Talk:Marvel 1602

Uatu
Can someone tell me when he broke the rules of the Watchers previously to 1602? I thought that up until 1602 came out it was generally accepted he had first broken them due to the arrival of Galactus. Daibhid C 23:13 26 April 2005 (UTC)


 * Where alternate universes are concerned it's kinda hard to say which has occured first anyway, so I think whomever wrote it was referring to real world time. As in he has broken the rules in a previous comic, not a previous time in the timeline of the universe on which 1602 is based.202.156.6.54 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

1602: New World
Er... I wrote a big thing on New World a few weeks back... why is it gone? (unsigned by 220.236.58.240)


 * Wikipedia is a public project, that means that anyone can edit articles as they see fit (provided it's not disruptive or stuff like that.) There's a separate article for 1602: New World, your addition would go better there. --Pentasyllabic 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Page title
I think this should be moved to Marvel 1602, or perhaps Marvel 1602 (comic) although the first would be better. My reasoning for this is that, on the spine of the trade paperback collection, it is titled as "Marvel 1602". I don't mean that the 1602 is just placed next to the normal red-on-white Marvel branding logo. Yes, that is there, but in addition to that is the title "Marvel 1602". It is also clearly "Marvel 1602" on the front cover. If anyone needs proof, I can take photos of the trade to show you. I know the Wikipedia policy is to be bold, but I'd rather have some discussion before moving a page. Satan&#39;s Rubber Duck 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Character Hotlinks
i linked all the character's names in "Plot" to their respective hotlinks but i'm not sure if this should've been done in "Plot" or "Characters". feel free to change it

Wikifried 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1602: Fantastick Four
...has just been created, but currently redirects here. So...is it worth adding here, or creating a full new article as with 1602: New World? Thanks! --Mrph 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be a seperate artical, prividing that there is enough detail writtin on the plot, characters, stuff like that. Right now, the section looks like it will be too long to keep on the 1602 artical if it keeps at its current pace. If someone would make it a seperate arital ( or I could do it myself), I would have problem with it and probally would write a lot. I say go for it. Rhino131 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's A-R-T-I-C-L-E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpACatta (talk • contribs) 01:19, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
Very fine article. The plot summary is a bit longish, but not bad enough to keep it out of the pack. Good job. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes out of context
I don't have the time or the inclination to go over all the footnotes in this article, but footnote 8 for the quote "1602 is a watershed moment in comic book history that will be mentioned in the same breath as Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns" is taken completely out of context. I can only assume that someone was having themselves a little laugh. --76.69.143.73 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)PopeUrban


 * It was too dishonest to let stand. I read the reference and quoted a section that was more reflective of the actual review. --MartinezMD (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Plot and characters
Per WP:WAF, "Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research." Basically, we need to keep plot summary to a minimum; in fact, it's still somewhat too long right now. As for the characters, we cannot venture to say how much Gaiman was influenced by Elizabeth's real spymaster unless there are [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that make the connection, otherwise it is original research. As for the minor characters; if they don't play a part in the plot, we shouldn't mention them, (summary style). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted there is some original research in this but it is mentioned on good grounds and faith. If we were to restrict ourselves to sources other than ourselves it would take all the fun out of analysis and writing encyclopedias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' "purging" of this article is taking out a lot of information which not-so-well informed readers might appreciate. As for the secondary characters, well, mentioning the connection between Captain and Foggy Nelson would be handy to readers not familiar with the world of Daredevil.--Marktreut (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * People not familiar with the world of Daredevil frankly aren't going to give a hoot about Foggy, because they know nothing about the series. " If we were to restrict ourselves to sources other than ourselves it would take all the fun out of analysis and writing encyclopedias"- stop. Writing an encyclopedia isn't supposed to be fun, inasmuch as we make guesses about connections and analyze the work ourselves. That is original research, plain and simple. If you want to put the info in, it must be reliably sourced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But what about historical, factual information? Being non-American (and I hope yanks will forgive me for this) I had never heard of Roanoke or Virginia Dare until I read Marvel 1602 and assumed at first that they were obscure Marvel or Gaiman fiction. Then I read this article and found out about them and the mystery surrounding them. I doubt if many people have heard of James' aversion for tobacco and might be interested to know that it is a statement of fact, not an idle fabrication. It shows how much research was put into the project. Also, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and I do not see why it should be as restricted as you are making it.--Marktreut (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Academic criticism
I've added a section on academic criticism based on an article published in the recent issue of ImageTexT on Gaiman's work. However, since I co-edited that issue, I'm letting you all know so you can double check my work for COI issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. May I ask what kind of publication ImageTexT is? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A peer-reviewed academic journal published out of the University of Florida's English department. You can have a look here: . Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this section only includes the input a single scholar, not a fuller discussion among multiple scholars, "academic response" seems like a misnomer. I copy-and-pasted the content to the general "responses" section of the article and removed the academic response section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.164.63 (talk • contribs) 07:37, May 9, 2021 (UTC)

Paring down

 * There's some good material here, but it needed tightening. The lead was somewhat verbose and carried POV, and the FCB had a considerable amount of colloquial speak, some of which was appropriate in a PH (also where the commentary about the art belongs. The trick here is to write for the layman who knows nothing about the characters.

Asgardian (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good edit, and if you take no offense, I have corrected the homonym from "pair" to "pare". --MartinezMD (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * None taken! Was tired at the time.

Asgardian (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD so you understand that the lead is supposed to be that long; POV is another matter entirely. Speaking of colloquialisms, perhaps you should explain what FCB is? Just reinstating your version without discussion doesn't help us. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, less is more. For a comic article, the title and a fact or two, dates and who did what are sufficient. What was there was superfluous (the mention of exact heroes) and as it goes into the FCB (Fictional character biography), or in this case, Plot. As to Plot, 80% of it is still there, but minus some sloppy sentences that add no value or contain the previously mentioned colloquialisms. On a similar note, all that good info on the illustrations is still there, but as it is a publication matter it belongs in the Publication history.

Reception is largely fine, with two sentence fragments culled as that is the writer inserting their point of view, not the quoted source. The Legacy component is actually PH material. The list of characters is unnecessary, as a link provides said list, and in the main article it looks fannish. Some of the related commentary was also unnecessary.

The Academis section also needs work, as while a fine effort means nothing to a layman. It needs to convey the same ideas in simpler terms.

Asgardian (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can believe that with the academic section. It's a hard essay, and I didn't want to bloat the section unpacking terms. My only caution would be simplifying in a way that changes the meaning, but I'll happily provide comments on changes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I leave it to you, good sir.

Asgardian (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not - I added the section, but I don't feel like I should maintain it for COI reasons. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Asgardian, you really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not complaining about trimming plot, but you're removing and rearranging content against style guidelines, and have provided no reasons why they should be flouted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about the intro, go and check out a content-heavy character like Henry Pym to see how the information was arranged. If it is the illustration info, it belongs in the PH.

Asgardian (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what a crappy comics character article has for a lead, I'm talking about the Manual of Style. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051219230304/http://newsarama.com:80/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11178 to http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11178

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Marvel 1602. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081204085504/http://www.comicsbulletin.com:80/reviews/10618034887537.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/reviews/10618034887537.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marvel 1602. 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/20081204032720/http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/1602/ to http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/1602/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516121838/http://www.thefourthrail.com/reviews/snapjudgments/081103/marvel1602-1.shtml to http://www.thefourthrail.com/reviews/snapjudgments/081103/marvel1602-1.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of Marvel 1602 characters into Marvel 1602
The main article already has a decent-sized character section. This article seems to mainly differ by enumerating every background cameo and such, and is bordering on fancruft as a result BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If we do as suggested, we merge the character information to the character section in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Anyone else agree or object? --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)