Talk:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

The book's title is actually The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier. Note the lack of a "the"... --Mister Six (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Sources[edit]

I have a more minor concern but, while Comic Book Resources in general can be considered as WP:RS gossip columns like Rich Johnston's should be treated with caution and should probably not be used as a source for information (especially as in this case the information could be controversial), no disrespect to him (as he is often spot on) but even he acknowledges his information has variable levels of accuracy. Best to wait until there is a better source before making those claims. I've added in the DC press release which at least confirms the copyright situation. (Emperor 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There seems to be more going on than simple copyright [1] and it appears Jess Nevins knows but isn't telling. Not WP:RS and just rumour but one to watch when someone cracks and spills the beans. (Emperor 13:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That Comic Book Resources[2] article incorrectly indicates that "The US states that if a work was published before 1923, or it is 70 years since the death of the author, then it is in public domain." The statement about publications before 1923 is true, however, modern copyright law in the US, concerning expiration of copyright, does not relate to the life of the author unless it is unpublished material. This of course brings into question the accuracy of the article. I think it should be referred to but not directely quoted or anything, just post the DC press release.FourtySixNtwo 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

Thia article is annoyingly difficult to edit. Why will no edit stay in place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.67.131 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how else to get into the conversation without getting a name which I do not have the time to do. First, shouldn't the picture of the cover be on this page? Second Challenger is not a member of Mina's Second League, was never said to be either. He was mentioned as an occasional advisor to the league as was Dr. Doolitle, neither are a member of the league.

Good point, I've sorted out the cover. On the other point, Challenger is said to an "occasional consultant" to Mina's second league in the New Traveller Almanac, that's why I included him in my league page for the group http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/League/OtherLeagues/1900s/1900sLeague.html, whereas Dr. Doolittle is mentioned only as being an old friend of Challanger and nothing to do with the League (as far as I remember). 64.134.145.99 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Haddo was a character in a Maugham novel; Crowley only used it to accuse Maugham of plagiary after the novel was completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.10.71 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No single narrative[edit]

Hi, I have an issue with the statement that there's no one "narrative". That's a bit untrue, see there's an overarching "narrative" which leads into stories from "The Black Dossier" the book the protagonists are hunting down, and in the pages found are the differing stories from the different leagues. So in this sense there is in fact a signle narrative that is expanded into others, like the arabian nights for instance, and of course fanny hill's sequel and the shakespeare folio and the life of orlando come seperately.

Good point, I've altered the text to more accurately reflect the structure of the book Damiantgordon 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

The Wildstorm page now has the release date listed as November 14, 2007. Does anyone know if this is current? I notice the content page still says October 3. 74.38.198.164 20:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BlackDossierCover.jpg[edit]

Image:BlackDossierCover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why the term "Licensing" is used for the Fair-Use disclaimer? The term is used both here and on the LoEG v.1 page. This term is used improperly, it should read "Fair-Use diclaimer." No one needs to ask the copyright holders for permission, or license, for a fair-use, it completely defeats the purpose.FourtySixNtwo 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Preview[edit]

Did anyone who had seen the preview know anything about the characters referenced in it. I could find: The Thirty Nine Steps and Richard Hannay-both are an article of wikipedia, Greyfriars-mentioned in the article or EW and wikipedia and I'm decently sure "Gerald" O'Brein is O'Brein from Nineteen Eighty Four. The ones I have searched high and low and cannot find are Mr. Calendar and Albert, General Sir Harold Wharton, and R.K.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.10.71 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Albert and Mr. Calendar are from a novel and a film, "Live Now, Pay Later". No Wikipedia article, but the IMDB article on the film is here. More information here. Harry Wharton is a character from Billy Bunter. "The central figure of the stories. Skipper of the Remove, and leader of the Famous Five. Brave, chivalrous, tender hearted, proud as, a Spanish Don, yet never vindictive. Has real qualities of leadership, and if his strong desire to keep the members of his Form in the right way tends to make him seem to worry too much at times about other people`s affairs, still, it can not be said that he is ever prying. A fellow in a thousand. A fine all round athlete." Here is a story featuring him. Alan Moore decided to make him Big Brother, I guess. 134.126.135.234 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I think "R.K.C." is Robert Cherry, another Billy Bunter character. 134.126.135.234 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can find out about all of these characters and more in the Annotations, which are linked off the front page.Jessnevins (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore interviews[edit]

Here are a couple of recent interviews with him which it might be useful to cite somewhere:

Comic Book Resources:

Two-part Mania.com interview:

I was particularly interested to read his comment about who the fictional Britain of the comic fought in World War 2 instead of Adolf Hitler! --Nick RTalk 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Character/s[edit]

There needs to be a change in the roster. The main characters are in fact Allan, Mina, Orlando, "the Bold Fearless Black Balloonist", and Prospero. Duno if you want to add the trio of "spies", but those four are the main characters, the extra stuff in the dossier is sparse for action, or plot, withstanding "The Life of Orlando". Can't bear to read the Sal Paradyse pastiche. Also the elements of the actual Dossier, perhaps, should be a part of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FourtySixNtwo (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted[edit]

USER:WesleyDodds reverted my changes to this article, and I reverted them back. I know that's bad etiquite, and I apologize. I was just in a bad mood. Isn't a plot description that's too detailed better than one that's not detailed at all?

As for the "unsourced analysis", it's all from the annotations.

I wouldn't worry about it, quite frankly the plot is really thin, more like a prologue.FourtySixNtwo (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not need to go into excessive detail about the subsections of the book, particularly giving them tiny subsections. It makes the page long and unwieldy. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not do massive and contested changes without a consensus decision. Kuralyov (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an ugly and ungainly section. There only needs to be a brief plot summary and detailing of the contents. More space needs to be devoted to the background of the project and critical reception. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one's stopping you from expanding those parts. Also I'm curious, have you even read the comic? You seem quite intent on deleting things that you claim are "Background detail not part of the main plot" when they are the complete opposite. Kuralyov (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the comic the day it came out. The thing is the basic plot of the book is "Mina and Alan Quatermain steal the Black Dossier, run from MI6, and escape to the Blazing World while reading parts of the document." When it comes down to it that's the basic story. We don't need expansion of small details relevant only to fans of the book; we need a concise, well-written article. Plot summaries in fiction articles are supposed to be as short and to-the-point as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Error[edit]

Why is the error in the copyright claim not worthy of this article? Is it not an error? I mean technically one could argue that the book isn't actually in copyright until next year no? Has DC acknowledged the error? Am I making a big deal of nothing? FourtySixNtwo (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXTREME Summary of article[edit]

I feel the condensing of this article by WesleyDodds has gone too far and should be undone, any seconders ? 89.101.242.183 (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The details about the contents of the "Black Dossier" itself should not be that huge. Also, it should be worked into prose as much as possibles; there's no need for subsections for each piece. Real-world information and sourcing is always given more weight than in-story details, particularly copyrighted material. Any further additions about the pieces should done akin to the reference for the "Orlando" strip, which established what it's a homage to. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Mr. IP address. What was it in particular that constituted copyright infringment Wesley? Your description of the plot is accurate but the details about the world are highly relevant considering this is an alternate history story. FourtySixNtwo (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't outright copyright infringement; what I meant was that's why plot summaries are kept as short as possible. Ultimately, if people want to understand the book, they should read it themselves. Also, giving each piece in the book its own section resulted in an ugly layout. The article needs to be well-written as well as informative, and detailing everything in the book doesn't result in good writing. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new summary works a lot better, and gets the content of the book across without any unnecessary detail: it is, after all, only a summary and not a replacement for reading the book. There is also another article where details of the world and its relation to the specific literary sources is more appropriate: there's no need to have all that detail here as well. JonStrines (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, There's a new summary with way too much detail, like Jon said it shouldn't be a substitute for the book, someone needs to chop it up. FourtySixNtwo (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal business[edit]

I can probably guess, but can anyone confirm for sure why the Scott Dunbier article from Lying in the Gutters was chopped out? --Mister Six (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Although DC has sent out an official notice to all comic shop retailers banning the sale outside the U.S., apparently the same ban is not applicable to the big box chains like Amazon and Chapters. Both stores are soliciting the title on their respective Canadian websites. Amazon.ca is all ready soliciting orders for the Absolute Edition to be release in 2008.

I received my copy just this week from Chapters.ca. I've read postings of various comic forums that the book is freely available in Europe. One has to wonder if this copyright issue is just a marketing ploy in North America. SweetXmas (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)SweetXmas[reply]

Orlando's Birthday[edit]

I have changed Orlando's Birthdate from 1189 B.C to 1260 B.C. So for anyone who says that orlando was born in 1189, read the book. Bioman316 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Class Project[edit]

We are currently working on THE TRANSLATION into Spanish of this article. Translation work will be ready by the end of May 2013. For more information see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Universitat_Jaume_I_-_E-translating PLEASE, DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO SO, PLEASE INFORM US AT Mcptrad --83.52.219.229 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen:_Black_Dossier&oldid=1200689655"