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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
