Talk:Runaways (comics)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Harvey Award win

Chris, I double-checked the Harvey Award page, and it does mention Runaways - it's a bit down the page in the section Best Continuing or Limited Series. The page also links to the official website for the awards, which again lists the 2006 winners, including Runaways. Maybe your browser is looking at an older, cached copy of the page? H. Carver 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for catching it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I had "match case" on, on my Firefox search form. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Humor

I think the humor of the series is a great part of what makes it worthwhile to read, e.g. Cloak & Dagger not being good role-models because thier powers come from drugs, the "OJ Simpson" glove which Cloak uses to protest his innocence. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article?Aastrup 07:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a good source for it, you should. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the comics themselves be used a source? It's hardly original research to point out references to popular culture or recap on jokes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aastrup (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC). Yeah, I forgot to sign Aastrup 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Original research includes assessing something yourself. Your opinion does not belong in the article, but a citation to a sourced article that mentions this does. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Membership"

Old Lace is concidered a member. She has appeared as part of the team roster at the begining of every issue in (at least) volume 2 to feature such a roster, and appeared in the Runaway's roster at the begining of each issue of Young Avengers/Runaways, as well.Angel the Techrat 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies version

http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/3289027.html#cutid1

Just to nail the coffin shut, there is no Molly Hayes Zombie yet. -- Majin Gojira 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning or not?

My feeling is that, even leaving aside the dubious 'consensus' on the whole Mass Spoiler removal, the spoiler on this page does not fall under those guidelines. The spoiler warning is NOT for the 'plot' section as described in the spoiler outlines. It is for a simple listing of characters, which most random readers would NOT assume contains major spoilers for the outline. This one does, as it reveals major mysteries of the first and second volume, such as who's the mole, who dies, who's related to who, and so on. As such, it should contain a warning. I'm happy to reverse my position if the regular contributors to the article disagree, but until then I'll continue to reverse removals by the drive-by spoiler removing crowd. Wandering Ghost 19:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a concern for you, why not move the character exegesis out of the character section? You could just have basic identification. I can't see what the fuss is about, myself. THis is supposed to be about the story, it isn't supposed to be it. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's the judgement of the community to do that, that's fine. I'm not personally particularly interested in changing the structure of the article that has served us well.Wandering Ghost 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The guideline states:

• Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar.
• Articles about fictional characters, objects, or places can be expected to include significant elements of the story. They should not typically need spoiler warnings.

The guidelines additionally states spoiler tags must "have compelling arguments for their insertion". I've reverted appropriately, barring a "compelling argument" for the inclusion of the tag. Vassyana 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And again, the spoiler warning on this does not cover the guideline. This is not in a 'Plot' 'Character History' or 'Synopsis' section. Whether it is in a 'other section that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar' is open for discussion, perhaps. This is also not an article about fictional characters, objects, or places. It's an article about a comic, which includes all of those, but is not, itself, one of those. As to whether a 'compelling reason' has been offered, well, what counts as _compelling_ is _always_ debatable, and so I'd prefer to leave it up to the members of the community who work on this page, and will restore the page to its original state until then, seeing as how it's placement does not follow the stated spoiler guidelines for where a spoiler should not go, and the person who made the original edits do not seem to be someone who regularly contributes to the article, but is instead someone who goes around removing spoilers en masse. Wandering Ghost 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the inclusion of spoiler warnings, but as for the suggestion to change the structure of the article - absolutely do not do this. Plot spoilers (or the lack thereof) should never ever ever dictate the structure of an article. --- RockMFR 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Runaways.jpg

Image:Runaways.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 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Runaways.jpg

Image:Runaways.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 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Include This?

Should we note that the runaways is one of the few superhero groups that have more girls in the team than guys? 71.55.8.246 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Supergrimm

If you can find a link to a reliable source that finds that information notable enough to mention. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delays.

I am going to include the fact that ever since Joss Whedon took over the title the series has suffered increasing delays. Here is a run down of the delays. #25 - April 4, 2007. #26 - May 2, 2007. #27 - July 5, 2007. #28 - October 10, 2007. #29 - February 20, 2008. #30 - May 21, 2008(planned). See what I mean, its fallen into a tri-monthly schedule. Rau's Speak Page 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for including that, I was wondering about it and couldn't find info on it anywhere else. --Quetzilla (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It happens anytime Joss Whedon writes a good story(so everytime). Thats what happened after they extended Astonishing X-Men. Probably why Buffy was canceled too. Rau's Speak Page 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Condense

I condensed the plot section immeasurably. I hope that people who understands the policies won't object, and the people who want as much information as possible will just have to deal with it. Rau's Speak Page 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Anyone care to update? There's a lot that's happened and Volume 2 is ending tommorow with issue #30, Joss Whedon's last. This information should be readily available on any comic news site and the like. Volume 3 starts with Terry Moore and Humberto Ramos writing a new #1. I am too sick and sleepy to do it myself right now. (70.71.197.16 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

Update what? It's up to date. The plot section will be tomorrow. And it already reflects Volume 3. Rau's Speak Page 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And it comes out next week, the 25th. Rau's Speak Page 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, another stupid delay. Michael Ryan should NOT be working on monthly comics. Joss said his scrips were done as far back as September so it's purely on the art teams back. Could have sworn it was set for 18th. At any rate, I'm going to update the Bibliography, as that's where I meant it was out of date - It has no ending of Volume 2 listed, when in fact we know when Volume 2 ends and 3 begins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.197.16 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohh.. This page has a bibliography section? And Joss Whedon's titles always run late, but their always worth it. Rau's Speak Page 22:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Volume

According to the marvel publishing catalog the series is going monthly again. Volume 3 issue one is listed as coming out August 27, 2008, while issue to is supposed to come out September 24, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okaayy... we know. It's in the article. Rau's Speak Page 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I was scimming through it. The article still says it tri-monthly. Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Because that last issue of that schedule came out today. It hasn't been updated. Rau's Speak Page 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know how to update it though. I don't know how to update the box with the information that is. Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't? Or you didn't? Because you did. Rau's Speak Page 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

lol, yeah, i figured it out after looking at it for a little while. Sorry for bothering you.Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no trouble at all. And for future reference, article talk pages are not for conversations. That is why I sent you that message on your talk page. If someone sends a message to your talk page, reply on their talk page. Unless they have a notice saying to do something else, in which case, do that. Rau's Speak Page 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes made by Joss Whedon

I'm going to remove this section, because it's just fannish quibbling. Not exactly encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon Divinus (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Issues/Covers

To my understanding, solicitations are not considered proper sources and how exactly are details about covers notable? It seems like a lot of fannish-detail. Similarly, having one-line plot summaries about unreleased issues seems riddled with recent-ism, since they can't give any information on notable changes or growth of the characters or the title. Inf act, because they're from solicitations, which are heavy on hyperbole and vague about plot, I suggest that we do away with the "upcoming issues" section all together.Luminum (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Section has been cut in half, removing all fannish detail; if you feel the need to trim a little more, go ahead. A ^{(Reply!,Contribs!)} 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized.

Teen Titans (exceptfor Robin, of course) is a total ripoff of this. lawl. (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.226.252 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

...You do realize that Teen Titans predates Runaways by decades, right? 98.219.38.231 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been trolled, hope this helps. --137.122.30.140 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Klara Plast

Bern is a city in Switzerland, so I changed the description of Klara's parents from "German" to "Swiss". Admittedly there is a similarly-named city in Germany named Berne (which may be translated to Bern in some circles, I don't know) and, hell, a handful of tiny American towns named Bern, but I'm pretty sure when she says "Bern" the writers intended the most significant, Swiss Bern. --137.122.30.140 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New image ideas

Well, I've been thinking of this for a while - we only have one image on the article. I was thinking we could add another image to the general plot section, though I'm not entirely sure what.

• One idea is the cover art to the very first issue of Runaways - a cover art to show the series' debut appearance.
• A second idea would be a cover art to one of the more recent Runaways issue - more modern, I guess.
• One idea I was insisting upon is the cover art to one of the Runaways' trade paperbacks for the bibliography and collected editions section; the series is frequently praised because of its sales in digests.
• Even though Runaways is set in the Marvel Universe, it is (sometimes) pulled into Marvel's large crossover events (Civil War, Secret Invasion). An image like this could be interesting, such as one for setting.

Those are some of my general ideas, though I'd like more opinions. -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you're aware images have to enhance understanding of the subject matter. So I don't particularly see a good rationale for an image of a trade in the publications section even if the sales are notable. An image won't really contribute to that fact. One thing I would suggest is adding images of the debut issue artwork/cover (even better if it showcases the original line up with Alex and Gertrude) and another with the more recent lineup (presumably including Victor, Klara, and Xavin).Luminum (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. What I had in mind was an example of digest, but looking back now I'm not entirely sure of it. Thanks, -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I get your line of thinking. One image you could add is a depiction of the team in the What if... series if you have one, since it's apparently very different from the Runaways common theme of "anti-superheroism."Luminum (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend updating the infobox to {{Infobox comics team and title}} - keep the main image on the team and use the secondary image for issue #1.

Best place for an extra image here would for an alternate versions section to demonstrate a different design and/or line-up. (Emperor (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

• We have a free image of one creator, File:Brian K Vaughan.jpg. I can't source one of Alphona. There's an alternative Vaughan image at flickr, if you prefer to use that one, it just needs uploading to the commons, I have experience at that if you want to use it and don't know how to upload it. Hiding T 09:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A few observations...

• As pointed out, the use of images should be limited to clarification, not added for decoration. The exception really being the infobox which is a general visual identification.
• Emperor is right, with the "team & title" infobox, as it is currently set up, there is room for the "team image" and an image of the first issue. And I'd strongly argue for the cover of the April 2003 issue.
• I'm not sure if any other image of the cast, in any form, would be usable. The nutshell is that it's redundant imagery, even if the artist and/or characters are different.
• I'm not really sure how/why Vaughan's image would fit in. Sad thing is there is no reason to add it. Even a free use image should have a reason for inclusion.

And just and side... is there a better group shot than the current one? - J Greb (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and thank you for the input. Have you seen this? It features all the main characters, but I only have one issue with it - this image is a solicit released on Marvel's official site. On the actual cover released worldwide, one of the characters is removed from it (due to departure). I'm not entirely sure the image we should be using is a solicit image, or the actual cover. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually... that one has a similar problem. The color is off. Preferably, the characters should have the "normal" coloring.

And just as a side thought... is there a specific reason for the solicit and cover being different?

- J Greb (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are different. The solicit features all the characters. The actual released cover features all but one. What do you mean by "normal" coloring? I couldn't wrap my head around that. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Coloring first...

Both the current infobox image and the new one you point to are "pushed" away from how the characters are normally colored. The current one is pushed towards an amber pallet, the other black and white with blue accents.

As for the changed art... One of the things that would be helped with an image is a section talking about changes or misdirection through differences between solicit art and final cover art. But it has to be something that the text can be cited back to a secondary source.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought here... but File:RunawaysMarvelComics.jpg seems like it would be a better fit for the team image in the infobox. - J Greb (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Personally, I'd prefer the current image - the cover features the more notable team members who've stayed on the team through out most of the series' run. But I guess File:RunawaysMarvelComics.jpg could work... the image comes from the last page of the series' first story arc, featuring the original lineup of the team. -- A ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it does point up the coloring issue. (And it was a case of trying to find a place for RunawaysMarvelComics.jpg, since I'm swapping it out for the digest collection cover.) - J Greb (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Colouring issue which image? And thanks for the digest cover - actually represents the story arc, rather than the previous image. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RunawaysMarvelComics.jpg is what we should be aiming for. :) - J Greb (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I'm a little confused as to what "the series debuted in April of 2003. Despite debuting in 2003, the actual series itself was launched in 2002 as part of Marvel Comics' "Tsunami" imprint" actually means. How was the series "launched" the year before it debuted? If it was some sort of preview thing, it might be better to put "the characters first appeared" rather than "the actual series itself". Daibhid C (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, and on looking into it, apparently the "Tsunami" imprint didn't launch until 2003, so it's not really possible to have launched in 2002 as part of Tsunami. I took that note out. - Salamurai (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

6 or 7 Team Members

The article say that the original team was made up of six members, but then it lists seven characters in the original team. I don't know enough about "Runaways" to know where the error is there, but something is clearly wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.74.96 (talk • contribs) 00:27, July 20, 2014‎

• The text indicates the "seventh" character is Gertie's pet dinosaur, but I've indented the line to make it clearer.Salamurai (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

which VERSION of the Runaways are in Marvel's Spider-Man?

Using copy-paste to apply Microsoft Word's function Word Count, i find that Runaways_(comics)#Television has 160 words about the Runaways (TV series), prefaced by 275 words about a Runaways movie which never happened, but kinda-sorta became the TV series instead, followed by a mere 7 words saying The Runaways will appear in Marvel's Spider-Man. i think we need to add some words clarifying whether the Spider-Man (2017 TV series) will include A) the Runaways from the Runaways (TV series), which is what the current text implies to me but i suspect is incorrect, B) the Runaways from the Runaways (comics), or C) some other (possibly new) version of the Runaways. i'm guessing not (A), because the (A)-listers are in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which the Spider-Man (2017 TV series) article does not even mention... but that's speculation on my part. Would appreciate input from anyone with more definitive information here. Thanks.

--71.121.143.161 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Spider-Man is an animated series, so no. The characters that will appear in that TV series will be adaptations of the comic book characters, just like the ones from the live-action TV series are also adaptations. Cambalachero (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole section needs a rewrite. The random bullet points make reading a chore. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: "Do unto others as you want others to do to you." i would want someone to tell me if i made a mistake, and i would want them to tell me politely. Please don't be offended when i tell you that YOU'RE WRONG.  ;-) Actually, i think you're right (different version of the Runaways in Marvel's Spider-Man), but the fact that Spider-Man is an animated show does not prove live-action shows/characters are not part of the same continuity. Vixen is an animated character in the same continuity as the related live-action TV shows, and when the Green Arrow and Flash meet her in cartoon form, they're supposed to be the same characters as the live-action guys. Another example would be Yoda, who is supposed to be the same individual whether he appears in puppet, CGI, cartoon, comic book, or prose form. Something to think about. --71.121.143.204 (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

the line about Marvel's Spider-Man was added by an unregistered user (who also added the weird bullets). I spent about 45 minutes furiously (not really) Googling for any shred of info on this supposed appearance, and can't find anything. Therefore I am assuming it's false and removed it. - Salamurai (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)