Talk:DC Rebirth

Rumors
Rumors that Rebirth will involve drastic changes to the DC Multiverse (Earth-0 and Earth 2, mostly) may be somewhat exaggerated. The Pre-Flashpoint Superman has already been re-introduced in Convergence and "Lois and Clark," the Old Teen Titans are getting their memories back in "Titans Hunt," New 52 Superman is apparently in the process of dying, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilantron (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't deal in rumors and none of what you said is on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For people who don't know any better, after reading this sentence "DC Rebirth is intended to restore the DC Universe to a form much like that prior to the "Flashpoint" storyline, while still incorporating numerous elements of The New 52," they might think this means DC is revoking the New 52, going back to a Pre-Flashpoint world, and just keeping some things from the New 52. From what I gather from all the pages currently sourced, the exact opposite is the case.  Johns also says Rebirth is not a reboot - see source 3.  My point in mentioning "Lois and Clark" and "Titans Hunt" was to show how DC is already bringing Pre-Flashpoint elements back into the New 52 Earth-0 world.Cilantron (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is past tense used for future events?
Okay, this is something strange that popped out to me: repeatedly in this article the phrase "The title initially shipped twice monthly" is used...

...to describe titles that have not had even a single release yet! Now it has been forever since I bothered to deal with the hassle of editing anything more key to an article than a typo, but it seems to me this is a HUGE deviation from the usual style and approach to Wikipedia articles. While it is not uncommon to see Wiki articles a bit behind on updating to past tense once an event has actually occurred or a release actually made, never have I seen an article do the exact opposite, of declaring things over and over in firm past tense that are literally not even supposed to happen until months out in the future (some of these have dates like "October 2016" when, as I write this, it is May 23 of that same year). It does not seem right at all to me to describe things that have not yet happened (and in this case, which hypothetically could wind up never happening or could be delayed etc - because you know, they haven't occurred yet), as if they have already happened.

Now, I don't know if this is officially addressed anywhere but this is not something I have ever seen on any other Wikipedia article on any subject, probably for the very good reason that it is extremely confusing for one, and winds up being technically inaccurate/leaving far more room for error, for another. (I mean, if an entry says something is going to happen, in the future tense, for what is listed as a past date? Obviously you conclude the article needs updating. But if it already states it in the past tense, but say, an October release got pushed to December, but nobody changed it when that first happened? Suddenly you have an item that is inaccurate and might never get corrected because it doesn't look like it "needs updating" on the face of it)

My point is: none of this is a certainty, because it is a future event. So why is it that the charts in this article repeatedly state things like "The title initially shipped twice monthly", as if we're looking at this from January 23, 2017 and not May 23, 2016 - before the vast majority of these titles have shipped?

I know the usual reply is "well then edit it to fix it" but frankly it's fast approaching 3am, I'm hardly ever on WP these days, and I have no idea what the edit history looks like...and so given past experiences, I'm actually pretty leery of doing it myself, especially since it's in a lot of places and I'm not used to editing actual charts on here (did I mention that when I fix stuff here these days it's usually just a typo? Yeah). I'm just putting this here to hopefully "ping" someone as it were to notice what I assume to be an issue that needs fixing, because as it is it made the article far more confusing at first glance than it needed to be, and because I can see this increasing the possibility of the article ending up with major factual errors in the long run. Thanks ahead of time to anyone who addresses this. 97.102.79.98 (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot section for DC Universe Rebirth #1?
Shouldn't there be a plot summary for today's 80-page one-off, because that's what bridges into the DC Rebirth initiative? NP Chilla (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at this article. This article is about the initiative as a whole, not just the special. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by IPs
Regarding these changes by the IP 97.91.xxx.xx: This IP not only removes the valid source of the January 2017 solicits to cite the proper info for the JLA one-shots and JLA series, they are insisting on readding collected edition material that they are claiming can be sourced by existing solicit material. For example, they are claiming that the December 2016 solicits (seen here) supports the announcement of "Action Comics Volume 2: Return to Metropolis TP". Looking through that source, there is no mention what-so-ever of this collected edition (nor many of the others that this IP is adding). This page doesn't get much editor love, so I've tried to add all necessary trades to the article as the solicits are released each month. These edits are all WP:OR. Additionally, the IP has now unhid some of the miniseries initially thought to be Rebirth titles, but since revealed that they are not due to not having the Rebirth banner. The IP ignored the note that was added and, again, did not add a new source to support these titles as being Rebirth titles, per WP:BURDEN. I invite the IP to discuss the reason for their edits here. , these are the reasonings for the dispute, and in the event this disruption continues when the full protection ends, I would like you to be aware, so I do not get caught in an edit war with this IP. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The core idea of the event
I feel that the actual concept of Rebirth has been intentionally obfuscated by DC itself, strange as it seems. That is one likely reason why the current version of this article does not seem to state it very clearly either. I am not claiming to undertand or even to know what it is or if it exists at all, but several bits and pieces seem to be mentioned and hinted at.


 * It is in some sense a return or reconciliation with the pre-Flashpoint continuity.
 * It is also a partial end of the "New 52" continuity. And yeah, that is contradictory. "Rebirth" continuity may well have a sizeable element of inherent contradiction in it.  Back in Crisis it was part of the plot and it seems to have become even more so in Convergence and now in Rebirth and its resulting continuity, as made particularly apparent in early Rebirth Superman stories.

At this point in time, nearly all of the DC ongoings have been relaunched in "Rebirthed" form. To the best of my understand that essentially means that they have the opportunity for start their continuity anew with whatever mix of pre-Flashpoint, New 52 and truly new elements they want to. The result will of course involve continuity conflicts, which DC is dealing with by making the Rebirth a protacted, ongoing event that has so far taken seven months before the first wave is finished. December will supposedly begin a second wave with the JL/SS miniseries. I don't think there has been a clear statement on how many waves Rebirth is expected to have, and I get the sense that DC is doing its best to hedge its bets and leave its options open and attempt course correction as the reception demands. Several of the Rebirthed books seem to be either avoiding of continuity-involved stories or instead openly dealing with contradictory continuity elements. I think that is deliberate, and an effort to avoid for as long as possible. DC probably feels that the hard reboot of Flashpoint/The New 52 was a mistake and it would rather not repeat it only five years later.

The bottom line is that Rebirth seems to be an ongoing concern that may easily last for several years to come before even an attempt at declaring a stable continuity is made. It is also very metatextual, to the point of making Grant Morrison's run in Animal Man seem tame. Editorial policy wants to be fluid and non-commited until and unless reader acceptance reassures it, therefore so will the continuity be.

I may easily be wrong... but I have attempted to learn better and that is what I have concluded. Luis Dantas (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing changes or additions to the article, because the talk page should not be used as forum. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

New Age of Heroes
These titles spin out of Metal, which is part of Rebirth. Doesn't that make them part of Rebirth? Maybe a separate section? Mookie b (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed some article about it, when it was originally announced, it made it seem like they would be their own separate thing, not necessarily part of Rebirth overall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)