Talk:List of The Amazing Spider-Man issues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vol. 2

Should The Amazing Spider-Man Volume 2 be listed in this list? Volume 2 does eventually switch back to the Volume 1 numbering after all. - Edgecombe 01:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically, it is still volume 2. Heck, Fantastic Four is still in its second volume, and it's miles away from its 500th issue. - Green lantern40 08:52, 2 Jan. 2006

First Mention of MJ

Should it be known that the first mention of Mary Jane was in issue 15 along with Karvens First appearance.

Content of an individual issue

First of all, great article, must have taken quite some time to build. Issue 600, the article says it was Jameson who tried to stop the wedding, but the story in the issue displays it's May's old flame Doc Ock. Robin.lemstra (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 01:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics → List of The Amazing Spider-Man issues – Based on the last AfD and the content of this page, "issues" is more appropriate to discribe the content than "titles". J Greb (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support move per J Greb's reasoning. Spidey104 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Check out

Check out Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Amazing_Spiderman_No._700 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Amazing_Spiderman_No._700 --88.111.125.204 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Individual comic books can have their own article. It is rare, but not completely unheard of. However, that is always after the issue has been released because notability cannot be established before its release on something like that. I doubt it will be notable enough to get its own article (I may be wrong), but likely it will only get mentions on this article, The Amazing Spider-Man, and the Spider-Man. But once again it will not get mentioned there until it has been released. Spidey104 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Similar lists for other series

Not sure if this is the best place to put this but wouldn't it be a good idea to add these sorts of articles for other comic book series across Wikipedia? Similar to how TV shows have episode lists with descriptions and whatnot. It is quite common I want this kind of information but cannot find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoll360 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning on doing this for some other titles, but I'm planning on using more sources and showing sales and reception as well.★Trekker (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Amazing Spider-Man issues. 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/20080828055540/http://www.thespidermansite.com/spidermancovers.aspx to http://thespidermansite.com/spidermancovers.aspx

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Volume 5

Hi, I think ASM Vol.5 16.HU - [Spencer/Iban Coello] "Hunted" is a side story and should not be listed. Any other opinions? Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the article and shortening length of headings/subheadings

I am going to split the issues into "Numbered" and "Special". I am also considering shortening the length of headings and subheadings by chopping off the repetitive "The Amazing Spider-Man" and abbreviating some months. I will do this in a week's time if there are no objection within. zsteve21 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To the contributors of the article:

You are being targeted by people like zsteve21 whose only objective is to split articles, regardless of merit. Soon his cohorts will follow and will offer many arguments for doing what they want. I suggest you read the talk pages of WP:AS and ferret to understand what and who you are dealing with. Don't be surprised to wake up one day to find your article split in a "bold move." VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

In response to the message just above, please check WP:Etiquette. Splitting articles indicates that it is almost definitely too large, which means I only split large articles. Also, I make a split template on the article and wait a week before splitting because I understand that these articles are high-profile. zsteve21 (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2021

(UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt I was not being courteous, but your own Talk Page presents the facts. You constantly split articles without consensus and cause a lot of work for the real contributors to fix the resultant problems that you cause. Last month you were blocked by Wikipedia for your disruptive edits and now that you're back, you are continuing to do the same things. Your self-proclaimed mission on Wikipedia is to split articles, which many find bizarre. Your explanation above makes no sense. Also, are you saying that you have already created a split template for this article?

VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I use the existing main split template, but I didn't mean to cause the major contributors any trouble. My motive is to try to reduce excessively long prose or statistics into a manageable size, to try to reach a better quality. Luckily, since the current articles are getting harder to split, I am considering looking for other ways such as condensing articles and tables. zsteve21 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no proper split proposal tag to draw eyes to this? Anyways, it looks like opposition was stated so I hope you do not take action. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that VarmtheHawk invalidly removed the proposal tag. I've restored it. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed As proposed. Page is lengthy but fairly simple in context, with uniform tables of data that themselves do not represent much content. There's probably other solutions to get the byte count down, including reworking the overly complicated and format-laden table structure. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed No valid reason for doing this has been proposed. VarmtheHawk (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, as an alternative, I am considering shortening the length of headings and subheadings by chopping off the repetitive "The Amazing Spider-Man" and abbreviating some months. And I am also considering deleting the repetitive phrase "" that is not displayed on Wikipedia from the wiki markup. zsteve21 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean "I am proposing" as opposed to "I am considering" as the latter sounds like you are dictating a solution to a problem (that doesn't exist). At any rate, the first of your "suggestions" makes no sense given what this article is about. And what does "abbreviating some months" mean? Just some of them? I think the months can be spelled out and somehow the article will be fine. As to the space "issue", if they are not needed, take them out. But be careful--messing with source can be tricky.

Is the splitting proposal resolved? If so, please remove the notice on the main article. VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)