Talk:Limited series (comics)

those (6 to 9 l.s. issues) are just and plane limited series, genius.--T for Trouble-maker 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark.

In 1981, Marvel issued a 3 issue Raiders of the Lost Ark comic. It was before they coined the term, but shouldn't this qualify as the first Marvel limited series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.172.22 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging

I would suggest that, especially given the controversy (and frankly, the impossible nature of resolving) around mini and maxiseries scope, these terms should be incorporated into this page. We can easily then list all these series, creating one repository for them all. I look forward to comments. Dyslexic agnostic 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, having metaseries and metaseries (comics) makes entirely no sense. I have cleaned up metaseries (comics) while the merger discussion happens, but clearly we need to consolidate these various headings, which are never used consistently, into the easist place to find them, namely here, with redirects for the relevant terms and proper disambiguation in metaseries and miniseries. Dyslexic agnostic 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shot up and just do it, stupid, nobady cares enough to vote, after all your articles are jus studs--T for Trouble-maker 16:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done!...and you call yourself deletionist! you should be ashamed of yourself--T for Trouble-maker 16:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Is there a good reason why this page is at Limited series (comics) rather than Limited series, when the latter redirects here? Hiding talk 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

None, except for the fact that all the wikis have to be redirected if we change it. Dyslexic agnostic 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All what wikis? Hiding talk 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Metawhaaaaat??

That concept need several sources, I didn't find any comics authority using the term. It's indeed ok with manga, but in comics it's not that common. Remember that wikipedians aren't aloud to coin terms here, some good external authority has to coin it first (in this case it'd had to be quoted from wizard or some magazine or something published with dan diddio, avi arad or some big shot using the word. Other way the section would have to be erased.--T for Trouble-maker 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Grant Morrison's seven soldiers has been referred to as a meta series, although it's probably the only one just now. Hiding talk 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody on internet uses the term, I changed it for Tie-in series. I've also heard Spin-of series, but never metaseries. We could go back to that term, but some serious sourcing would be needed. Check my crisis and house of m changes, I'm sure could have missed stuff. Especialy on House of M, since I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure previous version was shorter but wrong; so my contribs could be shorten, but don't go back to previous version and make sure the sequence is correct. Thanks a lot--T for Trouble-maker 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the term metaseries hasn't been used apart from with Seven Soldiers is cos there haven't been any other metaseries. Also much of your description of what a tie-in series is needs a rewrite tbh. rst20xx 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

List of limited series

I have renamed the list of maxiseries to this more all-encompassing and less ambiguous term. Hope all are in favour. Dyslexic agnostic 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I always move talk pages with the article. Some of the page moves by T-Man he did by creating new pages and shifting the contents. I won't be making further moves, as we have only two pages now, limited series (comics) and list of limited series. Dyslexic agnostic 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

YOu should have added preacher, now that is essential —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.57.205 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

History of limited series (comics)

As per Hiding's request: limited series (comics) was created by me here on 12:25, 15 January 2006, using data from the then-sites maxiseries and miniseries. At this time I added comic info to metaseries, dablinked miniseries to limited series (comics), and did the same for metaseries. I didn't do anything to maxiseries that I can find, as T-Man's moves make it hard to find anything. i didn't dlete maxiseries or miniseries at that time. Dyslexic agnostic 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Maxi-series

Of interest to the whole "maxi-series"/"limited series debate: I see in a 1988 Dc publication (Sword of the Atom Special #3) that the nine-issue Flash Gordon limited series was advertised as a "maxi-series". Dyslexic agnostic 06:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term limited series

I'm still wondering why no one has made any input regarding where the term limited series came from. I know Marvel Comics was the first to make frequent use of it. Does anyone have any opinion regarding this? --Destron Commander 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

An observation with 52

It may be that DC is looking at the number of issues as large enough to warrant not using a variation of "limited series" to describe the title. For the most part these terms have been reserved for titles that run from between 2 and 12 issues, regardless of the publication period.

If the publisher is not claiming that the title is a "limited series", then it most likely should not be included here.

However, if, for this article, the criteria is that the publisher or creative team set a definitive end issue, then 52 would not be the longest running limited series. That designation would go to Dave Sim's Cerebus, which he decided, relatively early in its run, that it would end with issue 300.

J Greb 09:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it with 52 is that it is more accurate to describe it as a finite series since, like Cerebus, it would go through a lot of storylines before it reaches the end. The definition for limited series is that it is a complete story in itself. Hmm, I think I should write another article on this... --Destron Commander 09:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think 52 or the other weekly books should be included in this article. If having a pre-arranged end point is the criteria for a limited series, then 100 Bullets (100 issues) and Y: The Last Man (60 issues) should get mentioned first. Same for Ex Machina (comics), which ran for 50 issues with 4 specials. And where would something like Sandman (Vertigo) or DMZ (comics) fall, when it had a planned ending without a specified issue number? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

copyedit tag added

This article needs a thorough copyediting please.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

CONTRADICTION

The article claims that 52, a year-long 52-issue series, is the "longest running limited series." Then the article goes on to list Cerebus as a "limited series" of 300 issues. Either Cerebus needs to be taken off the list, or the "longest limited series" claim needs to be removed from 52. I am going to be bold and do the former. 300 issues is 25 years for a monthly comic. This stretches the very meaning of "limited series" to the point of utter absurdity. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cerebus112and113.jpg

The image File:Cerebus112and113.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

About this article's premise

There have been probably a few hundred comic-book miniseries by now. What is the rationale for having sections on the three or four that are here (World of Krypton etc.) and not the zillions of others? I think there's an issue with the basic premise of this article. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(I bet everyone's just dying to hear my opionion ;) )

Definitely totally random, and I can't recall Cerebus ever being called a "limited series"—I think the sheer scope of it puts it out of the spirit of the "limited series", as the term has tradiotionally been used. The term is normally only used in the context of Marvel/DC type companies who normally have open-ended series, but with certain special "limited series" as something like special events or side projects. Japanese comics (like, say, Marvel's Akira or First's Lone Wolf and Cub) had a calculated limited run, but you normally wouldn't refer to them as "limited series", as they are working from a different context. Also, "limited series" are not necessarily closed-ended–I remember the G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers limited series worked as something of a tangent to the G. I. Joe and Transformers series. Have an end to a series thought out beforehand, like Cerebus, Louis Riel, or From Hell does not necessarily make it a "limited series" culturally (although From Hell apparently won an award in a "limited series" category–but let's just keep in mind how many sixty-four-page squarebound books have been called "graphic novels").

The problem, as with most of the comics-related articles, is a screaming lack of sources, and focus. Relying more strictly on solid sources (not just random passages that happen to mention the term in passing) would likely keep the article more focused, I think. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:the list - If I had to guess, most of it is from over-zealous fans adding thier favorites. Off hand, I'd say any without a comment could go, and others with comments which don't distinguish them as notable (e.g. "Brightest Day" - the followup to Blackest Night) should be easy to prune.

Re:the basic premise - Most of this seems like OR, and could probably be boiled down into a subsection of American comic book and/or Ongoing series. Incidentally, Ongoing series talks about Finite series like it's something different from Limited Series. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input — sorry it's taken me son long to get back to this. For now I'll prune, and the POV "Notable" table should go, as there's a List of limited series article for those who want such a list. At some point perhaps we can work on Argento Surfer's suggestion about boiling this down to a subsection of one of those other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Use as a Television Term

I noticed that this article has the category "Television terminology", and indeed it is in use as such (e.g. this article uses it in the section about Dracula (TV series)), but the content of the page itself seems to imply that it only refers to a run of comic books. Perhaps the article should be revised to better reflect this. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a separate article (miniseries) about its use in television. Both articles should probably be renamed to include the medium in the title for clarity. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the "Television terminology" category.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lengths

After some reflection, I've decided I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the "Lengths" section. This section is still completely unsourced, but more crucially, even if every statement was sourced it would still be inappropriate. The content of the section consists solely of broad WP:OR generalizations and examples which serve no apparent purpose other than to name-drop the editors' favorite series. At best, this section needs to be started over from scratch. More realistically, we have no use for such a section to begin with, since the number of issues in limited series is a trivial subject on which there is probably nothing we can say that wouldn't be a broad OR generalization.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)