Talk:The Walking Dead (comic book)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Dawn of the Dead

I was going through an issue today, and it hit me that the helicopter crash could be an homage to Dawn of the Dead. The escape at the end was made in a news chopper, and that's exactly what they found at the crash site.


ive missed a few issues-whats all this about a copter-the copter shot down by woodbury? whats its story and how do they find out

the copter wasn't shot, it got manipulated by someone who wanted to ensure that they won't fly without him... they obviously did. The governor tells the story after their capture --80.255.97.36 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


  • You never know! Dawn of the Dead was a great movie, so it seems fitting that Kirkman would give it props in his book.

Zombie Survival Guide

Has anyone else noticed how closely this series follows the Zombie Survival Guide, by Max Brooks? I know it's not mentioned anywhere, but it seems pretty obvious to me that creaters of this series have done their reading on Zombie survival technique.

I have, I was also keeping up with the similarities. The only thing that's different really is the way people turn into zombies. Instead of taking 24 hours after bitten, it can take only a few minutes and they don't need to be bitten apparently. BanditmanEXE 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, and naturally, I can't find the article now, Kirkman has not read the Brooks books, but really wants to, but has not done so lest he pollute his own idea pool, (because people would suspect he'd taken the ideas from there, instead of just Romero) since his work is ongoing. Brooks, again as I recall, has read and is a fan of Kirkman.


Well, keep in mind that according ZSG, the disease can be transmittes through ingestion of fluids, or decomposing matter from the zombie. It's possible that they've been drinking contaminated water, or eating contaminated food. Then again, it might just be a plot twist. Who knows.

In a recent letters page, Kirkman stated that they don't have to be bitten to turn into zombies, they just have to die. The biting makes the change happen a lot faster, but apparently everyone on the planet is infected. Remember when Thomas decapitated Rachel and Suzie Greene? Their heads became zombified and they were never bitten. Kirkman has stated that he has zero plans to reveal how the zombies came about & what causes it, so anyone's guess is good.--Hndsmepete 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Walkingdead1.jpg

Image:Walkingdead1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Statue

Andrew's status is unknown. This is Wikipedia, NOT a message board. We need FACTS here, NOT speculation. We need ARTICLES that can be linked to in order to back up what is claimed in this article. A statue is NOT a source, regardless of what company put it out. We need to see it in the comic book, or we need to have Kirkman say in a letter page that he is dead, or an interview that was posted on the net,etc. Unless you can show PROOF that he is dead stop changing his status. White_Bishop (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism

Removed the following vandalism from the plot summaries to issues 53 - 54:

"The morning after, a herd of zombies attack, killing Maggie and Glenn. After a tearful Rick shoots the head off Dale, Ford convinces the survivors to join them on their trip to Tijuana since staying in one place will surely get them overrun by zombies. They leave in a army pickup that Rick and Carl found, in cars, and on horseback the newcomers had ridden to the Greene farm."

Obviously not what happened. I replaced the text with a single line describing the ending of issue 54, but anyone is more than welcome to improve on it, delete it entirely, etc.

--Dc johnson45 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis images

The Synopsis is looking a bit blinding with nothing but a wall of text there. I think the front covers of the trade paperbacks would really allow the eye to adjust to the text a little more. - Chavando (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be an unnecessary use of non-free images. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. I guess the answer is to condense the synopsis. - Chavando (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Simple plot arcs are the only things needed. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


What happened to the synopsis? Skydiver99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Volume 10 Title

The title of Volume 10 is not "The Road Ahead," but, "What We Become." A photo of it is on the back of issue #62. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.131.96 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

charlie adlard interview

I have read the rules and all in all the interview link should stay up since it does pertain to the artist of the book and the book itself. There are examples all over wiki that are doing the same thing so please stop hating on this!!! and it has great info for what is going on here so please keep it up.


I have a link to a charlie adlard interview yet it keeps getting deleted? There are other links to interviews with adlard and kirkman so I don't see why there is a problem here. Could someone please help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.223.155 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 June 2009

The proper way of dealing with links to your own sites is to post the link to the discussion page, and say, 'Please, I think this is of interest, if you agree, I would like someone who isn't me to add it.' It is not to add it, and then when it is removed, add it again, and again, and again, persistently for over a month (I didn't look any further into your edit history than that, I'm afraid). I'm really surprised that there wasn't an admin complaint about your behaviour made much earlier.
Blogs and free web hosts (such as blogspot) are interesting, but for the most part, are not sites that Wikipedia links to - a site needs a lot more information and credibility than a fan club with one post and no comments (terribly sorry). We have linked to fan sites and blogs in the past (for example, there are links on Wikipedia to Whedonesque.com, which is both), but it needs to be a big, established site - though it's a fan site, Joss Whedon posts to Whedonesque, for example.
I have blocked your IP address for 24 hours, for spamming and 3RR issues. I will extend the block if needed - I'm not at all into this subject, so I won't be monitoring it closely, but if other editors here notice issues, please bring it to my attention. --Thespian (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm forced to agree that the site in question doesn't belong. They may have broadened the site to keep it more fresh, but that's a particularly good reason it doesn't belong. The entire front page news has nothing at all to do with this article. A link directly to the interview might be appropriate, however. - BalthCat (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed links to the site, you've been warned about WP:COI and WP:SAPM, you've even been blocked for this, yet you're STILL adding the link? Enough is enough. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong here, This pertains to the book and is no different then the other interviews or links you have so what s the big deal here? All I see is someone who thinks they are god of the internet. I have read the rules and looked them over and this link is no different then others posted this is for people to find info about a book they like and this pertains to that book.

You didn't link the interview, you linked the main page of a completely different site, which is filled with information completely irrelevant to this article. I specifically said above that you could try linking directly to the interview. Perhaps you missed that. You might also want to check yourself before you start accusing people of trying to be "the god of the internet" when they aren't the only one reverting your edits. (If they did consider themselves to be gods, you'd hardly be winning them over.) If the site in question would like to be a notable, valuable source of The Walking Dead information, perhaps they'd best get rid of all the other zombie stuff on the main page. (Regardless of how "fresh" it makes the site.) - BalthCat (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok sounds good, If you could can you please just link the interview I would appreciate it, Sorry to sound so hostile its just that I went through a lot of trouble to obtain the interview and was just wanting to share this with all the fans. Here is the link http://siekone.blogspot.com/ if you could do it for me I apologize for the inconvenience I may have caused. Thank you.

I've added the link to the audio interview. Keep in mind though, that should an established reviewer or interviewer release a similar interview, yours will be probably be replaced based on notability. - BalthCat (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the help I appreciate that.

Character List

It states in the character list under Rick's description that if he dies the series will most likely end shortly after. Kirkman has stated that no character is safe and if Rick were to die many things can happen. I should not even have to point out that Carl may take up the role as the main character for many more issues than Rick was the main character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.162.152 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Woodbury Survivors on the character list?

Is there much of a point to listing Bob, Lilly, and Harold on TWD character list? The list is for the main survivors. They didn't join the protagonists, which that list is really about (with some of the major antagonists thrown in), not every character who ever showed up in the series. Even characters such as Dr. Stevens are questionable since he played such a minor role and didn't even make it back to the prison to meet the protagonists. With the exception of Alice, these characters could be deleted from the list. If we really must keep them, why not group all the Woodbury characters into one entry, ala the Hunters? (But keep Alice separate.) At the very least, they should be moved down to the Antagonists section; Bob, Lilly, and Harold were in no way protagonists, even if Lilly killed the Governor.

I'd say the same thing for Shawn Greene in the Greene Family & Friends section: he was dead before the readers even see the Greenes, so how is he part of the character list?? Who's next, Lori's parents since they were mentioned a couple of times? The list is already overgrown, and with the addition of more important characters in the future, these incidental bit parts are just making it bulky.--Liamgibbs (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Governor is number 86

Could we add in the mentioning of the Governor making the Top 100 list on IGN? We had at one point but now since it was put in his section, which was shortly afterwards moved to a new article and then merged without being copied to the wikia (something I had to do myself). For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It could probably go in the Literary significance and reception section. If you still have the link you can add a mention there. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I just rewrote the synopsis. I felt it required more organization, and I felt it would be easier to rewrite it than to reorganize what was already there. I omitted certain plot points and probably added others. I also divided it according to the divisions of the TPBs. I think it's a bit longer now; if anyone feels it's too long, they're welcome to trim it. They could also simply revert it. Teflon Don 04:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the link to the Batallion Division into a link to a disambiguation page, after I fixed the disambig. up a bit. Kozmik Pariah 11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I added information for issues 25-29, under the title "The Best Defense", which is the name of the collection for these issues. Janors 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated the last item on the list of walking dead attributes about them losing the desire to attack. We only have really one piece of evidence for this with the Governor's daughter. I assume that Michonne's two zombies didn't attack because they lacked any arms or mouths with which to do so.

Completed summary of issue #30, this should also be the end of that trade paperback. The Best Defense looks a little too long to me...I trimmed it as much as I could, but I'm sure another few sets of eyes would be better. Janors 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Does this article really need such a detailed plot synopsis, covering the whole series? As the series continues it will only get larger and larger. Sam Smith UK 01:17, 09 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is already a candidate for splitting under Wikipedia:Splitting. I'd suggest splitting off the collections to their separate articles and replace it with just a broad overview. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Now we barely have a plot summary at all. One Wikipedia user has removed not only the very good summary of the series, but also the themes, the nature of the zombies (As important a topic as any in a zombie comic), and spin-offs of the series. His nation that if people want to know what happens they should read the comic is fair, but it ignores the fact that most comics with such a continuous storyline (Y the last man, 100 bullets to name just two) choose an issue by issue synopsis, rather than a story arc summary used here, and that this comic series now has less details about the story than most other comic series. In fact, the article for Loveless, a much smaller series, has a summary around the same length as "The Walking Dead" and it's listed as a stub article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.83.54 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's too much in-universe detail and a whole lot of unverified assumptions. Per wikipedia guidelines, this sort of material is not acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you think there is too much in universe detail, then slim it down. But you've narrowed it down to a summary that is only really applicable to the first volume, maybe the second. Comic series, more than any other type of media, can change so much over time that a summary to the first volume becomes irrelevant to what is happening in later volumes (100 bullets is a perfect example of this). As I said before, the article for Y the Last Man, and 100 bullets, manage to do a good summary of each storyline without giving anything asway, and you don't complain about them. Also, your reason for not allowing such summaries because " If you want to know what happens in the story, read the comics." is an interesting argument. Considering that most of the television and movies on this wiki have summaries far more detailed than this summary, (The Lost articles border on a script of the episode) I presume someone will be on those wiki pages saying "If you want to know what happens, watch the episode" or does this rule apply only to comic books? Also, this doesn't explain why you're removing the section on zombies (Common to other pages of zombie media-such as Return of the Living Dead), and the section on themes (Common in many other pages, including both versions of "V for Vendetta" and Torchwood), which people who have read all the volumes would be very interested in reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.83.54 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
So essentially your argument for the plot summary is that other articles are bad so its ok for this one to be, and that since you don't edit these other articles you have no right to edit this one? That is a weak argument for keeping the plot summary as is, see WP:PLOTSUM. I'm ok with a longer summary for a multi-volume comic series, but currently this is way too long. The only compromise I can think of is to create separate articles for each tradepaperback. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also maybe the examples we should be looking at are The Adventures of Tintin, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards, Fun Home, Halo Graphic Novel, Megatokyo, Roy of the Rovers, and Sinestro Corps War. Each of these comic related articles that either cover a single graphic novel or a comic series is rated as a Featured Article on Wikipedia, that means an article that has been rated as one of the best in the entire encyclopedia. Shouldn't we improve this article to reach this standard? Also look at the plot summaries on them. Even the long ones are barely as long as this and they are only a small part of the entire article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
My argument was against the view that those who want to know what happens in this series should "read the comics" as this seems odd attitude to an encyclopedia, or any reference work. I agree entirely that we should have separate articles for each trade paperback, just as The Adventures of Tintin has, or by reducing the summary if there is a porblem with it. My problem is that the "short summary" that has been put forward is far too short to be representative of the whole series, and makes this series indistinguishable from any other zombie apocalypse fiction. having a different page for each paperback would give this series the summaries they deserve, while freeing up the page for better examination of the influences and themes in this text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.83.54 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Even then the plot summaries for the separate articles would need to be shorten. I recommend at least nothing over 700 words. I already started trimming them but if someone could trim the last section because I have yet to read those yet. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed the old format of synopsis' for each TPB volume, found it very informative and a great place to catch up on whats happened up to a point(I only buy the TPB). I appreciate the effort put into the revision but it's just not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.177.4 (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Wow this page sucks now. There's nothing to it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.212.126 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The removal of the plot summaries really just wrecks the page. If you are going to be so stringent on the plot summary, you had better remove the cast of characters, since it tells too much about what the book holds. Or even the name of the books that have been released since people could actually create some sort of idea as to their contents based on their titles.

Ridiculous to have removed the plot summaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.122.44 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In total agreement with the previous posters. What happened to the indivudal pages for individual story arcs? It made the page less cluttered, and was no different from a television series having individual pages for each episode. For crying out loud-the current synopsis is barely even a synopsis. It's a guide written based on the first issue. It doesn't mention the Governor, it doesn't mention Lori-it doesn't mention any character apart from Rick! And, if it weren't for that refernece to Rick by name, it would be indistinguishable from any other piece of post-apocalyptic zombie fiction.

What on earth happened to the plot summary? It is currently meaningless as a 'summary' compared to the old summary which was a useful synopsis of this publication. This is less of an edit and more an act of vandalism. How did this happen? An1063 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly an act of vandalism to reduce a huge, excessive plot summary to something smaller. It could probably be bigger, yeah, but if you have a problem, you should try and help out. :3 Lychosis T/C 02:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the plot summary is no longer a summary of the series at all, simply an overview of a stereotypical zombie story plot arc (and a small one at that) The previous summary was thorough but I would dispute it was excessive (It is an encyclopaedia after all). Have you seen the LOST series summary? Are you now suggesting I rewrite the entire summary as was? --An1063 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This plot summary is one of the worst comic plot summaries on the entire face of the wikipedia site. Have a look at the plot summaries of ANY other comic series on the site to see what I am talking about. The original version before people "improved" it by attacking it with a machete and chopping it down to a death list, then attacking it again and removing even that was far superior. No useful information is conveyed in the current state of this page. 132.241.233.26 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What on earth happened to the plot summaries and character list? That was really useful for keeping track of what occurred in each TPB and what the current status of the characters were, especially for those who purchase the Walking Dead only infrequently. I agree that articles should be cleaned up but other articles can be branched off if the section is too large. 118.107.241.10 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The removal of the interesting and useful information from this page is shameful. There's no sense in even working on it since it's essentially guaranteed that any worthwhile addition will be instantly killed. What remains isn't even coherent or well-written. Wikipedia really stinks now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.157.191 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This page, and the culling of genuinely useful information, is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia now.--24.167.135.249 (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) How do I return the plot synopsis to its former useful state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by An1063 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the synopsis. It's concise at least, which makes a difference from the novels the fanboys usually pollute Wikipedia with. "And then they do this and this, OMG, the best part is X gets killed by a spear through the head. THROUGH THE HEAD!!! And then they go here and here, and they meet B and C, and they totally kill these zombies." for about twenty thousand words. No thanks. Geoff B (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regards the synopsis in its current state, just for the record you will note at the head of this page that The Walking Dead article is part of the WikiProject Horror, the intent is 'an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide....' Note those two words. I don't understand why you self appointed editors persist in cutting genuinely useful information from the synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.192.144 (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

A large portion of this article was deleted in April 2009,[1] the deleted portions can be found here: [2] 98.231.142.70 (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Release Date for Volume 12

It seems on some websites that Volume 12 was released July 21. http://www.tfaw.com/Graphic-Novels/Profile/Walking-Dead-TPB-Vol.-12-TPB___362690 http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1395:the-walking-dead-volume-12-life-among-them-graphic-novel-review&catid=54:comics-reviews&Itemid=185

I think this should be changed...From August 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.123.51 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew

Although unconfirmed, it seems that the zombie that attacks Rick and Glenn at the opening of issue #26 is likely Andrew. I suppose it might be another dreadlocked, slender african-american recently zombified (at least, he looks a lot fresher than most of the others clawing at the fence in the latest issues) but I think its perhaps worth a mention. Although its also worth mentioning that Rick and Glenn apparently did not recognize him.--Hexrei 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I went back and looked after reading this and the zombie they kill seems to be bigger than Andrew.
    • Well until we are sure of his fate, I think we should change it.Magnus 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is rumor control, here are the facts.

  • Fact: We did not see him die.
  • Fact: We did not see him reanimate.
  • Fact: Kirkman has not said at anytime that Andrew is dead.
  • Fact: In the letters pages of issue 35 Kirkman indicated that Andrew may be at the Govenor's camp.

The only evidence that says he may be dead is that there is a zombie walking around that LOOKS like him. A person that LOOKS like someone is not necessarily the person in question. All there is to back up that Andrew may be dead is speculation and theory. Theory and speculation do not belong in an encyclopedia. White_Bishop 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I went back to those issues, and I can discredit this rumor, as good as it might seem. Notice the zombies clothes, he is wearing a white shirt and black pants. Andrew ran away from the prison in his orange jump suit. Nice try though. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hate to reopen this discussion after it looks like it's been closed for more than three years. But apparently Andrew is dead. http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=40651&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 Kirkman says so himself in the top post. Kind of sucks that we didn't actually get to see him die, but oh well. --198.103.221.51 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

    • In retrospect, I phrased my suggestion incredibly poorly. It wasn't a rumor, it wasn't even likely, it was just an observation. Glad to see Kirkman made it pretty clear that he was dead and possibly a zombie, but they hadn't run into him.Hexrei2 (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Death list

Is the "death list" kept up-to-date with the comic or the trade paperback? It's just i only get the tpb's so the issues are a bit ahead now and i was looking for some spoilers :)— ChocolateRoses talk

The death list is accurate up until the end of the fourth TPB. I'll update it when I get #5, or someone else might do it earlier. Teflon Don 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed Maggie's status from dead to unknown, as she appears on the cover of #57 and there is no in comic verification of her demise. TM

Utter vindication!! TM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.110.34 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bring back the list

Wikipedia is basically the only place that contains this information! It was a valuable resource for walking dead fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.219.150 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree - this information is very difficult to find. Please bring back the list. --69.123.215.253 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes please do. This is a good piece of information in regards to when a character died. This was the only place with this information.

remove the list

The death list is really annoying. I just wanted to find out more about the charactors, but it is impossible to look through it without seeing who is dead because of the "Cause of Death" in bold. This should be moved to another section and clearly marked with a SPOILER alert. Especially when you consider that most people reading this article are doing so because they do not know a lot about it (i.e. they haven't read it!)--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a new format should be used, I don't agree with the marking of "SPOILER" as an alert. That isn't necessary and shouldn't be used. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

please no more spoilers on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.46.88 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a "no spoilers" policy... You wouldn't go to iMDB and complaign about spoilers concerning a new movie, don't complaign if you come read an article in an encylcopedia and learn something you didn't know. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Steve
Wikipedia isn't a movie review, it's a place to display facts. The death list is an accumulation

of facts. Spoilers indicate someone is reading this for a critical review. Put the death list on another page, but don't get rid of it because someone is spouting nonsense about "spoilers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.16.248 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Cast and Summary is LAME

Who is going to be reading this article except people who are interested in the comic? You can argue that the summaries and cast list might do better in their own article. That's fair. But don't remove them. Hell, I use episode lists all the time for other shows. I forget which one I'm up to on a series and will read the summaries to figure out the last one I saw. If I'm watching a show as it comes out, I might not remember stuff from previous seasons. Looking up the plot on wikipedia really helps.

What deletionists fail to understand is wikipedia does not have size restraints like a normal encyclopedia. If people are interested, they can document it here. It's valid information. I would dearly like to know the mindset of a deletionist. You don't see me going into pages for topics I care nothing about like Sex and the City and deleting stuff I say is garbage. From my opinion, the whole topic is garbage but guess what? The most detailed SATC page in the world doesn't mean jack and doesn't hurt any of the topics I care about, not a bit! So let them have their cruft, let me have mine. Or is it just the trolling pleasure of deleting stuff people worked on to fit some arbitrary standard of encyclopedic excellence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.233.140 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of starting a topic on the talk page, when you quite clearly don't understand Wikipedia's rules, and have already decided upon the mindset of those you decree to be opposing you? Just because Wikipedia can include something does not mean it should include it. A concise plot summary and cast section would be appropriate, except no-one has written them. Note the word 'concise'. This is not an excuse to knock off thousands of words describing every single thing that happens, nor is it an excuse to create a cast section containing only duplicate plot info, next to no character info (and what there is is often POV/OR), no sources, and little sentences like this gem: He was captured by the hunters and had his remaining leg eaten by them, although they had no idea he was bitten before they ate his leg. How exactly that informs the reader about the character is beyond me. Geoff B (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your enforcement of the rules is both unthinking and dogmatic. You have more devotion to the letter of the law than the spirit. Do you even have any interest in this genre of fiction?

--74.173.233.140 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What have my personal interests got to do with editing an encyclopaedia? Nothing. Something you fail to understand, letting your own personal enthusiasms take precedence over good sense. My enforcement of the rules (and the rules themselves) have had more thought put into them than you could or would credit. Because they are in your way, you insult them. Not because they're wrong, but because they're an obstacle to you.
What's most amusing is that there's enough material out there to make a decent cast section. Kirkman's done a fair few interviews and talked about the series, it's got some attention as being a successful horror comic, and as part of the resurgence in popularity zombies have had lately, but you just can't be bothered to find the sources and do the work. You don't want to improve the comic's Wikipedia article, you just want to add an indiscriminate collection of info to it because you happen to like the comic. Geoff B (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article was gutted by removal of the cast list and more in depth discussion of the zombies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.30.158 (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who contributed in turning this Wikipedia article into complete crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.123.87 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. I remember this article having quite a wealth of information. Now there is nothing here. What a disappointment. Skylerlol (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for improving this article by making it worthless, GeoffB. Great work you should be proud. I hilariously linked it to a friend who was asking for a rundown of the characters from the comic vs the TV because I remembered it was here... pretty lame to remove that. Congrats on following the letter of the law and shitting on the spirit.24.21.167.199 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! What do you mean, I should be proud? I am proud. Congrats on not finding sourced info to use in the article and relying on others to do your work. Geoff B (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a character/death list is unnecessary here on Wikipedia. For all that say there is no other source for this info, how about looking at the Walking Dead Wikia site dedicated strictly to this subject? They have a character list along with info on who's dead and who's alive. It's easily found via Google. NJZombie (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

GeoffB; Just exactly what is your problem with the TWD series and the contributions people might want to make towards updating and improving these pages? I've avoided visiting this page for over a year because of your desire to reduce the info to nothing of use to the casual or uninformed, including deleting my own entries. I don't think you even like this subject so why your continued input? Sorry but you are wrong on this.----

Similarities / Influences

The series shares many similarities with other books and films about the living dead.

1. "The Rising" & "City of the Dead" by Brian Keene - Jim Thurmond (the main character) searches for his wife and son after the dead rise.

2. "Reign of the Dead" by Len Barnhart - The main characters take up residence in a large prison for much of the book.

3. "Autumn: The City" by David Moody - Several of the main characters travel across country in an RV.

4. "World War Z" by Max Brooks - Zombies freeze in winter, due to lack of blood flow.

5. Movie: 28 Days Later - Main character wakes up from a coma to find the hospital and then the city he is in have been overrun.

6. Movie: "Fido" - Everyone in the movies is infected before death, and turn into zobies no matter how they die. -- YoShIe66 01:39, 22 September 2007 (EST)

So WHAT, somone took exception to my detail about the previous WAlking Dead series? Too similar? Don't want anyone to know? A policeman who kills zombies. That's what I wrote, but apparently some FAN thinks people might think Kirkman stole his idea, or at least appropriated it from another source. This is NOT th case, so what the BIG DEAL about having details on the page. Fanboys are annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.59.187 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the snide remark at the end that set my Spidey sense a-tingling. When you insert your own opinion into an article, as you did ("a stunning degree of coincidental similarity.") you are violating Wikipedia's rules. It is both original research and POV. Geoff B (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A thought on previous topics

There are simply so many characters in the series that a 'character list' would be near-impossible. Lots42 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why a concise character list would be useful. So that people trying to keep track of the dizzying array of characters have a resource. Without a character list this article is essentially useless.Walterego (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A Page for Rick Grimes.

Can someone please make a Rick Grimes character page? The guy has been around now for years, and is now spanning two forms of media. The show AND the comic are both extremely popular, and I believe he has the notability to have his own Wikipedia article. Almost everyone at my job, and my friends jobs know him from the show or the comic, and his popularity on the internet has been growing steadily since first release. He seems like an actually notable person, I mean I've seen people talk about him (mentioning by name might I add) on buses and the train.--68.39.80.126 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Release Date for Vol. 14

I didn't see any citation for the release date that was previously listed, but here, you can see the release date as June 22, 2011 - not July 5.38.219.132.1 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Character List

Considering that there's a TV series of The Walking Dead now, would it be feasible to re-create a character list, that both The Walking Dead comic and TV series can share? Sera404 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, The characters are not notable the series is. Unless you can give real world context to the characters they don't belong here. 67.8.72.12 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the characters are a part of the series, how can you say they are not notable? You're kinda failing hard there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.19.212.4 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Change title to "The Walking Dead (comic book)" and redirect "The Walking Dead" to TV series article

I propose that this article's title be changed to "The Walking Dead (comic book)" and "The Walking Dead" changed to a redirect to the TV series article, or rename the TV series article to "The Walking Dead". A simple Google search shows that the TV series is now much higher profile than the comic book series (do it in private browsing mode so results aren't skewed).

I think that the current names are a (slight) disservice to Wikipedia users. If you start to type "The Walking Dead" into Wikipedia's search, it suggests the TV series article before the comic book series article. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

I went the route of having "The Walking Dead" redirect to the disambiguation page since it has many applications.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*That works, thanks. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

28 days later

On that kinda topic, Rick's waking up in a hospital full of zombies is very reminiscent of the beginning of 28 Days Later. Not saying he stole it, maybe a tribute or whatever. Chiliflamingo 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, might be an homage, then again it's just a good way to start a zombie adventure. Kinda like how using the dreaded, "Bar Fight," to start a D&D adventure :-) White_Bishop 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I also came across the similarities of 28 days later's beginning and the hospital scene. I think it would be worth to mention it in the article. 130.243.155.171 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Kirkman has stated various times that there was no relation to Rick waking up in a hospital and the main character waking up in a hospital, it is just pure coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.217.50 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Also the whole story about woodbury reminded me of the soldier villa in 28 Days Later. --80.255.97.36 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In the amc series "The Walking Dead" which is losly based on the comic in episode 6 of season 1 titled "TS-19" the survivors make their way to a medical research facility, where only a single researcher is left performing his experiments. He hesitates to let the people in but once they arrived they are having an opulent dinner with wine etc. Can someone confirm that this takes place in the comic book, too? Because this is also reminiscent of one of 28 days later's alternative endings, namely the "Radical Alternative Ending", see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Days_Later#.22Radical_Alternative_Ending.22. 130.243.155.171 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think in George Romeros movies he makes it clear that everyone is already infected, and that a bite will only make one turn faster, but not needed to turn, a simple death will do the trick it seems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.255.1 (talk) 08:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Trade Paperbacks

In this section it says "The trade paperbacks collect six issues each, but contain only the story and *no cover art*" (emphasis mine). I see art on the covers, but maybe the term means something else... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.7 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is common to include the cover art from the original comic books in trade paperbacks (especially when they've been made a feature of them, like alternative covers, or Arthur Suydam's Marvel Zombies covers), but not with the WD trades. I've updated the wording to make this clear. (Emperor (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC))

WD franchise article?

Time for a Wikipedia article about Walking Dead franchise? There's 3 wikipedia articles about WD video games (2 by Telltell Games, 1 by Activision). There's also:
a) the AMC The Walking Dead Social Game on facebook ( www.facebook.com/AMCTheWalkingDeadGame ).
b) The Walking Dead: Assault for iOs (for iPad and iPhone) ( www.thewalkingdeadassault.com )
c) The Walking Dead Escape (zombie obstacle course) ( www.thewalkingdeadescape.com )
d) WD at Halloween Horror Nights (Universal Studios Florida had haunted house "The Walking Dead: Dead Inside". Universal Studios Hollywood had Terror Tram "Invaded By The Walking Dead" and maze "The Walking Dead: Dead Inside".)
e) WD board games. Etc. etc. --EarthFurst (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A page for Negan.

It's pretty clear this guy isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and seems to be becoming a pretty big threat.76.98.53.123 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for summary

I suggest that nothing new be added to the plot summary until and unless it's both significantly shortened and fully sourced. Currently, it is far too long and has several unsourced paragraphs. —Frungi (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete the Plot section

I propose deleting the Plot section entirely. As it is, it seems like it belongs on a fan site or a Walking Dead wiki rather than an encyclopedia. Any objections? Does anyone think that section is encyclopedic? —Frungi (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had to revert your edit as it was too drastic. It is common convention to include a summary of the plot for a fictional work, and the better approach would be to trim it down. (Keep in mind that, given the length of the series, there will be a fair bit of material to cover at any rate.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you reverted all three of my last edits rather than just undoing the one. But I do appreciate your position on the one. Do you think we should split out that section into its own article with a link and very brief summary here? —Frungi (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your initial correction and was just a bit too slow in restoring the "what" tag. Apologies. With respect to your proposal, from past experience I'd suggest that it would be best to address the issue by editing within this article. Otherwise, we're just transferring the excessive plot issue from one page to another, and (if anything) may actually exacerbate the problem by doing so. --Ckatzchatspy 01:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
So how can we find people familiar with the material (which I am not) who can cut down that summary? I think it may be the longest plot summary I’ve ever seen here, ongoing series or not. —Frungi (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Trimming the plot

I’ve started trimming the Plot section. Having not read the comics, I’m going by a wiki and Comic Book DB entries, so hopefully I’m not cutting anything important or retaining anything trivial. —Frungi (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked all the cited CBDB entries from Woodbury on, and none of them have any story information whatsoever (besides, isn’t CBDB content user-contributed, like IMDB? Probably shouldn’t be used as a source at all). So now a good majority of the plot section is without sources. Does anyone have a good online source for per-issue or per-volume summaries, or can someone with the actual comics check the article content and put those in as sources? Otherwise, I’m going to have to heavily summarize the entire series down to a paragraph or two. —Frungi (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, and now this section’s length is about the same as all the other sections in the article; I think this is a Good Thing. Of course, I wouldn’t mind seeing all of the sections expanded—but for the Plot section (even for a very short summary like mine), we need some WP:reliable sources. —Frungi (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't need a "reliable source" for the plot. The comic itself (which is not at all rare and very much in print) is a reliable source for the plot. Clconway (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia; we need a reliable source for everything (see WP:VERIFIABILITY). The comic itself would be a reliable primary source if it were cited as a source, but only the first issue is cited (by me). The wiki-like Comic Book DB, which is not reliable, is the only other source cited. —Frungi (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Plot summaries do not need to be referenced. Period.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And if you can source what I removed, whether with the comic book issues/trades or with reliable secondary sources like reviews or recaps, please try to shorten it as well; plot summaries are supposed to be concise, but this summary was longer than the rest of the article put together. See also WP:PLOTSUM. —Frungi (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying the plot summary as it was was well done. I'm just saying it didn't fail WP:VERIFIABILITY. Take a closer look at WP:PLOTSUM#Citations: "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself.... For consolidated articles discussing a work published or broadcast in a serial form, a citation to the individual episode is appropriate [NB: not "required"] to help readers to verify the summary." It goes without saying that the plot summary of The Walking Dead can be verified by referring to the original issues or collected volumes. Clconway (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but there were no citations. This is why I removed much of the section. The only citations in that section were to a wiki-like database, until I added one for an actual issue of the comic (after reading it). Not that I have anything against wikis—if I had my way, we’d source the plot from the Walking Dead Wikia, but obviously we can’t.
Also, I don’t think you read that quite correctly. I’m pretty sure it means that primary source citations are not inappropriate for plot summaries, not that they’re optional. —Frungi (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to be sure, I’ve started an RfC on the matter at WT:PLOTSUM#RfC: Do plot summaries require citations?. —Frungi (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Only one response so far, but it goes along with my own thinking: A citation isn’t necessary for a single work, but for a series, it’s important to know which book an event happens in. For instance, if you wanted to verify the deal with The Hilltop to defeat The Saviors, where do you look? —Frungi (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think that removing primary sources helps the article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Comicbookdb.com is not a primary source, it’s a wiki. The only primary source that was cited there was one that I added myself for the first issue. Anyway, I’ve shortened the summary while leaving the major events in, so hopefully that’s satisfactory. —Frungi (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the comicbookdb in there. These could just as easily be referenced to the actual primary sources, though. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And if I had the comic to reference, I would happily do so; if you have them, please do. But since I doubt anyone would be willing to donate those books to me for that purpose, I was able to cite only the first issue because it's free on Comixology. —Frungi (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not misuse template and tags

Plot summaries do not require references. Adding "Citation needed" tags and the template is a misuse of the tools. Do not edit war and work together to form a decent summary but do not attempt to override the wide consensus of the Wikipedia community in this way.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: I feel that with a large multi-volume work such as this, the plot summary should indicate which volume(s) an event or arc occurs in. I have no doubt that this has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia before I came along but I don’t know where or what the outcome was, so if you know where such a discussion was, please point it out. —Frungi (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations (although this is an essay the MOS on writing about fiction directs to this for further information) states (bolding for emphasis):

Citations about the work of fiction generally (that is, cites addressing the commentary, impact or other real-world relevance of the work) are secondary sources no different from citations of non-fictional topics. All interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source.

Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself. For example, primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc of the quote within the work. For consolidated articles discussing a work published or broadcast in a serial form, a citation to the individual episode should be included to help readers to verify the summary. Plot summaries written purely from other summaries risk excessive loss of context and detail. While consulting other summaries may be helpful in narrowing down on what the major plot elements are, be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right.

--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to argue this point further there are a number of Notice boards we can take this to. But what I am stating is pretty clear on all plot summaries in GA and FA articles of a similar subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The same is true with novels and film plots. However...a synopsis or outline should contain secondary and/or tertiary sources as this is a more formal interpretation of the work. Also, I am not saying that you cannot add a secondary source to a plot summary, just that no editor may require what the general community has already established as acceptable practice.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If this still does not satisfy you and the option of the notice boards is intimidating, there are other options you can take on your own. I suggest the Teahouse Questions and Answers page. While I am a host there, if you choose to ask this question there, I will step back and allow other editors to answer your question, should you so choose.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Erm… I was advocating citing the primary sources. And your quote says we can. It seems magnitudes more appropriate to do so for a large multi-volume work like this one (i.e., which primary source?), though that essay says nothing about multi-volume works (which Watchmen is not, being a graphic novel). So, again: If this has been discussed (particularly about comic books or other multi-volume works) before I started complaining about it here, please point it out. —Frungi (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No, your were spamming this page with inappropriate tags and templates to force editors to do something that is not required. I pointed to the relevant pages. I am not required to do your research for you and point out discussion about issues that are not pertinent here. If you feel you have a policy, guideline or essay that counters my argument, present it and stop asking me to do your work. Please show me where there is support for what you have done.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend. I believed the tags and templates I used were appropriate in the plot summary of a work spanning multiple volumes, because I believe the reader should know which primary source any given portion is taken from. I did try to find a page or discussion about this special case, but found nothing either for or against, so I went ahead and tried to improve the article. —Frungi (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I trust your good faith and that you were attempting to improve the article. However it did not actually make an improvement so ignoring the rules in this case was just not the route to take.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I couldn’t find the relevant rules, so I didn’t have the opportunity to ignore them. This is why I asked you for the relevant rules. Re demanding primary citations for the summary, WP:PLOTSUM#Citations says that citations should be included for serial works, and I believe this is the only page concerning plot summaries that mentions whether or not to cite serial works. Re tag abuse, I added those tags with the expectation that editors who have access to the books would add the primary source citations which would improve the article, and I’m not aware of any rules against using tags in that manner, either. In your top comment, you mentioned edit warring, but I don’t think I did that; I believe very few of the edits I reverted included an edit summary, and almost none were accompanied with a Talk page post while I routinely asked for discussion. If you think I was wrong in any of this, I apologize, but I frankly don’t see it. I would be happy to be corrected, though. —Frungi (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
What that says is: "For consolidated articles...". In other words, if there are other articles and you are consolidating (merging content together) then you should reference which primary source (which volumn) is being summarized. That doesn't appear to be the case. You have one, single article and are summarizing the entire plot from the entire series. Again, as I have already stated. It isn't that you cannot reference the plot summary, but you cannot require others to do so using tags and templates.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As I’ve said, I’m not aware of any WP page that excludes serial works from WP:V, so I think you were wrong to accuse me of “ignoring the rules” by enforcing it.
As for whether citations are necessary, it seems ambiguous exactly what “consolidated articles” means here, whether it’s a list of short descriptions and links to articles of individual books/episodes, or a standalone article like this one that consolidates information about all books/episodes where no more-specific articles exist. But regardless, citing the entire body of work is simply not adequate for any but the smallest serials (especially not with a plot summary as detailed as this one was before I rewrote it), so I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to expect citations to at least the collections or trades. —Frungi (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You cannot force others to do what you want, just because you want it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I was attempting to force others to do it because it was my understanding that it was necessary to do it in an encyclopedia, and I really don’t appreciate your accusation. But as I said on your Talk page, my understanding was faulty. If anyone feels that excessive detail should not be cited more specifically, please speak up and I will back down. —Frungi (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You really are missing the point. I am not telling you that you may not reference the plot summary. That you may not break it down into the volumn/issue information. But you cannot use the tags and templates the way you did to force editors to comply with what you want. This is a collaboration and no one owns the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I get that; I meant that if anyone does have a valid reason for not using specific cites here, I’ll stop insisting that we should. But I concede that I shouldn’t have used the tags where it is possible for an argument to be made. That last line in my last comment was kind of half-sarcastic, and honestly I wish you hadn’t responded to it as soon as you did so that I could have deleted it. =) —Frungi (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How best to add citations to the plot summary?

I could probably pull out the collected volumes I have access to and add specific citations. Here's the thing: I only have collections and no single issues. And there's many overlapping collections, some of which collect six issues each, some 12, and some 24. How do you think it's best to cite the plot summary? The best (most specific) I could do would be to the small trade volumes. Clconway (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think trade volume numbers would be sufficient. I had cited the #1 issue because that was all I had access to, or else I would have cited Vol. 1 further on. —Frungi (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As long as the information is the same as the original volumns and issue information as originally published it shouldn't be a problem. However we should not use reprint editons to source as primary works in a volumn or series.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I’d like to add that if you (or anyone) plan to expand the summary, I think it would probably be best to cite very specific events like “Rick murders a man” to a specific issue, but trades are fine for story overview. Unless the trades don’t include the issue breaks (I don’t know if they do), in which case, never mind. —Frungi (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No. that is not how it is done. You break up the volumn/issue and summaries that like you would an episode or season of a television show.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean volume. And some time ago, I suggested splitting off the summary into its own article(s) per WP:SS, as is often done with TV shows, but that was shot down and no one has voiced support. Or do you mean subsections within this article for each trade? —Frungi (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Here you go use this and help to improve it by adding missing issues on both this and on the Talk:List of The Walking Dead characters
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Walking_Dead_(comic_book)/Archive_1&oldid=1137245511"