Talk:Action Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / DC Comics / Superman (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highest Grossing Comic[edit]

The information here is incorrect. The highest grossing comic in history is now the issue of Detective Comics in which Batman first appears. Not by much, but it's still a fact. (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not finding anything to that effect. Detective Comics #27 did pass Action Comics #1 very briefly in late-March (sold for $1.075 million) but Action regained the record three days later with $1.5 million. You can read about that here, among other places and this article is dated April 6th which makes it pretty recent. Also, a Google search did not yield any newer information abot Detective Comics topping Action again. If it has in fact surpassed Action again then please add it to the article along with a credible source or post the source here and someone else can add it. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 16:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I stand corrected. Must have missed that on ComicsAlliance. The last thing I remember reading was that detective passed action for good, but a quick site search revealed otherwise. (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Uh, what is the justification of a 'speedy deletion' of the Action Comics page?? Action Comics is a major comic title. I vote NO. --Emb021 15:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the insertion of the speedy-delete "nonsense" tag, not even at the correct position for such tags, was an act of vandalism. I've removed it. *Dan T.* 16:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

hello production smallville tom you sey de mexico. on inglish. si espanish tom i love you production super . en realidad no se tanto ingles solo unas palabras la produccion es exelente los artistas tambien tom cristin sam luisa y la que sale de cloe yo los veo desde mexico en las series que pasan pero creo que ya no las pasan pero veo en wb (canal) pero algunas ya las e visto y vi en español hasta donde calel tiene que salbar al mundo juntando tres piedras y que las junto y que se fue a un lugar raro hasta ahy vi y estado muy pendiente si siguen la serie .adios


wow, the writing in the Action Comics#Superman section is really quite impressively bad. "some guys were sitting around"! I'd clean up but I don't know the subject well enough.


It says: " went on hiatus (...) in 1992 (when the Superman books went on a 3-month hiatus following the "Death of Superman" and "Funeral for a Friend" stories)." I think this is quite wrong, the only thing that changed was the title: it switched from "Superman in..." to "Supergirl in...", but the magazine was the same, following the same numbering. Anyway, I didn't want to change it without being positively sure.

No, I was reading Superman at the time and there was certainly a break. Duggy 1138 (talk)
I'll correct and source this information, since (as reflected in the CBG Standard Catalog of Comic Books) the gaps were between #583 (Sep '86) and #584 (Jan '87) for the Byrne-break; but 1993 for the later one. ntnon (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Long count[edit]

Anybody know the print numbers for Action #1? I know Cpn Marvel was running about 1 million a month; how did Supes match up? Perry White 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Old, but interesting, question. Obviously Whiz Comics swiftly started to outsell Action/Superman (hence the lawsuit), but I imagine Whiz was printed highly to capitalise on sales; Action #1 was likely not printed nearly as highly - but since returns were the norm, it could have been a considerable number.
The earliest concrete numbers I can easily find are for #260 (Jan 1960), where the statement of circulation alleged sales of 458,000. And that being post-Wertham implies considerably higher earlier numbers. I'm sure Overstreet often/sometimes gives likely survivability rates, and possibly as a percentage of printed copies, so maybe it can be estimated from those? ntnon (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted Collections[edit]

It may be worth noting that the collected works typically only include the Superman stories, excluding stories of other characters. I only have one or two such collections so if someone has a more complete opportunity to review the works the text would be best updated.--RedKnight 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Uniting Super-titles...[edit]

Is this section needed? It seems a whole lot of information just about the current creative line-up. A similar thing was done in the 90s so it's not unique. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article. 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) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Where does the value of $1,380,000 come from? Has there been a recent sale? 2008 Overstreet Guide gives $675,000 for a Near Mint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a Near Mint copy just went for US$1 million. (Newsweenies didn't mention quality, & insisted on calling it "first Superman comic"...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


The publication history should read in chronological order but it doesn't flow - things are mentioned all over the place and Greg Rucka joining is mentioned in three different places. It looks like it needs the information shifted around - I don't have the time to spare at the moment but thought I'd better flag it while I think of it. (Emperor (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Merge proposal[edit]

The article Action Comics 1 seems repetitive and only serves to make learning about Action Comics more time-consuming and difficult. There is nothing there that can't be subsumed — and more importantly, put into a larger context — here at Action Comics. Is it really helpful to have separate articles for Fantastic Four #1, Amazing Fantasy #15, and about a thousand other important comics? Or does it make more sense to discuss them within the context of the larger series? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. The Action Comics article could use a ton of work, at which point, the #1 article would need to be split out. Instead of waiting, I say keep the #1 article, which is pretty good. Hopefully someday someone will work on this article. NO DEADLINE and all that. As far as articles on some other seminal issues, I would support that as well. I don't know about a thousand of them, but FF1 and AF1 definitely deserve articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge with an eye to keeping the quality and information for the single issue index. If, and it's a pretty big if, the result here is large enough to be considered splittable, so be it. We shouldn't be splitting, or creating from scratch, content forks if the main can support the inclusion of the information. If the inclusion forces the main to be re-examined and cleaned up, so much the better.
    And as for single issues deserving articles... no, not off the hop and not at the expense of the main articles, Or by the excuse that cleaning up the main is too much work. - J Greb (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is clearly enough material here to warrant a separate article and this comic is certainly a notable issue. If it was to be merged into Action Comics, the content from this would unduly dominate the content at that article. To answer your question, "Is it really helpful to have separate articles for... important comics?" I think it is in the case of the handful of comics that will have enough citations to form content for independent articles—a liberal guess would be roughly two dozen such issues could warrant an article, with most of the candidates being obvious (Detective Comics #27, Amazing Fantasy #15, etc.). —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 22:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that 99% of the time single issues do not merit a separate article, Action Comics 1 is a unique case. With the introduction of Superman, this issue launched the superhero genre as we know it today, and impacted the entire comic book industry, eventually leading to all of its associated industries (superhero cartoons, superhero video games, etc.) The cultural significance of the comic book in general and the iconic status of Superman in particular cannot be overstated. And it all started with Action Comics #1. Unlike every other issue, this one merits a separate article. - ABCxyz (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Treating the relaunch as a new publication[edit]

It's clear now that the original version of Action Comics will come to an end after approximately 907 issues, as the "relaunch" is a new publication. For this reason, I recommend a new article called "Action Comics (2011)" be created for the new title, and this article be revised to past tense and treat the 1938-2011 publication as a discontinued title. Although this hasn't happened yet - there are still at least 2 more issues of Action to be published - it's never too early to develop a game plan. (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the need unless the intent is to 1) index each and every comic book series (something Wikipedia isn't) or 2) create a place to do plot dumping (something else Wikipedia isn't).
The infobox can, an routinely does, handle multiple volumes of a title. "Relaunch" can easily be changed to "Volume 2" after 52-month. Collected editions and awards the 2nd volume generates can be noted with the standard "Action Comics vol 2, #". A fork at this point seems very, very, very premature.
- J Greb (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is also the chance the "relaunch" will last only a short time. I could certainly see DC adding the volume 1 number back to the issues (similar to the current run of Adventure Comics. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
That's my nagging suspicion as well, that Action, Detective, and Batman will each ship with a "variant" that contues the current number as was done with Adventure. But it's still only a guess and again something that can fit into this article if it does happen. - J Greb (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Didio states here that they will not. (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Marketing lies for profit." - J Greb (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Nothing but recentism. It is still the same comic book, only its numbering has changed. Maddox (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You clearly lack understanding of what recentism is. DC has made clear in multiple news articles and forum postings that Action Comics #1 and Detective Comics #1 will be completely new publications. There is no recentism involved. And there is every indication that the final "original numbered" issues coming out in August will be promoted as final issues. (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • First, please read the link Maddox provided. Second, it is paying more attention to the "current" that is appropriate to start a new article for Action Comics volume 2. - J Greb (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, why would we create a new article on something we know nothing about? Whether Action Comics Volume 2 lasts 15 issues or 900 at this time we know nothing about it except for the writer and artists and what the cover looks like. Until Volume 2 looks like it's going to be the new norm all info about it should remain here. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 15:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
As my original post said, I'm talking about setting up a game plan, not doing it immediately. However all publicity I'm seeing is treating the new Action and Detective titles (and the others) as de facto new publications with no connection to the original versions (other than characters). Even if in 2-3 years they revert, the damage is done. It'll just be a case of "Action Comics (2011 series)" having its numbering advanced by 900; it won't be a revival of the 1938-2011 title and the "uninterrupted publishing schedule" Action maintained (a few short hiatuses of a couple months notwithstanding) since before Hitler invaded Poland will have been broken. (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe at this time only a sub-heading Volume Two (2011-present) or Second Volume (2011-present) will be needed as until something actually happens in the series the paragraph will read "After 73 years, DC Comics relaunched Action Comics will a new volume and number 1 showcasing Superman five years ago when he was just starting out after the death of his parents. Written by Grant Morrison and drawn by Rags Morales, this Superman doesn't wear his traditional costume but a blue shirt, jeans and a small red cape." Insert relevant citations where needed. Also, look at Superman (comic book) which talks about both the 1939-present series and the 1987-2006 series. Keeping the volumes together also reduces the need for an "other uses" tag reading "For the current run see Action Comics (volume two, series two, 2011-present, whatever). Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 03:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not being an American, I seriously can not understand what makes this relaunch so important. From my perspective, the hiatus in 1986 looks far more extraordinary. This division between "Vol.1" and "Vol.2" looks irrelevant. The magazine was relaunched in september. The numbering changed. Why give this more importance then it already has? The character changes are more relevant. Maddox (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It has to do with the historical significance and the fact Action Comics and Detective Comics represent the longevity of the print medium and the comic book medium. The content of the magazine is what is irrelevant. Past regimes at DC saw the importance of keeping, for example, Detective Comics intact; see DC Implosion for the decision made back in 1978 to keep it alive when the company nearly collapsed. They didn't start it back at square 1. Not being an American you probably don't understand because to my knowledge with the possible exception of the original Astro Boy in Japan there is no equivalent in any other country that produces comic books. Anyway, my suggestion is to wait until the next edition of the Overstreet Price Guide and see how it handles it. It is considered the index of record for determining comic book series and runs. If it lists Action and Detective as being the same title following the reboot, let's got with that. If Overstreet lists Action Comics and Detective Comics from the fall of 2011 as separate titles, then they need to be separated out; it's easy. Also, while Wikipedia tends to discount websites as reputable sources, the Grand Comics Database website, the most extensive comic book indexing resource on the Net, is treating them as different series as well. (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The fact is, is that based on how American media signifies things, they are different runs. 1938 to 2011 is volume 1 and 2011 to present is volume 2. Just like Superman 1939-1986 and 2006-2011 is volume 1 and Superman 1987-2006 is volume 2 and Superman 2011 to present is volume 3. As someone who has collected comics for 2/3 of my life, this is how price guides will separate them when they are included. Just because there wasn't a month or six months or a year separating them doesn't mean they are the same run. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 00:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


I don't understand why the adding of the various writers and artists who have worked on Action Comics through the years is such a contentious act. User:Fma12 is adding legitimate writers and artists who worked on the series and some--Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Curt Swan, John Byrne, Roger Stern and Stuart Immonen worked on the series during important times in the series existence. It's not point of view if those people actually worked on the series. Also, if you are going to apply these rules to Action Comics you also need to apply them to Detective Comics, Uncanny X-Men and The Amazing Spider-Man which all have extensive creator lists. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page about Action Comics, not about Detective Comics or any other titles, so we should talk about this page, about this title. If any of these page were at least GA, they could at least serve as a parameter, but it's no surprise they aren't even B-class.
For starters, point me where in this article any of these professionals are mentioned as noteworthy.
Maddox (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sick of seing how the user Maddox deletes my edits time after time, without giving a consistent explanation about his procedures and points of view. This is "Action Comics" page, right, but this is a "comics" page, like Detective Comics, Uncanny X-Men and The Amazing Spider-Man are. And they include a list of creators and besides I have not seen other editors deleting those lists while claiming "this is POV" as Maddox does repeatedly.
If the comic book title template include the fields "writers", "pencillers" and "inkers"... why should not they be filled? From my opinion, those mentions are a recognition to the work of those creative teams, who have significantly contributed to the series.
Should those authors be necessarily mentioned on the body of the article to be included on the infobox? See some examples: Curt Swan drew Superman for over 30 years, Murphy Anderson was an acclaimed artist and gained relevance for the fans due to his work inking Swan, John Byrne not only wrote and drew the character but he totally re-defined the concept of Superman in the 80s. Dick Dillin drew the most back-up stories during the 70s. Wayne Boring worked on Action for over 25 years... Do Maddox think that those creatives do not deserve recognition for his work?
All this I'm talking about is not "POV"; This can be found on every Action Comics issue published from 1938 or can also be checked in "Action Comics" at the Grand Comics Database webpage.
The explanations given for Maddox to justify his deletions are really lack of consistency. And I will keep contributing and remarking the work of such creative teams, as a tribute to their works, as seen on other comics pages on Wikipedia who include that kind of information. Fma12 (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Fam12, that is precisely the argument for removing the parameters.
At this point the article conveys zero information about the importance or notability of the writers, artists, editors, anyone that worked on the series. Adding sourced information on that would support including some information into the infobox.
If this were a singular series - a single story or the product of a singular creator or creative team, it also might be justifiable to include them in the 'box. But then it is much more likely that the information would also be in the article.
Cramming in random information does not help the article. Even if you can point to an index site, it does not help this article. It impels that all those people provided work on the entire run of the publication. Notating it in the 'box will make the 'box way longer than the actual article.
- J Greb (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that "And I will keep contributing and remarking the work of such creative teams, as a tribute to their works" can be construed as an intent to edit disruptively. - J Greb (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The infobox also has a fields to include only the creative team currently working on the page, something to be considered when we realized the names included should be kept to a minimal. You can add a bunch, and what will stop people froma adding some more? This won't stop until basically all the writers and artists who worked in the tile are mentioned? Why mention Byrne and not Johns, Moore, Rucka, Stern or even Austen? There is no limit.
I would suggest, if you need to see these field filled, that you fill then with the current team, but others editors oppose even that. I don't "think that those creatives do not deserve recognition for his work"...
Au contraire, I know they deserve. Action Comics is in the process of becoming a FA at wikipedia in portuguese and really extensive research about this title was done there. And it was precisely by not mentioning the 70s and 80s stories in the pre-crisis period, nor Immonen's work in the title during the 90s or Spencer's recent work with Jimmy Olsen and Chloe Sullivan that the portuguese version reached only GA status.
I couldn't care less about Detective Comics, and I couldn't care more about this page, so I really would like to see these writers and artists being mentioned in the article. Maddox (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Action Comics overtook Detective Comics in the 1970s[edit]

In the "Hiatus, name changes, publication changes, and special numbering" section which details the Action Comics Weekly period of 1988-1989, this line appears:

"Due to going weekly for this period, Action Comics was able to surpass the issue total of Detective Comics, despite that title being older by a year."

The problem is that Action Comics actually surpassed Detective Comics at the end of 1976 (early 1977 cover dates)! Check out these links to the Grand Comics Database. Action Comics #466 (December 1976) Detective Comics #466 (December 1976) Action Comics #467 (January 1977) Detective Comics #467 (January-February 1977) Action Comics #468 (February 1977) Detective Comics #468 (March-April 1977) Action Comics #469 (March 1977) Detective Comics #469 (May 1977) Action Comics #500 (October 1979) Detective Comics #500 (March 1981)

Detective Comics was published bimonthly during the 1970s and that is what enabled Action Comics to catch up to it and eventually surpass it in numbering. The Action Comics Weekly period increased the gap but it did not create it. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Top Importance?[edit]

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)