User talk:Karl MAN

From PhantomWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Välkommen, kul att du hittade hit! Member 7 07:56, 19 October 2007 (CEST)

Interesting, thanks for checking that. Member 7 19:06, 13 January 2008 (CET)

New daily story

I got the title from Phantom Phorum, and I believe it comes directly from Paul Ryan and/or Tony DePaul. Andreas 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Frew 1596

I don't understand why you changed link here [1], plase see cover of [2], part one is printed on cover. Delboj4 14:02, 24 March 2011 (CET)

What it actually says is (PART ONE) in minuscle letters under the title, indicating that it is the first in a story arc, in The Phantom 1594 (Frew), the same was done and we have no Part One in the title name there. Also, there are no Part one at chroniclechamber.com. Perhaps a further discussion is needed at Bandar Village about how to interpret Egmont titles published by Frew, but I interpret it in this case that I changed it to the correct title and that the part one thing was merely a short disclaimer, informing the buyers that its the first part of a story arc. Karl MAN 19:11, 25 March 2011 (CET)
Ok, but in this case maybe next story will be titled as "The Legend of Rahotep" (Part Two) Delboj4 19:24, 25 March 2011 (CET)
I don't think so, at Kari Leppänen's webpage the next story is named "The Legend of Rahotep, Part II: The Hidden Hand of Death". The undertitle would be enough, we previously had the case with The Mysterious Cave and The Mysterious Cave, Part Two: Ch'Gaan's Curse. Either they do that, or they'll go for the undertitle completely is my guess. There might be worth discussing how to name hte Frew versions of the titles at Bandar Village though, there is already a discussion there about whether we should write Part 1 or Part One, though no one comments. Karl MAN 19:34, 25 March 2011 (CET)
Follow The Phantom 1601 (Frew) when it is released. Andreas 18:36, 29 April 2011 (CEST)
So, than if the title in Frew 1601 will be Part 2, than should stay Part 1 for Frew 1596. Delboj4 22:04, 29 April 2011 (CEST)

Colorists

We don't credit colorists for all other Franco/Belgian comics (or even Phantom stories) so why credit Graza? Andreas (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2016 (CET)

It was maybe a not so well thought through whim, spurred by the french wikipedia article. The thing that kind of makes it worth considering is that sometimes, the artist did the coloring himself. I will revert the changes. Karl MAN (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2016 (CET)
We should be careful about adding too much information about the non-Phantom comics. This is the PhantomWiki and the other comics are only mentioned to show that a publication is not all-Phantom. Tracking non-Phantom creators is a lot of work already, and adding colorists (which we should then do not only for Thorgal, but for all non-Phantom comics) would mean even more work on non-Phantom content. I have been thinking about adding colorists of Phantom stories to the story articles (only!). The reason colorists were not originally included in the story article template is because when we started most Phantom stories were in black/white or we just didn't know who colored it. With more and more colorists getting credit on the American comic book stories and even the Sunday pages, this could be something worth reconsidering. Andreas (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2016 (CET)