Jump to content

Talk:Hellblazer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ennis and Jenkins

Why are these in the same section? They should be separated, like the other writers' runs are.

Appearances in film and television

Since this is more about the comic, I moved Constantine's other appearancees to the John Constantine entry. --Mister Six (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Books of Magic

Dude...why is there a link to 'The Books of Magic' here? It doesn't directly pertain to Constantine...

Dude...'The Books of Magic' is a spinoff of Hellblazer.

Collections

Hey. Can someone put a list of the collections of Hellblazer titles in reading order on the site? Its quite easy to find out which titles are published but unlike most DC titles they don't have the handy numbering on the side.


1. Original Sins.

Edit 11/6/05

I added the list of trade paperbacks in chronological order, but I left the expansion request in as I am aware that there are a number of non-Hellblazer titles that John Constantine has appeared in. Besides his debut in Swamp Thing, I am unclear on what non-Hellblazer trade paperbacks should be included in the list.


I think that this article should only include Hellblazer paperbacks, but it might be a good idea to transfer the Constantine history section to a seperate article along with a more comprehensive chronology of the character.


Moving Character History section to seperate John Constantine article. - Micro506

Edit Nov. 27 05

Removed John Constantine information box, since it merely dupliactes information on the John Constantine page. --82.27.201.86 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit Dec. 18 05

John Constantine is already on the LGBT character list, this page shouldn't be because it's a character list not a title list. So I'm removing this page from it. --Leelan 15:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Writer credits

Is there any reason the writing credit changes were reversed? Even if someone thinks the full list of guest writers was too much Paul Jenkins, who wrote 40 issues deserves credit as much as anyone else, and far more than John Smith who only did one issue as a guest writer if I remember right.

Pronunciation?

Soft "i" like "tin"? Huh? And the film pronounces it like "tine"? The "tine" of a fork has a long "i", as in, well, "eye." The movie pronounces it as "teen," and in fact the books (as the excerpted panel on Straight to Hell shows) say it's pronounced with the aforementioned long "i" much like a fork's tine.

Artists

Can somebody do a list of artists who have worked on the series? I'd do it myself, but have no idea who they all are.Richard75 14:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you mean pencillers or inkers? And just interior artists or dover artists? It'd take up a fair bit of space, but I could have a stab at it if I get the time. I just don't want it to be deleted by some bore after I finish doing it because it makes the article too big or something. Actually, it just occurred to me that one way to cut down space would be to list the artists by name rather than chronologically, so it would say Lee Bermejo (#182-183) --Mister Six 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Added artist info. I used "main artists" because there's not much point filling up the thing with inkers and colourists. --Mister Six 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the policy on red links? Obviously the article looks prettier without them but I thought it might make more sense to leave them in so they can automatically go to blue when the relevant articles are posted. Otherwise [Lee Bermejo] might get his article but nobody would know to link to it from here... --Mister Six 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Red links are OK if there is a good chance that there might actually be an article someday. --GentlemanGhost 04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

alan moore?

Why is it that Alan Moore is mentioned in the Infobox as creator but not in the main text? Also, the Alan Moore navigation bar does not mention Hellblazer. --213.39.180.225 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. More created Constantine but hasn't written Hellblazer so would only be worth a side mention at the start of the entry but the title shouldn't be included in {{Alan Moore}}. (Emperor 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
To clarify, Alan Moore created John Constantine in the pages of Swamp Thing. But he had moved on to other things by the time they decided to spin-off Constantine into his own title, Hellblazer. The article ought to make this clear by now. I'll check. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Chas

Seems there will be a mini-series for Chas [1] (given as Chaz but that might be a typo or I need to check my back issues ;) ) and so it'd seem worth producing an separate entry for him. Thoughts? (Emperor 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Mini-series or not, I think Chas deserves a page. Lots42 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Awkward

made an effort to ease the awkwardness of the comic-to-film transition. ---

Awkwardness seems too much of a POV word to use. But since I haven't seen the movie or read the book, I'm not diving in to change things. Maybe there's a cite that was meant to be added.

Also, I agree with the above comment: Chas needs his own article. Lots42 06:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hellblazer.jpg

Image:Hellblazer.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) 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Interview

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=19744

Sean Murphy on CBR being interviewed about Hellblazer. Says some interesting things about the comic's sales, popularity and status within DC that at the moment I vcan't work out how to tie into this article. JonStrines (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm planning a big rewrite/expansion of the article so this will come in handy. Interestingly he is underestimating sales quite a bit - it is around 12,000 direct sales (and I think it does well in the trades) which is below the cut-off for DC titles but is higher than most other Vertigo titles (apart from Fables). (Emperor (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Plot?

Shouldn't there be a current plot summary on the page. Lots of comics pages explain the entire story of the series and there is barely any information on what the comic is about really other than a few paragraphs describing the first three issues, essentially. I think that there is much more about the series that could be writen on the page that has nothing to do with who wrote it and who did the art. Leviathanlover (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


I agree. The reason I looked up Hellblazer in the first place was for background information about the story. I think that it's great that we know who wrote it and who was doing artwork, but at the end of the day when you look up something like this you also want to get a sense of the story. What are the different story arcs about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.49.20 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I hope I'm doing an adequate job updating this then! Please feel welcome to improve on the additions! Bennydigital (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A plot section isn't necessary for an ongoing series, and in fact would be difficult to pull off (we are talking about 200+ issues here). A better idea would be a Series overview section which explains the basic setup in one to three paragraphs. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Great job! But...

Really nice job you guys have done in this page! At en.wp we have 102 "good articles" and 22 "feature articles" about comics themes, but none of them are about ongoing publications. We have manwhas, films, storylines, characters, limited series... Pretty much one about everything... Even one about the production of a film adaptation based on a comic...

The closest thing I found in English was The Transformers (IDW Publishing) and Eagle (comic)... Wikipedia in portuguese used them both as a "inspiration" of sorts for "Vampiro Americano" (American Vampire) and "ZDM - Terra de Ninguém" (DMZ), two Vertigo titles like this one. But both series follow a tighter plot and will eventually end... They don't have such a long history as Hellblazer has... Based on the experience we had there on making a good article on a Superman series that had 900+ issues to date, I would like to make a few comments:

  1. The lead is a bit week. I know you guys at en.wp don't follow a "chronological" criteria - Plot goes before Production, for instance, and things are explained following a division by themes such as Origins and Creative personnel other than adressed in the order they happened. I personally don't see a problem with that... Every community has their own differences... What works at pt.wp not necessarily will work here, but I believe we can exchange experiences anyway... I do believe, also, that this division may be hurting the lead. I can see up to four good paragraphs there... One between the current first and second sentences. Before explaining "tt has been under the Vertigo imprint since issue #63, the month the imprint was introduced" (by the way, which month? this should be mentioned there) why not explaining that the series was created in 1988 after "favorable reader reaction to John Constantine's appearances in the comic book series Swamp Thing, where he had been introduced by Alan Moore"? Why not adressing the initial creative team? The third paragraph would deal with how "many writers have had lengthy runs on the series", maybe mentioning the one considered the most memorable by critics (or controversial, Azzarrello's work received a lot of attention in Brazil).
  2. Shouldn't "Origins" section be merged with content from "In the comics" to form a "Production history" section? At Action Comics we have a History section adressing the origin of the title, its relation to the history of DC Comics and the histories behind the storylines who were published there during its 73-year run, such as introducing Lex Luthor in the 1940s and, in the 2010s, making him the protagonist of the title.
  3. About the content of the "In the comics" section: One thing we can learn with manga articles is how to adress the plot of titles with a lot of issues/chapters already published. See Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured topic, for instance. They have three lists, one dealing with just that. There is a bunch of FLs on "list of chapter of manga XYZ"... There is also a "list of story arcs" for other titles... Why not have one here too?
  1. "Publications": Other GAs, such as Chloe Sullivan, get a little redundant by having two sections about pretty much the same subject, such as "role in the series" and "character development". Again: Every community is different, and what worked on pt.wp may not work here, but... "In the comics" contents should/could be transported to this section. Mentioning All His Engines, for instance, would be better suited here. The character development (going to US, returning
  2. Division: I would understand the division by author if every single author had a lenghty run and never returned, but that's not the case here. Why not divide this by period of years? One section on Delano, another on Ennis, a third on the rest of the 1990s, a fourth on the 2000s, and a final one on the current state of the book, with Milligan
  1. What's to point of giving "Justice League Dark" its own section? I could understant having a section for it in John Constantine, since Milligan stated there will be two versions of the character (the younger working in the DCnU and the older one in the Vertigo title) but this article should be only about the Vertigo title, since we already have one for the character...

Anyway, sorry for the long text... But that's some of the things I wanted to comment on this page. The work done so far could is a good foundation for a GA, but the current version might not live up to all the criteria.

Maddox (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No need whatsoever to apologise! Starting some further work on this today. I think a reception section would be important, and looking at ways to make all the information much more accessible! Thanks again, and I hope you enjoy the improvements. If you have anything to add, I'd love some help getting this spruced, and can offer you some respect and a doff of my hat for anything you can add! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 11:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hellblazer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: James26 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Reviewing
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):

Comment: There are too many MoS issues here. The article needs another proper read-through by the nominator.

  • I'm a bit confused about the titles of the story arcs, most of which are italicized, rather than in quotation marks. If these are the original titles that the stories had in the original comic, I believe they should be represented in quotation marks here.
  • There are some missing italics for the comic title Swamp Thing (example: "It also contains a crossover issue with Swamp Thing,"), including in the lead. If some of these examples refer to the character Swamp Thing, that should be specified.
  • Missing italics for Justice League Dark.

Missing punctuation is in bold.

  • Missing commas (". . .and having to be responsible for killing an old friend, Gary Lester, and betraying another, called Zed, in the process.").
  • Missing hyphen and awkward use of numeral instead of wording ("This was followed by an epic 9-issue story arc. . ."). I also don't think that "epic" is needed there, as mentioned below.
  • Missing hyphen (". . .both filled in during a three-month break. . .")
  • Missing hyphen (". . .echoing the real-life. . .")
  • Missing comma (". . .coping with the murder of his father, Thomas, frames this story. . .")
  • Missing italics ("Garth Ennis then took over the title in 1991, again from 2000 AD. . .")
  • Missing italics (". . .which was the basis for the 2005 film Constantine. . .")
  • Missing italics (". . .and eventually managed to gain stewardship of Hellblazer. . .")
  • Missing hypen, italics, and use of period and comma together ("Following Azzarello's run, Mike Carey took over the title, following his Eisner award-winning title Lucifer, set in the Sandman universe,.")
  • Missing italics, missing hyphen, and missing use of "the" ("Over [the] more than twenty years that it has been published, Hellblazer has normally been quite well-received.")
  • Missing commas, missing quotation marks ("The next major arc, Fear and Loathing, (issues 62-67) takes you to the high point of John's personal life,"). Also, the use of "you" sounds far too casual.
  • The article switches between "three" and "3" in the same sentence (". . .making him raise three children with her, in the guise of Kit Ryan, from Garth Ennis' time on the title, Zed, from Jamie Delano's, and Angie, from the current run, with 3 different artists. . .")
  • The article switches between "Hell" and "hell".
  • The article switches between "Demon" and "demon" (during the part about the British throne).
  • The article switches between "2000AD" (improper title) and "2000 AD".
  • The article could specify the roles of certain staff members, so the reader doesn't have to click on their link to learn what they do. ("Following Azzarello's run, [writer] Mike Carey took over the title. . .")
  • ". . .to the low point, through his dealings with the National Front, their threats towards Kit, and her leaving him to return to Ireland."
This really should be the beginning of a separate sentence IMO. The original runs a bit too long. It should also be re-worded (example: "A low point of John's life begins. . .")
  • "There then follows a small break. . ."
This should be rewritten IMO, particularly the first two words.
  • ". . .where Constantine is forced to purge himself of his darker side into another body. . ."
The part about another body could be rewritten. (Example: ". . .where Constantine is forced to purge himself of his darker side, which is placed into another body. . .")
  • "Carey's run drew to a close with his three children attempting to kill all of John's family and friends. . ."
This sounds like a reference to children of Carey, the writer.
  • The comic term "Annual" ("During his run, there was also an annual,") could be given a tad more explanation for non-regular readers ("a stand-alone issue", etc).
  • The source cited in "Reception" does not verify the quote at the end. Also, the person should be identified, rather than being labeled "one writer." This needs to be removed or cited. For now, this keeps it from passing the "Verifiable" evaluation below.
  • This reference is used twice, without the "ref name" style.
  • The lists of "numerous artists" and "appearances in other comics" are too long IMO. I think four or five should be the maximum. The length of creator names is likely off-putting to a casual reader, and the character's appearances can be given more detail in his article.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:

Comments such as "epic" and "very effective" could be removed.

  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Hi James. Thank you so much for taking the time to look through this. I find the fact that you call yourself 'semi retired' laughable, given the amount of kind work you've put in on this page!
I've gone through your suggestions, and tried to tweak a few more errors I had noticed, with a couple of exceptions.
*"There then follows a small break. . ." I con't find this phrase for the life of me!
There was a second, but it turned out I was mistaken!
Please let me know if there is anything I've missed! Or any other issues!
Thanks again! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 11:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I made a few minor contributions, as permitted. I think you've done a good job with this article (and especially the improvements), though you may still want to look out for issues with punctuation down the line. Anyway, I still think you should edit the part about Gaiman's work being a "very effective ghost story", as this sounds like an NPOV issue. -- James26 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello again! I've edited that last bit, and now...well I'm not sure! This is my first attempt at this, and I'm not sure what happens next... Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 07:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice job. Short on time now, but I'll get back to this soon. -- James26 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Completed. -- James26 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

This article is pretty much nothing but original research, and I can see why now Wikipedia has such a problem with it. In Pete Milligan's run, Finn is not John's "adopted nephew". He's either his "nephew" or possibly "illegitimate nephew", if such a thing is possible. He's the actual son of John's sister Cheryl, abandoned as a baby.

I've already had to correct the entry on Denise Mina's story. The match was England vs Portugal, not England vs Scotland. The difference is important to the story. This article really really needs it's facts checking! There are many websites out there, among everything else.

If you're going to add original research from the issues themselves, can you at least have them open in front of you as you type? Cos this whole article is sloppy and full of errors, and DC's best character deserves better.

188.29.164.240 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hellblazer. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellblazer. 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:

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) 20:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellblazer. 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:

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) 18:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hellblazer/Archive_1&oldid=1215077843"