Talk:52 (comic book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 52 (comic book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


[edit] Say, should this be added?

I was wondering if the fact that the story was recently retconned to explain how the Superboy cult could be called the cult of Conner without giving away Supermans identity should be added somewhere here, or maybe in Superboy's article.--Mullon 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it retconned?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was. At least, someone explained why they were calling the cult that name.--68.163.216.178 05:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can cite an article where DC admits to making the mistake of referring to it as the Cult of Connor, I say do it; otherwise, we can only assume it's not a ret-con since it was both initiated and resolved within the context of 52. --Squashua 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went back and re-read where Cassie and Ralph talk, and she says something to the effect of 'Gee I'm glad I only called it the Cult of Conner between you and me!' So yes, it was CoC, but no, it wasn't publicized ICly. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Format

I have to say that I really dislike the new layout. The info involving the actual comic should come before back-up stories at the end. It may be a long article, but it just makes more sense. To make the article as a whole make more sense, perhaps we could shorten down the summary to a very condensed version and then (since it's going to be so long) make a table for each individual issue. Rather like we do for tv shows and their individual episodes. Anyone think that's even remotely a good idea? (Oh, not to nit pick but shouldn't back-up story be a header with history of the DCU and Secret Origins as subsections? Because that's not really how it is right now.Jupiterzguy 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The format you're suggesting can already be found at one of Wikipedia's sister sites: http://www.dcdatabaseproject.com/Main_Page.--SilentJustice 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a better link to use: http://www.dcdatabaseproject.com/Comics_52--SilentJustice 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No table for individual issues. See WP:CMC/EG. I will condense again. I have been lax for the past several weeks and have not been condensing and maintaining the plot as I have since the first week. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold, given the revelations this week, I'm thinking we should totally redo the pm to fold in how Boosternova was doing what he did. I was gonna be more vague about it, but spoilers end when an issue is released. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Discussion of plot should include the structure of the plot. To treat events as if they happened in realtime is not reflective of the text.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the way the Booster and Supernova paragraph/sections are split, you end up reading this in 'real time'. You get Booster, up to his death, and then it's not till near the end you find out he's alive. Should we re-summarize Booster, to state from the beginning that he's been parading about as Supernova? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I actually came to the same comclusion and moved it back up. I keep having to decide what's relevent to the series overall and deleting details that are no longer important. I have placed the Steel section before the end of the Booster/Supernova thing because it gives context to the Everyman Project, so that it makes sense with regard to what Luthor does on New Year's Eve.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More fun with the blackboard _ Time Masters, Time Servants, Diana Prince

Time Masters was a 1990 miniseries starring Rip Hunter that was intended to explain the laws of time in the post-Crisis DCU; the new laws were effectively "cancelled" by a bunch of time travel stories that failed to follow them within a few months after the mini ended. No clue whether Time Masters is still in continuity.

Time Servants could be a reference to the Linear Men, of which Rip Hunter and Waverider are (were?) both members.

"Who Is Diana Prince?" is a play on the "Who Is Donna Troy?" story/plotline from New Teen Titans and later series, as well as a play into the new WW ongoing. Also, WW got one of the big retcons from IC: she's a founding member of the JLA again after losing founding member status in a CoIE retcon.

Better late than never, I guess. --141.158.200.41 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of backups

Do we really need this? What does this tell us about the subject? Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need it at all. Maybe a list page, if we must, but it shouldn't be on the 52 page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blackboard biz

I disgree with removing the information from the blackboard list. I don't see this as OR or conjecture, and it's certainly not worded that way. This is information about the series and the DC Universe that relates to the phrase marked. It's not speculating about any of it. Perhaps a re-wording of the intro? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that we aren't interpreting, we're just giving related info. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Secret Message"

I know people were anxious to get this out in the open and all, but really, could we put another warning right before it is revealed? I have read every issue and thus didn't think anything of breezing through the initial spoiler warning while reading the article. However the "Secret Code" is not something the casual reader would pick up and thus I feel should have a separate "spoiler alert".--Paul 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the casual reader might not know this; it's printed in the DC Nation Column in a section that is pretty clearly a code. It's part of the text of the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a code that you have to sit there and figure out. That's hardly what I'd call out in the open.Paul 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw the code immediately. Starting a word with X pretty much gave it away, not to mention the strange and wordy language used. The column even indicated it was a clue. What it comes down to is you had the information; you just chose not to look at it. But this article is about all of the information in the series. There is a spoiler warning at the top of the article. We don't need another one. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the significance of this particular spoiler I have two comments: one, is it really necessary for it to be in all capitals? This makes it difficult to avoid looking at. Two: surely there's a better way to spoiler something than to put a warnings before and after. That means you have to at least skim the spoiler material to see when it's okay to start reading again. Is there no system to black stuff out, or make it only appear when you click a link? If there isn't, I would argue that there should be. -- SamSim 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary idea

Regarding the overall summary of the plot, perhaps it might be worth breaking it into sections (equivalent of, say, a month's worth or three months worth of issues)? As it is, it tends to jump from one thing to another thing and then back again, so it's a bit awkward to read, and it'd probably be easier to summarise each character's developing story over shorter periods rather than doing it all in one massive block. Just a thought... --Joseph Q Publique 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that to break the summary into sections will only make it bigger because this is the intertwining story of all of these characters, and so each section will need to repeat information. Additionally, subsectioning things like this tends to lead to the additiong of many, many unneeded details. The smaller the summary, the better, and this one has maintained a similar size for months. As the story goes on, I remove details that have so far proven unimportant, such as Super Chief. If for some reason, Super Chief plays an important role in a future issue, the pertinent details concerning him with regard to that important role will be added to the summary.
As for the sequence of the plot summary, I have tried to keep characters' story details contained to their own sections, but I have also tried to keep in mind what information needs to be introduced about certain details before referring to it in another section. If you have specific concerns regarding the sequence, please post them here, and we can work on that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
SamSim (talk • contribs) put in some really great edits recently that I think helped to clear up any confusing aspects. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you think so. I still need to clarify Intergang's religion-of-crime/Crime-Bible/conquer-Gotham arc and other bits. -- SamSim 10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
True. With the most recent issue, that has come to the fore again. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a number of missing significant portions such as the introduction of Sobek, the Mr. Mind cocoon and references to Sivana and T.O. Morrow, all of which are significant storylines within 52. I will also add a paragraph on the returned spaceborne heroes and the travels of Red Tornado. --Squashua 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sivana, Mr. Mind, Morrow, and the space people are not important. Please stop adding to the summary that we are constantly trying to shorten. How have any of those characters really affected any of the major storylines of 52? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. Please stop re-adding info to this. Nobody here has ever said the summary was not long enough. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm obviously not the only one who has been adding that info in, so it seems to be important to people beyond yourself. --Squashua 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, hold off with reverting it; I'm going to do some minimizing cleanup... ah crap, a bunch MORE stuff got added - I tried to keep my stuff concise. Cleanup ahoy. --Squashua 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, DrTofu and I added a lot of it. And during the year, I and others have been weeding it out as it becomes apparent that it is not important. ---Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
When I was minimizing text to try and reduce wordcount - Mtdeeley - added a ton of stuff. :( --Squashua 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right; I apologize. I incorrectly attributed the reverts to you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As I attempted last week, but was sidelined by Mtdeeley, I will again attempt to clean up the "Story so far". There are errors. I will also tighten sentence structure. --Squashua 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drastic Changes

Squashua. Stop. Please. You are reverting a month or so's worth of edits in the plot summary section, and generally bringing down the quality of the article's language by doing things like adding extra introductory phrases and randomly using first or last names of characters. Please stop and discuss your changes. Why do you want to make these changes? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear to you, based on the talk page discussions, that more people are interested in maintaining or reducing the size of the summary. Additionally, your edit summaries saying "compaction" are a little misleading, as you keep adding. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This paragraph is effectively negated as directed towards me by comments in prior paragraph: I incorrectly attributed the reverts to you. --Squashua 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So noted :) Just keeping it here for historical purposes. Removing discussions can been seen as vandalism, if it's not on your user page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial Success

Shouldn't there be a section dedicated to the unprecedented financial success of the 52 project?Timon 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, if someone has sources. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Unprecedented in what way? Sure as a whole the series is making a lot of money but that is because a new issue comes out every week, and we're up to 41 issues. But from what I understand an issue of Civil War outsells an issue of 52 on an issue per issue basis big time. Paul 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Okay does any one read 52 becuase with the exception of the mogo part there hasn't been an update since week 37 while other articles have been updated with 52 information.Someone needs to update it. Parralax 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is being updated weekly; new information is being added on to the appropriate parts of the plot summary, but we're really trying to keep the length down so in terms of quantity not much is added. It is all up to date though MarkSutton 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COuntdown 51...

SHould the 'Countdown' event, 51 weeklies counting back from 52 to 1, be mentioned here? For those who are confused, the mid-issue spread seen in this week's releases, with the heroes all gathered around the busted up head of the statue of liberty, is the first big promo for this new crossover event. ThuranX 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't it'll need to be discussed that much in this article. I think it could be mentioned in the context of how 52 has lead to DC embracing the weekly format (assuming there's any information that can be used to support this - I do recall reading an article on - I think - Newsarama where one of the DC editors mentioned this), but other than that I don't think it'll need to be mentioned here unless the narrative of Countdown directly follows on from 52.--Joseph Q Publique 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metagene or Exo-Gene?

Okay, as I understood it, at first it was a metagene therapy. Then there was the guy whose body rejected the metagene therapy and went into some sort of shock/coma. Suddenly, on Christmas, his body mutated, and they killed him, harvested his cells, and called that the exo-gene. Luthor ended up with both. The metagene (which Natasha disabled with the pulse from Steel's hammer) and the exo-gene, which was supposed to regenerate his powers. The text in the article is rather confusing, and now I'm not sure if I remember it right or not. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is confusing. I don't even remember the exo-gene business; only the metagene. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 52 = Omega symbol

Should it be noted that the 52 on each cover is stylized to look like the omega symbol. The symbol which darkseid has on his forhead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.246.173.235 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Provide a citation where it's stated explicitly this is what it's supposed to look like. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember Darkseid ever having an omega symbol on his forehead. --Hemlock Martinis 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman's demons

I just noticed we're missing that bit where he gets them cut out and Nightwing returns to Gotham ... I'd write it but I'm late for a meeting. Cam someone grab that? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the significance? I haven't seen that affect anything else in the series or in the Batman books. Remember, we're trying to keep this as short as possible. We don't want this to look like ana article about anime.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It comes back in this week. I'm not saying a lengthy bit, but maybe an update on what the big three do (Bruce retraces his journey as Batman, recreating himself with Tim and Dick, including a visit to Nanda Parbat. There he meets with Diana, who is struggling to understand the burden of her guilt, and accept the wisdom that comes with it. Meanwhile, Clark remains in Metropolis, living simply as Clark Kent, reporter and husband.' -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../5/2/_/Talk%7E52_%28comic_book%29.html"