Talk:John Byrne (comics)

Homeless footnotes

These notes don't appear to reference anything currently in the article:

1. ^ "Tuesday, January 6th, 2004 - In Other News". The Comics Journal: ¡Journalista!. Retrieved January 31, 2006.
2. ^ "Dave what do you think of John Byrne's penciling of X-Men?". Nightscrawler's message board. Retrieved February 3, 2006.
3. ^ "Erik Larsen speaks about George Perez!". The John Byrne Forum Archives. Retrieved January 31, 2006.
4. ^ "John Byrne on Alan Moore". The John Byrne Forum. Retrieved February 1, 2006.
5. ^ "John Byrne on The Onion". The John Byrne Forum. Retrieved February 1, 2006.

Thought I'd post them here in case anyone wanted the references. Gamaliel 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I had some time left over last week and think I've found a way to keep everyone happy by adding the material relevant to that rather than this area and simply providing the standard link in the related section.

In case anyone would like to add some of his most noteable quotes from the years 1983-1999, feel free to help out. :) Dave 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Online presence

Although I know WP:LIVING means we have to be careful here, I'm distressed at the degree to which this section has become muted. The minimizing of Johnston's comments seems to me tenuously justified - he is far from a tabloid writer, and in the case of Byrne, he's been scrupulously well-documented in what he's said, almost always containing links to specific threads and comments on Byrne's part. I know he's not the most popular guy in comics fandom, but I do feel like he's more notable and more reliable than this section suggests. He may write in a sensationalistic style, but let's face it - stories he flags as green-light have proven damn reliable.

I'm not saying we should go back to when this article was heavily dominated by criticism, but let's face it - some pretty serious and well-sourced accusations of racism (The Jessica Alba flap), of banning critics from his forums (Mark Waid, iirc), etc have been made. They should not be written off so lightly. Phil Sandifer 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--- Muted? It's been gutted like an effin' fish. How can someone get away with saying the shit he has said and not have it be in the public record? The article should be neutral and balanced, but not excised of all the embarassing garbage he's spewn out. You are letting him run this page like he runs his web forum [insults snipped - Eloquence*]. Good going.

Fan: Then this all brings up the question of language. Do words have inherent meanings or just those we ascribe to them? If enough pros, in addition to the fans, say "speech bubble" then why wouldn't "bubble" be just as valid as "balloon"? JB says "balloon", someone else says "bubble", and they could both be right.

John Byrne: There are lots of people who call Black people "niggers". Are both terms "right"?

• I think I handled it all rather smoothly according to the rules through simply adding a Wikiquote link. I think we came into an agreement to leave it as is as a balanced solution. Of course some overzealous people seem to have vandalised it, but I just reverted it to the pre-destroyed format. Dave

• My apologies, I noticed that there had been other changes made as well. I re-reverted it to the last page with the addition of the vandalised column. Dave 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - I don't think we should restore the extended version of this, but I think incorporating one or two of the more choice quotes into the section would be more balanced. 24.136.38.121 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've added some of the more relevant quotes (I.e. the ones I've been made aware of) to the Wikiquote section easily avalable through clicking the link beside the text, so that should be sufficient in itself. It simultaneously serves to squash distortions of what he's actually said and highlight the statements which others have tried to hide.

If you want people to take better notice of it we could always add 'For further examples see the Wikiquote link to the right' at the end of the 'Controversies on the Internet' column. Dave 09:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Table?

What's with the odd table after all the links and references? It seems to cover a random period of 13 years or so - why? --Charlesknight 09:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are sequence boxes. They're more at home on political and historical biographies where they show the succession of a particular post, i.e. for a President they'd show who preceeded and succeeded him in office. Some wikipedians have put them together for more minor successions like the sequence of writers/artists on particular Marvel comics as that box shows. Personally I think its overkill, but its their right. As to the random period of 13 years well that's just the blocks when Byrne was working for Marvel. There are gaps for when he was at DC, but DC wikipedians don't seem to be so keen on these boxes --Jason Kirk 12:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But it just seems to be totally random - where's Iron-fist? Marvel Team-up? X-men: the hidden years? Spiderman:Chapter one? Where does Captain America/Batman go? --Charlesknight 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it they are only for titles where there has been a long run - i.e. an actual sequence to document where its worth showing forward and backward links to the next artists/writers in the sequence. Hidden Years, CP/Batman and Chapter One were standalone projects so there was no sequence of before and after creators. If you think a particular sequence is missing then you're free to can add it in, that's the beauty of wikipedia. :) --Jason Kirk 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy

Hey, mention this in the article please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians try to avoid self references in articles, but if there is a reputable source out there (such as a newspaper which published an article on this controversy), then there'd be no problem adding a note about it. ~MDD4696 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LegendsthecollectionTPB.jpg

Image:LegendsthecollectionTPB.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 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of images

There are six images for a career spanning 30 years. That's two per decade for an artist who has written and drawn several of the medium's most significant titles and characters. I'm wondering if the editor who posted that template would discuss his rationale. Without such discussion, the template seems as it might not have been placed there seriously or in good faith. --Tenebrae 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Northstar

"One of those characters, Northstar, became Marvel’s first openly gay superhero. Though intended by Byrne to be gay from the beginning, his homosexuality was only hinted at during Byrne’s tenure on the book." Are there any references to these hints that Northstar was gay during Byrne's tenure? I've read the comics recently and haven't found any hints that Northstar was gay during this time, though there are hints that he was heterosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.197.195 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Without going back and rereading all 28 issues I would point to the story in issue #7 regarding Northstar's old friend Raymonde Belmonde and the comment Hudson makes in the Northstar origin story at the back of #10 about women being one of the trappings of fame that don't seem to have interested Northstar. I will admit I read both these comics several times without picking up on this subtext but Northstar's reaction to Sasquatch's change of gender in one of the later, Bill Mantlo penned, issues caused me to go back and re-evaluate them. Feefa (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Byrne vs. Wikipedia

Is this necessary or appropriate for the "Controveries" section? Is there a source which describes it as controversial? --Diagonal P. (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tom Spurgeon, former editor of The Comics Journal called it a tussle.[1] That's the best I can get, there's nothing in the journal from that period that I can see. Hiding T 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the links suggests that the "tussle" specifically refers to Byrne's attempt to edit the article,[2] not the ban of Wikilinks from his forum. --Diagonal P. (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

True. That used to be what the article said, but then I think it was consensus to remove that version. This new text has been in the article for about a week, [3]. I've removed it per this discussion. Hiding T 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: External links

"External links" are "for further reading" sites ONLY, not sites used to support facts in the article. Those, like Byrne's official site, which confirms such basics as names, spellings, biographical facts, etc., go under References. There should also be no more than five or six Ext links per Wiki guidelines,. I deleted a duplicate link (You Go Ghoul) appearing in both Footnotes and Ext Links. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1999 relaunch of Hulk is Hulk v3, not v2

From the beginning of the 4th paragraph in the Later Career section: "Marvel hired Byrne in 1999 for a second volume of the series featuring The Incredible Hulk". That should be 'third volume'. Hulk volume 1 (the 1962 series) only lasted 6 issues. After guesting in a few books he became a regular in Tales To Astonish, which got renamed Hulk as of issue 102. This series (the 1968-1999 one) is volume 2, not volume 1 as many people think. This makes the 1999 relaunch volume 3. Of course Marvel claims all 3 series were volume 1, but marvel always says that. They get the volume number right less than 50% of the time and don't seem to care (ok I guess that "don't seem to care" bit is opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.248.98 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It was close but there are a couple of requests for sources on the page and other statements that needed sourcing. To speed things up I've flagged everything I think needs a reference, address the requests and bump it back up to a B.

The article is looking solid and with a bit more of a polish can easily be pushed on to higher grades. (Emperor (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Supernatural

If it's even relevant, Byrne's non-belief in the supernatural does not belong in the 'Controversies' section, many folks write stories about stuff they don't think is actually real. Lots42 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There are two boxes at the bottom of the page with no one before or after him and this seems to defeat the point of a succession box. Given that there are already a lot I don't think it is wise to add others where he was the sole creator for the entire run or it could get silly. That kind of information should be reserved for the bibliography surely. Or have I missed anything vital that isn't immediately apparent? (Emperor (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Good point. Agreed. Succession boxes with no successors defeats the purpose. -- Stoshmaster (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth?

John Byrne's place of birth is given on his personal entry as West Bromwich. But on the Walsall page he is listed as born in Walsall. Cadpah (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No parenthesis. Primary use?

Hate to say it, but I don't think this writer/illustrator is the primary use of the "John Byrne" name. We all know the 'Pedia has a slight tendency toward US-centric bias (unintended, but still). I'd posit that there's also a slight geek-centric one, too. This could a prime example. Still, I'm not ready to force the issue. Just putting it out there. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Creator-owned works Update: Next Men Returning to publication

IDW Publishing announced on Jul 24th, 2010 (http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/1312/) The Return of John Byrne’s Next Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.245.252 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

John Byrne → John Byrne (comics) — per the policies and conventions of WP:DAB and WP:Comics. Subject is not the primary usage of the title (no one is). Compare with Frank Miller and Frank Miller (comics). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• John Byrne (disambiguation) → John Byrne

As I stated in an above section, I just don't think Mr. Byrne is the primary usage. I'd argue no one is. A comparable example is Frank Miller (comics). There are several more John Byrnes than Frank Millers listed on Wikipedia, and yet Miller still gets the "(comics)" suffix. Ultimately, I think it's just a matter of fairness and consistency.

After moving the article, I would insist that all links to the original title be relinked to the new one, after which the title "John Byrne" could be redirected to "John Byrne (disambiguation)". Then, hopefully, an admin could move the DAB page to that new title. Thoughts? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You should place a notice on Talk:John Byrne (disambiguation) about this move, since that page would be affected. A bot would have done that automatically if you'd used the multi-move template, but you can also do it manually. Powers ^T 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reposted it with the new template. Hopefully it won't cause too much of a problem. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this JB is not clearly and unambiguously primary over John Byrne (English footballer), a first division and international player, at the very least.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support DarkJak495 : Chat 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - sounds good, Sadads (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, agree with Amakuru. --RobertG ♬ talk 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds right to me. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, note, that I have been a proponent of several moves like this in the past, so I guess I have a historical bias toward moves like these. Interestingly, doing a Google search, and then using article traffic numbers, the Scottish Playwright [4], not the footballer [5] seems to be getting the most hits outside of this page [6]. Oldag07 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, I will do it now, but a move notice template should be on top of the lead section of the actual article. That is one reason why there has been so little discussion about the move on this page. Assuming someone does protest the move, that is a legitimate reason to cancel the move. Oldag07 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment/Reply: D'oh! So THAT'S why this wasn't going anywhere for so long. Gah. Please understand, I'm clearly out of practice with how to a formal move request. Truth be told, I'm so used to doing this stuff manually that I've nearly forgotten the last time I made a request. (I think it was for Emerson.) Ah well. Thanks, Oldag. Hopefully my error(s) won't impede progress (too badly). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: No problem. Glad I could help. I'd add a day extra or two before moving it. But it doesn't seem like a controversial move, so it should be good. Oldag07 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support though one observation is that John Byrne has 845 inbound links from other articles, Johnny Byrne (footballer) has 81, John Byrne (footballer born 1961) and Johnny Byrne (writer) have 63, John Byrne (Scottish playwright) has 45, and the others have fewer links. Thus, at least on Wikipedia, the comic author/artist has the lion's share of links. I'd still rather see a disambiguation page rather than singling out one of the Byrnes. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links to be fixed

Now that the page move has been completed, there are still well over 500 other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "John Byrne". These need to be reviewed and fixed to point to the correct article. A couple of users have already made a start on this project, but the more who pitch in, the sooner it will be done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Though, like MTM, I usually ignore links on talk pages and most that seem particularly deep within the WP namespace. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the current list, it seems I'm a tad late to the party. Ah well. I'll fix a few and call it done. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I took care of about 100 of these. Most of the remaining ones are Talk pages and User Pages. There are also Discussions marked "Do not modify" - I left those alone. Mtminchi08 (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Byrne curse section

I removed it. When you actually look at the published letter it cites, and the relevant page on Byrne's website, they dismiss the concept as silly, because it focuses on the tiny number of coincidences where real-world events parallel the comics rather than overall pattern. I have an extraordinary record in picking Super Bowl winners, as long as we only look at the years I picked the winner. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)