Talk:Publication history of Marvel Comics crossover events

moved

This list was moved from the Marvel Universe page because the article had gotten too long. Note it was originally in the form of a table but I changed the format to allow more detail to be added to the events. Also note this page will only cover events that happened after Fantastic Four #1 (the "Modern Era" of the Marvel Universe.) Other events should be added to the Timeline of the Marvel Universe instead. Wilfredo Martinez 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Working definition

We need a working definition of "major event", with regard to this article and Major events of the DC Universe. My definition is that a major event affects the continuity of more than one character, team, or series. "Planet Hulk" affects the Incredible Hulk, so it is not a major event. "Civil War" affects everyone on American soil, and "Annihilation" affects everyone, so they are. My defintion does not affect certain items on this list, such as "The Night Gwen Stacy Died", which has been shown to affect characters other than Spider-Man. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A story(line) is major if it is a landmark in the company's publishing history or is the focus of significant marketing and/or press. -- StAkAr Karnak 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're correct as long as we're talking about the publishing history of a company; but here we're talking about the continuity of a fictional universe. Otherwise we would have to add things such as the publication of Epic Comics or the Marvel/DC crossovers; those belong in other articles. I suggest we open this to discussion in the Wikicomics Notice Board until the matter is settled. -Wilfredo Martinez 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on WP:CMC's talk page, a story is only "major" for ourselves as editors if a reputable secondary source deems it so. Anything else is POV or original research. --Newt_ΨΦ 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore I added the "Unreferenced"-Template to encourage authors to cite such sources. If no sources saying the event is "major", the event is to be removed from this article. --Martin de la Iglesia 07:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?

How about including the Psi Wars? Although it was a battle between Psylocke and Shadow King only, it also affected all psi-sensitive characters throughout the Marvel universe. Just a thought...

Affected, how? Was it a permanent (which I had started to make changes on this page yesterday, adding other events and making the chronology more precise but everything was removed. So bad...

Avengers Children's Crusade (Focusing on the Young Avengers, but with Doc Doom, Scarlet Witch, the Xtinction team from Uncanny X-Men and the Avengers all feature into the story) may be worth including. It featured the return of Scarlet Witch to active player in the main universe. Additionally, Avengers X-Sanction may need a nod as a precursor and tie-in/lead off of Avengers Vs X-Men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.57.160 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

70's event

In the definition of event, I think that duration can be a factor. This can be seen in the events I include. They are not all famous and several of them happen behind the scenes for months before being resolved in a main storyline but they crossed over at least two series. Even though by Contest of Champions/Secret Wars standard, they don't seem like events in the modern sense they were at the time major crossovers and the forerunners of modern events.

The Kree-Skrull War goes from Avengers 89 to 97, so this is not just oct 71 to Feb 72. The Inhumans feature in Amazing Adventures crossovers with it.

A big omission is the Thanos War. This ran in Captain Marvel, Daredevil, Avengers, Marvel Feature 11 and 12, Iron Man in 1973-74.

Several of Steve Englehart storylines could qualify: Avengers/Defenders War; Celestial Madonna; Secret Empire (Captain America, X-Men, Beast in Amazing Adventures), There is the Avengers (154-156) story that crossed over with Super-Villain Team-Up 8-10.

There was also the Mister Kline storyline that involved Iron Man and Daredevil over many months (DD 78-84, IM 41-45, Sub-Mariner 42, 1971)

The Villains War in Iron Man involved many villains (not just Iron Man villains) and lasted more than one year (IM 69-81, 1974-75)

There was the Conspiration storyline (mostly in Captain America and Hulk from 1977 to 1979 but also Machine Man)

The death of Gwen Stacy is not a major event of the Marvel Universe. It is a major event of Spider-Man as well as a major event of the history of comics.

There was a sub-plot crossing over several Marvel titles involving three mysterious figures from 1974 to 1979, one of them was revealed to be Tyrannus in Incredible Hulk in the conclusion to the story. (this had to do with earthquakes) (MTU 15,19,20,26,28; Uncanny X-Men 119, Hulk 209, 238-243)

In the eighties, there was a huge crossover with winter time (casket of ancient winters) and Dire Wraiths (from Rom). There was snow in all Marvel Comics and the Dire Wraiths appeared in X-Men and Fantastic Four.

Agreed, Casket of Ancient Winters should be listed, as should the Wraith War. Both events, more or less simultaineously, crossed into the bulk of comics published then.--Nickpheas (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Phoenix Saga concerns only the X-Men as well as Days of Future Past and even to a large degree Dark Phoenix Saga. The popularity of the X-Men tends to distort in importance what happens in their series and diminish what happens in other series. I don't see how Death of Captain Marvel, Kraven's last hunt and Clone Saga are majorevents of the fictional reality Marvel Universe--Leocomix 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Limit the number of events

Wouldn't this article be more helpful if much more helpful if (like Major events of the DC Universe) its list of "major events" was more limited to only the absolute biggest events of the Marvel U.--Darknus823 (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my original intention, but, being part of a Wiki, it will ultimately contain what the general public wants to put in it, regardless of rules. The best we can do is keep an eye on its content as regularly as we can. I agree the article could use a good trimming. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-SI event

I took out the "Post Secret Invasion" listing, because there is currently no information about/for one. While it is highly likely that there will be something in regards to the fallout, it doesn't really need to be listed under "major events", just like "The Initiative" isn't listed as a post-Civil War "event". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.28.31 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New Events

I say we leave the "new events" off this page until they have enough information to get a page of their own. Then we just link to it like everything else here. MaxMillions (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

other universes

what about the major events in alternative universes, like Ultimat universe, and MC2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.25.252 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

We categorise these under storylines and describe them as storylines as the actual "event" is in the story. So should this really be "Major storylines of the Marvel Universe"? It avoids any in-universe angle to it, as recommended by WP:WAF. Of course, the content also needs to be re-written in an out-of-universe style but it is a start. (Emperor (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

"Event" is not necessarily an in-universe term, since Marvel uses it in ads and press releases etc. It's simply the publisher's term for a major crossover storyline. Nevertheless, it may be true that the style of this article is too much in-universe and needs rewriting. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge presentist bias

As it stands, the 2000s, a decade which has seen comics sales slip to new lows and in which Marvel superheroes have become an increasingly niche interest, has almost twice as many "major events" as the 1960s, when the bulk of the Marvel Universe was established. This seems problematic. Is an event like Infinity Abyss or Cypher really a major event in the Marvel Universe? Does every single iteration of the Avengers over five years really deserve to be counted as a separate major event? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that while the comic sales have declined, the focus on "event" and "crossover" books has increased to compensate. Instead of the sprawling epics that made up Marvel in the 90s (Clone Saga for example) there are technically more modest events, but with tons of tie-ins. Fear Itself was a 7 issue stand alone, but to pick up all of the tie-in books is an undertaking all it's own. Spider-Island ran primarily through a couple books, but it has a companion HC because of the 5 or 6 mini-series that were also released during the arc. If you try to use price-point to determine events, Event books normally are $30-$40 in Hardcover (House Of M, Civil War, Age Of X, Spider-Island, Death Of Captain America are all examples of HCs with price points at or above the usual event benchmark) once collected. While random hard covers (X-Men: Legacy Lost Legions, Uncanny X-Force The Apocalypse Solution, FF volume one and two etc) are normally price pointed between $20 and $25 for the US market.

I do however feel that if something like Regenesis was not collected into a volume of some sort it is not truly an "event" and is is more of a re-branding. User:ong312 —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

Original research

Who is deciding what is a major event? What reliable third party sources are providing the criteria we are using here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No sources are cited, so it's OK if you want to delete "events" that you don't consider "major".--Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect dates and Referencing

Some of the publication dates here are inaccurate - I'm trying to fix these as I do the referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutekh666 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've finished referencing as far as I can for the moment - there's still some loose threads hanging here and there though. With events prior to 2008, if they're not listed in Marvel's own Chronicle, that would seem to call into question their status as "Major".Sutekh666 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List getting bloated

Who messed up the list??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.120.165 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the list is getting a bit bloated, especially in regards to recent material. It looks like there's a movement to include any storyline that has a TPB. I'd like to prune some of these back when I get a chance to include only the major story arcs that affect multiple characters, or are sufficiently notable in other ways. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw no objections here, so I pruned back some of the events that might not be classified as "major." I basically knocked out storylines that didn't have their own wikipedia articles. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert, and we can talk it out on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention which ones you don't consider major. If you haven't read enough comics to understand their importance, and how many various comic book series were influenced by these actions, then you shouldn't be the one to prune. Dream Focus 00:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I posted here on the talk page more than four days ago to ask for opinions (as other editors have done above). No one commented, so I was bold and removed some of what I considered lesser events. As I stated above, I removed mostly events not notable enough to have their own wikipedia page.

When I finished, I came back here to the talk page for discussion. Everything I've done, I've done in good faith here in hopes of pruning down a list that is both too long, and has too much emphasis on recent events. There's absolutely no need for you to tell me not to prune the article, or that I don't understand. I'm very well up on comics, thank you, and I was making a good faith attempt to improve the article.

Now that I've been bold and reverted, I'd like to hear what some of the other editors have to think. This list still seems very bloated to me. Dayewalker (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics perhaps to get more notice. No one is able to constantly keep track of every single article that interest them, their watchlist just overflowing each day so its hard to spot things. Dream Focus 01:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My own problem is that you didn't cut enough still too much cruft here - many of those "notable" sources were never mentioned again. I have read the comics but that's the wrong measure - if reliable secondary sources don't mention those events, neither do we. We are interested in real world cultural importance, not that Thor dropped his cockring in issue 37 of Journeys up my anus. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no offense, but I'm not going to read that one. If I have it, I'm just going to keep it sealed in the bag with the collectible glow-in-the-dark rectal card from 1991.

As for the trimming, I figured I'd start small and try and get a discussion going here on what kind of criteria defines "major" event. All of these were events, really every storyline is an event. We need to discuss and define what makes an event worthy of making the list. I'm all for that. Dayewalker (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• How about this: The incident led to a massive crossover, that lasted months, in a dozen or so different comic book titles. Or it showed the creation or reappearance of a notable character which has been around now for decades. Or the character spent decades in the comics trying to become king of their land, and finally accomplished that goal. The Annihilation Wave was featured in many comics, and the resulting events were used as a reason for other massive changes in the comic book world. Such as the Kree getting wiped out so badly, that then the Phalanx was able to take over for a time, and the group gathered to fight them later became the Guardians of the Galaxy, getting their own comic book series. Also, they were beaten so badly, that the Inhumans, a long established group in the Marvel Universe, moved their city from the moon to the Kree homeworld, to become its rulers. This and other factors make the Annihilation Wave important to mention. Discuss any parts you don't think notable here, before making any chances, and we'll discuss it. Dream Focus 11:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not what happens in the comics that are important, it's that people talk about them in reliable sources. Bloodlines was a major storyline in the comics - nobody talked about it, Systembytes was a major storyline in the comics - nobody talks about it. We don't care about the internal impact on the marvel universe, we care about the real world impact. The death of Gwen Stacy is notable because it's been covered in multiple reliable sources. We could fill this up with cruft but it get sent on it's way to AFD if that's what we are going to do.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And half of the blue links this article links to should be deleted or merged, they are simply run of the mill storylines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• News coverage of notable events and crossovers is quite easy to find. I added one reference. You should read the article. Dream Focus 11:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article list things that have gotten mentioned in legitimate news sites and other media, proving they were notable events. They got significant coverage. Dream Focus 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No it's proves they got published, on that basis we could add every comic published in the last twenty years to this list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree here, just finding coverage of the event doesn't necessarily make it "major." We know these things happened, they were written about in the trades, the ads and promos piled up, the issues came out, and TPB collections followed. However, that doesn't make them major events.

This might be something that has to be taken on a case-by-case basis until we get some ground rules. Let me try and use a couple of examples to help show my point. The Kree-Skrull War of the 70's was a major event, even though it wasn't a crossover (which didn't regularly occur at the time, anyway). The event affected the comics of the time, was reprinted in several different formats, and went on to have continuing influence all the way to Operation: Galactic Storm and the Secret Invasion. It's a major Marvel event that characters still refer to, and is still relevant.

Compare that to say, The Rise of the Midnight Sons crossover of 90's Ghost Rider. It was a big deal at the time and started several other series, all supernatural spinoffs of the Danny Ketch Ghost Rider book, which was a big hit for Marvel at the time. The crossover happened with all due hype and advertising, a TPB came out, and it seemed like a big deal at the time. However, it had no impact long-term. None of the new books lasted long, the TPB fell out of print, and it was never really referred to again. It was an event, but not a major event by any stretch of the imagination.

I think each event needs to be considered. House of M and Decimation are major events that make an effect. Phalanx Covenant, I'm not sure about. Necrosha, I don't think we can say is major yet, it doesn't even have it's own article.

Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• If there is enough significant coverage, we could easily make an article for these events. Lack of an article doesn't make it less valid. I'm thinking we could find some sites that actually said these were major events, but COMMON SENSE allows us to form a consensus on what should be kept without needing them at all. There are some who wanted to delete the article entirely, but fortunately wiser heads prevailed. If it had a significant crossover which also had lasting impact, launching new series that were sustained, or reshaping the world in ways mentioned in most other Marvel comics for quite some time, then it should count. And the Phalanx are relevant, since they were refused on several occasions, by different groups, and actually conquered all of Kree space, wiping out most of them, and built a mostly impenetrable force field all around it. Dream Focus 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"but COMMON SENSE allows us to form a consensus on what should be kept without needing them at all." em.. no.. that's the wrong idea - common sense varies and that's why we use reliable sources. I mean.. Contest of Champions 2? please... It's not what happens in the in-universe storytelling that's important, it's the discussion in scholarly and other sources. Let me give you an example, within DC comics, the original vigilante killing himself is a minor story but it's an important event in the publication history because it's one of the first examples of a hero killing themselves and says something about the changes to the intended audience for comics during the 1980s. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC) --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Spider-man getting a new custom, got massive media coverage. Did it change the Marvel world though? It introduced the venom symbiote, of course, which is still around today, and had its own series now and again. And they used those creatures as an enemy against others at times, Dr. Doom even hitting all of New York city with some in an attack. But I don't think it had any lasting effect. Spider-man breaking the comic book code by having a friend die from a drug overdose got plenty of coverage, and changed things, people no longer mindlessly following the idiotic code, but instead thinking for themselves over what was appropriate and what was not. Dream Focus 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Having just finished referencing this page as far as I can, I'd have to agree that there are a number of events listed here that I don't necessarily think would pass the acid test of whether they really affected the entire universe, but seeing as how I can't claim to have read everything, I've referenced them anyhow. Those I can't find a reference for do seem a little questionable. Similarly those that only seem to affect the lives of one major character. I personally would like to see the Death of Gwyn Stacy removed - a major event in pop culture, but didn't remotely affect the Marvel universe. On the other hand, events like the coming of the Celestials and the 50 State Initiative probably should be listed here, but perhaps this is a matter of perspective that depends on what books one reads? A further question involves if this list should really include events that are still currently unfolding (eg: Dark Reign)Since influence can only be objectively judged in retrospect, the only way of measuring a major event here is what Marvel Publishing declares as a "major event" and how many titles the event crossed over.Should Marvel decide such and such an event didn't work out there's nothing to stop them simply declaring the event to be non-cannon as happened with the Earth X series(they also generate a major head ache from a referencing point of view). Incidentally, I've taken the liberty of merging House of M and Decimation - IMO they are really a part of the one event.Sutekh666 (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally would like to see the Death of Gwyn Stacy removed - a major event in pop culture, but didn't remotely affect the Marvel universe. That's back to front to me, that's what we keep Gwen Stacy and get rid of the rest. What happens in the marvel universe is unimportant when taken on it's own merits. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, this is where we appear to have a major difference in philosophy. The article's title "Major Events in the Marvel Universe" to me clearly implies events that affect that fictional universe. You seem to interpret it as events that affect the development of comics/pop-culture, which while important in itself, would strike me as a different article in its own right. The Night Gwyn Stacy Died (The Amazing Spider-Man #121) is very important because it was the first time a comic had attempted an event of this sort in which a major player bought the farm. However, in the Marvel Universe it made no difference to anyone other than Spider-Man (I suppose it's vaguely possible that the Green Goblin cared?). A similar argument can also be made for the inclusion of The Amazing Spider-Man #96-98 in which Marvel broke with the Comics Code Authority for the first time to run a story based around illicit drug use. A hugely important moment in the history of comics, but of no real relevance to the "history" or development of the Marvel Universe.Sutekh666 (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But if it's just about major events *within* the marvel universe, it should be deleted because it's simply plot summary. Leaving that aside for a moment, do we actually *have* a article that is em.. (not sure what we'd call it) "important cultural or historical moment in marvel comics" or whatever we'd call it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But what's wrong with plot summary Cameron? How is a newcomer expected to understand a fictional universe without a plot summary? Indeed, if we were to follow your suggestion, these articles by way of example, should also be deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_events_of_the_DC_Universe, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes

as well as many others - these type of "lists" are actually really important and useful to both newcomers and collectors. Unless you have a particular problem with Marvel, why you would call for this list's deletion rather than its refinement escapes me 220.235.126.15 (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with all those articles, it's just I haven't seen them. My main problem with this article is that "major" seems to be defined by original research on the part of the editors - for example who'd describe contest of champions 2 as a major event? As for your general question about plot summaries, I actually have no problems with plot summaries that confirm to the MOS - where the fictional characters are treated as an object of the narrative and the discussion is based upon the critical analysis of secondary sources. The problem is that the comics area is largely written by people who want to provide blow by blow accounts of comics in an misleading in-universe fashion - those kinds of plot summary I do have a problem with (and so does the MOS). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You have the advantage here in that I'm not clear on the acronym "MOS", however, we appear to be in agreement that the list should be selective. Fandom will always nominate favourites, but I have no problem with the idea that objective analysis made further down the track should generally trump it.220.235.126.15 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the Manual of Style, you can find the rather long comics related one here - WP:CMOS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks for that. It looks marginally more exciting than the American Psychological Association Style Guide, so I can't wait to have a read. Does anyone ever wonder what kind of person writes these things? I absolutely MUST have them around for a fascinating dinner party some night. More seriously, I'll have a read and get back to you.220.235.126.15 (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is where the real tension comes in the fictional areas, the guidelines are written by long-term editors who are aiming to develop a consistent but not restrictive encyclopaedia but most of the content is written in bits and pieces by people who have never seen the MOS and just want to add the latest thing they have seen in the comics. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the ones I added back in and why

• Mystique's attempted assassination wasn't just a major point in the comic book, but also in the high rated X-men cartoon as well. Days of Future Past was a high selling often reviewed and rather notable story about this. The senator later was featured through the X comics, remembering the X-men had saved him. First time we were shown the nightmare future with mutant survivors kept in camps, and most dead.

My mistake. That is something else, a different entry already on the list. In this one long running support characters died, plus an X-men who has been dead too many times for any to take seriously. Dream Focus 21:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Annihilation Conquest is important as it launched many successful ongoing comics. Guardians of the Galaxy came out of it, Nova got a new series, plus other things came into play. Read the article about it to learn more.
• Thor becoming king, getting the Odin force, and the king of the Norse gods dying, is important, those stories not just in the very long running Thor series, but also involving the Avenger books.
• X-Men: Messiah Complex is a notable crossover, since it didn't just include all of the X-books, but also launched Cable's new comic book series(going well for a year and a half now), and had affects elsewhere. Showed how Bishop created the nightmare future he was trying to prevent, different X-men going through time to help fight him. Dream Focus 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

This article has uncited sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Daredevil and the Kingpin

The Kingpin's obsession with Daredevil caused many notable stories to take place in that one comic book. The Kingpin has also featured heavily throughout the Marvel universe. But this isn't the first time he appeared. I don't read Daredevil, so can't comment on how important the first meeting was. Was the obsession he had for defeating Daredevil, felt in other comic books? Anyone know? I know the obsession was mentioned in Spider-man comics, that explained for his ruin at one point. Just bringing it up so something isn't eliminated by mistake. Dream Focus 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Much much later - post "born again". --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing events that have not yet occurred

I was already a bit concerned about including events like "Captain America reborn" that are still unfolding, but I have real misgivings about including events like "Siege" (2010) that have yet to occur. We have only Marvel's promo material to assess how important such events might be. Sutekh666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

name change discussion

"List of" should be before the title, of course. It can't just be a list of events, since that would include every single thing. So, should the name be List of notable events of the Marvel universe, or List of major events in the Marvel universe? And should universe be capitalized as it is now? Dream Focus 16:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Events that haven't happened yet

Listing what is going to happen next year seems rather odd. Even if someone slipped up and gave away events that were going to happen, how notable will they be? It can't be a notable event, until it actually happens. I'm removing all the 2010 things for now, since its only October of 2009. Dream Focus 01:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they probably shouldn't be on the page right now, but Marvel is already hyping up their early 2010 events. These are not leaks, but at the same time even with the hype we have no idea how big they will be. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it can be a "notable" event, because if Marvel decides to make it a "major" event, it will be perceived as such (at least by the loose standards of this article). And if computer vaporware can be relevant for Wikipedia (there's rules for that in the German WP), why can't forthcoming publications be. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Every single thing they do, they hype constantly these days. Yeah, we do need some clear set standards. And someone changed the article name to List of events of the Marvel Universe, so I guess that includes basically anything at all now. Dream Focus 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cap's Kooky Quartet

One group of avengers is actually called that! I checked the Marvel.com site to confirm it. In the comic book they were still called Avengers, or New Avengers, as their official title, so that's what should be in this article. Just like they call Spider-man "webhead", the human Torch "matchstick", Captain America "wingnut", and other things, that's fine in the comics, but you need to use their official names in an article like this. I reverted "Cap's Kooky Quartet" back to "New Avengers". Dream Focus 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

References

This article needs more third party sources. While it is fine and dandy that Marvel hypes up, or writes about, or references events in their own publications, the criteria for a major event needs to include notability, which means third parties are indicating it is major. Places like IGN and CBR should be referenced way more than a book Marvel published themselves. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

When I did the referencing for this article, I did so with a view to locating events within Marvel Chronology so that readers would know where to go in order to look at the event itself. As I've mentioned above, I personally have some doubts as to how major some of these events actually are. My own view is that this is simply a list, and most of the events here have links to their own page. Those pages should most certainly provide evidence from third parties or otherwise both documenting the event in detail, it's implications for the Marvel Universe and providing an argument for why the event is "major".--Sutekh666 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Twelve

Anyone feel up to adding note of The Twelve to this chronology? While the ending we're still waiting for JMS to provide - apparently he's too busy screwing up Superman and Wonder Woman to finish his prior assignments - we at least know of how they came together in 1945, and were sent into suspended animation until the MU equivalent of 2008.

I'd do it myself, but for self-preservation reasons I restrict any editing I do to punctuation and/or grammar errors.

1950's Events

Shouldn't the "Captain America of the 1950's" be added to this list? The one who showed up in Young Mens Comics and fought what was retconned into a Communist spy posing as the Red Skull? There's also the original "Avengers" that we've seen reintroduced as Agents of Atlas, as well as the 3-D Man.

But none of that actually really happened - the 1950s Cap *was* Captain America until they decided otherwise for story reasons. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Avengers #5 2010

I know this is a little presumptuous of me, but considering that many people are relating the time line that is presented in the issue to one that DC used to explain major events that where coming up; would it be appropriate to put these events up as "major events" when they happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vashdog (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article Title

I feel that this new Title for the Article is very inappropriate as due to the fact that there are parts of the article that do not fit in the idea of a crossover. By definition a crossover is a storyline that crosses over from one comic title to another. But ideas like the introduction of Captain America, which is a single issue fact or the "Secret Empire" story line, which would be considered a saga, are parts of this article. I ask for a change back to the title of "Marvel Major Events" seeming that it is more appropriate to the information that this article contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.29.132 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this, I must have missed the discussion on the merits of moving the page. Equally some events on the list don't appear to be crossover events - I don't read many comics, so perhaps I'm just unaware, but things like Age of X and Schism seem to be exclusively X-Men storylines. A list of major events makes more sense to me, even if it would be more difficult to maintain the quality without first establishing consensus on what constitutes 'major'. BulbaThor (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A few things:

• "Marvel Major Events" or similar are not going to work. Part of it is the involvement of a judgment call - what exactly is "major" - and part of it is that it move the focus to strictly in-story events.
• As stated, single issue "events" and story lines that ran in a single title should not be included.
• Meandering publication - stories that shifted from title to title due to cancellation, time, or being passed among anthology titles - shouldn't be here either.
• Being "exclusively X-Men storylines" is a bit misleading. The ones listed included issues from multiple titles, nu just a single X-title.

That said "Publication history of Marvel Comics crossover storylines" may be a better title to avoid confusion over marketing gimmicks - ie "Retro cover month" - and one-issue appearance - ie Deadpool appearing for an issue of Hawkeye just because.

- J Greb (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

J Greb has explained the reasons behind it and understands the issues at stake. There were several AFDs on timeline articles such as these. In many cases these types of articles have been deleted. There wasn't a consensus to delete or keep this particular one, but there was agreement in other publication histories the topics were short of being discriminate, with a few people (including Postdif) suggesting a more objective and narrow scope to resolve the issue. There may be other ways to make this more discriminate but this is an improvement. I'd still be inclined to nominate the whole thing for deletion, but I'm less inclined to do so with its new scope. I have no plans to nominate this article for deletion in its current form. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Now

Is this actually a crossover? Or just a semi-relaunch thing on individual titles? BulbaThor (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

Since this page is basically a list/chronology of comic books, and makes only basic descriptions of the plots of those books, is it not okay to base those basic descriptions on the books themselves? Since the content of the page apart from these summaries is basically limited to names and dates (and a LOT of both of these) essentially the only sources that can be cited are other such timelines. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Separating crossover/events and mini storylines

hey this article really contain nice collection of information but thing is that crossovers and storylines both are written and article name is major events so i am editing this article and separating crossovers (spanning multiple comics) from mini storylines (limited to one title comics) .--Shoxee1214 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally prefer the previous format where everything was chronological; I find this new format confusing. What do others think? Zuckyd1 (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah i respect your point about chronology. but thing is that in events/crossovers i thought it would be best to include giant events and crossovers spanning multiple comic books or that have huge effect on marvel universe. while in story arc i decided to include stories primarily spanning a single title like death of captain america,enemy of the state and they are also in chronological order.

• well don't you think these story arcs should be separate from civil war,secret invasion and etc etc. ??
• and i want your opinion on limited series (mini series). what do you suggest where should highly recognized limited be placed in crossover or story arc??
• and yes i have included a revamp section as they are also major events in marvel universe usually spanning multiple titles. it would be kind if you help in growing that section. Regards --Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have simply added a column to the old format where it could clearly be indicated what type of event it was: true crossover, single-title arcs, limited series, etc. That would have easily showed the differences while still keeping everything compact in one chronological list.

Not sure about limited series—maybe it could depend on how many different characters were involved?Zuckyd1 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

hey you know what i was also thinking about adding a column like you said but then i thought agian i would have have to make heavy changes but i think its worth trying . i will add column telling what type of event it is crossover, single title arcs or limited series. but what's your suggestion about revamps?? like X-Men Reload --Shoxee1214 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You could treat revamps the same way as the other three categories—a column to indicate that it's a revamp. You'd have to merge the new revamp columns you've created back into the developments column, but if you separate the different series (cancelled, new, etc.) with line breaks/bullet points it should still be pretty clear. That way you'll end up with a page that's chronological, clean and streamlined, and it will still be easy for the reader to tell the different categories of events apart like you want.68.161.22.245 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. now give a good look and et me know any errors?? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! I would propose changing Secret Wars II to a crossover—it's similar to Infinity Gauntlet in that there is a central miniseries but also many tie-in issues. I would consider Return of Jean Grey, Days of Future Present, and Back in Black to be crossovers as well. Zuckyd1 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

article renaming

One issue with renaming this article "Publication history of Marvel Comics story arcs" is that this opens the door to listing the many, many story arcs that Marvel has published over the years, both major and minor. Which I'm personally fine with, but, based on past comments and revisions on this and similar articles, many people would not be. The article could be retitled "Publication history of Marvel Comics major story arcs" (or "Publication history of major Marvel Comics story arcs") but this leads to a degree of subjectivity over what constitutes "major" that people here also tend to be uncomfortable with. I'm thinking "Publication history of Marvel Comics crossovers" (or "crossover stories", "crossover arcs", etc.) might be the best solution—it preserves the original intent of the article while removing the non-NPOV nature of the word "events". Zuckyd1 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Given #New Article Title, the Feb 7, 2013 move should have been discussed...

Actually...

- J Greb (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And moved it back for that discussion.

I can see where "events" can be as loaded as "major", but the move created new problems while solving what is currently a non-problem.

• Dropping "crossover" expands the list beyond what the lead indicates. Literally every story published by Marvel then qualifies, or could qualify, for the list.
• And using "story arc" only limits that to milti-part stories.

Frankly, I do not see an immediate need to eliminate "events" since the crossovers/team-ups/feuds are events from the stand point of the stories. Since the list is, for good or for ill, trying to include as many as possible, the connotation of a grandeur isn't there.

The list also needs a serious flushing though. As pointed out 2 1/2 years ago, the lead lays out "crossovers", that does exclude some on the entries currenly in the list. Things like:

• "All-Winners Squad" - A strip that ran in All-Winners Comics in the same vein as "Justice Society of Americ" in All-Star Comics.
• "The Galactus Trilogy" - a story arc featuring just the FF and contain entirely in the Fantastic Four run.
• The FF wedding story from Fantastic Four Annual #3 - Singl issue story, focussing just on the characters already in the series.
• All of the 1970s examples...
• The Daredevil examples from the 1980s... and the X-Men ones from the first half of that decade.

And this continues to cascade down the list. In a broader sense this problem can also take in stories that run through a "family" of titles. Something like "Kraven's Last Hunt", a story that "crossed" between Spider-Man books but more in treating them as a weekly series rather than drawing in outside titles or characters.

- J Greb (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Major rehaul

I've just rehauled the article trying to take into account the many points on this list. By crossover I expect characters from different families of titles meeting but also the storyline crossing over from a title to another. Overall, there's a confusion between crossovers and aftermaths, between crossovers and story arcs, between crossovers and marketing campaigns (as shows the recent inclusion of Marvel Now! in this article). If needed we can start new articles for each of those. As I'm less familiar with X-Men stories, I've left a number of them even though they might not be actual crossovers but story arcs. (There's also the question of whether they are actual crossovers in the original sense since these series are all spin-off from each other. Same for the Everything Burns crossover between Mighty Thor and JIM, it probably needn't be included.)

Inclusion

It seems to be a bit uneven what is included and what isn't. You have "Fall of the Hulks" which is a Hulk specific story, but no Maximum Carnage a Spider-Man specific one. Also all the 90's crossovers that occurred in the annuals (Such as Lifeform, Terminus Factor etc) aren't here. I think it even needs to trim the ones that are character specific or everything needs to be in here. 12/30/2015

Agreed, now in 2017. Lifeform and other Annual crossovers from the 90s could be better covered. The complete issue list for that one can be found here. Could be a good source for more thorough coverage. I'll try to remember to come back here and make some edits.Leisurely historian (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)