Talk:Infinite Crisis/Archive 2

message: It should be kept to one section; there is no need for a summary of each individual issue. I'm not the best at summarizing comic books, so anyone who could help condense needs to. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: Something I think should be addressed is how certain elements of the Infinite Crisis storyline are being told "out of order". For example, the issue of Supergirl in which she says goodbye to Superman because she's heading off into space with Donna Troy came out about a week or so before JLA #122 which features Supergirl before her first meeting with Donna Troy, which apparently is set to happen in #123 (if I follow the plot correctly). There have been a few cases of this, especially regarding the appearances of the OMACs. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure this is commonplace, and some of it is so out of order that is would be difficult to properly order it. For example, Teen Titans #30, published just this month, takes place barely after Sacrifice part 4. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of order storytelling

message: Poison Ivy? I don't remember this. Phil Sandifer 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deaths question

message: :The strong editorial investment in Infinite Crisis has also led to some sniping between DC and its rival Marvel Comics. In the preface to Prelude to Infinite Crisis, DiDio ended by asking "Why settle for a House when you can have [the DC] Universe," a shot at Marvel's House of M event at the time. Joe Quesada, the editor-in-chief at Marvel later fired back, suggesting that DC's comics were "corporate" driven, whereas Marvel's were "creator" driven.
This paragraph could use some source material or we should probably get rid of it. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything but the Quesada quote is sourced already - the Quesada quote is from a Newsarama interview. I'll try to look it up at my leisure. Phil Sandifer 03:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of it. --Patrick T. Wynne 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: As surprised as I am that this rather acerbic young man apparantly has no life and is ale to sit around all day and revert changes, I'm even more surprised that his ONE (aliet lengthy) sentence has caused allof you such a heart attack.  It's in a section clearly marked as DISPUTED with a statment that I feel is VASTLY more inappropriate for this article.  And even HE's said he was willing to take a truncated version in a disputed section.  ut, I'm sorry, like the 16 year olds some of you are, you insist and insist and insist.  Leave it alone.
:WP:NPA--Toffile 02:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the notion that we should allow a sentence of unsourced speculation that cannot possibly have a source in reality since this is one of the things that DC has been adamantly tight-lipped about puzzing in the extreme. The statement is wholly unverifiable. Phil Sandifer 03:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The apparent direction of the new series, being as it is not even half over, can only be taken as original research. Phil Sandifer 06:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research - the simple fact of the matter is that you are wrong about this matter as it applies to Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, that rule does not apply to events in the real world - it applies to all topics. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your own personal interpretations of a text - whether it be comics, a novel, or anything else. This is a well-established policy. Phil Sandifer 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Dispute tags do not exist to create compromise situations - they exist to flag problems that need to be fixed. And you are welcome to disagree as much as you want on whether this is legitimate speculation that sheds light on the subject - the problem is that your disagreement is ultimately moot. Wikipedia policy is definitively against you on this point. You may disagree with the policy - this does not, however, change the policy. Phil Sandifer 06:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nothing in Vincent Van Gogh is unsourced interpretation of any of Van Gogh's paintings. Phil Sandifer 06:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That claim can be sourced to any number of texts written in the past 116 years, as well as to basic and established principles of art interpretation. It is not a prediction of the future. Phil Sandifer 06:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Because of WP:NOR. Phil Sandifer 07:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure what to say here except that your position has been roundly rejected at every turn in which it has been presented. The Starry Night comment is different from what you are trying to insert - it is a consensus of what the painting is that has been widely stated as common knowledge for somewhere over a century. You are flatly wrong, and flatly in opposition to Wikipedia policy, and no amount of foot-stomping changes that fact. The fact is well past debate, and I can assure you that if you do not accept what Wikipedia policy is and edit in accordance with it, your participation on the site is not going to go well. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am saying that everything you have said in this section is 100% wrong. Phil Sandifer 07:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  surprised 

message: I can live with the current placement and edit of my contribution.
Thank you to whoever did that.
68.161.133.116 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  i can live with it 

message: it is clear that one of the little pricks hemming and hawing over 1 lousy sentence has decided that if they can;t have things their way, they're going to just vandalize the whole article and make vague and slight effeminate threats.  I don't really care.  That one sentence will keep being put back into the article until it's disproven.  It is a fair speculation and the simple fact that one of you losers feels the need to scream and shout and vandalize just proves that I was right all long.  This has always been solely about you having a little club, unlike your loner loser real lives, and not wanting to make room for others' opinions.  You people are pathetic.  Thankfully, I'm, even more pathetic than you guys and will gladly fight tooth and nail fo rthis change for the rest of my life, ans since i excercise and eat right and you are all probably overweight and scream at the sight of a barbell, it'll be longer than you.  enjoy
:Actually, since I just took the liberty of protecting the article so that anonymous users and new accounts can't edit it, I'm guessing the sentence will stop going in now. Fancy that. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he can't add the vandalism either, so we all win. Phil Sandifer 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is clear 

message: Snowspinner, we (the normal Wikipedia community) thank you for the page protection against unregistered users.  This frees many up to continue to improve Wikipedia, rather than spending hours simply defending against 151.196.178.112, 68.161.86.144, and others. Thanks again. Dyslexic agnostic 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Yo,
What's up with talking about future publications as if they already happeneded.  (Using "was" to discuss a comics event publishing in summer of 2006).  I think if this is supposed to be an evolving encyclopedia of knowledge that is being used NOW, it might be better to go ahead and change tenses to the future (WLL be publsihed) and change them when summer of 2006 actually rolls in.  I mean, there are enough people watching this page to that.
Thoughts?
Atomiceo 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tense about tenses 

message: Did I do this right?  I put in a request for arbitration on this matter to Fred Bauder.  
I feel very strongly that while the newb certainly did some things that weren't right, I noticed that 
a) his statement didn't get a fair shake right from the start.  
b) the only real vandalism, a wholesale marring of the page, came from an anon who was AGAINST the statement, obviously someone who was frustrated that the original posters, as well as some others, didn;t have a problem with the truncated 1 sentence version and decided to have a little fun.  Using this vandalism as an excuse to block the page is opportunism and chicanery, plain and simple.
c) the anon who posted the statement constantly offered to go to mediation.  a more epxerienced user should have moved ahead with that.  
d) and mostly, and I don't say this lightly, I think Phil totally did everything to make the situation worse and not a thing to make it better.
Being a sysop can't just be about deleting contributions and blocking pages.  For this site's mandate to mean anything at all, it's got to be about consensus.  I think Phil's tactics were about anything BUT consensus.
We'll see.
Atomiceo 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't put a response in for arbitration. To do so, you need to go to WP:RfAr and provide evidence of this problem. However I would advise against doing that. The Arbom does not rule on content disputes (which is what this dispute is), and that no other attempts at resolution have been tried. Just to let you know. If you think we have a problem I'd suggest a Request for Comments or mediation--Toffile 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: He said he was a Marvel artist here.  If he'd said which title, we'd presumably know his name. :)  Sysops are not mediators; that's not their responsibility any more than it's yours or mine.  And I think User:Snowspinner acted appropriately in semi-protecting the article, given the fact that communication wasn't working, and a temporary block hadn't worked.  And that did work; the article is now being edited constructively.  As for having some information you added deleted... What did you think "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..." meant?  Sure, it'd be nice if we could have a discussion about every edit, but that's simply impractical.  Consensus can be built through endless talking or it can be built by continual editing, which is how it usually works here.  One of Wikipedia's mottos is "be bold!" and stopping to ask permission before making any minor change... isn't bold. Tverbeek 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request put in for arbitration (I think) 

message: Please consider reinstaitng COMPLETE art credits in some place on the article.  And please stop cosndiering yoursefl such an expert that you can just delte changes without discussion.
:I disagree with inserting complete art credits for every issue. If you want to mention the primary artists for the series, go ahead. That extended information should be written into the summary of any cover or frame that is used. Just as an FYI, I'm not 100% certain, but I'll go check comics Project.--Toffile 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all if you haven't already, I'd suggest joining WP:COMIC. They would be the best ones to bring the crediting issue up with. However, the problem I have with something like crediting each individual issue is that, it's simply infeasible to do. We can't credit every issue of Action Comics, or even a more recent series like Young Avengers. It's not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. (For example, GameFAQs message boards used to have a list of the user levels on the site. Useful information, however it took up a lot of space in the article. It was spun off, and in the middle of the night was speedied for being unencylopedic. The same thing would happen to a list of credits.)  Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every issue credits. --Toffile 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wrter and artist, that's it! Dyslexic agnostic 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It still does not change the fact that it's unencyclopedic. (which I suppose I should have said is my second reason for being against those sorts of lists.) An encyclopedia is not meant to be an in-depth look at every possible subject, but more of a general one. There are in-depth guides out there for every subject if an inquiring mind wants to know more. I'm an electrical engineering major, and I use datasheets for when I have to build circuits. I don't expect wikipedia to have those sheets. I know a place like  has them, and that wikipedia is not meant as a place for them. Same thing here. There are sites out there like  who's goal is to provide a goal of listing credits and covers of comic books. What we should do is include a reference to those sites with that information for those people who want to know more.--Toffile 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why would the letterer of a mini-series be more noteworthy than the letterer(s) of an ongoing series? I also agree that a structured database is far better suited to this kind of information than Wikipedia. Tverbeek 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As I explained in my first edit summary, the change was to bring this article in line with other comics articles. Phil Sandifer 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Erring on the side of too much information is still erring.  Does an artist draw fully-rendered photorealistic backgrounds in every panel?  Of course not, because sometimes it just clutters up a composition.  Same with writing.  With a lot of writers, you tend to get a lot of data dumped into articles - erring on the side of "more" is the natural tendency - so one of the important things that editors do is to edit, taking out info that doesn't need to be there.  And not just to you.  If you think there's some unified cabal that runs this page, you haven't looked at the past content on this Talk page; these guys don't exactly agree out of habit, and they certainly don't share a common POV on all topics.  You're new here, so I understand your skepticism, but Wikipedia has demonstrated over and over that no single POV can control its content, because every POV is a minority POV. Tverbeek 03:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some people are too comfortable with deleting changes 

message: Under Returned, it says that one of the returned is "Earth-Three Alexander Luthor, Jr. (Infinite Crisis #1, but appears to have been posing as Lex Luthor of Earth-One even earlier)". Unless I missed an issue, I didn't get that implication; there are definitely two Luthors running around, but Alex is hanging at the North Pole with Lois, Kal-L and Superboy. This is backed up by the fact that Alex Luthor is behind the crystal wall in issue one, right? The idea I got from Villains United was that two Lexes   survived the original Crisis. Anyone have better info? Did I miss something? Simnel 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the issue in front of me, but here is my take. Armor Luthor (for lack of a better term) had green eyes, posed as Mockingbird, and went to the north pole to seek out and attack the other Luthor. The other Luthor, who we will call Suit Luthor, apparently contacted Calculator and organized the Society. When Armor Luthor attacks in Infinite Crisis #3, Suit Luthor is able to withstand a direct hit from Armor Luthor. He then mentally attacks Armor Luthor, saying something about their minds being incompatable (I remember something about anti-matter being mentioned, maybe?). Suit Luthor is revealed to be Alexander Luthor, Jr., who then appears to give orders to the Society. Pariah and Black Adam's presence on the tower apparatus seem to reinforce this, as Suit Luthor was the one who attacked or betrayed those characters, but Alexander Luthor Jr. is the one working on constructing the thing. I'll have a better read on it when I get my hands on this issue this evening. ZZ 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much right. There have been 2 Luthors on Earth for a while, and in IC#3 it was revealed that one of the two was Alexander Luthor Jr. in disguise.--Toffile 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm planning on starting an article on Alexander Luthor, Jr. of Earth-Three, since unlike Earth-Two Lois Lane or Earth-Prime Superboy, who really never did anything interesting until Infinite Crisis (and therefore are perfectly fit for sections instead of articles), he has had a really interesting role and his character has been developed a lot in both the original Crisis and the current one. Also, unlike Superboy and Lois, and in common with Kal-L, he has a name that belongs only to him and which takes off the burden of having to make an article with a title as akward-sounding as "Earth-Three Alex Luthor", although the page will have to be titled "Alexander Luthor, Jr." rather than simply "Alexander Luthor", since Alexander Luthor is also the full name of the Earth-One/Post-Crisis Lex Luthor (or "Armor Luthor", as you prefer to call him, although I'm pretty sure he preferred using suits during his tenure as President of the United States). Another reason I think he deserves his own article is that unlike Lois, Superboy and Kal-L, he is not the alternate version of any established character, as he is the son of the Earth-Three Lex Luthor, not Earth-Three Lex Luthor himself, so there is no reason why Alexander should be discussed under the "Alternate universe versions" section of the Lex Luthor article. I'm posting this here since the article will likely be a stub once finished, due to my limited knowledge of the first Crisis, so I could use some help. --Ace ETP 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I used Armor Luthor merely to distinguish the two during that particular fight, and to note that the first reference to the Infinite Crisis (end of Superman/Batman #6) is actually made by that Luthor, the actual Luthor of Earth-One, not the more prominent "Suit" Luthor who formed the Society. You're absolutely right, though - Alexander does deserve his own article, and I'd be happy to pitch in on it. ZZ 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you for offering your help. I've already started the article over at Alexander Luthor, Jr.. Please feel free to add anything. So far I've only added details of his life up untill the end of the Crisis on Infinite Earths, so it's pretty short. --Ace ETP 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lex Luthor 

message: Uncle Sam, Pariah, Royal Flush Gang killed... all immortal, yet all presumably dead.  Anyone else see a pattern here? Dyslexic agnostic 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. I'm convinced Sam will return in some form (a new Freedom Fighters series has been confirmed for next year); Pariah's invulnerability was tied to his curse, which forces him to forever witness cosmic disasters (which would likely have led him to discover Alex's scheme, so he had to be killed off- thought they failed to explain well how); I'm not too familiar with King of the Royal Flush Gang so I can't tell if he should be immortal anymore, thought. Honestly, this smacks more of poor writing research (I've seen plenty of that in comics in recent times) than an intentional plot device, but we'll see. Wilfredo Martinez 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that there are two senses of "immortal": 1) one who doesn't age, and 2) one who can't be killed. Characters presumed to be in category 2 sometimes turn out to be in category 1. Tverbeek 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pariah was proven to be indestructible, surviving even anti-matter waves. A simple gunshot to the gut shouldn't have injured him, let alone kill him. As for King, I believe he had the ageless immortality thing going for him. Uncle Sam, he'll be back, most likely. Then again, some folks probably feel that using Uncle Sam is rather jingoistic, or something. DoctorWorm7 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not so sure that Uncle Sam will be returning; if you look carefully at the last few pages of the most recent JSA, the Liberty Bell (The bell, not the heroine) gets a new crack in it, representing...  er...  the fall of freedom, or something.  As for Pariah, perhaps being used in that crazy Monitor tower thing will consume him or something. (sorry for the lack of username) --24.9.44.219 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immortals