NexusOfNightmares wrote:

Great list but all the Marvel Encyclopedias need to be removed since they're not considered a Handbook, at least according to the FAQ. All the Marvel Fact files should also be added, but we already have a section of the forum dedicated to that, so that's not a major issue atm.

Also refer to this discussion earlier about whether Marvel.com profiles should be considered canon: https://whowatchesthewatchers.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=27084#p27084

The DK encyclopedias are not considered official, but afaik the 6 Marvel-published ones are (as is anything actually published by Marvel itself, for the most part).

NexusOfNightmares wrote:

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

zuckyd1 wrote:

The DK encyclopedias are not considered official, but afaik the 6 Marvel-published ones are (as is anything actually published by Marvel itself, for the most part).

Yes, it's just the official Marvel series that's in the Master List. But not the Hulk volume where one of the writers declares that he can't write as well as someone from Wizard. Not because of that mind you but because there are no profiles in that one. Which is a shame because there are probably quite a number of Hulk characters from that era and earlier who have not yet be given a profile.

"In addition to the above, there have also been a few other guides to aspects of the Marvel universe not considered part of any version of the Official Handbooks above:
The Marvel Encyclopedia range, larger, hardcover volumes. To date there have been six volumes of this released, all still available from Amazon and other reputable bookshops:" 

I'm betting they meant six editions of the the DK book, particularly given their use of the phrase "to date", suggesting they're still making them. The Marvel Encyclopedia series on this list ended with volume 6 November 2004, replaced by the modern Handbooks with many of the same writers.

In terms of your other point, the main reason why Marvel's own online profiles aren't included is that we did have the Cerebro Files profiles included but then those got taken down, so I'm reluctant to include anything that no one can access. It's difficult to destroy every print copy of something (and most of the early handbooks have been reprinted at least twice - Essential and Omnibus, with most of the Deluxe profiles also in a 10-volume trade series) but a lot easier to make e-profiles disappear.

zuckyd1 wrote:

Nexus's quote is from the FAQ of the Appendix site: http://www.marvunapp.com/ohotmu/appendixes.htm
They are indeed referring to the Marvel-published handbooks, not the DK ones. It is an odd statement, given that many of the Encyclopedia writers went on to be handbook writers, and many of today's reality number designations originated from the sixth (FF) encyclopedia.

Very odd. Also, the original Master List was written by Eric Moreels, who himself was a Handbook writer at the time, and he did include them (though IIRC I added in the profiles from the Appendices at the back of certain volumes). I suppose there's some wiggle room in the statement in that they're not Handbooks even though they are official reference works. Regardless, I'm not taking them out. I also added in the Conan Handbook because Marvel held the license at the time, so presumably it's accurate to the Marvel version. I think as long as we're consistent here on this forum, we're fine.
 

No, the 1986 Conan handbook is official. The deciding factor is usually whether it was actually published by Marvel, and thus (theoretically) subject to closer editorial supervision. The gamers guides, while licensed from Marvel, were written and published by TSR, the chess and figurine collections by Eaglemoss, and the DK books obviously by DK.
The Fact Files are a special case, and I believe there's been no final decision as yet as to how to best categorize them. They were published by Eaglemoss, but, according to Loki, they were supervised by Marvel editorial (not to mention that Loki and I think one or two other handbook writers contributed to them).

NexusOfNightmares wrote:

Wayback Machine for that.

Wayback Machine is a great resource, but it doesn't capture every page. When I tried to hunt down some lost material from Comixfan when starting up the current version of this site, I was able to snag a few things, but it was a drop in the bucket. So it's pretty safe to assume that it wouldn't capture every profile. And we can't assume that the Wayback Machine site itself will still be around, say, 20 years from now.
 

mal32 wrote:

I have a question about these three publications:
CLASSIC MARVEL FIGURINE COLLECTION
MARVEL CHESS COLLECTION
MARVEL FACT FILES
here in Italy I have problems to find their magazines also because the publisher did not allow to subscribe outside UK, so I ask you all if there is a hope somebody reprints them or if they will be print in the USA too. I really would like to have all the magazines because they are really very well done

Facts Files and Figurine Collection got distribution in the US. Not sure about Chess Collection.

NexusOfNightmares wrote:

What is MKni #188 1 vcov? I've read Moon Knight #188 before and don't recall any handbook in it.
ShMK 4 is not a new Handbook. It's a re-print of the one in OHOTMU A-Z #7. That needs to be moved to Handbook appearances in other places list.

I'll look at your second point later. To your first point, some copies of Moon Knight #188 had a Handbook style variant cover. That's what was meant by "vcov". So the profile was in the cover itself.
 

NexusOfNightmares wrote:

ShMK 4 is not a new Handbook. It's a re-print of the one in OHOTMU A-Z #7. That needs to be moved to Handbook appearances in other places list.

The last paragraph of the History section was updated in ShMK.

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

NexusOfNightmares wrote:

"MARVEL Encyclopedia from DK is the best-selling, official, and definitive guide to the characters of the dynamic, ever-expanding Marvel Universe"
https://www.marvel.com/articles/culture-lifestyle/explore-the-marvel-universe-with-the-marvel-encyclopedia
marvel possibly confirming that the dk books are official

According to her Linkedin, the writer of this is a senior production manager at Marvel Entertainment.

I'm not migrating the DK books to the Master List. While some profiles are written by industry pros, they appear to have been made with less editorial oversight. Also IIRC errors aren't always corrected between volumes. Like Wikis, a lot of the info is accurate, but they can't be taken at face value.
 

To add to what Andy said:
Yes, the DK books are official in the sense that they are officially licensed by Marvel and have been promoted, as are many other third-party products, on Marvel's website. Certainly the word "official" carries considerable weight, but our criteria (which you are free to disagree with) entails more than that—close supervision by Marvel editorial, which from what I understand the DK books lack.
To put it another way, the Handbooks sometimes introduce new information. Any new information must be approved by Marvel editorial and so can safely be considered canon. Being that they lack such close supervision, I doubt the DK books have the authority to add new information. Were they to deliberately add new information (and afaik they have never done so), it would be suspect until Marvel signaled their approval—which there IS precedence for: When TSR was producing their Marvel role-playing game in the 1980, they published some character profiles in Dragon magazine that contained new information. I have no idea whether they had prior approval from Marvel to do so, but when those characters received handbook profiles a few years later much of that new information was incorporated.
At this point we're not even including Marvel Fact Files in the Master List, and they certainly have closer supervision than do the DK books.
Also, I would argue that NO reference work should be taken at absolute face value. Even the Handbooks have been known to occasionally contain erroneous information. 

I'll eventually be adding the Appendix from the back of the History of the Marvel Universe trade. Was it from any of the individual issues or unique to the trade? I'm guessing either the latter or #6.