Talk:Larry Hama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
I encountered Hamma's GI Joe comic when it started running as a backup strip for Transformers UK. The stories were maturely written, had excellent and consistent characters and presented us kids with a very grown up attitude to combat. He took what could have been nothing more than a toy advert and created something truely special. He basically did for GI Joe what Simon Furman did for the Transformers. A great and underrated comic book writer. Coyote-37 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Deleted hype
I deleted a section of self-aggrandizing and evidently self-written hype filled with such sentences as
- ==Legacy==
- The significance of Larry Hama's work has yet to be fully recognized by his generation ... for the role it played in the molding of the generations to follow.
See: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:No original research - Tenebrae 14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the whole "legacy" section was an inappropriate strokefest, and the rest of the article frequently ventured off into "fannish celebrity profile" territory. I've given it a once-over, and while it could still use some work, I think it's a reasonably encyclopedic article now. Tverbeek 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've deleted the following sentence except for the factual material about how long the series ran:
-
-
-
- Because it was a promotional tie-in for Hasbro's line of children's toys, the comic book series was not expected to last long, but ran for 12 years and 155 issues, from February 1982 to October 1994.
-
-
-
- Without going into (more) detail (than this!), it's an unwarranted assumption to say a toy-based comic is not expected to last long. Aside from such successes as Rom: Space Knight, Transformers, Micronauts, etc., no toy company or publisher goes into such an expensive, time-consuming venture without as much expectation for success as any other comic. A sentence that with such built-in assumptions -- particularly in what was "an inappropriate strokefest" (in your true and hilarious words, which I'd have never thought of using) -- would really need some kind of support statement from an authority in a position to know. While this obviously wouldn't be the kind of thing an authority might admit if it were true, there's no evidence presented why it would be true except because the writer says. The weight of the evidence falls in the opposite direction, that for bottom-line reasons, both corporate entities woulod want the comic to succeed. Marvel may or may not have been expecting a net profit (some low-selling titles are carried for reasons of prestige, licensing opportunities, etc.), and we don't know whether Hasbro was subsidizing the series for promotional reasons, either by direct subsidy or indirectly by buying advertising space, but to say Marvel and Hasbro went in expecting to fail ("series not expected to last long") is too great a leap. - Tenebrae 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "References" vs. "External links"
Hi, all. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!
1)
- Complete citations in a "References" section
- Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.
2)
- External links/Further reading
- The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.
So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 14:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Note
Hama ruined Generation X, rendering most of the characters useless for later writers. Of course, that's POV, so... - CNichols 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
his work on mainstream Marvel universe titles was incredibly one-dimensional in general, relying far too often on terrible recurring characters like Elsie Dee, Bloodscream etc. Generation X was his nadir though, he just completely mis-read the titles existing appeal
[edit] Reason for deleting wikidate overlinkage
It's per Wikipedia style guidelines. This from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Avoid_overlinking_dates
- Avoid overlinking dates
- If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.
- Usage of links for date preferences
-
- year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic.
- month only. So April → April. Generally, do not link
- century. So 20th century → 20th century. Generally, do not link
- decade. So 1970s → 1970s. Generally, do not link (Including an apostrophe [1970's] is incorrect)
- year and month. So April 1974 → April 1974 Generally, do not link
- new year and month. So April 2000 → April 2000 Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. Presently, articles only exist for combinations from the year 2000 to current
- day of the week (with or without other date elements). So Tuesday → Tuesday. Generally, do not link.--Tenebrae 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic.
