Talk:Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

List of Marvel Comics characters

Is it wise to duplicate what is effectively the List of Marvel Comics characters at the end of this article? It basically guarantees that the list will quickly become out of date and inconsistent. I'd prefer just a link to the other page; but I don't want to simply blow away someone else's hard work. -- Metahacker 13:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the list is essentially useless, and unless anyone objects I'll copy any non-duplicated entries to the other list and then remove it from this article. -Sean Curtin 05:46, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Appendix?

We should really mention the oft-mentioned-but-never-published Appendix. DS 23:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issue Order

Just one small correction... the X-Men 2004 issue was the first of the current crop of Handbooks to be released. Spider-Man 2004 was the second. Comixfan 08:55, 21 April 2005

1 Origins
2 Bibliography of Official Handbook series
2.1 Official Marvel Handbooks of the Marvel Universe Vol. I:
2.2 Official Marvel Handbooks of the Marvel Universe Vol. II (Deluxe Edition)
2.2.1 Original Series:
2.2.2 Trade Paperbacks:
2.2.3 Update '89:
2.3 Official Marvel Handbooks of the Marvel Universe Vol. III (Master Edtion):
2.4 Official Marvel Handbooks of the Marvel Universe (Vol. IV)
2.4.1 2004 One-Shots:
2.4.2 2005 One-Shots:
2.4.3 2006 Series:
2.5 Gamer's Handbook of the Marvel Universe (Marvel Super Heroes RPG)
3 Official Marvel Indexes
4 Other informative Marvel titles
5 See also
6 External links

Weapon X (de) 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format for dead (red) named links

Hi Grey Shadow,

thanks for your help on the handbook article! I have a question to you regarding the dead (red) wiki-links:

I began linking all characters mentioned in the bibligraphy section to their own article. Though not all characters have an article yet, it seemes fitting to me, to link them all. But how linking to an article that still doesn't exist?

1. So I began to link the names only by adding brackets ("[["..."]]"), then looking if they all fit. If they were ambigeous then I added " (comics)|" or even " (Marvel comics)|". So also every dead link only has " (comics)" at the end if it will be definitely ambigous if someone creates that article (or the article without any extention, mostly a disambigeous page, already exists). Otherwise there will be only the brackets.

2. The dead links you added are always with extention (" (comics)|..." or " (Marvel comics)|..."). I "fixed" some of them earlier, because I think all dead links should be at the same format. Now you added so much more (thanks!), so I want to reach a "convention" for the site on how the format should be, before I'll edit the article again.

So there are two methodes (1. and 2., see above) on how to handle the format of dead links.

Pro for the first: It's cleaner!

Pro for the second: It's more likely that a new article about e.g. "Zaran" will be named only "Zaran" and therefore the link of the first methode won't fit. (Of course there could also be new articles WITH extentions (although not nesseccary), but that's more unlikely).

Now what do you think?

Greetings

Weapon X (de) 11:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weapon X (de),

I'm happy to go with option one.

I think that I added the (comics) to some of the named links as I was just continuing on from the previous entry and was distracted by something here while I was editing.

I'll see if I can find some information to allow me to write something for some of the redlinks after more sections are done.

Does that make sense to you? Grey Shadow 12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me! Thanks! Weapon X (de) 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older ones viables for Wikipedia?

With all these new OHotMU guides that have been coming out, is there any chance of Marvel releasing/relaxing the rights to the 20+ year old handbooks (and thus allow them to be used for places like Wikipedia)? MarvelDirectory.com has been copying from them for years, and to my knowledge has never received any sort of cease-and-desist order -- is that precedent enough for Wikipedia to use them? Dr Archeville 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to dissapoint you, Dr Archeville, but I don't think that Marvel will release rights of anything! As for MarvelDirectory.com beeing a precedent, I don't think either. Wikipedia has strong rules about showing copyrighted material and even where (under circumstances) it may be allowed to show copyrighted material, Wikipedia wishes for non-copyrightet material, if available. In regard to the Official Handbooks, it was decided that these books or even pages of the books aren't allowed to be published on Wikipedia, the only exceptions I know, beeing pictures (section of page) to identify characters etc. or covers of handbooks to identify a particular issue.

Weapon X (de) 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures would also be dissallowed for identifying characters. I think there's a little wiggle room with the covers, since they're not in an article that contains the part and parcel content of the handbook, but one to explain what the handbook is. That said, I think keeping one image per 'volume' should be okay. We may need a ruling :P -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required / C-Class rated for Comics Project

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) 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of tables for the 4th volume of handbooks

Because of the long (and still ongoing) run of the current volume of handbooks (9 years now), the overview of this volume is getting more and more confusing and unclear. I want to make three major tables out of the many little tables:

one for the normal comic book sized ones (maybe splittet in two tables for one-shots and ongoing series)
one for trade paperbacks
one for hardcovers

It maybe seemes like a break to the coherence of the tables for the first 3 volumes, but that's not really the case, in my eyes. We put all the one-shots of one year in one table (although they aren't recognizable as a series by means of numbers), so why dont we've put all the normal comic book sized handbook of volume 4 in one big table, regardless the year? An extra year-column at start would do the trick! (If it doesnt, we could use different background colours for the different series like in List of Marvel RPG supplements.) With these three tables we would have a clear overview of the handbooks of the 4th volume again! And the biggest table would be only around 2/3 of the table for the 3rd volume...

Any objections? -- Weapon X (de) (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now consolidated the 4th volume handbooks into two tables and want to do the same with the 2nd volume handbooks...

But one thing I havn't found out yet: How can I vertically align the series-row entries? (valign="center" doesn't work) -- Weapon X (de) (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated also the tables for the 2nd volume and added a table for the 1st and 3rd volume reprints. -- Weapon X (de) (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the wikipedia position on OHotMU?

I've had an edit reverted because an uncited statement about a character's powers was contradicted by OHotMU's cold hard facts. Quicksilver if anyone can be bothered to go fight on this one. I would happily agree that the handbook doesn't always seem to tie in with the impression from reading the comics, but should we disregard it entirely? OHotMU says that he can run at 175mph, though other sources^{[volume & issue needed]} say... seems a perfectly reasonable way of presenting things. AITA?Nickpheas (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it said that we do not generally quote statistics from the OHOTMU but I can't remember who said it... maybe User:Argento Surfer or User:Tenebrae? 2601:249:8A00:2500:BD0E:51B8:2D5B:EB (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OHOTMU (from the Manual of Style for comics), "Consensus at the WikiProject is that the use of statistics sourced from in universe material and reference works, such as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Who's Who in the DC Universe or roleplaying game resources is discouraged. These statistics constitute fictional facts." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Seems a bit of an extremist position TBH, but that's where we are. Yes, these are fictional facts, but the only alternatives are facts within the fiction - If a bystander sees a blur going my and says "OMG, he must have been going at a thousand miles an hour" then that would be every bit as fictional.Nickpheas (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that Quicksilver's top speed isn't defined by any official book. It's defined by what the current writer needs it to be. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]