Talk:Dynamo 5

Question on Credits

In February 2009, in between issues 19 and 20, Faerber published Dynamo 5 #0 It was a .25 cent issue that was published as a jumping-on point for new readers. In addition to featuring a 10 or 12-page story (I forget the exact number), it contained a two-page, all text recap of issues 1 - 19, which was written by someone other than Faerber, the only instance in which someone other than Faerber wrote any portion of a Dynamo 5 book. I neglected to include the zero issue up until now, because it hadn't occurred to me, but should I mention the recap and mention who wrote it, and how he is the only person to handle any part of a D5 book other than Faerber? It is salient? I need opinions. Nightscream (talk) 22:07, August 31, 2011

I don't know this comic. I'll have to read up on it. While I'm here, I will neutrally mention that there's a discussion at Talk:Iron Man 2#War Machine that you might want to contribute to. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this comic, but I'd have no problem with a mention. It appears to also be reprinted in one of the TPBs. Dayewalker (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the recap part of the trade? Nightscream (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with this either - Has the person discussed their contribution in RS anyway as that might add another angle. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I found some information about it. [1] Its only ten pages of story and (two more of text). The cover picture says 99 cents, not 25. [2] The article is about the comic book series, so everything involving it should be included, including a zero preview/recap issue. Dream Focus 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise I am not that familiar with this series but since its a recap it can go either way. If you aim to be technical, it is fine but I don't think anyone will have problem with omitting a writer who just surmised another author's work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm straddling the above two opinions. Yes, it should be included. As for the writer of the recap, that just sounds like editorial-assistant work and not someone creating original content, so I would include the content, but not the recapper. We certainly don't include the name of everyone who wrote the "DC Currents" pages in DC Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, on another subject, the Fictional history is way too long and needs trimmed. Right now, it's a fictography and needs real-world writer-artist elements, a la in Spider-Man and Superman.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked for my opinion, my gut instinct is that anybody who has contributed to a significant degree should get some form of credit mention. Dave (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the reason I ask is that I wrote the recap, and wanted blind opinions. Jay Faerber hired me to do so on the basis of my work, ironically enough, on this article. It never occurred to me to add the 0 issue to the article, but now I'm wondering if it should. But I wanted to be sure that doing so would be judged on the merits of the issue, and not on the fact that I wrote the recap. The sense I'm getting from the opinions here is that the 0 issue should be mentioned, but that I should not specify myself, since I didn't really contribute any original stories to the series, which is fine by me. How about this, right after the third paragraph of the Publication history section:

In February 2009, in between issues 19 and 20, Faerber published Dynamo 5 #0, a 25 cent issue consisting of a 10-page original story and a two-page, all-text recap of the first 19 issues, intended as a jumping-on point for new readers.

How's that? Is that acceptable? If so, could someone add it? I feel kinda funny adding it in myself. Nightscream (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dynamo 5. 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/20070310075114/http://www.dynamo5.com/ to http://www.dynamo5.com/

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: 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) 07:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)