Talk:Infinite Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archiving

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:
Archive 1 July 2005-October 2005
Archive 2 10 November 2005 - 10 January 2005
Archive 3 10 January 2006 - February 9, 2006

Several days ago, I suggested we archive the discussion before Infinite Crisis #5. Motion was seconded. Everyone had a few days to see the suggestion, and not one person objected, so here it is: a fresh discussion page. Get ready to rummmmmmmm-bllllllle!

Actually, Infinite Crisis #5 comes out in March 1st, not this month, thanks to leap year. Not that I mind, though; you can see Archive 3 is 44 kB. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The company I order my comics from [1] has these release dates:

        Infinite Crisis #5: February 22
        Infinite Crisis #6: March 8
        Infinite Crisis #7: April 19

Your date might be when it hits regular stores like Waldenbooks, maybe?

Releasing #5 and #6 so close together, then making us wait extra time for the final issue seems a little cruel. Ah, well.Wryspy 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DCComics.com says it'll come out on March 1st. That's six weeks after #4; leap year or not, it IS coming out late. But so did last issue. I understand that things can happen, but you'd think DC would make publishing THIS series on time its priority. Wilfredo Martinez 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

Anyone new to this page should note that, although not everyone agrees, there has been something of a consensus to reduce wordiness in the Infinite Crisis article. For example, anyone who wants to know a certain character's specific fate can follow the link to his or her article, therefore not everyone feels the Infinite Crisis article should repeat those details.

Suggestions for Trimming:

  • The Editorial Planning section should be eliminated, or at least reduced to a few comments in the introduction. We do not have such sections on other comics-events pages (such as the Original Crisis's); it seems unnecessary trivia.
  • Most of the comics listed under "additional tie-ins" are not really related to IC; Rann/Thanagar War, Omac Project, Day of Vengeance and Villains United are all SEPARATE stories, their only connection being that they were triggered by Alex's actions, and that they happen to occur at the same time; do not be fooled by DC Comics' marketing ploys. Let's keep the Lead-ins section but eliminate the Tie-ins one.
  • The Synopsis should not be done issue-by-issue; instead it should be more like a list of the important events that have occurred so far (there are plenty of sub-plots running in IC, but most are irrelevant to the main story.)

Wilfredo Martinez 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


I disagree with the R/TW, OMAC, DoV, and VU cuts - those were explicitly solicited as lead-ups to Infinite Crisis, and have the IC specials. In fact, I think some expansion in this is warranted - each of the minis should have at least enough context to explain how it relates to IC, which it currently doesn't.
I also STRONGLY disagree with the editorial planning section getting cut - as someone said, the synopsis should get cut before this section, because this section is what makes it an encyclopedia entry instead of a fan guide. Phil Sandifer 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear: I'm not suggesting we omit the references to the Lead-In miniseries; it's the tie-ins, most of which expand on events that happen in the miniseries but NOT in IC itself, that should be removed; the data on the miniseries is Ok as it is. And PLEASE, let's not allow DC Comics' solicitations to fool us regarding their importance; they're using the IC publicity to sell these series, but they're *barely* connected thematically to the true IC events. I remember, back during Crisis on Infinity Earths, that DC branded issues of almost all their comics as "crossovers" but some barely qualified; in fact, the Blue Devil crossover was limited to... BD noticing that the sky had turned red!
And I believe that Wikipedia is what its contributors (in other words, EVERYBODY) make out of it. Do you really think most people will check the article to find out some behind-the-scenes gossip, or information on the story? In any case, since nearly every other comics article lacks such a section, it just looks out of place. But again, the majority will rule: I vote that it be removed to make the article shorter.
Also, do we really need two cover images? again, most of the other comics articles only have one each. Wilfredo Martinez 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the editorial planning section should be left in - it is one of the aspects that truly distinguishes IC from the vast majority of other crossovers, and worthy of note on that basis. Lokicarbis 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Synopsis should be done issue-by-issue. I feel that important elements are being left out in the new edit that only gives a small paragraph to each issue. Please revert to the old way with each issue having its own synopsis. --Anonymous Feb 17, 2006


[edit] First reappearance of Alex Luthor

It could well be that there is an earlier appearance of Alex Luthor (maybe Superman/Batman) but I side with those who say he is in Countdown. it is the blue-eyed Luthor we see there = Alex. --Charlesknight 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the issue where Lex said there would be a Crisis. Has anyone gone back to check what color his eyes were then? 172.164.68.38 07:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bright, burning green. He also has the Power Suit, so it's the normal Lex. --Rocketgoat 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. Wryspy 08:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, he's also rather hyped up on Kryptonite-laced venom at the time, hence the 'burning' green. Lokicarbis 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that Alexander Luthor's earliest reappearance was in Teen Titans, in their bannered Identity Crisis issue (#20, IIRC). It's specifically mentioned in that issue that, for example, Luthor apparently hired two different sets of mercenaries to recover the suit. But it's the blue-eyed Luthor who Calculator talks to. I think what actually happened was that each Luthor hired their own agents to recover the suit, but it was Lex - not Alex - who succeeded. Lokicarbis 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that in the Absolute CoIE Compendium, it lists AL's first reappearance in the DCU after CoIE as Teen Titans #20, though I'm not thoroughly convinced of that.

[edit] Current Form

I am basically happy with the current form of the article, which has scrapped all the lists and trimmed the synopsis. Yes, there is more information, but I don't think the lists or the massive synopsis are encyclopedic at all - in fact, I'd like to see much more added on the editorial side of things at this point, so that the article becomes more about Infinite Crisis as an object in the world, instead of a fannish plot summary. Phil Sandifer 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of people obviously like the lists, though, or they wouldn't have spent so much time writing and tweaking them. Instead of simply leaving them deleted, I moved them to another page (whose title keeps getting changed - presently Character changes during Infinite Crisis) so no one will feel compelled to restore them here. Also, those lists help link the Infinite Crisis article to related articles on all those dead, missing, returned characters.Wryspy 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I also approve of the new format. The synopsis was getting too long, and I final summation of events can be given at the end of the series, where the important highlights can be mentioned. Also, there are separate pages and links for all the meatier information, so fans looking for more detail can still find everything they need. Cybertooth85

I strongly disapprove of the new format. Please revert to the longer issue by issue synopsis, or at least make each issue's synopsis a separate wikipedia entry. - Anonymous

As someone who watches (but has yet to edit) the Infinite Crisis article, I'd like to say that I think the article is much more encyclopic and professional.I can understand debate about how much detail should be in the article, but I can't fathom a reason to go back to individual issue summaries. I feel an encyclopedia should view the series as a whole, not as parts.--Gillespee 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that, once the story is over, we'll be able to write a synopsis that covers all the important events without taking too much space. (Those events not included in the synopsis can be covered in the articles for the various spinoffs.) Wilfredo Martinez 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder can we get rid of the headers cause they don't really need them if the sections are that short I mean the headers in the lead-ups section -- Anonymous

As the person who originally divided it issue-by-issue, I must say it was a mistake. Once I did that, people starting putting WAY too much detail in the plot summaries. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, not a substitute for reading the comics. Leave as is. Wryspy 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The synopsis should be divided by issue. Without that its a bit hard to make sense of things. And no, it will substitute the comics if more information is added - you must remember that there are plenty of people who wish to follow the storyline but are unable to get their hands on the comics for various reasons eg. they dont live in the US. -- Anonymous

People who have been working on this article for months have collectively agreed that this is not supposed to substitute for reading the comics. The word synopsis does not mean elaborately detailed plot description. And what difference does an issue-by-issue breakdown matter to people who don't care enough to or just can't buy the individual issues? Whatever has happened previously has happened, regardless of which issue it happened in. Wryspy 08:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logic questions (2) and another

RE: this paragraph

Superboy-Prime confronts Kon-El, the current Superboy, for not appreciating his life, and attacks. Teams of heroes intervene, but the powerful and out-of-control Superboy Prime kills several heroes. The Flashes and Kid Flash force him into the Speed Force, assisted by deceased speedsters. Jay Garrick, the only speedster left behind, says the Speed Force is gone.
  1. "assisted by deceased speedsters"? For the sake of the general readership, boy does that line need explaining! :-) They're dead, so are they zombies? Or what?
  2. Which heroes did Superboy kill? If noted elsewhere on Wiki, could a Wikilink to it be inserted?\

Also: A later paragraph says

The Flash (either Barry Allen, Wally West, or possibly even Bart Allen) emerges from the Speed Force

But the paragraph quote above says Garrick claims "the Speed Force is gone". This needs to be reconciled since it's contradictory.

Thanks — Tenebrae 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix up the "deceased speedsters" line to mention something about "speedsters who merged with the Speed Force" or something like that. I'll also try to fix up the other reference to the Speed Force, although part of the problem there is that it hasn't really been explained yet in-story; then again, Garrick saying the Speed Force is gone doesn't mean it really is gone. I don't have the list of those killed by SB-Prime handy, so I'll have to leave that to someone else. --Joe Sewell 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! - Tenebrae 22:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Who Superboy-Prime killed isn't important to the story. Only that he killed some guys. The list is at Consequences of Infinite Crisis, anyway. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to The Masked Debater for making most of the changes I wanted to make (but couldn't due to a database server problem on Wikipedia's end). --Joe Sewell 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story Facts

Okay, between issues 1-5 of IC and the IC discussion in Wizard Magazine #174, I think we can now sum up the whole IC chronology (thus far). This will help when we get around to doing the definitive synopsis. Note I'm trying to stick to the main plotline here, not all of the secundary ones. Also, I missed the Infinite Crisis Secret Files special, if anyone knows any important detail from it, please let us know.):

  • Alex Luthor came up with a plan to create the "Perfect Earth". He convinced Superboy Prime to help him. Together they escaped the "Paradise Dimension" while Kal-L was distracted with Lois Lane 2's illness.
  • They recovered the corpse of the Anti-Monitor, and used it to build the machine that would recreate the multiverse.
  • To map the multiverse, they took over Batman's Brother I satellite. Otherwise they had nothing to do with Maxwell Lord or Checkmate, except for taking over the OMACs later. Brother Eye's other actions seem to be its own.
  • Superboy moved the planets of the universe around (!) to prepare the rearrangement of the universe. Supposedly this caused the Rann/Thanagar war (but note this is contradicted by events in the R/T series.) The only real connection to R/T seems to be that the space warp at the (new) center of the Universe prevented the war from ending.
  • To obtain "fuel" for his machine, Alex had the Psycho Pirate manipulate the new Eclipso into manipulating the Spectre into killing most major magical beings so they could use the released magic to power the machine. (This is farfetched even by typical DC standards.)
  • Diguised as Luthor, Alex organized the Society supposedly to protect the villains from the Justice League's brainwashings, but in reality, to capture the heroes he needed for his machine to work.
  • With the world in chaos from all of the above events, Alex convinces Kal-L to help him (without telling him his full plans.) All four of them reenter the universe (supposedly for the first time.)
  • Basically, the heroes stumble around (mainly because of the JLA's breakup, which was NOT Alexander's doing) while Alex put his plan into motion. The Multiverse is (partially) recreated.
  • Some of the heroes finally get some clues of what is going on and are beginning to organize themselves against it. Meanwhile, Superboy goes berserk.

And that's it so far. Comments? Additions?

Just make sure you mention that it's Superboy-Priome who goes psycho :) Kon-El's just being a teen ;) -- Ipstenu 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Year Later

Why is it that One Year Later has started with only 5 of the 7 Infinite Crisis issues have been released?Tony2Times 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To heighten the mystery and curiosity. All of the first One Year Later stories are set up to make readers wonder why certain changes occur, particularly: Why haven't Green Arrow, Hawkman, Batman, Superman, and others done any superheroing during that year? Wryspy 08:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered Questions

"This series has too many unanswered questions to clog up a neatly edited article with them" is a correct assessment. However, one question isn't going to clog it up -- yet :). I feel that "Unanswered Questions" is a legitimate and useful addition to the article and would make it more complete. If there end up too many questions, perhaps we can create an alternate page a la "Character Changes During Infinite Crisis"?

Thank you! 216.242.182.234 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you care enough to make big changes to an article that a lot of other people have worked on and edited, that's certainly what Wikipedia is all about, but anyone making big changes like that needs to sign in so others can more easily discuss your ongoing contributions as needed. Wryspy 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Working on it. I lost my password and am trying to get some help getting back -- I'm rather fond of my nom de Wiki (OldSkoolGeek). If you have any suggestions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanx! 216.242.182.234 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

Why has this become the issue-by-issue synopsis of doom AGAIN? Phil Sandifer 01:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, our problems stem from not knowing what is important, and what can be left out. All I remember doing is defining the remerged Earths as "New Earth," like it says in Issue #6. I'm all for pearing things down, but it's a bit hard when each new issue comes out. Cybertooth85 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps then it would be best to wait until the series is concluded before splitting up the synopsis into individual issues. Until then, the block synopsis will do. OldSkoolGeek@216.242.182.234 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The ending is only one issue away, after all. Wilfredo Martinez 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] issue separators

My mistake; forgot to consult the boards before sticking in the issue separators. The huge block of text was pretty ugly looking; I just wanted to make the space more readable. If anyone has a serious problem with it feel free to remove; I've already gotten some feedback for them.

In agreemtn with what Cybertooth85 mentioned earlier, I trimmed down the Issue 6 section; taking out some of the less important details (such as alex losing a finger; donna's premonition).

-Motion J5

Yes, those are good examples. So far, no relevance has been shown on either of those things. I mean, Black Adam killing Psycho Pirate or Spectre killing Star Sapphire? Mildly important. But how Alex gets injured, how SBP slams Wonder Girl into Superboy? Not so important. Unless the outcomes are significant, I think we can cut out fight details. Cybertooth85 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


The issue by issue stuff is ugly back to a single synopsis I say!

--Charlesknight 11:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Crisis: The Event versus the Story

After much research, I've come to realize what it is that has been bothering me about our Infinite Crisis coverage: We've been confusing the event (in other words, DC comics' general editorial changes and publicity) with the story (which is about Alex Luthor's plan to reshape the universe.) This is not our fault, since DC itself has been using the terms interchangeably. As one of the best-organized reestructurations of any comics company ever, the editorial details behind Infinity Crisis DO deserve to be covered- but on the DC Comics article, not on this one. The Event itself includes DC Countdown, the IC "prelude" miniseries, their Specials, IC, 52 and One Year later series, and possibly the Death and Return of Donna Troy specials. As I have mentioned, some of these stories are only loosely connected, and as online encyclopedia we shouldn't allow this publicity stunt to confuse matters. I suggest we handle it this way:

  • Expanding the IC coverage in the DC Comics article, with links provided there to all the articles on the involved series;
  • dedicating the IC article only to the specific facts (both in story and publication) of the 7-issue series (and doing the same on the other related series articles)

If we don't do it this way, we'll end up continuing with endless debates about what to include every time DC or Marvel creates another "big event" and uses it to push the sales on several of their series at the same time, relevant to it or not. Wilfredo Martinez 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is exactly backwards. If we focus on the plot, we trend towards fancruft. Articles on fictional subjects are better when they focus on an overview of those objects in the world - not on the objects in their own limited context. Phil Sandifer 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You're not getting my point. If anything, I'm validating the editorial side of things even more now. But if we're going to include it, let's do it in a logical way, and not just cram everything that DC titles "Infinite Crisis" into one article. And I definitely agree that we shouldn't go overboard on story details. Wilfredo Martinez 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

Now that all the issues have been released and the story is complete, it would make sense to split the story up by issue. This would allow more detail and keep this unruly block of text from getting any larger. Thoughts? ---Motion j5

I don't see the need. It's one continuous plot line and can be summarized as such. See Crisis on Infinite Earths. CovenantD 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that, now that the story is complete, we know which things we can afford to cut, and should trim the synopsis by about 50%. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it give it some time for people to get "oooh, oooh, oooh, this HAS to be included" out of their system. :) CovenantD 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both CovenantD and Phil Sandifer - Synopsis better. It was only 7 issues, after all. -- Ipstenu 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree with covenantD, Phil Sandifer and Ipstenu - Synopsis only.

--Charlesknight 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

i think it could use some headings for specific plot points, not necessarily each chapter. for example, the situation of earth before, the return of the survivors, the survivors, superboy vs superboy, superman vs superman, the battles of metropolis and mogo. Exvicious 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'd say this article has more than enough sections. The synposis isn't large enough to warrant splitting up into separate sections. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dividing the plot into sections will only inspire people to fill each section with more detail. We've seen that happen before. This article is informative and has avoided becoming the great sprawling mess that so many articles of this type have been. Wryspy 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot significance VS. Cultural significance

The plot summary in this article is impressive. But it seems odd to me that the main thrust of the article is just recitation of plot details. The story theme of conflicts between eras of superhero morality is mentioned, and that's it? What about:

  • Fan reaction to the visceral "penetration" deaths early in the series?
  • The calculated introduction of a new wave of diversity?
  • Editorial reactions to long term fan-criticism (like the "I'm the Goddamn Batman!" treatment of Bruce Wayne)?
  • Industry reaction in the form of a similar mega-crossover dealing with good-hero/bad-hero themes?
  • The calculated effort to re-introduce (or at least name check) characters throughout continuity, from Jason Todd to El Diablo and more?
  • The changed coverage in popular press, due to literary character treatment (as opposed to just mature themes) and a meta-fictional approach to continuity?

I'm not suggesting that every one of these issues is historically significant/encyclopedic, or that plot summary has no place at all. But it seems like 90% of the article is really synopsis, and then there's barely three paragraphs mentioning some editorial shifts. Contrast that to The West Wing (TV series) page or the same for Dallas (TV series). Each has several sections on the shows' impacts on culture and the artistic medium/industry. Doesn't Infinite Crisis merit the same?

PS: On the other hand, when I went looking for examples I was disappointed to see that the entry for Ibsen's play [[Hedda Gabler}] has no mention of the late 1800's theory of Heredity and the influence on Freud... So maybe plot synopsis is an acceptable wiki-standard? wasserperson 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, the cultural significance of series like IC (at least within the comics-reading public) should definitely be covered. But the thing is, Wikipedia's content is provided by people at their leisure. If an article contains mostly synopses, it's because that's what (so far) most people who have contributed to it have been interested in adding. This doesn't mean that later contributors won't add more relevant material, but that is something that will happen on its own. Wilfredo Martinez 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if the discussion included fans' reactions to the series, with some of them leaving comics completely due to disgust. It's just that, given my non-neutral POV, I couldn't write a non-biased article... Orville Eastland 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The other problem with adding this kind of information (though I would love to read it myself too) is that original research is discouraged here. It creeps in all over the place, but we're supposed to cite our sources. I'm unaware of any sources about any of these things. Too bad. --Gillespee 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The hardcover

How and IF do we deal with this? (if true and when we can check the hardcover)

http://www.comicboards.com/dcb/view.php?trd=061009183155

--Charlesknight 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a section that says "hardcover retcons/changes" and just list them. Much like Star Wars Special edition (ugh). It should probably be mentioned in the DC Multiverse article, too.
No big.
--Exvicious 19:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started it, but I'm not going to insert the specific changes based on what someone else's web page claims. Only someone who has the hard cover in front of them should actually do that. Wryspy 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the hardcover book. They have in Infinite Crisis #7 on the second page they have the whole scene in color with Northwind, Agent liberty, Floronic Man and many others. Brian Boru is awesome 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading/Chronological Order

This wiki could be greatly added to with a "read IC in this order" section, including all tie-ins, crossovers or other related comics. It would be a good substitute for the deletion of the OMAC/Rann-Thanagar/etc. section while at the same time providing solid information directly related to Infinite Crisis. Mjconnor10

  • The comics do not occur in a strict chronological order. We don't always know what order the tie-ins' individual issues occurred in. Therefore, any statement telling you what order to read them in would be mere opinion, violating the NPOV policy. Besides, there are sites out there already that diagram the probable order of events. From that, decide your preferred reading order for yourself. Doczilla 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Except you could order it strictly by publication date - which would be entirely factual. And while we don't always know where certain tie-ins fit in, we do know where most of them do. There's no need to throw that particular baby out with such a small amount of bath water. Mjconnor10 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Publication date and internal chronology are not necessarily the same. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. But does that preclude providing that information? Mjconnor10 13:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't preclude including the information. I was addressing your suggestion of ordering it by publication date. Yes, it'd be factual, but I don't think it'll address your core concern, which appears to be a 'read in this order' one. In fact, I don't think even with a judicious application of POV could we define the chronological order. Maybe a comment of: While there are tie-ins and references to common events in all of the lead-ups to Infinite Crisis, each storyline can be read independently of the others. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't read OMAC or Rann-Thanagar War except for the last issue of each, and still feel I didn't need to read either at all. I read Day of Vengeance, but that was just a six-issue fight. Any details needed to understand IC got mentioned in IC. Much as I enjoyed Villains United, you didn't have to read that either to follow what was going on in Infinite Crisis. Tie-ins wove in and out, within the same issue connecting to different points. Then they are the tie-ins that just don't fit neatly together. For example, there's a big continuity error with regard to where Batman was at the time the Earths split. Doczilla 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Hi

I notice the link to my Annotated Infinite Crisis webpage has been removed recently and would like to ask for consideration for it to be reinstated. Having looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for external links I see no reason why it shouldn't be included - it provides detailed information concerning the original mini-series and it's tie-ins, more than should be included in this main article on IC. Whilst I understand the need to keep the number of external links to a minimum, the aim of my site is to add to a reader's knowledge and (hopefully) enjoyment of the series. Annotations, to my mind, help readers gain more information about the subject and it seems logical to allow readers of the IC article the chance to learn more. As an aside, I notice that the Wikipedia page on Crisis On Infinite Earths contains an external link to Jonathan Woodward's excellent annotations website which was partly the inspiration of mine.

In keeping with the guidelines, I'm open to discussion about reinstating the link rather than just adding it in again myself - look forward to hearing from you all!--Ginger2323 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ginger2323. The linking proposed [2] contains what appears to me to be meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article. And the site also appears to be non comercial and stable. Ginger2323 has tried to do the right thing and discuss the link before simply readding but no one has seen fit to reply in almost 3 months. The when the link was readded it was removed with the reason "We've removed that link several times" that is a valid reason not to include the link. I have looked back in the history and found when it was last removed on 8 November [3] no reason was given at all. If the link is not appropriate I think it at least deserves a reason why. - Waza 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep it, per Waza. Dlong 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the link should be kept. It gives a massive amount of pertinent and relevant information. —Lowellian (reply) 13:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Change

The article has to be changed to no longer redirect DC Countdown to Infinite Crisis. Dc has announced that a new weekly series (similar to 52) will begin the week after 52 ends and will carry the name Countdown. Announcement news can be found here

Nothing links to DC Countdown anyway, and as we called 52 52 (comics), we should call Countdown Countdown (DC comics) - just to be smart about it ;) Anyway, page changed to disambig. (Woot! I hit preview and saw someone already made a countdown page as I'd imagined. Yay!) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] artists

it was written by Geoff Johns, with art by Phil Jimenez, George Pérez, Ivan Reis and Jerry Ordway.

Who did what? -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Middle Crisis"

Not sure if this belongs, or where it would go if it does, but I though it was interesting when I saw it. In the latest issue of JLA (Issue #9, page 2, 4th panel), which is right in the middle of a JLA/JSA/Legion crossover, one of the Legion makes a reference to the current point in time being "soon after the middle crisis". Pretty obvious to me that the implication is that IC is this "Middle Crisis", and, at least from the Legion's POV, there is one more Crisis to come. No idea if this is just one author's idea of a throw-away in-joke, or wishful thinking, or a true hint of what is to come. But I thought it was neat enough to, at the least, start a discussion over whether it should somehow be mentioned in the IC article. - TexasAndroid 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It does not belong in the IC article. It wasn't mentioned in IC. No matter how obvious it might seem, any inference about its significance is speculation and against policy. Plenty of obvious things turn out to be wrong. Plenty of things hinted at by time travelers in comics turn out to be wrong. Doczilla 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Against Policy"? That seems to be going a bit too far. I don't really know which policy it would be against. The closest thing I can think of is WP:CRYSTAL. But that's not really applying, because it is definitely a fact that the legionaire called it the Middle Crisis. Too much speculation about the future implications of the remark would be crystal balling, but just stating that the legion called it such would not, IMHO. That does not mean that this belongs, which is in good part why I jumped in here to discuss first, rather than being bold and just dropping it somewhere. I'm far from certain it belongs, and at a loss as to where it would go even if it did, but I wanted to get a discussion going, at the least. - TexasAndroid 13:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Crystal comes to mind, but the other thing is ... we're assuming that DC's never going to wake up and say 'Hey, the last three crisis rus were great! Let's do it again!' As we all know, they change their minds. Alot. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Any inference about the meaning and significance of "middle crisis" is sheerly speculative. One character's off hand remark doesn't mean it will ever be mentioned again. (That character could be bad at history, you know. Do you know which war was the middle of a set of three a thousand years ago?) TexasAndroid's own words show the sheerly speculative nature of this: "Pretty obvious to me" "implication". Like TA said, it could have been a throw-away joke. We can't cram every throw-away joke into the articles. Doczilla 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No longer speculative, so I added it back. Dyslexic agnostic (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It was never there, so you cannot add it "back".  :) But that's just a little bit of snark. I agree that it's no longer speculative, so I like how you have done it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, once its meaning is confirmed in canon, it absolutely needs to go in. Doczilla RAWR! 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So Confused

Does there or does there not exist ONE single book that covers the entire Story of Infinite Crisis? Not the aftermath, the story of it. I have Prelude to Infinite Crisis, Day of Vengeance, Superman: Infinite Crisis (This one is of totally different cover to the ones on places like amazon) & Superman: Sacrifice and a very sore headache. I thought an encyclopedia is supposed to offer info on a topic. The info that exists here, is so confusing and all over the place that I'm unable to get the info I require. Maybe it's the wrong place to look, but it shouldn't be. 81.109.232.240 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean Infinite Crisis#Synopsis? And ... well, the comic was a little all over the place. You want the trade paperback of the comics, if you want your own copy, but it won't include everything since a lot had to do with the leadups. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No I mean, I have those 4 paper backs and have no idea of where Superman Sacrifice fits in (It says countdown to Infinite Crisis at the top) and Superman:Infinite Crisis (the cover is of superman flying on a blue background) , which is totally different to the book called Infinite Crisis, all so confusing. Maybe its the wrong place to get this info but its really hard to find out where to start and what relivence they have to each other. Rohrecall 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh that. Yeah, damned if I can figure it out either. I sort of blame it on bad marketing with DC, trying to make us buy everything by slapping a IC! banner on it. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm going to go buy the Infinite Crisis book on Amazon and hope for the best. It really is confusing and I know its how comic books are done I just wish sometimes to follow the whole story you actually knew what to purchase next. All this is for my Father who is a huge Superman fan and is totally lost on this story. Thanks Rohrecall 16:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just been informed of a great site that explains it all, as in the order of reading and how in what books tie to what without giving spoilers away - http://www.crisis2crisis.com, this should be in the external links Rohrecall 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sacrifice fits between issues 3 and 4 of The OMAC Project. Check out the Tie-Ins page on the Annotated Infinite Crisis which is in the external links.--Ginger2323 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Query...

When all the magic users were gathered at stonehenge, there was a boy and a purple monster creature. The boy said of Star Sapphire "For someone so pretty, she's awfully mean" to the creature. Who were those two? Bluecatcinema 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley and His Monster. Wryspy 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Bluecatcinema 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homages section

This section concerns me. First, it's effectively a trivia section, which is discouraged. Second, it doesn't cite reliable sources. Citing the original comic book panel and saying that the new panel is similar is original research. Otto4711 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audiobook

Do we need to mention every voice actor in the audiobook adaptation? This seems to be unneccessarily long. Ccm043 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcover revisions

I strenuously object to the February 6, 2008 edit that deleted the hardcover revisions section without even a comment about it on this talk page. It is undeniable to anyone who compares the original issues and the hardcover side-by-side that there were significant changes from the original issues when the hardcover version was published. If the concern was a lack of citations, a more-references-needed template should been added, or the issue at least first raised on the talk page, rather than the wholesale deletion of the section without any discussion beforehand — that amounts to censorship of the fact that there were many changes in the hardcover. I have restored the section and added more citations. —Lowellian (reply) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)