Talk:Archie Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Archie Comics was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 15, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

Split?[edit]

Just saw the split idea in recent changes. It's probably a good idea as the current article size exceeds article size guidelines, and as the comment said, the article is about two different things - the company and the "archieverse" (is that a word?). What say you? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a split, but it needs to be done carefully. "Archieverse" was a word I just made up for the occasion; I don't think it's used nearly widely enough to serve as an article title. Also, we should be careful not to leave all the business details, publishing history, etc. out of the Archie-specific article, because that would leave it too in-universe. I think the best way to proceed would be to imagine that the publishing company were called something entirely different from "Archie Comics" (say, MLJ Comics, its former name), and use that as a guide about what to put where -- same as with Superman (also an entire franchise) and DC Comics. A possible naming scheme could be:
  • Archie Comics or Archie (comics): Information about the Archie universe, including main characters, titles, spin-offs and the like, and with a hatnote to:
  • Archie Comics Publications: Information about the publishing company, with prominent mention of its signature line, but also titles entirely unrelated to Archie and Riverdale.
  • Archie Andrews (comics): Information about the title character specifically.
In any moving around of material, we should of course aim to retain attribution and history to the greatest extent possible. Since most of the current Archie Comics content is about the Archie line, rather than the company, I suggest splitting out the latter into its own article, rather than the other way around. Hqb (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
that would be a lot easier - I think also when people search a comic title they're after the characters and stories etc rather than the publisher. I have to put my hands up and say I've never read an Archie comic in my life (2000AD is more my line) so I'll let you use your judgement. "Archieverse", though, deserves to be a real word! Totnesmartin (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hqb's idea, but we're also forgetting one other part of the business:
  • Archie Comics Entertainment: This is the licensing and entertainment arm of Archie Comics. They handle things like movie deals, video games, etc. (see [1] for a brief blurb about it - I can't find the page on their website that mentioned it). Oldiesmann (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Make an article titled Archie franchise. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently on the Comics Project I'm looking at cleaning up the various "List of (Company Name) publications" pages, especially spliting the lists of comics off the company page and merging "List of current (Company Name) publications" into it. If we go through with that process, will it solve the problems your having here? Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Here we are a year later without consensus!
As someone working through GA/SA companies entries long-term, I'm for separate entries for all the imprints - MLJ, Archie/Red Circle etc, with reference to all others across the pages for continuity. 1) Each was designed as a separate identity within the corporate ownership - just as DC/Vertigo/Paradox Press/Milestone etc .. 2) with an outsiders head on, if I was searching for information and wanted to look up the MLJ or Red Circle superheroes, I want info on MLJ, not Archie and his pals. 3) The superhero side of things is complex enough for a separate history.
'Archie comics' to me means info on comics about Archie. 'Archie Comics (publishers)' is something else. And as others say above, there are' other aspects of the company to consider. I'll develop this one in the next few months, as I'm planning to cover it shortly. All thoughts welcome to help sculpt a revision. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm slowly developing a strategy for updating the superhero side of MLJ/Archie/Red Circle as my next project, together with updated hero histories. (see seperate thread below also for a somewhat more rambling version of this) Anyone is welcome to drop into my home page after 21-02-2010 for a look at the basic structure and tasklist I'm proposing (it'll be a bit unstructured before then). Comments there will be most welcome.Archiveangel (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Some work has begun on revising the MLJ/Archie/Red Circle/Impact/DC pages. A workgroup has been suggested - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Revision_of_MLJ.2FArchie.2FRed_Circle.2FImpact.2FDC_pages. While a decision on that is awaited, I have put up my workplan for dealing with the revision - User_talk:Archiveangel#Revision_of_Archie_.2F_MLJ_.2F_Red_Circle_Superhero_characters
comments and contributions invited. Archiveangel (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{Split}} tag as it appears the article is already split. Archie Andrews (comics) deals with the character Archie Andrews and related fictional matters, while Archie Comics deals with the company that publishes the comics. Some mention of the content of the comics is appropriate, and that is done in the Archie_Comics#Archie_Andrews section. The article now needs some work done to tidy it up - perhaps reorganise the sections, reduce the embedded lists, and source the statements. SilkTork *YES! 09:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits[edit]

There used to be (perhaps still is) an adult comic book where the title lettering and characters were drawn in a similar style as Archie comics. It was originally called "Cherry Poptart", but I think, the artist had problems using the name "Poptart" and was then available as "Cherry". Should this be included with the section that includes Harvey Kurtzman?Jtyroler (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Creator of Archie?[edit]

So this article says John Goldwater created Archie, while the Archie Andrews (comics) article says it was Bob Montana. So, which is it? (Actually, I have a pretty good idea, but I'd like to avoid an edit war.)—Chowbok 21:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

While I don't know the answer, this may not be a contradiction. As this is comic books, generally you credit the writer and the artist. Thus Goldwater and Montana may have both been the creators. --Spshu (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Famous Betty Cooper?[edit]

"It starts with "Chick" Showing off for his new next door neighbor, the famous Betty Cooper." I have an issue with this phrasing. Betty may be well-known as a comic strip character, but the way this sentence is worded, it sounds like she's a celebrity within the context of the story. I think the words "the famous" should be removed. Anyone disagree? WaxTadpole (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

History v. Superheroes[edit]

I don't know how you, Tenebrae, considered a restoration of your jumping to a conclusion that isn't there, an edit-war. So, I don't know why you would want me "Go to the talk page rather than edit-war, please" other than to show what a fool you are. There were NO spelling errors that you corrected. You correct tense changes that needed to be made (that is grammar; but failed to carry through out the article), and made personal style edits "The" inside Wikilinks to outside them & changed them to lowercase and changed other capitalization. But you caused your own error that AnomieBOT needed to fix: "(Fixing reference errors and rescuing orphaned refs ("tcj" from rev 553525956)". There isn't any redundancies, history indicates the various superhero attempts. Even if you consider them to be redundancies then you left plenty on your own. The superheroes section would be about its top heroes. Given that there were many attempts and some difference in leading heroes & teams in each of the attempts, the article needs to mention the various attempts. Spshu (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

First, "other than to show what a fool you are" is inexcusable. I've been one of the nicer editors to you, and a look at your talk page will show that you behave antagonistically toward other editors and have been warned about edit-warring. Please do not behave uncivilly with me.
Second, "Archie's Silver Age relauch of its Superheroes was" misspells "superheroes," which is no more a proper noun than "dog" or "cat." Later in that paragraph you spelled it, inconsistently, as "super hero." That's like having "mailman" and "mail man" in the same paragraph. There are one or two other examples I could give, but as you can see it is incorrect to say, "There were NO spelling errors that you corrected."
Next, having the definite article "the" outside Wikilinks is not my "personal style" but Wiki MOS. Character names do not have "The" attached — it is Joker (comics) not "The Joker" — and "The" is only included in a Wikilink if it is a formal part of a proper name, like The Hague or The Beatles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "The" and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#Other cases.
I'll have more examples, but let's get this up for now so you know I'm responding. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This paragraph

With the pre-Silver Age return of superheroes in the late 1950s, Archie Publishing launched its "Archie Adventure Series" line with a new version of the Shield and the Fly and The Jaguar, two new characters.

is redundant with this opening of a paragraph:

Archie's Silver Age relauch of its superheroes under the Archie Adventure Series imprint and then the Mighty Comics imprints began with a new version of the Shield and two new characters the Jaguar and the Fly.

Finally, Markstein saying in passing that Archie created a superhero team like the Avengers is just using the Avengers as an example; it's a leap to accuse Archie of "imitating" the Avengers. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Why, it is inexcusable of you accusing me of want those error back and those were not mention in your edits. Claiming this is an edit war or that I want spell error is uncivil on your part. I have been warned about edit-warring because people will not read sources, do not want my source there, or do not want to discuss any thing. Some will not show up to the talk page if you don't force it the brink because they will otherwise ignore the talk page. You are were also uncivil in claim that my use of imitation means "copied or plagiarized" when that is the TERM in Toonopedia. Marvel & DC use super heroes, so sue me, nor does MS Word show it as a misspelling. Capitalization isn't a spelling issue. You miss correct some editor on Iron Man 3 re: " "Vice President" & "President" not capped unless they precede a person's name", that is incorrect when they refer to government offices. Go look it up. "The" issue is show your edits were not about spelling, but it is The Fly. Once again, there were no spelling errors, just grammar errors or MOS errors. None of which deserves any attack on any one about or declaring that it is an "edit war". You should know that.

Archie's Silver Age relauch of its superheroes under the Archie Adventure Series imprint and then the Mighty Comics imprints began with a new version of the Shield and two new characters the Jaguar and the Fly.

You inserted your own error keeping imprint plural after Mighty Comics. Secondly, if this duplication gives you so much problem then just cut the history section down to “…began with a new version of the Shield and two new characters.”
You also ignore the edit summary that points out:

("Doesn't say Archie staff copied or plagiarized " its says "..broad-stroked imitation of the successful Marvel Comics style.." nor does what was in the WP article, restored sourced history para. Improperly removed)

Of course, you ignore this to declare an “edit-war” when we might have just had some back and for with our edits. Here is the fuller quote from Toonopedia:

… broad-stroked imitation of the successful Marvel Comics style, with writer Jerry Siegel (co-creator of Superman) doing a hokey rendition of Stan Lee. Since they were touching on all the genre's cliches of the time, naturally, within a few months the heroes got together to form their own version of Marvel's Avengers.

You remove sourced information from history that are then reused so as to be expanded upon in the Superheroes section. That like say the Archie section shouldn't use "Archie" because it has been already mentioned
Here is the fuller quote from Toonopedia:

… broad-stroked imitation of the successful Marvel Comics style, with writer Jerry Siegel (co-creator of Superman) doing a hokey rendition of Stan Lee. Since they were touching on all the genre's cliches of the time, naturally, within a few months the heroes got together to form their own version of Marvel's Avengers.

You remove sourced information from history that are then reused so as to be expanded upon in the Superheroes section. I assumed that was the point of that section to expand upon Archie's superhero characters. That like say the Archie section shouldn't use "Archie" because it has been already mentioned.Spshu (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
First, it is almost impossible to read your lengthy post since it is filled with spelling and gramatical errors, as if dashed off by someone in anger and not written with careful consideration. "Miss correct", for instance, is appalling English. I find it remarkable in your reply that you blame others for pointing out when you are edit-warring. When multiple editors are pointing this out, perhaps it is not they who are to blame.
Regarding the capitalization of "president" and "vice president": You make an angry, ill-informed demand to "look it up," and, though as a professional journalist this is something I've known for over 30 years, I did. The AP Stylebook, the standard reference, says:

Common nouns such as “university” and “president” should be capitalized only when used as part of a full name for a person, place or thing: The University at Buffalo is a research institution. The university is among the nation’s top research institutions. President John B. Simpson served as an administrator in California before coming to Buffalo. The president is a native of California and completed his bachelor’s degree there.

Odds and ends: The character's name is not The Fly, per Wikipedia MOS. See Fly (Archie Comics). Capitalizing a word that's not a proper noun is a misspelling. Spelling a word two different ways is inconsistent.
I certainly read the late, great Don Markstein's description. It is POV of you to interpret "to form their own version of Marvel's Avengers" as suggesting Archie was imitating the Avengers. Just because something is like something else doesn't mean it's imitating it. Markstein used the word "imitate" earlier there to refer to the company's overall style, and not specifically this title. Unless there were one-to-one analogs of the Avengers — an archer, a patriotic hero, a giant, an insect-person, an android — it's not an imitation.
I'd be happy to do an RfC and let other editors compare our two versions, if you would like. And I'm sorry to see that after I've tried hard in other articles to collaborate with you and be encouraging of you that you can turn around and be so antagonistic toward me. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Archie Veronica and the Internet[edit]

Perhaps a section called Pop Culture is needed but somehow we need to link the comic to its internet spawn. i.e.:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_(search_engine) Internal links are not to be found. I had to exit Wikipedia and Google search to find these Wikipedia sites.MisterHOP (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)