Talk:Zenith (comics)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added image of Zenith book one.Will expand the article once i've reread the books.Logan1138 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

zzzenith.com

Can anyone tell me what happened in the Prog 2001 Zenith one-off?

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zenith (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060227040454/http://www.internationalhero.co.uk:80/z/zenhist.htm to http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/z/zenhist.htm

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

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) 10:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Zenith's co-creator and author, Grant Morrison, apparently uses and prefers they/them pronouns. I'll add a template to the Talk header. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments4 people in discussion

I'm a bit unsure why a certain level of detail is applicable for - say - The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen but dismissed as "bloat" and reverted here. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The plot section for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is 226 words long. The existing Zenith plot section is ~~887~~ 895 words long - already almost exactly 4 times the size. Your proposed addition would add an extra 2364 words to the article - only for plot, not counting the "Manuel" addition. That's way too much. Also, let's not forget that TLoEG has a much higher profile than Zenith does, not least a feature film adaptation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the subpage The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comics). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@BoomboxTestarossa (apologies, changing trains) profile seems a very subjective measure. While obviously the LOEG film is higher profile than any comic that surely only applies to the film, not the comics that don't even really follow the same plot? As an aside I'd be curious to see how 2000AD's circulation at the time stacks up against that of League...

And once again you have sidestepped a question. If brevity is the watch word why is there mention of Siadwell's retirement when he's a relatively minor character (off the top of my head 4-5 episodes entirely to facilitate a shock death) and none of Lux and Spook, the key movers in the Grand Plan? ImpactorWasRight (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, don't even remember making that account, sorry, different device. Above comment was mine, will try to work out deleting the other. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you try to ping yourself, and initially reply to your own question? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Switching between devices and unfamiliarity with the mobile interface. Is it relevant? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. Let's assume good faith though, eh? You are also sidestepping the question of adding 2300+ words to an article that already has a summary that covers the plot. We don't mention Peyne, Robot Archie, Mantra or Vertex either - all big hitters. The plot isn't lacking for that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity I'd forgotten I'd set up an account some time ago on a different device entirely to favourite some articles and left it logged it; I'm sure you can see from the contributions of the account that it's not been used as a sock puppet and that my immediate clarification confirms that.

Away from tedious would-be drama you seem to see it as a binary choice between adding 2300+ words and leaving the section precisely as you want it, which it isn't. I feel that the plot section can be improved without significant bloat, however I don't particularly see the point in attempting to do so when you seem to have an interest in keeping the article in some sort of stasis apart from when you decide to edit it. As said one possibility would be a separate page as per League and other comics that have multiple arcs, which you haven't responded to. I mean as you point out the section as it stands is already missing mention of several key players in favour of details which are a lot less relevant it's clear that the section could do with some tweaking, surely? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:NOTPAPER, and comparisons with other articles aren't really relevant. I found the expansion to be well written and interesting, and not excessive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Would something like List of Preacher story arcs be a fair template for compromise? It was my first thought before making the edit but from what searching I did the criteria for making such a "subpage" seems to be the section becoming too long for the main article and then broken off, so I was planning to raise it as a discussion point before the blanket reversion and subsequent side-tracking (for which I take partial responsibility). (I also think the strip has a diverse and interesting enough cast to warrant a List of Preacher characters-style article but I won't be doing anything like that until I get some idea what is Wikipedia policy and what isn't). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

BoomboxTestarossa, you need to assume a little more good faith and tact if you want to bring me round to your way of thinking (especially having already been warned about such behaviour once). Comments such as "you seem to have an interest in keeping the article in some sort of stasis apart from when you decide to edit it" are not likely to sway my opinion. I have an interest in making the article better. My opinion is, and always has been, that to have the original plot and the newly introduced plot is excessive and duplication and thus not better. I see nothing wrong with the existing plot section - which there is no secret thanks to editing history, I have mainly created, edited and maintained - however if you want to introduce new elements, then discussion is the way to go. Why don't you create a draft article and work on that? It should be quite obvious that I have some knowledge of 2000ad from Prog 1 right up to the mid-nineties, so you never know we could end up working together with something that both of us ultimately think is better, but I'm against the "work in progress" ethic that seems to think it acceptable to lessen the quality of an article while it is significantly re-written and hashed over. That's exactly why draft article exist. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. You're asking BoomboxTestarossa to WP:AGF while not extending the same courtesy to them. By your own admission, your version omits very relevant information: We don't mention Peyne, Robot Archie, Mantra or Vertex either - all big hitters. The plot isn't lacking for that. Actually, there are holes there that should be covered. That should properly be done here, not in draft space - that's how Wikipedia works to improve existing articles.

BoomboxTestarossa, I'm not convinced there's enough material to warrant a separate 'List of Zenith characters' sub-article. Maybe handle it something more like the Judge Dredd#Family and associates section of the Dredd article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That I like. Let's see - Zenith, Cloud 9 [Peter, Ruby, David, Penny, Siadwell, Chimera], Maximan, Masterman, Archie, Black Flag, Peyne, Wallace... Eddie maybe? He's in all of them... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem there is I have tried discussion and you have sidestepped it. You might want to check your own standards of good faith and tact before lecturing me on mine; you block-reverted the addition without any discussion here, including undoing a correction to the infobox because you simply assumed all of my edits to the page were irrelevant. You'll note that I've been trying to discuss it instead of just reverting even though I disagree. You have sidetracked any questions about the section with whataboutery. You have failed to justify why certain details in the section are okay and others are not. As a result of your actions it is hard to come to any other conclusion because if you had the article's best interest truly at heart you'd be discussing those matters, explaining your point of view and so on rather than a line which so far comes down to "I think it's fine, leave it." The less said about my warning for alleged "harassment" for trying to talk to you about it the better. But "Let's assume good faith though, eh?", as one seemingly says when doing nothing of the sort.

Now, away from the tedium of what has gone before, let's talk about the article.

Why is there mention of Siadwell's retirement when he's a relatively minor character (off the top of my head 4-5 episodes entirely to facilitate a shock death) and none of Lux and Spook, the key movers in the Grand Plan? Either the reference to the character is fluff that needs to be shaved off or what's happened to the members of Cloud 9 who actually have something to do with plot should get mentioned. Ruby's choice of career also seems a little arbitrary to cover too.
Why mention Jimmy Quick? Why is that worth a random mention over any other analogue or guest character and by what criteria?
"Phase I showed that Cloud 9 only temporarily lost their powers and regained them under duress—or, in St John's case, never lost them at all." - I'd question the accuracy of that; neither Ruby or Siadwell seem to "regain" their powers under "duress", they have just chosen not to use them until the events. Ruby consciously calls up her powers when Masterman attacks her, the narration box implying that she hasn't tried using them for some time. Same with Siadwell, who doesn't so much regain them as regain control as he sobers up. Given that Peter meanwhile seems to have kept his sharp by gently using them to forward his political career I'd say that sentence is highly subjective at best and inaccurate at worse.
"Zenith was generally successful working on his own in Phase II, but he again relied on St John at times, and also a CIA agent who was killed early on." The first part seems subjective, while I'm not sure - however a vivid character she was (Morrison sure loved a sudden death at the time) I'm not sure Caedra - or for that matter Shockwave and Blaze - are more crucial to the plot than Peyne, mentioning Wallace by name or that Zenith has to beat his own dad to death in the story.
The Phase III summary just sort of tosses Maximan in there halfway through without mentioning how he survived the bomb in 1945 (it's because it's an alternate version of the character, I know that, you know that, people who've never read Zenith don't know that), or how he's capable of betraying the heroes. So either his role is important to clarify at the start as the driving force that gathers the heroes or he's best not mentioned at all.
"the remaining members of Cloud 9 eventually transformed into the very Lovecraftian horrors that Zenith battled in the first series" - Peter didn't, at least not overtly. And they had two of Black Flag along, though if we'd mentioned Lux and Spook earlier on we could just mention them here along with Ruby.
"(during part two – "The Eleventh Hour" episode)" - why throw out the episode title here? Again that seems like an unimportant detail compared to some of the stuff missing.
"Zenith since returned three times to the pages of 2000 AD: In zzzenith.com..." - this section then only tells of one occasion, and the wordcount is about the same as that for all of Phase II despite the gist of dot-com being "nothing much has changed" (Zenith is still an apathetic bag of cocks, Peter is still running the country).

Now I personally happen to think with a little tweaking the section is actually about right. I just don't see why there can't be a little link to "List of Zenith story arcs" above it as there are for other comic series. Profile is subjective and to a certain point irrelevant, though again I would suspect 2000AD's sales in the late 1980s would knock most 21st century comics of any description into orbit while also simultaneously existing before the likes of CBR, TCJ etc. could put up a stack of easily-referenceable interviews and the like. Nevins would have loved to get his mitts on Phase III Like I say, subjective.

If not I'd theoretically be happy to help address the page as it stands, which has several other issues (the trade information is a bit out of date, mentioning pre-orders for 2014 like the releases are in progress when all the books are out; there's an uncited statement in the lead that we either need to source or cut or rewrite or whatever; I don't actually think it's particularly controversial and needing of citation but I struggle to work out what counts on here as fair observation and what needs citing. As I hope my attempted work, this long, long wibbling and my edits elsewhere show I'm not afraid of typing or hard slog for references. However as it stands I'm less than convinced that any attempts to work on such issues would be a genuine collaboration or more of a monkey/organ grinder thing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A lot to unpack here, but in no particular order - mass reversion. See WP:ONUS, the responsibility is on the editor wishing to include information to justify it, not the reverting editor. Simple as that. The onus includes persuading others to include the data, and although I'm coming round to that, it's not been an easy journey.

By your own admission, your version omits very relevant information - it's not an admission. It's especially not a statement that it's my version, and the link to WP:OWN is unnecessarily accusatory. Just because I've contributed significantly here does not imply at all that I consider it my own preserve.
Stop banging on about the M Carmona fix, please. If you felt that strongly about it being correct, do us all a favour and fix it in the rest of the article as well. I personally favour consistency and prefer "M Carmona" in both circumstances because that's how the credit appeared in 2000ad itself.
The comment about Cloud 9's powers being regained under duress is highly subjective at best and inaccurate at worse - it takes being dropped at high altitude before Siadwell can do anything, and - as you point out - Ruby cannot use her powers until her life in danger and even then the text is "I hope I can still do this" - it's not subjective or inaccurate to take it that prior to this event she couldn't use her powers. There's also a line somewhere about them all falling into a coma, and emerging without their powers. After Ruby shorts out the generators at a Zenith video shoot he says "I thought you couldn't..." to which she responds "You thought wrong - everybody did." Again, later on a police officer says to St John "I also remember you lost your superpowers..." - it's clear that the statement is accurate in the context of the plot.
The mention of Jimmy Quick is a natural follow on from the previous statement of "using either the actual characters or analogs, depending on their legal status..." - surely that makes sense? No reason to choose him over others, except he gets some character time, is specifically named and carries a plot point by being fried passing from one alternative to another while warning Black Flag et al.
The Eleventh hour episode is there because it's a critical plot point - otherwise there's no indication of how (or when) the transfer from one universe to another happened. A natural reader response is "What? When? Where?"
Phaedra Cale, not Caedra. But that's trivia. "Must be funny being called something like Phaedra ... You must wonder why your mum and dad didn't give you a sensible name" "Like Zenith?"
With regard to being bitey, just note that out of all editors here only one has been warned over behaviour. I don't care, because I've been here long enough to know that my editing upsets some people - however eventually some of those some people and I end up working very well together. The issue arises because (usually) we are both passionate about our shared topics and have strongly held opinions about them that don't always align initially.
Sure, edit away then, but I reserve the right - as per any editor can - to amend and remove as per editing policy. Who knows - you may even approve of mine, although you haven't done so thus far - ironically being critical of my past edits, whilst bemoaning that I'm doing the same to you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If the onus is on justifying expansion the problems with the extant plot section show why something needs to be done as the current plot section has inconsistencies, inaccuracies and unfounded speculation in it. The section needs reworking. Parallel to that I believe the depth and detail of the work justifies longer summaries of the storylines for the clarity that would provide, though a separate article as I have suggested would make sense in terms keeping this one more readable. You don't even seem to be willing to discuss the possibility, or explain why it is okay for some series and not for others beyond a vague claim of "profile".
I think it's semantics as to whether you wrote it or whether you're defending it as adequate, either wholesale or piecemeal. Now, did you even look at any way the information in the longer summary and think "this is far too long as per Wikipedia guidelines but maybe some of it could be edited into the main article to make it clearer"? Or did you just block revert it as "bloat" without even considering whether it was salvageable? Or ask me to do so? These do not seem to be the actions of someone who has the accuracy of this article at heart.
I'm sorry if the Cardona thing is irritating but sadly it's an illustration of why I'm finding it hard to assume good faith on your part instead of thoughtless reversion. It makes me wary of, say, revising the outdated trade sections in case you revert it without checking whether the edit was accurate or not.
Does Siadwel regain his powers because he's dropped or because he sobers up from being dropped out of the sky? It's subjective. "You thought wrong, everyone did" could just as well refer to Ruby publicly feigning as her powers having faded before the Masterman attack, as it's unclear whether "everyone" includes Ruby herself. A couple of pages later Zenith posits that Cloud 9 "didn't really lose" their powers and Ruby doesn't correct him, or again when he says the same thing before they visit Peter. It's subjective. Siadwell claimed his powers "faded with his youth" in I/7, not that he lost them, the implication being it's the drinking, which would fit in with the raw uncontrolled power he shows when provoked by Zenith and his increasing control as he dries out but again that's subjective (it's also Ruby's speculation that he owns the pub; it would be weird that he was an alcoholic who lives in a cottage full of stashed booze if he owned a pub and could just live there...). I think it's fair to say anything Peter tells anyone about his powers being lost or whatever is to be taken with a pinch of salt. IIRC Peyne is the source of the illness/lost powers thing in Interlude/Peyne but he is an unreliable narrator anyway as it becomes clear Cloud 9 are miles ahead of him even in the 1960s (e.g. taking the "deaths" of Spook and Lux entirely at face value). Not sure on what we're told in the comics you could actually definitively say it's 100% one or the other, and I'm unaware of any source where Morrison directly addresses the point.
Jimmy Quick seems a very random detail when we're pressing for economy, the gist is clear without the example. Unlike many other details in the summary.
No other episode names are mentioned at any point though, e.g. no mention of when Peter mucks with Masterman's brain in Phase I. Again there seems to be a lack of consistency.
Yeah, I do seem to have some weird thing with typing her name, had to correct it when I did the summaries too even while working from the trades. Can't seem to stop putting 2 "l"s in Siadwel either.
The reason I was warned is because you've been here longer than me and either reported me in an attempt to cut off discussion at the knees or stood by while an admin accused me of harassing you, as you full well know. I mean, it's not your job to coddle the newbies of course, and you clearly have no problem with upsetting people. But maybe don't cry foul if someone bites back? Your assumption of a superior, dismissive tone towards a new editor and (continued) cherry-picking of which points you deign worthy of a reply has shaped this interaction so far. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the reason you were warned was because an uninvolved editor saw fit to warn you over your behaviour. I didn't report you, as my editing history shows, and why on Earth do you suppose I would jump to your defence over statements such as "Let me know if you ever retire as its' gatekeeper" when they're directed at me?

The thing about subjective is that my interpretation is just as valid as yours.

Re: Jimmy Quick. I thought you wanted to expand the article? Th gist is clear, yes, but examples are clearer.

Stop using me as a stick to beat yourself with, or declare yourself some kind of martyr. Because a bulk revert took out the term "Manuel" does not automatically mean I would rabidly revert all your edits. Stating that you daren't update a section because you fear reversion is ridiculous, I'd hope you can see that. We are arguing over a newly introduced section and the interpretation of an existing section. If you think I'm behaving in poor faith, there are other avenues you can explore to counter that, and despite your low edit count, you're not a newbie - your Boombox account was created back in July 2022, and the Impactor account in November 2020. You've clearly been lurking for a good while, as the quality of your edits and links shows.

You actually seem to be refusing to edit the article in order to have something to say about me. Weird. I'm sick of this, as it's obviously not improving the article, so I've done something about it. Feel free to revert if you disagree, which is your right as an editor... Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, must have been a cosmic coincidence then.

Anything that's subjective should be phrased in a non-committal fashion surely?

Expansion is great, but surely that would need to be consistent? Naturally that's irrelevant now, though.

"Lurking" is a hilariously loaded way of putting "reading Wikipedia". New to editing!=new to Wikipedia, and neither is actually reading guides to editing Wikipedia before actually doing so. What I didn't read much of until recently was talk page drama.

I saw no point in editing the article while this was going on. The current state of the article obviously makes the past 3-4 days somewhat pointless and the work you have done has greatly improved it. Once I've had my cup of tea I'll see about reworking the trade sections to make them "complete" and look/write up "Permission to Land" (I have read it but must confess it made no great impression, but in the interest of consistency I suppose we have to put it in).

I'm actually vacillating about character sections in that as it stands it probably would be duplication of information in the plot summaries but in a more linear form. It would also mean arbitrarily deciding who from Phrase III gets mentioned and who doesn't, which the summary is probably already seriously pushing the limits on (my rule of thumb was they get dialogue I think, which is probably not the best measure). It would also open a whole can of worms in terms of identification - some guys like Big Ben and Jimmy Quick are obvious and/or listed, but - for example - Mr. Why is harder to place, let alone cite. And some guys just turn up in the background and do nothing, such as Typhoon Tracy, and others have never been definitively identified. A draft of one I'd written before having second thoughts is:

Ruby Fox/Voltage: Possesses electrical powers. Following the end of Cloud 9 she feigns the loss of her powers and undertakes a modelling career until Masterman attempts to assassinate her, causing Ruby to enlist Zenith and Siadwell Rhys to battle him. After the fight she is found by Lux and Spook and shown a way of recapturing her youth; Ruby thus aligns with them when they try to put the Plan into action but she is eventually trapped within Chimera by St. John.

Which on re-reading is basically pointless.

What I would *love* (and I will go a-Googling for) would be to get reliable sources noting some of the designs which are lifted from pop culture (Lux looking like Jim Morrison, Miss Wonderstarr like Siouxsie Sioux etc) as they're interesting facets of the pop culture aspect of the strip but without citations it would again make it a bit of a free-for-all. That and some citable discussions of the fluctuating passive nature of Zenith himself (I've never checked it scene-for-scene but I definitely remember someone saying the events of Phase III would be unchanged if he'd decided not to go with Archie) compared to Peter. But there we go. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The character's physical references to pop culture icons was raised by readers and answered in Tharg's Nerve centre. Off the top of my head I don't recall the prog numbers, but I could probably find them if I took the time. I've a recollection of approximately when it happened, so it would only be a matter of checking 20 progs or so, but I'll have to dig them out of storage the first place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)