Jump to content

Talk:Steve Englehart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project

[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sales claims about Englehart's Captain America run.

[edit]

I'm going to recommend that this statement by Sal Buscema and its summarizing gloss be removed from the Steve Englehart page:

"The Englehart/Sal Buscema run on the Captain America title saw the series become one of Marvel's top-sellers." [33] based on statement "When Steve and I [Sal Buscema] got on the book...if I remember correctly, the book hit #5 in sales. It really shot up the charts."

This is at odds with the publicly reported sales of Captain America and other Marvel titles during this time period. According to the Statements of Ownership Marvel published for 1972 (for the year prior to the Englehart run) and 1973, 1974, and 1975, which encompass the Englehart issues, the average monthly sales (AMS) for the title were more or less unchanged. In 1972, the AMS was 178,193. In 1973 (covering Englehart's first 12 issues), it was 175,738. In 1974, it was 182,430. In 1975, it was 180,156. As can be seen, the sales for the first year after Englehart took over actually dropped slightly.

Further, in 1973, Marvel publicly reported sales of eight titles: Amazing Spider-Man, Avengers, Captain America, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Incredible Hulk, Sgt. Fury, and Thor. Captain America ranked seventh among the eight.

Links for all this data can be provided upon request.

I emphasize I am not calling for the inclusion of the sales data on the page. I am simply arguing for the removal of demonstrably erroneous information, which is based on a decades-after-the fact recollection in an interview by an individual who would only have had hearsay knowledge of the situation. (Artists at Marvel were not provided sales reports of their comics until the early 1980s.) If I am not following editing protocol, I ask to please be shown the protocol that gets the false information off the page. I don't think anyone wants to see the protocol used to shield the inclusion of bad information and maintaining a false narrative.

107.219.142.161 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, we need a cite, preferably a link, to the publicly reported sales data. Citing each individual statement of ownership and drawing a conclusion is disallowed as synthesizing an argument using self-gathered data. There are reasons for why "SYNTH," as it's called, is disallowed, and you can find the guideline as well as essays on Wikipedia that go into it in detail. One part of it involves POV interpretation: One quoted says, with qualification, that he believes it was #5 in sales. Your information says #7 among at least a couple dozen Marvel titles at the time. That still sounds like a high seller. Additionally, nothing in your post mentions Sal Buscema.
I'm not saying there are not ways to address this. But you're going about it in ways that go against policy that has been arrived at over the course of years of experience.
Let's start with basic facts: What are the issue numbers, and which have the Englehart-Buscema team? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steve Englehart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of McFarlane's status as "superstar"

[edit]

I very regretfully reverted my good colleague User:Nightscream, who I believe to be one of WikiProject Comics' best editors. I don't believe in all the years we've edited here that I have ever done so with him before. I want to make clear that I respect him and his work and know absolutely that he operates in good faith and for the best interest of Wikipedia.

There are two issues, I believe. First is a simple matter of saying the same thing in two different ways, one of which I find wordier than the other: Reverted version:

  • He would later collaborate with Chas Truog and then a young artist, fresh out of college named Todd McFarlane. The work for which Englehart hired the latter was the first professional comics work for McFarlane

My version:

  • He would later collaborate with Chas Truog and Todd McFarlane, whose first professional comic-book work was with Englehart.

The second issue is what I believe to a tangential and hyperbolic passage re: McFarlane.

  • who could go on to be an industry superstar. [Note: I think "could" was meant to be "would", but that's just a typo.]

My feeling is that McFarlane is blue-linked for anyone wanting information about him. One could argue that some phrase needs to be here for both Trugg and McFarlane to explain why they're being singled out, and I'm hoping that can be the basis for compromise phrasing.

The word "superstar" is hyperbolic and, I believe, non-encyclopedic tone. If an argument is to be made that it's a characterization by a particular person, then I think we need to say something like, "...whom The Comics Journal publisher Gary Groth called 'an industry superstar' ", or something along those lines.

As a separate issue, I'm not sure that for every director or casting director who gave Meryl Streep or Jennifer Lawrence their first break that we would say that Streep or Lawrence would "go on to be a a superstar" or "an industry superstar" or "a cinema superstar." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the passage was meant to say "would".
It's not hyperbolic. Wikipedia's definition of superstar is a celebrity who has great popular appeal and is widely known, prominent or successful in some field. Random House's is "a person, as a performer or athlete, who enjoys wide recognition, is esteemed for exceptional talent, and is eagerly sought after for his or her services." McFarlane IS a superstar, as he achieved a level of popularity in the 1990s that only Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld approached, and given sales of Spider-Man #1 and Spawn #1, did not exceed. His success with Image is unparalleled by any other comics creator, and that's an easily measurable fact. Groth, therefore, who is generally not kind to mainstream comics, including that which is produced by companies like Image (in particular during its early years), is not expressing a personal sense of taste, any more than I am. (I personally do not read Spawn, and didn't care for his writing on Spider-Man, much less his attitude toward the work that real writers do, his crabbing about censorship of violence in Spider-Man, or his hypocrisy in treating creators on his books like Neil Gaiman in a way that was hardly consistent with the pro-creator rights philosophy he espoused during Image's early days.) He's just making an observation about McFarlane's popularity and success. The fact that Groth is so typically critical of mainstream comics says something when he is objective and dispassionate enough to concede this status of someone like McFarlane.
It should also be noted that the term is also used to describe not merely a value judgment of his work, but the type of overall popularity and influence held by artists such as McFarlane and his colleagues during the 1990s, as indicated by this story at Heidi MacDonald's website Comics Beat, and the 2013 book Comics for Film, Games, and Animation: Using Comics to Construct Your Transmedia Storyworld, to point out examples. This is qualitatively distinct to how the term is bandied about in the film industry, where it is applied to any A-List performer. The very fact that comics creators typically do not achieve the level of financial success, popularity or clout that a small group of artists did in the 1990s, is why the term's use on the latter group is far more discriminate, and distinct from its use in the film industry, a point underscored by the fact that the aforementioned sources specify how that status was bestowed upon such creators in the 1990s, and as the Comics Beat story points out, generally not any more. This is not the case with how the film industry continues to use that term. The issue, therefore, is not whether there are citations for the word being used for Meryl Streep or Jennifer Lawrence. The issue is how many sources not using promotional wording to fulfill a promotional motive will be found using that term to describe ChrisCross, Chuck Austen, Roger Cruz, Art Thibert, Mike W. Barr, or any other notable comics creator. The answer to that is simple: Not many.
Other sources that have described McFarlane as such include:
Leaving this bit out, and relegating it to a wikilink is not sufficient, in my opinion, because without making some indication of the level of success McFarlane later achieved, it fails to note why Englehart giving him his first pro work is significant. Without that clarification, you're just saying, "Englehart gave this dude his first work." As a reader, I'd react to that by thinking, "Um, so what? How is that different from all the other creators whose break-in assignment he gave them?" The point to clarify this should be in Englehart's article, not in another one. Wikilinks are made in case a reader develops an interest in that other topic. Wikilinks should never be to clarify a point in the primary article being read, since all significant info should be explained clearly in that article. Nightscream (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying and obviously I agree that McFarlane is hugely notable in the comics industry and somewhat notable in the toy industry, with the caveat that outside of fandom and perhaps the toy trade he's unknown to the general public. That said, I believe it's hyperbolic since, accepting your definitions, we still don't call Meryl Streep a superstar, or Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Derek Jeter, Paul McCartney, etc. I'm not sure we should be calling McFarlane a "superstar" when we don't do it for virtually anyone else.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of assaulting an equine cadaver ( :-) ), the point I made above is that we don't call people outside of comics "superstars" here on WP because outside of comics, the term is used ad nauseam to the point of meaninglessness. We don't call Kirby one because the term is regarded for someone who achieves an immense level of popularity and clout when they're active; Kirby, unfortunately did not achieve that during his most active years, as Stan Lee often got the credit for their comics. In retrospect, maybe it is inappropriate without emphasis on attribution and quotes (..."for which McFarlane has been described as one of the "superstars" of the 1990s..."[1][2][3]) Ultimately, I'm compromised by agreeing with using more descriptive wording to describe McFarlane's success, though that requires more wording, which you indicated you wanted trimmed. Nightscream (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

There is a clear consensus for B. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of these two phrases is more encyclopedic:

  • A. He would later collaborate with Chas Truog and also hired a young artist, fresh out of college named Todd McFarlane, giving him his first professional comics work.
  • B He would later collaborate with Todd McFarlane on the recent college graduate's first professional comic-book work.

--Tenebrae (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • B I believe "fresh out of college" is more casual and conversational than "recent college graduate". B is also less wordy. I believe there's no reason to include the non-notable Chas Truog. And a writer cannot give work to an artist — only an editor or a publisher can do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two phrases represents what I think is a version that expresses the relevant point: The Steve Englehart was the one who gave McFarlane his first professional comics work. Contrary to the message you left me on my tp, Tenebrae, in which you referred to McFarlane's eventual mega-success as "the more pertinent part of [Nightscream's] edit in this section", the fact of Englehart being the first to hire McFarlane is actually the whole point of mentioning it. Saying that he just "collaborated" with him removes this point entirely, since lots of people "collaborated" with him, from David Michelinie to Peter David to Mike W. Barr, etc. Nightscream (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Night. Maybe a clarification can help. Did Englehart pay McFarlane? I'm trying to confirm whether Englehart hired him or merely suggested him to the editor who hired him. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coyote was part of the Epic Comics line, which was all creator-owned. That means it would have been up to Englehart whether McFarlane could work on it or not. I'm not sure exactly how the paychecks were cut, but I suspect that Marvel paid McFarlane directly based on whatever deal Engelhart arranged. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B sounds better than A, but I think stating the exact year (1984) would be preferable to later. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without giving too much detail, I and a penciler co-owned a project involved with the Epic line and Marvel chose an inker and paid the person. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess what we need to find out is exactly what occurred. Perhaps Englehart recommended McFarlane and Marvel/Epic agreed? If so, perhaps phrasing to that effect would be more accurate than "hired"? We need more facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently reading Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, and I'm in the mid-80s section. I'll let you know if it's discussed in clear detail. Does this or this have anything useful? I can't view them through my employer's internet filter. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This all Englehart says at the first link:
  • 11: SLASH™, with art by Todd McFarlane, ran as a backup story. It was Todd's first pro work.
  • 12-14: SCORPIO ROSE™, with art by Todd McFarlane, ran as a backup series.
The second article ("Todd McFarlane (Still) Answers to No One" by Abraham Riesman, March 12, 2017) does not mention Englehart, Eclipse, Slash or first pro work.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm up to 1989 in my book, and McFarlane hasn't been mentioned yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. What a previous commenter was getting at when he said the second "sounds" better than the first is this: A. is full of grammatical errors. I spot at least five. The acutal, factual content is up for debate. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B sounds better and more encyclopedic than A l. Also A is full of grammatical mistakes. Finally I don't think it is necessary to mention Chas Tuprg
  • B - Summoned by bot. Without a doubt B. I don't understand why this is even an RfC. A uses poor grammar. Meatsgains (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B sounds better. If there's something wrong with it factually, that can be corrected, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B like everyone says sounds better. A has what seems to be two unrelated events but still focuses mostly on McFarlane. WikiVirusC (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Englehart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better photo?

[edit]

It was taken around the same time, but File:Steve Englehart (53632649869).jpg is a more direct-on shot. I think it should be the photo we use, but I won't change it without discussing it first. Packer1028 (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Englehart&oldid=1257727615"