Talk:Marvel Zombies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Huge edit on October 14, 2006

Hey, I just completely revamped the article. I cleaned up and rearranged sentences all over the article, but the major changes are the plot section that I condensed significantly, and the description of the covers that I also condensed. Someone had painstakingly described covers that were a few inches down for all to see. I also converted citations to footnotes, and added information on the collected editions. I also removed some images that were overkill, but I didn't want to remove the covers without consensus. Brad T. Cordeiros

As fun as they are, I'm not sure they meet Fair Use criteria. CovenantD 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even thinking about Fair Use, just that they didn't look good and were kind of overkill. I don't think these are actual covers, they are promotional art. They don't have the title or issue number like pictures I found of an ebay auction [1] of the issues. Brad T. Cordeiro

Well, I'm fine with their removal. CovenantD 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the template should be changed, because they fall under the promocomic template. --DrBat 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you checked the images' pages, you would see that they are fair use, as they are comic book covers, and labled as such. If they weren't, they would have been removed within a week by one of the bots. These are also unmarked covers, ie covers before they go through editing and get the title, issue#, etc. I agree that the covers shouldn't be removed without consensus, however you're not doing it proberly. The way it is labled right now it looks like each cover is marked for speedy deletion. However, this should be marked on the picture's page, not on an article that has the picture, and as such the covers arn't marked for deletion. A formal survey has to be done, so if you want to do one, create a new subsection titled something like "Removal of cover pictures", state why you think the covers sould be removed, and that you Support the removal. Then you just have to wait until a consensis is reached. So if that's what you want to do, that's the right way to do it. JQF 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did mark the actual images for deletion, but now I just went back and realized someone went through all the images and removed the deletion marker from all the images. They're still there in the history. Brad T. Cordeiro

While each individual image may be considered fair use, their cumulative effect in this article may not be and thus not subject to a formal survey. One line could hardly be thought of as critical examination of the covers. And they are not comic book covers, they are promotional art. The actual covers have all of the details such as title and issue number. CovenantD 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Brad, you didn't mark them for deletion, you marked them as unsourced, which OrphanBot picked up on, and it got removed cause they were sourced. To mark a page for deletion, use the deletion template. CovenantD, if you check the history, the covers had more than one sentance, but it was removed recently because the person thought it was redundant to have more than a sentance when the covers were right there, which doesn't help anyone but those who already know what was there. I'll fix it in a sec. How is their cumulative use not fair use? It is a limited series, and just about ever cover sold out, so most people didn't see them, and the point of wikipedia is to inform. Also, as to cover or promotion, I think most covers are labled as both. JQF 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Curses! You're right, my mistake. I didn't mark them for deletion. I apologize. Brad T. Cordeiro 19:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. Everybody has made those kind of mistakes, including me. JQF 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the covers. I did, however, just remove Image:MZTPB.jpg from the gallery; it is already the infobox image, so we don't need to show it again, plus it throws off the number of covers displayed (now there are just twelve, which doesn't kick one of them onto their own line). Looks better, in my opinion. EVula 18:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - this is just a little comment to thank whoever put the Cover and info back up - proving that I can rust Wikipedia after all. Not to sound paranoid, but I put a lot of effort into those annotations, and I'm glad to see that they've been put back.

AoD/MZ - is it canon?

I just removed some comments made by a user about the differences between the universe presented in this series and the 616 universe as the statements were clearly made based upon information from AoD/MZ. The question is: is this second series canon or not? I'm assuming not, due to Marvel's policy regarding time paradoxes. Thoughts? Where should information on AoD/MZ go? -- Jayunderscorezero 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's canon the events taking place there will have effect in Dead Days and that is produced only by Marvel as a official prequel so as weird as it has been so far it is canon. -Dark Dragon Flame 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a trade paperback?

I have been searching everywhere for this trade but haven't found it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultimatemarvel (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

There is no way that this should be difficult to find. Try Amazon, Marvelcomics.com or even try asking at a bookstore/comic shop. -- Jayunderscorezero 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the editor is asking "where can I find a copy of this book." He or she is asking if the book exists (and therefore if it belongs in the article.) As far as I can tell, it does not yet exist, and is solicited for October 2007. ~CS 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have also gone crazy looking for it. So I think it is fair to delete is here on Wiki, since this is not even a sollicitation but only a presumption that after HC 4th printing a TPB will become available...--boomvavavoom 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, see on the bottom of this page it states under "Collections" that there was a trade paperback that was made in November 30, 2006.

Cover art?

Do we really want/need every single cover for this to be included with the article? It seems a little excessive. I know that they made a point of basing them on the memorable 'classic' covers of other books, and they're all very good, but still... --Mrph 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Givin the popularity, fame, and number of covers, I'd say yes, as it helps the page. JQF 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. OR you could link to some sites (like mine: http://zombie.boomvavavoom.com ) which also lists them. But personally I think one of the main contributs of this comicbookseries IS the fact that Suydam is doing the covers so cool!! So it surely helps the page!! --boomvavavoom 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't that these qualify as parody covers. The term used should probably be :"homage". Vaginsh 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They walk the line between the two. I've modified the text accordingly. JQF 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some are homages but some are true parodies. --boomvavavoom 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The cover art of "Marvel Zombies: Dead Days" has a key error. It shows a zombie Silver Surfer. One of the key plot points of the "Marvel Zombies" final storyline is the consumption of the Silver Surfer. Armitage112 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

^ Silly man, that's Iceman. The cover's a parody/homage of X-Men #1 However you do make a point that there's an error. There's a Zombie Magneto, which couldn't be possible as the Magneto of that universe got torn apart and completely devoured.

It's been established that the covers aren't "in the continuity" of Marvel Zombies. The first print of MZ #3 shows a zombie Magneto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.55.220.36 (talk)

Merge

• Merge - it is only a one-shot and can be dealt with in the main entry. (Emperor 22:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
• Merge --Fredrick day 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• merge and keep the picture Phoenix741 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge it's a one shot, not needing this detailed a recap either. Egad. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the one-shot. Trim the recap. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a substitute for reading the originals. Doczilla 07:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge....I totally agree with DocZilla. Nuff said--boomvavavoom 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge....Merge, trim the synopsis. If people wanna know what happened let them read the dang thing!--Massacist 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original use of term "Marvel Zombies"

Shouldn't there be a mention of how "Marvel Zombies" used to be Marvel's term for their most devoted fans, those who bought at least one copy of every Marvel published comic in a given month? Or another article about said term, with a disambiguation link?MisterSparkle 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it in a while back. It keeps getting taken out for some reason. Ken Arromdee 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

even though there is probably no possible way that you or I to prove that Stan Lee did indeed use the term in reader-publisher correspondence for many years to indicate a Marvel Comics otaku, wikipedia nevertheless demands a source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos777 (talk • contribs) 21:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

List of Marvel Zombies comics

I think there should be a list of comics that have featured Marvel Zombies at the end. Anyone else think so? I'd post it myself but I don't know all the books they have been in. -Joltman 11:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Error

Has anyone else noticed that in Ultimate Fantastic Four, right when the Frightful Four explain to Reed what happened, that they refer to Colonal America as Captain America? Wouldn't that be an error in continuity? Derek Chase 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)dlchase

Maybe, but remember that Zombie Mister Fantastic and Ultimate Reed had been discusing everything about each other's world before they actually meet, one of the comments was something like "so In your world the Avengers are called the Ultimates" wich means he had to know that he was called Captain America in the ultimate universe since that's one of the most obvious differences covered while talking about that, so maybe he just said it so that Ultimate Reed would recognize and know who they were talking about-Dark Dragon Flame 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The marvel zombie universe is clearly one in which there is no captain america, but a colonel america. and why is there no mention of ult ff in which thse characters were first introduced!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.131.145 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronology/Timeline?

Should be a Chronology paragraph about the MZ Series? or this article just refers to the MZ Miniseries (5 issues)? As far as I've checked, the timeline goes like this:

1.- MZ vs Army of Darkness / MZ Dead Days (Spidey gets infected in MZvsAOD and leaves Ash. MZ DD (#1) begins with Spidey going home (presumably, right after leaving Ash, altough he's not mentioned).

2.- Ultimate Fantastic Four #21-23 (Crossover).

3.- Marvel Zombies (miniseries) / Ultimate Fantastic Four #30-32 (Doom arrives in the MZ Universe in the middle of Marvel Zombies (miniseries) #5). I didn't post it in the article, because it would need a huge re-write. Vicco Lizcano 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

I'd be interested in a chronology, mainly because it seems like there are some inconsistencies in the books themselves - in AOD, Scarlet Witch (who changes costumes between DD and AOD) mentions that Dr. Strange is on the SHIELD Helicarrier. Dead Days shows Thor on the Helicarrier with Strange, and they're two of the last to get infected, but in AOD, Thor is already infected. (Also, I'm pretty sure Iron Fist gets infected twice - once by Black Cat in AOD #2, once by Luke Cage in DD) Also-also, Machine Man shows up in his old look in DD, then as part of Nextwave in AOD #3. On the Nextwave tip, I also find it interesting that the first MZ series and Dead Days both seem to end their versions of the Marvel Universe around 1993 or so. I think the "newest" characters we see are one-panel cameos of Sleepwalker and Darkhawk, whereas the AOD books have the Young Avengers, the Runaways, Nextwave, etc. I imagine the rationale for having the newer characters in the AOD books is that the writer *knows* they're not being used in the "core" zombie books, and as such are fair game, but it does seem to somewhat fudge things up a bit. HooperX 00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Great to have the timeline. I got MZ vs AOD. Now I need to get Dead Days and miniseries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.88.34 (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Its Colonel America not Captain America.

This is not Earth 616 and this Steve Rogers is called Colonel America. This Steve was also president for a half a term. So please stop changing it to Captain.Phoenix741 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The comic never actually stated how long he was in office, Phoenix. All we know is that it never was completed. Stormfin 09:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not the point I was going for, but w/e.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Zombie heroes??

Should this be in here, I mean they are really all Zombies.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 20:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. Say there were a hundred superheroes (ie, Spider-Man, the Thing, etc.) in the Marvelverse. All of them are infected, with the exception of one or two who went into hiding, were plain lucky, or were spared to be used as food for later. Magneto was lucky, but he was devoured shortly into the first issue; the Acolytes were also lucky, but hid on Asteroid M on 2149-Earth's orbit; Black Panther is a progressive combination of all three: He was spared by Giant Man for food, he was lucky in that he escaped, and went into hiding shortly after being found by the Acolytes. With the possible exception of the surviving humans who went into hiding or were teleported by Doom, the only known survivors are the Acolytes and Black Panther. So we can say that almost all the heroes became undead.24.72.1.60 19:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanpages

There have been two fanpages listed.

• Marvel Zombies Suydam cover gallery (solicitation versions)
• http://zombies.boomvavavoom.com/ Arthur Suydam zombie-art fanpage]

One was deleted because it was a fanpage. But the other wasn't. I just wanted to talk about it here I guess :) Personally I think a fanpage with good content and good on geocities or stuff like that, has a right to be mentionned. Ok...like Barbara Streisand once said: "DISCUSS" !! --boomvavavoom 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They were both deleted it seems - neither are required by the article, both should stay deleted. --Fredrick day 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I deleted one of them, and I just missed the other one, fanpages do not belong on wikipedia, unless they are like on a user page or something.Phoenix741 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

still one Q: why are fanpages not applicable?--boomvavavoom 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If a worthwhile argument can be made for the fan page link, it can stay. Fan pages generally contribute jack squat to the article; Wikipedia is not a link directory. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

clear.

My argument would be that my site is a listing of every Suydam-cover AND it's reference from Marvel-history. My argument would be that the Suydam-covers are one of the main " attractions" and benefactors of the succes of Marvel Zombies. ...and therefore my site WILL be a contribution. Then again...I will let it be YOUR choice. You now know my site, so you might be willing to use it. :D --boomvavavoom 10:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Boomvavoom. The listings of every released cover, as well as references to it's parody as well as the fact that he has the original comics to compare to, more than adheres to Wikipedia's standards. It should stay up.Stormfin 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think we should merge Marvel Zombies Vs The Army of Darkness with Dead Days. They're both prequels, they work together, and the storyling before Marvel Zombies is more understandable if they're merged together. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormfin (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DATED issues

This article is rife with WP:DATED vios, with phrases like "to date" and "are still unknown". The articles are supposed to be written in what's called timeless fashion, per the linked Wikipedia policy. Also, the Publication history is choppy and laundry-listy, with every paragraph starting the same way. It reads like it was written by a sixth-grader. Also, it's not supposed to be written in present-tense. --Tenebrae 13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

um...then fix it?Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. That's just Tenebrae being himself again, complete with insults. He needs to learn to deal with the issues as opposed to beating his chest. I'll change the tense.

Asgardian 03:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm perplexed at how Asgardian could take criticism not directed at any one person but at an article, and label it as "insults". What am I insulting? An inanimate object?

In any event, and I apologize for my lack of clarity, I only meant to note to fellow editors some specific points in an article that's too much in need of rewrite and overhaul for one person readily to do. I always intended to pitch in. Sorry for my miscommunicating.--Tenebrae 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Earth-Whatnow?

Hang on. In the interview, Kirkman says this series takes place on Earth-615, and there's no mention of Earth-2149 in Alternate Universes 2005. Was there a 2006 edition? Kelvingreen 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is because Marvel-2149 was fan-dubbed "Earth-666" before getting its official designation as -2149 in early 2006. Most likely he was joking about the similarities between the two realities. Stormfin 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge w/Army of Darkness

As fun as it was, I don't see why MZvAoD is relevant enough for its own article while all the other MZ titles are in this article. The Army article is an indepth summary of each individual issue, which is not necessary. Yes its a crossover with Ash Williams and another company but its definitely not as important as the initial miniseries itself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But it's a prequel. Prequels are always important. Look at Metroid, or Star Wars. Army of Darkness depicts the origins of the virus, who gets infected and who infects who to a point. In fact, I suggest instead of merging the Army of Darkness with the main page, we instead merge Dead Days with Army of Darkness.Stormfin (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And sequels are always important. So why isn't Marvel Zombies 2 getting its own page?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• No Merge it's a crossover with army of darkness. if you really want to merge something see Star Wars: Empire, which has individual articls for each issue. Gman124 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Face: True, Marvel Zombies 2 does deserve it's own article, but not just yet: Only the first issue has been published now, and it'll be at least two more weeks until the second one is distributed here in Canada. For that, I'd say we should wait until either the third issue comes out, or the whole series is released. Oh, and is information from "Marvel Zombies: The Book of Angels, Demons and Various Monstrosities" considered canon?

I haven't read that, but since its officially licensed, I suppose it would be. However, if there is any contradictions with the series itself, I'd pick the series over the guidebook. But I guess you're right. Lets wait until MZ2 finishes and see what happens from there.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree That these two should nto be merged, but could we like make a page called "Spin off series of Marvel Zombies" and Merge AoD and Dead Days to that, heck Even Marvel Zombies 2.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Pheonix, it's been agreed. We're not merging anything just yet.Stormfin (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That works to.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that this has been resolved, is it Ok if I remove this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.74.34 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its not.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sections are never removed, they are used as data, for the next debate. If you remove it then a month later people will forget about it and the debate will start all over.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting annoying

Why is the summary to Marvel Zombies 2 #2 being removed? I know that we have to keep it simple, but what's being writing is just too simple. It borders on patronizing. Besides, if that's the case, why not do it with the first issue summary too? And since when did #3 come out? #2 just came out last week, so there's no way that #3 could have come out.Stormfin (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer.Stormfin (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The trick is to just present the gist - not a blow by blow account of what happens. Such efforts are usually verbose, reek of POV and have the wrong tense and no sources. Just the guts. Asgardian (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, why doesn't the same go with the first issue?Stormfin (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The first issue requires more extrapolation as it establishes the story premise. That said, it is still very tight. Asgardian (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And when the third issues comes out, we can expand on the second?

No we cant

From the fact that Spider-Man's mask now covers his face again, we can deduce that the Galacti have begun to live more off the energy leached from Planets than their inhabitants.

What?Stormfin 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See, before, when he was eating people, it didn't cover his mouth. Now it does, so we can deduce that They don't actually 'feed' any more, or at least not as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies 2

This series now has its own page.

Asgardian (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The virus

I think we should add a section detailing the virus. Although we don't know it's origin, we do know the symptoms thanks to Angels, Demons, and the Undead, the comparison between it and drug addictions, like heroin, and the amount of time to overcome the "addiction", thanks to MZ2. What do you think? -Stormfin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.1.60 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

??? Sure, the symptoms resemble drug addiction. But noting it would be 'original research'. Lots of things resemble lots of things. Lots42 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)