Talk:American Splendor

Ok I've finished the table showing the list of all AS issues. This table is important because it shows the continuity of AS despite the gaps between issues and the different publishers. I've made up some numbers for the unnumbered Dark Horse issues, and then continued the numbering to include the recent DC comics issues. So the Sep 2008 issue is actually the 39th issue of AS. There are a number of gaps in the table because i'm missing some issues. Please fill in if you know the answers! Simon Clarke (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made some major revisions to this article. First, I divided it into further sections - Origins, Themes, Artists, Publication History etc. In the previous version of the article all these were mixed in together in one section called Overview, and I think it's clearer my way. I've also written a bit more in each of these sections and put references in, especially on the Origins of AS. In fact, I've cleared up a lot of the lack of references. Enough to remove the box at the top saying there's not enough refs? Basically, all the info, other than the refs i've given, are from issues of the comic itself. Enough to keep this article in B-Class i hope. The other thing i'm going to do is complete the table of issues I've started. Simon Simon Clarke (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this should be merged w/ Harvey Pekar and redirected there. Brodo 05:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I was thinking the opposite -- putting the movie and the comic on the same page isn't fair, as the movie contains adaptation of multiple works of Pekar, including Our Cancer Year. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree, splitting the film from the comic makes sense as they are definitely distinct entities. Dancarney 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article created, just copied all the text into a new article, but I'll wikify it. Not sure what to do with the text that remains on this page yet. --duncan 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Pegship added a tag to the stage section, suggesting that we discuss splitting it off into another article. I'd say no - just because there's a pretty small amount of information available on those three productions, and there's unlikely to ever be any more information other than a few reviews in old newspapers. And it might be a little misleading to have an article called "American Splendor (play)" that really describes three different independently written adaptations.

Also, there was an error - the actual first production was left out. I've added it. [whoops, looks like I made an anonymous edit by mistake, but that was me] ←Hob 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It makes sense to keep all topics on American Splendor together. In reality it is easier to find under one article and there is really not that much information to go through.

This article was plainly inaccurate in some places and I changed that--Pekar was doing bio as well as autobio very early on so it's not fair to say this was outside his previous scope. I removed the parentheses around the non-Crumb artists because their contributions *WERE* important, not merely parenthical. Pekar appeared on Letterman SEVERAL times after the initial fight, so I've revised that. I've also corrected the bit that suggests he was self-published up until the last issue of the regular series (incorrect) and appended a bit about him losing thousands on his work to a sentence that suggests he was actually making some kind of calculated business move and not just losing his shirt to put out a comic. Thoughts?

Image:AmericanSplendor1.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the logic of having a prepared box informing everyone that Trivia Sections are discouraged? Why discourage them? Why not either say yes or no? Discouraging them is a milquetoast way of straddling the fence and remaining noncommittal while whining about what other contributors are doing. Be an adult – take a stand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.15 (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Hiding T 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice if we stated what issues the collections contained, as I have not been able to find that information anywhere. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Splendor. 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/20071121150143/http://www.nypress.com/19/21/books/ to http://www.nypress.com/19/21/books/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004201225/http://www.walruscomix.com/pekarinterview.html to http://www.walruscomix.com/pekarinterview.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726013253/http://www.the-review.com/news/article/3343481 to http://www.the-review.com/news/article/3343481
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915031337/http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/americansplendor.html to http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/americansplendor.html

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) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply