Talk:Fables (comic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fables (comic) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Virtual Library

The virtual library link is dead...and has been removed.

when i first read the description fo the series the line about the farm confused the hell out of me. when i realized it was characters from fables not fables themselves. That was the goal f my orignal edit. sorry for the confusion.

[edit] Awards

Does anyone know what awards Fables has won? I know it has a few Eisners, but I don't recall what for. --Trithemius 02:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On volume 6 it states that it has won 5 Eisners awards. (Guille2015 17:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jill

In the Hollywood arc, why is Jill so small? Is she not the Jill of "Jack and Jill"? If not, who is she?--Radaar 04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she is THE Jill of "Jack and Jill". But i have no idea why she is small. (Guille2015 05:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
I don't remember it saying anywhere that she is THE Jill from "Jack and Jill", but the issue was called Jack and Jill. She was small cause she was from that town of people who are a couple inches tall (forgot the name).
Lilliputians --Guille2015 04:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say she's the "Jack and Jill" Jill, rather, the issue was called "Jack and Jill" because of the two key characters.--Agent Aquamarine 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No, she is unlikely to be the Jill from "Jack and Jill". Fables#59 shows Jack calling a Jill while small Jill is there. Jack said that the Jill on the phone is "the original Jill in my life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.76.213 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Perhaps the large list of characters could be put into a seperate article about Fables Characters, ala List of characters in 100 Bullets? IF there's no objections, I think I'll go ahead and do this. Elijya 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor, Besides the list can become larger, and the names will link there instead. --Guille2015 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category?

What category should all the Fables articles go in? Category:Fables (comic)? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Are there enough of them to warrant their own category? --Tailkinker 08:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but you only need a few to make a category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stories/Storylines

Okay, on the Vertigo website it calls the main storyline within 'The Mean Seasons' not 'TMS' at all but 'The Year After'[1]. It appears that 'TMS' is just the name of the trade and the colloquial name for that story. Should it be changed? Also, shouldn't the stories section include that prose back-up story from one of the trades featuring some of the Bigby/Snow history? (I would add it myself but don't have the name of the story to hand).Jayunderscorezero 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, given that, unlike every other story arc other than the very first one, no overall title appears on the actual issues I'd be inclined to suggest that that particular storyline has no actual official title, so "The Mean Seasons" and "The Year After" are probably both just unofficial nicknames for the arc. Of the two, I personally feel that "The Mean Seasons", as it was the selected title for the trade paperback (in exactly the same way that each other trade is named after the primary storyline within), carries greater weight.
The prose story from the first trade is called "Wolf in the Fold" and I quite agree that it should be added into the list - I shall do so immediately. --Tailkinker 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that!Jayunderscorezero 11:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "If Willingham dies or is otherwise unable to finish the story" reworded...

I have edited the paragraph about who'd reportedly take over Willingham as the original comment was in extremely poor taste as reported. The link goes to a forum thread where Willingham jokes he'd only leave the title if he died. We can only report that in case Willingham can't continue the story he's mentioned who'd continue writing it. I've adjusted the wording to reflect this but I'd even go as far as removing the reference (which points to a jokingly-worded forum post). (sorry, forgot to sign) eduo 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Willingham's forum posts are completely legitimate references for Fables; he has often used the forum to communicate things with his fans (ie, the issue 59 contents) before they have been put up anywhere else. Furthermore, he has repeatedly said that Buckingham will be taking over if he can't finish the series. The essential fact is that the original wording was correct, but I can see how you might think that Willingham dying in media series is a low-probability event. Stilgar135 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes/trivia

There are countless mentions and allusions to other works of fiction other than fables themselves. A large one is obviously the references to Lord of the Flies while a lesser known one being that a comic Flycatcher is reading, 'Red Hood', has a cover near identical to the cover of the 10th Anniversary edition of The Dark Knight Returns. Don't know why, but these things seemed to be nagging me. ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.221.56 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A very thorough Q & A with the writer

Wasn't sure where to site this but: http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/000513718.cfm gives a very thorough discussion of the original 50 issues, the creative process and the future of the series. Idtboy 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)idtboy 3/19/2007

[edit] Adversary anti-spoiler rewrite

There is currently a request on the talk page for The Adversary for a move and an article-rewrite to make it more spoiler friendly. Please take a peek over thaddaway. samwaltz 03:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fables By Source

Been looking at this page - Fables by source - with a degree of cynicism. I don't see the point of it, to be honest - the existing character write-ups provide full source information, where known, so a page that purely lists the characters by where they come from seems distinctly redundant. The layout's bad as well, with links in the headers, which violates Wikipedia policy, and, more often than not, the individual sections only contain one or two names, in some cases making the headers longer than the sections that they label. All looks decidedly strange.

I don't particularly wish to annoy Duggy, page creator and pretty much sole contributor, by nominating it for deletion without discussion, but he's ignored my comments on the discussion page there and the addition of a Cleanup tag, so I thought I'd open it up out here. The page, as it stands, looks awful and contains no information that doesn't exist elsewhere. So, what should be done with it? Can it be modified to be both useful and not look terrible. Or is it best to simply delete it? --Tailkinker 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining a Work By What It Is Not

Shouldn't we take the line about this not being a sandman spinoff out of the introductory paragraph? Even if that is a common misconception, it does not seem to be one of the first things a person would need to know about Fables. It is not part of the fundamental definition of what Fables is. I think it could go somewhere later in the article.

Agree. Unless it was a popularly held misconception (and there is not even a source on the current one) it doesn't really need to be mentioned at all. Reference it and you could possibly add it in elsewhere but for now I say it can go. (Emperor 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] King Louie

King Louie is described in the "Animal Farm" story of Fables as a "Kipling" character. He is not. He does not appear in the original Kipling stories, but was created by the Disney animators for their film version of The Jungle Book. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If your point is to correct the book, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. If your point is to correct the Wikipedia article... where does it say he's a Kipling character? - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In Fables - Animal Farm, page 96. So, is there a rule against Wikipedia pointing out errors of fact in published books? Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Read that "pretty much" page and nowhere does it state that it is forbidden to point out errors of fact in published books. It simply does not say that. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original research.... This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis...." Wikipedia doesn't have an agenda, it doesn't uncover new facts, it doesn't point out errors; we leave that to other people. If someone does that, we can repeat what they wrote, but Wikipedia itself doesn't do it. The only information that should appear in Wikipedia should first appear elsewhere, in verifiable, reliable sources. So where was your commentary about King Louie previously published? - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say Wikipedia cannot point out errors? Who made that decision? Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain the policy about original research any more clearly than I have. It isn't about pointing out errors, it's about including information that hasn't been published elsewhere. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Corecting an obvious error is not "including information that hasn't been published elsewhere." The correct information certainly has been published. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then provide a citation. But if you can't do that, then you're engaging in original research. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the citation for the correct information: The Jungle Book, by Rudyard Kipling. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Once again: Common knowledge does not constitute "original research," any way you slice it. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)