Talk:The Punisher War Journal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punisher War Journal v1 and v2[edit]

volume 2 shouldnt be mixed with volume 1 as there is already an article provided for it †Bloodpack† argh! 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both titles will be one single article. There is no reason for them to be separate as the main article is nothing more than a single-paragraph stub, and list of issue titles does not constitute expanded content. --Pc13 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if thats the case, might as well combine all Punisher volumes into one single article †Bloodpack† argh! 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is the objective, yes. --Pc13 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be combined. At least the War Journals. But I believe their was a discussionm going on to combine all the titles. That works two. But their really is no reason to have the volumes seperate. Powerbomb1411 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fine by me, but i dont understand as to why you redirected the the punisher v2 and v3 to the main punisher character article? (excluding the other titles in the punisher bibliography), we have a complete list of issue titles there for encyclopedic reference †Bloodpack† argh! 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

Punisher War Journal → The Punisher War Journal – reason for move: To conform to wikistyle on titles. See The Winds of War, The Turn of the Screw Tenebrae 21:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

No discussion to close. Move done, double redirs fixed. It's been a long story of moves and merges, hopefully this will end it; The article actually started at this same name! Andrewa 06:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

Why does the external link keep getting removed? - Peregrinefisher 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator lists[edit]

Cross posted from an editors talk page in regard to the list removed from the article.

2¢... and I'll cross post on the article talk page. Since the article exists, I can see having a simplified and complete creator's list. But what was removed was in no way either simple nor complete. Ideally such a list should just be:

Writers
  • Name issue(s) #nn(-yy)
  • Name and so on
Penciller
  • Name issue(s) #nn(-yy)
  • Name and so on

Story titles and cover dates are over kill in this situation.

Also, the second volume should be referenced in the infobox. - J Greb 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One person's overkill, is another's detailed encyclopedic info. Creators and dates are pretty encylcopedic, I think. The table isn't against any consensus that I've seen. - Peregrine Fisher 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it supported. And if you look, I didn't put the creative people (writer, penciller and inker) as over kill.
I'll repeat, I can see this stub benefiting from a list of the writers, pencillers, and inkers involved. But the list needs to be kept simple. The issue numbers are sufficient.
— J Greb 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So story title is too much information? What exactly is bad about it? - Peregrine Fisher 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With this article? It starts to turn it from an encyclopedic article into a issue index or checklist. Neither of which, IIUC, is desirable.
Also, as an additional point of reference: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars#Comic book series, 5th bullet.
— J Greb 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That page seems to say I can include plots. - Peregrine Fisher 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but I'd be damn careful about that with this article. It, like 95+% of like articles, lacks both the notability and secondary source references to balance out heavy summaries. At best it could support three things:
  • Thematic elements
  • "Broad stroke" plot lines
  • "Event" tie-ins
Use the same common sense approach as outlined for the creative staff: Keep It Short 'n' Sweet.
- J Greb 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Whys of PWJ V2[edit]

Restored my additions to the article, discussing WHY the current incarnation of the title exists (mainly to bring Punisher back into the Marvel Universe proper after existing on the fringes of the Max/Marvel Knights lines for nearly eight years) as well as the book's tone (abandoning Punisher vs faceless drug dealers/mobsters in favor for Punisher Vs Super-Villains, many of which actually DIE as well as the fact that several issues focus on the super-villains who surive but are maimed/permenantly injured by Punisher... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BakerBaker (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narration inspired by Watchmen?[edit]

I just started to read watchmen comic - isn't narration (Roscharch diary) similiar to Punisher's War Journal?

More accurate, if anything, to say that PWJ has a similar feel to Rorsharch's diary, as Watchmen was published 86-87, and the first PWJ appeared in 1988. I never saw so much resemblance beyond that both tend generally to a certain dryness in tone that does not quite reflect the way we expect the character to think and act, but-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Punisher_War_Journal&oldid=1205660037"