Talk:Final Crisis

Plot

I've noticed some back and forth on including a plot summary for this ongoing series. It's probably best to discuss it here and get a consnsus rather than continue to revert each other. I think the plot section is necessary despite the series not being finished. Plot sections are included in all ongoing works that i've seen, from tv series to comic series. Do we now need to go remove every character history from comic book characters as all of their stories are ongoing?--AniMate 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of having a plot section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.62.62 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The plot has been discussed above. The problem is there's a lot of users who don't read the talk page, and some users who liek to add every little detail every time a new issue comes out. The best solution is to leave out the plot summary entirely until the miniseries is finished, as it is a finite series. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That logic is so flawed, it is not even funny. Dont ruin this for everyone because you have no idea what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.62.62 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to request semi-protection on the article, rather than continue to revert countless edits?  Hazardous Matt  19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is always bad, which is why I brought this here. I have to say that I strongly disagree with your statement Wesley. Just because you don't like the way the information is presented doesn't mean it has to be removed. Certain types of editors are always going to want to go overboard with the details, whether or not the series is completed or ongoing. Our job as editors isn't to obscure information for convenince's sake,. AniMate 06:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not obscuring information. We want to try and write about it in a clear, concise, and well-written manner. All we need to give is the set-up of the story for the general reader to graps everything else in the article, ie. the publishing background. We don't need to give in-depth detail about the storyline; in fact, that's strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. The series is not complete, and it's pointless to to try and structure a plot sumamry when we don't know how it'll sit as a whole. See the discussion here about it; I know there's more that went on, but I'm having trouble finding it. Also, everyone should check out WP:PLOT and Wikipedia:NOT#PLOT for how to approach plot summaries in fictional articles. Basically: keep it short and simple. The longer and more detailed it is, the more likely you are to verge on a copyright violation. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.62.62 (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Give a clear plot synopsis is NEVER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. You have no idea what you are talking about. As a test i showed the page to my roommate and he has no idea what is going on. This is the worst page because of people like you Wesley. You want a perfect example of how a miniseries can look while it is ongoing, Secret Invasion. That page was near perfect towards the end. This page is more about the author and not the story, that makes no sense, why have an entire page dedicated to the author and not the plot of the story. Animate is 100% correct and Wesley you are 100% wrong. Get over yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.62.62 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not advocating a long detailed plot, but right now the "Premise" section is plain awful. You're assertion that the article isn't a substitute for reading the comic books is technically correct, but we should provide a clear synopsis for someone who hasn't or won't read the books. Saying that we should wait until the mini-series is concluded feels like a cheap way to ensure that consumers buy the books and that they aren't spoiled. That's not our responsibility. Frankly your decision that all plot must be reserved until the end of the mini-series seems arbitrary and out of sync with every other ongoing series that has been written about. As to your links to the issue by issue break down and WP:PLOT, I'm not advocating violating either of those. However, more detail is needed to help explain the impact this crisis is having in the larger DCU. Dan Turpin becoming Darkseid, Mary Marvel fully crossing over to evil, Wonder Woman as the new leader of the female furies are all major developments that should be discussed. I can't understand the logic behind waiting until the series has ended to include these or other plot details, bcause if they're releveant at the end of the series they're relevant now. Finally, to the IP above, Wesley is free to believe whatever he wants and to express it civilly, but you are not free to make personal attacks against him. They do nothing to bolster any arguments, so do us all a favor and cut it out. AniMate 03:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, might I point out that all of the various comic books, ongoing miniseries or concluded, linked to from this article have plot summaries. Some could use massive trimming, but none appear to be violating copyright law in my amateur estimation. AniMate 03:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages, but I'm a long time comic book fan and I just wanted to give my opinion on the issue at hand. I feel there should be a plot section. I have been reading Final Crisis, but as anyone reading it knows, it is a very cryptic series. It certainly requires some thought to understand what's going on and no one person will catch everything Grant Morrison puts into it. During the early issues of Final Crisis, I would check the Wikipedia page after reading the comic to see if maybe I missed anything or to see if something I did not understand was explained. I must say the page was helpful. Unfortunately, I can't really learn anything from the page now. I continue to check after each issue, but there is barely any new information on the site. I understand the argument for leaving out the plot, but as an average user I would prefer a plot section. The Secret Invasion page is a perfect example. Sure the plot section is not extremely concise, but it covers every important topic and doesn't leave anything big out. I personally don't mind reading a little more if I will get a lot more out of the article. I also wanted to note that although we don't know what will happen at the end of the event, we can still explain what has been going on so far. Thanks for hearing me out! Lantern1025 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lantern 1025. I have been reading Final Crisis and all the tie-ins, but I am still quite new to comics. Therefore, I do not always get what is happening, and turn to Wikipedia to fill in the details. What is the point of having a page on a comic book series, but not giving any information on what is happening in the series? (This is an actual, not rhetorical question). During Batman RIP, there was a (quite thorough) plot summary. Why should this page be any different. I am really new at editing, so I am sorry if I am not familiar with any of the protocol regarding either the talk pages, or what goes into an article. Thanks for your understanding! Komodo ninja (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If nobody is going to add a plot section, will someone please at least explain the reason why? Komodo ninja (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Something I just don't understand is why Final Crisis is singled out by certain people to have no on-going plot? I haven't seen this in any of the on-going comic arcs lately. SI, Batman RIP, New Krypton, etc all had or have ongoing plot sections with none of the edit wars to stop any kind of mention of a plot. What makes FC so different? 149.32.192.33 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that no persuasive reason why FC should be treated any differently from other comic series in progress has been provided. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you all stop being little nitpicky babies deleting every little thread that doesn't meet your anally retentive standards. Put a more thorough plot up, if something is incorrect or suspicious, list that in it. I know this is hard for you selfish individuals to comprehend, but just because you can play god on Wikipedia's article doesn't mean you get to delete entire topics because of one insignificant detail, because that robs people other than ourselves and I love that you all have a bunch of complaints and whining but I don't see anyone fixing all the things you are all complaining about. Go ahead and delete this, I'll just keep reposting it every day until the plot section is back up and is longer than that piddling summary that's up. I will be nominating this article for deletion. -Timmyfitz161@yahoo.com

You people are fucking stupid. Put the fucking plot synopsis up and quit ruining wikipedia with your stupid. - James.

Come on people. This is really not smart at all. The article needs a plot, now, not whenever the series ends (which would be when? nobody really knows!). It doesn't need to be extensive or nitpicky, but for gosh sake, it has to be something! Come on, Wikipedia is better than this!!! 190.157.120.42 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As some background see the discussion on this above. The problem was that we were getting blow-by-blow retelling of the plot which was then compounded by each issue being broken down by issue leading to some pretty solid plot bloat. My suggestion was/is that it should be possible to have a brief plot outline (after all if you the plot then read the comics) but this just doesn't seem to work out with the section bloating up again and I assume editors thought it best to have none rather than so much it violates copyright. It should be possible to have some kind of compromise now we have 5 issues under our belt.

However, we do need to keep an eye on WP:PLOT and WP:WAF, which are pretty important guidelines which state that we should avoid in-universe plot outlines. This might be interpreted to imply we shouldn't have any plot but it is worth noting that when we look at the quality assessments these hopes need to be jumped through after GA as you drive on to FA class. So it could be argued that we can just rewrite this heavily when it comes to that (and there is no reason it can't go all the way) but it might be wise to aim to write it so it doesn't need to be completely rewritten. There is a way to have the story without writing it in an in-universe style though. I added one link [1] which gives Morrison's own analysis and thinking behind the issue (kind of a director's commentary) and it should be possible to write the story from a more analytical perspective. Granted it is not such an easy task as retelling the plot but I think it is a worthwhile endeavour and would basically be writing the section from the start with an eye to how it will be in a more stable form.

Also there are others things that need doing if people are eager to contribute to the article - added some links to reviews (now moved to the talk page above) and this article needs an expanded reception section summarising/synthesising the reviews. This again is exactly the kind of thing a top quality article needs and would certainly help move the article forward.

So that is what I'd recommend as the best way to expand the article and how to present the plot/story in an out-of-universe format which would set the article up nicely for a push on to higher quality assessments. (Emperor (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually that isn't the "director's commentary" link I was thinking of. They are here: FC #1, 2 and 3. (Emperor (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

If anyone wants to even put a issue by issue plot thread, go for it. At least it would be a plot. I am confident that among everyone in here, that discussion could be done here to edit the thread instead of someone deleting the entire Plot. Hell, even make a separate section to list connected events in the book issue to issue so that no one is confused. It doesn't matter how big the page is, we don't have a space limitation here. So whoever wants to make a plot thread, go for it and save the text to your computer so if someone wants to try to delete it, just go on and put it up again. This has gone on long enough, so whoever has a plot summary, GO FOR IT. Yeah!!! (Timmyfitz161 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

For the love of God would someone stop this Jr. High School bickering and put up a damn plot summary!!! You all act as if you have some God given editorial mandate when all we all are, are fans of either the charactors or the writers etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.76.201 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I just got a hold of a higher up to take a look at the article and the obvious problems with the inefficiency of anyone doing the plot. I thank wikipedia and their swift action. They already archived the other unimportant topics, wow, that's awesome. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They might have cleaned up the talk page, but there's still no plot whatsoever. I would hardly call that reason for celebration. Kreachure (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I am very happy that they archived all the stupid inane topics on this page. So here is what I got from FC #5, as I read it at Borders today. The Monitor they mindwiped in #1 has his powers and memory back due to him solving his Rubix Cube that he has been playing with. Black Adam has been subdued after he was stopped from killing Mary Marvel by Freddy Freeman in evil form because he say a "leering old man" (Desaad) in her eyes. Checkmate hasn't fallen yet and it is discovered they have some sort of manufactured superheroes that look like Buddy Blank that look like bodies compacted in concrete (don't ask), all of them. The President of the US is in a bunker with his advisors and they are telling him that they are almost compromised. The President has a gun in his hands and by the way he talks and acts, it seems like he is going to blow his brains out if the bunker is compromised, but that is speculation. Darkseid at the end is reciting a chant and all of the humans infected are repeating what he is saying as the sky is opening up and Simyan, Goode, and Mokkari die. Hal Jordan is declared innocent after exposing Granny Goodness in Kraken's body trying to siphon off Oa's power batter to make her Darkseid's favorite after causing so much mayhem, but she injures a Guardian first. The Guardians agree to send a force to Earth and give Hal 24 hours to get results. Calculator is getting his ass romped because Libra thinks he is a traitor. At the same time, Lex Luthor is given the rear guard and is being a smart ass, until Doctor Sivana tries to stifle him, because, well Dr. Sivana really is a worthless villain who needs to be killed off. Mister Miracle is not dead due to an "Impact Proof" suit, as well as he is telling all heroes present with him to paint their face in a style similar to Metron's in the first issue. That is the facts in no particular order. If anyone deletes this, I have it saved on a word file and I'll just keep reposting it here. If it keeps getting deleted here, I will move it up to the article and I am pretty sure none of you nitpickers wants something as unpolished as this to be progressed to the main article. So lets at least try to put even a "ghettoed out" plot of issues in here and maybe, just maybe one of you will polish it up and post it on the main article. And I'm not trying to say anything, but if you losers who nitpicked about the plot had just put a plot in, we wouldn't have to deal with my terrible summary, so go suck a fat one. I will organize it tomorrow and maybe it can be used. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article provides no useful information. Who cares who drew which comics? Most people want descriptions of the story. Admins are discouraging people from adding information, because they are removing information that people spent their time working on. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that provide detailed descriptions of books, movies, tv shows, events, etc. but there is a group of admins hovering around DC titles that want to remove any story related information, which in turn removes the desire for someone to want to look at these pages in the first place, and removes the desire for anyone to want to add information to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.107.3.20 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is completely false. I knock both the admins and the users but I know for a fact the plot is being taken down by the users because the plot doesn't fit their image. I have noticed that users are trying more and more to prune the living shit out of these pages to the point of limiting a 4 to 9 issue series down to a paragraph. Here is what needs to be done: just give an issue by issue summary, that's all anyone wants. Seriously, if the admins are limiting people, that's fine and they could try to block a user like me but unfortunately for them I have a rotating IP address so I can just do what I want as long as I want and they can't do much about it except wake up everyday and delete it and then five minutes later see it reposted because I don't have to work a day in my life ever again thanks to the lottery so I can dedicate my attention to this if need be.

Or write an overview of the story in an out-of-universe manner as I mention above. If done properly it'd be difficult for other users to justify its removal. (Emperor (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

re: "...but unfortunately for them I have a rotating IP address...." - Please go over to batman rip and rollback to the versions that had useful information. There is a person over there that refuses to let any useful information to exist on that page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.107.3.20 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever put a plot up. I've already saved the text so if it is deleted, I'll just repost it. And whoever deleted the plot in the first place, grow up. Look at all the stuff you started because you were feeling constipated that day. Whoever is putting that plot up, announce yourself because I know me and a bunch of users are very thankful for your hard work. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC) You're welcome. I just created a new wikipedia identity for me, as I had spent years editing some of my favorite pages without anyone asking me my name. I'll try to keep up. Vertebreakr (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK people, we have a plot up thanks to Vertebreakr. Now this is a open invitation. Let's just detail this as much as possible. It will be here forever and people now and in the future will want to get as filled in as possible, so fill it in. If you see something that is foggy or could use explanation, add on it, no subtraction. This is a great start. As usual, I copied the text so if anyone wants to try deleting it, it'll be up 5 minutes later so don't bother. We all have a responsibility to everyone, no and forever, to fill this in. Holla 98.27.190.112 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys do know that Wikipedia already automatically saves every version of the article since its creation? Simply click on the history tab. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, just want to point out that the "Omega Effect" reference in the plot summary is incorrect; it should read Omega Sanction. Not trying to be anal, but as a question of both correctness AND consistency with the Batman and Darkseid entries it should be changed. It's not a question of a little detail being missing; it's outright wrong. Edited it myself once, but it got edited back, and I'm not getting sucked into that.75.80.89.51 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)DN

I was the one who changed it back because I've watched it get changed more than once and was hoping my action would finally lead to some consensus. I'm glad it did. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read on other pages that Libra was killed by Lex but it is not on the main page and I haven't read it, so if someone has read it, please list it. And whoever knows how to nominate anything for deletion, please do so to the "In Universe Style" section below, it is becoming bothersome with that topic being brought up for no reason all the time. At least I don't get the reason. I thought the series is in universe. I can see the question of where in the timeline stuff is though, as that is confusing sometimes like a lot of the X-men Series', don't even get me started there sometimes. Even though I don't agree with being told to be "nice" because I think this whole plot discussion was stifled by politics, I'm sorry for being a dick about it. In my defense though, I think the reasons the plot was down was childish, but Mr. Animate did make the point that making people feel stupid or angry after they disagreed with me isn't fair either. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, plots done, its perfect, no need to keep shortening it everyday. Not angry, just saying. I don't want it to turn into the plot for Batman R.I.P. where you look at it and go "What the? Well that tells me nothing". It is good. And whoever did this final edit, nice. I am so happy a plot is up and done!!!! Timmyfitz161 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The plot is great. Someone said it can't be put in three paragraphs but I was looking at it and it can be put into three large paragraphs or even easier would be to do like they did for Final Crisis: Revelations and make seven small paragraphs. I don't know which is easier. On the DC Wikia they have a great plot so maybe someone can look at that. It can be shortened, just not much. I think it is best to change the format of the plot in terms of the time line and subject point, as that can allow the paragraphs to be shortened as much as possible. Think of it this way, if you never read a DC comic, would this be helpful at all? Timmyfitz161 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but I think the key is to remove issue # references - isn't that standard? Oh, and can someone PLEASE get rid of the "plot summary is too long comment"?24.80.233.100 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No "reception" section?

Was this a decision made to avoid the flame wars that errupted all over the internet every time someone praised or derided the series? Morrison is a fairly polarizing writer, with both this and Batman: RIP getting HEAVILY mixed reviews (not sure mixed is even the right term... it was more "Love/Hate"), after All-Star Superman received universally positive reviews previous. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Steve

In-universe style

Gentlemen,

As an avid reader myself, from WWII articles to Dental Surgery, from car engineering to Spider-Man, I've always bumping with such argument : In-universe style. Most of the times, such authors start their articles stating it's about a comic book/movie etc. For the average reader (assuming they have minimal English language skills, and a healthy distinction from what is real and what is fantasy) what's the point of boringly, excruciatingly stating on and on that Iron Man is not real, or The Lord of The Rings is a work of fiction ? My point is : If the author begins the article disclaiming the source (comic book, novel, motion picture) why bother with the "reality" tone ? Kapella (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is an attempt to develop an on-line encyclopaedia not a fan site? It's not like comics are singled out for this treatment, wikipedia is getting increasing "tight" on lavish in-universe detail. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is both a fan site and encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia developed by fans. I wouldn't say the page is lavish right now by any means, informative is the word. The beauty of wikipedia for all is that it is what the fans decide in the end really, and in that we all win. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort of - we've decided as a community that we don't write in an in-universe style - so that's the standard we apply here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify: WP:WAF is one of the guidelines that an article must conform to in order to pass the GA assessment in the Comics Project assessment quality scale (the guideline and the scale being arrived at by consensus and an awful lot of discussion). As this article will be an easy B once it stabilises then the next level to aim for is GA. An in-universe plot would have to be removed and/or completely re-written, so it makes sense to try and aim for that now as it means contributors aren't going to be writing a plot now that will have to be scrapped in a couple of months. The plot is probably over-detailed where it covers FC #6 and #7 and in-universe for the latter, but that is easier to fix then trying to wrangle the whole section. (Emperor (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

I don;t think the plot here is the least bit over-detailed. If there re objections that it does not meet other guidelines, then the guidelines need some adjustment for flexibility. If any substantial plot is removed, then it might well be objected to at FAR as not providing the necessary information and being uninformative and therefore unencyclopedic. Just adjusting the style, that's another matter.DGG (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag on the section at the moment pretty much sums it up "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot" - I don't technically have a problem with the plot section being longer (and there could be an argument for having more analysis on the middle issues in the series). At the moment the section starts off discussing the work and ends up retelling the plot, which falls afoul of WP:PLOT as well as WP:WAF. As I say - it isn't a big issue as it is only two issues but if the whole section was like that then it would mean it'd need a lot more work. (Emperor (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Indeed - and we have to make sure we don't conflate two separate issues - the plot section can be as long as needed to provide a useful summary to the read *but* it should not be an in-universe summary, it should always describe events as an object of the narrative - *not* as if they really happened. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to cut the plot summary down to projected goal of three paragraphs. Anyone who's read the series knows how hard this is. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's just the point: it cannot be properly done in three paragraphs. though it shouldbe concise, the implementation of "concise" depends on the circumstances. DGG (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't do so by:

• Rewriting in an in-universe style
• Removing analysis
• Removing primary references

And then removing the {{plot}}, which states: "Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot", when you did the opposite to that. There is no pre-requisite for having a plot of three paragraphs, the concerns are tone, in-universe style and adding too much detail. See: WP:WAF and WP:PLOT. (Emperor (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

It's not any more in-universe than any high-quality FA film plot summary (for example, The Simpsons Movie. The key is to describe things as they happen and ignore the fictional rules of the fictional universe. Morrison's quotes don't add to the understanding of the plot; place that in the publication section, if need be. And primary references are completely unnecessary, as the primary references are the subject of the article itself. It's not something that needs a citation because you are drawing from the article subject itself. We need a basic description of the plot in order to given general readers a comfortable context. Our real focus should be on other areas of the articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Users on this page just spent the last month coming to a consensus on the plot section Wesley and you gave no comment/objection on the talk page during that process. I'm not trying to attack you but why is it all that is going to be unilaterally changed to such a large degree with no concern for anyone else's opinion that was a part of the recent development? Vince92079 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not treating the plot as a work of fiction - it is "reiterating the plot". Equally Morrison's quotes explain why he made a lot of the choices in the plot - putting it into the PH would basically result in going over the same ground twice and is clearly in line with the idea of "discussing the work." Primary references are important for satisfying the referencing criteria for the B-class assessment "all major points are appropriately cited." There is nothing wrong with primary sources as long as they aren't all an article relies on - which isn't the case here. So it is perfectly consistent with guidelines. (Emperor (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

I might've lied, whoever did the edit to the plot overnight made it better. No quotes please. I am confused though from the point of Batman shooting Darkseid to Darkseid dying. The process is confusing because a lot of things in there should be killing him. If you are a reader, you are confused. If someone can clear it up there that would be great. 98.27.166.148 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of plot stuff - I thought that Anthro was in the present in issue 5 - and that's where he is when he dies at the end. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Having been asked by Wesley to chip in, the plot summary should just describe what happens. Real world detail should go into other sections. Alientraveller (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can smell a cluster F coming from a mile away. This is going to bust out into an all out war. I am out of this one. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted anything quotes and anything that wasn't the plot from the plot. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which I consider vandalism and have reverted. Let's be clear what we are discussing - we are discussing *where* that material should be placed in the article, we are not discussing *removing* sourced commentary from the author in reliable sources about his writing decisions. If anyone thinks that the morrison material should not be in the article (note again for the slow of thinking: not *where*) - let's hear it and hear *why*, this useful content doesn't not improve the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best approach is to construct this article like the featured comic book articles. The only one I know of is the Sinestro Corps War. In that article, the plot is in-universe with footnotes to specific issues. I think the quotes Cameron reinserted are really good, and, instead of just removing them, they should be incorporated into another (possibly new) section. AniMate^talk 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, I didn't know you had put those quotes in the article, so now I understand why you took such offense to me deleting those quotes. I thought about it and if it was me I would have felt the same was you felt. No more taking cheap shots. Those quotes should be in a commentary or a separate section thoygh. It would pretty much eliminate any complaints about the plot, so let's just move those quotes to a comentary section or such. Sidenote, how are we going to integrate the other subseries into this ever because they already have separate entries now? Timmyfitz161 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

em.. I put in one of those out of five? six? please don't misrepresent my motives - it's best to ask rather than project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Yah or naw to re-organising the article along the lines of Sinestro Corps War which is I think a format that we can all be happy on? (hopefully?) --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anyone having a problem with using a similar format. As long as the plot remains streamlined, there shouldn't be a problem. Before the predictable uproar, by streamlined I mean all of the major plot points are hit and that they are done so in an organized fashion. AniMate^talk 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that would be great. Vince92079 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sinestro Crops War doesn't conform to WP:CMC/X. I suppose it might be that the article has unique needs (although it looks like it'd be easy enough to move things around there), but I don't see why we need to overcomplicate the structure. Having the PH first followed by the plot (as it is here) is pretty much standard and seems to work just fine here. (Emperor (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Prayer for the aftermath

I don't know if this is allowed, but I just pray this is the end of Darkseid, but god knows that some writer with no creativity will have to bring him back when they can't think of a plot haha. I know that they are going to somehow undo most of what was established with this series, but it would be nice if they did something with the vacuum established in this series and fill it with new blood. Just a comment. This series was great. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are always gonna be fans and writers who will want to bring back their favorite characters that were killed off (Didio has openly admitted he took his job to get Barry Allen back). The allure of Darkseid is that there is a near omnipotent being who commands a legion of followers who wish for the destruction of Earth, but people use him as a crutch too much. At least we now have Lady Styx to replace him for that role, in the commentary for Week 31 during 52, Ken Giffen has admitted Styx was created just have a new character for the 'Cosmic Menace' role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.85.84 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath being collected?

Is there any word on whether the various titles of "Final Crisis: Aftermath" being collected into a single volume? Or are they going to be singular issues to be collected separately? Just wanna know just in case, so there might me a heads up and edit the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.85.84 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume that each limited series will be collected into a trade paperback. I'll be keeping an eye out and will update when I see anything, unless someone else beats me to it. (Emperor (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Schedule: Irregular

Schedule refers to when the comic was scheduled to come out, not when it did due to delays; therefore, I believe the tag in the infobox should be changed to Monthly.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What about putting it like they did on All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder, 'Monthly/Irregular'? I know it was supposed to be scheduled Monthly, but it did not come out on time. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of Plot Summary

The summary that's in the article right now covers some of basics, but it needs a lot of work. The miniseries had a lot more than that going on, so the summary that appears now doesn't accurately capture what happens. Summaries shouldn't generally be especially long, but there's a lot that happens in this series that isn't brought up or explained in the current version. Things are listed out of order, and rather than informing the reader, it only serves to confuse. I suggest redoing and lengthening the summary, covering all the key details. It would be much longer, but it needs to be if it's going to do an effective job of summarizing what happens. Improving the article should be more important than keeping the summary short. Friginator (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - covers all the main points and doesn't get into inanities or fanboy level trivial information - if anything it can be trimmed shorter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine and it's a lot more clear than the Final Crisis graphic novel collection, that graphic novel has major holes.159.83.54.55 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sales

What's the point of the "Sales" section if it only mentions issue 1 and is a sentence long? It doesn't seem to add to the article.129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading Order

Can we have the reading order back? There's several other lists on the page, and it's one of the most useful. People reading this page are most likely to be reading the series or re-reading it, so it is a useful addition. Ziaix | (Talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No reference to "COIE"?

When I wrote into the article that the title "Final Crisis" is a metafictional reference to the final chapter of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" (Named "Final Crisis") it was removed. Was I wrong to assume this is a given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.81.43 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama as Superman Original Research

There is nothing in the main Final Crisis miniseries to indicate that the US President seen as Superman in an alternate Earth is Obama. The mini-series was written before he was even officially nominated. If there is another storyline, official source, etc. identifying him as Obama, it should be cited; otherwise the reference should be removed as OR. Similarly, any suggestion that Nubia might be Michelle Obama. It is worth noting, however, that the 2010 Audio Drama adaptation of Greg Cox's Final Crisis novelization by Graphic Audio casts an actor who impersonates Obama when playing the character. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Crisis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829071408/http://www.newsarama.com/Comic-Con_07/DC/countdownpanel.html to http://www.newsarama.com/Comic-Con_07/DC/countdownpanel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Crisis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218184239/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=154379 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=154379

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) 21:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)