Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-3020860-20181010055200/@comment-3020860-20181022110102

Hatebunny wrote: Having already commented on the Talk page, I'll also reproduce my response (pretty much) verbatim: Thanks, Hatebunny, and I'm glad you did — although I see, now, that you responded over on Template talk:GetEraCat almost immediately (same-day), I hadn't seen it until I got the forum reply notice via email. So, score one for the forums, I guess. Your response helped me better understand this issue much more deeply, too — for better and for worse. But, understanding carries no value judgments, and is always a positive thing.

Using "New 52" to refer to an era is the best effort on our part to encompass the "era" of comics in general, that these comics belong to. [...] As far as we are concerned, the Modern Age of comics ended when the New 52 began. Huh! I hadn't really made that leap, yet. I have to say, that makes me even more dissatisfied with the name, since talking about e.g. "New 52 Era X-Men titles" would just... that's just nonsense, to me.

And, having said all that (already, on the talk page) - the Golden, Silver, and "Modern" ages of comics are, despite not all having exact start and end points, all considered to be official eras in comics, simply by common use. Well... common use, and a commonly-understood, shared frame of reference. Labels like that, even when they're arbitrary and loosely-defined, stick because they're understandable and obvious to the majority of those who find them useful additions to their vocabulary. But on the other side of that coin, they can't be forced.

Take a hypothetical: Say someone sitting around Marvel in the late 1980s decided that instead of the Modern Age, they were going to brand the then-current period of comics the "Mutant Age". Certainly justifiable from the perspective of Marvel Comics' output at the time, given what a powerhouse their X-titles had become. But that name's basically nonsense in the context of DC's imprints, which is why that name would fail to catch on as a general, industry-wide term for the period, and a better label ("Modern Age") would be adopted instead. ...Again, hypothetically.

At least from my perspective, I fear that "New 52 Era" seems far more a "Mutant Age"-type pick, not something that's likely destined for widespread acceptance like "Modern Age".

I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying that "New 52 Era" only sounds weird because it's unfamiliar, and we really just need to get used to it. Actually, that's not even putting words in your mouth:

The fact that "The New 52 Era" seems weird or unsatisfying to you is only by dint of its not being one of the 4-5 "recognized" eras in comics, as yet. ..I would respectfully disagree with the "only" part of that statement. "New 52 Era" — especially when viewed as an industry-wide-term — doesn't seem weird because it's new, it seems weird because it's wrong, particularly in the context of other publishers' output.

(But, really, the fact that it seems wrong even for DC titles today is proof positive that it's definitely wrong for use industry-wide. The same way it would be super wrong if the Marvel wiki had started labeling all of their titles "Ultimate Era" back in 2000 when they launched Marvel Ultimate, and was still doing it today, even after Marvel took a torch to that entire universe.)

This era's name, as far as comics meta-talk goes, is TBD. We could be the deciders - but and let me be very clear here if we are going to be the deciders, we should make sure we don't come up with a stupid, fancrufty name for it. Agreed, absolutely. And I have to say, based on the constraints by which this new era is to be defined, and considering the (as you say) major industry-wide shifts that either gave rise to, or came out of, the new era... there is one name that immediately jumps out at me. So, I'll just throw it out here and see what people think of it:

...Welcome to the Digital Age of Comics?