Talk:The Marvel Superheroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (publisher): Marvel Comics work group

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

It should be the other way, Add the other hear.

Spider-Man as far as I know, never appeared on this particular anthology show. He of course, had his own TV series around this same period, which was produced by the same Canadian studio.User:TMC1982

Contents 1 Ralph Bakshi 2 accuracy of title 3 Theme song lyrics 4 Re: DVD 4.1 Page cleanup 5 VHS 6 Stations 7 Fair use rationale for Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg 8 Fair use rationale for Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg 9 Citations needed

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

What is the source for Ralph Bakshi being listed as one of this show's creators? I know he was involved in the second season of Spider-Man (1967), but I don't recall his involvement in this show.

[edit] accuracy of title

IMDB lists the show as The Marvel Superheroes. Shouldn't the title of the entry be "The Marvel Superheroes (TV series)"? --SidP 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually if you check out the following YouTube link containing the original umbrella opening [[1]], you will all find that the correct original title was The Marvel Super Heroes. Hopefully a link to the actual original animation will be enough of a citation for the omniscient power(s) that be? 212.124.251.233 11:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone taken a look at the linked 60s animation? Is it worth renaming the article since the on-screen logo was actually "The Marvel Super Heroes"? Doceo 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theme song lyrics

You see this line from the title theme song? An exotically neurotic and aquatic superhero

I'm pretty sure the song says EROTIC not NEUROTIC. Yet someone changed what I edited back to Neurotic. Here is the theme song in question http://members.fortunecity.com/toontracker/marvelsh.html (Wait for the song to load) Tell me they don't say EROTIC. The Sub-mariner is hardly neurotic.

The lyrics have been published many places. There is no way on God's green earth that a 1960s kids' show would use the word "erotic" in a theme song. Moreover, "neurotic" was a fad word of the time, taken to mean troubled but complex -- it was frequently used in reference to Spider-Man, for example.--Tenebrae 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While you make a good point. it still sounds like 'erotic". But anyway..

Anyway if you listen to the song it sounds like "Superpowered from THE forehead to THE toes". It's clearly "the" and not "their".

Furthermore if you listen to the Hulk song http://members.fortunecity.com/toontracker/hulk.html (wait for it to load) It clearly says "Doc-Tor Banner" not "Doc Bruce Banner".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantdevilfish (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure "clearly" is a good word to use. To other listeners' ears, the lyrics don't necessarily match your interpretation. Following Wiki policy, it's best to leave the lyrics as originally researched until a less subjective basis exists for changing.--Tenebrae 03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Tenebrae. But you have to admit I'm on to something. Especially the "Doc-tor Banner" part of the song. You can't tell me the song says "Doc Bruce". I don't think anyone could possibly hear "Bruce" when they listen to that song. ;) Giantdevilfish 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can tell you is, I can't find a citation for "doc-tor" other than two blog posts, which are unauthoritative. I've seen many citations for "doc bruce," including at the Sci Fi Channel official Hulk page, the article "The incredible bulk of angry green history: Before The Hulk stomped the big screen, he appeard in oodles of television shows", by Neal Ozano in the Calgary, Canada, entertainment site FFWD ["Fast-Forward"]; and the June 18, 2003 edition of the Scott Tipton column "Comics 101" at the somewhat scatologically named film site Movie Poop Shoot. --Tenebrae 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess there are too many reliable sources that support the lyrics as is, so it's a dead issue as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for all your responses and explanations. But before I leave I want your opinion. Click on those above links and listen to the songs. Do you hear Erotic or Neurotic? The forehead or their foreheads? Doc-tor or Doc Bruce? I know this is just opinion and doesn't matter anymore, and has no relevance whatsoever on the page because it isn't fact and isn't supported, but what do you hear personally? And be honest, I just don't want to think I'm going crazy and hearing things that aren't there. ;) Giantdevilfish 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, Giantdevilfish: You are merely the victim of mondegreens! And you'll be happy to know that the upside of this "tune-rette's disease" is all the fun you'll now have at sites like Mondegreens: A Short Guide and Jon Carroll Mondegreens.

Remember, as Creedence Clearwater Revival once sang, "There's a bathroom on the right." And in the eternal words of Madonna, "Last night I dreamed of some bagels." Have fun! --Tenebrae 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DVD

I've removed the following since it's uncited and is written vaguely. Does it mean Disney was planning to release it and had trouble with Marvel, or Marvel was going to release it and had trouble with Disney? Either way, it needs a footnote.

In 2004, the entire series was planned for a complete DVD boxset release at one point, but was later cancelled in early 2005 due to The Walt Disney Company's legal problems with Marvel Comics over the rights to the Marvel animated catalogue ... The Hulk was not released [in the UK] due to Disney retaining exclusive home video rights to the series since one episode, "The Origin of the Hulk", was released as an extra on their sole 1996 Hulk DVD release.

Some of the speculation seems specious, but that may be because of the writing. Could the editor cite the original source? --Tenebrae 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why was the info on the sole Hulk episode released by Disney on DVD removed, along with the previously announced and then cancelled DVD boxset? Are these not viable pieces of DVD information? 212.124.251.233 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCE. Aside from the poorly, and thus confusingly, vaguely, and overworded way in which it was written, an authoritative source cannot be, as your source states, "my friend at the studio". --Tenebrae 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion on your end. From what I can tell, the original DVD entry was indeed speculative, and it makes perfect sense to remove that entirely. However, the other information subsequently added about a single episode of the Hulk series being on DVD, along with a once-announced and subsequently cancelled DVD boxset, are pure facts, and the later revision removed any speculative information. It appears for some reason you're removing simple factual information now, sans any un-cited speculation.

The cancelled DVD boxset information did have a (now removed) citation from the biggest TV DVD site around. Could you clarify what your specific objection is to those two pieces of information, since as far as I am aware they are simply a matter of record? I would have thought at the very least the single instance of a Hulk episode on official DVD would merit a mention (especially when the other four series were released in their entirety on R2 DVD, except the Hulk), but it seems I may be mistaken. If you could clarify exactly why the mention of the 1966 Hulk episode's appearance on DVD has been removed, along with the cited information on the cancelled DVD boxset, I think it would help to clear the situation for the assembled plebeians who may chance upon this page. 86.147.92.156 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your expanding on this. What I saw when I went to the site was a blog-like entry referring to something reported elsewhere, but which didn't give any actual source like a newspaper, or a trade magazine, or a Disney press release. If this information is reliable and accurate, it'll appear in more than one place.

OK, looking more closely, I see there were two related but different edits made, one highly speculative and badly sourced, the other more straightforward. I'll look for the Hulk-segs cite with you as well. --Tenebrae 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Reinserting info now. --Tenebrae 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

However — God, is nothing simple — I cannot find an authoritative source for the Maximum Entertainment DVDs. There's nothing about them on the catalog page or anywhere else on the company's own site (http://www.maximumentertainment.co.uk/catalogue.html), and the only references to it I can find are on forums, which Wikipedia disallows as a reference source. Until we can confirm these DVDs existence according to Wikipedia guidelines, we need to at least comment-out the reference in the article. --Tenebrae 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Maximum Entertainment aren't the biggest budgeted company out there, so it's no surprise to discover the DVDs are not listed on their website. There are multiple entries for the DVDs (although I've only included the links for the Cap collection) on noted UK retailers Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captain-America-The-Complete-Series/dp/B000QEIQ5G/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/202-9740759-2606225?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1183407810&sr=8-2), Play.com (http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/3355157/Captain-America/Product.html) & Sendit.com (http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7001000135195). Obviously it helps having citations for the actual DVDs, but I guess in lieu of the company website not being updated, one of the above retailers would have to do! 86.147.92.156 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, noticed the current DVD entry mentions that four Hulk segments were released by Disney on their single Hulk DVD. It was actually only the standard three segments (as always made up a complete story). Again, proof of the disc's existence can easily be found at linked to existing retail sites, rather than any Disney website since they have abandoned releasing Marvel shows on DVD (the last release through them was in 2005). This is where the speculation comes in; Marvel sued Disney over their shows in 2004 (http://www.out-law.com/page-5035), and not long afterwards the cash-in DVDs mysteriously dried-up - of course none of the involved parties have said anything either way. 86.147.92.156 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, Wikipedia disallows the use of commercial-retail sites. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. I'm not sure why the size of the company would affect its ability to post a jpg on its catalog page -- it has a large number already there.

I'll try to find a citation to clarify whether it's three or four segments. As it stands, a published, detailed review says four.--Tenebrae 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The cheaper the company, the less time and resources they have to actively market their products; it's hardly a new thing, even with such trvial matters as uploading a jpg. As for the number of segments, I'm sure as a huge fan of the series, you'll easily recall that all The Marvel Super Heroes stories were split into three segments. I have the Disney DVD myself and can confirm this is the case with the Hulk episode included as an extra - but that obviously does not count as a citation. The three segments are mentioned on the following reviews, however (http://www.genreonline.net/Hulk_Animated_DVD.html), (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/dvdreviewsnews.php?id=206) & (http://www.fanboyplanet.com/ontv/dvd/mc-incrediblehulkdvd.php).

Since you're going strictly by the book, I'll simply direct anyone actually interested in obtaining any of these official R2 discs to this page rather than the main entry, since you personally require a non-commercial citation. It is a pity that the discs' existence will be kept from everyone, but your direct control over this page obviously precludes any further development on the issue. 86.147.92.156 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your sarcasm and snideness are misplaced; Wikipedia operates by consensus, and we're all supposed to abide by the guidelines. Also, this is an encyclopedia and not a marketplace; its mission is not to guide users to purchase products.

I believe I've cooperated and collaborated with you, building on your information and providing a citation that you did not. Your accusation of WP:OWN is unnecessary and unappreciated. Thank you and I hope you register and read about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering you blissfully blindsided numerous attempts at providing cited information, I fully believe that my perceived sarcasm (which was hardly my intent) is likely not misplaced. Any and all attempts at proving the mere existence of a few R2 DVDs, comprising 80% of The Marvel Super Heroes series, have been resolutely rebuffed since there is no non-commercial citation available on the internet, and hence they effectively "do not exist" in your eyes. The nearest secondary citations I have located are the website for the DVDs' cover artist (http://www.theextremist.co.uk/IMAGES/ILLUSTRATIONLINKS/Captain%20America.html), along with BBFC links showing that various episodes (Captain America, in this example) were indeed rated on behalf of a company named...Maximum Entertainment (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/CF3A11E9B87378BA80256E96001B7259?OpenDocument).

I certainly know that I shall happily sit back and enjoy the many episodes that have thankfully been released on DVD. Perhaps if you're one day adventurous enough to acknowledge the possibility of the DVDs' very existence, you may put up an online review of the DVDs yourself, and hence "legitimise" them in a citation. My accusation of WP:OWN also doesn't seem so misplaced; I certainly know I will not attempt to touch this page any further due to your omnipresent vigilance on this, and dozens of other comics-based pages, despite your odd lapses of memory such as recalling the standard episodic format of every single story of the series. 86.147.92.156 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated your cites, following Wiki WP:SOURCE guidelines. Please do not post any additional remarks that would be contrary to Wiki guidelines regarding incivility. Thanks. --Tenebrae 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hopefully I am not treading on anyone's toes and apologise if any offense is taken, but I have discussed the DVD-citation issues on my personal discussion page with Tenebrae and am copying my latest response here, since it is pertinent to this entry's main article page. If there is an objection to this, please state where I might have inadvertently transgressed Wikipedia rules and remove this entry:

That's cool. So for the moment, I shall leave both the Marvel article and discussion pages alone until a citable source is put online to formally verify the DVD's existence in a non-commercial environment. Until then, it might be best for you to simply remove the contentious DVD section altogether, since we've established that no meaningful information can effectively be put on there at the moment due to the lack of a permanent citation. In the meantime I shall try my best to actually find or persuade someone to actually give the DVDs in question a review, or some otherwise formal acknowledgement of existence. Hopefully this will be on a well-known website rather than a lesser known one of questionable verifiability. Once such statements are online, I shall direct you to them, and hopefully you will finally allow either myself or someone else to mention the DVDs on your protected page.

It is my hope that the timescale for such non-commercial citations to be generated would be quite short, so I see no reason for not adding the information regarding the DVDs now with a "citation needed" button, as per citation page "Unsourced material". If after a designated period of time to your choosing, either I or anyone else cannot provide a citation, then there's no question that you should subsequently remove the information.

In my opinion, such information rendered in one, or two at the most, sentences would not constitute harm to the whole article. Of course, your opinion may differ, and so I won't push this through you if you can offer a good case as to why it would be harmful to your article as a whole. If not, I will write up a brief and pass it through you first before it goes on your page, hopefully ready for a citation that will be quick in coming. I'm not sure how long the "citation needed" tag should be up for though. I'm thinking two, maybe three weeks. That doesn't seem like such an inordinate amount of time to me, but again, it's entirely your call as the page editor.

I do notice the "Others" section regarding the TV stations has had at least two "citation needed" marks up on the page since [February], so I am hopeful you will allow a placeholder DVD entry with a similar "citation needed" tag on the page for only one-fifth of the timeframe of the specific tags in question. Please advise, and let me know if the proposed DVD entry would constitute harm to the whole article with it's temporary uncited status. Doceo 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page cleanup

• I've gone ahead and simply removed the Captain America DVD info until all four 2007 UK releases of Captain America, Thor, Iron Man and Sub-Mariner can be cited from a non-commercial website. I've also added a reference for the Region 2 release of the Hulk.

There are two "citation needed" tags have been on the list of TV stations for five months now. Do those entries need to be removed yet? I feel a reasonable amount of time has passed, but on the other hand, they do not appear to be harmful entries to the article.

If there are no objections, I will add info on the aforementioned four UK DVD releases alongside a "citation needed" tag, since as per WP:CITE, I don't believe such an entry will cause harm to the page. The information is not doubtful either, since multiple commercial references can be found as discussed above, and thus with WP:AGF I can offer "common sense" evidence in the absence of Wikipedia-standard evidence. I'm trying to get a detailed review done for me on a major cartoon website for the express purpose of adding info on the four UK DVD sets with corroborating Wikipedia-standard evidence.

However, if no non-commercial citation emerges after a reasonable amount of time (the discs were released in May) however, I will remove the entire proposed entry since their existence cannot be satisfactorily be proven to Wikipedia standards. Since I am assured WP:OWN is not in evidence here, I invite any and all objections to these plans before, as a named Wikipedia editor, I make my proposed edits later this week. Doceo 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • It's been a bit longer than a week, but I'll hold off putting any DVD info with a fact box and simply restore the information once the DVD review I mentioned is actually up, as I'm not sure how long it would actually remain on the page, despite no objections to my above entry. -Doceo 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

In any case, the DVD information currently in the article states the only known facts that I anyone else so far has been able to confirm according to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. If you find them stringent, it's because they have to be — as we all saw in the case of Chris Benoit, anyone can claim anything based on "personal knowledge" or "personal ownership" of something. Most editors are honest and well-meaning, as I'm sure you are. The rules aren't in place for people like that; the rules are in place to help prevent the other kind. For that reason, I understand why the rules are in place and I have to respect them. --Tenebrae 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Well to put it simply, you're applying Wikipedia's rules to everyone else when it comes to information citation on this page, yet two of the three TV stations in the "Others" section have had citation boxes put up by you since February. How long is too long before you decide those two particular pieces of information are harmful to the page? The DVDs I have tried to include mention of on the page can all be independently verified on numerous commercial websites, even if they cannot currently be formally cited. My only mistake was believing such sites would be reasonable proof of evidence (even if they cannot be formally cited in the article itself), considering said items are on sale. However, even given that they are on trusted commercial websites, I have to ask the question; ignoring Wikipedia's standards for the moment, do you personally believe they exist? Understanding how you think would be greatly beneficial to how I approach any of your entries in the future. In any case as I said, I'm making no changes until I can satisfy your criteria, as getting involved in the "three-edit" rule isn't really sporting. -Doceo 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove the uncited TV stations, which have been uncited since February, you're as free to do so as anyone.

Regarding what you or I personally believe, I'm sorry, but it's irrelevant. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop calling it my criteria; I think it's reached a point of harassment when I've explained many times and provided links to the policy about not linking to primarily commercial sites.

And in any case, I see now that you did just provide a link to non-commercial site, so I'm not sure there's any further need to discuss this. --Tenebrae 00:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VHS

After removing the uncited claim about VHS releases, I've found references to the Marvel Superheroes Triple Pack a.k.a. Marvel's Mightiest Heroes Triple Pack. I've found one non-commercial-site citation, and have included it based on that. Please help me in looking for allowable sources of additional information.--Tenebrae 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found UPC numbers, which, if they check out, are allowable as proof of existence. --Tenebrae

[edit] Stations

To the editor who suggested in an edit summary that the list of stations be removed and that they add "nothing" to the article: They are part of the historical record, providing specificity. They are absolutely relevant and perhaps indispensable. The reach of syndicated shows, particularly in the less concentrated, more market-by-market days of media ownership, varied greatly. --Tenebrae 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg

Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.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 ensure 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) 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.jpg

Image:MSH-CaptainAmerica 1966TVtoon.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 ensure 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) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

Any station added that was not on the published list in Marvel Comics has to go under "Others" and has to have a citation — something as simple as a cited and dated issue of the local edition of TV Guide, for example. Otherwise, we're relying on memory, and memory is imprecise. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)