Talk:Top 10 (comics)

Disambiguate?

Should this be disamibiguated? Top Ten (comic), maybe? RickK 20:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But it's not called Top Ten, it's called Top 10. —Paul A 06:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Was this comics series discontinued after issue 12? Mortene 11:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, though there have been a few spin-offs since (Smax and the as-of-yet unreleased The '49ers). -Sean Curtin 11:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When the first series ended, there was talk about this being simply the "off season" between "seasons one and two", as if it's a television series. Alan Moore's apparently reluctance to continue working with DC Comics throws a wrench into these plans, though. -mhr 14:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Season 2 has started if someone wants to add it. It's on the DC main site as well as some comic DB sites. http://dccomics.com/comics/?cm=10417 --Morbid-o (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Maybe something should be added about the very large number of visual references to other works, everything from Doctor Who, to Sluggy Freelance, some very obscure. 15:59, 15 Jun 2005

---

I think Top 10, Beyond All Limits is being written by another writer. As for annotations, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7160/annos.html would be a lot more in depth. It also reminded me that no one mentioned Deadfellas in this.

Merge proposal

I feel it's necessary that the Top 10 spinoffs/sequels be incorporated into the article proper; it'd cut down on redundancies & related confusion. (To wit: two entries extant for The Forty Niners/The 49ers.) Comments? Fastbak77 23:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to have separate entries. It's something I think happens too often on Wikipedia, having separate articles for things that would be more informatively kept together, as well as duplicate articles based on variant spellings - if the 49ers are to have their own page it should at least be spelled the same way as on the book cover (whichever way that is). But a single article covering the original series and its spin-offs (including Deadfellas, Smax and Beyond the Farthest Precinct) would, I think, be a better way of organising it than endlessly subdividing - God forbid we end up with separate pages for all the individual characters. Same goes for Tom Strong and Tom Strong's Terrific Tales. --Nicknack009 19:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I already merged Tom Strong and ...Terrific Tales. :) (Also, Greyshirt and Greyshirt: Indigo Sunset, which I intend to come back to...) I didn't mention the Smax page, though, as it's fairly extensive and stands well on its own. Fastbak77 00:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Smax series is different enough from Top 10 to warrant its own page. I don't think of 'Deadfellas' and 'Beyond...' as spin offs, but just further Top 10 stories. So keeping them all on the same entry makes sense. --emb021

The ABC comics are a little different than regular comics as they often have very short runs. If it was likely that would be more spin-offs in the upcoming years, then I'd say it's best left merged. However since each 'spin-off' is usually extremely different from the parent series (often featuring almost completely different characters) I feel they would be better served as separate entities (like separate films featuring the same characters). Like I said if it seemed likely there would be a slew of new titles, then I'd agree, however ABC has nearly finished for good.

Unlike the endless issues of Batman or Superman or X-Men, the entire ABC line is more akin to Neil Gaiman's The Sandman which has a separate page for each and every book and spin-off.

Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I think, not unsuprisingly, that you're kinda missing the point... Look, for one thing, there's two entries for The Forty-Niners (or however the heck it's spelt), ergo the need for them to be rewritten/merged post-haste. More importantly, just because *every* Sandman spin-off has its own page, doesn't mean the ABC stuff has to. Look at the Smax page - it acts as a character profile, and details the events of his miniseries. Greyshirt should do the same (and by the way, I really resent your undermining what I did in that regard - I had to go back and fix it up again!). Put simply, Wikipedia doesn't need two entries on Greyshirt/Indigo Sunset, or three (or four!) related articles on Top 10, The Forty-Niners and Beyond the Farthest Precinct. Just put 'em all in one place & simplify things. Fastbak77 00:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk about RESENTMENT you should consider the fact that I've worked hard on these pages (not always logged in) only to have YOU change things around.

What, you think I enjoy cleaning up other people's mess? You're mad. Fastbak77 04:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • A rational argument for keeping the pages separate is that it might encourage people to add to empty pages, something they may not do if a page already looks busy from combining many items. Also, I fail to see how confusion might be garnered from having separate pages, except perhaps from the odd oversight you mentioned (which is easily corrected), it should makes things easier, if anything, for a reader. Where did you get this structure you are trying to impose, FastBak77? Is it something Wikipedia itself is trying to promote or just something you personally feel is necessary?

It's a bit of both, although the work that's gone on regarding The Forty Niners since I raised the issue has allayed whatever concerns I had. (That said, it still needs a cleanup.) Fastbak77 07:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest (in the friendliest possible way) that you spend more of your time adding new content and cleaning up old content (which are both the most important things that need doing at the moment) instead of re-arranging other people's work?

Check out my user page, Anonymous. Is answer question? Fastbak77 04:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems we've 'decided' to include the new Top 10 series in the main article, can we start updating it? Like adding the new officers (some of which I'm still not sure of their names, etc). ---emb021

Spoiler Tags

Some sections of the article, notably the officers section, do seriously need spoiler tags. (Is anyone qualified to add those? If so, where can I find the tag?) AK-17 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Summaries added

So, I put up summaries of the two main series. They cut out a lot of the subplots of the series, largely because that helps keep them small, and because I didn't want to give away every great minor detail of the story. Of course, if any can improve them, please do. Cybertooth85 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I say so on the basis of comments like "that add colour to every situation", "as bizarre as the citizens might be". Article should be in NPOV, citations should be added to explain each conclusion (even if it may seem obvious that this is a "superhero" version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Written largely in terms of a fan's viewpoint, not an editor's. If you require more clear suggestions and help then put the article up to be peer-reviewed. Zuracech lordum 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a neutrality dispute; this is an editorial standards issue. Neutrality refers to personal opinions being added to an article like "this is bad" or "he's an idiot". The comments you refer to are more fact-based than you think; the whole idea is that the city of Neopolis is "bizarre" (by the very definition of the word "bizarre"). It is not "normal" or "every day", is it? Dispute removed. 82.71.7.96 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TopTencover1.jpg

Image:TopTencover1.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) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TopTencover2.jpg

Image:TopTencover2.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) 15:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten Season Two, penned by Zander Cannon.

The intro mentions "Top Ten Season Two, penned by Zander Cannon." Could someone who knows please clarify whether that means "written by" or "inked by"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.143.170 (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)