Talk:Grant Morrison

Objectivity

I feel like the entire article is littered with negative bias towards him and his work.

This is because he is shitty and his work continually fails to please anyone who doesn't want to blow him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.77.154 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would not say this article is too negatively-inclined, but it's certainly lacking in a lot of ways. Nevermore218 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lacking in a lot of ways? How about the fact that the man considers himself to be a literal Warlock, as he himself admits in a short article he wrote, entitled "Pop! Magic". I stumbled upon this article, reading a book entitled "The Book of Lies" published by the "Disinformation Company" -- which he apparently writes for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.73.52 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaps?

It seems like there's a big chunk missing. It goes from talking about The Invisibiles and his (relatively) early DC work to quite recent stuff; in one paragraph, JLA and X-Men are still ahead of him, in the next they're already in the past, with no discussion of the period when he was actually doing them. Since this is probably his best-known work - it's certainly his most commercially successful, if nothing else - this seems like a pretty big oversight. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the man to do these sections right.

I've expanded the biography but more work needs to be done-his non comics work for example needs to be added.Logan1138 16:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Later for Vertigo, Morrison would write Flex Mentallo (a Doom Patrol spin off) with artist Frank Quitely and Aztek with co-writer Mark Millar

i could be wrong, but i am pretty sure that Aztek was NOT a Vertigo series...12.47.223.8 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Shortly afterwards, a character called "The Writer" appeared in an issue of the DC Comics title Suicide Squad (not written by Morrison), protesting that other "writers" had taken control of his fate now that he was part of "the continuity". The character was killed shortly afterwards."

How do we know that "The Writer" was intended to be a Morrison appearance?

• Morrison confirms it here: http://www.grant-morrison.com/pre_ink.htm

Simpsons Comics appearance

I haven't read the Simpsons Comics in which Morrison makes an appearance, but why exactly is it "ironic" that the issue doesn't mention his work on Animal Man or The Mystery Play? The current parenthesis is a bit jarring and unexplained. I'm tempted to remove it entirely, guessing that it's sufficient to say that he's depicted arguing with Mark Millar about the X-Men titles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1990s

I think "The Invisibles proved to be a huge impact on the counterculture" is a bit of an overstatement. Without specific examples of the series's influence, it's impossible to evaluate. Can we have some specifics there?

Also, the "Matrix" issue is controversial, and writing that Invisibles "is said to have been a major influence on The Matrix" begs the question: said by whom? Can we cite sources?

Update: On the advice of another user, I'm going to delete. Feel free to reinstate with specifics. Gabriel Roth 04:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I second Gabriel's concern that the "huge impact" ought to have a source of some sort--that's a pretty tall claim. And we should put in a link to the interview where Morrison talks about The Matrix--is that the Suicide Girls interview? Nareek 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well i don't think you actually need to cite it, the huge impact is pretty obvious. Barbelith.com, Technoccult.com, Key23.com, all taken from morrisons work the invisibles. Pretty much everyone in Generation Hex was inspired by him. If you go around Europe in the hip spots you can still see "King Mob" graffiti.

Just want to remind folks that the edit summary box is a fine place to explain why you are putting something back in again or taking something back out again. Nareek 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think a mention of the Matrix is required. As mentioned it is the Suicde Girls interview [1] where he goes into this at length. (Emperor 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately, I don't think HIS claiming that the Matrix movies are clearly influenced by/stolen from his work counts as an even REMOTELY significant and/or unbiased source - especially since everything from Philip Dick to William Gibson to Mage: the Ascension have been suggested as "major influences" on the Matrix in the past. We're getting to the point where there are more major influences than there is actual movie! Unless we've actually got a source from the Wachowskis themselves admitting the influence, or someone at Warner Brothers cops to it, or even a more impartial third-party source for the info, I don't see this as anything more than his own delusions of grandeur and ego-wankery. Granted, however, it would be more than valid to mention in the article that HE thinks the Matrix was cribbed from his work. Hossenfeffer 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats all thats needed. Its mentioned in the Matrix entry (where they are unfortunately less critical of his statements) and so would need to be mentioned somewhere here. Given the whole Sophia Stewart business perhaps there should be an entry about everyone claiming the film nicked their ideas. (Emperor 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

The Wachowski Brothers kept copies of 'The Invisibles' on set for cast and crew during the filming of the first Matrix movie. I don't have any citations, but I remember reading that long ago. Es-won 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

shouldn't a bibliography be in chronological order, rather than alphabetical? or at least have dates of publication noted parenthetically? when i have some time, i will try to dig up dates to add & i'd encourage anyone else to do the same...69.181.121.40

Agreed. I have been through the bibliography and added in things that have arisen with sorting out 2000AD entries and I've expanded others and tried to track dates down (as well getting the formatting consistent). Its going to need a couple more goes through to get all the dates and formatitng spot on but then it should be an easy matter of switching it around. I'll return to this at some point but feel free to add any extra info you can and we'll see how the land lies and then sort it all chronologically. (Emperor 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

I think the alphabetical thing is kinda working (though I agree, it should have dates). With something like 'The Invisibles', in a chronological list, it would be split up through three different volumes; that seems to be unneccessarily complicating the information, especially when the early biography section discussing his important works covers it chronologically.

Imagine trying to go through a chronological list of Garth Ennis's work and pick out all the times he worked on The Punisher ... he's written so many permutations of that which span six years of publication dates ...just my two cents

[EDIT] and by "six", I naturally meant "eleven and counting". heh, I was a bit tired...

ThatGuamGuy 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

(Sorry in advance for my bad english writing, I'm spanish-speaking)

I've sorted the bibligraphy, by publisher and later by year, to make the presentation of the large quantity of data in the section more estructured, clear and easily readable. What do you think of the change?

The bibliography is detailed (which is good), specially his UK work (mainly short stories in anthologies), but with more info in the bibliography I think that also comes less usability if it isn't properly presented. I think that under some different sections, the Bibliography is more affordable, and it is more easy to read and to process the info, but without lossing any data of the previous Bibliography.

I think that a filmography/discography/comicography/ or similar is useful sorted in chronological order, to see the progresion of the author, and when did a work; it adds more info to the total presentation. I think that a alphabeticaly-sorted list of works of a writer/artist is only useful en checklist-type lists or reference lists, to help the collectors complete his collections (like the "price guide" of Wizard), or like a first step to later build a bibliography in chronological order.

I've let the "Batman", JLA and Flash tags-sub-sections untouched for now, to sort them later, if you are OK with the changes (If you don't like them, they may be easily reversed).

The info about the collected editions is very useful (it is more easy to a reader to find a collected edition -in Amazon, Barnes&Noble or other retailers- that the single comic-books that only are sold in comic shops), but to make the bibliography more usable, I think it would be a good idea to take the info about the collected editions of the comic-books (title, year of publication of the collected edition & ISBN) to another separated section in the bibliography, like it is done in the Brian Azzarello entry. If this change is done, I think that it would be later more clear to put all his US-work (DC, Marvel, Vertigo and others) under the same section, and let three sections in his bibliography (2000AD, other UK publishers and US publishers). What do you think?

Jose A. Serrano 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you split them up then it does become almost chronological so it makes sense to fiish the sorting. I would quibble about the placement of something things. I'd rather not split off a section on collected editions - it is handy to have the information all in one place otherwise you'd have to be checking up and down the page. (Emperor 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

New Doom Patrol?

I was just coming on to remove the bit about a Deep Throat of comics suggesting he will be doing a new Doom Patrol. His work commitments and the DP storyline pretty much preclude this (if not forever then for quite a time). If anyone adds that back in then they are going to have to state a source. (Emperor 14:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

picture?

ought this article not include a photo of the good looking man? alan moore, garth ennis and warren ellis all have their heads featured on respective article. surely grant morisson is as legendary

That's odd - it did have a piccie, its had a couple now I think about it. Its possible they have been removed because the copyright didn't allow their use. You'd need to dig through to find out what was removed when (i might have been just clumsy editting). Also if someone has a photo they took that would be the best solution (Emperor 12:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Plays

I believe has written a couple of plays - this from his homepage "Morrison is also the author of two stage plays Red King Rising’ and ‘Depravity’, which, between them, won a Fringe First Award, the Independent Theatre Award for 1989 and the Evening Standard Award for new drama at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival." [2] - can anyone dig out more information and drop something on these into the entry? (Emperor 12:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Batman 659 and on

Morrison apparently didn't write Batman 659, nor is the story in 659 the Joker story teased at the end of 658. Instead, John Ostrander and Tom Mandrake started a new storyline, "Grotesk". I'll leave it to wiser and more wikiskilled hands to do the actual editing. --71.162.33.250 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - it looks like its slipped. Updated now. [3] (Emperor 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Links and references

Things down there had started getting awfully confusing with 2 lots of reference sections wrapped around external links. All rather odd. What I've done is sorted it out (one of the "references" was really external links), added in a sectionfor external links that are interviews and made the actual reference section capabl of accepting footnotes. I'd suggest making more extensive use of this and not adding a lot of other links in (and possibly migrating some links up to be references for different points made in the entry). See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes. It should eventually help tighten up the whole entry and we can get rid of the links clean up tags. (Emperor 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Trivia

I try and avoid trivia as much as possible as the good stuff can usually be included in the biography and the other stuff is often not worth mentioning. In this case there is only one item and I'd suggest this would be better off in a section on awards: "Awards and recognition" possibly? (Emperor 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:All Star Superman Cover.jpg

Image:All Star Superman Cover.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Invisibles1.jpg

Image:Invisibles1.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 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 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Demon Fighter

I heard that Grant Morrison says that he fought a demon when he was sixteen. Does anyone have any information on that? 151.198.233.92 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Morrison says a lot of weird sh!t. I wouldn't wear myself out tracking down info on some of his trippier stuff. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Steve

Fair use rationale for Image:Jla-morrison1.jpg

Image:Jla-morrison1.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) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:We3-1.jpg

Image:We3-1.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) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Biblejohn.jpg

Image:Biblejohn.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) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bible John-A Forensic Meditation

The link to Bible John-A Forensic Meditation is currently just a redirect back to this article. Anyone feel like creating an article for the book itself? ClovisPt (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting that there was an article on this [4], if anyone has any other sources which could help meet the notability standards we can set it back to the version before it was redirected and go form there. (Emperor (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Infobox photo

Although the photo currently in the Infobox is a nice photo, I tend to prefer ones in which the subject is facing the camera for the Infobox, so made sure to take a couple of those when I photographed Mr. Morrison on July 19. Below is the current one, and then two of the ones I took.

• 
• 
• 

Should the current one remain? Or should we replace it? Let me know. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for the middle one, but either of the two new ones will do. The existing image has a ton of background clutter and optimally should be replaced. No disrespect to the editor who original submitted it — it's hard to get images of live people into Wikipedia without taking them ourselves, and I applaud whoever took the extant infobox pic, which I'm sure was the best under the circumstances and has served us in that respect. These new pictures are more appropriate, though. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae, the middle one is the best but they are all good photos.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly opinionated here, but the middle image does indeed appear to detail the subject best.  -- WikHead (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the middle one myself. Seaphoto^Talk 01:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the last one works best. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My first impression is that the middle one suits the purpose the best as it is a pretty straightforward head shot. Both the others have a certain charm, and it'd be good to get the first one especially in the article as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• In general it's a case of "Six of one..." for me. All 3 work in the context of use here so swapping out the first seems a little on the pointless side.
  Beyond that a recent discussion at MfD has me seriously rethinking the propriety of having an ID photo - free or not - for persons who are notable for non-appearance jobs like writer. I also see zero reason to have multiple images of the person in the article just to show their appearance, again regardless of if all the images are free. (The Commons image File:Grant morrison.jpg is also in the article and it is as good for the infobox as the other 3.)
  - J Greb (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's a very good point, J Greb. Although in Morrison's case, he's become a very notable comics celebrity, not to mention the whole inserting-character-avatars-of-himself into his comics and his appearances in My Chemical Romance videos. But for most everyone else in the industry who wasn't Stan Lee or what-have-you, it's a very valid point. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the third image the best, as it more than just a head shot and the focus is entirely on him. BOZ (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The middle one is nice, or maybe a cropped version to head and shoulders, of that first one on the left. — Cirt (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I like the first one best. Morrison is usually trying very hard to be a voice of kindness, wisdom, tolerance, and idealism in a world and media industry... not terribly in synch with that at the moment, so the first one is most flattering and should be used. Dave (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• The second picture is best for the infobox as it is a portrait. All three aren't wonderful technically: the first is rather soft and the other two are overly compressed with JPG artefacts (if you can change your camera to a higher quality image setting, this would help next time). However, all are fine at screen size. I can't for the life of me understand the argument against photos for "persons who are notable for non-appearance jobs like writer". Perhaps our Charles Darwin article would be improved by only having one photo? Was John Collier wasting his time painting this because Darwin was just an ideas man, rather than an actor? What someone looks like is absolutely vital biographical information because we are visual creatures. A picture paints a thousands words, and all that. Colin°^Talk 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we just crop the first one to only include the face then? Dave (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is just too soft to survive such a drastic crop. Plus the faces of the people behind are distracting. The second one serves the purpose fine and don't see what the attachment to the first is. He's smiling I suppose, but he's distracted by something else. Colin°^Talk 18:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is mostly a genuinely nice person, so I think that a smiling photograph is more flattering for the regular visitor, even if the latter two technically showcase it better for those who are somewhat observant. (The problem with being a genuinely nice person surrounded by sociopaths and nihilistic madness is that you grow spiritually tired from it.)

Anyway, since Nightscream asked for my input, I actually like Grant, even if I'm not sure if he dislikes me or not (I mean, he actually nudge-nudge-wink-wink borrowed some of my thematic ideas to great useful effect in Batman Inc, most blatantly in the Japan story, might have found the very light affectionate injoke character Ayumu somewhat offensive rather than charming... but unlike, say, Warren Ellis he hasn't tortured a ridiculously distorted raving avatar into a coma and shot it in the head yet), so I would prefer a more upbeat image, and think that the cropped version should work fine:

Othervise, we could always crop this image instead:

Dave (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, come to think of it, that one with the red shirt actually looks like it would be best. He's smiling (I don't know why I didn't simply ask him to smile for me when I photographed him myself), and facing the camera, and it's clear. I think I overlooked it because it was kinda dim, but that's easily fixed by autoadjusting it and increasing the exposure a bit, and cropped a bit from the top. I've fixed that photo, and put in the Infobox. Any objections? Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. Do you want to crop it to become a headshot as I think is recommended, or should I? Also, please thank him for trying to use my ideas for something useful the next time you see him. It's nice that somebody still cares (and doesn't tell you that you are worse than Osama Bin Laden, or that they want to debase and torture you to death in inventive fashions). Dave (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I cropped and adjusted the exposure myself, and put it in the Infobox. I also moved the previous Infobox photo further down, since it's still a good photo. I did not place either of my portrait shots in the article, but I did add one of the other shots from that signing to the section that includes the mention of Supergods, since he's signing the book in that shot, and I thought it appropriate. Thanks to everyone for participating. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To follow up on this: Does the article really need 3 different images of Morrison, or are we placing them because they are free to use and we can? - J Greb (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter naturally. I'm fine with either way. David A (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

External link to interview archive

The Barbelith interview archive, linked at the bottom of the page, has long since given up the ghost and hasn't been updated in a couple of years.

As a replacement, can I suggest the regularly updated archive at https://sites.google.com/site/deepspacetransmissions/interviews-1

I'd add it myself but I run the site and I'm sure there are Wikipedia rules about that sort of thing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.105.2 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 August 2011

And it's very good of you to be aware of that possibility; thank you. Aside from the conflict of interest, as you noted, Wikipedia's guidelines on External links precludes linking to a page of links. With regards --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of Proportion

Who is this guy? Writes "symbolic" stories about superheroes? Not exactly Harold Pinter then. The length and over-excessive detail of this fan-piece confirms the worst prejudices of anyone who thinks that the internet and wikipedia are too weighted in favour of transient trivia. This should be hacked back to one paragraph (and do we really need photographs?) Twizzlemas (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Grant is one of the major comic book writers of today... Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Nevermore218 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; it's very fannish and needs work. "Hacked back to one paragraph" is perhaps overstating it. And, yes, three images of the same subject looking essentially the same age in each is too many; the shot of him with his face half-hidden at a book signing doesn't add anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hack it, baby! As Tenebrae says, perhaps not back to only one paragraph. Yworo (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison is a major writer in the comics industry. I agree that the tone of the article needs work, but the size is perfectly appropriate Euchrid (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion on Grant's views regarding Chaos Magick? Nevermore218 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

a)Why are the dates all out of whack in this edit subject, and b) I agree that the article is really fanboyish and needs to be cut. A criticism section might be nice instead of "GRANT CAN DO NO WRONG!"129.139.1.69 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I can understand tweaking an article to remove the impression that it's written by a fan, make sure not to overstate the importance of the subject, and only include information that is relevant to an encyclopaedic entry, but not the push to reduce the size of this or any article. A community of contributors is supposed to have access to articles to voluntarily contribute information, so nobody is forced to write or read any article, and contributions should be made freely as long as the info used cites a reliable source.

Why the push by small numbers of Wikipedia regulars to cut back articles? If you do have higher costs for Wikipedia as a consequence of hosting too many oversized articles, then that is a legitimate reason. Without justification for 'hacking' (as the proponent of major cuts put it in this talk page) articles back to single paragraphs, other than the opinion of those who dominate Wikipedia editorial decision making, such cuts should not go ahead. I don't hear about concerns for Wikipedia's costs -if that is the reason, please talk about that, not your own decision about whether or not any given subject is worthy or important enough to allow already-contributed material to remain available to future readers. Because removing information is not just taking data off wikipedia, you are removing people's ready access to the information. If readers are willing to read it, and it's reliably referenced, and the information is voluntarily contributed by people who do cite their sources, what possible motivation is there to remove information (providing it meets the criteria stated)? Unless there is an organisational imperative like minimising costs which makes it necessary to reserve large articles for established 'important' subjects, what harm is there in allowing people to share relevant, reliably sourced information with each other on subjects of interest to them. Why should people not interested in the article be intervening to remove people's access to information on a convenient source like Wikipedia? It's not a printed encyclopedia, so the same constrtaints of space do not apply to material resources like paper, if it is a simple matter of necessity please make the reason clear. If it is not essential, it seems to me that removing information not of personal interest to editors goes entirely against the work of encyclopedists. -Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.8.242 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Influenced/Influenced by claims

In addition to all the aforesaid issues with this article, the influenced/influenced by claims in the infobox were all uncited except for the three names there now. I would ask anyone editing biographical articles of comics creators or anyone else to remember, please, that this is an encyclopedia and to read WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP and not insert uncited personal opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

MorrisonCon

A paragraph about a promoter throwing a fan event is purely promotional content even without such non-encyclopedic WP:TONE-vio hype like "an intimate gathering featuring a hand-picked selection of some of the industry's most exciting comic creators." Please. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)