On Sam Zhao it says his death was in Earth 2 Vol 1 3. Although this is true, he does come back as the air elemental ghost until him and Grundy are absorbed by Alan Scott, so shouldn't his death be changed to Earth 2: World's End Vol 1 20?
Ok sry about the big sir edit, idk how to make a new page, but angle man got his throat ripped out in that issue of Superman/ Wonder Woman and died. He only made a cameo in Flash after that and so did Rainbow Raider... but he got decapitated
Sorry for the intrusion.
New 52 characters were re-imagined for Rebirth, and some had their stories changed. In the case of Angle Man, until it is proven that who appeared in The Flash is not Angelo Bend, so they remain the same Prime Earth character.
Besides, they're comics. Characters are resurrected all the time. Speaking again about Angle Man, I thought his "death" very dubious.
Still not entirely convinced tho, the timeshift didnt seem to ressurect anyone else (other than in the Teen Titans and Deathstroke series which were reset prior to rebirth in 2014 due to Stormwatch screwing w/ time i think)
On second thought u ARE right. Hecate and Nikolas Aegeus were completely altered due to the rebirth like Superman characters (which is strange cus Batman aquaman etc and their characters were kept the same)
In DC Holiday Special 2017 #1 Chroma was the antagonist (the only one) of Flash's Christmas story, and in Flash (Volume 4) #27 he was one of the main antagonists. All after he was beheaded by Grodd. LOL
Oh wait that flash issue is before forever evil even tho it was released after villians month. Forever evil ends around #30 which starts w/ the poilce department being torn apart by criminals. The DC winter special stories r set in various different times like nuclear earth which isnt DC continuity obviously
Hey I was wondering why you undid my edit to Jeremiah's page, I believe the image I changed the main image to is a more clear representation of him. I believe that the image has been deleted so I will attach it here
My reason for questioning it is I want to reduce overhead for me typing "[[" and "]]" several thousand times. It looks like the template makes these links without the brackets. See this revision: https://dc.wikia.com/wiki/JSA_Vol_1_19?oldid=2136678 and this revision: https://dc.wikia.com/wiki/JSA_Vol_1_19?oldid=2136684 they have the exact same links and render completely identically (i.e. they are equally informative). So if adding brackets is important for some reason, I will add them. If not, I will avoid all of the cumbersome brackets. Hence my question. Do you have an answer?
Huh. I don't remember this being the case, but you're right. It works regardless. I remember there being a reason we needed to use brackets, but not what it is. It might have had something to do with the move-bot's code requiring them - but I can't recall. Maybe it's unnecessary. As you no doubt know, we've been including the brackets in every case for a decade+.
Tupka might remember.
So... if you don't want to use brackets, don't, I suppose - until we remember why we needed them, and come back and yell at you.
I'm not sure if there is a specific reason - other than that the template was just rapped around it all when we had to implement it.
However, I would argue against not adding them, for consistency's sake. Mentioned things do have brackets, and using different formats is just making more exceptions and special cases for people to remember. Adding a couple of brackets is hardly much work. Creating more usage rules is not "removing overhead".
Converting everything - 25000 pages IIRC - by bot is going to create so many broken templates, as not all ]]}}'s are part of an Appearance line.
If you need to add brackets to things without A, but not without A, that's an extra usage rule.
I honestly have no idea what you are saying here.
No. But for consistency, you'd need one way to do it across the wiki. So it's either clean up the ones you did without [[, or it's remove it from all the others. Either way, you create more work.
Why is behind-the-scenes consistency that makes literally no difference in the rendering of the page something that is desirable or useful at all? And why is it you care about input method consistency but you don't care about (e.g.) applying the naming conventions to pages like Kal-El (New Earth)? Consistency about something that no one would ever see is important but consistency about page names goes out the window?
The naming convention exeptions are done for SEO reasons. But we're at a standstill for NE > PE.
And it's whim-as-rule, not whimsy-as-rule. Which this isn't. Consistency and standards are useful. How can you expect people how things work if half your explanation is "you can also do it this way, but you can also do that this other way".
Consistency and standards are useful. How can you expect people how things work if half your explanation is "you can also do it this way, but you can also do that this other way".
They are useful... whenever they are useful for an argument you want to have. If there is more than one way to do things, that actually makes it more likely that things will work. Someone can input three apostrophes to make strong text or use the strong HTML tag or someone could make a template, etc. I really don't know why you think having brackets inside of a template that doesn't require them is the consistency hill you want to die on. Can you please remove the needless tracking category functionality that should have been removed when you deleted the category?
Hey Kyletheobald, I have another problem and I can't seem to figure out why. I created 2 character pages today, Hammerfang and Billy Parks. I published them, but for some reason Hammerfang went almost immediately and Billy Parks stayed for about 9 minutes and then disappeared.
I deleted it. Aside from not following the naming standards, it had more things to clean up than it had content, and was not linked on any other page. Hammerfang also does not meet any standards; make sure to add appearances the character has.
Hey Kyletheobald. The important discussion that is made for me and M.S. is about reviewing corrections on some characters pages in DC and Marvel Database wiki only. I appreciate the offer, but M.S. and I need to review the things that need changing to make a difference.
Thank you for reading and understanding, Kyletheobald.
We can't because people in other wiki putting nasty stuff on the message and it is annoying. That is why I made the discussion. After me and M.S finish reviewing some characters in Marvel, we are going to start reviewing characters in DC, though we haven't start it yet. Can you unlock it, please?
Hi Kyle! I changed the Arthur Pendragon photo because that is not a photo of Arthur Pendragon. As explained in the Seven Soldiers Meta Series (which i am now going through and filling in), specifically Seven Soldiers: Shining Knight Vol 1 3, there have been multiple King Arthurs across time, including Arthur Pendragon. However the King Arthur from the Camelot that was invaded by the Sheeda, is a "Proto-Arthur" of some sort. This Arthur is a descendant of Aurakles, and somewhat inspired all of the other Arthurs across time. In the future, i am willing to make a new page for this Proto-Arthur, which is why I switched the photo to the Arthur that was shown in his first appearance.
As an adaptation of a figure we don't even know to be real or mythical (or a combination), the Arthurian lore has been adapted in many different ways. This is just one more different take. Not worth an extra page just because Morrison had to be difficult.
It's based on Arthur. Like we don't need pages for that time Zeus was said to be an alien, we don't need a page for a one storyline guy that is essentially Arthur. Arthurian lore in DC is an inconsistent mess with no one version more or less true than the other; creating separate articles lends undue wieght to that version.