Talk:List of limited series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Renaming to List of limited series

I took the liberty of this rename, as the page should identify all limited series. This eliminates (or at least reduces) the semantic problems of maxi and mini series. Obviously lots of lists to fill in. I also archived all prior discussions. Dyslexic agnostic 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more moves

Please could everyone stop moving this page. There has already been one move which will require work to undo, since the page history has become detatched. Can we please not move it again until the history has been reassembled. Steve block talk 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's kind of made my head spin. I saw that there were 2 duplicate articles...but I didn't know we had a third. We kind of need to settle on a name and stick with it.--Toffile 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. 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 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Building consensus

It seems that things are getting rather muddled here at the moment, and it would be good if we could build a general feeling on what the best move is with regards to these three terms, before we all start acting on our own. Let's try and discuss the issues at hand:

  • We currently have three terms which are used to describe comic book series which have an announced finite run. "Mini-series", "Maxi-series" and "Limited series".

[edit] Which do people feel is the most commonly used term throughout the industry?

[edit] Responses

  • Limited series and mini-series are both used frequently. Maxi-series is rarely used and is, I think, pretty much redundant. Iron Ghost 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Iron Ghost, I've seen both used a lot. Usually mini if it's short, and limited if it's long.--Toffile 15:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Limited series is the term I've heard used the majority of the time. After a brief look around I've found it on the covers of the following comics, for example: -- Dragonfiend 23:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see maxiseries used a lot but IMO this is purely cos there aren't many maxiseries. But looking through DC's April solicits, every finite series has been called a mini-series. rst20xx 10:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Limited series" was the most common term for a miniseries during the 1980s, but usually only gets used in solicitations today. "Miniseries" is a term that doesn't need explanation to the casual reader. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "maxiseries" appears to be a DC invention, used in early 1980s 12-issue formats for Amethyst and Camelot 3000. Marvel didn't use it, and probably couldn't use it, sticking with "limted series". Limited series is the prevailing form today. 68.148.192.33 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are there hard definitions as to how many issues comprise each term, "Mini-series", "Maxi-series" and "Limited series"?

[edit] Responses

  • Books like The Sandman and Y: The Last Man which run for sixty issues or more can hardly be called a mini-series, but they are limited series because they have a definitive ending. Mini-series usually don't run for more than six issues. Iron Ghost 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've never seen Sandman as a limited series because it was never announced as one when it launched. It took a lot of negotiation for Gaiman to get DC to agree to cancel the book when he finished. I'm not sure about Y: The Last Man, but I've always seen a limited series myself as being one which has the number of issues it is limited to on the cover, as in 1 (of 12). Steve block talk 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a hard call. Miniseries have a hard limit. Limited series should be a long-running book, but how long running is not a hard definition. The only problem with maxiseries is that when compared to the other two, is that there have been fewer stories in that format. It's harder to give a good defintion to a maxiseries, which should ridge the gap from a miniseries to a limited series.--Toffile 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that limited series encompasses all series that are designed to end at a specific number of issues. A miniseries is <10 issues, maxiseries 10+. --Jamdav86 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Limited Series means what the words imply, a series with a limited run. The terms Mini-series and Maxi-series have been used mostly as promotional tools and as such their deffinitions are a little more nebulous. (Stephen Day 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC))
  • No there are not hard definitions as to how many issues comprise each term. I'v eonly seen "maxi-series" used for series of 12 issues. -- Dragonfiend 23:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Limited Series works for Mini-series and Maxi-series --Brown Shoes22 08:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no hard definitions, but in the Infinite/Identity Crisis and what constitutes a "maxiseries" section of this thread we'd pretty much reached a consensus in that 8 and down is mini and 12 and up is maxi. 9-11 is more hazy but I believe it is worth agreeing on a classification for series of this length too. rst20xx 10:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We can't decide this, that is original research. We need to establ;ish whether there are any sources on what this stuff means, and if not, utilise the terms which have the best sources for meanings. Steve block talk 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the most part, no. A "limited series" or "maxiseries" should only be referred to as such if the publisher or creators have consistently referred to it as such. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Steve's right (sorry Rst20xx).. WE can't simply decide what a maxiu and a miniseries is. Limited series seems to be the most common, "value-neutral" (ie size neutral) term; the difference between maxi/mini becomes less relevant if we avoid their use. 68.148.192.33 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Different comic companies settled upon different names, partly in order not to seem to be imitating one another (which of course they were). I think we should treat them as interchangeable synonyms. Incidentally "Limited series" was a loan-word taken from television, in that great era of that gave us Roots and Shogun. Dawud 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it better to list such series by such terms, or is it better to group them by their publisher and issue length?

[edit] Responses

  • Issue length, its less confusing. (Stephen Day 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Publisher and number of issues, probably. -- Dragonfiend 23:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Issue and Publishers would be the two best criteria.--Toffile 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Publisher and Iength --Brown Shoes22 08:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Publisher and issue length. The length of a series is a hard, undisputable fact, unlike the classification of it. rst20xx 10:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Publisher and length. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • issue length, and then further subdivide by publisher if the lists are long enough. 68.148.192.33 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Y, Ex Machina and the current definition of limited series

The writer Brian K. Vaughan has made clear on a number of occasions that two of his series, Y: The Last Man and Ex Machina will be limited to sixty and fifty issues respectively[1]. I am of of the opinion that both series should, therefore, be classed as limited series. However Vaughan did not announce this until after both series had started and, according to this page, a limited series is defined as being one for which the publisher had announced the final issue number prior to or on the publication of the first issue.

I am suggesting that this definition be ammended to include all series where the writer or publisher has announced that the series will have a limited run before or after the series has started; but excluding series which end due to cancellation.

I invite everyone to leave their opinions on this suggestion. Iron Ghost 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes the definition should be changed

[edit] No it should be left as it is

  • At the moment I lean this way. Please see the comments section for my thoughts as to why. Steve block talk 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The definition should not be changed. Vaughn did NOT advise as to the series length when Y: and Ex Machina were released. I would assume almost every other limited series actually states "2 of 12" or some variation on its cover. 68.148.192.33 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it should change to reflect series that were PLANNED as limited in length before or durring issue 1.
  • IAWTAC. If the series can be verified as having been planned as limited length at the time of the first issue's release, even if the public is unaware at the time, then it is a limited series. However, if the writer plans to end the series during its run, it shouldn't be counted as a limited series. Mikebot talk 19:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] Comments

My main concern is how to define the lists, and I feel to define solely by cancellation is somewhat ambiguous. For example, Deadenders was a series always intended to finish, however poor sales prompted the finish to come earlier than anticipated. It can also be the case that a book may be cancelled when a writer on the book has finished his storyline, Sandman a case in point. This was not announced as a limited series, and Gaiman had to manoeuvre hard to get an agreement from DC that they would end the book. Another series which was cancelled but was also wrapped up was Shade, a book which Milligan had an end in sight for, but when it became clear the book would not be cancelled when that storyline was finished, Milligan chose to write on until it was cancelled due to poor sales. He was, however, allowed to wrap the series up in a fashion which made a complete storyline, but it was one comparatively different from the storyline he initially had in mind.

It appears to me that the best definition for a limited series is one which has a clearly defined end at time of initial publication. Long running series for which a creator has an intended end can sometimes find themselves distorted from the initial storyline, The Invisibles, for example, veered from it's initial position as an 80- something issue series, becoming instead a three volume work whose storyline veered dramatically from Morrison's initial idea, in which King Mob was killed. To my mind, a limited series is one in which the story itself is also limited in scope, and having a run of ambiguous length, which it is worth noting Y: The Last Man has been described as having, does not imply that the storyline is indeed so limited, and that rather there is scope for the storyline to develop, expand or contract as it is told. Limited series, on the other hand, tend to be proposed, developed and agreed upon before publication, with only minor details being tweaked once publication has begun. Note that both Ex Machina and Y: The Last Man were nominated for Best Continuing Series rather than Best Limited Series at last year's Eisner Awards, such nominations being determined by the publisher, and that the writer has himself responded to a direct question with regards the series status as a mini-series with a dismissal:

  • "[2] Interviewer, speaking of Y: The Last Man: "It was originally going to be a mini-series?"
    • Vaughan: "I’d always planned for it to be an ongoing..."

I believe this quotation makes it apparent that Vaughan is elucidating the difference I have mentioned above between that of a limited series and that of a continuing series which is finite in length.

  • Vaughan also makes this point later in the interview: "We do have a really set road map, the book’s gonna end somewhere around issue 60, we plan for it to be about five years."

I believe this statement also indicates that the work in question is not necessarily limited in length beyond the arbitrary notion that all stories have a beginning, middle and end. I apologise for the specificity of my responses, but I believe it was necessary to first construct an argument against these works based on the criteria already in place.

Further to that, I would like to also build an argument based upon the notion that we should not set out the limits for the lists with specific subjects in mind. Such lists should be defined first, with no examples in mind, and then it should be decided which works meet such criteria. If we continuously allow the goalposts to be moved, why should we not create a simple list of comic books? The answer is that such a list is unmaintainable. Note that Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) directs us to avoid Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. It is my belief that a list of comic books is far to general, and that a list of limited series comic books which were announced as limited at or before publication, in shorthand a list of limited series, is a definable list which can further be broken into sub-lists based on issue length. There is certainly merit in creating a list of creator owned comic books, but I feel a list which amounts to being list of comic books of finite length whose length is not dictated by cancellation is far too unwieldy to be of use. I apologise for the length of this response. Steve block talk 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • With regard to Vaughan describing Y as ongoing it should be noted that he was responding to a specific question about it originally being planned as a mini-series. Elsewhere in the article he makes it clear that he has a definite end planned for the book. Iron Ghost 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that the quote I also quoted and discussed above, and have now formatted to make it more apparent? Steve block talk 17:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes its clearer now. Thanks. However I still think that that when he says ongoing he is mearly stating that Y was not ever ment to be a mini-series as the interviewer suggested. As far as I am concerned limited series and a continuing series that is finite in length are essentially the same thing. Iron Ghost 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem I have with that definition is that all continuing series are finite in legth. Nothing lasts forever, and having such a criterion is so open-ended as to be unmanageable. Steve block talk 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the definition I have suggested leaves for much ambiguity regarding Shade and Deadenders. Shade was originally conceived as being a limited series, but then became an ongoing series and was subsequently cancelled, so clearly it is not a limited series. Again Deadenders was meant to be limited but was cancelled before being completed and should be classefied as a cancelled series not a limited series.
  • I suppose, at heart, what I am hoping achieve by suggesting a change in the definition is to put an authorial decision to limit a series on a par with an editiorial one. It seems rather arbitrary that Ex Machina would be considered a limited series if the publisher had announced that it would run for 50 issues upon publication, but because the author made the same announcement a few months later it is not. By such a criterion it is doubtful that V for Vendetta should be on the list but most people would be happy to class that as a limited series. Iron Ghost 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the authorial voice does not carry equal weight in comparison with an editorial one. Milligan hoped Shade would be cancelled with the end of the Season in Hell storyline, but when it became apparent that DC would continue the book without him, he opted to stay, the irony being sales fell off after that natural conclusion and the book was cancelled. Deadenders did actually conclude with the same conclusion Brubaker had in mind, it just took him fewer issues to get there, so there is a level of debate over how much cancellation affected the limited aspect of the work, as opposed to the actual narrative values of the work. Many series are now written so as to be wrapped up within a few issues if sales warrant.
    • The other problem with your suggestion is that we could not place Y and Ex Machina on the list until they have finished, since we cannot know that they will not be cancelled due to poor sales or for other reasons. Your point regarding such a limit being arbitrary seems disregardable to me, since any such criteria is arbitrary, otherwise we have no reference as to inclusion. Your point regarding V For Vendetta is interesting, but misleading. V For Vendetta has only ever been published in comic book format as a limited series. Its prior life as a comic strip in an anthology magazine does not preclude the later reworking and publication of the material as a limited series. It would be wrong to include the earlier strip on the list due to its ineligibility; however, the second version of the strip is eligible, since it is a different work. It is akin to Maus, a work which started life as a three page strip but grew into the work we see today, a graphic novel. Should we preclude Maus from being a graphic novel since in a different incarnation it was a three page strip? Since the Warrior run of V For Vendetta is a different incarnation, it has no bearing on the second incarnation.
    • However, there are certainly options suggesting themselves here. We can decide to allow all series such as Cerebus, Ex Machina, Preacher, Transmetropolitan, Planetary and Sandman onto the list, once they have ceased publication to ensure they meet the criteria you have suggested, we can keep things as they are, or we can set an upper limit on the number of issues for which we list limited series. I point out again, we should not be setting the criteria for these lists with specific examples in mind. We should rather set the criteria, and then debate the merits of the work to meet such criteria. There is no imperative to list any of these works, and to ensure such lists are of worth and detail works of equal merit there should be arbitrary distinctions made. It is unfortunate some works do not meet those criterion. However, it is worth bearing in mind the reason they do not can be because they are not the same as other works already on the list. Steve block talk 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also note, where you state "As far as I am concerned limited series and a continuing series that is finite in length are essentially the same thing.", it is worth bearing in mind we cannot use our own definitions to decide what is placed upon these lists, we can only use definitions which are sourced elsewhere. The reason this page is List of limited series is because the consensus, as being demonstrated in the other straw poll on this page, is that Limited series is the most common term used to define both mini-series and maxi-series. We are not using the term to be seperate from a mini-series, we are using it as a synonymous term. It may well be that the consensus on this page will be to move it to List of mini-series, at which point your argument becomes somwhat moot. Steve block talk 19:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cerebus

Information of Dave Sim's declaring Cerebus a limited series can be found at Dave Sim#Cerebus and #History of the book. Shortly after he had the idea, he promoted the book with this hook to get attention for it. It is common knowledge, at least among older comicbook readers. --Chris Griswold 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sim made the declaration after the first issue was published, around issue 26, wasn't it, which runs counter to the purpose of this list. We had to draw an arbritrary line, and that's where we drew it. Sadly Cerebus doesn't meet the criterion for this list that a limited series is one with a finishing issue number announced prior to or at publication of the first issue. Steve block The wikipedian meme 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think, though, what makes this a limited series is that it was limited to an issue number, not a story length or structure. James Robinson had a specific story in mind for Starman but did not know which issue he would end on. I think that is the major distinction between Cerebus and a lot of the other examples, that there was an emphasis on issue number rather than that there was a finite story. --Chris Griswold 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about limited series that get amended into series?

Animal Man was a limited series that sold well and received much acclaim, and DC asked Morrison to continue it. Was Animal Man a limited series by your definition? --Chris Griswold 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember, the actual issues didn't say they were a limited series, but they're in my loft so I can't check this second. However, my memory is that Animal Man was pitched as a limited series but was commissioned as an ongoing. However, it's a good point. Might be worth making it a condition that the series actually end when they said they were scheduled to. And note, it's not my definition, it's a consensually reached definition, arrived at after discussion. Steve block The wikipedian meme 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember ads saying it was a mini-series. From Animal Man: "The series was initially conceived as a four issue mini-series, but after strong sales was quickly upgraded into an on-going series." Sales of the mini-series made it into a series, and I don't believe they made a secret of that.
Well, what the article says doesn't really help either case, since we both agree it was conceived as a mini-series. However, I've got a copy of The Comics Journal issue 122 here, which states, page 28:

"Coming in June: Four new unlimited series start this month. Animal-Man is written by Grant Morrison, pencilled by Chas Truog, and sports a Brian Bolland cover."

That's a good source to throw doubt on the idea it was announced as a limited series. Steve block The wikipedian meme 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So it was not only conceived but announced and marketed as a limited series. --Chris Griswold 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. The Comics Journal describe it as an unlimited series. How does that mean it was announced as a limited series? Surely it completely contradicts your assertion. Steve block The wikipedian meme 09:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I read that as "limited". I guess I'm going to have to go dig for myself. Unfortunately, I should be packing boxes right now. --Chris Griswold 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly-related limited series...

I've added the 3-issue limited series Serenity: Those Left Behind (which was originally announced before its release as a "3-issue miniseries" bridging the TV series Firefly and the feature film Serenity). The page for it mentions (as I saw Joss post on Whedonesque) that there will be another comic book series set in this universe. I seem to recall Joss saying it would be another 3-issue miniseries that he was planning, but I'm ADD, so I'm not sure I trust my memory on that. :) I shall be going to bed now, but if anyone can confirm whether or not its length has been predetermined, I would suggest that you add that to the Serenity: Those Left Behind page as well as adding it (once it's confirmed there's a title for it) to this list. Thanks! Runa27 08:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Conclusion

I just want to say I'm glad I kicked this lengthy discussion off. While at first I did not agree with the conclusion reached, I now see it was the correct one. It is a testament to the power of consensus on Wikipedia and the number of good users out there. rst20xx 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_limited_series_5793.html"