- 18,393
- 14,323
I can try with Confluctor. I hope he accepts at least to come back and help with this thread. (Sorry, I had no permission to ask to talk here)
-
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.
- Status
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #162
I meant that you could mention that would greatly appreciate his help with the upcoming Marvel Comics cosmology-splitting project after this one has been concluded, which could take quite a long while.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I texted him and mentioned it. I will be awaiting a response from his side (Again, I don't have permission, only responding to you)
- 18,393
- 14,323
Confluctor responded to the question “Are you against Split or not”?
Note: Again, I am only a messenger, I am nowhere involved in this.
And also responded to if he may help in the future with the split from Marvel
Note: Again, I am only a messenger, I am nowhere involved in this.
- 7,904
- 14,966
To respond to this, it's important to note that we addressed this in the post. The concept he is referring to, and the concept the split is based on, are entirely different. Yes, the cosmology has undergone in-verse changes (Crisis on Infinite Earths reduces the multiverse to a single universe, then it was 52 universes, then it became infinite again after Perpetua) but these eras don't correspond whatsoever to the contradictions we are referring to, and the begins primarily involved literally transcend the multiverse so those kinds of events don't affect them.
- 18,393
- 14,323
May I ask where it is addressed precisely in a post?
If you mean this part, regarding this, they haven't addressed that tho.
If you mean this part, then that's not exactly going against what I was saying.
- 7,904
- 14,966
- 18,393
- 14,323
So, basically what I said. That did not “answer” anything. Because in most cases, the higher ds are also altered. Case in point, current cosmology.
Also, new 52 mostly changed just lower worlds, it was never changed to higher worlds like infinite frontier did for example
Also, new 52 mostly changed just lower worlds, it was never changed to higher worlds like infinite frontier did for example
- 7,904
- 14,966
Then I am misunderstanding the objection. The statement was that changes have occurred in-canon, that literally even within the verse some characters are aware that something has changed.
When has that ever happened with higher dimensions?
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #171
Thank you for contacting him for me.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Agree: DDM, DT, Firestorm, Celestial_Pegasus, Planck69, AKM, Sir_Ovens, Qawsedf, Theglassman12, Antvasima, Ultima_Reality (by proxy)
Disagree: Matthew_Schroeder, Confluctor (by proxy).
I wrote "by proxy" for the members who did not comment here themselves but have had their views communicated indirectly by other members. Based on the thread rules I omitted non-staff agrees so that no one feels as though the numbers are being padded. Though it can be obviously assumed that the non-staff project members agree, and so far all the regular users who have participated agree.
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #175
Okay. I think that we seem to have sufficient agreements here to proceed with our next thread then.
Should we divide the remaining revision into discussions of each author-oriented cosmology one by one or handle it all at once?
Should we divide the remaining revision into discussions of each author-oriented cosmology one by one or handle it all at once?
- 7,904
- 14,966
I think all at once, with the option of starting a separate thread if a specific point/cosmology warrants it.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I have no permission to talk here, but I heard Pain say, it is not better to rush things and wait for one week.
@Antvasima
@Antvasima
- 7,904
- 14,966
I am basing my suggestion off of the prediction that there will be few to no objections to most of the cosmologies, but if that turns out to be wrong we can break out into specific threads.
I don't necessarily mind waiting, but realistically I can't imagine what is going to change in the next two days. No real discussion has taken place for two days as it is, and none of the changes will be implemented until all of the discussions have concluded, so on the off chance that there is some mystery challenger somewhere, the creation of the next thread will not prevent them from participating here and having their voice heard.
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #180
I meant that should we first reach an agreement with one cosmology within that thread and then continue with the next, in a given order of procedure, or discuss all at once?
Well, I personally do not mind, but we need to write a draft text for the first post of our next thread in private first.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I think it's not really possible to discuss them in a vacuum, as they are defined primarily by exclusion from others. I understand the apprehension of a chaotic mess occurring, but I am optimistic that this will not be the case, and if it is we can always create new threads to funnel the discussion into more clearly defined categories by making new threads, so I wouldn't worry.
To speak more specifically, I am only aware of Ultima's contention of leaving Morrison and Snyder/Tynion as a single cosmology, which I am somewhat open to depending on how we define this cosmology. I don't know of anyone that objects -- specifically -- to a "Vertigo Cosmology" or a "DeMatteis Cosmology" and the argument for another distinct "Williamson Cosmology" is getting clearer by the day. So I think we can move forward with a single thread that discusses all of them, and if/when the need arises, we can create a separate thread for the Snyder/Morrison issue so it can be discussed without making the main thread a mess to read.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I have same opinion but I don't think it is fair to rush one of largest projects in the wiki into conclusion. But as you said, the thread won't be closed once the other significant one will be created.
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #183
Okay. I suppose that we can probanly go with that approach then.
Are you willing to write a draft for the first post of the thread in question please? I have been, and am, considerably more busy IRL than usual.
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #184
I think that we should close this thread after the follow-up has been created, as the support has been very dominant here.
- 18,393
- 14,323
If then, we need to wait at least one week and you both (and other project supporters) can prepare a next follow up thread. Is it not better?
If no one brought any discussion, then ya the changes can be implemented and victory goes to yall for creating a such fantastic complicated project
The thing is, we want to reduce the rumors of outside the wiki or even inside the wiki that we are rushing into conclusion and I think this is worth noting.
- 7,904
- 14,966
Yes, I can do that soon when I have time.
I think we can give it a few more days before closing it, for good measure, but I agree. It would be extremely odd if the tides drastically turned. I have to imagine nearly all of the staff are aware of the thread at this point, and with no disagreements at all from current staff, it's reasonable to assume the ones who have not commented yet simply do not intend to participate.
- 3,366
- 3,193
This is just my personal opinion but I don't think we should leave Morrison and Snyder's cosmologies as one single cosmology. In Morrison's cosmology, the Monitor Sphere is supposed to be the very last realm before reaching the Overvoid, while in Snyder's cosmology, the Sixth Dimension is the last realm of the Multiverse. There's also the origins of the Monitors which are different. We can argue that it's just an extension of Morrison's cosmology, but I think it's a different cosmology based on that of Morrison and Mike Carey.
Again, this is my personal opinion.
Again, this is my personal opinion.
Last edited:
- 7,904
- 14,966
Yeah, we'll discuss that in the next thread.
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #189
I personally agree, but we can discuss that later.
- 12,806
- 5,941
@Elizio33 pls answer this
- 5,879
- 1,072
Read the above question elizio
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #194
Is that fine with the rest of you?
We can discuss that in later discussion threads based upon our blog post.
- 302
- 226
why Morrison's Cosmology can't be coupled with Animal man Scaling?
- 3,366
- 3,193
Because characters like Elaine Belloc, Lucifer, Michael, The Presence can affect the Void which transcend all space-time and hierarchy of dimension. The Basanos can hurt Lucifer and Destiny of the Endless scale to them.
- 3,366
- 3,193
Yes.
- 168,536
- 77,316
- Thread starter
- #199
Okay. I will close this thread then.
Thank you to everybody who helped out here. This discussion was much less hostile than I expected.
We will hopefully post our first continuation thread for this project soon.
Thank you to everybody who helped out here. This discussion was much less hostile than I expected.
We will hopefully post our first continuation thread for this project soon.
- Status
