Talk:Countdown to Final Crisis/Archive 1

more info

Keith Giffen interview about Countdown.

[1]

and this article should probably be renamed Countdown (comic book) like 52 (comic book) and Civil War (comic book) --EXV // + @ 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Countdown (DC comics) or DC comic book would be okay ... I dunno, I have the feeling we'll see 'Countdown' as a title for something else again :P And Civil War too no doubt. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is actually another comic, not comic book though, using Countdown as well, which is part of the reason I just inserted DC into the article title. I totally understand putting in book, as in Countdown (comic book) or Countdown (DC comic book), though. I think the current title should probably be okay, but I'm up to a change if needed. -- CasimirAngel 17:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

... Did I miss something and we all agreed to a move here? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a British comic of the 1970s that was called Countdown. I think it needs the DC in there, in case someone else comes along and writes a page about the British one.--Alex Tulloch 10:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tie-in Issues

How do we know that the four issues included in this article are tie-in issues? Are there any sources to go with this? Ccm043 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Darkseid, Mary Marvel, and Ray Palmer (and I suppose the Villian Duo) were all mentioned. Dishing with Dan mentions it obliquely, but yeah, they're related. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about Action Comics #852, Superman #662 et al. I didn't see anything about those issues in the interview. How do we know that those issues of comics are considered tie-ins? Does anybody have a source website? Ccm043 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be, and I don't have the info right in front of me atm, that they got popped in based on the solicit information in Diamond's Previews. The same info should still be available at Newsarama and/or Comic Book Resources. - J Greb 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think these 'tie ins' are issues were the plot crosses over to countdown. I mean, we could toss the latest Flash into the mix too. Oy. This is looking like a bad idea. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does... this is something that could very quickly degenerate the article into a checklist. - J Greb 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Being Bold and removing them. This is a crossover with the entire DCU! No way should we be listing every bloody issue mentioned in Countdown! Our list is at 5 comics already and we've only had two issues! By #25, we could have over 60. Make them in-line references to what's important in the story, but not a list, please. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And removed again. There will be too many crossover issues to list without becoming an annoyingly massive list page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dvibert, please talk here before you re-add the list. I keep removing those because, simply, this is a tie in series with the entire DCU. Our list of tie in issues is going to grow for each issue of Countdown that we read. If there are already 6 tie-in issues with two Countdown issues, one could logically assume we'll have over 150 by the time we get through. By listing the tie-in issues, what are we gaining with this list? Is it adding anything to the meaning of the article? Is it giving us more information to Countdown? No. It's just quantifying something that was already a fact. This is a universe wide crossover. We don't need to pinpoint which issues crossover since by saying it's universe wide, we cover any issue that is published during countdown. That's something the editors already say, something we reported on in the article, and something that, once said, doesn't need to be beaten to death :) If you have some reasons why this list should be re-added, please speak up. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

Does anybody else think the Countdown blog is not a good link? It's essentially linking to somebody's personal opinions on the series. Ccm043 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were a professional reviewer, ie someone who has a review column in a reputable magazine or webzine, then it would make sense. But what amounts to an ordinary reader chiming off... no. That makes as much sense as linking to pure bulletinboard posts. - J Greb 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Ccm043 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now there's a review from some place called careonline. Ccm043 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that should be craveonline. Ccm043 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever streamlined the links. It looks a lot better. Ccm043 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else think the links section is getting a bit unwieldy? I think the links we have up now are fine, but we should take some down soon or else the list will become too big. Also, some of the links are for introductions to the series, but we may be able to get rid of those soon. Ccm043 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes... especially since at least one "family", "Counting Down with Mike Marts", is going to have 52 links.

It may be worthwhile to compress the links to the numerals... And w/ Marts only linking to the most recent, as it is currently tracking the previous articles at its bottom. - J Greb 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I question the need at all for Counting Down with and the other Newsarama links. If the information isn't something we're going to cite as a reference, then I don't think we need to add it in as an external link. We didn't do this for 52, and I think it would be overkill to attempt it for Countdown. We're becoming a shill for newsarama at this rate. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the "Down for the Count: Red Hood and Duela" link as well. Ccm043 22:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"World Jumpers" section...

As much as this is looking to be a pivotal plot point, the section looks like its going to become a "List of continuity glitches pointed out by the writer in a meta-fictional way".

Is there anyway to do this without making it into, or look like, a list?

- J Greb 06:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{confusing}} template to it because I believe the characters need annotations to explain why they're considered anomalies, where reason has been given within the comics.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The Legion characters... While it is nice to see a justification for them being in the list, it's very, very close to fan spec. At best the following can be said:

• As per Justice Society of America #2 or #3 it is implied that Thom spent time in the Kingdom Come universe. Due to publication schedules, this was printed before the reveal in 52 about the new multiverse.
• As per Justice League of America #7 the biometrics for the Karate Kid for the arc are a match for information Superman has.
• As per Justice League of America #8 the flight rings of the 7 LSH characters involved are identical to 4 others that exists in the present DCU: 1 held by Booster Gold (pre-Crisis origin), 1 by Vril Dox (L.E.G.I.O.N., no idea where he got it), 1 by Supergirl (current Legion reboot continuity), and 1 by Superman.
• As per Justice Society of America #5 and, IIUC, the Action Comics Annual from this year, Superman has a collection of statues of the LSH, which he was a member of, decked out in the pre-Zero Hour reboot costumes.
• As per Justice Society of America #5 and #6 Superman's statements about how he joined the team and the resurrection of Lightning Lad put the pre-Crisis LSH stories back into continuity for him and the JLA and JSA of this arc.
• As per Justice Society of America #6 these Legionnaires were last seen by Superman during the events of "the First Crisis", which reads as the in universe events of CoIE.
• As per same, Dawnstar can sense those that have crossed the dimensional borders of the multiverse, and is aware of its existence.
• As per same, her dialogue is explicit in putting this version of the LSH as native to the reality of the JLA and JSA, and that Thom was "accidentally shunted" to the Kingdom Come reality. To which Thom calls that reality by the designation "Earth-22" as per 52 Week 52.
• As per same, Given the costumes involved, the 7th Legionnaire is an anomaly, Projectra created the Sensor Girl persona after the death of Karate Kid.

Even some of this comes off as fan spec, but less so than specing that the team is the pre-Crisis Earth-One team. The only pertinent points for this article that crops up are:

1. Thom is a world-jumper;
2. The Karate Kid from "The Lightning Saga", Chameleon from the current reboot, and a Brainiac 5 were pictured on the Monitors screens in Countdown #50; and
3. This Dawnstar is aware, both instinctively and intellectually, of the multiverse.

- J Greb 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would class Thom as a world-jumper as far as we are aware he is now back in his native reality. I would also note that although we do get indications that some pre-crisis LSH stories are in continuity we don't know that those stories happened exactly the same way as before.

--Rider kabuto 07:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The "What pre-Pocket Universe/Zero Hour LSH stories are back in canon" question is really a side issue for any Wiki article, short of there being a reliable cite. It's even more of a side issue regarding this specific article. The use here is to show a logic as to 5 of the 7 wouldn't be on the Monitors radar.

Given the explicit statements so far in Countdown both Thom and Dawnstar fit what appear to be the "pro-active" Monitor's problem list. Dawnstar knows about the Multiverse and Thom has traveled to and affected a parallel world.

Even with this, the discussion moves into areas of fan spec -- the PA Monitor's motives and criteria, where the LSH in the JSA/JLA crossover started from, etc -- and OR -- fitting together snippets from the primary sources and using them to justify the spec. As Exvicious suggests, a list characters a Monitor has specifically, and explicitly called a problem in-story may be the best route to go, if it is fundamentally needed.

Looking at it, I think the section is fundamentally flawed and shouldn't be in the article in it's current form. If these characters are fundamental plot points, and if we are going to work up a plot summary for the series, then they should be mentioned in the summary when appropriate. If the summary has to get excessively detailed to include them, they should be dropped. And the list, since it can come across as "A list of pre-existing and contrived continuity errors explained as character who 'jumped' from one universe to another", or a list of indiscriminate items. - J Greb 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We could just list who was on the monitors without fan speculation. I think originally we just had a list and things that might have to do with them dying or interaction with different worlds. if it's just a list, then there is no speculation. --EXV // + @ 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But the list makes sense to very few people without annotations. Just remove it altogether. If it becomes a plot point, it will get covered by "plot".~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

World-jumpers and death cheaters

I think Superboy prime should be added to the World-jumpers and death cheaters list because he is from earth prime(a different universe)and is more of a threat than any one on the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:74.74.133.168 (talk • contribs)

there has been now evidence shown he is being watched by the monitors. --EXV // + @ 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats a valid point, Super Boy Prime is without a doubt a world jumper. Even if the monitor's haven't been shown watching him yet.Cole435 03:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is he? We have yet to have 'world jumper' defined, though one can infer that it means 'someone from a different one of the 52 Earths.' Unless SBP is from one of those earths, he's not a world jumper, he's a tweaked anomaly. Remember, Dido (I think) said that these new 52 Earths are not the same as the ones from before the re-multiplying of the universe. Simply - It's speculative to assume SBP is a world jumper at this time. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 74.74.133.168, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide who DC feature in Countdown :P, but yes, he should certainly qualify. If it matters to you, we know there's going to be some stuff with Midnighter, Apollo and Owlman, later on, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When someone calls SB prime one or the other, we can include him - not until then (as it cannot be cited). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I am having some issues with this entire section. There appear to be no citations for the statements and conclusions being drawn there. The sole references in place refer to those issues wherein characters died. Unless we can find reliable, verifiable citations of notable sources commenting on this information, we cannot include it - Wikipedia is not a forum, and our own best guesses or comparisons count for absolutely squat in the article itself. I am thinking we should remove the section to the Discussion area until we can cite the statements. Otherwise, anyone has the right to simply remove it completely. I don't want to see that happen. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to cite all instances of relevant issues with the character. No one is citing for example, which Donna incident makes her an anomaly, just a number of them. It contextualizes the article for anybody who is not an expert on decades of DC continuity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am thinking to remove the section to here, preserving the content, while at the same time, not exposing the article to uncited (and quite likely OR) material

I think it's alright as it was. It should be steadily monitored and allowed to progress as the series goes on. So I'm going to restore the section and perhaps someone should invite WP:COMIC to engage in larger discussion. I think the context is necessary for the article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they can discuss the matter here - which is why it was removed to the Discussion area. Uncited material cannot remain in an article. Those aren't my rules; that's the way Wikipedia is run. I will be removing it again, and the copy that is here in Discussion appears to be the same as that removed. Once the material is cited, it can go back in. Not until then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the section is intended for who the Monitors are watching. otherwise we can list:

• Superman - death cheater
• Justice League - death cheaters (Obsidian Age)
• Green Arrow - death cheater
• Hal Jordan - death cheater
• Bart Allen - world jumper
• Hippolyta - death cheater

It's not really in dispute that Superboy-Prime is a world hopper. As far as we know, he's not being watched for this reason, and neither are anyone else listed above. --EXV // + @ 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, what do you need references for? It's not just cited where they died, but it is cited where it shows the Monitors are watching these characters specifically. --EXV // + @ 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you say where? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

{{comic book reference}} can list page/panel...~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

See, I was thinking that maybe being too harsh in contesting this section's uncitability, so I took a bit to re-read the series (to week 46), and I see the term applied by the two Monitors in the first issue. and not after that. I think that a lot of the statements in the section have no citation whatsoever. It is one or more contributors, applying their logic to create and compile this list.

We cannot do that. Our own observations are primary sources of inormation, whereas WP utilized seconday sources of information only. We need to find a reliable, verifiable source of information detailing everything that we add to the article. Without it, we cannot - I repeat, can not be added to the article. For all we know, everyone contributing to the article might very well be right. It is not, however, our place to jump the gun and weigh in. So, unless Mart or Didio put into writing teir thoughts, I don't see how we can keep the section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Monitor's page:

• In the opening issue of the 2007 series Countdown and are expected to make appearances in later issues.
• In the final installment of the History of the DCU (52 #11; July 2006), one of the Monitors confronts Donna Troy and informs her that she should have died during the Crisis. Jade, a member of the team of heroes that Donna recruited to operate in deep space, was killed during Infinite Crisis in her place.
• In Nightwing #125, a Monitor stalks Dick Grayson, informing him that he is supposed to be dead, and the Monitors will fix the fact that he is not.
• A Monitor makes a cameo appearance in "The Secret Origin of Nightwing" backup in 52 #25.
• In Ion #6, a Monitor appears in Kyle Rayner's apartment and tells him that "[he's] supposed to be dead."
• In Ion #7, the Monitor indicates that "[Kyle] will require continued monitoring...[Kyle] and the others".
• In Ion #8, the Monitors decide that "it remains unclear...whether Kyle Rayner must live or die."
• In Ion #9, after the Green Lantern of the Tangent Universe breaches the boundaries of the Multiverse to the New Earth of the DCU, the Monitors conclude that "for the survival of the universe...Kyle Rayner must be eliminated."
• In Ion #10, Captain Atom indicates that the Monitors have been keeping tabs on him as well, necessitating his use of a region known as the Bleed to conduct activities away from their reach.
• In Ion #11, the Monitors plan an intervention after two of their quarries—Kyle Rayner and Donna Troy—team up.
• It is revealed in Wildstorm's Stormwatch: PHD #5 that four heroes killed in action in 1999 are actually alive due to the intervention of a Monitor, who allowed their resurrections.
• In World War III #4: United We Stand, the Monitors make an appearance at the end and state that although the war is over, the superheroes need to evolve for upcoming events.
• In Supergirl #18, one of the 52 Monitors stops Dark Angel from erasing Supergirl. It is revealed here that Dark Angel is now an agent of the Monitors, sent to poke and prod certain anomalies in New Earth to see if they belong.
• In Countdown, one of the storylines follows the Monitors in their headquarters. One Monitor has taken it upon himself to eradicate inconsistencies within the universes, characters such as Duela Dent, whom he kills. The other 51 Monitors are more devoted to merely watching the multiverse and intervening only when truly necessary.

Now what are you disputing, exactly? That they aren't being watched or that they aren't world jumpers and death cheaters? How is it uncitable? There's numerous instances where they are actually saying "i'm watching you" and "you should be dead" and "we're going to fix it." --EXV // + @ 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That stuff isn't part of the Countdown plot at all, and belongs on the Monitors page... where it is to begin with.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. In Countdown they said their watching death cheaters and world hoppers. Then they vote they decide to kill them.... in Countdown. The above information states who they are watching, why they are watching and they will fix it. For example, in 46 or whatever they point out specifically Donna Troy, Jason Todd, and Kyle Rayner. And then we cite which issue they figured it out.--EXV // + @ 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Question from someone who stopped reading Countdown - Is there, as of yet, a reason/significance that the Monitors are watching world-jumpers and death cheaters? If they haven't explained why yet, then we can probably sum this up with 'The Monitors are watching people who have crossed, somehow, from one Earth to another, as well as people who are supposed to be dead.' Then you can cite who those people are, based on what we see in Countdown. To pull in information from 52 is probably okay, but any external sources are going to be sketchy, since they border on speculation and inference. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At best, and I'd have to go digging to get the exact page/panel for it, the pro-active Monitor is taking the stance that the "cross-reality" traffic is what contributed to the collapse of the original multiverse, the instability of the intermediary "monoverse", and not-quite stable current multiverse.

And a comment on Arcayne's post... While I can agree with the basic principle, a large chunk of the entire article is made up of information taken from, and directly referencing the comics book issues. (As is the case the vast majority of the comics related articles.) The only real difference is that most of the rest falls under "plot summary" where the section in question is essentially a list. Saying one section "isn't referenced" while leaving the others looks a bit silly.

That being said, and again, I agree with the principle, it may be time to actually fold the elements from the list that are actually in the issues of Countdown into the plot summary as plot points. Cite who they're watching when it is revealed in the story, and nothing more. Leave the creation of an interpretative list to other cites that allow for that level of original research and interpretation. - J Greb 06:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I could live with the points being folded into the plot, but it would a be a constant struggle to remove and and/or revise hypothetical conclusions being drawn from it.

And that the material has been drawn from actual issues means nothing. We need reliable secondary sources to tie them together. It is not our place to interpret them. That is my main critique of the section. If we can find citations tying these elements together, then they can remain. Without it, it has no place within the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the material is being drawn from is a relative point. If we had a scholarly annotation being published at the same time, we could cite plot elements from there as a secondary source. As it stands all we can do is cite as per the primary source, the issues of Countdown. This has been brought up in other debates and with other articles, since we are basing a large section of the article on a primary source, that section is essentially OR. The Devils Advocate on this has been, and it applies here as well, that to discus the background of a story or character, the stories have to be referenced. And that we, the editors, 1) have to tread lightly in what we add, making sure we keep to the "facts", and 2) are obliged to remove drawn conclusions that are not cited to a secondary source.

In this, the "constant struggle to remove and and/or revise hypothetical conclusions" is no different than what should be going on with the other comics articles. The benefit is that the information, the basic "facts" of the plot, are in the article. - J Greb 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the scholarly thing is going to be happening too much in a current comic series. I would settle for Didio or one of the writers discussing the matter in a podcast interview or whatever, gleaning info from possible unguarded moments.

I'm not trying to be the hard-ass here, but its one thing to summarize what heppened in an issue, and quite another to connect what the issues meant. Something like that is currently happening in the article for the JLA series by Ross, Justice. Each issue is a play by play, and it is a citation nightmare. I think that the assumption of the "main" characters' storylines might be an OR jump, but it seems a lot more cleanly delineated than what 52 or Justice has presented. Greb is absolutely right though, in that it is an awfully fine line between primary source OR and notable, secondary sources. We probably aren't going to find a bunch of them, and until we do, we must essentially do a play by play, revising the article every time to revise what was given inthe prior issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly" is a bit broad, especially with pop culture stuff. It can easily include "news" outlets, so the weekly "debrief" on Newsarama or the dissection article that shows up on CBR are good places to look for citable bits.

And I don't think you're being a hard-ass on this point, for the most part I think we're about on the same page. And looking at the Mary+Lightning... it's a little small to call a train wreck, but it has the potential... item, it easy to see that even trying to do a play-by-play (FWIW, I think that can get tricky with regard to WP guides on plot summaries) can beg for an editor to draw a conclusion. - J Greb 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My organization edit

for some reason, nobody put any references in the plot section. i think this is important because of crossreferencing to amazons attack, the lightning saga, and presumably future storylines.

also, karate kid isn't mentioned in the synopsis as well

i *did* like the idea of updating via plot point (or by character) instead of linearly adding each issue. it's less confusing and easier to summarize, which i thought was a major problem of the 52 article, which is why i kinda stayed away from that one. i added headings and arranged them in alphabetical order, since it's not really an issue into dividing them by importance. although, i did make a smaller "other events" section for minor plot developments, which of course can later be expanded if need be. --EXV // + @ 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

52 had too many crossovers and inter-related whoo-hah going on. This works nicely so far. :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree; following the main characters seems to work fairly nicely, and having a governing plot covering the overview seems to work nicely (so long as we avoid drawing conclusions without reliable citation). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

The following info was removed from the article as it was uncited material and quite likely Original Research. Once we have verifiable, reliable sources in place, it can be re-added. Not until then, though.

World-jumpers and death cheaters

See also: The Monitors (comics), Comic book death, and Retcon

DC Comics, and comic books in general, have a history of returning previously deceased characters. The nature of a fictional medium allows comic book creators and artist to return characters that for all intents and purposes are "dead." One of the most notable DC Comics storylines is "The Death of Superman." The success of that publicity stunt led the way for more deaths and returns for characters such as Green Arrow, Green Lantern Hal Jordan, Jason Todd, Donna Troy, and others.

The Infinite Crisis crossover gave several explanations for these occurrences. Kid Eternity told the Teen Titans that the doorway between life and death was left open, implying Superman. Also, continuity errors and reboots were attributed to Superboy-Prime altering events with his assault on the walls of reality. Characters who have cheated death through cosmic alterations in the multiverse, such as Mister Mind's rampage and Superboy-Prime's assaults or by sheer luck in escaping the consequences of the major Crises have been branded "anomalies".

During "One Year Later", the Monitors existence is revealed and that they are watching several specific characters. It is later revealed the Monitors are observing what they believe to be "loose ends" from the "last crisis." In issue 51, the rogue Monitor refers to them as "world-jumpers, death cheaters and other criminals," anomalies who violate the cosmic order. While the others were still debating over these individuals who should not exist, the rogue murdered Duela Dent. A debate ensues between those Monitors with differing opinions, but sentiment is soon swayed toward purging the anomalies.

Subjects watched by the Monitors include:

• Donna Troy is supposed to have died during the Infinite Crisis in place of Jade. Her history rewritten and "relived" many times, her origins became increasingly uncertain and convoluted. After the first Crisis, Donna became "the sum total of all [her] selves ... unique in all creation, a living connection to every universe that existed" with the exception of her Earth-7 duplicate, Dark Angel who escaped compression.
• Duela Dent claims to have an alternate Earth origin, which is the reason for her murder.
• Red Hood (Jason Todd); Jason Todd was killed by the Joker, but was resurrected due to Superboy-Prime's reality-distorting punch.
• Legion of Super-Heroes have several members stranded in the 21st century. Based on Superman's memorial in the Fortress of Solitude, these Legionaires appear to be from Earth-One of the original multiverse.
  • Karate Kid
  • Brainiac 5
  • Chameleon Boy
  • Starman was shunted to Earth-22, before arriving in the present.
• Ion (Kyle Rayner) is supposed to have died during the Infinite Crisis.
• Nightwing (Dick Grayson)is supposed to have died during the Infinite Crisis.
• Supergirlhas time traveled to 31st century Earth, and had an encounter with Ultraman, an evil version of Superman from another Earth. She later has an encounter with Dark Angel, who tried to prove she didn't belong in the universe. One of the Monitors decided that she proved herself to be the one true Supergirl and ended her altercation with Dark Angel..
• Power Girl is a survivor of the original Multiverse and Earth-Two.

Struck by lightning because ...

We don't know. I borrowed the comic to read it and you're right, it's inference to say why. So I changed the sentence to just state they were struck by lightning. It could have just been weather, but to say 'Unknown source' implies someone aimed it and we just don't know yet. I think leaving it open to interpretation is the fairest we can get right now. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And while youre help is appreciated if you look at the issue

1. 1 its left on a cliffhanger
2. 2 its obviously not because she said sorry. she says sorry in a sarcastic manner.TheManWhoLaughs 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry *zap* Ow. Sorry *zap* OW! (done with the joke!) -- Seriously, though, I did not add it back in the second time. You reverted a different edit with the same 'sorry' comment :) Yes, cliffhanger. I thought it was clear that she said 'sorry' and got zapped, but my coworker disagreed, so y'know, I think we're right in saying 'She was hit by lightning' Why? No idea. Yet :) Find out tomorrow! Whee! -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...and that's okay. The series was meant to create some cliffhangers, and even if our brains are so big that we go to parties and push bullies up against the wall with our intellects, we must embrace that someone else's noggin is running the show. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

a other teasing poster by DC <img src="http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/countdown/SecondTease/Badboys_mid.jpg"> supermike Thats, Thats cool.BlueShrek 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Teaser Image

I am noticing a lot of OR creeping back in. I've marked or removed some of it, but there is still quite a bit of it. earmarks of OR would be words like "resembling", seems to be" and "apparently." These cannot stay unless cited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just two things, both come from the common sense stand point of editors being allowed to make identifications by the visuals where it is relatively clear:

1. Supes with the glowing fist is visually the Kingdom Come Superman.
2. The center one is the Hank Henshaw cyborg as per current costume from The Sinestro Corps one-shot.

This is similar to the ID of Red Robin in the first image.

- J Greb 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the 'common sense' viewpoint you are taking, but we are forbidden from adding anything that is not cited. If we have some RS that states that the Kingdom Come Superman, that the robotic Superman is the Hank Henshaw cyborg, or that the Red Robin is there, then it can be included. Our perception, our viewpoint, our 'vast' knowledge of comic book trivia - none of it meets the criteria for inclusion. It would be best to find external, reliable verification. Otherwise, it cannot be in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what some editors think is obvious (likely from drawing upon their knowledge of comics) is immaterial. What can be cited is. I've reverted this edit twice, as the editor in question seems to think the information is obvious. I think what might be obvious to them is not so to the rest of us. We are not writing this article for us; we are writing it for the readership, some of whom might not be as familar with the DC universe as some of us.

We need to cite - reliably cite - every conclusion we draw from an image. If the artist or someon from DC doesn't say it, we don't get to. That seems rather clear to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going that route, the only characters, at present, that should be identified are the ones that have a cultural profile outside of the comics: Joker, Catwoman, Superman, Luthor, Penguin, and possibly Mary. In Mary's case, it can be cited that this is the costume she's wearing in the book the image is a promotional tool for. The rest though rely on "insider knowledge" for identification. - J Greb 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious to tell the diffs between the supermen.BlueShrek 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious to you is not to all, as we're not writing this for DC fans, but for everyone. I'm with Arcayne on this one. (Also I hesitate about Catwoman only becuase it could be Holly ... then again, she was Catwoman too, so 'a Catwoman' would be accurate). -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains currently the article is vague and those supermen are obviously who they are.BlueShrek 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the article is vague because the Supermen are speculated to be who they are. Can you cite an article where their identities are verified? We were all pretty sure Red Robin was Jason Todd, but it wasn't until recently that it was confirmed. Can you confirm your speculation? If not, it should stay out. I agree, you're probably right in your speculation, but that doesn't make it anything other than speculation. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was never of the opinion that BlueShrek was wrong, but instead was contending that we need someone reliably and definitiively to state without ambiguity that tthe three Supermen are in fact the ones BS identified as such. Since no one contributing to WP can be used a a source, what is obvious to BS is simply not citable and therefore, not usable.

I'm also not clear on how to proceed if we find matching images (ie, the Kingdom Come Superman image being compared to and found to be the same as in the 2nd teaser image). By comparing them and pronouncing a match, are we perpetrating OR by synthesis? I am a little vague on that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally I hold judgment as 'If it's not clearly stated in the comics, it's very likely to be speculation.' Look at all the furor over Dan Dido's slip that the Flash is Barry, when it was really Bart (or hell, Wally? Damned if I know anymore! But it wasn't Barry!). If we can cite it in an interview where they're not being cagey, then I say we're okay with it. If it's explained in the comics, we're perfect. Otherwise, we're guessing. That's what we had to do for 52. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are waiting until a writer/artist/producer of DC Comics tells us by name who each of the characters portrayed in the second picture, then the section should be locked stating "Locked until a DC Comics employee tells us who these characters are.", rather than continually undermining the fans' efforts to positively identify these characters. Undoing each and every identification effort is childish and looks like a lawyer in court declaring a witness' every sentence to be hearsay and stricken from the record. jhpace1 1611 EST 10 July 2007

Well, I wouldn't be opposed to a 'no-wiki' note to that effect, pointing out that citations are needed before inclusion. No intent to annoy the fanbase, but it's funny you should point out lawyers and courts and the like. One of the main reasons WP requires us to use secondary sources is to avoid lawsuits. Granted it might not really come up here as much as it would in some BLP article, but the same policy applies throughout the Project and the Community. I would like to strongly recommend that the fans seek out reliably-sourced, easily verifiable references for these images that positively identify the characters portrayed in the images. I am sure that some of it will be made public. Some of the other stuff, we might just have to realize that this isn't a fan forum where our 'unmitigated genius' counts for less than an aardvark's fart, and settle back and enjoy the ride that DC is giving us. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Breaking back out ... jhspace, you're reading too much into the reverts. One of the goals of an encyclopedia is to include factual and accurate information. One of the tenets of wikipedia is verification over speculation. Just because we think that MulletMan is the electric powered Superman from his back-from-the-dead world tour doesn't make it so. It's a guess. An educated guess, I grant you, but it's speculative. Red Robin is Jason Todd, we know this. Originally people thought it was E2 Robin (Richard Grayson). We were wrong. Since we can not prove that these assertions are right, or anything more than speculation, then we should not have that information in the article at this time. This is not a fan site, this does not deter fans from making their own identifications. They are three 'Supermen' and as of yet, unconfirmed as to their identity. It's really that simple. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So if we know that Jason Todd is Red Robin, and it's actually been stated in print in DC Comics as of the latest issues, can we go ahead and change the confusing and misleading statement in the section on the first teaser image? It implies an official statement that Red Robin isn't Jason Todd, when the official statement is the exact opposite. The article referenced doesn't even have a direct quote, and it claims that Didio said this back in March. Universaladdress 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. I've also updated Jason Todd accordingly, added further support to the already-existing update in the Red Robin section, and fixed the link to that section in this article.Universaladdress 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the image it is not a rock that they are standing on, but Darkseid's head. Greenlanternfanguy 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be awesome if someone were to find a citation saying that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(convo moved to the Supermen, Revisited)

Red Robin

Dan Didio has confirmed that the character we see in the promo image is Red Robin, and that this Red Robin is Jason Todd. He's not only confirmed this in the Newsarama interview, but in the latest issues of DC Comics. Right now, I'm looking at DC Nation in Justice Society of America #7 where Didio is explaining the first teaser image: "Jason Todd becomes Red Robin, driving a wedge in the Challengers from Beyond." Everyone contributing to this page seems to know this. Yet the section still references an article from March that doesn't even directly quote Didio to make it appear that the Red Robin in the teaser image is not Jason Todd and to suggest that it's in question that the character in the promo is Red Robin. Apparently this has brought all sorts of heat to this article so I'm not going to change it myself. But barring time travel, I don't see how Didio's vague and possibly misreported statement at a convention in March affects his clear assertion otherwise in July in his own company's books. Are we just assuming that the executive editor of DC is an unreliable source now because he named the wrong Flash? Or is the article simply misrepresenting the order of his public statements to avoid debate over the article? Universaladdress 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and edit it to make it correct. We have a statement from Didio, in the pages of DC Comics, that the figure we see in the image is called Red Robin and that his identity is Jason Todd. So that's that. Universaladdress 14:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure to cite it where you saw it; I am not the only one who will stomp undocumented info. I read the notations in various DC comics as well. State where it came from. I won't add a 'cn' tag now, but if we can't figure out a way to cite it in, say, a few days, I will tag it thusly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where this came from as I provided a direct citation as soon as I added it to the article. Ah, well, I suppose it's old news now. Universaladdress 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

history

should the multiverse story be included somewhere?BlueShrek 04:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to me that it already has been, actually. Tetrominon 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The story in the back of countdown was what i was talking about. It isnt on here at all.BlueShrek 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there citation comparing/defining the two? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Detail

I am of the opinion that there is far, far too much detail in this article and it's well fallen over the line of trademark violation. Lots42 05:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have tried reducing the over-detail but Lord Sinestro (talk · contribs) seems to prefer the extensive version. As it was, the article resembled a near-novelization of a comic book, which detracts from buying them. We don't have an entire copy edited version of Great Expectations up, for instance, simply an overview.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And thats what this is. So far there has been 12 issues of the series. Every little detail is not in the article, It has a overview of the series and what has happened so far. If you want to slim it down and leave in the plot details, which i doubt you can do, then go ahead but unless the article is accurate ill keep reverting it because i dont like vandalism.Lord Sinestro 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lots42 and Zythe on this subject. While a fanboy who likes to have the specific skinny on the subject, I have to balance that desire out with the policies of WP, which say the article is overlong and a bit too detailed. That said, this is an ongoing series, wherein a bit more of the plot is revealed issue by issue. A bit too much detail is going to be given at any point, much like a stone mason will use a little more mortar before affixing the next bricks - we can use the extra bits to link everything together once the storyline is complete (much like I did with the summarization of the Red Robin announcement from Didio). I suggest tolerance for now, with the definite understanding that this level of detail will not be remaining- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I take offense at being called a vandal. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not states that bold changes are not vandalism, so the "removal of information" is not vandalism. "Excessive lengthening" and "Repeated uploading of copyrighted material" are listed as possible acts of vandalism, but I'm doing the opposite. I'm trying to maintain the summary of events in the series whilst removing all the excessive detail like "Mary goes to see Madame X. Madame X says this, this and this. Then Mary does this... and then Black Adam tries to kill her... but he doesn't... and then" which accumulates as the article gets updated every week. Please try not to breach WP:3RR either, as that can get you blocked for 24 hours. Although, read any article about a large work like 52 or any book, and you'll probably see that summarization is innevitable.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, calling you a vandal was a bit much. In the future, you might be able to avoid these sorts of accusations by letting people know what you're doing and giving them a it of time to offer feedback. As in the 52 article, it began as overlong, over-explained material, but that extraneous material was used to build the resulting article, when all the plot threads became apparent. I am noit suggesting that re-writing shouldn't happen in oirder to tighten up the language; however, removing bits as over-descriptive seems akin to shooting ones' self in the foot. Describing the plot is not a violation of copyright, any more than mentioning in the plot summary of The Usual Suspects who Keyser Soze is, or including detailed storylines subject to later connection and editing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Small-ish point... IIUC, plot summaries are ok as long as they don't fully replace the need to read/view the primary source. That doesn't mean important points, such as who Keyser Soze is, or similar plot twists, aren't included, but that the minutiae gets left out. Yes, what may be minutiae a 1/4 of the way into the run may prove important in the last 1/4, but when that doesn't mean it gets kept in place until the justifying major point. That's editors saying "We think this may be important, so...", guessing what is to come.

What Zythe did seems to make sense, keep the article within guides for what is known now. Especially when the guides in question cover what comes down to fair use of material under copyright. If there needs to be back fill later, so be it, shot foot or not. - J Greb 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you say it's healthier for the article to keep it small and adjust detail as plot demands, or should it be super-detailed and require a complete rewrite after #0?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i guess it would be better that way. Excessive details would be distracting. Okay, I guess I am convinced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Less is more, in this case. Especially since we're treading so carefully with copyright violations. Wait a while, see what sorts out as important and what doesn't. Just my opinion. Lots42 00:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's at a better point now although could probably use some copy editing / improvement still. I would also suggest where detail is needed is in explaining who these characters are and what these things that are happening to them mean. Wait, who's Jimmy Olsen? What's a boom tube? Who's Holly Robinson? Obviously we know these things and they have their own articles, but tiny smidgens of context here and there wouldn't go amiss.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would quite disagree with that, as its a slippery slope from providing context to deciding what the context is. Its evaluative,a nd we don't get to do that. If the image has not been described as a boom tube by a reliably-sourced individual, then it cannot go in. It is but a strange-looking hunk of metal on the ground - and nothing else. Our own personal musings and speculation count for - and this is going tosound very rude - absolutely nothing here. We are not the inventors of the article; we are the assembly line workers putting the article together fromthe inventions of others. If that is too hard on the ego of some editors, write a novel or get a job writing a column. Our speculation and a dollar will get us about a dollar's worth of coffee. We source everything that goes in, or it doesn't go in - it is effortlessly simple and yet elegant that way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Zythe was referring to in the text not trying to ID images. When laying out the plot points, it isn't really necessary to spell out who Jimmy Olsen or Batman are, so a link is all that would be needed. But if we are assuming little or no comics-specific knowledge of a reader, the more obscure a character or item is, the more likely it is that a snippet of explanation along with the link is warranted. When a boom tube, Holly Robinson, or even Marry Marvel or the Rogues are first mentioned, a short comment is warranted. - J Greb 07:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Just prefacing "Karate Kid" with "Legion member" would help a non-reader out endlessly.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Identifying folk such as Karate Kid as a Legion member or Jimmy Olsen (as in 'Jimmy Olsen, standing to the left of Sinestro') is okay. Identifying an item as a boom tube when it has not been identified as such is not okay. I think that's the line, there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I meant the boom tube through which Lightray's killer escaped. It's not mentioned on this version of the atricle, anyway, as the significance of that event isn't clarified yet.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay; it wasn't that clear. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Back-Up Stories

I have a couple issues with this, and wanted to bring them here and get some input. To begin with, the stories appear to be more along the lines of background stories, and not stories that are ready to jump in, should the main story fail (as in some older comics where the secondary stories eventually become more interesting than the main stories in the comics, a la the early Green Arrow stories). I would propose changing it.

Secondly, I am not sure that there is a need for two subsections within these background stories, unless we are anticipating developing these out and detailing the stories they relate. Otherwise, we could simply present them as as two separate paragraphs. Comments? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?Lord Sinestro 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The focus of the article should be viewing the series as a real-world artifact. That means Who published it, why, how, what format is it in, and so on.

That means that the back-ups do come into play as possibly warranting their own sections. The history is the easier of the two to deal with at this point, we have the result in hand. Part of it feeds into the Monitors' debate in the main section's plot. Part of it serves as a recap of what the multiverse has been to DC, in both in- and out-of-universe. There is potential for there to be more information in interviews with Jurgens or Siglain to flesh it out.

The villains origins is a bit more difficult. To be honest I can't see it being much more than a list of villains ant artists. Again, there may be interviews existent or coming that would give more information, but...

- J Greb 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well personally i think it should stay like it is which is kinda sorta similar to 52. Go to that page and you will get a good feel of how it is on here.Lord Sinestro 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That presumes that the 52 article is the best it can be. I am familiar with the article on 52, and do not think it currently is good enough to serve as more than a very rough template. Secondly, by retitling the section Background stories, we are addressing that the information given in these stories tends to recap and put into perspective events that have transpired before. My problem with the titling is that the one currently being used doesn't serve to define the subject as well as that which I am proposing. The debate occurring between the monitors is based upon their interpretation of these transpired (aka, background) events, and what they mean. The retitling doesn't preclude inclusions of interviews (although they might be better off being integrated in other sections).

The villains thing is litle more than an announcement as of now, so we shouldn't dwell on it until it shows up in a few weeks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its one week now. If you want to recap it or whatever I say go for it.Lord Sinestro 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting, as there are other things that need clean-up in the article anyway. As there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement with the titling, I will change that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That Superman

So we've got confirmation from DC in a solicitation for JSA that "Alex Ross joins Geoff Johns as co-writer for Part 1 of “Thy Kingdom Come,” the epic story years in the making, springing from KINGDOM COME! Not a hoax! Not a dream! Not an imaginary story! Welcome the newest member to the Justice Society of America: the Kingdom Come Superman! Coming from an Earth plagued by heroes-gone-extreme, how will this Superman react to an incarnation of the Justice Society he never knew? This Superman’s world needed better heroes. So does ours." Does this mean we can finally acknowledge the guy who looks exactly like Kingdom Come Superman as Kingdom Come Superman? Or are we leaving open the possibility that it is a massive coincidence? 70.144.181.182 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A conclusion made by an individual user constitutes original research. We can present facts, but we cannot synthesize them.(user: Zythe)01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And try to be a tad more polite, pls. We aren't suggesting that the Superman in question isn't why you say he is; we are saying that we need a citation identifying him as such. Without it, it cannot go in. It's that simple. What you are proposing is OR by synthesis, and that cannot be utilized. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(Woops, sorry for any impolite tone... I was just trying to more formal so it wouldn't sound like I was arbitrarily... arbitrating.)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to you, Zythe. Anyway, I kinda said what I needed to about the subject. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Name Change

We are going to wait to change the article's name after #26 comes out, right? --CmdrClow 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned User

Um, isn't WrestlingLover420 the guy who has been banned for using sockpuppets (1) all over the place? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I storngly disagree with arcaynes approach here. I as well as several other administrators, as discussed at WP:ANI have agreed he should have a second chance. Please hold back the branding irons, torches and pitchforks as I work with this editor. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to disagree. While i was a bit uncivil in my characterization of the editor in question, it's hard to have a lot of faith in people who sock. But since he was given another chance by them, so will I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we erase this off here now? It doesnt deal with the article is the only reason if arcayne wants to put it on his talk page or something that would be great. Thanks.Wrestlinglover420 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's appropriate to censor this discussion. It was a valid concern raised by another editor of this article, and it plausibly needed a public explanation. There's no reason to remove this discussion now, considering that you have the opportunity to pursue positive editing and discussion with others. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::No. You were banned, and the community deserves to know, so as to be on guard for any future problems. As Chris told you, you have a long road ahead of you; addressing the retience of others is part of that, not sidestepping it as if it never existed. I won't comment on your past anymore, but the comment reflected the editorial working environment for the article. The other editors have a right to AGF, but not be amnesiac in their interactions with you. Good luck on your future edits, and I think this closes the topic for now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lord Sesshomaru

I guess its cool i dont really care if its here or not almost everybody knows my past anyway and my future here is gonna be great :)Wrestlinglover420 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes and references section

Why are the ref numbers 18. and 19. of that section blank? I counldn't figure it out, can somebody look into it? Lord Sesshomaru

They're basically for Countdown 40 and 39 but they need to be referenced further up for them to show...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Opener

Ok i dont see the point in repeating the information twice on the article and instead of warring im willing to talk about it. I see no reason why it should be there twice.Wrestlinglover420 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LS. That should clear things up. Lord Sesshomaru

I did it explain it quite nicely on your talk page, although you responded by seeking administrator intervention.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you didn't need to do that but I guess it's fine if you're asking for another person's opinion. Lord Sesshomaru

I am going to assume that WL was looking for guidance and mentoring, and not for someone to act as muscle for his edits. WL, when you run into a situation where you think your edits are going to be controversial, or when you get reverted, bring the discussion here, instead of forstering misunderstandings. That way, your viewpoint gets across to all of us, and it is less of an ego fight between you and someone else and more of a consensus-seeking action. Consensus is a Good Thing here in WP. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Supermen, revisited

Would someone please point out how fan forums are not citable within Wikipedia? Apparently, someone seems to think I am reverting the cyborg Superman, etc. references because I am just a Mister Crankypants. When we have a reliable citation for it, we can include it. Not a moment befor ethen, though. I didn't make the rules, but I am going to enforce them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(recent convo moved here) Some people seem to want to pick and choose thier speculation. Someone in what appears to be a Catwoman costume becomes "a Catwoman". Pure speculation. A guy has a S-shield (in silver) on his back and he's a version of superman. Pure speculation. There's a guy with a Superman spit curl and the bottom half of Superman's costume and he's a version of Superman. But "speculate" by pointing out he looks exactly like (but not claiming that he is) the Cyborg Superman is just not on. The character looks like the Cyborg Superman as he appears in the Sinestro Corps. This is a fact. It is not speculation. That he is the Cyborg Superman is speculation, and yes, should be deleted. He looks like Hank, he is supposed to look like Hank and most DC readers are meant to recognise that he looks like Hank. He could be evil-Zombie-Robot Superman from 2029. He could be the Earth-23 Superman. But HE LOOKS LIKE Hank and that is a fact that should be stated for the casual reader. Duggy 1138 05:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

See, this is a matter of interpretation, I think. Catwoman is a fairly common image within the DCU, as is Superman- the one we normally deal with (Earth-1). Anything that digresses from the commonly known is subject to citation, especially if it is an uncommon or new addition to the DCU. This is kinda covered in WP:RS. "You" think one of the Supermen look like Hank Henshaw? So do I. So does just about everyone else here - we aren't morons, Buggy - we are just as hip to the dealio as you are, and some prolly far more so. However, nonme of us here are citable. Neither are fan forums. Ever. Let me repeat that, as it bears repeating: fan forums are NOT CITABLE. Until someone from DC says dude, that is Hank Henshaw", we can't identify the Superman in question as such. The same goes for any of the other Supermen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So you agree, finally, that the second character *looks* like Hank. Good. We're getting somewhere.

So why have you been reverting edits that state what is obviously a fact ("I" think it. You think it. Just about everyone thinks it. You know why? It is a fact. He does look like the Cyborg. I even cited a visual reference, because unlike Catwoman his new costume isn't a fairly common image in the DCU (although, I'm not sure this version of Catwoman is as common as others). In fact, until I read this article I didn't even realise that it was a Sinestro logo on his uniform, I thought it was something to do with his time on Apokalpyse (I haven't been keeping up with him.)

Yes. "He looks like the Cyborg Superman" implies he is. And thus the wording of the fact implies speculation. I've been trying to find a way to say it without implication, but still making the fact clear. He looks like Hank. We're meant to think he looks like Hank. I know I've failed to find something that comes between "he is Hank" which is speculation and something weaselly like "He appears to be wearing the costume that Hank wears in the Sinestro corps but there is not reason to believe they are the same character.

When you look at the picture, you are meant to see a Catwoman. You are meant to see a Martian. You are meant to see Lex. And you are meant to see the Cyborg Superman. But, no, there is nothing to say that we are seeing Selina, J'Onn or Hank.

Oh, I'd be careful when spelling people's names. You accidently hit "B" instead of "D" when typing mind, which is understandable (they are close) but some make mistakenly believe you were trying to insult me, which although I'm new here I have discovered in the last year is a no-no. Duggy 1138 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it was not my intent to malign you in misspelling your name. I wasn't aware I did it, and I am sorry for having done so.

See, I think you are confusing your definition of "fact" with Wikipedia's definition of "fact." One is not cited, and one is. Wikipedia uses the cited one. Exclusively. the other characters are common figures int he DCU. The three different Supermen are not. Until someone noteworthy says so, it is not citable. If it is not citable, it cannot be included. It is that simple, Duggy1138. Find a citation from DC identifying any of the Spermen in the image, and I will defend your right to include it with that citation. Without it, I will ensure that wiki policy is maintained, and keep it out, as it remains - at this time - utter speculation. Informed speculation, to be sure, but still speculation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

re: forums -- see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples#Questions about the reliability of specific sources 3rd sub-sub covers it. This links from WP:RS.

Beyond that, given that core plot elements of Countdown are relying on parallel universes, IDing by appearance isn't a given.

There's also a couple of twists, even within Core continuity: 1) both Holly and Selina have worn that particular costume; and 2) the Trickster could be either James or Axel.

The safest thing to do is to wait for either DC to provide a "scorecard" for the image or for the characters to be definitevely used in the series. Otherwise we'll have to weasel it with "looks like" or "could be". - J Greb 06:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(sorry... slow posting, got hit with an edit conflict.)

Is the fact that the Catwoman is a Catwoman citable? It could be Harley dressing up kinky for The Joker. Should we add "Looks like a Catwoman" or remove it completely because it is uncitable.

Is the fact that they are versions of Superman citable? Should we add "Looks like versions of Superman" or remove them altogether?

My problem is not with Wikipedia's definition of a fact, but the inconcistance of the definition applied here.

I accept that the name thing was an accident, accept the apology. Duggy1138 isn't necessary. Duggy's fine. People call me it in real life.

Duggy 1138 06:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, guys, I want an answer. How is one thing speculation and the other not? It appears to be The Joker & Catwoman. One of the Supermen looks like Hank Henshaw. In fact, the first is more speculative. (Appears to be... implies is much more than "looks like".)

If one has to be "versions of Superman" with no added information, why shouldn't the other be "a man with his face painted white" and "a woman in a cat suit"? I don't think that how common the image of Catwoman is should matter, especially when I cited an image of Hank. It appears to be a Catwoman. It looks like Cyborg.

What is the difference?

Duggy 1138 07:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've actually addressed this with you before, Duggy. We aren't being presented with different versions of the Joker, or Eclipso, or the Catwoman in the image. They are indentifiable characters of the DCU - the "integrated Earth" to paraphrase the Monitors. There is no specific and unanimous consensus that these folks are who they are identified as. Moreover, most of them actually appear in the series, or are identified by citable sources by name. The different folk in Superman-similar costumes are not. And the fact that they are not is - and this has been reiterated to you at least five separate times - the only reason they are not named. I think it looks like Henshaw, you do, and prolly most of us do.

Our opinion - what we think - is something called a primary source. Wikipedia doesn't operate with primary sources; it uses secondary sources to the exclusion of all else. This applies to all articles within Wikipedia, from BLP like Nancy Reagan and Guy Fawkes to articles about fantasy fuels like tiberium and nuclear physics. It all relies on citations, and nothing is excluded from this rule.

I can commiserate how you feel that this seems in conflict with common sense, because in some ways it is; it's a Doubting Thomas approach to writing. It is also the encyclopedic method of writing (anyone who has ever written a graduate thesis knows what I am talking about here), and it represents a solid basis for articles. I can understand your confusion as to why some characters don't need citation while others do. You were right to tag the Martian in the image, as we aren't sure it's J'onn J'onzz, and the image looks different enough to warrant citation. Those images which differ fromthe nrom require citation, because they are not commonly known. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The rest we think it *looks* like Hank is because it does look like Hank. I fail to see how this is in dispute. It looks like Hank. It looks exactly like Hank. Not just similar. Exactly like. Is it actually Hank? I don't know. It could be the Earth-17 Great Disaster Superman. I don't care. The point is not where it is or isn't Hank, but rather, that it *looks* like Hank. He has undergone a major costume change in Sinestro Corps, a Countdown related series and looks exactly like the image shown. The reader is meant to recognised that this looks like Hank. In describing the character and to give context it is not speculation or original research to point out this fact. I say fact because it does look like Hank. It is not opinion, whatever you say. It is a fact. What this fact means is something else and open to speculation. And I'm fine with not speculating on that.

It is the same with the Kingdom Come looking Superman. He is wearing the KC costume. Does that make him the Earth-22 Superman? Don't know. Personally I hope not. I can't see that character becoming a villain, and I hate that every other Superman becomes one. He could be future "our" Superman. Or the Earth-2 Superman back from the dead or whatever. The point is the obvious visual reference is to Kingdom Come, so lets say that the costume he is wearing first came from there. Like Red Robin in the previous poster. It's the "our Earth" (sorta) Jason, not the Earth-22 Dick, but the costume first appeared in KC, and that should be noted as such. To be encyclopedic you have to give information. Yes, the information has to be correct. But what is incorrect about noting that one of the Supermen is wearing a costume that first appeared in Kingdom Come and the other one looks like the Cyborg Superman in his Sinestro Costume? The visual similarities are facts not opinions and we should aim to give facts.

I still don't understand why you feel that stating facts is wrong.

Duggy 1138 12:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my last "reversion":

• In the top right-hand corner are three different versions of Superman, each one in a different costume. The first has the hair colouring and costume that appeared in Kingdom Come. The second has a costume that looks like that of Cyborg Superman as a member of the Sinestro Corps. The third has a black costume, a silver S-shield on the cape and longer hair than Superman traditionally is shown with.

What part of that are you saying *isn't* factual? The KC-looking has the hair and costume of Superman in Kingdom Come. The Cyborgy one *is* wearing a costume that looks exactly like that of Hank. The "common image" is only relevant in that a large number of the expected viewers will have the image already in their head. To get around that problem for the Cyborg-looking Superman I cited an image from DC's own website. If you can look at that image and say "they look different" fine, I can accept that. That's why I have avoided attributing Death-of-Superman recovery suit looks to the black-suited Superman... the cape wasn't on that costume (as I recall it).

Duggy 1138 13:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, I don't know how much clearer I can put it. your impressions are not a substitution for citation. I'd say, 'read the Five Pillars', but I am trying to not sound condesending, but you are missing the entire point of mine and others' objections to your inclusions. I have been trying to AGF, but the fact that you have been told repeatedly that your opinions cannot be cited makes me wonder if this is a point discussion better left to the Village Pump for policy discussion. This is policy, Duggy, and not open to interpretation here. You don't like the rule? Fine, I've already noted the place where you can work to change the rule - even provided you a wikilink to get you started. However, this isn't the place to debate the issue. That you seem to be ignoring the rule (and seem willing to edit-war about it) doesn't lend itself to the assumption of the good faith of your edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, I don't know how you can say the same thing over and over without answering my question and think that I should understand.

OK, pointing out that two things are identical can seen as opinion. I acknowledge that point. I feel that it is at a level of obviousiness that makes it fact, and that by citing a visual reference I'm allowing the viewer to confirm or deny that fact themselves. But, OK, "the costume looks like Cyborgs" is opinion. Whatever.

How is the woman dress in the catsuit looking like (a) Catwoman not opinion, too? Just because the image is common, and thus the average viewer is expected to recognise the image, doesn't make that any more opinion than the fact that the costume worn by one of the Supermen is the same one as worn in Kingdom Come.

And if the image has to be the common one, why are we allowing the "green Martian" reference. That isn't the common look for a green martian, but rather the one that has been used in the last 12 months.

How is saying that the three men are "versions of Superman" not an opinion. I'm not even sure what it means. It sounds to me to mean that they are all the same Supermen from different universes, whereas my suspicious is one is (the KC one) and one is someone else dressed as Superman. I see nothing cited that says that they are Supermen. They all look like Supermen, but that's just opinion isn't it?

Whether a character has appeared in Countdown at this point is also an argument you have used repeatedly. I don't buy that either. It looks like the Mary Marvel we've seen so far, but I've nothing cited that says that it has to be. However, I completely accept that it obviously is. With the Trickster, we've only seen #1 so far, and yet there are suggestions in the discussion that it could be #2 so we can't name him. I get that there. There's an ambiguity there, making any claim beyond that he is a Trickster opinion. But, if the "the one appearing in the series" rule is applied, doesn't that he is #1 suddenly become fact?

You are struggling to support very obviously correct opinions as facts without being cited, whilst dismissing other "opinions" (which you agree with) because the are uncited. It is not the rule I have a problem with. It is your application of it. And yet you keep throwing the rule in my face.

The cat-suit character "appears to be a Catwoman" maybe she isn't, but she appears to be. Cool.

One of the Superman "is wearing a costume that appears to be the Kingdom Come one" maybe it isn't, but it looks like it. Uncool. Why?

Duggy 1138 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you couldn't explain the difference. Duggy 1138 05:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) No, Duggy, I have explained it before at least five different times. When you learn that what you want and what WP says you can do are not compatible, then we can chat. Until then, you are just going to have to work it out all by your lonesome. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. You've stated and restated the rule. You haven't stated why a common image doesn't need to be cited and an image with is cited has to be reverted. Duggy 1138 07:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bluntly:

• Citing is not "I think..." or "It appear.."
• Cited sources have to be external to Wiki.
• Citing has to be clear and concise.
• The cited text can expand on what it supports in the article, but it has to clearly support it.
• Cited sources are published material from reliable sources. They are not drawn conclusions on the part of editors.

In this image there are 5 characters that could be identified by "common knowledge":

1. Joker
2. Luthor
3. Penguin (These three have broad culture recognition outside of the comic book community.)
4. Dessad
5. Granny Goodness (These two are arguable given Kirby's profile)

There are 5 may fall under "common knowledge" but still need citations:

1. Martian Manhunter - The beetle-browed form would have had recognition outside of the comic book community. The new appearance does not have that.
2. Catwoman - For clarity since two different characters used that costume.
3. Kingdom Come Superman - The series was notable, but it needs clarity.
4. Mary Marvel - Since this is the costume she just started wearing.
5. Eclipso - 0 recognition outside of comics coupled with this being a new version.

The last 3, Trickster, "Henshaw", and "Mullet" need cites for clarity simply because even within the comic book community, there is no crystal clear idea which versions of these characters are depicted.

Last thing: {{fact}} should be used when an editor knows or suspects that an item has an existing citation, but does not know where it is. It is not for cases where a cite from a reliable source does not yet exists. - J Greb 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've followed all those rules... except when I cited speculation (because, since I was citing the speculation itself, I figured the source was reliable) which I've seen done on other pages, but I'll let go.\

Since Catwoman is on the second level as it the KC Superman, why were my changes that said "One of the Supermen appears to be wearing the same costume that Superman wore in Kingdom Come" (or words to that affect). No claim is made of the character's actual identity, and as you say the level of common knowledge is equal to the undeleted Catwoman.

As for the Cyborg-looking Superman, I have pointed out that he looks like the current/upcoming version of the uniform, not that he is that character. There's no DC comment to reference, and experts within the comic industry that you could reliably cite are hard to find. There a lots of fan pages, but, yeah, not reliable. To get around the common knowledge problem, I figured that giving the direct knowledge, by citing the DC website and an image of the new costume would help. How about: "The second Superman also remains unidentified, but is wearing a costume similar to the one worn by the Cyborg Superman in the Sinestro Corp (as seen here)" with a direct link.

I completely agree we don't want to give false, misleading, or unsourced information. But I think that the origins of the "looks" are important for the reader to be aware of.

Duggy 1138 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)