Talk:Saga (comics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saga (comics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Saga (comics) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 15, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Comics: United States Low‑importance

	Comics portal 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.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reprints

This and this seem like something which could be worked into the reception area. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing that out.

I also added some material on the first trade making the NYT Bestseller List, as well as some info on Staples' process. Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

There should be some mention of how Wreath's Blue language is Esperanto - but where would that fit in? It may need to be worked into larger articles on the planets, the species, or other things about which we don't yet have detailed information. Bondjimbond (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a secondary source for that. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around for a source, and it's hard to come by. I mean, if you just look at the books in print, yes, the language "Blue" is quite obviously Esperanto. But if you want a secondary source, I haven't been able to find any place where Vaughan states it in an interview or anything. I suppose "It's right there in the printed copy if you look at it" doesn't make for an appropriate citation. Oddly enough, if you look at the Wikipedia Category:Esperanto literature, Saga is listed right there, even though it doesn't say anywhere on the Saga page that it's in Esperanto.

There's a reply to a letter in the latest issue that says, in effect, that "Blue" is English that has been Google-translated into Esperanto (hence the errors apparently noticed by Esperanto speakers). Sandstein 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section seems a little out of date

"As of August 2013, [the first collection] had sold 120,000 copies." Surely this can be updated - it still shows up in the monthly top selling list from Diamond. Only one sentence is given to the second trade, and none to any of the subsequent ones. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The breastfeeding controversy may belong in the censorship section Argento Surfer (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source for Critical Reception

Not sure if anything from this is worth including, but it's a neutral-to-negative review of the first trade. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saga (comic book). 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:

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) 22:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Saga (comic book). 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:

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) 02:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Disambiguation, the (comics) is the preferred DAB for articles about publications, not (comic book). I see there was a reviewer questioning the use plural versus the use singular. Have we reached a consensus on this? Can we move this in line with the comics wikiproject guidance or proffer further discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmeow (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was briefly discussed after the fact at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 51#Curly Turkey's comments. The mover didn't remember doing it, and the reason for it was unclear. Nothing was done about it afterward. Thanks for taking the initiative on this (and other places). Argento Surfer (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just gone through that entire discussion and it seems pretty clear that we should move this back to Saga (comics) based on that discussion. The move does not have a tracked discussion pertaining to it. Beyond that; the rationale provided by Curly Turkey is sound. We start with the most general DAB and move further if there becomes a reason to further DAB. Since there is no need to DAB Saga (comics) to Saga (comic book) we should move this back to Saga (comics). Please advise on best practices to get this page moved. Do we continue discussing until we get a larger sample size (users) towards consensus? Do we request the move on the WP:RMT page? Karmeow (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The broad consensus linked above is sufficient to move this boldly. If anyone objects, they can raise the issue here and seek a new/local consensus if they wish. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good interview

This interview includes some good information on the process and creators' response to reviews. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spoil the entire series with the entry on Marko

There is no reason to give away the ending of the final issue of the series in the description of Marko. Dramatis Personae never gives away the final fate of characters. A description of the character is all you need. Anything more is cruel.

Spoilers are ok in a plot summary if it's marked as it's own section. That's easy to avoid.

I had read half this series a long time ago, and came to this page to see how many issues it had. I glanced at the character list to help jog my memory, and there it was, the "surprise twist" in the very end of the very last issue. So unnecessary to put that in a character roster.

I removed that final line but someone added it back in so I'm writing about it here. Please think about removing that last sentence about Marko's ultimate fate. It's not needed to describe the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.63.203 (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A character's death is a pretty defining moment, which is why it goes in the character description. Also, the character list is specifically mentioned as a place where spoilers will be present at Wikipedia:Spoiler. Sorry you were spoiled, but that issue was published over 2 years ago. It's not like it came out today. In the future, you might want to avoid reading articles about works of fiction you plan to enjoy soon. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not censored, and does not omit spoilers, as explained at WP:SPOILER and WP:CENSOR. Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]