Talk:Legion of Super-Heroes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Five Years Later... POV

The "Five Years Later" section seems rather biased to me. I'm at a loss to sort it out, however. Perhaps someone with a more delicate touch can get rid of the POV? Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1413 400x600.jpg

Image:1413 400x600.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The real future?

Is the Legion timeline the "real" future of the DC Universe, or just another alternate timeline? Bluecatcinema 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. The old Legion's universe (pre-crisis) was an alternate timeline, and so was the Post-Zero Hour incarnation too. I believe that the current LSH timeline could be the main future of DC Universe, but I'm not 100% certain. The Clever Guy (Talk • Contribs) 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Threeboot

Although the term "Threeboot" is no longer a part of this article, it is used in several ancillary articles. [1] It might be worthwhile to change those articles so that either the term is explained, it links to the appropriate section of this article, or it is replaced with a term more comprehensible to the uninitiated. --GentlemanGhost 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie

I can find nothing to support the uncited claim that the Karate Kid movies licensed the character name. Unless a reliable source can be found, I recommend deleting the statement. 68.146.8.46 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, there's a note in the IMDB for the movie in the "trivia" section [2] that says "The Karate Kid was the name of a character in DC Comic's "Legion Of Superheroes" who was a member of the Legion. DC Comics, which owned the name, gave special permission for the title to be used. There's a thank you to DC Comics for allowing the use of the name at the end of the credits." It's also mentioned in the trivia section of The Karate Kid movie entry here.

I hope this is enough. -- Wizardimps 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't. What kind of reliable source would satisfy you short of a screenshot of the credits from the movie? -- Wizardimps 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Original" Legion vs. Lightning Saga

86.156.16.* - This is getting tedious. It's not the original pre-Crisis Legion for reasons cited (and subsequently removed). We don't yet know how and where this Legion fits into continuity, so for now it's the "Lightning Saga" Legion. Why do you keep insisting on replacing this with "Original" Legion? We've got "Legion of Three Worlds" coming up this fall, why not wait until we find out what's really going on before proclaiming this is the real, original one?

And as for the "Other Media" section being fleshed out - what do you consider fleshed out, a listing of every Legion-related action figure, a listing of every trading card from every series, every Vs. System card? I can do that, but it would make this entry twice as long, and besides this is not the place for a checklist. -- Wizardimps 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Animated continuities

I have never read anything that clearly said the new show is separate from the previous ones. I know there have been several references to things from the previous series, including the spider robots from the "World's Finest" episodes of Superman. The nature of time travel waves away any issues concerning the Legion's first meeting with Superman. Can anyone clarify this situation? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find was this interview[3] with series producer James Tucker last summer before the series premiered.

NRAMA: We've seen some of the Legion in both Bruce Timm's Adventures of Superman and, obviously, the last season of JLU. So, will the Saturn Girl, Cosmic Boy, Chameleon, Bouncing Boy and Brainiac 5 be consistent with the characters we saw in those episodes?

JT: The characters in this version of Legion will be less experienced than those seen before now in the DCAU. Whether these characters will evolve into those characters is yet to be determined. I'll leave that to the message boards and fan fic writers.

They haven't explicitly said that they are separate, but from the animation style and character designs (plus things like Brainiac 5 is a robot), it's pretty heavily implied. Any design element that looks the same is probably an Easter Egg for the fans who watched the old series. -- Wizardimps 05:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we can't rely on anything that we need to use the words "imply" or "probably" to discuss. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is v4?

The article claims that the version where Giffen was plotting and came up with SW6 as well as the Post-Zero Hour versions are both v4; which is it? Darquis 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both appeared in Legion of Super-Heroes Volume 4.

To quote the page:

* The Legion of Super-Heroes volume 4, #1–61, Annual #1–5

After the Zero Hour reboot:

* The Legion of Super-Heroes volume 4, #0, 62–125, Annual #6–7

Duggy 1138 09:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Volume number clarification

For the uninitiated, here is an explanation of the various volume numbers of "Legion of Super-Heroes":

Vol. 1 - reprints

Vol. 2 - formerly "Superboy", starts with issue 259, later becomes "Tales of the Legion of Super-Heroes"

Vol. 3 - includes the Legion of Super-Villains war, the death of Superboy, the "last" Time Trapper story, etc. And of course, "Crisis on Infinte Earths". Ends with the Magic Wars.

Vol. 4 - "Five Years Later", the Glorithverse reboot, the SW6 Legionnaires (which get their own book), "Zero Hour" and the first major reboot. Ends with the Blight.

-- "Legion Lost" and "Legion Worlds" miniseries

-- "The Legion" ongoing series. Post-Zero Hour continuity ends with the "Teen Titans/Legion Special"

Vol. 5 - "Threeboot": The Legion is an intergalactic movement, with a core group of superpowered members based on Earth. After "Infinte Crisis", Supergirl arrives from the 21st century and joins.

--- Concurrently with Vol. 5, The Lightning Saga in JLA and JSA and the Superman and the Legion story arc in "Action Comics" demonstrate the appearance of a second Legion (apparently from another Earth) which appears to share the history of the pre-Crisis Legion. Superman was a member as a teenager (but was not called "Superboy").

ABCxyz (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adv300cover.jpg

Image:Adv300cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adv346cover.jpg

Image:Adv346cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (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) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the LSH article

I noticed today that Marcus Brute split off the Publication History of the Legion into its own separate article. He did the same with the Publications section. While I can see some logic to the latter split, I cannot see the sense of moving the publication history into a separate article. The publication history was the heart of the existing article, and it constituted about two-thirds of the article. I believe it should remain here, not given its separate article.

I'm also a bit surprised that no opinions were solicited here on the discussion page before the two splits. Isn't that standard procedure? At the very least, some explanation might be given here. Why was the split made? Spiderboy12 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Publication History split seems completely unnecessary to me and I think it should be reverted. That information belongs in the main article- otherwise, the largest portions of the main article are talking about alternate versions of the group and its appearances in other media. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just restored the original publication history, reverting the unexplained split. Spiderboy12 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The current publication history is much too long. As its says in Wikipedia:Layout, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit its flow." The section on the entire history of the LSH should be at most a few paragraphs. The way the article is currently written it's longer than many much more notable characters (Spider-Man and X-Men for instance). Placing a slimmed-down version of the history in the article, with a longer version in a separate article fixes the layout problem.--Marcus Brute (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seemed more like a stripped down version than slimmed down. There was practically no information there. Without the publication history of the Legion, which was divided into subsections for easy reference, this article really has very little purpose. As I pointed out, when you removed the publication history, there was more space in the article devoted to alternate versions of the Legion and their appearances in other media than to the Legion itself. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the publishing history of the group is the meat of this article. If the history is too long, perhaps it needs to be trimmed, or the subsections need to be reorganized (long ones divided, short ones combined), or some of the other topics moved to their own articles. Note that the objection here is that you moved the publishing history, which is most of the article, not that you created a separate "Publications" page, a list-type feature that seemed out of place in this article.

As for the examples you cite, Spider-Man has several pages devoted to different aspects of the character, as does Superman and Batman. For example, note that Alternate versions of Spider-Man, Alternate versions of Superman, and Alternate versions of Batman all have their own articles (don't make that split; there are not enough alternate Legions to justify it). That is also true of the X-Men. The History of the X-Men comics article is much longer than the publication history subsection of X-Men, but the publication history subsection is still reasonably substantial, not one short paragraph. If you really want to break out the publishing history, follow the X-Men precedent and come up with a substantial replacement section before you make the move.

Moreover, discuss it before you make the split. I'm not sure I'd support the rationale (the X-Men have a far more involved publishing history than the Legion, due to the multiplicity of X-Men titles), but at least we could see what you propose before you do it. Also note that the X-Men article has other long, substantial subsections (e.g., "World of the X-Men") that the Legion article lacks. So consider whether what is left over after you make the move still constitutes a "meaty" article. Spiderboy12 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the split was reverted I've turned the list of publications into a redirect to here as we can't have two parallel versions of the same content.

Although I don't see any big problems with length as this a team that has been around for 50 years we can take some pointers from other articles to keep things readable. Such important articles tend to spawn sub-articles.

• There are clearly a number here dealing with Legion Lost, The Great Darkness Saga and The Lightning Saga but there may be other storylines or smaller series that could be split off to their own article (possibly Legionnaires (comics) [4]). We should trim and keep the information here as concise as possible when this happens and I under if the Lightning Saga paragraphs here could be shrunk a bit.

• I'd suggest we split off the in other media section to Legion of Super-Heroes in other media as that is a pretty common place to split large articles.

That should help free up some space and keep the publication history more focused here. There aren't many other places that space could be saved (although this may be worth running past WT:CMC for ideas) although one thing that it might be worth thinking about is Legion of Super-Heroes (comic book) to look at the publication of that series (along the lines of Superman (comic book) and Batman (comic book)) - it would need to be done carefully and you'd need to have the article looking solid before trimming back sections here. For now I think the two points above should be enough for now though.

Also can anyone explain the cleanup tag? The article appears to conform to the Manual of Style and I can't see any major problems - rather than leaving us trying to guess what it is addressing it would help if this was pointed out so it can be fixed. (Emperor (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

The main difficulty with splitting off the media section is that the Legion simply hasn't appeared that much in other media. The current section rather concisely summarizes the few appearances in other media, and despite the tag, I don't think it is really "too long." I can't see a separate media article having much more in the way of content, and I'm dubious that there's enough content to justify a separate article.

As for Legion comics, for the various ongoing series (Legion of Super-Heroes v1-v5, Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes, Legionnaires and The Legion) I think a single article could suffice. That article could briefly describe the history of each title (in terms of publication dates, name changes, and the like) and some short, relevant discussion of content (e.g., the pre-Zero Hour Legionnaires dealing with the SW6 batch, or Tales #326-354 being exclusively reprints) and/or creators. An infobox on the same page could summarize the information for all the titles (e.g., the infobox on the Superboy page). The goal of any such article would be to minimize the duplication of information on this page (for example, forego any plot summaries), and once it is finished, some redundant information in this article could be trimmed.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts... I don't know what the clean-up tag is about, either. Spiderboy12 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking over it the article is within the range defined 30-50kb and the problems kick in when the article gets longer than this. Equally the subsections chop the content up into chunks that are easy enough to skim through. If this was one big chunk of 60kbs-worth of text then I'd be concerned but as it stands it seems OK to me. I would recommend keeping an eye out for series that could be split (as opposed to taking the lot to another article, which is rarely a good idea) and keep the content trimmed down when it is covered in another article. This does need a few more references (primary and secondary) but the article is looking pretty solid as far as I'm concerned and with a quick polish could start the push on to getting A-class quality assessment. I'd not want to do anything dramatic without getting a few editors to look it over and see if there is a problem. (Emperor (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Absolute Power

This article lists the "Absolute Power" Legion as their own group separate from any other continuity. At the end of that story, they're specifically referred to as the Adult Legion, which would make them fall clearly under the Pre-Zero Hour team. Am I wrong?

MrBlonde267 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ending of LO3W

"By the series' end, it is revealed that the original and SW6 teams (in their entirety) inhabits a universe parallel to the one currently featured in mainstream DC continuity" This sentence has been added to a few pages now, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. The scene in the issue is not really that clear as to if they are actually from a parallel universe or alternate timelines.. or whatnot... I don't think this sort of sentence should be added to these articles at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This means that ALL the Legion pages will have to be overhauled, and those alternate Legions will need to be moved to the "Other Versions" sections of those pages. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the publication history is more important than DC's constantly changing in-universe history, especially when they'll no doubt just retcon the Legion in some other way in about 5 years or so. We don't need to overhaul anything. However, I am curious where the assertion about the SW6 Legion came from. I got the distinct impression that they were still out of continuity, since Earth still existed and there's no evidence of the Dominator occupation. I think this return of the "original" Legion does not include the "Five Years Later" storylines and other related material. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)