Talk:52 (comics)/Archive01

Vandal Savage/Green Lantern

Vandal Savage went into space in Flash#230, and not because of Alan Scott. So we dont know the reason for him hating Alan yet One Year Later.

Green Lantern's always been one of his arch-villians, so it could be nthing more than 'writer's prerogative'. Alternately, Savage has often opposed the entire JSA, and with Starman dead, it's hard to see any other single living, active member as as powerful as Alan, thus putting him at the top of the list.ThuranX 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

April Fool's?

I would like to point out that some of the name changes and other title starting in march 2006 would be published as april issues. Some of the changes seem a little like april fool's jokes. Though the joy of wikipedia is that we can go back and change enties after the fact. So I guess we should just wait and see and chage if needed. --DyslexicDan 14 December 2005

I don't see your point.. you think 52 and the reboots are an April Fool's joke? Please... Dyslexic agnostic 22:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

At the time when I made this statement a few of the things to come in OYL seemed a bit silly. I wasn't at all suggesting that 52 or OYL in their entirety was a joke. Primarily I was concern with the Supergirl book and the Legion of Super Heroes book. I found difficult to believe that they would change the title of Legion.

My intention was more out of concern that we might have jumped the gun on something that could have been an April fool’s joke. Sense then there has been interviews with the creative staff on Legion detailing the concerns many readers were having with the introduction of Supergril to the Legion book.

Now its blatantly clear that it was a false concern but I would rather get my feet wet in Wikipedia by post a bunch of false concerns in the discussions then to attempt to edit an article right off the bat.

DyselexicDan 11:55, 17 January 2006

You can check art and descriptions for the Supergirl "One Year Later" issues at [1] (although I do see your point in being skeptical enough to have previously wondered if that stuff might have been a joke).Wryspy 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Steel

the link for steel here is a link to the metal steel not the comic hero steel. i would chang it to the right one but i have no clue how too. - 64.12.117.13

Done. Dyslexic agnostic 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New Flash series

Who has ever said Bart Allen is going to be the Flash post-Crisis? I know Dan DiDio has hinted that there will be changes in who the main Flash is in the new book, but I haven't seen anyone specifically mention Bart. Rocketgoat 09:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any proof of Bart being the new Flash? --UltimatePyro 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Titans

Whrere has it been stated who the new Titans will be? I have seen nothing stating that either Ravager or Kid Devil will be members.

Wizard Magazine in December. --Rocketgoat 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is 52 the real title?

I know that 52 seems pretty much the done deal title but until DC formally announces it, I think it should remain described as a working title. Even the writers of the project aren't totally sure. We have just a month to go before we see the next solicitations. For all we know, it could be "DC Comics presents 52" or "DC Universe: 52" or something else. --Destron Commander 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Catwoman and Comissioner Gordon

In the article it's stated that the new Catwoman will be Holly, and that the new vigilante has a connection to Comissioner Gordon; however, i can find no confirmation of the new Catwoman's identity, and all the Solicits for OYL say about the Batman arc is that there will be a new commisioner with a connection to the new vigilante; there is, again, no confirmation of the new commisioner's identity. I suggest these thigns be removed or edited, but i didn't wnat to do it myself, for fear that i just wasn't looking hard enough. So? is it okay to delete it, or do we have sources? --Solasis 21:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Gordon deal, but the new Catwoman being Holly isn't confirmed that I know of. It's speculation based on future Catwoman covers featuring a blond Catwoman. No one else really fits. While it's almost certainly the truth, it remains only speculation. (Unless, of course, I also just haven't seen confirmation in the newest Wizard or anywhere) --Rocketgoat 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we did remove the Bart Allen speculation. If anyone thinks the entry is wrong, by all means, correct it. --Destron Commander 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

As I see it, this article is for the most part just "what we heard" and has no way of verifying any of the information quickly. I think that we need to go back and start finding sources for this information. http://newsarama.com/ is my main source at this point, and I'm sure there's information in Wizard that hasn't been properly documented. I don't really know of any other great sources, but that's probably because I don't get around properly. KramarDanIkabu 04:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) "Properly documented"? Wizard is a source. If it turns out to be wrong, we'll change the content. Ultimately, nothing can be fully documented because everything relies on some previous source. Should we cite the dictionary for every word as it gets used?Wryspy 08:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't need sources for every little detaail; this is overkill, imho. Dyslexic agnostic 08:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should turn the entire article into bullshit knowing that the only people who will know the difference are the ones who get the information firsthand. Anybody who visits this page to actually get information obviously shouldn't be reading the encyclopedia. KramarDanIkabu 19:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Me thinks so too. Some of the entries are already reflected in the source links we provided. --Destron Commander 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Falacy of the excluded middle much? PurplePlatypus 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... someone needs a holiday. Fine, I will find some sources. Dyslexic agnostic 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Platypus is right; I didn't say not to source much of this information from Newsarama; I just said that every second word does not require a cite. Dyslexic agnostic 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All these citaion requests are making it hard to read the entry. ~Annon.

Good grief. It says "citation needed" 35 times! One source (Wizard #172) covers almost every speck. Another reason excessive citation would be ridiculous: because we'd have to delete all those citations once the issues actually start coming out. They'll already be out of date. That's a whole heap of obsessive-compulsive trouble for something you have to turn right around and remove. Wryspy 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I admit I MAY have gone a LITTLE bit overboard with the citations needed. I will no longer read or attempt to edit this article in respect of your taking the article in a direction I don't think is right for the encyclopedia. KramarDanIkabu 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You could put that banner up on the page that asks for citations and verifications. I thought there was one for that here in wikipedia? --Destron Commander 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Real world publishing ramifications

As with the infinite crisis article, it would be useful to concentrate on the real world ramifications of 52. The weekly publishing schedule is an interesting attempt to change or tweak the business model of DC. It would nice if we could capture that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesknight (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Aye. --Destron Commander 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea... I've started (I think) by noting the novelty, but not uniqueness, of a weekly publication. Please feel free to expand, as I can't think of more to say without delving into the forbidden realm of original research or opinion. Dyslexic agnostic 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph regarding weekly publication is highly ethnocentric towards American comic book series. British comics, as one example, have for decades been published in weekly formats. An argument could also be made that the Superman titles circa 1991-1996 ("the triangle numbering years") were a continual weekly series of his adventures.

Official?

* Someone will have replaced Selina Kyle as Catwoman. Pregnant Selina will be using a different name.
* The Outsiders will have publicly disbanded as a superhero team, but will continue to act covertly. The members, led again by Nightwing, will include Grace, Thunder, Katana, Metamorpho, and the current Captain Boomerang.

Sources? Lesfer 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Outsiders future cover and " It’s One Year Later…and why is Selina Kyle no longer Catwoman? For that matter, why is she no longer named Selina Kyle?" (both from DC promotional material). The last figure in the Outsiders cover is going to be officially revealed within a week, but the profile alone is pretty distinctive. --Rocketgoat 22:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, concerning the Outsiders, Metamorpho and Cap Boomerang are just speculation. Their names shouldn't be there. We should wait a week to be sure and then add the right info. Lesfer 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Metamorpho has a distinctly different look than Shift, so it's either Metamorpho on the Outsiders OYL or Shift changes. Also, like I said, the Captain Boomerang profile is pretty hard to confuse, but it wouldn't hurt to just leave the info out until Newsarama or DC confirms it. --Rocketgoat 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it won't hurt me or you for sure. But it will hurt one of Wikipedia rules: This is an encyclopedia, therefore, no speculation. On the other hand I'm sure waiting for the right info won't hurt me, nor you, nor even Wikipedia. Regards, Lesfer 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it so hard to wait one week?? There's no room to speculation in Wikipedia. Is it hard to understand? I'm sorry if it is, but am not the one who made the rules. Lesfer 05:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What I added was not speculative at all. If anything, it's more encyclopedic to add the clues that DC has given about the new Outsiders lineup than to be vague in hopes that you don't turn out incorrect. My saying "The Outsiders will ... include Grace, Thunder and Katana, plus two other members: one who looks like Metamorpho or Shift and another who has the new Captain Boomerang's silhouette." is entirely accurate and nonspeculative. Until you find a source that tells me Captain Boomerang will not fit that profile OYL or that someone other than Metamorpho and Shift look like gray bald guys with multicolored torsos, I will continue to be specific about the preview cover's contents. Maybe you should take a day or two off from editing this article if you're getting so worked up over it. It's just the Internet, dude. --Rocketgoat 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. There have been MANY fakeouts over the years involving misleading silhouettes. I remember a Marvel cover featuring the Sphinx's shadow in a way that made buyers wonder if Batman could be in it. Until a source confirms that it's Captain Boomerang, it's speculation. Likewise, it would be speculation to pick Metamorpho over Shift. Also, unless your source is one of the three (Newsarama.com, etc.) named up above, you need to cite it. And yes, one of those sources (Wizard #172, p. 52) says that Selina is pregnant. Wryspy 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Source Please

Could someone give a source for that bit about Robin being wanted for the murder of Batgirl?Timon 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Batgirl idea is just popular fan speculation still, so I removed it. I'm sure if someone has a source, they'll replace it. --Rocketgoat 07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Newsarama Robin previews just pretty much confirmed that he'll be wanted for the death of Batgirl, so I'm going to put it back in. --Rocketgoat 07:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not important, well maybe

Can someone tell me the date of the first issue? maybe it should be specified somewhere on the page. Propably on one of the upper articles.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The scheduled release date is May 10, which I added. --Rocketgoat 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work!--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 23:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Which Nightwing is in the Outsiders?

I almost hate to ask this but ... based on the above picture, Nightwing is missing the bat-belt that Dick Grayson wears as of OYL. Could it be that Jason Todd is the Nightwing in the Outsiders? -- Ipstenu 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Editorial has confirmed that it's Dick on several occassions. --Rocketgoat 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Brave New World

Just wanted to correct something from the front page. DCU: Brave New World will not precede 52's publication. DCU: Brave New World is set to ship the same week as issue 8 of 52. I don't believe it will precede it continuity-wise either because I believe most or all of DC's current in-continuity books follow the "One Year Later" structure. Seeing as how DCU: Brave New World is just a preview of six upcoming DCU-based series/mini-series, it would follow that the majority of it's contents happens after 52 ends (like the rest of the DCU's books). In fact, almost the whole of the entry for Brave New World seems incorrect as the book is clearly a preview book, not really a bookend to Infinite Crisis as the entry suggests. For clarity, here is DC's solicit for DCU: Brave New World: http://dccomics.com/comics/?cm=5443 .

I went ahead and made a few changes to the main entry to reflect the actual nature of the one-shot. I'm thinking this might be something that needs it's own entry or stub and possibly shouldn't even be included in the 52 entry.--drew101 03:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out the section on Brave New World. It's irrelevent to 52 or the missing year. Belongs in the OYL article, or in it's own. Ocicat 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Issue descriptions

We need to go easy on the detail and length of these descriptions. Too much and the article becomes unwieldy and violates fair use. But we really need to trim the descriptions. I may do this; I just don't look forward to seeing those edits reverted because someone took the time to write so much. If you disagree with this, instead of simply reverting, please bring it up here. --Chris Griswold 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. I wasn't looking forward to the overly long summaries week after week for the next year. CovenantD 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am finding that it is best to group events by their protagonist, rather than by chronological order. If people still want to preserve the idea of presenting the events in chronological order, I recommend the creation of a timeline, perhaps in a separate article detailing the skipped year. Such an article might also detail events not specifically shown in 52, such as the disappearance of the Shadowpact. If we contiunue to just keep adding paragraphs, this thing will be a mess; however, if someone wants to update the Story section each week with new paragraphs, I will be happy to combine them into the existing story. --Chris Griswold 07:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup, DoctorWorm7 and 217.42.224.165. --Chris Griswold 16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Consequences of 52

We ought to start some form of "Consequences of 52" post (or heading in this article) detailing lasting effects of 52, just as we have for Infinite Crisis. Terra Man's death, for example, should be mentioned in such an entry.--G.B. Blackrock 00:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how consequential that is, and won't the actual major events be covered in the one year later entry? --Chris Griswold 04:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why it should. 52 isn't "One Year Later." It's the year between....--71.109.91.2 05:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So the consequences of 52 are not the same as the changes One Year Later (Something that is already being written about? This is a good idea, though, and I now that I am looking at One Year Later#Significant events of the lost year, I think I will incorporate those details plus applicable 52 details into a new entry, though I'm not sure what to call it.. --Chris Griswold 05:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should revamp the DC Comics History page into a single page on-going history/continuity page that can be broken into headings like "52 Comic Events," "OYL Comic Events," "2006 Comic Events," "2007..." Then there's a single source of continuity that can serve indefinitely and details, when necessary, can be added to individual entries (like the new Battle of Metropolis page).--SilentJustice 10:49, 26 May 2006

I created the article I wrote about, and I updated the "dates" on the past 13 years of DC history, and I had the same idea. I think it's a great thing to do, and that article will need a revamp soon, once the new history is finally presented (so far it's been a bunch oif slip show garbage). --Chris Griswold 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

length??

There is no way that detail can keep be added about each week and keep the article to an reason length. Need to think about a better way to do this?

We could create a page for every two months of 52; aside from that, we could move the plot synopsis to a separate page as they have done with Ultimate Spider-Man. Anyone agree? Scarletspeed7 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am now updating the summary and condensing it each week. For example, I may remove details like the Kahndaq bomber as the story progresses. I don't think we need to catalog the entire story, but for me, this is now an ongoing weekly project. --Chris Griswold 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

52 is supposed to have about six main story arcs. Each story arc could have its own article. That would be less arbitrary than 2-month divisions. Wryspy 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

List?

Would it be worth producing something like List of 52 issues or have that list on the main entry and use it to hold the bare bones information like "6. Green Lantern discovers Great Ten (June 14, 2006)" and then use this to link off to longer synposis -if that seems an appropriate way to sort the information. If you search DC's site they have detials of #1-17 [2] so seem to be proviidng information 3 months in advance (Emperor 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't know if we need such a list, or a timeline of the lost year. After I have re-written this response four times, I don't think we need it. --Chris Griswold 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Wryspy 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

At the end of 52, a summary of what happened will be fine, I suspect. Split it into major and minor characters, and have 'Black Adam took over Kahndaq and was his generally Adamness...' under the section. A list would just be ... way the fuck long, with 52. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeframe?

How long after the Battle of Metropolis is Week 1, Day 1? --Chris Griswold 11:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. No one knows? I ask because there is some weirf choronology surrounding it. There are already continuity errors post-Infinite Crisis. --Chris Griswold 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Newsarama, exactly 52 seconds. Exvicious 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

52 seconds after what? That link doesn't clarify that. --Chris Griswold 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, i read that wrong. Dr Tyme stole 52 seconds or something. i'm thinkin' 52 starts immediately after the battle of Metropolis and the fight on Mogo. Here's why: Nightwing appears at the memorial, and so does a depowered Clark Kent. Assuming Batman Tim and Dick take off immediately after the scene in Gotham City, this would have to take place before then. Battle of Metropolis>Memorial>WW, Superman, Bats meeting>Superboy-Prime "i always get out." Exvicious 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; he was there. I was disappointed to see Robin was not there. I have been curious how the Superboy memorial statue got built do fast, also. Oh, and Batman and pals don't leave until a month after Infinite Crisis because Batman has to train Harvey Dent to be the city's protector. --Chris Griswold 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

good point. i forgot about the harvey dent thing. i think the first month of 52 happened in between the defeat of Superboy-Prime and the last meeting of Superman Batman and Wonder Woman in Gotham City. Superman/Batman #26 is a mystery to me. at first, i thought it was during the first month, but Cyborg is there. He wasn't rebuilt until a year later. On the off chance that issue was One Year Later, how come they have their old uniforms? You know the answer: a Superboy-Prime punch -- Exvicious 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman/Batman exists in it's own little dimension. I suspect ish #26 happened in the days between IC and 52 (I'd guess and say it was 52 days at a stretch...) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I admit to nitpicking that page myself, but it's kind of pointless to over-analyze it; it's a charity memorial issue written by a dead boy whose script is embellished by a slew of writers and artists, all working, for the most part, separately. It's a continuity error, sure, but it can't be explained away as anything other than having developed from a sprawling event comic whose focus is on a child who died from cancer after writing a basic plot. It can't be explained by the Time Tantrum because the frame story takes place after Cyborg is able to be there. --Chris Griswold 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Major events of the DC Universe lost year

Please add such events to the above article. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam Strange and Alan Scott sharing eyes

I think it's clear that Alan Scott has one of Adam Strange's eyes. Is there any exterior confirmation of this so we can add it?ThuranX 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Do not merge - The article covers events that have not appeared and may not appear in the 52 series. After the publication of 52, events may continue to be attributed retroactively to this time period, again outside the scope of the 52 series. The subject is notable on its own, outside of the series, at least in terms of the narrative structure used in the DC Universe. Finally, see the similar Character changes during Infinite Crisis and Continuity changes during Infinite Crisis, neither of which are sections of the Infinite Crisis article. --Chris Griswold 09:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not merge - Post facto, maybe some events can go in, but 52 is it's own storyline, much as Zero Hour and CoIE are. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• I support the merge Jeffrywith1e 08:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Chris Griswold 12:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge - After reviewing the website it does contain information that is not 52 related (such as Shadowpact's disappearance, Diana Prince's secret agent transition, Batman's journey). I think merging the two articles would cause confusion. I'd suggest a statement in 52 referencing the separate article.--SilentJustice 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge - After looking at both pages it makes sense to me that they be merged. Of course i'm the lone dissenting opinion here, but I'd at least like to have it recorded that I was. --Basique 16:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If an event doesn't happen during 52, but is mentioned One Year Later, i think it should be in the event. Also, i think the title should change because the year isn't really "lost." But more of a fan term. Exvicious 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by doesn't happen during 52? Do you mean that year? Or do you mean it doesn't appear in 52? Which event do you mean? "One Year Later"?--Chris Griswold 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant stuff you don't see happen in the 52 comic, but happened in that year. like crispus allen watching his family. or batman's trip around the world. nightwing and oracle breaking off their engagement. beast boy leaving the titans. the return of commissioner gordon. i mean, if it happens in the comic, what's the point of making another page? Exvicious 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. I don't see how anyone who is reading both 52 and various One Year Later can think that makes a shred of sense. Not everything revealed to happen during that year will happen in 52. The 52 article is about the story told in 52. It is not about everything that happened during that year. And plenty of things revealed to have happened during that year will not turn up in 52. Wryspy 07:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is 4 against the merge and 2 for it. It's not a conclusive decision, but after 2 weeks this may be as good as it gets. I'm removing the merge notice. Give it a couple weeks and try again later, if you must. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think a couple weeks might make a difference? --Chris Griswold 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't, but putting it back up right away is less helpful, IMO, since if no one's talking about it a lot right now, a day generally doesn't make a big differnce. 14 might. Hard to say. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Format

I propose, instead of just adding plot week to week, we have seperate sections following the storylines of the major characters. Some characters get less face time depending. That way, when new plot elements come into play we don't have to rework the whole article. 6 section synopsis would be easier to summarize rather than a weekly or monthly synopsis. Exvicious 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, although it does lead to a little duplication as their paths cross. Maybe each of their individual articles should have section on 52 instead? Lokicarbis 06:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

that's what i meant. i do NOT thing 6 seperate articles is the answer. Exvicious 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to get back to condensing tomorrow. I moved recently and have not been able to read the comics, but I will try to keep up with this article. There is no need to have separate sections following different characters; that seems a little clumsy to me. I kept the first four weeks straight, and I can continue to do so. Like I said, I'll get this tomorrow. --Chris Griswold 05:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi - I know this page has some of the best comic editors going and I need some help cleaning an article that is frankly a mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Lives

--Charlesknight 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm frightened of that article. Someone told me about it once at camp. --Chris Griswold 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried but got overwhelmed. I am to the point I think the article needs to be deleted. Whatever is useful from it should be made into a section of the Superman Returns article.--Chris Griswold 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

References to 52

I would appreciate anyone who can entering at least the issue - if not the page - number of the references to 52. If you add a new one, please add the issue and page information as well. It will make it easier for a reader to spot the references if we tell them where they are. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

These really need to be pared down to what is necessary. I removed a fan blog tonight. --Chris Griswold 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Is this section really necessary? I visit this site almost daily and it seems to me each day the list has been revised and changed with numerous subcategories added periodically. If the marketing blurbs are to be believed this series is going to have virtually every DC character mentioned in one way or another. It seems to me that 1) the six "leads" are already listed in the information summary/block/thing in the top right hand-side (don't know the official name), 2) characters of any significance will be mentioned in the Story section as it progresses and 3) categories like "supporting characters" are subjective and temporary as the stories change throughout the year and characters enter/exit accordingly. It's just my opinion but I think we can save ourselves a lot of unnecessary editing work by just eliminating the Characters section. I don't see the value it brings. Of course I'd like to hear the opinions of others!!!!--SilentJustice 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Its redundancy and role as a point of contention outweigh its value. Particularly because of the redundancy, I am removing it. --Chris Griswold 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some characters that I think deserve a mention, even if they aren't one of the 'main six' - the lost in space trio, Natasha Irons, or Batwoman, for instance. - Webrunner 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Te versus (Au+Pb)

This may have been meantioned, but I didn't notice anything while I was looking through the discussion. It was already posted that "Te is the symbol for Tellurium, element 52", but when reading the article on Tellurium for any possible links, it says that the root word is tellus (latin, meaning earth). Tellus was a member of the Legion of Superheroes pre-Zero Hour. Also, Au may refer to Booster Gold (being a main character and all). If Pb refers to Mon-El (also of the Legion)... --Dalachon 08:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Secret Origins

I notice Week 21 is not listed. Is this because there is no Secret Origins in this issue or was this a typo? If the former, can we add a line saying "Week 21 - None" or maybe in the intro text above it say "...Weeks 12 through 52 (exceptions: 21)..."--SilentJustice 12:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing Year?

Under Concept, it says that the series chronicles the events "that take place during the missing year after the end of Infinite Crisis." Shouldn't it say the missing year in between Infinite Crisis and One Year Later? Wasn't it only beginning with "One Year Later" that the time jumped? Or did we actually first see that year later at the end of IC? Nightscream 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• The events of 52 take place during the missing year. OYL begins immediately after. --Hemlock Martinis 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

It seems to me that the 'Story as of Week--" section seems to be based on what's happening in the progression of the characters not the story line, ie, it describes the whole story for one character and then the whole story for another character. You know what I mean? Perhaps it would be more effective to rewrite this section in chronological order...

That's how it initially was. By week 4 it had grown to be enormous. The current format allows the glossing over of minor events.64.247.206.176 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be really difficult to control the article if we go with it chronologicaly. I think one thing we should do is make each character a heading of their own (Black Adam, Ralph, Booster, Question/Renee, Steel, Other [to include the space lost heroes and Magnus]). Anyone else think this is a good idea?Jedispyder 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think that the article right now is pretty much already really difficult to control and even more difficult to read, epsecially as events intertwine. Question/Montoya and Black Adam are, for the moment, the same storyline, and an important moment in the Booster storyline is listed as part of Ralph's because it involved him. Maybe if it was chronological by month? I mean, in a lot of other comics I'd say not doing it chronological would be smart, but 52 is -extremly- chronological. If we could figure out the 'weekly offset', we'd even have exact dates for -every- event in the comic excepting the time spent on the lost planet. It's obvious now that we're 20 issues in that by-character is not the answer, and if chronological isn't (i'm still not convinced it isn't, it can't be harder to manage than storylines that end up merging and diverging all the time) maybe some other idea should be considered? Webrunner 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it difficult to read? Additionally, the series is one big storyline; it's not individual storylines. It's not misrepresentative at all that Black Adam is mixed up with Question and Montoya; he is in the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree there, but that's why per-character doesn't work, because the storylines merge. If you just care about Booster Gold, and read Booster Gold's section, it doesn't have Booster and Ralph's meeting. If you read Black Adam's section, it breaks right at the wedding ceremony, and is picked up -midway through- Q+M's. And there's no dividers - it may once have been one paragraph per character but Ralph for instance currently has three, followed directly by Supernova -who's section is mostly a continuation of -Booster's- section which is part of the -intro- to the story section! Webrunner 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's divided already, in the form of a paragraph each. Section heads will only make it longer. Each week, I go through and condense so that this is the case.--00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what Webrunner is talking about. Making it chronological by month though doesn't sound like it would help. What about by plotline? I know that DC is saying 'See a year through the eyes of these non-main characters!' but the plots really do interweave (which I love as a reader, but it's icky as a historian!). Separate the plotlines 'The Rise and Fall of Booster Gold', 'The Resurrection of Sue', 'Intergang' and so on ... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To me, the characters do pretty much have their own paragraphs with minor overlap. I've arranged paragraphs for easier transition between overlapping characters. I don't think the text makes it that easy to compartmentalize the elements, and I think we won't know how to do so accurately until all of it has been published. Right now, I am just trying to take information as it comes and reduce it as much as possible. When something does not have a clear significance, I remove it until it does so that we do not impose any speculation on the text. I just am trying to make as few assumptions as possible. I've noticed extreme interest among comics fans to try to catalog the year by week or even by day, but that's just cruft; it doesn't add to an understanding of the story, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we fill it full of extra data, or anything, I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to arrange the data we already have. In order, the paragraphs are currently about: 1. The concept and Booster Gold, 2. Ralph and Wonder Girl with a bit about booster 3. Ralph and Wonder Girl4. Ralph 5. Supernova, Booster and Skeets, 6. Wonder Girl and Supernova 7. Black Adam and Isis, 8. Question and montoya for the first half, Q+M+Adam for the second half 9. Steel 10. T.O Morrow 11. Zeta Beamers 12. Animal Man et all. There's far more overlap than 'minor' in this case, and it's not even consistant - Wonder Girl and Supernova have their own tiny paragraph but Ralph's decrying of booster is hidden in Ralph's paragraph? Doing it by storyline/topic may be the best bet. One section on Intergang, one section on the space heroes, one section on the missing scientists, one section on what's happening with Time, one section on Who Is Supernova?, and one on Kandaq?. Or maybe by principal location: Kandaq, Metropolis, Gotham, Other (to cover the events at the chinese border and such)? Or not, I dont know, but there hsa to be a linear or multi-linear way to describe the events in a managable format. Webrunner 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Because 1) I really like the format of the Significant Events of the Lost Year article, 2) I suspect at some point in the future they'll be an attempt to merge the two since they essentially cover the same (or parallel) information, and 3) each character's "story" is essentially being chronicled in their individual entries anyway, maybe we should format this section of this article to parallel the format of Significant Events. Each character could have their own heading followed by a simplified bullet list of key events followed by a week reference. For example, under Black Adam we could have "Sets up embassy (Week 1)", "Kills Terra Man (Week 3)", "Marries Isis (Week Whatever)" and so on. For details they can read Black Adam's article. This would eliminate the need for constant rewording, would lend itself to easy future merging (if deemed appropriate) and eliminate the duplication between this article and the lead characters' articles. Any thoughts/comments?--SilentJustice 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator and probably the biggest contributor to that article. The article has previously withstood a merge because the two articles have a different focus. This one is about the series; that one is about everything that happens that year. Events from 52 are listed in that article. I still don't yet see what the problem with the current setup of the plot summary section is. Paragraphs are prefereable to lists, and I think this works pretty well. DrTofu goes through each week and adds the new information, and I try to make sure it fits the current text and condense where necessary. I'm not really sure why we need to split it all into separate sections. If it's due to lenght, sure, I'll cut it down quite a bit more. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, don't have a problem with the article as it stands. The only confusion I do see is in the rare instance (twice now in half a year) where the storylines cross and one character's story is told in another character's paragraph. My concern is the amount of work you've taken on yourself to edit this at least weekly. But that's only a burden if you feel it is and you seem quite willing to take it on. I say "More power to you!"--SilentJustice 15:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Booster Gold and the 25th Century

Under the references to 52, "Booster Gold was from the 25th century and 52 backwards is 25".

To me, this is more of just a coincidence, not a direct reference like the others. I mean, Booster has been from the 25th century since his debut.Cattleman7x7 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that this is partly the reason that he was chosen to be a primary character of the series - but I take your point.--Joseph Q Publique 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When Am I?

Regarding Rip Hunter's "When Am I?" message, couldn't this refer to him being possibly lost in time?

It could, but speculation does not belong in the article.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked first. Wasn't sure if that was a confirmed fact or not.

Good eye. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Format for 52 Based on Fox's "24" TV Show

Quoted from comments on panels at San Diego Comic Con '06, "DC COMICS' DC UNIVERSE PANEL" (http://vu.morrissey-solo.com/moz/perez/info/bb1.htm) and Charlotte Hero Con '06 (http://www.downtowncomics.com/article.php?story=20060701234640585). Clayton Emery, September 22, 2006

John Standing Bear - Murderer?

I'm not convinced he killed his uncle to 'take the power' of the Super-Chief (god, can they update the name?). I think it was assisted suicide, but it was certainly left a little ambigious. We maybe should reword that paragraph? Can't think of how. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that it's assisted suicide. Dlong 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvel References

Is it worth mentioning the "intentional" riffs on Marvel characters. I.e. Delivance was obviously styled on Galactus. And the robot that came for Magnus was clearly meant as a "parody" of the Sentinels.--85.158.137.195 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Lucas

Those are not references to Marvel. Devilance was designed, I believe, by Jack Kirby. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing 52 Seconds

I've recently heard something on line about missing seconds, and it was even on the cover of week twenty seven. But I've never heard anything about this before, does anyone else know anything and is it important enough to be added to this article? Or is it already in there somewhere and I just missed it?

In one of the early issues, its revealed in an article on Morrow's cell that the missing 52 seconds are from when Chronos escaped from prison. Rip Hunter was also mentioned in the article as trying to hunt down Chronos.Jedispyder 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Beetle - 52 On His Chest?

[[:Image:Bbnew.PNG|thumb|150px|Jaime Reyes, the new Blue Beetle. The black-lined chest design, styled after the Ted Kord Blue Beetle, is reminiscent of the number 52. Promotional art for Blue Beetle #2 (2006), by Cully Hamner.]]

Does it say 52 on Blue Beetle's chest? The black-lined design on his chest armor is reminiscent of the number 52, Blue Beetle is written by Keith Giffen, one of the architects of the 52 series, and it looks like the book will have ties to 52. --Squashua 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Deliberately. We do need a source for it, but I can't remember where I read about it before. Any help with this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn you people for taking that down. I put that up. It's cited during a Newsrama interview with the editor of 52. Here's the link (Because I'm not good with citations) http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=93608 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.111.56.40 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually, the interview mentions me (of all the...) and the editor jokes about it reading 52 only when he is in the book, but it being a beetle design in his own book. That is a deliberate joke. Cully Hamner has (on the Newsarama message boards) stated the design as a 52 is a coincidence. --Squashua 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It Hurts to Breathe

Many of the other items for this are speculation; wouldn't it be justified to note after this that The Question may have lung cancer? I say "may" because he might be faking it per his mentor, Richard Dragon. --Squashua 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between that item and others. Other items on the list, although bordering on speculation, draw lines between specific phrases idea and their previous uses, rather than conclusions. Anything that has said "may" or "possibly" has been deleted during this article's existence. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point with the faking of the cancer, which may also be what is referenced in "Don't ask the Question. It lies."... would it be in good practice to note this as a possibility? --Paul Pedersen 17:03, 18 January 2007(UTC)

Back-up stories

Do we really need to get too in-depth with these, other than to mention that they are there? I'm not sure how much these minor details/listings teach the article's reader about the subject, and as it has turned out, the section repeatedly has had to be corrected. I think we should just mention that the first 11 weeks have the history and the rest have Secret Origins stories. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think the references to the number 52 and the clues in Rip Hunter's bunker are an important narrative detail. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections are useful, but as they are now... they are long lists. Some cleanup of sorts is needed for them. RobJ1981 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about spinning the 52 refs list off into its own article? The 52 references are a big feature of the series, and I think it is appropriate to have an article that lists them. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep it all in the same article; it would all get merged eventually anyway, and I've seen longer articles with less. --Squashua 03:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reception?

I don't believe the article says anything about how it's been received. All I know is how I found out about it, through Dominic Deegan: Oracle For Hire. (By the way, Mookie absolutely loves it; read the newsposts below the comics.) --Shay Guy 05:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)