Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worlds of the 52 multiverse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The argument that this article is a redundant fork of the list page has not been refuted, and is supported by most commenters below. Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of the 52 multiverse[edit]

Worlds of the 52 multiverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There is nothing inherently notable about the modern 52 multiverse from a real-world perspective that requires containment on a separate page from List of DC Multiverse worlds or Multiverse (DC Comics) for that matter. The Multiverse itself is notable as a publishing annd continuity concept, and if only for sake of comprehensiveness and to make its usage evident, it is important that these are listed. What we have here, unfortunately is an in-universe explanation of the Multiverse which is better suited to the DC database project on Wikia~ZytheTalk to me! 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Many, many pages on wikipedia refer to specific of these worlds. This page allows linking directly to information on each of those worlds, rather than a table which by necessity has to contain a limited amount of information. The page makes wikipedia work better. I'll admit that the page has flaws, it's starter, it lacks a real world perspective, it lacks a lot of citing, but that's because it is a work in progress. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Describe it's real world notability, independent of the larger topic.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Real world notability is important, and I'd like to improve that in this article, but is it reason enough to delete it, after all:
Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics.
The page is not notable in and of it self, but rather because of the combined notability of the entries. It's 50-plus semi-notable snubs the some of which are greater than the whole.
It's the usage of this page, which I think makes it needed. Go to a page like Alternate versions of Wonder Woman (theres one of Batman and Superman, and it's a section on most DC heroes page). The use on that page is what makes this page necessary. Otherwise you get things like Earth-S which unceremonially dumps you at the top of a multiverse page.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You add a smidgin of context, such as "on Earth-S (the home dimension of the Fawcett Comics characters)...", or "the Superman of Earth-2 (depicted as the Superman appearing in the 1940s pubications Action Comics)..." or "on Earth-15, a world where many junior heroes have replaced their mentors..." The word Multiverse is already linked above so they have the encycopedic history of the concept anyway.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but this way, you don't need to add the context - which can be clunky, not always as helpful as the editor would like and digresses from the flow of the sentence/article.
The advantage that wikipedia has over a print encylopedia is the ability to link words directly to other articles.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason we need to articles on the exact same subject. Ridernyc (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other article, or rather the section of it with the table of the 52 multiverse is flawed by the fact that it is restricted to a table. The article itself has been locked because of a slow edit war because some people are trying to force necessary information into the table, and others (esp myself) are trying to remove information so the table is readable.
The table is a great overview of the multiverse, but it doesn't fully serve the needs of wikipedia like this page does.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so fix that article, there is no reason we need 2 articles. Ridernyc (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other article's problem is the tendency for people to skew its focus onto in-universe details. Summarise the universe, give a first appearance, maybe some distinctive details and where possible who is credited as "creating" this universe, for instance Grant Morrison designed Earth-10, and Earth-22 is based on Alex Ross's story. It doesn't matter if the boxes get bloated - they will be large in the solicitation stage, but once they've made published appearances their content can be summarised. Duggy 1138, I admire what you're trying to do here, and I think you'd appreciate that on the DC Database project there's an actual entire article to devoted to each of these alternate Earths.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if anything appears on the DC Database Project there's no room for it here?
I like your description of the table on a section of the other page, and hope that it does turn out that way. This page, as you and others can see it completely different to that. Hense there is no duplication.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a duplicate page. The corresponding section on the other page is and can only be a summary page, which is why this page is necessary.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these worlds become notable enough in their own right, they'll get their own articles, which can be linked to from the list. Until then, I see no reason why a summary isn't adequate. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a gap between summary and notability, and this page fills that gap.
Because no matter how much information is in the summary, the link isn't as affective as a direct link to this page.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Multiple reasons, some mentioned above:
  1. It is recreation of content from List of DC Multiverse worlds.
  2. For all appearances it was created to avoid working with that list either by continuing to work for a consensus or revamping/cleaning the list.
  3. It is all but devoid of context out side of in-universe material, and there is precious little in-universe context as well.
  4. No cited references at all offered for what textual information is there, or for the characters.
  5. As pointed out in the brief discussion at Talk:List of DC Multiverse worlds the structure created caters to fancruft. Specifically an index of appearances for the various universes and a "role call" of characters.
  6. There is a reliance on "fan knowledge" and "fan assumption" to include characters that have as of yet made explicit appearances in the post-52 multiverse, much less having been identified to a specific universe.
  7. There are already existing articles that would be natural choices as "homes" for more expanded information, reducing the usefulness of this article, as well as any spurious "Universe" articles, at the current time.

- J Greb (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Created from, but developing into more. (I hope).
2. I was working with that list, and still would be if it wasn't locked, but I realised there was only so much that list could do and a page was needed.
3. Working on that. Help if you can.
4. Yeah, I sort of copied and pasted and lost a lot of those. Help if you can.
5. I've been trying to delete those wherever possible. I agree. These aren't the previous worlds, we shouldn't make assumptions.
6. Yes, initially true. Working on that. Help if you can.
7. Agreed, in some cases. If these worlds are around after Final Crisis, then there may be some that deserve there own page. There are already some that have a solid or improvable section on another page, and I'm adding "mainpage" links and trying to prove those pages where possible. If all could be moved, great, let's delete this page and move on. But some don't have another place yet and some may never be big enough to get there own.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short form — not a lot of time atm...
Point 2) You created this one before that one was locked. The lock was, IIUC, the result of bold editing in lieu of actually continuing to work on the talk page.
Points 1, 3, and 4) All point to redundancy. If all you could start with, and all you could come up with was to cut and paste, then this article is not needed.
Point 7) That's crystal balling, at best. Right now there isn't much more than what can, or could, be said on the other list for most of the entries. Just because Wiki ain't paper doesn't mean we get to create article because A) they may be warranted/fleshed out at a later time or to facilitate such articles.
- J Greb (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, I was working on that list and still would be if it wasn't locked. The lock was because of a slow edit war which I was a part of. I'm the last person in the threads on the discussion page... so it's the other side of the argument refusing the work on the talk page.
1, 3, 4: Everything needs a starting point, and I used that page. It's developed a long way since then, and, I hope, will develop a lot further. I believe that a lot of the people talking about redundancy haven't really compared the pages at all.
It's not crystal balling. This page is needed now. The Countdown Arena page, many character pages, et al, need something to link to to explain the worlds they're talking about. The predictions I made are that in the future this page may not be necessary. But at the moment it is.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my original remarks, which caused you to need this clarification.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it's easier to work on an article in a sandbox off of your talk page and get it to a semi-polished state. That is, something more than a skeleton with a few obvious cut-n-paste sections. You started on that path, but moved to a live page before you had something more than a replication of content.
And you were fairly clear. And your reiteration underscores it. This is a redundant "backbone" article. The articles which are currently mentioning the post-52 Earths already have the wikilink resources, foremost among those being List of DC Multiverse worlds and Multiverse (DC Comics). This list of reference articles also includes the "prominent" universes such as Earth-Two and Earth-Three, where characters such as Alan Scott and Ultraman (comics) should point. As far as lesser characters go, for example the Starwoman of Earth-7, having the explanation as part of an "Alternate versions" section on Courtney Whitmore (comics) with links to the existing mutiverse article is eminently more practical than having it say nothing and link here with equally nothing to say. That is of curse unless there is an inherent assumption that Earth-7 is going to be important enough to expand the section or warrant it's own article. That is crystal balling.
Lastly, for the post-52 that are patterned after specific Elseworlds or imaginary stories, the same practice as for the lesser/cameo character renders this article redundant. Have an AV section added to Kingdom Come (comic book) that explains Earth-22 and then link the table line from the existent list article to that specific section. - J Greb (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried the Sandbox thing, but it wasn't getting me far. I felt it needed to kick that multiple contributors adds when it becomes a real page. If I did wrong, I appologise.
It certainly was a redundant backbone article, but I think it's beyond that now. You seem to disagree.
On Earth-7, yes, this page doesn't say much... there isn't much to say. But it doesn't say nothing. It says that it's the home of a Courtney. And that's all it is. On a "Alternate Version of Courtney" section there's no way to say that the same way that this link can.
On specific existing notable universe, yes, a section on the existing page is a better. Which is why when one exists (Such as Earth-Two), I've linked it as a "main page". I'm happy to remove as much information as possible. But not all the worlds are going to be notable or have notable ascendants. And it's for them that this page exists.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The current table used elsewhere is not sufficient to cover all the material, and as more "trivial knowledge" is made available, there will need to be an ACTUAL article within which to capture the bits and pieces into a coherent whole. Isn't that what you guys do? The current "52" article would become unwieldy if you include all this information within it. If you delete this now, you will only have to duplicate these efforts later. Removing "trivia" (like from which world Monitor Bob calls home) is foolhardy and rash. Far better to put a notation at the top of the page saying this is a work in progress rather than delete it outright. I'm growing tired of seeking out information in Wiki only to find that someone before me deemed said information unnecessary for me to find. Let the reader be the judge of that! What? Are you guys running out of webpages or something? Sheesh! ZachsMind (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page is useful as an overview to the subject of the DC multiverse in a specific context of the 52 storyline. As a reader of DC comics, it is often hard to keep track of how the multiverse is and has been organized in the past. This page is a good start. But, it is insufficient to cover the topic. Really, each earth should have its own page. Then each earth can have subsections that explain the context within the various time periods within the DC comics continuity. In the case of the earths that are major players(Earth 1,2,3,5) it makes sense to have specific entries for pre-crisis and 52-onward. If somebody is able to organize the relationships, it would be useful. The elseworld continuities that have become integrated into the main continuity also could use some serious documentation. jreskus2 (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)— Jreskus2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Void. Not a valid reason for why it belongs on Wikipedia. Expand to your heart's content, where it can receive as serious and comprehensive a documentation as it may deserve.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. Expansion could be made to existing page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Worlds_of_the_52_multiverse&oldid=1070225677"