From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Watchmen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 23, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 9, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
October 25, 2008 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article


Does anyone have problems with these suggestions?

  • Combine Publication and Publication History
  • Combine Reception and Legacy (or, alternatively, spin off Reception)
  • Move prequels and adaptations into Media

If we combine Reception and Legacy, the section won't be so short. We could do this as a temporary measure, until the Reception section can be filled out with more content, if people dislike the idea of a permanent mash-up. I think that the Legacy section is a bit heavy on modern reviews, which could quite reasonably be moved into Reception. Also, if we combined the two sections, it wouldn't be much of a problem any more. If we keep Reception as its own section, it might spur people to do some more research, filling it out. I have some more ideas, but I'll get around to them later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Following Curly Turkey's suggestion, I will volunteer to de-template the update links, and I agree to his suggestions RE

*"Publication and reception" was to be split into "Publication history" and "Reception", and someone (not me) was going to fix them.

*"Publication history" would come first, though some of us were unhappy about it.

I'm in accord with NinjaRobotPirate about combining Reception and Legacy into Reception for now until Reception can be further populated; I've also volunteered to look for contemporaneous 1980s reviews.
We wouldn't really need "Related media" for the prequels and spinoffs, since they're already covered in PH.
Does this sound right? It appears as if each side is attempting compromise , and I certainly know CT as an editor of good faith. I also appreciate NRP adding a perspective and offering suggestions. Are we close here? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Given that the sequels are separate works created decades after the original work by an unrelated creative team without the blessing of one of the original creators, "Publication history" seems to me like a strange place to put them. "Related media" would aslo be wrong, as they're in the same medium. I think "Legacy" or something similar would be be better. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Publication History seems a bit strained, but I could still see putting it there. Watchmen has, for better or worse, become a franchise, despite the wishes of Alan Moore. In fact, I think we've even got a few characteristically acerbic comments with respect to that. From the POV of "Watchmen as franchise", one could make a credible argument toward putting the prequel series in Publication History, as much as Alan Moore purists may dislike it. As an Alan Moore purist, I admit that it does bother me somewhat, but I'm willing to overlook this, in favor of WP:NPOV. As far as Legacy goes, I think that's a good suggestion—perhaps better than my own, though I still retain an affinity for Related Media.
As far as other ideas I had, I don't remember any more. I ate dinner, watched a movie, went to sleep, and now I think the article looks just fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with Alan Moore's wishes; it's about semantics. The sequels/prequels are not this book, so they are not a part of this book's publishing history. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A one- or two-paragraph "Spinoffs" section might work; I've seen that used elsewhere. Or perhaps simply a "See also" link to the Before Watchmen article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Much as my indignation would love to see it relegated to the "See also" section, I think a pargraph or two are in order. I don't know if it needs to be in a section by itself. I think the section as it it is fine, as it deals primarily with the prequels' relation to the original. Renaming it "Spinoffs" might be best—who knows what DC will do with it next? Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I could certainly go for renaming the section "Spinoffs," which is more expansive that "Prequel projects" (and how that's different from "Prequels" I'll never know!) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well . . . it's been a week. Have we decided anything? What I think we're doing is leaving PH in place, adding a Spinoffs section further down, doing some minor rewriting on Release and reception to make them two sections (the latter containing contemporaneous reviews, which I said I'd look for) and removing PH redundancies from Release. As well, we're reverting the templated footnotes to non-templated. Is this correct? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that's what we've agreed on, yes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, CT. I'll get started tomorrow. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Working on the to-be-revamped Reception section[edit]

Starting to collect contemporaneous reviews. I guess I could put these in a sandbox, but placing them here until I can incorporate them in the article shows I'm working on it, and allows other editors to pitch in. This is from "Drawing on the DARK SIDE" by Joe Queenan, The New York Times, April 30, 1989

THE VINDICTIVE, SADISTIC TONE OF comics of the 1980's is best exemplified by the work of Alan Moore, author of Watchmen, which appeared in 1986. This is a well-written and elegantly drawn series that opens with a retired superhero named The Comedian being tossed out of his high-rise apartment building.

The Comedian doesn't elicit much sympathy, however, for we learn in flashbacks that he had previously gunned down his pregnant Vietnamese girlfriend and attemped to rape a superheroine. Watchmen also features a boy who laughs when he finds out that his mother committed suicide by drinking Drano, a heroine forced into early retirement because of lesbianism, and a child hacked to pieces and fed to German shepherds. This is all in the service of a sophisticated literary technique called foreshadowing that prepares the reader for the riveting climax, in which half of New York City's population gets annihilated.

--Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm ordering a copy of Amazing Heroes #97, from 1986. Watchmen is on the cover. There might be a review or relevant coverage inside. I've also found this July 1987 Comics Journal panel discussion with Moore, Gibbons and Neil Gaiman, which might contain useful contemporaneous information: (and an archive link.) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you access to them, but it seems unlikely that CBG wouldn't have had coverage---probably lots. Extremely likely that Comics Scene did, too. Also, Rolling Stone and Spin seem likely candidates for reviews, if there's a library near you that has a collection. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I've just ordered Comics Scene vol. 3 #12! Couldn't pinpoint the date, but there's a Moore interview and possibly other Watchmen coverage.
CBG is a good idea. I'm in NY, and I've no idea if the NY Public Library system would have that, but I'm sure it'll have RS and Spin. What have I gotten myself into!  : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Amazing Herroes #97 (June 15, 1986) has finally arrived. It's a Watchmen preview story rather than a review — useful overall but not for the Reception section.
Entertainment Weekly, though it has an extensive online database, was founded in 1990, so no contemporaneous reviews there. Nearest I could find is "Video Reviews: Superhero Films" A look at 'Judge Dredd,' 'Tank Girl,' and other comic book films By Frank Lovece | Nov 22, 1996, which only mentions it in passing: "But power corrupts, and authority can become fascism. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' mid-'80s DC Comics miniseries Watchmen made that point like an eloquent earthquake...."
If anyone with more time can try Rolling Stone and Spin in a library, I'd be glad to incorporate whatever relevant review material you can find. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I've gone ahead reverted the cite templates back to the old style, as was indicated I should do. I was going to do everything all at once, but I can see the Reception section is going to take longer than I thought. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled across an announcement on page 41 of The Comics Journal #100, cover-dated July 1985. It seems to me to suggest that Watchmen was a big deal long before the first issue hit the stands. It calls Moore and Gibbons "Two of DC Comics' biggest Brtish stars" and notes that this wasn't the pair's first collaboration, as they'd done the Superman Annual for Summer 1985 together. It says the book was scheduled to debut in "early 1986". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm really surprised at how little TCJ covered Watchmen at the time. They have tons on Dark Knight, but all I've found on Watchmen in 1986–88 is:
  • A one-paragraph review by R. Fiore in #114 (page 43)
  • A news item on the French translation in #119 (page 17)
  • Moore on the Watchmen merchandising dispute, and his jump into self-publishing, in #121 (page 20)
  • A news item titled "Watchmen Sweeps the Harveys" in #123 (page 13)
There's also a three-part "Moore on writing for comics" in issues #119—121, and a Moore interview by Neil Gaiman in #116. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That is surprising. The Amazing Heroes #97 preview treats the upcoming series as a big deal. The Comics Scene with some Watchmen coverage was mailed to me on April 29 and got "missent" while in the Post Office's hands, according to the USPS, but it's expected to arrive today.
I don't have these particular issues of TCJ, I don't think. Sometimes particular pages happen to be archived at — it's kind of catch as catch can — But very cool to have some issues and page numbers now so I can nose around! Excellent! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The Comics Scene 1987 special has arrived, and it's mostly Moore talking about a projected movie for which producer Joel Silver held the rights. I'm sure there's useable material there (and in the AH above), but little that could go in a Reception section. Regardless, I'll have some time over the weekend, I think, to make at least a preliminary stab at it. I'll also look through my own back issues and see what I can find. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've been through my extensive but not-extensive-enough collection of fanzines and prozines (as we called that next-step-up back then), looking for reviews of both Watchmen and (as Curly and I have talked about) Sabre. There are holes in my runs for the specific months where reviews would appear. I'm going to go to eBay and see if I can fill those gaps (which reminds me, Ive just received an original 1968 His Name Is... Savage, which I am over the moon about). In the meantime, I suppose I can use the Comics Scene and Amazing Heroes I bought and see if there's anything usable and citable. Thanks for your patience. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm really surprised at how hard it is to find contemporary info on Watchmen; I've been trying Google News archives and Questia and turning up nothing. My impression was that Watchmen was hyped to the hilt, and that, like Maus, it was written up a lot in the mainstream media. I wouldn't trust my memory further than I could throw it, but still... Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I remember when I worked for places that had access to Lexis/Nexis. Love to give that a whirl now! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi, Curley. I had some time today (Saturday), so I worked on some of the things discussed on this page outside the contemporaneous review we're still looking for. A lot of it is just nip/tuck and c/e, although I trimmed the PH and merged duplicate content, added a sole Gibbons' quote along with the multiple Moore quotes in the section about the political content, and toned down two instances of gushing. I used the Amazing Heroes #97 I bought. Take a look, see what you think. With regards as usual, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they're improvements. I'd like to see something done about "frequently considered by several critics and reviewers as comics' greatest series and graphic novel.", which is a bit clumsy and vague. It may also help to show what it's up against—"greatest series" is certianly broad, and while "greatest graphic novel" is less so (fewer GNs out there), there are certainly some major contenders (Maus is probably the biggest one).
A couple of other things I'd like to see in the article
  • Something about the WatchmenDark KnightMaus Trinity—one of the most frequent memes I read in histories of the graphic novel.
  • Something about the aftermath of the wave of hype surrounding the above-mentioned Trinity—how the foretold Age of Graphic Novels didn't immediately appear in their wake, and how it took until the 21st century for graphic novels to become a Thing. I've read more than one source talking abou this—of course, there were great graphic novel happening the whole time, but somehow they kept passing under the public's radar.
  • This one's a tall order: I'd like to see more context, especially historical context. More than most comics articles, Watchemn will likely be read by a large number of people from outside the comics subculture. Something along the lines of a (very brief!) history of comic books and superheroes, and what the status quo was at the time of Watchmen's release. What's obvious to insiders is opaque to the rest of teh world—meaning, "the rest of the world" outside the comics subculture, but also "the rest of the world" literally: non-Americans, and quite likely large numbers of non-native speakers. If this were about X-Force, it'd be a wasted effort; but this is Watchmen, which has sold millions, has been heavily merchandised, has been adapted to movies and vidoe games, and is frequently people's first exposure to comics, as a "gatewy GN", as it were. A lot of what is taken for granted in the article will be gibberish to most people.
    • Further, it's been nearly thirty years now since Watchmen appeared, and the socio-economic landscape has changed quite a bit since then. There are graphic novel sections in every bookstore today. Back then, comic books/GNs were rarely seen outside the Direct market ghetto, and were looked down on by the majority of the public—a huge part of Watchmen's impact had to do with breaking the old stereotype that comics were for basement-dwelling juvenile illiterates. Its quality has arguably played an small part in its success; I think the article really needs to explain this well.
I suppose the last one's maybe not all "Reception", but it's related in a way, I suppose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Really, really good points. I agree about phrase being clunky and awkward — the trick will be saying what we mean in way that doesn't sound like over-the-top hype. We need to work on that wording.
Context about those three high-profile graphic novels seems a good idea. I'm thinking, though, it might be a sentence of two here with a link to discussion of this at [{Graphic novel]]. ('Course, we'd have to add that discussion there, but it's sensible and, to avoid OR synthesis, certainly something discussed by a third-party author / historian /critic.)
The historical context may actually be pretty easy — Moore, Gibbons and article author Frank Plowright talk about that at fair length in the Amazing Heroes story.
Onward ... though probably not tonight. I work Sundays.... --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
What are you, a priest?!
Sources on the Trinity are pretty easy to find—no OR necessary. It's a pretty persistent meme.
As for wording, how about something like: "Critics and reviewers frequently place Watchmen at or near the top of lists best graphic novels", followed by some prominent examples (e.g. Time). It might be interesting to throw in its placing on TCJ's list, which placed it at #91—*behind* From Hell (#41) and V for Vendetta (#83) (I personally agree with Watchmen's relatively low overall placement, but I can't fathom it placing behind V4V myself).
Oh, I stumbled across a write-up in Spin from 1988. And here's a criticism of the ending, though it doesn't really spell out what the writer thought was wrong. R. C. Harvey didn't like the ending, either. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Journalist, not priest. But LOL, by the way....!
"Critics and reviewers frequently place Watchmen at or near the top of lists of best graphic novels" — perfect. I should have phrased it that way myself. Yes to examples in the article body; examples might be too much for the lead. Given the prominence of The Comics Journal in this area, I agree its ranking does need to be included for context. (On a personal note: The ending of the movie did make more sense to me.)
R.C. Harvey is certainly someone who knows his stuff. And I'll definitely take a look at the Spin stuff tonight. As for the trilogy theme, since you're better versed in that than I, do you think you might have time to write a detailed paragraph on that for Graphic novel and a shorter version here?
Some good work happening! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
*groan* I was hoping to leave everything to you so I wouldn't have to fiddle with the refs Face-smile.svg (I'm a bit addicted to {{sfn}}s). I'll see if I can whip something up, and I'll post it here and let you massage it into the text as you see fit.
Personally, I had no problem with the ending. I only brought it up because I have heard a lot of people were disappointed with it. I don't know what they were really expecting—something more "realistic"? Once you introduce Doctor Manhattan as a central character, I don't think "realistic" is a realistic expectation.
I can't bring myself to watch the movie. From Hell was a traumatic experience. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I did find the movie From Hell to be turgid and uninvolving. And it was Citizen Kane compared to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No need to tell fibs. There's no possible way a movie could be botched more badly than From Hell. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Are you sure of that? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...well, at least you have some idea of what you're getting into there. From Hell, I think, could've made for a really good movie—it didn't set out to "show what the comics medium could do" the way Watchmen did. The disappointment wasn't just in the movie not living up to expectations (I expected Hollywood to screw up), but in how bad a movie it was from pretty much any angle you looked at it—never mind its gratuitous infidelity to either the book or historical facts ("infidelity" is too weak a term—they ditched the entire story). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WatchmenDark KnightMaus[edit]

Okay, here's a first draft of the 1986 Trinity meme, and the graphic novel vacuum that followed it. The refs will have to be cleaned up some way, possibly by bundling—I haven't bothered here because I haven't looked closely enough at the article's ref style to know what would be appropriate. I put Dark Knight first even though Maus (both serialization and collection) appeared before DK did; I don't know if that's inappropriate. Feel free to fiddle with it. A pre-history will come later, probably not soon.

Along with Frank Miller's series The Dark Knight Returns and the first volume of Art Spiegelman's Maus, Watchmen was one of 1986's "big three" breakthrough works that drew greater exposure for comics aimed at mature audiences. These three books attracted unexpected attention from the mainstream media and brought comics greater cultural legitimacy in North America.[1][2][3][4][5] Expectations of a graphic novel boom were initially disappointed;[6][7][8] while these three books opened shelf space for comics in mainstream bookstores,[9][10][8] it took another generation until the number of graphic novels was sufficient to fill those shelves.[10][8]

  1. ^ Grišakova, Marina; Ryan, Marie-Laure. Intermediality and Storytelling. Walter de Gruyter; 2010. ISBN 978-3-11-023773-3. p. 50.
  2. ^ Jesse Karp. Graphic Novels in Your School Library. American Library Association; 2011. ISBN 978-0-8389-1089-4. p. 49.
  3. ^ Ndalianis, Angel. Contemporary Comic Book Superhero. Taylor & Francis; 2009 [cited 2013]. ISBN 978-0-415-99176-6. p. 221.
  4. ^ Kaplan, Arie. From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and Comic Books. Jewish Publication Society; 2010. ISBN 978-0-8276-1043-9. p. 172.
  5. ^ Darowski, Joseph. The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times. McFarland; 2012 [cited 22 May 2013]. ISBN 978-0-7864-6308-4. p. 118.
  6. ^ Sabin, Roger. Adult comics: an introduction. Taylor & Francis; 1993. ISBN 978-0-415-04419-6. p. 110–115.
  7. ^ Hatfield, Charles. Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature. University Press of Mississippi; 2005. ISBN 978-1-60473-587-1. p. 29–30.
  8. ^ a b c Petersen, Robert S.. Comics, Manga, and Graphic Novels: A History of Graphic Narratives. ABC-CLIO; 2011. ISBN 978-0-313-36330-6. p. 223.
  9. ^ Wolk, Douglas. Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean. Da Capo Press; 2008. ISBN 978-0-7867-2157-3. p. 44.
  10. ^ a b Kaplan, Arie. Masters of the comic book universe revealed!. Chicago Review Press; 2006. ISBN 978-1-55652-633-6. pp. 117–118
This is great. I might say "breakthrough trilogy" rather than " 'big three' breakthrough," and I'd use the full title The Dark Knight Returns, but otherwise: really, really nice writing. Crisp, concise, touches all the major points in an organic way.
You're right about the overlarge number of references, though I have to say, those are great references. I know how you feel; I'd hate to lose them, even though five to support one point seems a bit excessive. Maybe max them out at three?
Kudos, my man.
I haven't been on Wikipedia much except for a few moments here and there over the past few days — I've got minor surgery next week and have been trying to get ahead on work. In the next day or two I'll help contribute to the historical-context points of which we've spoken. It's terrific to be working with such a good, scholarly writer as you. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also — and I've put in a long day of writing and editing so I'm a bit burned out a the moment — we might want to add a phrase to the effect of graphic novels having appeared sporadically in bookstores prior to this. (I'm thinking Lee/Kirby's Silver Surfer, Jules Feiffer's Tantrum and a few others, though we don't need to mention them here by name). We also might want to add a phrase along the lines of "...bookstores, in addition to comics shops, where most were sold until then." I know I should probably integrate these phrases myself rather than ask you, but I ask your indulgence of seriously tired older gent....! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I tweaked the DK bit, but I left "big three"—its a direct quote from at least one of the sources (I know it's used in more, I just can't remember how many of them I used), and "trilogy" implies they are somehow related. I'll figure out what to do with the refs some other time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Is watchmen not influential enough that the 6 main characters can't all have a page?[edit]

Rorschach has his own page; I'm not denying he is the main character. However the side characters in one piece and naruto have pages. I understand those series are much longer so those characters have more time but still. Doctor Manhattan has just as much time spent on him; I haven't counted specifically but I'm pretty sure each of the six main characters has about the same amount of time spent on them. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That would depend on if there is enough source material to warrant it, and how significant the characters are outside of the work. We wouldn't make pages for each of the six characters simply because Watchmen was very popular—we would do it as a solution the article was getting too long. The anime/manga otaku crew are famous in Wikipedia for creating armies of fluff pages, so I wouldn't follow their example. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What power does Doctor Manhattan actually have? He isn't a DC comics cosmic identity but he is basically omnipotent. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Congrats censoredScribe -- He is effectively a cosmic entity now. George Leung (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Limited series[edit]

I find it odd that the first sentence doesnt actually identify it as a comic book series, only a limited series. i am a comic fan, and ive never thought that phrase is so ubiquitous that a non-fan would recognize it as comics related. ive changed it, but since this is a featured article, and i dont edit comics that much, i am stating my reasoning here as well as the edit summary. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with defining the story by its initial publishing format in the first place. After all, we call A Tale of Two Cities a novel even though it originally appeared weekly for seven months in All the Year Round, and we call Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band an album rather than an LP. Can we please define this work by its content and not by its ultimately irrelevant publishing history? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with User:Curly Turkey. The very second sentence made clear "It was serialized as a limited series." It was specifically written to be a single story, a comics novel. That's not the same as Marvel Comics Secret Wars 12-issue miniseries. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Just anticipating a response to this: it was conceived as a self-contained series rather than a "graphic novel" per se, but I don't think that bit of trivia is definitional. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler in the opening paragraph[edit]

Is it really necessary to spoil the novel's main plot twist right in the opening paragraph? I think the paragraph works just fine with "The story focuses on the personal development and struggles of the protagonists as an investigation into the murder of a government sponsored superhero pulls them out of retirement", which is the basic premise of the story anyway. There's no need to reveal Ozymandias plan right in the beginning of the article. Maybe we could add something about a nuclear conflict taking place in the background. But revealing what the plan is about IS a spoiler, and a big one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First Wikipedia does not consider what information is spoiler-ish or not; we aim to be comprehensive coverage of a topic and that includes all facets of it. Second, a major impact of this story is the result of Ozymandias' plan that makes this a critically-acclaimed work, and its nearly impossible to talk comprehensively without mentioning any facet of this plan. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Surely there's some kind of expriation date on spoiler material anyway, right? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
C'mon, that information is not "spoilerish". It's the main twist of the entire plot! It's something that's only revealed at the tail end of the graphic novel (in the final two issues!), and the fact that the reader doesn't see it coming is part of the appeal of the story, which initially seems like a mere whodunit. I'm not asking for you guys to remove any mention of it in the article, you can and should talk about it at lenght in further sections. I'm just asking you to consider removing this particular sentence from the opening paragraph, which is often read by people who just want to have a basic idea of what the plot is about, without having the twists and turns of the story spoiled. Surely there is a compromise between veterans and new readers of the work we can arrive at? I'm asking as someone who deeply loves this novel and would like people to experience it the way the author intended. I fully understand the need to discuss this twist in the article, I just think it shouldn't be revealed in the opening paragraph. Georgepedrosa (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) protect its readers from "spoilers", but I do agree that "and eventually leads them to confront a plot that would stave off nuclear war by killing millions of people" is totally unnecessary for the purposes of the lead, and nothing would be harmed by its removal (it would still be in the body). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see replacing: "eventually leads them to confront a plot that would stave off nuclear war by killing millions of people" with "eventually leads them to confront a plot that would stave off nuclear war with profound consequences.", but I don't think we should eliminate the mention of the basic idea of Ozy's plot here given that the coldness of the plot is a critical part of why this is so well recieved (The fact you don't see this coming even with all the hints dropped in place is why the work is highly praised). --MASEM (t) 06:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the replacement is an improvement, and honestly I don't see how it's necessary to the scope of the lead. The book is praised for an awful lot more reasons than the climax—all the subplots, etc. I think it's fat that could easily be trimmed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, as I said, the plot twist is still discussed in other sections of the article, but it could easily be removed from the lead, which is often read by people who just want to have a basic idea of the work in question. You don't see plot twists being revealed in the lead of The Sixth Sense page, or Soylent Green, or The Prestige, or basically any other work with a plot twist, why should this page be different? It's unecessary and hurtful to people who haven't experienced the work yet. Georgepedrosa (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Alan Moore removed from the article by someone[edit]

I came to the article to check up on some things, and noticed that some comedian has apparently removed all mention (except one) of Alan Moore, and replaced his name in all instances with Grant Morrison. I don't know if there's been some other changes as well. Vakie81 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have reverted back to the version prior to the changes. The editor made so many huge changes that it's hard to assess the validity of them - so it's back to square one instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Obscenity controversies category[edit]

Why is this in the category with absolutely no mention on the page, anywhere? In fact, nearly all critical and public reception mentioned is overwhelmingly positive.

I don't disagree that it could have had an obscenity controversy (though I don't specifically recall one... it was mostly correctly marketed as an unrated/adult standalone series, from what I've read), just that if there was one it's sure missing entirely from the article c: (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to review or add any material at the moment, but here are a few links I found that talk about the book being banned or challenged: [1] [2] [3] Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Titan Books?[edit]

The image caption says the image on the right is from a 1995 edition published by Titan Books, but nothing else in the article indicates it was ever published by anyone but DC. A quick google search turns up lots of books from Titan about Watchmen, but I don't see anything about Titan actually publishing Watchmen. Can anyone shed some light on this? Argento Surfer (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

According to This Goodreads page, various companies have published Watchmen, including Titan Books, with a cover that look rather like that one... although that was apparently the 1987 paperback version. There's no 1995 Titan version listed, although there was a 1995 version with a similar cover published by Turtleback. I don't know how accepted a source Goodreads is? Aawood (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to go into details on DC Rebirth (for now)[edit]

Unless Geoff Johns, DC, or any Rebirth comics explicitly state/show the involvement of Watchmen in DC Rebirth, please refrain from putting in implications and guesses into the sections; just state these teases exist (where it's relevant) would suffice. Also, the appearance does not make it a "sequel", but rather the Watchmen universe is folded into DCU, and thus should be just "DC Rebirth" for heading. George Leung (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Mothman Watchmen" merge[edit]

Taking the time to merge this seems unnecessary. Obvious candidate for a WP:PROD. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep first off nothing sourced or substantial to merge. Secondly he's an extremely minor character. He's briefly mentioned as being put in a mental asylum and he's also shown in a reunion scene. That's about it. Absolutely nothing warranting an independent article. There's already List of Watchmen characters but not a good redirect since it isn't disambiguating properly unlike Mothman (comics). Opencooper (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)