Talk:Bizarro

Piraro comicstrip

The comic strip by Piraro is definitively more wide spread and probably more well known than this guy. That article is a stub, is that the reason it isn't placed here instead?

I think the popularity depends on who you ask. I'm an avid reader of the comic strip, so it's more popular to me, but I'll bet my comic-loving brothers-in-law would immediately think of the anti-hero. Would someone care to supplement this article with a short discussion of the Bizarro way of talking ("This am great!")? I know it's unique, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to write about it... --TobyRush 15:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bizarro (the DC character) is a long-standing and well-known character. I'd heard and read of Bizarro long before I knew of Dan Piraro's strip. Additionally, the character has some pop culture references (see the Sealab 2021 parody, specifically), and has been the impetus for getting the word into the English language as a modifier for bizarre (as someone once said, "it's no longer bizare, more bizarre, most bizarre; it's bizarre, bizarro, mondo bizarro." Lastly, Piraro got the name of his comic from the character, or the word (which comes from the character), so if that doesn't qualify Bizarro for occupying the "prime real estate", I can't think of a better reason.--Mitsukai 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics

Can someone shed some light on Bizarro's linguistics? In some portrayals, he merely has a very poor grasp of English. In others, he speaks the opposite of what he means. In the recent Superman/Batman crossover, it seems that he negates every word in a sentence, rendering it almost unreadable. For example, it seems that lines like "You am never my worst enemy" translates to "You are always my best friend". Has this changed in other ways over Bizarro's many incarnations? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have consistent linguistics, I guess that's part of what makes him Bizzaro. Sometimes his linguistics are correct if crude, and his reasoning is mangled, such as breaking through the wall because it would be rude to knock. Sometimes his linguistics are both crude and wrong, but is reasoning is relatively correct.--66.162.55.2 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO Bizzaro is attempting to communicate more clearly (sometimes) by doing/speaking the opposite of what "he believes" is right; in other words, a double negative. To put it another way, imagine if you were placed in a world where everyone and everything was its opposite; in order to communicate with people, you might do the opposite of what you would normally do in order to get your point across. To you, this would appear to be the opposite of what you intend, but to everyone else, it would appear normal and natural. Therefore, if Bizzaro does or says something that appears to be "normal" or "natural", to Bizzaro it would actually seem to be the opposite of what he intends, but necessary in order to get his point across. IMO, Bizzaro's speech and actions are sort of like someone attempting to speak a foreign language which they have very little grasp of; sometimes the words come through clearly and make sense, other times it is just gibberish. This is what makes Bizzaro so difficult for the other DC Comics characters (and the reader) to understand; did Bizzaro mean the opposite of what he just said, or did he actually mean what he said?

Bizarro World

Despite the generally maintained fact that Superman and Lois Lane would be unable to have children, Bizarro and Bizarro Lois Lane had children on the Bizarro World.

I really don't believe this is at all the case. The idea of children is in fact a big question for the comic, in much the same way as "Will Lois ever find out?". In certain stories, pregnancy has been considered dangerous for Lois, but by and far, there are many stories where this is not the case. ie - Son of Superman, among many others. I think the first part should be omitted, and if the line is not intrinsic to the incarnations of Bizarro World, removed altogether. -- Broken Arms Gordon 15:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, "despite", since Regular Supes and Lou cannot have babies, of course Biz-Supes and Lou can... ^,^ 85.226.122.205 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Bizarro #1 and Bizarro-Lois #1 also give birth to a child who while super-powered, appears to be totally human. Considered a freak by Bizarro standards, the child is the catalyst for a brief war between Htrae and Earth." If I recall correctly -- having read that story many decades ago -- there was a neat resolution: It turns out that all Bizarro babies looked human until undergoing a metamorphosis into proper white-skinned facet-faced form! That may be worth mentioning in the recap.WHPratt (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Post-Zero hour

I havent read Superman since Zero hour, but I remember that during the first year (real time) after the Zero Hour series another bizarro was created.

I dont recall exactly all details, but it was created by Lex Luthor (III) (or maybe II and was released as a desperate act when his cloned body was about to die, I'm not sure) and he was exactly like Superman when "born". Then his appearance changes to the usual angular-white and his suit inexplicably changes to a more purpleish blue. The 'S' reminds straight.

This Bizarro acts pretty much like Bizarro #1, but has some of Superman's memories, and kidnaps Lois, and fights Superman upset, if I remember correctly, because he tries to undo his mistakes. They also meet with Superman's blind friend.. her, who knows he's Clark, not sure of the name.. anyways, she gets her view back because this Bizzarro's skin had some weird healing properties, and they use them for something, or try, or something.

As you see there's a lot of "I think" "I dont remember" and "something"s in my head, thats why I don't fill it in myself.. so, that.. anyone with the magazines at hand could fill that up--Lacrymology 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at some of my issues the next time I get a chance, but I have a feeling it's just a re-hashing of an already-printed storyline, which happened numerously during Zero Hour. Definitely deserves investigation. -- Broken Arms Gordon 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In spanish there was an.. edition? called "The Man Of Steel" (El Hombre de Acero) or something like that where the four monthly Superman magazines (Superman, The Man of Steel, Superman in Action Comics and.. dont know.. the man of tomorrow?) where printed together. Its a 12 issue (12x4 that is. One year of publications) series that start two or three months (real timeline, as in opossed to in-comic-time) before Lobo (a woosy pussy Lobo that made me very sad, I might add) came back looking for revenge, and where Superman finds himself getting stronger and stronger until he becomes a huge mass of muscle, very funny looking. Afterwards he finds some cure for this (in the meanwhile he travels the universe because he can't control his strenght and thinks he's a threat to earth, his wife and all that crap) and comes back. The clones are dying of some illness that ends up killing Lex Luthor II (the red-headed supergirl's boyfriend one) blah blah blah. I am just hoping that some background will help with the search =) --Lacrymology 02:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, until only a few years ago, the four Superman titles (Man of Steel, Action Comics, Adventures of Superman, and Superman) ran their stories across each, so that each week you got a new piece of the story. Man of Tomorrow was a sort of annual title that didn't run for as long. Anyway, I remember that story. It's after Superman comes back to life, and Lobo shows up and of course they fight. They take the battle into orbit, and Superman discovers that he no longer has to breathe in space and that he's stronger than before he died and able to effortlessly throw an orbiting spaceship. He travels through space for a while, getting stronger and stronger, and when he gets back to Earth, he's too massive to control himself. At this point, they use the Parasite to siphon off the extra energy. This is all pre-Zero Hour. I've been busy and keep forgetting to review my issues, but I honestly don't remember another Bizarro. -- Broken Arms Gordon 15:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. You're right. It's right before Zero Hour, I think. Actually, I think #12 of this edition is the month right before the whole thing starts. Anyways, Lobo appeared in #4 of my collection, and Bizarro in something like #11, so if Lobo first appeared in april, Bizarro would have appeared in November. I am sorry I feel so useless.. but my magazines are in the other side of the world right now, and until april or may I won't have access to them. --Lacrymology 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Crisis Bizarro's final fatee/Alan Moore

Didn't Alan Moore write in "The Last Superman Story" that Bizarro killed himself? This was one of the last Pre-Crisis stories for Superman, and would count as the final fate of Bizarro's Pre-Crisis character (as opposed to Crisis wiping him out, as the article states). --DrBat 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would debate whether that section should be included. Though Alan Moore wrote the story from the perspective of the last Superman story ever, it was never intended to be so. Nor is it true that the story was "retconned" as alternate reality. Theere have been lieterally dozens of fanciful stories over the years. The Story of Superman Red and Superman Blue immediately springs to mind, where Superman splits into two people and raises two families on Earth and New Krypton. -- Broken Arms Gordon 09:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It was called "What ever happened to the Man of Tomorrow", and in it, yes, Bizarro goes crazy and kills himself. Because superman is alive, so being dead is the opposite. Terror Island 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarro didn't go crazy. He was already crazy. And I don't think that story was imaginary in the same sense as the Superman Red/Blue comic. It was a valid, if somewhat dramatic, part of pre-Crisis continuity, intended to be the last Superman story within that continuity. Jimpartame 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Whatever Happened..." has been debated since it was written. Whether or not it is canon, the fact that it's still being talked about 20 years later shows it's significance and perhaps should be include on that basis. At least a sentence and link to Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? CovenantD 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening Line

"Bizarro is a fictional character in the Superman comic books and associated media" This is actually false. In the Superman Comic books, Bizarro is a real person. In the real world, Bizarro is a fictional character. An example of a fictional character in the superman comic books is the television character Jimmy Olson portrays when he is on TV dressed up as "Turtle Boy". Turtle Boy is a fictional character in the Superman Comics (though Jimmy Olson later becomes Turtle Boy, and so Turtle Boy is also a real character in the Superman Comics). I recommend changing the wording of the opening to be more accurate. Terror Island 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lexcorp Bizarros

Wikipedia states that "Luthor later recreated Bizarro to see if it would offer insight into how to stop the "Clone Plague". This Bizarro escaped, and kidnapped Lois Lane, taking her to "Bizarro World"; a warehouse set up like a surreal version of Metropolis. He subjected her to danger, so that he would be able to rescue her from it. She managed to escape, and Bizarro was recaptured by Lexcorp, where it subsequently died", yet this site says "When Lex Luthor's cloned body was dying he had his current scientist, Sydney Happerson, resurrect the technology Dr. Teng had used to create Bizarro previously. The body once again deteriorated but at a somewhat slower rate and this Bizarro seemed more human in the speech patterns and emotions. Superman had many confrontations with Bizarro when he was trying to apprehend the creature. After a series of events that had an ailing Luthor determined to posess the Bizarro body for research on the cure for the clone plague running rampant through Metropolis. In the end, Bizarro actually put a stop to Happerson and Luthor's work and died in Lois' arms"

Which version is right, or is it something in between the two? --DrBat 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Match (DC Comics)

The character of Match featured in the Superboy comics and Young Justice comics, is clone of Superboy (in a similar fashion as the Lexcorp Bizarros), and is scheduled to appear in the Titans East arch of Teen Titans. While in his first appearances, Match looked like Superboy, except for white hair and pale eyes, the current Match appears to have the chalky angular skin and dark hair of a traditional Bizarro. A mention of this character would help to reflect Bizarro throughout all of the Superman mythos and family.

First Appearance

Contrary to popular belief, Bizarro was first introduced in Action Comics #254, not Superboy #68. Action Comics #254 was published in July, 1958, whereas the Superboy #68 was not published until October of the same year.

• As much as I'd like that to be true (AC #254 is a better Bizarro story than SB #68), my copy of Superman In The Fifties states Action Comics #254 came out in July 1959. Superboy #68 came out in October of 1958, a year earlier. Keep doing some more research though. I'm hoping it really was 58.--Mike Castle 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're right, Mike Castle. Konczewski (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Bizarro was in the latest smallville episode too

Yeah, we have that section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to check the episode "Bizarro" again, but I don't think there's anything explaining that Bizarro was taken to 'the sunny side of Mars' beyond what seems to have been an off-the-cuff comment by Chloe. Unless I missed something. He was taken away, but we honestly don't know where yet as far as I know.--MythicFox 13:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone mention it yet, but he's returned in tonight's new episode. The Great Morgil (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to congratulate the guy who rewrote the Smallville section about the character. Just perfect! --Darkcook 14:18, 20 may 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, that as a person who works on the Smallville set, and who is present when they filmed scenes with this character, the photo double should be given name credit for being present to represent him, from the back at least. --Venixer (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure that he should. Is he credited in the episode? If not, what other source do you have? Even if he is credited, Welling is the actor of record for the character, I'm sure. This would be like listing Harrison Ford's stunt double as an actor who played Indiana Jones. Dstumme (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He only plays him when his face is unseen such as second unit shoots and such or when they are both required to be physically present. It is similar to how two actors play one character but one does it during specific shots and such as the actor is unavailable to do so. It doesn't change any information here, rather gives more perspective to it. --Venixer (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the new picture of Bizarro in Smallville is awesome, very-well chosen!

Darkcook 00:48, 2nd august 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

This article at times seems as though it is written by an angry fan boy. Article needs some slight TLC so it reads with information, not opinions. TehPhil 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  Can you give examples of this? 75.0.0.49 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarro Pictures

We should totally put up a pic of Bizarro from superboy, it's his only live action appearence. I looked on the next for it, and it was very interesting what I saw. Ryan4314 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Zibarro

• merge/nom - Zibarro is a very clever twist on the old form of Bizarro, but he is still a Bizarro version. With his limited appearances to date, and the current contexts which he was utilized, Zibarro is better place in the other version section or Bizarro. If in the advent the character would become utilized in the future and show that he could be a truly original character in publication (and not merely a single storyline) then he should be segmented to his own page. 66.109.248.114 21:29, 3 November 4022 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge. SpaceCaptain (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge--unlikely Zibarro will ever become a major character; should be under a "other version of Bizarro" section. Konczewski (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, make that Redirect. The Bizarro entry already has info on Zibarro, under the All-Star Superman section. Konczewski (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed, page redirected to Bizarro. -66.109.248.114 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia (refences in pop culture)

• As size continues to be an issue for this page, I believe the trivia section is a clear area that can be trimmed. The section lists the many references to Bizarro, Bizarro speak, and false logic. Clearly this points to the notablity and notariaty of Bizarro; however, the references citing this phenomena illustrates this point just a well as the encompassing list. There is clear precidence in Wikipedia of deleting lists of pop culture references for fiction (eg Big Lebowski), due to both trivia and original research. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

Following on from this, I have trimmed quite a bit of personal research and opinion as it is unproven (eg. Film) and hauled the TV/animated references back to pure citations, as this page simply quotes appearances, not blow-blow accounts of episodes or events one editor feels are noteworthy (POV). The Saturday Night Live mention was clipped as it is only implied, and not proven fact.

Asgardian (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I had put the Saturday Night Live paragraph in recently, and actually was thinking it should be moved to the article on Bizarro World, which has a good paragraph on the Seinfeld episode and is a better place for broader references in other media. I understand your point on clipping it and wonder what is a good standard for inclusion? For example, if I had original air date(s) or episode numbers would the SNL reference stand? Thanks. Jameswwaldo (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Superman III

In regards to the "citation needed" stamp in this section, I am attempting a re-wording of the offending line that I think will be satisfactory. By changing "possibly based on" to "in some ways similar to", I intend to replace an unverified insinuation with a simple observation. Any objections? 24.127.54.78 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you still have problems with it being OR at that point. Dstumme (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Seems there is a bit of back and forth on the image in the infobox so it is time to discuss it.

My thoughts:

• Either seem to tick the box of a classic representation

• I do prefer the current one from Superman #202 as it shows the character off better

• However, I have concerns about that image as this is the cover of Superman #202 [1] via and it has clearly been cropped and digitally tweaked to eliminate the background. I seem to recall some concern over this kind of thing previously and am unsure what the consensus is about it. I know some (e.g. Rorschach (comics) grey out the background to make the main figure stand out) but this seems a step beyond that.

Anyway just my thoughts - if those concerns can be addressed then I say go for that unless someone comes up with a compelling reason not to, of course. (Emperor (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Emperor.

For consideration, although I tend to dislike the McGuinness rendition, his is the main rendering used in Dorling Kindersley's DC Comics Encyclopedia... ntnon (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

According to editorial guidelines, "Pictures which have more characters and/or objects than the subject of the article should only be used if the subject is the most prominent object - editing the picture, by cropping, obscuring and/or painting out the other characters may help to ensure this." --DrBat (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that all three are options, however:

• Cropping alone can solve the issue in most cases. Yes, there can be extra "bits" left, but seldom are they to the degree of distracting or being the "most prominent".
• In the cases where cropping still leaves a more prominent element, then graying (obsruring) and/or cutting out the intended focus (painting out others) are options. Though a strong argument can be made for looking for another image.

With regard to the two images here:

Both covers, Action Comics #254 and Superman #202, as published, fill the guidelines for the infobox. Changing to Superman #202 doesn't amount to an improvement.

If the argument is to focus as tightly on the characters as possible, there again either cover works. Crop tight and there you go.

In any event, the removal of the background color and side bits from the 202 crop isn't necessary. Nor is the "posterization" of the colors. To be blunt, it looks like it was either taken from something other than a scan of the actual cover or it was re-colored before uploading. The first means the FUR for the image is wrong, the second... is beyond the scope, letter, or intent of the fair use guidelines,

- J Greb (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to the colors, and the image was from a scan of the actual cover. If you think the colors are too bright, I can use an image program to try to desaturate them. Also, I thought it'd look better if the pieces of the other images weren't there after I cropped the cover to focus on the center image, but I can always add them back.

Also, the #202 image has him posing heroically and standing on top of his home planet Htrae. The #254 image has him holding a giant Kryptonite boulder over his head. I think #202 is more representative of his character. Both #202 and the McGuinness cover meet the requirements of "standing straight" and "facing-the-camera" better than #254 does. --DrBat (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

1. 202 does feature the square world (Htrae), which is a distinct benefit, while both #202 and Ed McGuinness' also have the considerable benefit of including the "Bizarro No. 1" tag. Although Action #254 has the contrary benefit of being an early (iconic) depiction, neither it nor #202 feature the reverse "S" chest logo... Which obviously came about later, but is a somewhat important visual identification, (along with the distinctive face and "Bizarro No. 1" tag) as featured on T-Shirts, etc. ntnon (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like how DrBat has decided that his image has the consensus. Now if he would be nice enoug to undo the removal of the bits from aroudn it he may have hit on an acceptable compromise. - J Greb (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seemed that everyone else who posted here supported that image, no one had posted in a while, and I got tired of having to continually remove the orphan tag that the BJBot was adding to the image since it wasn't being used in any articles. What's the problem? --DrBat (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

2 fold:

1. That there were issues raised about the image that weren't addressed. and;
2. The 'bot tagging both image gives a week before the images are deleted. And even then, if the consensus is for a deleted image it can be restored. (I'm not even going to get into deleting maintenance tags without providing a reason.)

As it stands, the image now seems to address all of the concerns, so done is done. - J Greb (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry.

Are there any templates that prevent bots from tagging images that aren't in articles? --DrBat (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In theory? Yes. The 'bot itself doesn't do the deletion, so adding an {{imbox}} with a "Holdon" or "Discusion on going" with a link should promped admins doing the deptioon work to look, weigh, and push back the date for the file.

Doesn't always work though.

And as I pointed out, the file can be "undeleted" if needs be. Either by asking an admin or just re-uploading over the same filename. - J Greb (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed the image as there is a dispute between one or more WP:NFC. Once there is consensus, please feel free to do whatever has consensus (and follows the appropriate policies). - jc37 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - it needs a lot more references and the PH is really bare bones and needs more on the character development: why it was done, why the changes, etc. (Emperor (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with File:NuclearMan1.jpg

The image File:NuclearMan1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass Murderer

Bizarro has probably killed hundreds of people. On Smallville, he has killed every host, he inhabited which could be maybe, a hundred. I strongly petition for Bizarro to be classified as a mass murderer.(JoeLoeb (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Categorizing on an assumption isn't appropriate thing to do. At best it's OR. There's also the assumption on the Smallville story line. It's never made clear there if "Bizarro" is the Kryponian virus/bio-experiment or the being that resulted from that virus "borrowing" Clark's DNA. Without that being clear, there's nothing to hang the category on other than an editor's interpretation of the primary source. - J Greb (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Powers

The Bizarro page goes into no details of Bizarro's powers! Not all them are the reverse of Superman's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golem866 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Versions

Why was the alternate versions section cut so dramatically?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the examples were not alternate versions of Bizarro himself, the focus of the article. Asgardian (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

However, they were related characters, and showing the depth of related characters helps underscore the importance of the original (and on that note, there are still many iterations of the character referenced on the main page). It seems odd to just excise that information when it still holds some value. Particularly while still keeping a few (such as Zibarro). Personally, I think the information should continue to exist on the main page. Unlike a character like Superman, Bizarro has not always referred to an individual, but at times an entire culture. It is not a unique name but instead often treated as a title of a sub-species. If consensus is against inclusion on the main page, perhaps a sub-article? Presuming one does not already exist.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the page at present, and you may have already noted the extra sourced mentions in the Bio. I'll also add a sentence or two the PH re: the others, and that is out of universe and the best place to make a statement. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In one of the earliest 1960s Bizarro stories in Superman or Action Comics, there was a second-level twist. Bizarro used the duplicator ray on himself, and the result was a creature apparently identical to the original Superman, as if the second imperfect copy negated the effects of the first imperfect copy. However, this handsome guy was even dumber that the original Bizarro! I can't reemeber how the plot developed after that -- I must have gotten a headache -- but someone may want to research it. It sounds rather ambitious. WHPratt (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"forty appearances"

In the section publishing history we find: "The character made forty appearances[3] in the Superman family of titles [list of seven titles] from 1959 to 1984...." Footnote 3 is: "http://www.dcuguide.com/whoswho.php" which leads to the main page of Unofficial Who's Who in the DC Universe. Click on "B" in the alphabet box there, then scroll down the resultant list to eight Bizarro entries, click on any of them, and you get no help. Their total appearances listed don't add up anywhere close to forty, and most are of post-Crisis publication anyway. Furthermore, I know he appeared in World's Finest Comics #156, March 1966 (predictably accompanied by a Bizarro-Batman; see cover scan), which is not one of the listed comics. So we have a statement not verified by its given source, and which seems dubious anyway. What do we do? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

X-Ray Hearing?

Can someone please explain to me what x-ray hearing is supposed to be?75.189.151.20 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bizarro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141003103308/http://dcindexes.com/features/database.php?site= to http://www.dcindexes.com/features/database.php?site=&pagetype=comic&id=26308
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811015755/http://www.dccomics.com:80/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=3765 to http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=3765

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bizarro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202041527/http://www.thespeedingbullet.com/ to http://www.thespeedingbullet.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Shunned for his invariable appearance"?

Under the heading "Publication history", the second sentence begins with the phrase "Shunned for his invariable appearance..." This is nonsensical. "Invariable" simply means "consistent" or "never varying", so in this context this would mean that his appearance was always the same; hardly a characteristic that would cause one to be shunned. Is there an adjective missing, such as if it was intended to say "Shunned for his invariably disheveled appearance..."? Bricology (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)