Talk:Marvel Zombies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Cover art? 2 Possible Error 3 Huge edit on October 14, 2006 4 Earth-Whatnow? 5 No House of M 6 Sequel 7 Is there a trade paperback? 8 AoD/MZ - is it canon?

[edit] Cover art?

Do we really want/need every single cover for this to be included with the article? It seems a little excessive. I know that they made a point of basing them on the memorable 'classic' covers of other books, and they're all very good, but still... --Mrph 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Givin the popularity, fame, and number of covers, I'd say yes, as it helps the page. JQF 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't that these qualify as parody covers. The term used should probably be "homage". Vaginsh 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They walk the line between the two. I've modified the text accordingly. JQF 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Error

Has anyone else noticed that in Ultimate Fantastic Four, right when the Frightful Four explain to Reed what happened, that they refer to Colonal America as Captain America? Wouldn't that be an error in continuity? Derek Chase 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)dlchase

Maybe, but remember that Zombie Mister Fantastic and Ultimate Reed had been discusing everything about each other's world before they actually meet, one of the comments was something like "so In your world the Avengers are called the Ultimates" wich means he had to know that he was called Captain America in the ultimate universe since that's one of the most obvious differences covered while talking about that, so maybe he just said it so that Ultimate Reed would recognize and know who they were talking about-Dark Dragon Flame 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huge edit on October 14, 2006

Hey, I just completely revamped the article. I cleaned up and rearranged sentences all over the article, but the major changes are the plot section that I condensed significantly, and the description of the covers that I also condensed. Someone had painstakingly described covers that were a few inches down for all to see. I also converted citations to footnotes, and added information on the collected editions. I also removed some images that were overkill, but I didn't want to remove the covers without consensus. Brad T. Cordeiro

As fun as they are, I'm not sure they meet Fair Use criteria. CovenantD 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even thinking about Fair Use, just that they didn't look good and were kind of overkill. I don't think these are actual covers, they are promotional art. They don't have the title or issue number like pictures I found of an ebay auction [1] of the issues. Brad T. Cordeiro

Well, I'm fine with their removal. CovenantD 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the template should be changed, because they fall under the promocomic template. --DrBat 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you checked the images' pages, you would see that they are fair use, as they are comic book covers, and labled as such. If they weren't, they would have been removed within a week by one of the bots. These are also unmarked covers, ie covers before they go through editing and get the title, issue#, etc. I agree that the covers shouldn't be removed without consensus, however you're not doing it proberly. The way it is labled right now it looks like each cover is marked for speedy deletion. However, this should be marked on the picture's page, not on an article that has the picture, and as such the covers arn't marked for deletion. A formal survey has to be done, so if you want to do one, create a new subsection titled something like "Removal of cover pictures", state why you think the covers sould be removed, and that you Support the removal. Then you just have to wait until a consensis is reached. So if that's what you want to do, that's the right way to do it. JQF 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did mark the actual images for deletion, but now I just went back and realized someone went through all the images and removed the deletion marker from all the images. They're still there in the history. Brad T. Cordeiro

While each individual image may be considered fair use, their cumulative effect in this article may not be and thus not subject to a formal survey. One line could hardly be thought of as critical examination of the covers. And they are not comic book covers, they are promotional art. The actual covers have all of the details such as title and issue number. CovenantD 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Brad, you didn't mark them for deletion, you marked them as unsourced, which OrphanBot picked up on, and it got removed cause they were sourced. To mark a page for deletion, use the deletion template. CovenantD, if you check the history, the covers had more than one sentance, but it was removed recently because the person thought it was redundant to have more than a sentance when the covers were right there, which doesn't help anyone but those who already know what was there. I'll fix it in a sec. How is their cumulative use not fair use? It is a limited series, and just about ever cover sold out, so most people didn't see them, and the point of wikipedia is to inform. Also, as to cover or promotion, I think most covers are labled as both. JQF 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Curses! You're right, my mistake. I didn't mark them for deletion. I apologize. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. Everybody has made those kind of mistakes, including me. JQF 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the covers. I did, however, just remove Image:MZTPB.jpg from the gallery; it is already the infobox image, so we don't need to show it again, plus it throws off the number of covers displayed (now there are just twelve, which doesn't kick one of them onto their own line). Looks better, in my opinion. EVula 18:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - this is just a little comment to thank whoever put the Cover and info back up - proving that I can rust Wikipedia after all. Not to sound paranoid, but I put a lot of effort into those annotations, and I'm glad to see that they've been put back.

[edit] Earth-Whatnow?

Hang on. In the interview, Kirkman says this series takes place on Earth-615, and there's no mention of Earth-2149 in Alternate Universes 2005. Was there a 2006 edition? Kelvingreen 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No House of M

Scanner was one of the Acolytes de-powered in the House of M event. Is it safe to thusly include that the Marvel Zombie-verse did not have the House of M event?

Well, duh. MZ is set decades before House of M even began!

[edit] Sequel

Should we put the mention of a sequel now since MZ's writer Robert Kirkman has already confirmed that it is on his plans (he refers to it as something that will happen not something that might happen) and that it will be on develpoment as soon as the artist (Sean Phillips) schelude is cleared, He even said that he started writing it already and anounced a few characters appearing, or should we wait? more info on announcement [2] User:Dark Dragon Flame 19 December 2006

[edit] Is there a trade paperback?

I have been searching everywhere for this trade but haven't found it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultimatemarvel (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

There is no way that this should be difficult to find. Try Amazon, Marvelcomics.com or even try asking at a bookstore/comic shop. -- Jayunderscorezero 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the editor is asking "where can I find a copy of this book." He or she is asking if the book exists (and therefore if it belongs in the article.) As far as I can tell, it does not yet exist, and is solicited for October 2007. ~CS 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AoD/MZ - is it canon?

I just removed some comments made by a user about the differences between the universe presented in this series and the 616 universe as the statements were clearly made based upon information from AoD/MZ. The question is: is this second series canon or not? I'm assuming not, due to Marvel's policy regarding time paradoxes. Thoughts? Where should information on AoD/MZ go? -- Jayunderscorezero 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's canon the events taking place there will have effect in Dead Days and that is produced only by Marvel as a official prequel so as weird as it has been so far it is canon. -Dark Dragon Flame 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)