Talk:Doomsday Redux!

I think all of these issues that were never released need to be noted as such right from the start, not just down at the bottom of the article in the notes section. Readers should be made aware that they're reading about things that never actually happened before they get to the synopsis. --KilMichaelMcC 11:12, 17 December 2010 (EST)

Wouldn't these get the apocrypha template? --Khajidha 11:30, 17 December 2010 (EST)

I'd think so. Geewunling 13:53, 17 December 2010 (EST)

Apocrapha Redux

Since Ask Vector Prime declared these as canon, and more specifically canon for this specific universe stream, should we remove the Apocrapha template? Possibly add in a note towards the top explaining the situation? --Giggidy (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

Any other opinions? --Giggidy (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

I'm not sure. I think we should bite the bullet and do that for Alignment as it actually got printed; stuff that never came out, OTOH, feels like something we should leave. --Charles RB (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2015 (GMT)

But Furman sells the scripts at conventions, and they were approved by Hasbro. Just not ultimately published. And does Vector Prime saying they're the true future of the universe carry any weight? --Giggidy (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2015 (EDT)

We don't treat toys as being "not legitimate" because they weren't released. Obviously the situation is different for comics, but I think the template should be removed from this page, and replaced with some kind of "unreleased" template. Hell, the unreleased toy/item template would probably work just as well here as it does on toy entries; just put it in place of the Apocrypha template. --Riptide (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

This works well. --Giggidy (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Unreleased Toy template added this comic to "Unreleased Toys" category. And of course, a comic is not a toy lol. We have to change the template.--Primestar3 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2015 (EDT)