Talk:List of Punisher titles

New volume

--Telecart 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC) There's a new volume of Punisher War Journal coming out soon, written by Matt Fraction and art by Ariel Olivetti.. So, I'm guessing there'll be more to this article than just a list of old floppie.

Merge?

I think the this entry and Punisher Bibliography can be easily merged to form one really solid entry. Thoughts? (Emperor 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

I think it should be removed. All infos are duplicated in The Punisher War Journal and The Punisher War Zone. And Punisher Bibliography lists all the series, linking there. Anyway this current article is useless now and should be removed Jakilcz 23:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah but if you check both the The Punisher War Zone and The Punisher War Journal they have both been flagged to be merged in here. I don't really object to either really although the "List of..." naming format fits with various others like List of steampunk works, List of magazines of anomalous phenomena, List of current Dark Horse Comics publications, List of current Image Comics publications, List of Star Wars comic books, etc. so if we are not going to merge and instead delete one entry then I'd suggest the information in Punisher Bibliography be moved here. (Emperor 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, You are right, it would be better to move Punisher Bibliography here and remove it. The Punisher War Journal and The Punisher War Zone should be left as they are now. List of The Punisher comics will list series, and The Punisher War Journal etc will list all albums of this series (maybe with descriptions some day). Putting it all on one page would make no sense, such arrangement is optimal. (btw i will try to clean it yet a bit in following days cause there is still some chaos, like with category) But anyway You can remove this article and place bibliography here Jakilcz 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK cool sounds like a plan. I have dropped a note in to Jamdav86 who proposed the other merges so they can have their say in the matter but that solution does help reduce replication/redundancy of information which is the important thing. The War Zomne/Journal entries do need expanding to include details of the series (not just lists of issues) just to flesh things out. (Emperor 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Ok, i started cleaning. I moved V6 to The Punisher v4 and v4 to newly created The Punisher: Purgatory as that's the real name of this series. The Punisher v5 should be removed, there is no useful info there, and in old meaning someone called like that 2 series: Wolverine/Punisher (Marvel Knights) #1-5 and Daredevil vs. The Punisher: Means and Ends (Marvel Knights) #1-6. As they are listed below, marvel knights has own article and it would break numeration The Punisher v5 definitely should be removed not to cause additional chaos. Jakilcz 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - we will need to put a redirect in place - should it point here? (Emperor 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

If we can't remove it at all (as it's absolutely useless and nothing links there) yes, make it point here (or better to "list of..." where we agreed on moving this page to). Jakilcz 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If nothing a redirect will stop someone from trying to make a new entry there. (Emperor 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

The bibliography should be left alone, but the others should be merged into this page. Descriptions of plot should be added too. --Jamdav86 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, what for? List of all punisher issues would create one of wikipedia's biggest article. Adding description for them would be going for a record of wikipedia's biggest article. What is wrong with the current solution that each series has it's page? Jakilcz 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Punisher War Journal v2

can somebody rename the Punisher War Journal to Punisher War Journal v1? because there will be a new war journal volume 2 in relationship to the marvel civil war, by matt fraction frbarba 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

nevermind -Bloodpack 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Punisher (1987 series)

i wonder why the The Punisher Summer Special #1-4 (1991-1994), The Punisher: Back to School Special #1-3 (1992-1994) and The Punisher Holiday Special #1-3 (1993-1995) falls under The Punisher (1987 series)? Arent they special titles which has nothing to do with the ongoing events that took place in the The Punisher (1987 series)? and besides, they have their own publication years †Bloodpack† ^argh! 06:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. They're annuals, and so listed in chronological continuity with the main title(s) just like any other annual. --Tenebrae 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just took a look. The way you've them now makes them seem like regular ongong series rather than annuals. No biggie, but I'd like to open up thoughts on this to the rest of the Punisher editors.--Tenebrae 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

well i guess, but the The Punisher (1987 series) already have its corresponding annual and a regular comic book series have its corresponding annuals, maybe they should be in the special titles, i mean, theyre spinoff titles right? †Bloodpack† ^argh! 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see it that way, as an annual series, like a bimonthly or a quarterly. I'm cool with it. Good working wit'cha!--Tenebrae 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks =] but i can still be wrong, anybody? †Bloodpack† ^argh! 21:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Punisher: Purgatory

This title, The Punisher: Purgatory, is inaccurate, and for the most part incorrect and propose changing this back to The Punisher (Vol. 4) The Punisher (Vol. 4) (Purgatory) and subsequently changing all the other titles to follow with The Punisher (vol. 6) (Max) becoming The Punisher (vol. 7) (Max). The Punisher: Purgatory, in the index it clearly states "Punisher (vol. 2)" and The Punisher (vol. 4) clearly states "Punisher (vol. 3)". This means several things, but mostly to correctly and accurately label The Punisher by volume would mean that The Punisher: Purgatory is The Punisher (Vol. 4), maybe to Marvel's chagrin. They clearly were relabeling volumes inaccurately or as they please. Aside from a few detractors most lists including sequart.com, Grand Comics Database and Comics Price Guide agree with The Punisher: Purgatory being The Punisher (Vol. 4). The only other system that would be appropriate would be to drop the volume labeling system and use a system solely by publication year. Any thoughts? -- Iguardthesheep (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I like how everybody has to put a vol# to the punisher series. I go by the inside cover. There it has the vol# and date. Unlike Born: Has no date on any of its 4 comics i guess they were smoking some good stuff. Or like Punisher: War Journal #1-26 (Nov. 2006 - Feb 2009) There is no vol# in it? You would think this is vol#2 but' No where in all 26 comics is Vol#2. But! i think the vol numbers go with the title. Like Marvel, Marvel Knights, Max each have some crazy vol number of their own? So over all there is no vol#5 or Vol#6 or Vol#7

--Pun Fan (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record the reason for the incorrect volumes in the indica is that there was no "THE" in the title for v3 (the 1995 series) so they counted it as a new volume 1. all later punisher series continue the volume numbering from the 1995 series. So yes, the 1998 series is v4 (mislabeled v2 in the indica) and "welcome back frank" (2000 series) is v5 (mislabeled v3 in the indica). I fixed this yesterday but some idiot changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.131.138 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please try to keep your comments civil, and refrain from making personal attacks. Calling someone an idiot, just because they disagree with you, is no way to form a consensus.

Regarding the volume numbers in this article, I agree that they don't necessarily match up with the indica. However, they ARE related to the corresponding articles for each Punisher series. The 1995 series is referred to as v3, because it was the third series titled "Punisher or "The Punisher". Similarly, the 2000 series was the fourth series with that title, the 2001 series was the fifth, and the first MAX series was the sixth (before it was retitled The Punisher: Frank Castle), even though the MAX titles are not considered to be part of mainstream Marvel continuity. That's also why The Punisher: Purgatory is listed in the limited series section, even though the indica shows v2. If you look at each article, you'll see that these volume numbers were assigned to each series, BEFORE this list was cleaned up by me and a few others. The articles are designed that way to differentiate each series, for people who are not familiar with all of the Punisher titles, and this list is a direct reflection of that. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're simply incorrect. The series you're calling 'Purgatory' was simply titled "Punisher" or "The Punisher". I have the issues here. I am looking at them. Stop spreading misinformation. You're also reverting other unrelated edits of mine without reading them. Here: http://www.comics.org/series/19352/ and here: http://www.comicbookdb.com/title.php?ID=880 are two far more respected sites when it comes to this subject citing the 1998 series without the supposed 'Purgatory' title, making it volume 4. If you continue to revert these edits without citing a reason beyond 'This is the way other articles are', I will have to assume you are no longer acting in good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.4.45 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the issues of the Purgatory series in my possession too, but you cannot base a Wikipedia article on someone's personal comic book collection. The indicia of those comics actually says Vol. 2, but the fact remains that it is a 4-issue limited series! There is NO website that considers it to be an ongoing series, and reflecting it that way on this list is misleading. I am not the only editor who has reverted those edits, so continuing to revert them back without discussing it here first is disruptive editing, and borders on pushing your personal POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how that is AT ALL RELEVANT? The series you have listed as Volume 1 is also a limited series. Whether a comic is a limited or an ongoing series has never and will never have any impact on whether it is considered a 'volume' or not, the only thing required is that it has a title that is the same as the other titles, which is in this case undeniable THE PUNISHER, not THE PUNISHER: PURGATORY. If you wish to keep it out of the ongoing series part of the list, then by all means, do so. That does not, however, change the fact that it is THE PUNISHER (VOL. 4). That is not, and has never been, how that works. You continue to revert these edits maliciously and without regard for other unrelated changes. It is your opinion that you are enforcing, as other comments by other users on this page make absolutely crystal clear. Here, look, this is me compromising. Why don't you try it some time?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.4.45 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this talk page is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the List of The Punisher comics article, and there is no need for anyone to make personal attacks. Your edits were reverted again by another user, because you keep choosing to engage in an edit war, instead of trying to come to a consensus. Per WP:BRD, please try to present your suggestions here in a neutral way, so that we can compromise on the best way to reflect that information in the article. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough of that. After reviewing the history, it seems like you might legitimately have missed the compromise I made before it was reverted. It's now there again. Volumes in comics exist to distinguish between series with the same title. A volume number is determined by locating all the series that have an identical name, and then counting upwards chronologically. I've provided you with two sources that state that the comic you list as 'The Punisher: Purgatory' is in fact 'The Punisher (1998 series)', making it the fourth series to bear the name, making the other volume numbers simply incorrect. I've seen no sources from you stating that it is in fact titled 'The Punisher: Purgatory', which is the only possible legitimate argument for it to remain titled as such. Wikipedia is, as you've stated, not for original research, which very much seems to me to include making up names for comics. I have no interest in how you organize the list, simply the numbers involved. In response to your claim that it was a limited series, I placed both it and Punisher vol. 1 in the Limited Series section, where according to you they belong. That's fine. But it doesn't make it any more Purgatory and any less vol. 4. As I've said repeatedly, I also fixed several other things in the articles not related to the numbering, and that those continue to be changed back very much does make me feel like you are not working in good faith. If you had gone through and simply changed the numbering back, then yes, I would have been more inclined to deal with you politely, but that is not what you did. I expect to see an actual response to my argument next time, instead of Oh No A Bunch Of WP Tags. Think you can manage that, mate? Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, in that I have yet to see where you are trying to compromise. Instead, you continue to just revert articles back to your POV, because you believe that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. That is not helpful or constructive, and borders on claiming ownership. I may have pointed out several Wikipedia pages about disruptive editing and edit warring, but that is a testament to MY good faith effort, to reach a consensus on the talk page. On the other hand, you seem to be taking this personally, and have not shown any desire to follow the Wikipedia policies that I have mentioned. I am open to suggestions on how we can modify the List of The Punisher comics to satisfy everyone, but they need to be made here first. If you continue to maintain that your way is right until proven otherwise, then you will continue to have conflicts on the content of this article and other Punisher articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you simply incapable of reading? Try it again. You are wrong. I have explained why in my previous comment and my original comment. If you have a problem with that, provide reasons why I am wrong. Why have you not done that yet? I have compromised, as outlined in my previous comment, in an attempt to address the source of your objection RE: Limited Series/Ongoing Series. Why have you not addressed that yet? I'm going to continue editing until you actually provide a reason why my edit, that I've provided rationale and sources for, is proven incorrect. You have yet to address that in any way, shape, or form, and you are the one 'reverting articles back to your POV' here. Because, you know, I'm not simply doing the same revert over and over again. That'd be you. Respond to the changes I've made or don't respond at all.Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Format of article

Like most Wikipedia editors, I have strived to make the articles I edit as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, one editor has apparently claimed ownership of this article, because they refuse to accept any edits they do not agree with, even when they correspond to the manner of style for this type of article. This has resulted in an edit war, and I have tried to politely bring this to their attention, but they have resorted to personal attacks, both in their edit summaries, and on their talk page. Please help! Fortdj33 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Punisher Comics List,

When i first started collecting Punisher Comics. I came to this page thinking the information was true. I went to a comic book store thinking i had the right information. Not only did i get into a fight with the store owner but looked like a fool @ the same time. That just about discouraged me from collecting comics all together. So i studied got the entire collection of punisher comics came back to this site with the right information in hand. Now some guy has to come on this site playing the victim. Acting like he knows it all when he him self does not have the entire collection of punisher comics. Has no idea the damage to this page hes making, I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO MAKE THIS PAGE AS SPOT ON AS POSSIBLE. SO NO ONE PERSON HAS TO WALK INTO A COMIC BOOK STORE AND FEEL STUPID DUE TO THE WRONG INFORMATION. To encourage would be collectors. After all no one knew "Marvel Preview #2: Featuring the Punisher (1975)(B&W Magazine) was the 1st appearance of Origin & Family Killed by Mob" Till i myself put it there and i have the copies to prove it. Which by the way the victim still has yet to prove he has any comic book of the punisher.

People i need your help to keep the wrong information getting on our page. Punisher forever. Pun_Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pun Fan (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Information on the list of punisher comics is WRONG! If your looking for the right information Please visit my site The True List Of Punisher ComicsIn Your Eye Ford!--Pun Fan (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Solo miniseries

I think who ever made the "Solo miniseries" was a great idea! I mean back when it was mixed in with the series. Made it seem like i had to buy a lot of comics. But! with the "Solo miniseries" its so much easier on the eyes. Great Job.

Pun_Fan--Pun Fan (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Update to this:Since when did comics start putting Solo miniseries in place of Limited Series??--Pun Fan (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Other versions

I suggest that we come to a consensus, regarding the placement of The Punisher 2099 in this article. Until recently, it was in the Other versions section, but it has been moved to the Primary series section. However, all of the other appearances of Punisher 2099 are still listed separately as "Other versions guest appearances". There is also a Marvel 2099 appearance that was moved to the One Shots section...

Since it is not in Marvel Universe continuity, I think that all the appearances of Punisher 2099 should be in the same section with the Ultimate Spider-Man version, and the Amalgam comics version of The Punisher. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Typically only Earth-616 appearances are considered part of the mainstream continuity, everything else is an "other version".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

True... and the same can be said for Punisher: Noir, The Punisher: Official Movie Adaptation, The Punisher: Movie Special, The Punisher: The End, Marvel Knights 2099: The Punisher, Batman/Punisher: Lake of Fire, The Punisher Meets Archie, Punisher/Batman: Deadly Knights, The Punisher/Painkiller Jane, Witchblade/The Punisher, Bullets And Bracelets, Earth X, Marvel Zombies vs. The Army of Darkness, Wha...Huh?: What If The Punisher Was A Bleeding Heart?, and What if?....

But looking at this page other things pop out that are troubling:

1. Article name - Right now it is appropriate for most of the material up to "Crossovers". At that point it gots out the window. Changing it to "List of comics featuring the Punisher" would cover that.
2. Seperating the "616 continuity" books featuring the Frank Castle version as the title character, or one of them, by "type" of series seems arbitrary at best. Converting to a table, listing by date, and notating "ongoing", "limited series" and "one-shot" seems more practical.
3. The current "type" section heads are problematic. "Primary series" is missleading since some of the limited series and one-shots can be considered as important as the ongoing serise. So can som of the appearances in non-"Punisher" titled books. "Guest appearances" woulf be more appropriate as "Appearances in other books".
4. "Other versions" - How about seperating it as "2099 continuity", "Ultimate universe continuity", and "Other continuities"?

- J Greb (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether we want this article to be a comprehensive list of comics that The Punisher has appeared in, or to separate those comics by different continuities. According to how specific we want to be, the latter would require the primary sections to be "Earth-616 continuity", "Marvel Knights", "Marvel MAX" and so on, with sub-headings of "Prirmary Series", "Mini-series", "One-shots", etc. in each section. With the intention of avoiding an in-universe style for this article, which would be the best way for the average Wikipedia user to differentiate the Punisher comics they are interested in? Fortdj33 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To keep it simple I would only distinguish the mainstream continuity, the rest can be put in the Other Versions section and seperated by type (ongoing seieres, limited series, one-shots, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That continuity split makes a degree of sense, and FWIW MK and MAX has become defaul extensions of the primary continuity. As for splitting out the publication types... I stil think moving to a tabular format, most likely sortable, works better. - J Greb (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I Ask? Does anyone editing this page have the entire Punisher Comic Collection? Cuz you know i have it. Don't have the time right at this moment to go into it (On My Way To Work!) But! If you were like me and went through every book, You would find not one web site has the right information. Not even Marvel Universe continuity. I like you would think they would. So i say this. Please go to your local comic book store open the front cover. Punisher:2099 was a series was sold at the same time as Punisher:War Zone. Punisher:2099 Marvel Knights is a one Shot. P.S F33 Please put back Punisher:Dark Reign: #1-6 (Becomes Punisher: #7-16 Becomes Franken-Castle: #17- ongoing) (Mar. 2009 - ongoing)

Punisher/Dark Reign Annual #1 (Sept. 2009) This is to help a person going into a comic book store. "Please" --Pun Fan (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not have the entire Punisher catalog but while I appreciate your depth of knowledge and interest on the subject, I fail to see how that might impact the organizational layout of this article. We are trying to write articles for the lay person not the aficionado. Perhaps if you better clarified your points I might see your concern.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And I'd echo that. - J Greb (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This talk page is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the List of The Punisher comics article, and while I don't doubt the size of Pun Fan's collection, basing a Wikipedia article on that would border on original research...

In comparison to other articles of this type, such as Bibliography of Avengers titles and List of Spider-Man comics, I don't think that this entire article needs to be revamped. Both of those other articles have sections for "Limited series", "One-shots", "Reprint series" and "Collected editions", which I think should remain here. The question is whether to have the "Primary series" section include all of the ongoing series featuring The Punisher, or just the ones that are currently ongoing, and whether to separate those series by continuity or not. Personally, if we are talking about the format of the entire article, I would have the Graphic Novels be a sub-section of the One-shots, leave the Crossovers section separate, remove the Guest Appearances section entirely, and add a table to the Collected Editions section, including ISBN numbers. Any other thoughts? Fortdj33 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Is this not "The Punisher Comic List"?? Where were you people 4 years ago? "Fortdj33" you talk about me and my POV? Is all this not your POV? You people don't even know what your talking about. So! Punisher #1-16 (Becomes Franken-Castle: #17- ) (Mar. 2009 - ongoing) So what your telling me and the rest of the world is Punisher:Dark Reign: #1-6 Punishers family is brought back to life and he burns them and sends them back to where ever they came from. NEVER HAPPEN? Punisher:Dark Reign: #1-6 (Becomes Punisher: #7-16 Then the punisher is killed/dead by Wolverines son. THAT NEVER HAPPEN? Punisher:Dark Reign: #1-6 (Becomes Punisher: #7-16 Becomes Franken-Castle: #17- ongoing) (Mar. 2009 - ongoing) Punisher becomes a monster and has to take pills in order to keep somewhat normal. THAT TOO NEVER HAPPEN. Since when did a list of comics become a Wikipedia article. Since when did comics start putting Solo miniseries in place of Limited Series?? What are you people talking about? This is a list of comics.--Pun Fan (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortdj33:

One of the concerns I have about splitting the material up by "type of publication" here is lack of bulk. The just isn't the sheer volume of titles that Spider-Man, Batman, or Superman have generated. While I can see the attraction/use of a "Books" section for the graphic novels and trades - the stuff that will actually have an ISBN - what’s left is navigable in a single list or table. And a sortable table would allow a reader the choice of an alphabetized, chronological, or publication type sorting/grouping.

Sourcing is less of an issue since both the GCD and CBdb are reliable for generating lists of publications or character appearances. And there is also Overstreet for confirmation. As for the appearance list... I pointed out to another editor on my talk page that such a list might survive here, but not if it's the primary focus since that amounts to an indiscriminant list. And again, GCD and CBdb are geared for spitting out such a list. Having it here becomes less of an imperative.

Pun Fan:

Something you are going to have to remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a fan site, a repository for "shopping lists", or a place to post "recommended reading" orders.

- J Greb (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion I might pose, is a brief narrative description. As the List is essentially an extension of the Publication Hx, a brief blurb about each book, similar to that found of List of Superman comics. - Sharp962 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

J Greb, I see your point, that The Punisher does not have the volume of titles that Spider-Man or Superman does. But I'm still not convinced that combining everything into one large table is the way to go. My main concern, was differentiating the alternate continuity stuff from the rest of the list. Whether that includes the Marvel Knights and MAX versions of The Punisher, is debatable. But the only section that I think needs to have a table, is the Collected Editions section... Fortdj33 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For the purpose of reaching a concensus I just to state that I agree this information might be better presented with tables.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pun Fan, please don't take this personally. This article is designed to present a list of comics that The Punisher has appeared in, and Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about how such an article should appear. While you are welcome to contribute information, the place for discussing improvements to this article is here on this talk page. Not in your edit summaries, and not on our individual talk pages. Please remain civil and try to help us come to a consensus. You will not get anywhere by claiming ownership of this article, or by making personal attacks... Fortdj33 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You know guy your so right! I forgot i am a graphic artist and i can make web sites. So i got the site name and in a few months the world will be going to my site for the correct punisher information. Thanks to you all for the kick in the pants, It was just what i needed. So do what you want with the list. I took a copy and will add it to my fan site. Remember me and this day. --Pun Fan (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove The Guest Appearances Section Entirely?

Again The POV thing. Does not have the collection and yet these people edits the page. Wants to do away with years of work. Takes out "KEY" Events! Just because some other web site gave them the wrong information. This Is So Wrong! I can't even believe people would trash this page so badly! Its beyond insane. All the work from the writers/The Graphic artist/The Printers/The people over all the years of working on this page! A Comic List! Is boiled down to what people that don't have the collection think it should be. Forget about The Collector/His Passion/Their Hobby, It means nothing.--Pun Fan (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading thru this List, I would recommend the removal of the Guest Appearance section. There is nothing pointing to the notability of ALL of the appearances, and some could easily (and more appropriately) be incorporated into the Other Versions section. -Sharp962 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

Wether or not guest appearances are notable is one issue but the Other Versions section should not be become a repository of miscellaneous information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying the contents of this article to my sandbox, so that I could work on it without offending anybody. Since then, I have:

• consolidated the Primary Series and Other Versions sections
• removed the Guest Appearances section
• moved all limited series into one section
• made crossovers and graphic novels a sub-section of the One-shots, and
• added a table to the Collected editions section

There is still work to be done, such as adding references and ISBN numbers, but please take a look at it here, and let me know what you think! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Per J Greb's (talk) suggestion in the above conversation, can we switch Primary series to Ongoing series? Also switch the entire article to a table format complete with publication dates and number of issues. And is the Parodies sections notable as well?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I followed your suggestions on the Ongoing series and Parodies sections, but I'm still not convinced that everything else should be lumped into one big table. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Really its just a matter of prefrence, but with added benefit of adding notes (e.g. if the ongoing series is finished or cancelled). Also for clarification I didnt mean to suggest "one big table" but every section to its own table.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as another option, here's what I was thinking about with the use of tables. - J Greb (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks really good, if used I would even put it for peer review to establish some precedent for these types of articles. Some quick questions though, again is the parodies section notable and why can't the rest of the collected issues be incorporated into the table? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the advantage to having everything in one sortable table. Because in J Greb's example, sorting by Title doesn't put things in alphabetical order, and sorting by Publication Date doesn't put things in chronological order. Maybe some combination of the two would be better, by having the article still separated into sections, but as TriiipleThreat suggested, every section having its own table. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, based on J Greb's proposal, I updated mine, with the references and ISBN numbers that he added. I also marked everything that fell into either the Marvel Knights or MAX imprint, reorganized the Collected Editions section, and double checked all the ISBN numbers. The article is still separated into sections, but I'm ready to start copying things over, and the table in the Collected Editions section could then be applied to each section, if that is the consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to copy over the collected editions now. I also be happy be with the other sections being converted over to seperate tables or one large sortable table if we can fix the sorting issue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been a couple days, but I finally copied everything over. It might not be perfect, but at least the information has been consolidated for further improvement. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks really good.-Sharp962 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

The Collected Editions section is great. However, the Ongoing Series section is still a mess after all these years. It is both inaccurate and confusing to the point that the layman or collector couldn't make heads or tails of the order. The table that J Greb (talk) created is a great start. As I suggested 2 years ago above, I think dropping the Volume number and simply going with the initial year of publication makes the most sense, with maybe an AKA volume listed to help. I think the most important thing with the list is recognize the publications so the layman can either read about the correct volume/years elsewhere or find the issues if they are interested in them and with the current list neither can be easily achieved. Iguardthesheep (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen such a bunch of... Blanks Mess up something so bad. You guys are a bunch of poof's. I like how you took all my work, Call it your own and decided Hey! I think i'll make the list of punisher Comics done my way "Strive To Do Your Best!". 1. There is no vol.5 or vol.6 or vol.7 or vol.8. Not one of you people even have "A" Punisher Comic and yet you can sit back and trash a page. I hope one day i come a crossed one of you poof's. Strive to make a page better? LMAO! Try checking out my site you might learn something Punishers Zone & List Of Punisher Comics Man What a joke!--Pun Fan (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ISBN Numbers

Just an FYI...An unregistered user reorganized the table for the Collected Editions. In doing so, this person also modified most of the ISBN numbers, which made them incorrect. There are two formats for ISBN numbers: a 10-digit format, and a 13-digit format, with the prefix "978-" and a different set of 10-digits.

I double checked all the ISBN numbers in the table, and all the links now correspond with each entry on the Online Databases page. If anyone plans on adding or editing any more collections, please check the ISBN number to make sure it is correct, before adding it to the table. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Messy info

The info after the Marvel Edge series is very confusing, and there aren't clear statements on wether all series conform mainstream continuity or not. As in the initial series, maybe the spin-offs and correlative comics should appear as a unique family group. Ipsumesse (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for 1 week, to prevent editing by anyone. This is not an endorsement of the current version, but rather a way to get all editors to come here and discuss the changes on the talk page. Once the protection expires, edits can be made again and I strongly suggest that they be with a consensus of editors, as edit warring won't be tolerated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I know that this subject has been discussed here before, but a new consensus needs to be made, regarding the volume numbers of the various Punisher ongoing series. There has been some debate about where to include The Punisher: Purgatory, because the indicia for that comic simply says "The Punisher". I thought this issue had been resolved last year, but now another editor insists that The Punisher: Purgatory be listed as Vol. 4 on this list. This editor also continues to change the volume numbers on other articles about Punisher titles accordingly, to support this POV. I believe that this title belongs with the rest of the limited series, and should not be included as a volume of the other ongoing series. I hope that we can come to a consensus, by deciding once and for all how to indicate the various Punisher titles on Wikipedia, in a way that will satisfy everyone. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there has in fact been no debate. There has been me, explaining why this is correct, and there has been you, mindlessly reverting my edits, including other unrelated fixes, without debate. I continue to change the volume numbers because they continue to be reverted without debate or explanation. If you wish to come to a consensus, I kindly recommend actually discussing it. I've already compromised in that Vol. 4 can certainly go with the limited series rather than the ongoing, but if it does, than Vol. 1 should as well, since it certainly is not an ongoing. However, you have no argument regarding why it should be named a name of your own devising. Wikipedia is, as you've pointed out, not a place for original research. I have provided two sources that indicate it is NOT named 'The Punisher: Purgatory', and simple chronology establishes the numbering from that point. You have provided absolutely no cogent argument as to why you disagree with this fact, and instead continue to revert my edits, even though I addressed the one addressable comment you made on here, beyond 'Stop Doing This You Are Wrong Here Are WP Tags I Am Pretentious Oh Noes'. If you want to talk, try talking, stop coming at this from the assumption that you're right and I'm to be ignored, unless you actually have a genuine counterpoint in my reasoning, in which case present it already. Furthermore, when looking at the previous section, I don't see a consensus. Perhaps the discussion took place elsewhere, but what I see are multiple people making my point, you responding, and them never coming back to argue it further. Perhaps I'm simply unfamiliar with how a consensus occurs in Wikipedia, but I don't see one, I see you stating your opinion and no one challenging it. However, I'm not stating an opinion, because this isn't a matter of opinion. Volume numbers are determined in a set manner, and you are simply ignoring that manner and making up names and numbers out of whole cloth. Other things, such as how to organize the list itself, absolutely are a matter of opinion and I will gladly defer to you there, but this is not. A cogent argument, rather than an opinion with no basis in fact, will be required to address the issue. You know, like the one I've provided and you've ignored? Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be taking this personally, which is preventing us from coming to a consensus on this issue. As I keep pointing out, this talk page is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the List of The Punisher comics article. However, when you direct questions at me, such as "Think you can manage that, mate?", "Are you simply incapable of reading?" and "You know, like the one I've provided and you've ignored?", that goes against WP:CIVIL, and is considered by me to be a personal attack. Believe it or not, this is nothing personal against you, and I am not the only editor who has reverted your edits, on this article, The Punisher: Purgatory, and several other Punisher articles. I am simply the only one who has tried to discuss it with you, and warned you about Wikipedia policy on the talk pages. The reason that other editors and I continue to revert your edits, is because you continue to concentrate on stating "I'm right and your wrong", instead of trying to come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, look, here's you ignoring anything of substance again. Address the argument or don't bother responding. How many times do I have to say this? Perhaps if you had done this ages ago, I wouldn't have to say things like that. It's absolutely boggling my mind how you have still yet to address the issue at hand. Why don't you do that? What's stopping you? You're right, by the way, I am saying "I'm right and you're wrong", and I've explained why. Repeatedly. Unless you have a valid reason why you are right, there is no argument. You have yet to respond to it. Why? Stop whining about comments I've made and actually discuss The Punisher, unless you want me to continue making comments about how you refuse to actually discuss The Punisher. Fucking hell. All you've done is say 'You can't be right because you're saying you're right,' and I do hope you realize how ridiculous that is. I'm beyond tired of this evasive passive-aggressive ridiculousness. If you have an objection to the sources I've cited, to the rationale I've presented, present it! Please! I've been waiting for a very long time! But if you keep picking at every action in this continuous effort to avoid discussing the issue and reaching consensus while misinformation remains in the article, I'm going to start getting annoyed. A personal attack would be calling you a fucking asshole, and that's not something I have done or will do or even want to do. Pointing out your repeated refusal to address my efforts to reach consensus is not a 'personal attack', but a statement of fact. Get over it and either refute my points regarding these articles or acknowledge their legitimacy. Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing that is keeping us from discussing the content of this article instead of edit warring, is your continued hostility and incivility toward other editors, just because you don't agree with them. You continue to direct your comments at me personally, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted your edits. And instead of discussing things here after you were first reverted, you just kept reverting back to your POV. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and this discussion was my attempt to get you to calm down and debate the content on the talk page, instead of taking things personally. You have not shown any desire to follow Wikipedia policies where there is a content dispute, and that is why I took this issue to dispute resolution. I have read your comments at the resolution noticeboard, and if you had presented that information here before edit warring, we may have been able to reach a consensus before now. But since some mediation has become necessary, I will present my argument to your edits there. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. How many times are you going to attack me personally while hiding behind accusing me of doing the same? I'm being hostile to you because you're being hostile to me and refusing to address my arguments. I'm continuing to argue my POV because you've provided absolutely jack all to argue yours. I am directing my comments at you personally because you are the only person with a named account, who has responded to me, etc. I have absolutely no evidence that the IPs that have reverted my edits in the past are not just you, logged out. I had no intention of bringing that up, but your insistence on hiding behind other editors that, at worst, don't exist, or at best, hit the revert button and committed no other action, has forced me to do just that. Do not slander my credulity any further. You have not shown any desire until just recently to do anything remotely like debating content, instead insulting me through ridiculous accusations rather than addressing any of the points I was made. They were all here. Everything I said on the dispute resolution board, save for the images I pulled up in my last comment, was here. You simply didn't read them. [redacted]

EDIT: I looked. The information I presented was in my very first comment, elaborated on in the second, followed by a compromise in the third which was reiterated in the fourth. After that, yeah, I started accusing you of ignoring this information and presenting nothing of substance. Mainly because that's exactly what you were doing. Furthermore, I've now read through all the guidelines, to prevent you from trying to slap me in the face with them again. I recommend you learn what constitutes a personal attack, how to properly respond to 'incivility', and to refrain from baiting and manipulating the civility policy as a weapon in the future, perhaps while taking a look in the mirror in regards to what constitutes disruptive editing and being more friendly towards newcomers. I didn't even know what the fuck a talk page was before you were insulting me for not using one. [redacted]Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

As far as I'm aware, Fortdj33 and I are in agreement regarding how The Punisher (1998 series) should be listed, thanks to dispute resolution. I plan to check back on this page when it is unlocked and, if necessary, make one edit. If Fortdj33 finds a need to make further edits, in regards to heading titles or layout or so forth, or has already made an edit, I won't object to them as long as they're in agreement with the (1998 series) article as of Fortdj33's last revision. Fortdj33, if you have any issue with that, please discuss it here. I'll be civil this time. I've left a similar message on the (1998 series) talk page. Much of my missteps were due to inexperience and lack of knowledge, and for that I apologize. They were also due to me not having the calmest temperament in the world, and for that I suppose I apologize too.

The point is, I think we're good here, but I don't want to misrepresent you so let me know if we're not. I'd also thought that it might make sense to organize the list the way the template is currently organized. Just a thought, though; ignore it if there's a reason why it isn't already that way. Snakebyte42 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Refining Publication portion

i edited this article to write Main ongoing series under 'Main Universe' and alternate titles like MAX under 'MAX' heading and did same for limited and one-shots but all my changes have been reverted can u tell me why ??? because that was a good way to structure to this article. Now i have again refined the article in following form plz let me know what is the problem with this structure of publication view??

I reverted your edits, because the current format was come to by consensus, after a content dispute on this article. While everyone is welcome to contribute to the improvement of this article, please do not just revert it back to your version, without discussing it on the talk page first. And copying the entire article to the talk page, in order to present your POV, make it hard for other editors to understand what you are trying to discuss. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that. I'm quite happy with the article in its present form, and my agreement to the current consensus still stands. Snakebyte42 (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Volumes, confusion and incorrect headings

@Fortdj33: Since you have not replied on your talkpage despite continuing to edit in other places I'm going to assume that maybe you want to discuss this matter here instead. The current version is one which is very inaccurate as far as I can tell since it lists random titles under a "primary" header despite the fact that many of them are limited series and should therefor be listed under that header, the volumes are also rather confusing and may be completly wrong, I tried to remove the Vol. listing since there seems to be no clear cut defention really for what is and is not included under the titles sometimes such as here and add years they were released instead. It's worth noting that I was nowhere near done editing the page when you decided to revert me. You seem to disagree with these changes, what do you want to be done?★Trekker (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As you can see above, the format of this page has been debated before. While not perfect, the current format was made by consensus, and the volume numbers do correspond with how the titles were released chronologically. I understand your reasoning behind moving some of the information to the limited series section, but unfortunately this just makes it more confusing for someone who is not familiar with Punisher titles, because as you admitted yourself, "they don't seem to coincide with the volumes at all". I'm open to suggestions on how we can reach a compromise. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No the volume don not correspond correctly with what is considered the official relaeases, I know, because as I said, I made some of those changes recently (the fact that you haven't addressed this in your reply makes me question if you've kept track of this article). Whatever consensus was reached before should be overruled because this page is straigh up wrong as it is now. I don't agree that it's less confusing for some new who's reading this page and I see no conceivable way that would be believed to be the case, and I won't accepet the way it is now, it's completly unfactual. How can you honestly believe that having a section called "limited series" but not actually include all the limited series is good? What is even "primary series", what inclusion criteria is there?

These are my ways to fix the article:

1. Avoid use of the word Vol. or Volume right now, since we don't even have sources to confirm if something is or is not considered to be what volume of a specific title. (Marvel and online sources also appear a little contradictory on this. For example I find no source which claims that Cloonans series is the 11th volume which the article says not, I made that change, I regret it.) Simply use the year the series came out like the disambiguation does. One of the series named Punisher is considered by many sources to be a volume of The Punisher title, but not the other (no idea why, the sources don't say), I changed that in the article, I regret that.

2. Split them up between limited and ongoing series. Simple, not this half-whatever it it now.★Trekker (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, it would be nice if we could continue this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: So, do you want to add something? I kinda want this solved.★Trekker (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep all the volumes of the primary series in the same section ("The Punisher", "Punisher War Journal" and "Punisher War Zone"), for people who are not as familiar with Punisher titles as you and I. The current format has been the status quo for years, which doesn't mean it can't be improved, but unfortunately I don't see a need to make any drastic changes. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That addresses none of my complaints. It' just another "I think" and "it's been like this a long time now" (which isn't a valid answer as far as I'm conserned). How about the fact that the series ("volumes" as you called them) are not corresponding with the actual titles or volumes relased by marvel. Many collected editions are called The Punisher or Punisher volume X but are not necessarily in correspondence with the volumes as listed here. On Marvel.com for example the series are simply named by year, and many times on other sites the titles simply named Punisher without a The are not counted as volumes of the title (sometimes even one of them is but not the other).★Trekker (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: Do you intend to add anything or can I go ahead and implement my changes again without interuption?★Trekker (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep asking for my input, just so you can dismiss it, because it doesn't agree with yours. I've already stated that I don't think the changes you're proposing need to be made, and given my reasons why. I don't want to fight with you, so maybe we can meet in the middle, if your are willing to compromise. But with all due respect, your responses right now sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So my points seem exactly the name as your then? Sure, I've come with proper motivations for my opinions by citing issues that need to be fixed that you have completely ignored and refused to akwnoledge. Nevermind the fact that you keep failing to even reply to me without me having to remind you over and over, which makes me think you just want me to give up instead of solving the issues that I have raised, which is pretty bad all around of you.

But fine, I'd be willing to leave the volume designations if we can actually find sources that support them being called such things, but the "Primary titles" section needs to go away and have the series accurately moved to the limited series and ongoing sections like any other list. The character is not special or super different from any other character with a list for comics, the primary titles section is just made up with no real criteria beyond what you and the previous editors have come up with randomly, since they and you have failed to comment and present a case for why it should stay beyond the fact that you seem to personally believe that readers will be confused by the series being placed under their correct format. I don't think the majority of readers are too dumb to understand that sometimes a series (or volume) of a title is a limited series and sometimes an ongoing series if we just write so in the article.★Trekker (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your latest response just proves my point. Since we seem to be at an impasse, maybe additional opinions are needed, in order for us to come to a consensus. But I am not inclined to keep re-iterating my opinion, just so you can keep arguing with me about it. And insulting me, doesn't motivate me to reply more often, so please try to remain WP:CIVIL. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn not prove anything for you. Sorry that you felt insulted but I feel pretty insulted by constantly having everything I say being ignored.★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Punisher titles. 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/20080220085119/http://www.thepunisher.nl/index.html to http://www.thepunisher.nl/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary topic splits

Do all of these series really need separate pages? It seems to me that they could be fit in one article without too much trouble. The Avengers (comic book) is an example of this. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What?★Trekker (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)