Talk:Miracleman (character)

Fawcett not filing suit?

I presume Marvelman's existence continued (despite the blatant plagiarism of Captain Marvel) because Fawcett couldn't afford to sue a British comic book producer; after all, they had been forced to cancel their main cash cow (Captain Marvel) in the 1950s after DC sued them. Can anyone confirm this? If so, then it can be entered into the Wikipedia entry for Marvelman. Modemac

Forgot to mention that point. AFAIK, Miller was completely above-board and did his reprints with Fawcett's permission. His supply of Captain Marvel dried up because Fawcett had been forced to stop publishing it. Why DC didn't sue Miller, I don't know, but the Captain Marvel/Superman comparison for the original suit seems a bit iffy to me anyway, and a derivative hero of Captain Marvel would be even iffier. Someone was distributing UK B&W reprints of Superman around then, it might even have been Miller. If so, why sue someone who's paying you royalties? US corporate lawyers may think differently, of course... (and thanks for that afternote, too. That there's a chance, that someday Gaiman might finish it, is good news) -- Malcolm Farmer

The position was somewhat simpler - US copyright law didn't apply in the UK. Miller's problem was a drying up of material (though repeating earlier stuff was an option - interesting as to why he didn't take that option). Archiveangel (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

I have moved this article from Marvelman to Miracleman in order to conform with Wikipedia's most common name policy. —Lowellian (talk) 22:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I have to be honest... I'm a little offended. This character originated in the UK and so should be titled under its original name. ---- Zestos 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree - it was only changed because of legal wranglings and the character was Marvelman for an awful long time, with the switch only really happening for the last handful of issues and the reprints. (Emperor (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

And, for what it's worth, I agree too. The correct name was Marvelman. He only got renamed for the American market, for the last few years of his publication. Why should that have precedence over a name he held for more than 30 years? "Most common name"? Only if you mean that thanks to relative population sizes there are more Americans who call him that than Brits who call him by his correct, original name. By that argument, if we could prove that George W. Bush was referred to by his nickname "Dubya" more often than by his real name, would we be allowed to rename his entry? The character is British, and called Marvelman - renaming his article to go under his Americanized name is arrogant American ethnocentricity. 86.164.85.97 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, way to assume good faith there buddy. Looks like there's plenty of arrogance to go around, no matter what country someone's from76.226.103.166 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

sources needed!

If we're going to have this much detail about the ownership dispute (I think it could be condensed a little, but it is pretty infamous in the comics world), we really need some references for this article. This book would probably be a good place to start, but I don't have a copy. ←Hob 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've tagged this article for cleanup, partially for the reasons you state, Hob, but also because User:Logan1138's (fine) contribution needs copyediting and reorganizing. I hope to return to this article soon. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added some links to provide references (i also found out Gaiman was asked to write a new version of Secret Wars?! ) which should help provide sources. Logan1138 12:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"The Man Of Miracles"

Could anyone expand further as to what exactly McFarlane is doing with this in Spawn?Logan1138 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Some aspects of the article need some fine-tuning. For one thing, it says that when Leach left the strip and was replaced by Alan Davis, Leach's third ownership transferred to Davis. Why is this? Since when does ownership of a property transfer to the person who happens to be working on it? Is this a British thing, or something? Also, Dez Skinn's name is introduced into the article without any mention of who he is or what his relationship is to the character. Even some brief mention or description of him and his place in the situation would be apt.

The rights were transferred to Davis because thats what happened. There was no specific reason other than that. Skinn has his own entry which goes in detail, as does Warrior, but a small description will be added.Logan1138 14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The transferral of rights in this way was not a standard practice by any means; however, it was an arrangement that the various creators working on the title came to between themselves. See also Moore's voluntary transferral of his third to be jointly held between Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham. Actually, on that note, I'm not sure if the article actually mentions that Buckingham actually holds half of Moore's original share - the implication seems to be that Gaiman holds 33.3%, when in fact he only holds 16.7%, the same as Buckingham (however, since they are both generally held to be "singing from the same hymn sheet" with regards to MM, this share is considered to be a jointly-held third rather than two separate sixths).

what tesseract? (gratuitous link)

The Miracleman project consisted of giving someone a second body; when a telepathic signal was given the two bodies switched place in space and the mind was transferred as well. (This is akin to a tesseract but it's unknown if Alan Moore was aware of the concept at the time.)

No, it's not. There's no relation whatsoever. Yes, having one single, 4-dimensional body, could produce a similar effect, but the comic makes it abundantly clear that's not the case; and even if it was, the body would not be a tesseract, as it's not cubic.

So this comparison is entirely gratuitous, "let's sound cool and smart a bit", complete with an entirely gratuitous link to the tesseract article. Please let's remove it.--LaloMartins 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be a lot of this going around lately, with pointless asides being plugged into articles. I vote to remove it, as the comic book clearly explains that it is two seperate 3D constructs swapping places like the Captain Marvels of DC or Marvel. The tesseract comment is pointless and incorrect. 140.185.215.122 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Steve

Failed Good Article Status

I removed this article from the good nominations page because it is not sufficiently referenced. joturner 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow; I just realized I was the one who nominated this article for good article status. So, I suppose this is just a retraction of that nomination; I didn't realize how insufficiently referenced this was. joturner 16:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was the one who nominated it. I'll see what I can do about the references. Iron Ghost 14:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can pop some up over the next week or so. The article needs some polishing anyhow.Logan1138 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More plot details?

Would it maybe be a good idea to have a seperate article going into more depth as to the plot of the actual comics, especially as they're out of print? While it's understandable given the book's ligititious legiti troubled history, it does sadly follow the trend of most MM sources in that it barely mentions why anyone would want the rights in the first place... Just a thought :)

As an aside, the comment "by the few who possess a copy of the book" in reference to MM #15 sounds a little... dramatic. While it's hardly common and does fetch a pretty large amount of money, it wasn't, IIRC, avaliable in notably smaller quantities than the rest of the Olympus issues, it's just considered a key issue... Personally, I find the rule of thumb that you can hammer "Miracleman #15" into ebay 95% of the time and find a copy for sale as a good indicator that it's not ludicrously rare. Beyond that, it just seems like a pointless little phrase - why would those who haven't read it acclaim Totleben's artwork anyway, whether 5 or 5 million copies were knocking about? ;)

Tom Prankerd 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to add more plot details feel free (although bare in mind its only supposed to be a summary). Pesonally I think its best to keep everything in the one article rather than have a seperate plot page. I agree with you about that MM #15 sentence.

Iron Ghost 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Cheers, I'll have a look at that... it's probably more a case of balancing, as the Warrior sumarisation goes into a fair bit of depth, and the "Eclipse" one, well, doesn't, despite more happening in the latter =)

Tom Prankerd 11:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Man of miracles.gif

Image:Man of miracles.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hellspawn13.jpg

Image:Hellspawn13.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Miraclemanr23.jpg

Image:Miraclemanr23.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warriorsummerspecial.jpg

Image:Warriorsummerspecial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Kimota

As I remember it, Michael Moran doesn't remember his powerword, he actually reads the word atomic which is reversed by being on the other side of a glass door.
And can we actually have something about MarvelMan, not just a discussion about the courtcase surrounding the magazine, the authors, the legal ownership - characterisation [His Paul Newman look], his enemies, his powers, etc
193.243.227.1 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. For one thing I read the powers & abilities section in the page and fine 'Concusive Energy Blasts'. Citation needed for that one please.--Nickpheas (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a panel where Evil Kid Marvelman has a secretary in his grasp and is firing beams out of his eyes, in true heat vision style, and it looks like her face is being burned off.

Maybe that's what they mean ??

213.206.7.50 (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marvelmanspecial.jpg

Image:Marvelmanspecial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rights timeline

As written, the character-rights ownership seems to be missing some details. Here's how I understand it from reading the article (assuming Dez Skinn really had the rights in the first place):

1. At the outset, Skinn has 30%, Moore 30%, Leach 30%, and Quality 10%.
2. Davis comes aboard. The article says "Moore, Skinn and Leach transferred part of their ownership of the character to Davis — with Skinn claiming 10% and Moore, Davis and Leach, 30% each". But this is contradictory; if those were the final percentages, the only way that would have happened was if Skinn gave 20% of his share to Davis, Quality gave all of theirs, and Moore and Leach did nothing. Is this in fact what happened?
3. The article then says "In 1985 Eclipse Comics bought the rights from Skinn". But Skinn only owned 10% at that time, right? So now we're at 30% for Moore, Davis, and Leach, and 10% for Eclipse.
4. "Davis... gave his rights to Leach". So now it's 60% Leach, 30% Moore, 10% Eclipse.
5. "Moore gave his 30% share to... Neil Gaiman... [who] divided them between himself and artist Mark Buckingham". So 60% Leach, 15% Gaiman, 15% Buckingham, and 10% Eclipse.
6. Eclipse goes bankrupt, and McFarlane gets their properties.

So according to this, even granting McFarlane's claims, he only owns 10% of Marvelman/Miracleman, Gaiman owns 15%, and Gary Leach has 60%. Somehow I doubt this is the case. Can somebody more familiar with this clear up the article?—Chowbok ☠ 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be tidy - it's much more complex, and much easier that that. It seems Anglo owned the rights all the time, through Gower Studios he owned his stuff, rather than the 'work for hire' argument currently being implemented in the Kirby/Marvel argument Archiveangel (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous and Grammatically Atrocious

"...an unknown anime-inspired hero, a younger Moran with platinum-light blonde hair as Kaworu Nagisa and an unbuttoned blue jacket." Not even sure that qualifies as a partial sentence, but it makes no sense even with the inclusion of the rest of the sentence. Additionally, there is no point in referencing Neon Genesis Evangelion and the young boy (Nagisa) so arbitrarily.

I have edited.214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Steve

Tone and Cleanup tags?

Why the tone and cleanup tags? Just read through and - though quite detailed in places - there's no glaring problem. --Air (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a few examples ...

• There's very few citations and refs for a subject that has literally hundreds of them
• everything's 'in-universe' - the character biography is mixed in with the publication history (and it jumps about and in places is contradictory)
• very skewed towards the Moore/Gaiman years - bearing in mind the Anglo years were among the biggest selling comics of the day, Marvelman was (and still is) the longest running British superhero, and there were over 740 issues and heaven alone knows how many stories (over 2000?)
• considerable number of unsupported statements (not exactly OR, but not backed up with reliable evidence)
• much use of words such as 'notorious' 'highly disturbing' 'unsettling' etc
• some glaring inaccuracies: # Warrior's legal troubles led to the character being licensed to an American publisher - no (Eclipse) # Issues 1-6 reprinted all the Warrior content - no. Later on this is correctly contradicted, though not fully # Issue 25 was completed (apart from colouring) but due to the collapse of Eclipse it has never seen light. - followed 2 sentences later by A few pages of issue #25 can be read at various sites online, and in George Khoury's book Kimota! The Miracleman Companion. #lots of minor inaccuracies - even the publication details in the box miss L. Miller and Son.
• as much time is spent on the legal/ownership wranglings as on the rest, which while 'important' skews the balance again
• strange wording in places - #23 and #24 saw the resurrection of Young Miracleman and would describe the beginnings of trouble in Miracleman's idyllic world - would describe? they did.
• analysis of storylines, characterisations and concepts mixed into the history
• the end of the Anglo years - is there any citation for the availability of U.S. comics causing the demise? With under a year between this availability and Marvelman going reprint, I'd like to be sure this isn't OR.
• lots of departures from the style guidance.

Overall, I get the impression that this could do with a complete makeover, perhaps with the legal issues at least as a separate linked page, and definitely with a clearly defined publication history, fictional character biography and an extended section on the Anglo years. It's clearly an important milestone on several levels, which I'm not sure is reflected here.

Apologies if this rubs anyone up the wrong way, just answering the question. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What AA said - the article is a real mess (failing on all sorts of fronts), especially considering how important the character is and how useful this article could be in explaining complex publication and ownership issues. The upcoming rewrite should help it live up to its potential (no pressure AA). (Emperor (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

I guess that's that then - inevitable I'd talk myself into a corner :-) still the stuff's still around from the Anglo work. Any ideas on whether to hive off the last 25 years of legal issues into a sub-page? Archiveangel (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

REVISION NOTICE - APRIL 2010

This article is currently undergoing a major revision to address the issues raised above and include a 'publication history' section, a 'fictional character biography' section and a fuller bibliography. Unless there are major objections, the legal wranglings and ownership issues will form a new linked article, following the example of the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications article. Rationale being that it is one of the, if not the, most complicated copyright/trademark/ownership stories in the history of comics.

Any comments, views and suggestions always welcome, here or on my talk page. Thanks Archiveangel (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that seems sensible as the page is 40kb already and I assume you are going to be expanding and clarifying all sorts of areas so a split would soon seem a good idea and that seems the best place for it. The key will be keeping both articles focused so you aren't replicating too much information (if only so that when others come to drop in something they know where it goes and there isn't "mission creep" so the two articles start looking awfully similar, as someone will then come along and suggest a merge and... we'll just keep going round in circles. (Emperor (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

As you say, it should give the space back needed for other things. (repeated here for others - I'll be putting up a temp version on my area for a few days first, and notifying, so it can be checked for direction etc and improvement before publishing. CheersArchiveangel (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great news, thanks for the detailed answer above. That's a pretty good draft of a To Do list : ) Inevitably if you know what needs fixed, the burden's on you to fix it ; ) But happy to help where I can. --Air (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped to have a draft ready for a quick review session this weekend before progressing, but for the second time this week I've lost my work - havent a clue why, both times I've dropped into show preview and it's gone into a copy of the original, unchanged, version with no return to the edit I'm doing. Unfortunately this time it's been a 6 hour session without a save (yeah, I know, sigh). This is the first time I've used the advanced edit screen option, and the first time I've hit this kind of trouble, could be coincidence. Whatever, I'm not feeling too happy right now. Later Archiveangel (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I now have a sneaky feeling that my problem is the result of having multiple tabs open and somehow being logged in on one tab and out on another. Whatever, staying up all night (with the dog and a nice Chardonnay for company) has meant I've managed to redo just about everything so far. I'll get whatever else I can done and hopefully post a 'for comment' version by Tuesday morning. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While I think of it - the new version is around 35k. Removing the legal stuff to a seperate (later - but only a week or so, promise) article has hopefully given room to expand eveything else comfortably for the moment. However, if and when new material from Marvel starts to appear, I assume that we'll need to be looking at splitting again which could be an interesting discussion. Archiveangel (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Images for revision

Thinking about the images for the revision, would it be best-dressed with?

• an Anglo-era image in the text box,
• a Warrior cover in that section (#7 or #16 - #7 is the best known, so perhaps #16 - I'd reserve the Marvelman Special cover for the legal page)
• one of the two Eclipse covers (my preference is for the Windsor-Smith #23)
• and perhaps the wonderful I'm back image Marvel and everyone else has been using for the new Marvel bit

I've no idea of the why's and wherefore's of this - but if nobody else tackles it, I will - could just do with advice on how to proceed: legal use/how to etc. although I guess I can fathom out how to for myself. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite advice

I could do with some advice.

The re-write of Marvelman is proving to be something of a beast. I've been essentially swamped with material, and while the original article, which was missing many key elements (see the talk page for a rough list) ran to 40k, currently the rewrite is now pushing 50k even though I've hived off the complex legal issues to a separate linked page (as per the National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications legal wrangling - the Marvelman issues are probably the most complex and far-reaching comics legal case since). The new version comprehensively covers Publication history - Fictional character history - Unpublished material - Other versions - Awards - Bibliography and creator, style, philosophy quotes as can be strongly cited (there's some 80+ footnotes/citations). My suspicion is that by end it'll be touching 60k. After 3 re-shapings and savage textual cuts, I can't see how to cut it further without removing key stuff, which will mean remodelling. Bearing in mind the characters historical 'keyness':

• is 60+k acceptable? Or should I be looking at hiving off such as the bibliography (although that's not particularly long)
• is there some other way of slicing it (I can't find any precedents)
• or is it just about being brutal?

Graphics are a problem - there's 4 at the moment which are tilted towards Eclipse publications. Bearing in mind the four distinct publication phases, I'd suggest that the box image should be a classic Anglo period one, with one of the Eclipse images replaced by a second-phase Warrior one, and either dropping the fourth (anthology reprint) one or replacing it with the 'I'm back' one used for the Marvel revival announcement. Suggestions?

I had hoped to put a copy up on my area by now, but it's taking longer than I thought. If it would help, the working version can be slapped up tonight and I'll give the link here (it's pretty solid in most areas but has notes and unpolished bits in some sections). I'm not deadlining this, it'll get finished when it's finished (and I'm having fun doing it), but I'd prefer to publish in a good condition, rather than rough it all out later and cause others' work. Views from the void muchly welcome, the sooner the better Archiveangel (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Best plan is to post on your userspace for comments. Cheers and well done for spending the time : ) --Air (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Flip and Flop?

Does anyone recall the Flip and Flop cartoons that rounded out the original comics? Something about these would be nice, even if it's only a couple of lines. I remember them fondly; but I was just a kid at the time, and now I can't even remember who wrote them. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversial graphic birth scene citation

I remember an Eclipse editor named Catharine Yronwode （I think） discussing the controversial graphic birth scene in some detail。 If anyone can find her account of the controversy online it would be a good citation。 I would google it but I can't as I'm in China ：（ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pignut (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably this? [1]. Links to this interesting contemporary response: [2]. Clconway (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marvelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120223063728/http://www.omelete.com.br/quadrinhos/miracleman-o-plagio-que-deu-certo/ to http://www.omelete.com.br/quadrinhos/miracleman-o-plagio-que-deu-certo/

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvelman. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://omelete.uol.com.br/quadrinhos/miracleman-o-plagio-que-deu-certo/

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Miracleman (character)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Quite a good article but needs referencing. Iron Ghost 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) == Importance == Set at Mid given its profile with the independent American publishers, association with High rated creators, and the legal questions associated to ownership of the character. — J Greb 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvelman. 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/20090905013308/http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman_article_117413.html to http://www.mania.com/alan-moore-reflects-marvelman_article_117413.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mismatched biography

The "Fictional character biography" section is currently only a synopsis of the Alan Moore years. The earlier (Mick Anglo) and later (Neil Gaiman) biographies are not represented there, and it's confusing how it starts. The Neil Gaiman biography appears under the History section, but it's out of place there because it continues the Alan Moore part of the synopsis. (I would fix it, but I have not read any of the comic.) --Dylan Thurston (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Article split

I think it is clear that Marvelman and Miracleman are two separate, but related, characters. It would help immensely with the clarity and organization of this article if it were to be split into two.128.151.71.7 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure of the etiquette of replying to an old-ish comment et cetera but after a read through I am of the personal opinion that this article is doing a lot of heavy lifting. About half of it is the legal stuff, which is of course important and a sadly large part of MM's history, but it's not necessarily the largest (i.e. the protracted ownership stuff isn't the only notable thing about the title, it got to be big news because the comic was popular and acclaimed) is also now resolved and with actual new material out there feels like it should no longer be the central crux of the subject. There's a discussion up the page about splitting it off to a separate article which doesn't seem to be resolved...?
• It's taking up space that IMO could be more orientated to summarising the work itself, at the moment nine issues are summarised with "Neil Gaiman's run begins with issue #17.".
• There's also very little about the characters in terms of what they can and cannot do and so forth, which is curious when Bates has his own page at Kid Miracleman and Lear has one at Miraclewoman while this page doesn't say much at all really about Moran himself, or Dauntless who redirects here.
• I also feel that the L. Miller & Sons stuff is somewhat stuffed down for titles that managed some 300 issues or whatever. Alright, they were crap and the revival is a big part of why they're remembered but it's not the only part and the coverage of Marvelman and Young Marvelman as comic titles seems minimal compared to many other British comics on Wikipedia, as these titles had a life of their own before Warrior.
• Now I'm a bit of a nerd in general and MM-wise in particular but I'd love to split off a bunch of pages, something like: -
  • A central nexus article
  • Marvelman (L. Miller & Son) & Young Marvelman (L. Miller & Son) pages, which would cover the characters and publications
  • Page/s differentiating Marvelman/Miracleman the Quality/Eclipse/Marvel title from Marvelman/Miracleman the character
  • Either separate pages for Moran and Dauntless as characters in their own right or folding the pages for Bates and Lear into a "Characters" section or page (that would naturally include other "regulars" such as Archer, Cream, Rebbeck, Gargunza etc.)
  • Plot summaries more like those for other noted comics, seeing as MM has attracted attention and acclaim for its' content.
  • A separate page for the ownership stuff
  • A template at the bottom to tie those and other related articles together.

Now I'm not sure where the line between Wikipedia and fan-Wiki lies on this sort of thing so I'd love to hear thoughts; I am more than happy to look at doing all of the above and tinkering with drafts in userspace and the like, but I'd love to hear more thoughts before I go on a needless deep-dive. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Something like this - User:BoomboxTestarossa/Template:marvelmiracleman. Given the sprawl some licenced comics seem to have this doesn't seem an unreasonable amount of content. Any thoughts? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Article split V2

(new topic for visibility)

• Template:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:BoomboxTestarossa/Template:marvelmiracleman

• Hub article:

• Story arcs:

• Ownership:

• Character pages:

User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman_(character)
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Kid_Miracleman
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Young_Miracleman
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miraclewoman
User:BoomboxTestarossa/List_of_Miracleman_characters
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Warpsmith

• Publications:

User:BoomboxTestarossa/Marvelman (comic)
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Young Marvelman (comic)
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Marvelman Family
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Marvelman (strip)
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman (Eclipse Comics) - Miracleman Family would redirect here
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman: Apocrypha
User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman (Marvel comic) - MM by G&B, MM: Family's Finest would redirect here
There's still some tinkering to be done but it's mainly to the reception sections which I will be tinkering with in the background while I give this a week or so to see what everyone thinks. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Lengthier thoughts and questions

1. On Miracleman v Marvelman I personally think current identity, worldwide notability and the critical standing of the revival are unignorable factors. A bit like the Miller publishing model there's not been many (any?) precedents like it as far as I can see (though no-one calls Robot Archie by the Jungle Robot name). While the character's original name is naturally of great importance it's inescapable that the renamed version has a higher international profile in any quantifiable metric, and we're rapidly approaching a tipping point where it's been Miracleman longer than Marvelman to boot. Miracleman's done everything Marvelman's done, whereas Marvelman hasn't done everything Miracleman's done, if that makes sense. Thus for, say, character articles the current ongoing versions should be primary IMO, as long as we include the right clarifications.
2. Related... in the comics the characters use their "superhero" and "civilian" names interchangeably for quite sensible reasons. However for histories and synopsises I feel it aids clarity to refer to the superhuman forms by the former and the unaltered forms by the latter. This could be due to my faults as a writer as I can't find a way to put across the state of affairs presented in fiction without bogging down and getting tangential, which I do enough of anyway (cite:everythingihavedoneonwikipedia).
3. As an aside to the above, taking Marvel's ownership as a whole it's hard to escape the conclusion that all pronouncements to the contrary between 1993 and 2013, they always planned to republish as Miracleman, and that use of Marvelman was partly to secure that trademark as well (with the Gower reprints effectively being an ashcan once their limited commercial appeal was exhausted), and partly as negotiations over the Miracleman trademark (which was of course separate from Anglo's affairs) were presumably ongoing, and as such showing Marvel had the rights to Marvelman and publicly announcing they were happy to continue the story as such were in effect a negotiating tactic to weaken any potential rival claimants to the Miracleman trademark. It makes a certain amount of sense commercially as well, as Marvel already have Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel/Blue Marvel etc, Miracleman being more distinctive. Had Marvel for whatever reason been unable to secure the Miracleman trademark the character probably would have retained the Marvelman name, but this didn't happen. However, with the potential money involved in any Marvel character these days through films, Funko Pops and so on, I don't think we'll get any more clarity on this in our lifetimes and naturally as such this is just speculation.
4. However any of this crap some places use about "pantheon" being a team name should be discouraged with extreme prejudice.
5. I have no idea on naming conventions for individual pages and naturally they're an absolute mess across Wikipedia for most other titles, so it's been hard to draw a bead on this. Suggestions and corrections wanted.
6. Stylistically some of them are a bit wall-of-texty; would it acceptable to break them up a little where appropriate with pictures of the likes of Moore, Gaiman etc from their own articles, Commons etc or is that not the done thing?
7. The Miller weeklies especially have a lot of overlapping or duplicate information due to both MM and YM having a near-identical creation and 1950s publishing history. IMHO though as both racked up 335-odd issues they meet any sensible criteria for justifying individual pages, and they do begin to branch a little after the cancellation. I've played around with a merged version but honestly can't seem to make it work, as none of the publishers have ever consistently used an umbrella name for the titles (I mean YM isn't a spinoff of MM or vice versa), and inventing one - say, pretending they were known as the Marvelman Universe or somesuch - for Wikipedia seems disingenuous. I've been wracking my brains for a suitable comparison to see how it's handled by other Wikipedia articles but to my limited knowledge it seems unique.
8. Same goes for any attempt I've made to fold the character and publication pages together; either I end up with multiple articles simply stacked on top of each other which are far too long or a confusing miasma that jumps all over the place and would be confusing to anyone without detailed knowledge in the first place. I am open to suggestions here as it may just be my shortfalls as a Wikipedian that are causing this. However I do very strongly feel that the nature of any merger should be done with consensus, discussion and collaborative rewriting rather than at the whim of a passing reviewer with no real understanding of the topic, especially as I suspect only the new articles will get pushback rather than similarly written extant pages.
9. Likewise any attempt to merge the Quality, Eclipse and Marvel runs creates a dreadful rat-king of a page.
10. I have not been able to find any sort of definitive database for the Miller titles, and have instead largely been working from partial archives, especially as Marvel have abandoned the Classic volumes. Therefore I've had to use more ambiguous terms than is ideal in places as for all I know there are other recurring villains etc.
11. Skinn notes that Ron Embleton and Denis Gifford contributed to MM/YM in his Warrior article but AFAIK no other source mentions this. While it is almost certainly true that they did I feel they should be left out of the infoboxes etc. until some definite contributions are attributed.
12. The MM/YM Adventures books - these seem to be almost proto-trades issued in the dying days of the Miller series, made up of reprints and in addition to the Annuals rather than instead of. Anyone have more information?
13. Also the article as it stands claims that Anglo consistently claimed ownership, which is something I can't seem to find any sources for. Obviously when it as a going concern for Quality and Eclipse there were very limited outlets for him to do so, but Kimota! is one of the few interviews where he seems to actually discuss things, and there he displays almost total apathy towards the character, the revival and the ownership. Obviously that was in 2001 and it's possible he began asserting his ownership after that but to claim it's been unfaltering would seem to be incorrect.
14. In Kimota! Dez Skinn claims that much of the Gower Street material was effectively traced from Fawcett strips... this feels like a fairly incendiary claim. Skinn (like Yronwode) has a habit of interviewing well, and naturally we have to be a bit careful with this sort of things where both have a habit of checking Internet mentions of themselves in a manner that other figures in the melodrama don't. Khoury isn't always the most incisive interviewer (being perhaps more reluctant to challenge some things as he needs the subjects for the book). Has this ever been examined by anyone with, say, side-by-side comparisons? Would Marvel have ran the material if this is true, or do DC have no claim to the Fawcett material? While obviously there's been little scholarly study of the Miller material where it's crap and many sources quite rightly deride MM's fifties adventures as a Captain Marvel rip-off I feel that this would be mentioned more often if the actual stories were copied.
15. Mary Marvel being "turned into" KM - this seems to have spread from Moore's potted history in the second Eclipse issue (and Gifford in Family #2, during which he also explicitly notes his interaction with Anglo was dropping off pages, which suggests he wouldn't have been party to character creation) but I'm not sure how it really maps out. KM first appears around 18 months in, by which point when Gower Street Studio were surely no longer mining Captain Marvel for plots. KM has a consistently different dynamic with the rest of the family (I.e. he's interchangeable with MM and YM, with his USP being he's a foot shorter and has commas for eyes). IIRC Mary had turned up already in Miller reprints and if KM was a straight proxy surely he would have immediately turned up rather than not showing up a year or whatever later?Beyond being the third member of a comic book team with Marvel Family in their name there doesn't seem to be much crossover. I do think Mary is worth a passing mention, if nothing else to avoid this getting added, but unless an interview with Anglo or a contemporary saying "yeah, I totally based Johnny on Mary Marvel" turns up I feel making the connection is an over simplification.
16. At what point did Guntag Barghelt become Guntag Borghelm? He's Barghelt in MM65. Sadly my only reference for YM's origin is the relettered Eclipse version, and vintage references to Guntag are very sparse afterwards... was the name retconned or simply misremembered for the revival? Again it would be a fun little fact to work in if anyone knows.
17. Firebug, was he a real MM villain? I know Leach designed two of the guys in the frame with Young Nastyman but I'm not sure on this chap, and he does get a call-out in the text...
18. My legalese is not so good but am I correct in reading that the letters from Marvel's legal team that they only objected to Marvelman being used as a title, not the continuation of the strip itself in the pages of Warrior? Skinn has said he used the Marvel legal action as a scapegoat for the strip stalling, after all. It was once received wisdom that the Marvel legal action stopped the strip and this seems to have been brought up in a lot of circular reporting about the comic but it seems clear looking at the evidence that the Alan's falling out was the main thing, with both Marvel's actions and Warrior's cancellation almost a sideshow. By a similar token it seems to be overstated how much the C&D affected Moore's decision to never write for Marvel whereas looking at his interviews he was already pissed with them about the Special Executive and Bernie Jay and the Marvelman thing was just the final nail in the coffin. I'd be curious to know what his position was when Dez Skinn was pitching to Jim Shooter, mind.
19. Moore has also said his first choice was to continue the story as 'Kimota' with the character name unchanged, basically following what DC were doing with Captain Marvel in 'Shazam'. Is there a reason I'm missing why this route wasn't taken? Was the mere use of Captain Marvel in Shazam something Marvel were lawyering over at the time? Was it something Moore only came up with after the fact?
20. On the ownership as said obviously the various legal issues associated with the title need coverage as it's a notable feature of the title, mentioned by many notable sources and is thus sadly hard to ignore. However I feel we need to absolutely hammer home that all the internet detectiving, "shares", Gaiman v McFarlane etc. was a completely pointless false trail, bald men fighting over someone else's comb even though we all like Neil more than Todd. My reasoning behind having a separate Ownership article is to keep the misconceptions and irrelevant reprinting away from the neglected coverage of the material itself, while also serving as a necessary lightning rod for the associated fanboy bitchiness and squabbling.
21. However, regarding the ownership I'd love to have more about how things suddenly became clear in 2009. I'm guessing Quesada had put Marvel's legal team on some serious digging but it would really round out that section if we could get some sources on the how, as unlikely as that seems, even if I am kinda fond of the "However, none of the above crap mattered" as it's very, very funny.
22. Eclipse Miracleman 8 seems to be the source of weirdness to some degree. Fill-in issues were obviously more common in the eighties among the majors but Eclipse seem to have pioneered the creator-owned template of issues shipping when they were ready regardless of whatever nominal schedule they followed. It would be great to know a) why Eclipse put out the issue and b) never tried it again every other time the book's schedule dropped off the face of the Earth. Negative reader reaction? Poor sales? Moore kicking off? There seems to be some confusion as to what SHOULD have been in 8 as well; theoretically it should have been the birth issue but Austen has said he never saw the script for it and Yronwode has specifically noted giving Veitch the reference material, not Chuck. But if Chuck didn't try to draw it there shouldn't have been any MM material to be lost in the flood (which is historically attested) at Eclipse's office.
23. The Yesterday Gambit stuff is so strange; Moore almost seems to go out of his way to reference it (to the extent where Huey and Silence almost seem to be created so the story makes sense) but by then the decision had surely been made to skip reprinting it...? It's odd that Eclipse never used it as a backup considering some of the mad crap they threw out in the title, and the only possible reason seems to be Moore vetoing it...Fornicate me though it's unsettling how so much of the story, including what little we know about the Dark Age, still more or less fits with the Warrior Universe chronology. Without wanting to fanboy, what an imagination.
24. Also on the subject of things I've potentially misunderstood am I being dumb or does basically nothing happen between the building of the moon base thing in mid/late 83 and Bates returning in August 85? It's weird for a storyline that's so tightly plotted and - unusually for a superhero story - dated but in #14 there just seems to this year-plus jump during which MM, MW and the Warsmiths seem to just watch Earth and do literally nothing, and MM just sits in Silence undisturbed. There doesn't even seem to be any character movement as he's still briefly the sort-of human superpowered Mike Moran afterwards rather than emerging as the more distant figure narrating the flashbacks. It feels like I'm missing something.
25. Similarly I'm correct in thinking Phon Mooda does the square root of eff-all in London, right? Alan could at least have let her do Marble Arch or something.
26. Avril's current individual page is a bit ORy but notes she has telekinesis and telepathy; I'm currently at a loss to find any evidence of the former and the latter seems to be more a case of her having a superhuman levels of perception, empathy and intelligence rather than a literal ability to read minds like Professor X or something. Seeing as both of these powers would have been of great use at various points (she would hardly have shoulder-charged KM if she could hit him with TK, and she would have been easily able to reassure MM about YM's feelings if she told him she could read his thoughts, even if she was lying or something) I'm not sure they should be listed as powers that MW has. Obviously the implications of the story are the superhumans can theoretically gain further powers with experience and practice (cf. Bates kicking everyone around and having eye-lasers because he's had 20 years more experience) and they theoretically have supereverything but for infoboxes we should stick to stuff that's been clearly shown. Again, open to correction if I've missed something obvious, sometimes I miss the wood for the trees.
27. The Eclipse era really seems to be a period where almost everyone involved fell out with everyone else and a lot of dull bitchery happened. A lot of this is sadly intertwined with the series' publication and even content and thus is hard to avoid mentioning but I've done what I can to centralise that article on the series itself and cover the he said-she said on the Ownership page. I have tried to do so in a balanced way, which is tricky when several creators flag issues with the publisher and only Yronwode is really there as a counter. It's obviously a bit damning that a bunch of people who hate each other unanimously agree they were stiffed by Eclipse but balance should be maintained until someone is sued over it.
28. I half remember reading somewhere that at least the first issue of Triumphant was going to centre on British Bulldog/Big Ben but I can't recall where, and the pages out there don't mean much out of context. Be a fun thing to add.
29. I can't really find anything about the mechanics and/or canonicity of Total Eclipse. I mean presumably at the time Gaiman was required to at least okay it as he believed he part-owned the character but obviously it's a bit incongruous in the character's history and not mentioned at all in MM, or it seems many (any?) interviews with the creators.
30. Talking of which, obviously Timeless underlines IMO the need for separate character and publication pages as Miracleman is likely to be exposed to the festering gash of the Marvel Universe and get tripped up by Squirrel Girl or be enlisted in X-Force or something. Weird for them to look at Doomsday Clock and go " hey, we can do that" but still. Be nice if we could ring-fence that somewhat.
31. Is there, like, a story-in-progress template we can tag to the end of the Silver Age summary? I've intentionally kept SA summary material to a bare minimum for the time being. It does feel like the story is heading in a direction that might question if we're seeing the "real" Young Miracleman so taking too much of what's been published at incomplete face value could lead to a lot of backtracking, especially as we seem to be talking only a couple of months before we get the answers.
32. I'm unsure of what issues of SA1-2 to cite in fictional articles; my gut says #23-24 of Eclipse as it was the first publication but at the same time Marvel SA1-2 are substantially redrawn and seem to have overwritten the originals.
33. And possibly a non-POV way of noting that Gaiman has totally checked out and is signing off on whatever?
34. Fictionally speaking though, the Silver Age kind-of rubber stamps Dicky needing his own page IMO as he is now having experiences beyond being a burnt sausage floating around infraspace. If Maggott (apparently the 100th most popular X-Men member) can have his own page so can Young Miracleman.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum to 26: I see the same thing is currently on Miracleman's page and once again I disagree that the character has been shown to have any telepathic abilities that can't be attributed to extra-keen intelligence and/or perception. He doesn't know what the pilgrims want in the first issue of Golden Age and has to consult a spaceman as to the happiness of others in the last issue; if anything the character's post-god actions are defined by his inability to tell what other people are thinking, let alone earlier occasions when it would have been handy to know what Liz, Gargunza etc. The same principle applies to telekinesis; MM certainly doesn't have it at any point up to fighting Bates for the second time, and while he's not exactly been active in GA/SA it's still not been flagged up as far as I can see. Once again this is with the caveat that a) this could change and b) I could have missed something but as it stands I'm not sure they should be among the character's abilities. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman
• User:BoomboxTestarossa/Marvelman (strip)
  
• User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman (Eclipse Comics)
  
• User:BoomboxTestarossa/Miracleman (Marvel comic)
  

No, sorry, this is dumb. Working on a merged publication article.BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)