This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
52 (comics) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't there be a section dedicated to the unprecedented financial success of the 52 project? Timon 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Could that possibly refer to Rip hunter and Booster Gold traveling through time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.163.243.99 ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
Most likely, especially since we see Booster jump to the wrong time several times. - Wilfredo Martinez 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the secret of 52 is that perhaps in the multiverse there exist 52 copies of Earth , i am judging by the cover of issue 51 to arrive iquadri 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"There are actually two mentions of 52 with one that involves 322 which if you made this calculation of 3 and the first 2 — it should read 52."
I took that out because it's not written very clearly, and the informal writing style kind of brings the whole article down a little. Can someone figure out what the writer was trying to say and replace it?-- Yuefairchild 12:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the last issue will contain the origin of Superman
iquadri
23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This story of 52 needs to be restructured desperately. Right now the conclusion of the series is in the 5th paragraph, with well over ten paragraphs following it. This could be organizing everything into a linear time line, or moving Booster's story to the end of the recap, or leaving the structure as is and adding on a final paragraph that summarizes where all of the "main" characters are at the end of the year. I'm not sure which approach is best... any thoughts? AniMate 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The list of 52 references should be whacked. Have a "Meaning of 52" paragraph. "52 identical earths altered into alternate earths blah blah". Note the hidden message and that 52 popped up in the backgrounds and dialog throughout 52 the series and other DC books. Maybe one or two examples and that's it.
Not sure what to do about the Rip Hunter lab section. Kind of seems like fancruft now. Aexia 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that as far as the Story section goes, split it up by character. -- Hemlock Martinis 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a rough attempt to do some structuring and trimming; although the stories all intertwine to some extent, the stories involving Ralph, Steel and the Space guys seem a little bit more self-contained than the others, so they all seemed okay to be summed up in a a paragraph each or so, but I couldn't seem to get the Black Adam / Question and Montoya / Will Magnus stuff to keep to it's own section. I also trimmed away a few of the more incidental bits, such as Wonder Woman in Nanda Parbat and the Nightwing stuff. It also seemed to make sense to bookend with the Booster Gold / Skeets / Hunter narrative, since that involved the 'big reveal' of the series (the multiverse), and there was that lengthy period without hearing anything about that story in the overall narrative.-- Joseph Q Publique 14:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Would the plot section be satisfactory enough to remove the tag, or is more work still required?-- Joseph Q Publique 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a part of the article addressing the concept change that occurred as the series went on? The writer and Didio all stated that there was a shift in priorities during the series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venus redscar ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
I propose to merge Science Squad here because Science Squad appearance is limited to 52 and is not notable by itself. -- Leocomix 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the 'box is for the comic series, the physical comics, I've swapped out the "just the art" image for the cover of the first issue as published. - J Greb 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any idea how the four writers Johns, Rucka, Morrison and Waid went about writing 52? Did they do like the Countdown writers and write one whole issue each or did they divide the different parallel story-lines amongst them. For example, the whole Question story feels a bit like something Rucka would've written, and he will be writing the "sequel"-mini series Crime Bible. Does anyone know if this has been addressed in the bonus material in the TPs or somewhere on the Internet, and if it has wouldn't that be something that should be edited into this page?-- Hophi 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a pretty useless section to say that spin-offs and tie-ins exist...don't they always? Can someone make a list of spin-offs with a brief description of the tie-in? -- 72.229.151.118 ( talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested this be moved to 52 (comics). WP:NCC clearly states "In general, when naming an article, use the name itself, without further disambiguation (e.g. Jack Kirby) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Ralph Macchio (comics))." It only suggests using "(comic book)" when "...disambiguating between a proper name (a character name, a group name, a location, etc.), and another related eponymous work" - rst20xx ( talk) 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Croatoan Society redirects to this page and is not mentioned in this page. Either the redirect should be dropped or material about the Croatoan Society should be included in this article. — David Samuel Auer ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:52 (comics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Importance reduced to "High" from "Top". At the moment this series is very important to one American publisher, but it is not clear if it will be viewed as critically important for the industry as a whole or for the history of the medium as a whole. — J Greb 14:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 52 (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 52 (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)