I’ve just bought some more trades and wanted to finally add Lnightfall as well, but I’m confused as the two omnibuses (Vol 2 and 3) I was looking at dont seem to have an obvious Vol 1. It’s probably out of production but even on eBay and another national online store I can’t discern which is the correct Vol 1 omnibus as the issues included seem to overlap. I’m hoping the information is just wrong but I don’t want to risk buying two trades only to find out the first just overlaps.
Check out fishpond.co.nz and search “knightfall omnibus” and it comes up with only three options, but I would like your opinion if the first volume is indeed before the second two.
I'm baffled as well. The Vol 1 Omnibus that shows up in fishpond apparently collects every book in Knightfall and all Prodigal as well. What I find strange is that, to my knowledge, DC has not published such omnibus. All collected editions of that storyline have always been in 3 volumes.
Based on that, the results from fishpond for Vols 2 & 3 match those of the new edition collection and Vol 1 seems to be all 3 volumes of the Omnibus publication.
I mean, if I were you, I'd go for the digitalversioninstead; but since I know you like your comics on papyrus scrolls, I'd go for the first volume listed since it claims it has it all. I'd also double check their refund policy...
You may or may not have noticed that I have only been making one Discussion post (the year ones) every day. I'm keeping the number of my posts/comments synchronized with the year of each post. Because of this, I have had to miss out on a lot of discussions I have wanted to take part in.
I know it's not allowed for vandals who just are ban evading, but what about regular users?
I'd only use it for a few weeks. When I'm finished with my posts, I'd leave it.
The general practice is it's allowed as long as you don't present yourself as two different people, evade a ban, etc.
Acceptable second accounts, for example, are bots, or if you want to be known under different names in a Star Trek and Game of Thrones community. Or you don't want anyone to know you edit that saucy schoolgirl anime wiki.
Hey there, I was having a chat with Tupka in the hopes of utilizing the "titans" URL for a wiki covering the upcoming TV series Titans. He didn't take issue with it, but suggested I consult the other admins. Would you have a problem with this?
I'm going to be absolutely honest with you. I have no issue whatsoever with changing the URL. But that is mainly because I have no control over it. The two admins that can actually change it are MrBlonde267 (Chief Admin) and Jamie (Founder). They are the ones you should talk to, but a friendly warning is that they are against that, regardless of the other admins opinions.
I'd rather just keep the discussion in one place and emphasize how right S is, you have to talk to those two.
I'm more of a neutral opinion, like Tupka. I'm not a no, but my main hold up is there's no real benefit to us giving up the url besides out of the goodness of our hearts. If you had a strong persuasive argument to sell MrBlonde or Jamie as to why we should give it up, I think that's more a discussion.
Apologies for the multiple discussions, I just figured that placing one message might not attract the other admins, as seemed to be the case with the message on Tupka's wall, so I just went for the most recently active.
I'd have to say if anything I fail to see why removing one redirected URL from your arsenal could really disadvantage you, as you guys are plenty big and renowned. Of course, it is a matter of you guys simply being kind, so I do request this respectfully.
Not every character needs a page. Specially not those that are only recognized by their first name like "Ali", "Asher", "Astro" "Atkins". Most of those that belong to Earths One and Two are not relevant enough to warrant their own pages, so there's no need to link them or their appearances.
For those that actually have full names, maybe check the pages of the comics in which they appear (if indicated in the book). That way you make sure the character has a link in the comic page or if it's just one of those irrelevant dudes. If it's not indicated and we don't have a page, just assume it's not needed/wanted.
Same rules apply for the locations. There are very few places in the Batman mythos that warrant a page, so don't link those either.
The "Alfred Foundation" is unnecessary because canonically, it was later turned into the Wayne Foundation during the Silver Age. So no need to include that one there.
Lastly, I'd say maybe don't include those names of the unneeded characters or places. I wouldn't do it, but if you'd like to index the book completely, I say go ahead with the indications above.
Have you heard of Rachel Green, Bruce's attorney? She is listed (in the book, not the wiki) as having an appearance in Batman #585, but the page only mentions "Wayne's attorney." Should she get a red link or plain text?
She's also mentioned as being the attorney who assists in Dick's adoption and Bruce's trial over the whole Vesper Fairchild affair.
Yep. She was introduced in the prelude to the Bruce Wayne: Murderer/Fugitive storyline. I had to look it up though, because her role is minimal. I included her appearances in the storyline because I intended to read some of the books prior to that, to learn more about the character than just her failed attempt to save Bruce from prison and to see if she really deserves a page.
I haven't come to that yet and it might take a while. I'll leave it to your judgement. Regardless of what you include (text or link), I might change it eventually.
Nope. That was a character exclusively used by Haney; and if you've followed his B&B material, you'd know most of the stuff he uses is rather canon in his own universe. The "Haney-verse", a universe with lacking continuity and characterization issues.
His work has been largely ignored by modern scribes, so most of that content is ancient history.
I'm not familiar with BatB which is why I ask. I've only read the Etrigan appearances. I'm glad you mention the Haney-verse because he erroneously referred to Glanda as Jason's fiancée. He also makes Blood sound like a chauvinistic douche, his dialogue is very stodgy even for the '70s.
However, Matt Wagner presumably refers back to #137 in Demon Vol 2 making it the encounter with Shahn-Zi canon Demon material, despite the ludicrous concept of Etrigan turning into a mongoose to battle a cobra. The 109 issue is actually pretty good though with minor gripes, but it was published while Kirby's run was still ongoing so he may have had input.
Welp, there goes my "knowledge" of Demon lore down the drain. Although, I should've expected it.
It's rather interesting to know that Haney's work has been referenced elsewhere outside of Batman. I guess that might be because Bats has so many other (better) stories to develop compared to Etrigan, that it was only reasonable that Demon writers would reference as much past as they could. Even the undesirable parts.
That said, I shouldn't critisize Haney that much. After all, he was a Silver Age writer who endured until the late years of the Bronze Age, and while his early works are actually rather good (both in Batman & Titans), by the late 70s he was awfully outdated and maybe even burned. Same thing that happened to Bill Finger when he came up with Batman #147. Never let writers go on for 20 years of doing the same sh*t...
I do stress "presume" as Wagner mentions battling a "worm" alongside a witch boy and witch queen. The only thing that comes close to this is the cobra — "worm" coming from the Germanic/old English for snake or dragon. It's an esoteric reference, but judging by Wagner's prose he's quite a smart fella.
With only two issue of BatB, Haney has hardly butchered the Demon in any way. I would consider both to be canon. Minus the narration regarding the fiancée.