• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The DC Comics Cosmology Revision Project

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am unfortunately a calc group member that does not know the nitty gritty details of the higher aspects of DC Cosmology nor have I read any of the important works for this CRT, so I will be unable to assist in this regard in any capacity whatsoever. Apologies if I wasn't of much help.
 
I guess the point boils down to this: Are you splitting the verse because that is the inherent nature of the material/cosmology? Or are you splitting the verse because Superman being tier 1 is scarily consistent and we can't have that because reasons.
The reasons for the split are clearly stated in the blog. The established cosmological systems aren't compatible with each other, which affects scaling chains. I'm unaware of how this influences a Tier 1 Superman discussion. For any character, I would be skeptical of a rating if the proposed scaling chain jumps across different cosmology systems.

Take, for example, Morrison's Overvoid. Its very nature got changed in the recent Cosmology Retcon.
 
Are you splitting the verse because that is the inherent nature of the material/cosmology? Or are you splitting the verse because Superman being tier 1 is scarily consistent and we can't have that because reasons.
For what it's worth, Superman has not really come up at all throughout the discussions we've been having. Unless you were just using Superman as a stand-in to ask "are we splitting the verse because we don't want it to be tiered highly" in which case, it's obviously difficult to truly disprove bias or personal intent, but I can speak for myself in saying this is born of a desire to have accurate models for the verse, because mashing clearly contradictory things together is not the best way to approach it, and there's so much of that going on in DC.
 
I will say this sets a very scary precedent. Besides verses that operate on a split-cosmology narrative like SCP, any long running verse with a massive body of work will eventually run into inconsistencies and wack scaling.

I guess the point boils down to this: Are you splitting the verse because that is the inherent nature of the material/cosmology? Or are you splitting the verse because Superman being tier 1 is scarily consistent and we can't have that because reasons.

I'll say it like it is, if you're working on the basis of that latter that's bad faith.
As a result of having several authors and being a setting that's been ongoing for several decades, it inevitably lead to several different revisions and outright retconning of major aspects of the cosmology (sometimes multiple in less than 5 years) so it's more so that taking the cosmology as one unbroken whole would lead to a very incoherent mess due to massive incongruencies between different comic book runs and eras on that regard.

No, it doesn't have to do with characters being a very high tier and the makers of the CRT not wanting that, why does this seem to come up so often? Most higher tier arguments aren't viable for reasons independent of cosmology issues being addressed here. Superman's tier never even came up as far as I'm aware or any non-cosmic entity not crucial to the scaling of the cosmology models.
 
Anyway, Xearsay and Udlmaster seem inappropriate, given that the former has a history of stonewalling and the latter of being toxic, but are there any other knowledgeable regular members who want to argue here, and are able to keep any bad behaviour in check?
I really don't think "has a history of stonewalling" is something you can bring up to try and prevent someone from at least making an argument, this thread is going to be under the eyes of the entire staff community and he'd basically be by himself vs like 10 supporters so I really doubt Xearsay would be capable of pulling that off even if he wanted. He at least has some questions he'd like to ask and IMO he should get to.

Besides them, I know a couple other people who know DC but that doesn't necessarily mean they have an interest in this thread. I guess if they do they can let me know on my wall, and I'll mention them here.
 
The reasons for the split are clearly stated in the blog. The established cosmological systems aren't compatible with each other, which affects scaling chains. I'm unaware of how this influences a Tier 1 Superman discussion. For any character, I would be skeptical of a rating if the proposed scaling chain jumps across different cosmology systems.

Take, for example, Morrison's Overvoid. Its very nature got changed in the recent Cosmology Retcon.
For what it's worth, Superman has not really come up at all throughout the discussions we've been having. Unless you were just using Superman as a stand-in to ask "are we splitting the verse because we don't want it to be tiered highly" in which case, it's obviously difficult to truly disprove bias or personal intent, but I can speak for myself in saying this is born of a desire to have accurate models for the verse, because mashing clearly contradictory things together is not the best way to approach it, and there's so much of that going on in DC.
As a result of having several authors and being a setting that's been ongoing for several decades, it inevitably lead to several different revisions and outright retconning of major aspects of the cosmology (sometimes multiple in less than 5 years) so it's more so that taking the cosmology as one unbroken whole would lead to a very incoherent mess due to massive incongruencies between different comic book runs and eras on that regard.

No, it doesn't have to do with characters being a very high tier and the makers of the CRT not wanting that, why does this seem to come up so often? Most higher tier arguments aren't viable for reasons independent of cosmology issues being addressed here. Superman's tier never even came up as far as I'm aware or any non-cosmic entity not crucial to the scaling of the cosmology models.
That is correct, yes. I originally initiated this project over 2 years ago because I am anal-retentive/compulsively obsessed with truthful accuracy, and our current scaling for the cosmology itself largely does not seem to make any coherent logical sense.

I am perfectly fine with high statistics for either Marvel or DC Comics if they have a rational and coherent explicitly proven basis, and have approved several extreme upgrades for a large part of Marvel's characters recently, just to make one example.

Given how extreme and prolonged an effort we have made to prepare this revision, and make it as logically accurate as we were able to, I would greatly appreciate if Sir_Ovens, Armorchompy, and any other staff members who have doubts about its veracity thoroughly read all of our presented evidence, and reach their conclusions afterwards.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Antvasima/DC_Comics_Cosmology_Revision_Project
 
I really don't think "has a history of stonewalling" is something you can bring up to try and prevent someone from at least making an argument, this thread is going to be under the eyes of the entire staff community and he'd basically be by himself vs like 10 supporters so I really doubt Xearsay would be capable of pulling that off even if he wanted. He at least has some questions he'd like to ask and IMO he should get to.

Besides them, I know a couple other people who know DC but that doesn't necessarily mean they have an interest in this thread. I guess if they do they can let me know on my wall, and I'll mention them here.
I suppose that is a valid point. I just fear that this revision will get derailed and spammed to oblivion, which would necessitate a restart.

Would the rest of our project members be fine with if we allow Xearsay to comment here?

Also, regarding the 1 versus 10 comment, there are only some of our project members who have the available time and argumentation skills to argue well for our cause (myself not among them), and we also have all of the VSBW staff members who disagree to respond to, and it is likely that a few more regular members than just Xearsay will want and be accepted to argue here.
 
Last edited:
I've read parts of blogs in the past but this is the first time I am reading it fully. I am not super knowledgeable on DC especially when it comes to scouring through hundreds of comics over the years. What has been presented here makes sense to me but I'd also like to see opposing views.

Knowledgeable members who are recognized by other staff members should be fine to make their points as long as they do not derail and engage in hostility. I see Udlmaster was reply banned from this thread, a decision I agree with after seeing the deleted posts. I'll mostly be moderating this thread rather than actively participating in it.
 
Okay. After we have received some applicants in the DC Comics thread, I think that we can accept Xearsay and a few others that have a good track record.
 
Superman wouldn't have a 1-A key or anything of the sort even if this revision never happened, can we please actually discuss any issues and such with the splitting of the cosmology and not immediately jump on the "this is a conspiracy against DC!???!?!!!" bandwagon?
 
We aren't sure. This thread is to primarily establish the split itself. Discussion on the specifics of the new cosmology models and what characters scale to which feats and statements are for after this is resolved.
 
Wow you guys really SCP'd yourselves.

Yeah if the authors inherently have differing ideas over the canon of the cosmology then I think it's fine? But DC isn't just made up of these big cosmology guys. How do you intend on splitting stories written by authors that have no relation to any of the above authors and their respective cosmologies?
 
How do you intend on splitting stories written by authors that have no relation to any of the above authors and their respective cosmologies?
If their tier isn't based on cosmology, they wouldn't be keyed as such. If they are written within an entirely singular cosmology they would probably be tiered within their own storyline. But it's all a case by case basis, as is anything.
 
Would the rest of our project members be fine with if we allow Xearsay to comment here?
He posted on Armorchompy's wall saying he doesn't have any problem with the split and just had some questions. I think we should focus on people who actually disagree so that they can explain their basis for it.

He's also said numerous times in the past that he's ardently against the split, so him changing his tune now to say he agrees with the split but simply wants to ask questions seems like bait to me, and given his problematic behavior, he's probably just overall not a good candidate to participate here.

There are lots of DC knowledgeable members, so it isn't as though avoiding people like Udl handicaps it.
 
Everybody knows the only reason this is being pushed is cause Superman can't have an 1-A key and because it makes characters too strong.
The only "Superman" who'd inherently be relevant here is Thought Robot, who is already 1-A outright and possibly for other reasons. Rebirth Superman had his key removed because it was more of a "The only reason he had it was because of Mr Mxyzptlk having the ability to amp people that high and not Superman's own power/form or any special weapon he possessed." 6th Dimension being downgraded from 1-A to 1-B or Low 1-C wouldn't even be relevant for Superman specifically. Though it be a downgrade for World Forger if that happens, but the key just doesn't apply to Superman or Batman regardless of where it lands.

Also, I think most if not all the 1-A Vertigo characters might still be 1-A for other reasons, just that 6th dimension being a 1-A structure is the part people are skeptical about primarily.
 
Last edited:
Alright so I'm not going to act like I know the full ins and outs of the blog since I don't dabble in DC Comics (I only read Lantern stuff), especially that higher dimensional who ha. But looking at it, if these authers really have their own way of doing things and their cosmologies differ from each other, I don't really have an issue with the split. But this is coming from a noob so I'll let those knowledgeable do their thing. Nice job on the blog to.
 
Armorchompy thought it was fine for me to comment here.

I’m kind of on the same stance as Sir_Ovens. I don’t really disagree with splitting the cosmology, I just don’t understand what is the plan in situations with long runs written by multiple writers which happen to also involve these big cosmology writers. A prime example would be like the 1988 - 1995 Animal Man run which Grant started off then other writers took over. Would we just scale the characters within the run only to the part written by the big cosmology writer and ignore everything else? Or is there some other thing you guys have in mind for situations like that?
 
It's a case by case basis, and one important factor is whether or not the things that these writers wrote stayed in continuity.

The "cosmology" is a starting point, a line in the sand that starts our tiering process within a specific narrative sandbox that an author created rather than assuming a full composite, due to the various issues with that.

For the case of Buddy, aka Animal Man, the "narrative relevance" factor may allow him to scale to the entire run, but it depends on what those other authors wrote, and whether or not there's a significant lack of congruence between authors, and then a decision will be have to be made about how to reconcile the incongruence in terms of tiering.

So while Buddy might have narrative relevance to those cosmological concepts that later authors wrote into that run, if those same concepts were completely orphaned outside of Animal Man, it does not follow that we clump all of it together under a "Morrison Cosmology" and start scaling unrelated characters and storylines based on these cosmological elements that never made it out of Animal Man at all, and the only connection is that it's in a storyline Grant used to write. That sort of thing is precisely what we are trying to avoid, scaling characters to cosmologies that they have no actual connection to.

Some cosmic concepts have clear and demonstrable staying power. Limbo started in Animal Man, but Grant used it as recently as 2015 Multiversity. That's an extremely clear case that Limbo has remained an element in the cosmology.

This becomes particularly important when we address characters who are creator beings, beyond creation, transcendent, etc. Putting everything the various Animal Man authors in the 90s wrote into a single "Cosmology" and then scaling every transcendent being above every concept within it doesn't make sense. It's not reasonable to interpret these characters as having dominion over these concepts that only existed in Animal Man, and that the authors didn't consider or weren't aware of.

And as an aside, Morrison in particular has an extreme fascination with myths, physics, and Cosmology, but he is horrendously inconsistent and tends to play fast and loose with continuity, so once the discussion thread about specific splits is held, in my opinion serious caution needs to be used in deciding what scales to what, since his work is a whole barrel of monkeys unto itself in terms of contradictions.

But the specific details will be ironed out later on, and my assessments here aren't authoritative, but this is the general idea being employed. If I got something wrong, any of the other staff and project members can chime in to help better communicate it.
 
Last edited:
He posted on Armorchompy's wall saying he doesn't have any problem with the split and just had some questions. I think we should focus on people who actually disagree so that they can explain their basis for it.

He's also said numerous times in the past that he's ardently against the split, so him changing his tune now to say he agrees with the split but simply wants to ask questions seems like bait to me, and given his problematic behavior, he's probably just overall not a good candidate to participate here.

There are lots of DC knowledgeable members, so it isn't as though avoiding people like Udl handicaps it.
Well, it depends on if we will get a sufficient number of knowledgeable other applicants.

So far only @NHTkenshin2 has asked to post here, which I personally think seems fine.

As long as Xearsay promises to behave himself, and not spam or derail, I think that we can at least hold him in consideration.
 
Armorchompy thought it was fine for me to comment here.

I’m kind of on the same stance as Sir_Ovens. I don’t really disagree with splitting the cosmology, I just don’t understand what is the plan in situations with long runs written by multiple writers which happen to also involve these big cosmology writers. A prime example would be like the 1988 - 1995 Animal Man run which Grant started off then other writers took over. Would we just scale the characters within the run only to the part written by the big cosmology writer and ignore everything else? Or is there some other thing you guys have in mind for situations like that?
If Xearsay will only make these types of reasonable posts, it is probably fine for him to comment here as well.
 
Everybody knows the only reason this is being pushed is cause Superman can't have an 1-A key and because it makes characters too strong.
Sigh...

At least read all of the evidence that we assembled to our blog post. Our viewpoint did not appear out of nothing. We have entirely valid concerns.

Also, Post-Crisis Superman is still one of my favourite characters of all time. I am not remotely biased against him. I am just compulsively obsessed with factual accuracy, and have a strong aversion to deliberately false information (particularly for political gains).
 
And as an aside, Morrison in particular has an extreme fascination with myths, physics, and Cosmology, but he is horrendously inconsistent and tends to play fast and loose with continuity, so once the discussion thread about specific splits is held, in my opinion serious caution needs to be used in deciding what scales to what, since his work is a whole barrel of monkeys unto itself in terms of contradictions.

But the specific details will be ironed out later on, and my assessments here aren't authoritative, but this is the general idea being employed. If I got something wrong, any of the other staff and project members can chime in to help better communicate it.
I think that Tupka217, the head of the DC Comics wiki, and one of very few Fandom editors with an even larger number of regular edits than I have, once told me something similar about Morrison in a private chat.
 
Last edited:
I don't particularly know if this is intended to be a thread for the discussion of the scaling of characters and structures

But, why is The Void 1-A?
I thought we thoroughly established that these type of structures dont qualify for 1-A in Kuuzos Concept of space thread.
 
I don't particularly know if this is intended to be a thread for the discussion of the scaling of characters and structures

But, why is The Void 1-A?
I thought we thoroughly established that these type of structures dont qualify for 1-A in Kuuzos Concept of space thread.
It's a thread discussing whether or not the cosmology should be split into sections or not. The scaling comes later.
 
I don't particularly know if this is intended to be a thread for the discussion of the scaling of characters and structures

But, why is The Void 1-A?
I thought we thoroughly established that these type of structures dont qualify for 1-A in Kuuzos Concept of space thread.
Sorry, this thread isn't for those discussions. It's to discuss whether or not the cosmology should be split at all. Specific discussions about where the splits should be, and what tiers they should be, will happen later, since those discussions are moot until the cosmology split is approved.
 
My apologies, but I don't think I'll be much help here. I'm more of a Marvel fan.

I don't know much about DC cosmology, and have other wiki projects on my to-do list.
I wish you all luck, though. This sort of project doesn't sound easy.
 
(Before I ask my questions, I'll just note Lord Tracer gave me permission to comment on this thread)

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with splitting the cosmology, I do have a few questions, both about the idea of splitting it in the first place and some of the contents of the blog. The latter seems to be discussion for the following threads, so I'll just ask some of the questions about how certain things will be handled.

  • From what I can tell, if certain cosmologies are based off of each other (such parts of Snyder's being similar to parts of Morrison's), they're allowed to scale off what was mentioned in that writer's works. However, I can't imagine simply acknowledging an event that happened or a location is enough to scale off of it, so what's considered sufficient evidence for one writer's cosmology scaling off of parts of another's?
  • I also notice none of these writers really worked on Pre-Crisis stuff, so is Pre-Crisis still going to be a composite cosmology for the time being, or does that have plans for being split as well?
  • I also understand that the intention of listing the different interpretations of these characters will be split via keys, but what is the appearance quota for getting a key like this? Is it the same 15 issue quota that is used for power-ups, or will it be a different amount?
  • Lastly, when it comes to guidebooks mentioning information about these characters, how would you determine which cosmology it's referencing? Generally guidebooks refer to these characters from a holistic stance of all of DC, so would only direct statements that clearly refer to one incarnation of the characters be useable?
 
However, I can't imagine simply acknowledging an event that happened or a location is enough to scale off of it, so what's considered sufficient evidence for one writer's cosmology scaling off of parts of another's?
Unfortunately I'll be repeating myself here, but it's a case by case basis. We don't plan on laying out hyper-specific criteria that will be followed in every case, it'll be by community/staff consensus like any CRT is. There are a lot of factors that play into decisions like that which aren't objective, and where good reason and common sense need to be applied.

I also notice none of these writers really worked on Pre-Crisis stuff, so is Pre-Crisis still going to be a composite cosmology for the time being, or does that have plans for being split as well?
No plans at this time to split it, but perhaps at some point a more thorough look can be given at certain Pre-Crisis profiles to see if they are tiered based on this kind of thing. I'm not super well read up on Pre-Crisis, but from what I can tell, not that many of the characters scale to a cosmology either way.

but what is the appearance quota for getting a key like this? Is it the same 15 issue quota that is used for power-ups, or will it be a different amount?
It'll be the same as the way we assess whether or not a special version of a character needs their own key, or whether or not a character is significant enough to get a key. Again, nothing specific like "8 issues and you're in" but it won't be significantly different from comparable processes that already occur on the site.

Lastly, when it comes to guidebooks mentioning information about these characters, how would you determine which cosmology it's referencing? Generally guidebooks refer to these characters from a holistic stance of all of DC, so would only direct statements that clearly refer to one incarnation of the characters be useable?
Good question, I'm not really sure. It would depend on what the guidebook says and how someone is trying to use that information for scaling and why. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any significant DC characters who are tiered based on guidebook information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top