Talk:List of Mad Magazine issues
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The structure (form?) of the TV/movie satire area should be standardized. Early in the list we have the parody title followed by a link with the parody subject; later in the article (1980s) we have the title of the parody with a non-linked short description (Movie Satire or TV Satire). Then in the 1990s section, it's a bit of both. Thoughts? MichaelCaricofe 05:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Speedy deletion
See discussion at TATE ETC. article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.45.147 (talk • contribs). 2 July, 2007.
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jdmad2bw.jpg
Image:Jdmad2bw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mad24.JPG
Image:Mad24.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Creators' debuts
I've deleted four names. Gaines was not a creative contributor. Marie Severin was not bylined. Krigstein appeared in just 4 issues, Heath in only 3. I don't even think Severin is necessary (9 appearances and out), but he's the Zeppo of the original foursome, so let's leave him. Wolverton's kind of a wild card, so he may as well stay also.208.120.226.72 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but there's a method to the Mad-ness. It's fair to say that Basil Wolverton's grotesque faces are associated with Mad Comics, despite a comparative dearth of work there. Severin is also noted as one of the originals.
- But no one thinks of Heath or Krigstein as key Mad artists. There are other creators of outside accomplishment with as many or more Mad articles to their credit (i.e. Shary Flenniken; E. Nelson Bridwell; Bruce Stark; Peter Bagge; Ernie Kovacs; Orson Bean; Roger Price; Bob & Ray; Rick Geary; etc). It'd be silly to start listing everyone. The Mike Slaubaugh list is instructive: Krigstein is tied with the 184th most frequent contributors, and Heath is at #217.
- Including Marie Severin would be like mentioning Ben Oda's "Mad debut." It's somewhat subjective, but I'm (mostly) starting at the top of Slaubaugh's list and working my way down. I'm also basing it on bylined work, which is why I wouldn't include the Mad debuts for, say, Gloria Orlando or Jack Albert.208.120.226.72 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I've added Feldstein and Freas. Do you know the starting issues for Tom Bunk, Drew Friedman, Joe Orlando, and the main editorial staff?208.120.226.72 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And either you're a significant Mad contributor, or not. And either a debut is of subsequent noteworthiness, or it's not. Bernard Krigstein was not an important Mad artist. He hasn't got a substantial body of Mad work, and his style and legacy is not associated with the magazine. He's a key EC Comics artist.
- There are about 700 people who qualify by your yes/no standard; should I take the first 350 names, and you'll take the others? Wikipedia readers must know which issue Doodles Weaver debuted in. 208.120.226.72 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Guess we'll have to eliminate Stan Freberg and Chevy Chase as being unimportant Mad contributors? Pepso2 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, don't forget the bylines for Richard Nixon and Leonardo DaVinci! They're famous, too!
- You appear sarcastic and yet you're correct-- Freberg and Chase were unimportant Mad contributors. Maybe this analogy will illuminate the distinction: in 1998, in between his All-Star seasons for the Dodgers and the Mets, Mike Piazza spent just one week as a Florida Marlin. He had 18 at-bats for them. Was Piazza's debut an important moment in Marlins team history? Was he a significant contributor to Florida?208.120.226.72 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] About the "This article may not meet the general notability guideline" tag
Are you MAD? --Anything belonging to MAD Magazine is notable per se!!! --AVM (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The question is more whether the satire was notable enough to justify the contents of every single issue to be listed here. The blue links in this article are generally not Mad contributors; they are the well-known names that were being satirized. What's uncertain is to what degree the satire of those figures in Mad was itself widely commented upon by reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)