Jump to content

Talk:The New 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merging with Reboot (dc comics)

[edit]

I would suggest that as this is going to be a fairly significant comics event, and there is already a shedload of coverage at reliable sites, that Reboot (dc comics) be renamed something more fitting, like 2011 DC Universe reboot, and that page be used for this event, with the current coverage at Flashpoint merged into this. Flashpoint is more a story line leading up to this, and I think the event itself should be covered seperately.

I've also suggested a minor informal workgroup team up to collaborate and try and make sure this is covered fairly well. It's on the discussion page over at wp:comics if this tickles your fancy. I'm not insisting on it being called the JLW, but I don't mind if you use that name behind closed doors. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

[edit]

This a fairly biased view and contains inaccurate information and amounts to a list. I suggest quite a big rewrite, which I can do myself (to a degree) but I didn't want to an extensive rewrite without consulting people first. Especially as I don't have that much experience with wikipedia. Porochaz —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Go ahead and do it! It's collaborative, so if you mess anything up, there's other people about to help! It's on my watchlist, and I'll happily lend a hand. And if you need any help getting up and away as an editor, I can recommend a very good adopter for you to help you out!
Hit me up at User talk:Bennydigital if you need any pointers. And remember the first rule here is BE BOLD!. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 16:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't know where to start with this, as I don't edit articles personally. However, sites like ComicsAlliance are biased, citing their articles is hardly a fair argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.78.110 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they biased? Nightscream (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a very skewed article. There may well be such a discussion, but it is completely untrue that this series is under any particular attack for being sexist. Its the opinion of a very few people who cry "sexism" every time they see a woman portrayed as sexually attractive. I am female myself, and appreciate the concern, but yes, its biased. Its not the job of wiki to present extremely small minority viewpoints. Until we are sure, let us simply point out that such concerns exist. I mean there are almost no female creators in comics, and very few female readers at that. I see no need for that to change. They do not discriminate against female writers, but female writers do not present themselves often. Let us not reward extremists. Am I signed in????? If not I am Lollipop4598. I think I am signed in.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author of those articles is a feminazi, if you'll excuse the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.225.80 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does she not qualify as a source under WP:IRS? Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Comicsalliance is fine, so long as it is tempered with alternative sources, as with most comic book sites there tends to be a bit of a bias towards one of the 2 big houses or indies, so it's best to get a broad spectrum in any case. And please remember the rule of 'Reductio ad Hitlerum'. Whoever brings it up first loses... :-p Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 09:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lollipop. While I see your viewpoint (up to a point), it is an aspect of the relaunch that got a lot of coverage at the time. Personally, I think it's relevance justifies inclusion, but it could do with being edited a little, as it's relevance has decreased fairly quickly (indeed, the new Amethyst series, Nicola Scott's pencils on on Earth 2 have shown that). So do feel free to edit away, but a wholesale cut seems excessive, in my less than humble opinion ;) Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 10:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding female representation: The claim that females are underrepresented in comics implies that they should be represented at some higher rate - but what determines the rate women should be represented, and why should they be represented at that level? No one would make such a statement as: "Fortune 500 CEO's are underrepresented in the comic book industry", so what, exactly, makes the equivalent statement about women any different? Simply making up ~50% of the population does not mean you get to take 50% of the jobs in every industry. By that logic, Asians make up 60% of the world population... does that mean every country should do a big shuffle to ensure their population is also 60% Asian?

Relaunch

[edit]

Calling it a reboot would mean they are starting over completely. This is just a relaunch, akin to what they did with Crisis on Infinite Earths by altering continuity. This is why I believe the page should be renamed "2011 DC Universe Relaunch." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.241.206 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me What's the difference? This seems like a pretty radical re-something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think reoot is more fitting, as a large part of it involves dropping a large amount of continuity, to make DC fun and accessible again, rather than having to know every detail of three of 4 crises and a ton of other crossover events.Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 08:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reboot implies they are erasing everything and starting over from scratch. That's not what's happening. Many creators have said so, stating "Don't call it a reboot". This is a relaunch. Post-Flashpoint is just like Post-Crisis; things are changing in the DCU but they aren't starting over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.241.206 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) An example of a reboot is Batman Begins, as it is not related to the Burton/Schumacher films. For an example of a relaunch, look at Marvel. Alot of their titles go through relaunches and renumberings. Avengers has had three volumes of series and currently a fourth. They didn't start over each time. They just continued the stories with a new #1. That is what DC is doing here with all of its titles. A relaunch. Not a reboot.67.58.241.206 (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Do you want to start a !vote on this, and we'll try and get something sorted? Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 07:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's start a vote.67.58.241.206 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a reboot is a complete restart - and this isn't. DC's distancing themselves from the word reboot, and I've seen creators accidentally use the word and take it back later. "Relaunch" is the official title and I think we should go with that. This doesn't fit the definition of reboot used by some (like myself and others posting here). Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it either if it's just temporary? This is just a tie in to flashpoint and will revert in a few years. Like when Marvel reset everything to #1 and then returned most of their titles to the 500's or whatnot.129.139.1.68 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable sources, including DC itself are calling it a relaunch, not a reboot. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relaunch, reboot...why don't they just call it "Gimmick of the Month"? Carlo (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Zythe (talk · contribs), citing WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 DC Universe reboot → The New 52 – Per WP:OFFICIALNAMES and discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have been more specific with Valid use of official names as it is also the common name. 2011 DC Universe reboot seems arbitrary and The New 52 also avoids the reboot/relaunch issue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Jenks24 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After some searching on google news, I agree with the nominator that "The New 52" is the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. "The New 52" are only the 52 monthly titles that form the main line, and are part of a larger picture, that this article should adress: the digital releases, the related limited series, the continuity changes, etc... Would have supported it if the move was to "2011 DC Universe relaunch", since this is not a reboot, but a relaunch of DC Comics' entire line of super-hero comics. Maddox (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New 52 is the title given to this reboot/relaunch the scope maybe larger than the 52 monthly series but it is all branded under this title.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This relaunch is, as the lead indicates, a publishing event that "will entail changes to both the publishing format and fictional universe. Publishing changes include same day release of physical comics with digital platforms, all DC Universe titles being cancelled or restarted at a new issue 1, the former Wildstorm imprint being rolled into the greater DC Universe, and a number of new titles being released to round the number of ongoing series being published on a monthly basis up to 52." Again: "The New 52" are only part of the event. Maddox (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly should be "written about within that context". If you reduce the scope to only "The New 52", and not the fact they form a company-wide relaunch, what exactly will this article adress? Maddox (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New 52 does not limit the scope of the article, it is simply the name given to the entire event including the relaunch of the 52 monthly series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DC Comics, in its official blog, points that "The New 52" are the 52 titles that will be released in the coming weeks, and not the event. IGN follows. Newsrama says the line, and not the event, is being called by DC "The New 52". Maddox (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Newsarama link you posted:

DC Comics has completed a “Retailer Roadshow”, a series of five summits with comics book retailers around the country about the September revamp of the DC Universe line, what is now officially branded by DC as “The New 52”.

The revamp is the event. All publication, artistic and continuity changes are apart of the said revamp.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, everything dealing with "publication, artistic and continuity changes", including the digital releases, is to be removed from this article? Maddox (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying: "The New 52" = revamp and revamp = publication, artistic and continuity changes, therefore "The New 52" = publication, artistic and continuity changes. Also digital release are a part of the books' publication.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Newsarama said "The New 52" is the line of comics, and not the events surrounding it. "The New 52" = the 52 titles released in September, and not the whole relaunch event, including "publication, artistic and continuity changes". Maddox (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A revamp is more than a mere renumbering and is only spoken in context of "The New 52". I have not seen anything written about the relaunch without mention of "the line".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The New 52" is the 52 titles that have been renumbered at #1 with artistic, publication and continuity changes.Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this article could only talk about those titles, and not about the artistic, publication and continuiy changes. Couldn't talk about digital sales, the impact this may have in the market, couldn't talk about the the supposed ending of "write-for-the-trade" format, couldn't talk about the fact this was supposed to happen years ago, after Final Crisis, couldn't talk about the limited series released in October and November... Basically you use a "official" title that does not even begin to describe the event. Maddox (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again the title change does not limit scope. Digital sales, format changes, market impact, publication history of these issues, are all directly related topics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't we wait and see what happens? After all, there is no deadline. There are other titles coming out as part of the reboot/relaunch, beyond the initial 52, and if these are also falling under the banner of "The New 52" then I say we change the name of the article, if they don't then I think we should keep it here, because this isn't just a one-off publishing event, this is a storyline with changes in characters and continuity stemming from the changes to the DCU made in Flashpoint and other new #1s launching after the initial 52 will be a part of this too and should be included in this article, which they won't be if DC is just using "The New 52" to refer specifically to these 52 titles. So wait and see what happens - return to this issue in a month or two when the next tranche of titles start dropping (like JSA). (Emperor (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Again this isnt a scope issue, the WP:COMMONNAME for the the relaunch is "The New 52".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that yet - Maddox has shown above that "The New 52" appears to only be used to refer to the 52 #1s (from Newsarama ""DC Comics - The New 52" is the DC Entertainment publishing initiative that is an aggressive undertaking of launching the entire line of 52 DC Comics character series with all-new #1 first issues in September", in which case I'd oppose a renaming. However, it might be all the other #1s set in the same altered DCU are also referred to under this general broad name (which would be a bit confusing but feasible - I am surprised they haven't come up with a fancier name, although DCnU seems popular), in which case I'd support a move. At the moment, you've not shown any evidence that "The New 52" will be the common name that refers to more than just the initial 52, but it might be they will, we just won't know that for a few months as new #1s appear. Unless you have strong evidence to support the renaming and if you don't feel this move can be delayed then I'd oppose but leave the door open to return to it in a few months when we have a better idea what this article should be called. There is no rush. (Emperor (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Very well. Also I don't know if this helps but JSA was heavily talked about in a panel for The New 52[1], which goes back to my earlier point that any additional comics being rebooted/relaunched are only spoken about in context of "The New 52".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly quite possible, although even if JSA was part of... let's call it "The Next 52" it would be spoken of in the context of The New 52. Tricky. What I want to try and avoid is changing the name now and having to move it back a few months down the line when the 52+ titles are called something else. I will be keeping an eye on the news and seeing if anything pops up that answers this question. (Emperor (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Either way, there should be an immediate move to 2011 DC Relaunch, as it is described by reliable sources as such and DC has specifically stated this is not a reboot. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everyone is calling it The New 52, including DC. I haven't seen it referred to as "2011 DC Universe reboot" anywhere. Nightscream (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contradiction

[edit]

Refs 8 and 10 (currently) appear to be contradictory, in that one says that there will be only one Batman, and the other that Batman Incorporated will restart in future. Is there any definite word on this Batfans? Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 09:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Batman Incorporated is coming back, that doesn't mean that there will be more than one Batman. There is already Batwing in this universe, one of the franchise heroes in the first volume of Batman Inc. --luckymustard (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True- I'm still having trouble reconciling the whole thing, as I thought it was a result of Batman's death that this started, although seeds were sewn before this... Now he hasn't died. Frankly though, I'm sure Mr Morrisson will resolve it all well, he's pretty good at that! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new DC Universe section mistake

[edit]

I'm sorry if I am not doing this right, but I am very new to Wikipedia. I was looking at the The new DC Universe section of this article and I found a reference citation mistake. It reads "The initial run of first issues show a universe in which superheroes have appeared only in the past few years, and are viewed with at best, suspicion, and at worst, outright hostility, with Batman pursued by the Gotham police while on the trail of an alien, revealed to be an agent of Darkseid.[8]"<---that reference link saying this happens in Detective Comics #1 but that is not correct. I am not sure which comic this actually happens in. I can't verify this other then I have the issue sitting in front of me. And I don't know how to properly edit the article and explain my reasoning.

Thelaughingmagician8 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- If it's not properly referenced, you can either find a better reference and add it (The best option!) with "ref" tags, or just delete the offending part and copyedit the article- if someone can justify it later, they can add a proper ref (less good, and what I've just done...) If you need any pointers, feel free to bother me at my talk page. I'm not always brusque and rude... Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 08:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was in Justice League #1. Nightscream (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

[edit]

This needs some urgent expansion, as it has one bunch of reviewers and nowt else. To my knowledge, [comics.ign.com] and [www.comicbookresources] have both been doing a fair bit of coverage if anyone wants to do a looksee. I'm a bit busy elsewhere, but may have a look next week. And listing every book feels a bit WP:CRUFTy. And yes, you're right, I should sign my posts.... Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There also has to have been more critical response to abandoning the original versions of Action and Detective which have acted as a symbolic link to the 1930s and have represented the long history of DC, not to mention the survival of the print medium. There has also been a lot more complaint regarding the elimination of Oracle and the lack of female role-model characters. And while sales are strong if you do a Google search you'll find a number of commentators who have stopped buying DC as a result of the relaunch. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some citation would be nice, instead of a Google search suggestion. My personal take, which is NOT a citation, just my opinion, is, while I understand 100% in agreement where DC's new honchos are coming from, I disagree with the renumbering, and predict that, within two years, DC's main titles (i.e. Action, Detective, Sueperman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) will be back to old numbering, new DC style. Marvel did that (most recently with the new Wolverine series). Again, NOT a citation, but my personal opinion, I like big honkin' numbers in my titles' issues. 68.108.8.203 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sales figures

[edit]

http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/119/1198958p1.html?RSSwhen2011-10-07_111000&RSSid=1198958

I'm on my phone. So editing is impossible right now. 149.254.186.165 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually me. And it appears my father in law has been vandalising Birmingham City Fc on this i.p. I've given him a wikislap. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 08:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman & Justice League Dark belong to "The Dark"

[edit]

I've moved "DCU presents" to "The Dark" because the "Deadman" is member of the new "Justice League Dark" and almost all members of this new group have little to no direct connection to the "Justice League" but an affiliation to "The Dark". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.118.88.88 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Trade paperbacks

[edit]

Is it just me, or is this getting a little large and unwieldy? Should we move this to a seperate page? If so, what's the naming convention? I'd love a second opinion on this! Cheers Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 09:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like it where it is; but traditionally it seems TPBs are listed under the collected editions section of their respective titles. 141.211.2.210 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove this! I really like to be able to see all collected editions in one place. It's a great way of keeping track what's released when and what I want to buy next when collecting the TPBs. Also I made the table sortable again, since I found it really useful. 85.177.149.25 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging some sources

[edit]

I'm wondering if it'd be a bad idea to merge some sources together, specifically, related solicits. Each solicit group (Superman, etc) from varying months could be merged together. I think, it'd look a bit cleaner. Something similar happened with reference 58, ref name "Liefeld"

<ref name=Liefeld>*Renaud, Jeffrey (January 19, 2012). [http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36511 "Rob Liefeld Takes 'Deathstroke,' 'Grifter' & 'Hawkman' to the Extreme"]. Comic Book Resources. *[http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36420 "Liefeld joins 'Deathstroke,' 'Savage Hawkman' & 'Grifter'"]. Comic Book Resources. January 13, 2012.</ref>

I have an example of what I mean on my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Takuy/sandboxTako (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Cancelled Titles section

[edit]

Since there has been major formatting and rearranging of the article over the past few days, the current page has the "waves" listed unter each major book group (which is a great idea). The editor also made the titles that are still in production in bold and cancelled ones not (but added the notes for when they were cancelled). Since this method is very straight forward, is there a need for a separate cancelled titles section, if we stick to the bold titles for current comics and unbolded for cancelled ones? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, but if the cancelled title section has any extra info, move it over, etc. || Tako (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a seperate view, this could be clearer, I am finding it really confusing currently. Porochaz (talk) 23:36, 08 November 2012 (GMT)

Converting to a list-defined references format?

[edit]

I think this article would benefit from that. There are so many citations in the text, it becomes unreadable and therefore, pushes people away from making edits to those sections, citations get edited out accidently, causing errors. I think it'd be much easier to edit, and whatever if we convert the article's references to wikipedia:LDR. Any opinions? || Tako (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good thing to do. Also, as you have been doing, if we can combine citations that are on the page more than once, or even better, find one source to cover multiple sources of info, it will bring down the number of reference. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have a fork of the article with a reference list, instead of in line citations. Talk:The_New_52/Temp, if you think it's good enough, feel free to move it over to the main article. Just, uh, in that fork, I removed the 'categories' that are normally at the bottom of the page. If you move it over don't forget about those. I'll wait for more editor opinion.|| Tako (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging information on the page

[edit]

After looking over the edits that have been taking place over the last few weeks, I think that the page has improved from what it was before. But I still think that it could be more clear in it's presentation so that is why I am suggesting the Titles section be changed to something along the lines of this on my sandbox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Favre1fan93/sandbox

What I've done is put the current 52 titles that are being published, as of today, in one table. Then below that, I listed the titles that have been cancelled, and then changed the "Subsequent titles" section to "Future titles". To me, figuring out in the current layout the bolded titles and unbolded ones got confusing because there were some unbolded titles that are still being published (ie Blue Beetle).

If others find this as something that could be implemented, I would love feedback on how to make the table better formatting wise (with the notes on the side, and all of the references for the writers and artists). I feel by doing this, we can be more accurate with our coverage of the comics, such as adding all of the main creative teams that work on the comics, as I know some of them have new ones now and are not listed as such. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think reader might better access the table, if you split it into three, one per wave.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By doing it this way, I was trying to avoid three separate tables. I wanted one that would show a reader all of the currently published titles DC has under the New 52 label. And I included the wave and release month as a table category. That was just my opinion on it, because I thought that separating everything by the waves was getting too confusing. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. I still think three separate tables would be cleaner. Just my opinion, take it or leave it. Either way, the table is a good idea. Cheers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider it. I'll just see if other users have an opinion as well. -22:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Favre1fan93 (talk • contribs)
You could also add a section for the mini series, title it like DC does its solicitations, "Beyond the New 52". To met, it doesn't really matter how it's organized, as long as it's readable and accurate. Don't forget to change the former unbolded titles that are no longer ongoing into a table too, with their wave listing and so-on. (Though, I think we should fully convert the listed references like I suggested) || Tako (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the tables for the former titles as well as the future titles. If you would like to added a table for the "Beyond the New 52", I am fine with that. The only thing is, this page is about the New 52 titles, unless you mean the ones currently in this section. Also, I am going to add this table to the page and then we can go from there. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the ones from that section. DC solicits everything that's not part of the core 52 titles as "BEYOND THE NEW 52", all minis, one-shots, and whatever. It might make sense to use that branding here, but only for the titles that are justified as being in the New 52. || Tako (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with that. However, I'm not as versed in those titles and how they have been progressing. If the section as it is now, is correct, or if you could add to/fix it, I can make another table with that info. And thanks for doing those other edits as well! -Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in Favre1fan93's proposed arrangement, there are headings like "Current" and "Future". Such terms violate WP:REALTIME and WP:DATED, don't they? Nightscream (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in violation of WP:DATED if the page is and will be updated regularly, since it says "Avoid statements that date quickly, except on pages that are regularly updated"? I don't know of anyway other way to title current, as these are the current titles in production. Future could be changed to "Announced titles" if that would work.-Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about 'Ongoing titles'? Also, yes, I think the 'Other titles' section is accurate, and in terms of the entire table stuff: I don't think we exactly need to list the number of issues, those are things we can put into notes, about ZERO issues, Annuals, etc. The number of issues only really matters for the cancelled titles, since the other titles are still ongoing. || Tako (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Wave titles

[edit]

Based on the solicits released today, JLA, Vibe, and Katana are launching in February 2013, the month after Blue Beetle, Legion Lost and Grifter are ending, with Threshold releasing in January (directly replacing GI Combat). Can we assume these will be Fourth Wave titles (possibly with Constantine replacing Frankenstein as they are both Dark titles), or should we wait for a DC confirmation? To me, looking at what's ending and what's starting would confirm it for me, but I wanted other's thoughts before I did anything. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you got your answer with DC's post on the November 16th. I'm not sure, but I believe Constantine will be published in March, since there are only 51 on-going titles for February, plus the one shot. I added information about that in the Publication history section. It looks like there will be more titles cancelled after March, and that's when Constantine and the untitled Superman book will make the debut. || Tako (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are we thinking Fourth Wave will technically be 51 titles (and then the one-shot to be 52) and then possibly the Fifth Wave will bring us back to 52? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idle speculation, but I reckon the fifth wave will follow fairly quickly, with a couple more cancellations. But then, I also believe they're going to announce a Booster Gold title fairly soon, so my thoughts are worth very little... Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't qualify Constantine as part of the fourth wave. DC is just spreading out the the titles this time with Threshold in January, the JLA books in February, and Constantine in March. It all rounds up to 52 titles by then. No other books have been cancelled and aside from Synder's Superman book, no other new titles have been announced or given a release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.210.220 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, this seems correct. But we have no official source saying Constantine and Fourth Wave together. If one can be found, then we can add it. It is possible that it could potentially be a Fifth Wave title, as rumors and speculations suggest the Untitled Superman book will come out around the April-June months, and DC may combine those two as a small wave. So we will have to see. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

[edit]

I think the the New 52 Titles and Other titles sections should be spun out into its own article at List of New 52 publications as it is beginning to overwhelm the article. Additionally, I think the writer and artist columns should be dropped from the table. It is becoming clear that DC intends to use many writers and many artists for its many publications, and listing all the publications and all the artists and all the writers in one table is providing unnecessary detail. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be agreeable to splitting these sections off to the page that you mentioned. For the artists and writers, I think we can keep them, however cut back and have them only be the current team and change when a new one is put on the books. Older creative teams could be noted in the notes section if deemed "noteworthy". Discontinued books could have them all if they are not lengthy (at least for the time being). Would others be agreeable to splitting off and keeping the creative teams as I have stated? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For now, that's fine by me. I don't necessarily like the idea of having to constantly update tables as the team changes (or even as new issues come out, though I'm not sure how to change the number of issues column), but if you think having the current team is useful then I'd be agreeable to that. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use the initial team, they were the team behind each series creation. Readers can just go to the main articles for more information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with either. Do you support the split? I'd rather get the large change (split) out of the way, then discuss individual changes to the content. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the split seems reasonable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Odie5533, let's get the split out of the way and then we can discuss the contents of the table. I would like most of it to stay as I have stated, but I agree with what you have both said, so we can figure out a way to make it work. Also, I will go ahead and move the contents over. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that last part. We had only suggested the table with the New 52 titles and the Other titles should, but should the Collected editions section go as well? I think it should be included too. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement too. I thing that artists should be trimmed, as above, and issues should be changed so that it is either listed as 'ongoing' or the number of issues if cancelled. The issue number thing creates unnecessary work and disagreement, IMNSHO. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 09:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Moved as is for now. Hope I didn't jump the gun- looks like consensus to me. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 13:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to take care of the reference issues in both articles now?|| Tako (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should have asked this earlier but should the page be named List of New 52 publications or List of The New 52 publications?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably List of The New 52 publications because "The" is part of the naming. Also, I'm going to start a discussion on the new page regarding the creative teams and issues that we were talking about here. -16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Disagree (kindof). I restored the list. People looking for The New 52 would presumably be looking for the list of titles and then the decisions/back stories/controversies. That's how I've seen it used. The list should be maintained on the page itself but for formatting purposes the families are now broken into smaller tables that are collapsible/expandable. I agree with the Creative Teams being more in-line with the pages for the specific titles, as opposed to being included in the table of titles. With the multiple changes in creative teams, the initial creative team should be with the title and the changes would be on the title-specific pages/sections. Likewise, the notes could be footnotes or text on the title-specific pages, eg. the DC Universe Presents breakdowns by character. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly disagree, but you come weeks after and just undid a clear consensus reached by 5 people. If you want to form a new consensus to restore the table, that's fine, and I'd certainly hear your arguments. But at this point, there is still consensus even with one dissenting opinion. I have undone your reversion. Please form a consensus for restoring the table. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with Pejorative's proposed (and executed) method, it might be a good idea to merge them back together. || Tako (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think the content functions much better as a spun out list so it doesn't make this page exceedingly long. It also allows this page to focus itself on discussing the line of comics while the other functions as a list. Readers can easily navigate to the list if that is the information they are seeking. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odie, do you acknowledge that there is a consensus against your preference? (Just asking.) Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think as it stood, there was consensus for the split (before Pejorative's comment), but I would be fine with opening up a discussion again. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal for splitting the page relied on 'bulk'. Instead of setting the table to be collapsible - which is usually the first step in reducing the bulk and increasing the navigability of a page or to facilitate perusal - it was decided to merely remove the information to another page. There was a consensus for the split, sure. But I did not restore the bulk, undoing the consensus. I restored the data in reformatted tables, supplied my reasoning, making it easier to edit and agreed with the splitting off of most of the detailed information to where it would be most relevant. The list provides a second step in between The New 52 article and most of the individual titles on the list. There is no need for a second page when one will clearly do. In my honest opinion, the section indicating titles should list - at the minimum - the families and the main (or current) titles of each. There could be a Main:List... link to navigate to the larger list, which would have the various additions and subtractions. So that editors can see what I'm discussing, my submission can be seen in my sandbox.
Are you suggesting to format the two pages, like a television show? One where the "List of episodes" page just has the title, director, writers, and air date, and then the actual season page has the more detailed info? And then for this case, it would be the current titles and the List of The New 52 publications has all of the titles? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size argument is just that: article size. Having the large list on this article is trying to jam two articles into one. Using collapsible tables reinforces this notion. From WP:EMBED, "Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style." Long episode lists are split off from the TV show's article, and so too should this list of publications be split.--Odie5533 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A compromise might be to have a limited table with e.g. two columns for Family and Publications, and just list all the current New 52 publications on the one row. This would be somewhat akin to the Seasons summary list on TV series articles. I think it is important to discuss the family division, but the discussion should be as prose which can then be supported by a table and then use a {{main}} link to the full "List of" tables. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is similar to what I was thinking of - an overview of the current list, not the complete breakdown of every wave.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 52

[edit]

I've been thinking about adding something about the new Channel 52 things they've been including in DC's New 52 books for the past few weeks. BleedingCool and CBR both reported on it. DC has a history of including promotional or some kind of editor column in the backend material of the book. Where would that go, in Publication History, or in Publications? How much about the topic should be mentioned? The 'anchors' on the show, anything else important? || Tako (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable enough, or will it become notable enough to warrant the inclusion? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they're including it in all of the New 52 publications, and ran ads the week prior, I'd think so. It's essentially a universal backup for every book. It's part of their "New 52" brand, so I'd say yes, but I'm no Wikipolitician or expert on notability guidelines (which I personally don't agree should be a universal thing). || Tako (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then at the moment, I see no problem with it. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edits on 13 May

[edit]

I reverted this edit because there are issues with the content. Exclamation points aren't necessary, and seem sensational, and the source says nothing about it being related to New 52 so it doesn't appear to be relevant to this article. - SudoGhost 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Year

[edit]

Just gonna note this here, if anyone wants to go ahead and start collecting sources for it. We should probably add a paragraph mentioning Batman: Zero Year and the newly announced spin-off titles in existing books. That story arc has a 'crossover' in various unrelated books (Flash, Green Arrow, Green Lantern Corps), so I'd consider it an event worth noting in Publication history, as it deals heavily with the history of the New 52. Should probably create that article for the Batman event too, for further information.|| Tako (bother me) || 22:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some (will also help create an article, if needed): Catwoman and GLC, BoP, Batgirl, Green Arrow, Nightwing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Figures

[edit]

Hi, hope that nobody minds my edits to the sales figures on this page to properly reflect that such things continually fluctuate within certain boundaries, the term 'decreasing' doesn't accurately reflect this. I wanted to ask though, is wikipedia even the place for such thing in the first place? Wikipedia is not the news, after all, and it's not our duty to be continually giving a synopsis of sales figures for this article. Can someone who knows more about the site than me give opinion? 195.27.53.211 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in saying that Wikipedia is not the news, however, it will nonetheless include information that has a long-term historical significance, and there is much material that is added to Wikipedia when it becomes news and has long-term significance. The fact that Ariel Castro hanged himself yesterday, for example, makes it news, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't also belong in an encyclopedia article, which is why it has been added to the Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight and List of suicides articles.
Should sales figures be included in an article about The New 52? Yes, but they should be summarized in a historical context. There's nothing wrong with adding the figures from a couple of different months, but we shouldn't add the figures from every single month. As time goes on, we'll be able to have a broader picture of the initiative's success that we can summarize on the general order of years rather than a month-to-month basis. Nightscream (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree, I think sharp rises or falls within the general consensus would give a far better overview than a month-by-month breakdown of stats, which would be very dry reading even at the best of times. Many thanks Nightscream. Also I'm considering rolling up my own account here, as this IP's shared with whoever else hotdesks at this office's computer. Could anyone who could give advice/suggestions on this hit me up on my IP's talk page maybe? :) 195.27.53.211 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial controversies

[edit]

That section has been untouched since the Liefeld debacle, despite the fact that DC's editorial/writer controversies are pretty huge when it comes to the New 52. Should every "big news" editorial thing be mentioned? Gail Simone's firing and leaving, Andy Diggle on Superman losing a hand, Joshua Fialkov on killing John Stewart, and now JH Williams leaving Batwoman due to restrictions on Killer Croc's origin and Batwoman's marriage. || Tako (bother me) || 12:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all mentioned should be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While these are relevant and should be included, I'd advise that care be taken to ensure that verifiable sources are quoted. It's one thing to quote Bleeding Cool, but it'd be preferable if the sources cited are interviews with the writers directly or press releases etc to ensure they are not simply rumours. 195.27.53.211 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think mentioning that something started as a rumor (via Bleeding Cool, or other sites) is fine, as long the content is verified later on by another source. plus, most of Bleeding Cool's cites in this article is just logs of Twitter postings. || Tako (bother me) || 16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask, and ye shall receive: poof!. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

variant covers + one-shot announcements

[edit]

Just want to leave these here as a reminder for myself (or who ever would like to add a brief statement about them).

http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682687/mad-artists-take-on-dc-superheroes#1 - mad covers
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=49023 - steampunk covers
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=48372 - scribblenauts
http://www.comicvine.com/articles/exclusive-interview-marguerite-bennett-on-lois-lan/1100-147543/ - lois lane / joker's daughter || Tako (bother me) || 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 edits on DC Sales and Market Share

[edit]

A March 4 edit by Silahim1967 added the following information to the Sales section (I've edited them somewhat for minor elements like punctuation):

However it has become clear that the New 52 is unable to maintain big sales numbers outside special events like September 2013's 3D Covers Month.[2]

The cited sources does not say that the New 52 is unable to maintain big sales numbers outside special events. That source is mostly about that 3D cover month. And in addition to that, Rich Johnston, the author of the piece, says "But it’s not just the 3D covers, graphic novels rose in dollars by 11.93% and in units by 9.89%."

The other portion of the edit:

DC sales are in decline and they often make less money than before the reboot despite the now higher prices on many of their products: In December 2013 DC's dollar share was 27.22% out of an overall of $42.22 million,[3] which translates into $11.49 million. Back in December 2010 (a few months before the New 52 started) DC's dollar share was 33.28% out of an overall of 36.5 million,[4] which translates into $11.78 million. In December 2013 DC also had fewer books in the Top 10 and Top 25 when compared to December 2010.

First of all, the cited sources do not state that DC sales are in decline. This is an interpretation, which is synthesis, and is not permitted, as it is a form of original research. Just because DC had fewer 6 books in the Top 10 in December 2013 and 8 in December 2010, for example, does not mean that it is in decline overall. Overall decline must be determined as a trend, and not merely by comparing two individual months selected to the exclusion of all other months. Also, the second citation indicates that DC's market share for December 2010 was 36.99, not 33.28, and December 2010 was nine months before The New 52, and not "a few months".

Bottom line: If trends regarding sales decline or DC's overall ability to maintain sales numbers are being observed, then those observations must be derived from explicit statements to that effect in secondary sources, and not from editor interpretation of them.

I have retained the Bleeding Cool info on 3D month, and added more info from that source to the passage, but have removed the editor's comments on DC's ability to maintain sales and the comparison of December 2013 to December 2010. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your comments and thoughts Nightscream. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire paragraph is bulky and poorly structured with these new edits, attempting to throw far too many figures at the reader, some of which are arguably not relevant. I've abbreviated the paragraph down by removing monthly stats when possible except for the most recent or annual ones. The current reading of 'In may they had this percent and in june they had that percent' is cumbersome. I'd suggest that we update the highest, lowest and most up-to-date points of sales only, as that will certainly help clear the clutter. 90.222.213.194 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which comics will be canceled this June, besides Swamp Thing?

[edit]

I understand that Swamp Thing will come to an end with issue #40. Could you please give me a list of which comics will also be canceled, besides Swamp Thing? AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just do a search on List of The New 52 publications for "March 2015". Any titles that have that, and do not have [note 4] next to them, are the ones ending. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on The New 52. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The New 52. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_52&oldid=1243247561"