Talk:Valiant Comics

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by United States comics work group. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Shir-El too, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 January 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

There's no real dispute about the information I cite. There a few contradictory interviews given by Shooter while he was still in charge at Valiant, but those can be discounted as standard flacking, mostly insisting that the Nintendo and WWF books were selling successfully. There's really no question that the Nintendo/WWF losses drove a wedge between Shooter and his backers -- Shooter doesn't really argue this point, but says that he shouldn't have been blamed for the failure of other parts of the company, especially those run by Massarsky, for doing enough to exploit the properties outside the direct market. He also says that one reason Massarsky escaped blame was that he was hooked up romantically with a high-placed girlfriend at the venture capital firm, who covered for him. While Triumph was right or wrong to blame Shooter, nobody claims they didn't blame him. Shooter himself is a source for the "resisting the sale" point -- he didn't want to bloat the comics line, to temporarily boost revenues and market share at the expense of the line's long-term health. (He was right, too; sometimes you get fired for being right.) And the description of Layton's post-Shooter position comes from Layton, who probably knows what his job was. N. Caligon 19:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what interviews you are referring to. The point of contention comes from the information derived from his Defiant Comics editorials and the online interview sighted in Wikipedia's Jim Shooter article. Furthermore, his story appears to be backed by Janet Jackson and Debbie Fix (spelling?). Granted, the main point of contention pertains to the circumstances under which Jim Shooter was fired - Bob Layton's version lays blame on that fact that Shooter failed to generate significant sales while Shooter's version lays the blame on corporate manuever orcestrated by Massarsky. The evidence I've seen (which, granted, is mostly hearsay and writing with clear personal bias) supports both sides of the story. This is why I initially changed your information to come up with some sort of compromise that would allow for both of those posibilities (and, admittedly, I didn't do a particularly good job. As for Layton's job, I got it from the "credits" list of Harbinger #13, 14 and Unity #1.--Strannik 13:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It states that certain Acclaim characters were re-imaginings of Valiant characters, yet the same characters appear in both the originals list and recreations lists. How exactly are they differentiated? MSJapan 06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Acclaim used the same names of the titles/books when they re imagined the characters, they also added some new titles. Some of the characters somewhat similar, for instance X-O Manowar was still about a sentient suit of alien armor and Bloodshot was still about a man with nanites in his blood, while others were completely changed - Ninjak went from a James Bond type Ninja to a teenager who could turn into a video game superhero by uttering a silly catchphrase. I prefer the Valiant versions for the most part but some of the Acclaim books are very good. I suggest checking out Ninjak and Quantum & Woody from Acclaim and Harbinger and X-O Manowar from Valiant (though really everything Valiant did from Unity and earlier is about as good as comics get). Lw99dds 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Valiant characters are often called the most important of those created after the Marvel revolution in the 1960s" - who said that ? And is that still a widely held view with hindsight ? -- Beardo 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Joe (current editor in chief of Marvel Comics) Quesada said that. I would agree too.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the quote itself is

verifiable. I've added {{fact}} to it for the time being. g026r 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would also add that even if someone said it, it is not said "often".

I think wording like "have been" rather than "often" would sound a little less fanboyish. The article that quote is taken from is informative but a little over the top on the pro-valiant bit. --Impulse 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the link to the Valiant F.A.Q., then I've removed it as the reference for the time being. It's not really what you'd call a source for the statement that they have been called "the most important since [...]", since it doesn't tell us who said that.

I've also made the change to "have been", since "often" is getting close to weasel words (IMHO). -- g026r 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, an anonymous user replaced the link with the edit comment "The writer of the FAQ called them that". I'm going to place my comments about this here so others can comment.

• One: He isn't really calling them that. His exact words are "The Valiant characters are often called the most important of those created after the Marvel revolution in the 1960s (when Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four etc. were created), and one of the major justifications is their startling uniqueness." In other words, he's saying that other people called him that, and he's merely saying that they did. (Does he agree? Yes. But more on that later.) As is, that page is no more a source for the statement than this article would have been (prior to {{fact}} or the link being added in). Besides, the article you're referencing was only authored on July 10, 2006. The quote in question has been here far longer. Not the source.

• Two: Let's say that he said "The Valiant characters are possibly [...]", leaving out the qualifiers. Then he is the source of the quote. At this point, the next step becomes: is he notable? HIs bio [1] notes that he's a "Staff Member" (I'm honestly not sure what the titles mean) of Sequart.com who has collected comic books for over 20 years. The question is, does that give his opinion anymore weight than that of my local comic shop owner? I'd argue no (and pull out
  WP:V Section 3.4
  as my basis.)

Finally, I may have inadvertently found the ultimate source of the quote. He has one other article written on sequart.com: The Ten Most Important Comic Books of the 1990s. In the text for his number one comic: "In the editorial, VALIANT's Editor in Chief, Jim Shooter, tells us that the book we hold in our hands is the most important since Avengers #1." It's not exact, but it's close. Of course, if it's the ultimate source I say the quote goes altogether. Why? Because it's the company's founder, editor-in-chief, and writer of that particular issue calling his own comic that important. It's like if I wrote a play and called it "the most important work since Shakespeare". Would you believe me? Of course not. If he is the ultimate source, I'd say it's the same deal.

Now, you tell me: why should it currently stay as the source? -- g026r 05:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Staff information

This is just a curious question, but has anyone here ever considered giving a list of the creative staff for each of the books? Not on the main page, but on each individual page? an example of what I mean would be something along the lines of: Harbinger 1-?, written by Jim Shooter, pencils by David Lapham, ect... The point is that the creative staff for series are being ignored except in minor mentions such as Shooter, Layton, Vanhook, Hall, BWS. I think it would be a good idea to create this and I am readying to do this. Thoughts?Writersblock81 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled this:

"A few years later, without Jim Shooter's strong hand, Valiant Comics sales shrunk dramatically. Titles which has sold upward of 750,000 copies now moved 3000 units. Eventually, the company was bought out by a video game company, but they did nothing to stem the loss of sales. Valant's doors were closed a few years later."

from George Caragonne, if anybody wants to use it... Trekphiler (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quibble; some of those declines in sales could be related to the 90s retrenchment.

Granted, I agree with George... but nobody can say with any certainty that it was all the fault of not having Shooter on-board.

~ender 2014-07-08 8:25:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.127.117 (talk)

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at

]

Image copyright problem with Image:HTBHC unopened.jpg

The image

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Bloodshot VH2 edit v2.jpg
• Image:XOB.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section under cultural impact

"Futurama: Another Matt Groening creation, this animated television sitcom includes Zapp Brannigan, an arrogant general, who wears a costume nearly identical to the one worn by Magnus Robot Fighter. The primary female character of the show, Leela, shares a similar name with Magnus' love interest, Leeja."

I believe someone is reading too much into coincidences while looking for cultural impacts. Zapp Brannigan is based on

from the original Star Trek which has been clearly documented, not Magnus Robot Fighter. Matt Groening and Billy West described Zapp as 40% Kirk and 60% William Shatner, with no mention of Magnus or any other comic character.

I move this section of 'Cultural Impact' be deleted.Xbriskox (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary that all the pages for the Valiant contains contain listings of the creative teams? IchiGhost (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant unveiled a new company logo late April 2012 just prior to the new X-O Manowar's issue 1 release. I added this information several days ago but was told to cite my source, and I have added a source link. I don't understand why Wikipedia missed out on this, and don't understand why this had to be questioned when whoever was checking my edit should have just looked up themselves to find any link as it is all over the internet anyways. Plus, the logo should be updated on the main Valiant page itself as Wikipedia is still using the 2007 style logo.

On April 23, 2012 a new logo featuring the iconic Valiant compass with a large "V" was unveiled, designed by award-winning graphic designer Rian Hughes. ^[1] [[User:QueenOfSwords|QueenOfSwords (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2012 ]]

An image used in this article, File:ValiantFCBD2012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ValiantFCBD2012.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 11:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

This article is tagged to death. Are they all needed? Asking for citations proving that characters in a line of comics appearing in other titles first? Asking for citations about the physical laws like Newton's Laws of Motion existing in the Valiant universe? WP:NOCITE says that citations are to be used when information is doubtful. Who thinks these are doubtful? AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the users deleting the citations, when found and put into the article?

Same old story.

~ender, 2014-07-8 8:17:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.127.117 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole era of Valiant missing form this article, both in the history and in the lists of comics titles: their pre-hero titles. They had a line of WWF wrestling comics (Battlemania, Lifestyles of the Brutal & Infamous, etc.), and of Nintendo licenses (Super Mario Brothers, Link, Nintendo Comics System, etc.) I'm not going to write it up myself (I have an arguable

]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120108192528/http://comics.ign.com/articles/121/1214270p1.html to http://comics.ign.com/articles/121/1214270p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131004215805/http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1017?articleID=78078/ to http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1017?articleID=78078/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

]

Awards

I'm not convinced that the awards section for this article is in keeping with Wiki policy. It looks like self promotion and puffery. Publishers don't win awards for best colorist, best cover, etc, but every time a Valiant creator wins one, it gets listed here. If an author at Random House wins a Pulitzer, there's no Random House Pulitzer listing on their page. Every DC Comics or Marvel creator who wins an award isn't listed on their pages. But every minor blog which mentions a Valiant book is posted here as if it's an accomplishment. There's even a listing for a comic making a top 100 list. This is excessive.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Valiant Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212132247/http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61154 to http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61154
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820055151/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=poll&id=195 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=poll&id=195

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Valiant Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1017?articleID=78078%2F
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mania.com/comicscape-books-2012_article_136158.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://themindofscott.blog.com/2013/01/06/looking-back-at-the-year-in-comic-books/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117225840/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/01/02/best-comics-2012-master-list-comicsalliance/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/01/02/best-comics-2012-master-list-comicsalliance/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://multiversitycomics.com/columns/2013-in-review-the-best-of-the-rest/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valiant Comics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023211507/http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=1294 to http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=1294

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]