "longest limited series" claim needs to be removed from 52. I am going to be bold and do the former.  300 issues is 25 years for a monthly comic. This stretches the very meaning of "limited series" to the point of utter absurdity. 
24.47.154.230 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONTRADICTION 

message: The image :File:Cerebus112and113.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Cerebus112and113.jpg

message: I noticed that this article has the category "Television terminology", and indeed it is in use as such (e.g. this article uses it in the section about Dracula (TV series)), but the content of the page itself seems to imply that it only refers to a run of comic books. Perhaps the article should be revised to better reflect this. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a separate article (miniseries) about its use in television. Both articles should probably be renamed to include the medium in the title for clarity. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the "Television terminology" category.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use as a Television Term 

message: After some reflection, I've decided I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the "Lengths" section. This section is still completely unsourced, but more crucially, even if every statement was sourced it would still be inappropriate. The content of the section consists solely of broad WP:OR generalizations and examples which serve no apparent purpose other than to name-drop the editors' favorite series. At best, this section needs to be started over from scratch. More realistically, we have no use for such a section to begin with, since the number of issues in limited series is a trivial subject on which there is probably nothing we can say that wouldn't be a broad OR generalization.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengths