Talk:Marvel Epic Collection

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

ISBN Numbers?

I feel like every new entry should have to include a valid ISBN number when it's added, to validate its addition and avoid fake entries. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a terrible idea, feel free to start adding them. There are a lot that aren't always know if course. Nickpheas (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time to split the page?

It strikes me that this page is becoming both unwieldy and listing three distinct types of books which don't have an awful lot in common. The Epic Collections are the active line right now. I don't know if there are books released under the other brandings, but they're not common, compared with three or four Epic Collections every month. It would make sense to me to give Epic Collections off into their own page and leave the (fairly static) remainder. The main thing they have in common is the names. Nickpheas (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to remove autocorrect errorsNickpheas (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea, especially now that Modern Epics are a thing and seem to have replaced the Complete Collections. Keep this page with the ongoing lines - Epics and Modern Epics - and create another page for the Complete/Ultimate Collections. 189.35.241.37 (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done Peterspeterson (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please that would be a great idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.249.0.254 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namor Edit

I would argue that the "material from" tag is accurate for the Strange Tales and Tales to Astonish issues. The titles were split books at the time. The Epic Collection only contains the stories that had Namor. Strange Tales #107 had non-super-hero tales. Strange Tales #125 had a Doctor Strange story. The Tales to Astonish issues were split with the Hulk. Adhmlh (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been split

This is now the home for Epic and Modern Era Epic collections.

The previous Ultimate / Complete / Complete Epic line is here Peterspeterson (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big formatting updates

I have standardised the formatting for all lines and books, using a shortened date format. This makes that column narrower. Essentially, writing out words like "December" was taking up needless space in the width of the tables. Similar changes with using '#' instead of 'Volume' for the first column and 'Released' instead of 'Publication Date'.

I've also separated out the Star Wars and Conan entries, giving them subheads, which makes everything simpler to find on the contents list. The Star Wars section is significantly shorter and (I think) more readable as a result. I've written intros for both the regular Epics, and the Modern versions. I've pulled quotes to support those.

I have no particular opinion on the "spine colour" addition. I put them in as an experiment to see how things would look. If people have strong objections, I don't think it matters if they're removed. Peterspeterson (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't use level 1 headings, please see WP:LEVELONESECTION. Shouldn't use wikilinks in any headings, please see MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. Indagate (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphachadgamer - see this post from Indagate. Those links need to be removed from the headers. You can't put them back in after I've removed them. If you want to rewrite intros for the outstanding entries and remove the rest of those header links, feel free. I'm working my way through them an odd one at a time. Peterspeterson (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indagate - I have removed all those wikilinks from headings, as you requested - while also writing relatively short intros for each line. Level 1 headings gone, too. Peterspeterson (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and citations

I've re-edited the introduction to try to stick to cited facts, rather than opinion.

The par: "...This was to rectify an inadequacy where the first decade or so of a book was collected multiple times by many different chronological lines, but republication of later material was haphazard and sparse."

hasn't been said by anyone that I can find - and the included line from David Gabriel signifies the intent of the Collection anyway. There's no particular reason to editorialise beyond what the primary source said.

On this:

> "The original announcement consisted of six of Marvel's nine evergreen titles: Amazing Spider-Man; Avengers; Captain America; Fantastic Four; The Mighty Thor and Invincible Iron Man"

As best I can tell, Marvel themselves have never officially isolated nine titles as "evergreen". From the material I've found, it's a niche fan term that's debatable and interchangeable, depending on who is using it. If I am wrong, please insert a quote where this is acknowledged in an official place. (I'd personally be interested in that anyway).

Which led into this:

> "with the constant addition of new lines, including the remaining three main (evergreen) titles (Daredevil, Incredible Hulk and X-Men"

Timeline-wise from that "evergreen" line, the Hulk books started to be released in Sep 2015, a good year after Moon Knight, Wolverine, etc, so it's hard to see how it's factually true. If a title is genuinely 'evergreen', why wait more than a year after the eighth 'evergreen' character to release the ninth? From which primary source has any of this information come?

This: "The success of the Epics led to an increase in both scope and pace, with the addition of new lines" is likely true - but there's no citation from anyone saying the success *directly* led to the increase. Again, it would be great if there's a quote out there that can be included. I've tried to keep this by simply counting the books out per year to broadly support the point.

This introduction, or any of the other small descriptions throughout the page could be bumped up and improved - which would be very welcome - but, if doing so, please cite the sources, as per Wikipedia policy.

There are some suggested publications for citations here - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References - which are, admittedly, a little outdated. Peterspeterson (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]