Talk:Legion of Super-Heroes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chameleon Boy?

Isn't it Chameleon Kid? At least I remember this being his name when I was reading them in the early 80s.

No, it's always been Chameleon Boy. Or Chameleon in the reboot era. --khaosworks July 7, 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Though there was a Chameleon Kid in the Legion of Super-Rejects. Perhaps that's what the original poster is remembering? --Patrick T. Wynne 8 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

The LSR guy was Chameleon King, actually, but yeah. That might be it. --khaosworks 22:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The LSR guy is Chameleon Kid, not King. --Golem866 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for each continuity

I propose the creation of a separate article for each Legion continuity (i.e. Guardians of the Galaxy (original), Guardians of the Galaxy (modern)). This article will remain as the main article with the three articles, tentatively titled Legion of Super-Heroes (original), Legion of Super-Heroes (Post-Zero Hour) (or "(reboot)") and Legion of Super-Heroes (threeboot), would provide more detailed information on each incarnation. This would allow the publication history section of this article to be reduced to a reasonable length (a few paragraphs) while letting the depth of the current article still exist.

The original Legion article would present the most problems (e.g. Should the Post-IC Legion be considered part of the original continuity?), so alternatively the original Legion could be kept in this article (temporarily?) with only the second and third Legions getting new articles, though I personally prefer the first way.--Marcus Brute (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly notable enough to warrant their own articles... Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If we did this, I'd keep the "post-IC" Legion with the original. Think of Superboy (Kal-El) as a model (vis a vis the Superboy article); with Superboy being reinserted into Superman's history (even if only the Legion part of his career is being revived, as I suspect), any discussion of his revised backstory will go there, not into a new article. The post-IC Legion is similar enough to the original, particularly with regard to its relationship to Superboy/Superman, I think, so that it could stay part of the same article.

I would stay away from using words like "threeboot", which seems a bit too "fannish" for my tastes. Perhaps use "second version" and "third version"? Or whatever works... Anyhow, this article would still need brief summaries of the different versions (cf. Superboy or Supergirl), and then this article could also serve as the "official" article for the various Legion ongoing series (again, like Superboy or Teen Titans), complete with (preferably one) publication infobox. Spiderboy12 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2¢... or there abouts

Seems that we'd likely get 4 articles out of this:

1. Legion of Super-Heroes as a set index and home for the "Alternate versions" and "In other media" sections. This would also allow for a slightly better PH of the reboots and require there to be a good synopsis for each of the pointers for the other three.
2. Legion of Super-Heroes (1958) covering everything up to "Zero Hour" and likely every thing related to the post-IC 3rd Legion.
3. Legion of Super-Heroes (1994) covering the version from "Zero Hour" through Waid's 2nd rework.
4. Legion of Super-Heroes (2004) covering the current version.

This does leave a few holes - The Version that cropped up just prior to IC doesn't quite synch up to the pre-ZH version, there is nothing solid about which version will be in the proposed coming relaunch, and all 4 articles will have bleed over for "Legion of Three Worlds."

The 3 sub articles should also have an expanded PH and a close watch kept on the in-universe content. And definitely the IOM and AV sections stay off of the sub articles.

- J Greb (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes this does bring up the issue of naming and I'd support using years rather than a description. Perhaps "Legion of Super-Heroes (1958 team)" (with an eye to the film and TV disambiguating by year).

On some incarnations not fitting then they should be able to stay here with the others being split off and placeholders being put here. (Emperor (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Just another cent and a half to add to J Greb's comment above, but while the 1989 revision of LSH (the "Giffenverse") has officially been considered one with the previous 31 years of the book, it arguably could be considered a separate version itself with the wholesale changes in major characters and history, and the break it made from older continuity. Its only major difference with the two reboots was that it did not start over at the beginning, instead making its changes to the adult group. In the days of rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, the "TMK Floating Flamewar (TM)" was quite famous.

Just a thought. I doubt if it will be taken seriously, though it would make things less confusing. -- Couillaud (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good piece of information to add PH for the 1958/pre-ZH team. But making a pitch for a separate article because "Fans think this even though DC officially doesn't" feels like a POV push. - J Greb (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the Giffenverse doesn't warrant its own seperate article and should be included in with the 1958 team, it is a further arguement in support of a seperate article for the current team, since the events of that period of the original Legion's history no longer seem to be a part of the history of the current version. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what counts as part of the current team's history and what doesn't is actually very unclear, as the appearance of the Miracle Machine in Final Crisis #6 and Superman's unfamiliarity with the device, makes abundantly clear. But there is still quite of bit of overlapping history, and DC still refers to them as the "original" team, so I'm still skeptical of having a separate article for them (the same POV problem as with the "Giffenverse" team). Plus their relatively scant publication history to date might give rise to notability issues.

On a different topic: Is there any precedent to a team having a comics set article (cf. Superboy, Green Lantern, Flash (comics))? The Global Guardians articles cited as a precedent are two independent articles; they are not linked by a set Global Guardians article. Spiderboy12 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some random thoughts:

• DC (writers and editorial) have done a bang up job muddling the Legions' interactions with "current" continuity. IIRC, currently, between Batman, Booster, and Superman, the "present" has interacted with 4 or 5 variations of the team in ways that are still valid and contradictory. The Miracle Machine bit is either a reflection of that or another yet-to-be-revealed plot device.
• IIRC, Giffen was intending to weed the "Adult" and "SW6" teams with a "random draw for survivors". That could be used by DC to account for some of the anomalies. But that would be a guess on our part.
• A variation of {{Infobox comics set index}} and {{Infobox comics set and title}} can be cobbled together for teams, or modifying them for it.
• Guardians of the Galaxy is different from Global Guardians...

- J Greb (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Which I should know! In any event, there's no comics set article for Guardians of the Galaxy. Spiderboy12 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup... and that's really a side issue here. The GoG was split as an easy out. The two articles really could have survived as a single, but there was a growing nagging point of how to focus the article and which, if any, image should be used for the infobox. The compromise was to split the article in two with dabbed titles, allow both of those to grow, and leave the original page as a dab page. Recasting that as a set index will wind up with about the same amount of information as in the two stand alones. This article, like, say, the JLA or Titans, has enough to support a set index article and the stand alones. - J Greb (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Batch SW6 san't be in continuity for this most recent version of the Legion- at the end of that storyline, Earth blew up (which is clearly not the case in this Legion's 31st Century). Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind that Guardians of the Galaxy is a WP:SETINDEX (in that it is subject-specific disambiguation page). What is covered by {{Infobox comics set index}} is a company-specific set index that has been expanded into a full-blown article. (Emperor (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

It shouldn't be ignored that continuity changes are a normal part of comics (especially DC Comics). Though the Post-IC Legion does not match up exactly with the original Legion, I think that it's clear that the intent of the creators is for this Legion to be the original.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Informal poll

This section is for a poll about the creation of articles. This poll only serves to identify prevailing opinions and criticisms about the creation of separate articles. The current proposal (as far as I can tell) is: Three new articles will be created for the different versions of the Legion of Super-Heroes: Legion of Super-Heroes (1958 team) (original), Legion of Super-Heroes (1994 team) (Post-Zero Hour) and Legion of Super-Heroes (2004 team) (threeboot). Legion of Super-Heroes will serve as an overview article and will include the "In other media" and "Alternate versions" sections. The Lightning Saga-version of the Legion will be included in Legion of Super-Heroes (1958 team).

Write Support if you agree with the proposal as written, Support with changes if you support the idea of separate articles but with some changes to the proposal, and Oppose if you completely oppose the articles. Include rational for your vote.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. As I've stated before, I think the infobox(es) in the main article should also summarize the publication information of the ongoing Legion series (Legion of Super-Heroes v1 to v5 [including name changes for v2 and v5], Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes, Legionnaires, and The Legion), with some information in the article text (though perhaps nothing more than what the article text already contains). Spiderboy12 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support with changes - If we are going to have seperate articles, the "Lightning Saga" version of the team is sufficiently divergent from the original team that ceased to exist in 1994 that it needs its own article. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I think that in light of the events in "Legion of 3 Worlds" it's pretty clear that these are now three separate teams so splitting them off makes perfect sense. Spanneraol (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I made a userpage prototype for the threeboot Legion article that can be found at User:Marcus Brute/Legion of Super-Heroes (2004 team).--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment It sure looks good to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I mentioned this before and was a distinct minority opinion, but Nutiketaiel's comment about the "Lightning Saga" version being "divergent from the original team that ceased to exist in 1994" points out that there was a major change in continuity with the 1989 change (from the V3 to V4 books). The "Lightning Saga" is fairly close to the V3 Legion as written by Paul Levitz, and most of its divergence is with the V4 Legion. Perhaps V4 should be the separate article, NOT the Lightning Saga. -- Couillaud (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply - I think there is a greater divergance between the v3 Legion and the post IC Legion than there is between the v3 and v4 Legion, especially if you look at it from a publication history perspective. While the v4 books took the Legion in a new direction, principally with the "Five Years Later" storyline, it was still the same continuously published continuity. In other words, though they underwent changes the v4 Legion was still the original Legion of Super-Heroes. This post-IC Legion is reminiscent of the original Legion, but they have gone through more than a decade break in publication, undergone retcons both serious (the entire 5-years later storyline and everything afterwards appears to have been dropped, along with a number of things from before it) and minor (the nature of Raindow Girl's powers has been completely altered). I don't think the v4 Legion can be seperated from the original Legion, while this post-IC Legion is seperate, though obviously based on the original. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To which I further reply - While I'm mostly just an interested bystander with this article (and so will acquiesce with whatever changes are made), I believe the differences between V3 and V4 are greater than the differences between V3 and the Lightning Saga.

The original LSH had as its inspiration a 20th-century superhero named Superboy, and had as a member Mon-El, who did very little as a superhero in the 20th century but became famous in the 30th; V4 never heard of Superboy, and the former character Mon-El became Valor, who was a 20th century legend. The original Legion was founded for altruistic reasons, while Superboy's 20th century was a plot of the Time Trapper; V4 had no PU and had the Legion formed with some Machiavellian twists involving Glorith. The original Legion (at least until its last dozen or so issues) had a second 20th-century Kryptonian member named Supergirl, while V4 had a 30th-century Daxamite member named Laurel Gand. Those differences were made clear in the early issues (3rd & 4th IIRC) when the original universe was erased with the destruction of the Time Trapper and replaced by a new timeline where some characters had never existed and some who had never been seen in print before had now been there all along. Parallel universes, perhaps, but IMO not a continuous storyline.

You mentioned the Lightning Saga's divergence from V3 as "a number of things from before [the V4 retcon]". For the moment ignoring V4, what do you believe are the major divergences between V3 and LS? -- Couillaud (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To which reply I further reply - The absence of Supergirl, the presence of XS and the fact that the pocket Universe no longer existed are the three that most immediately spring to mind. However, in addition to the in-universe differences, look at the publication histories. Different edition or not, the v4 Legion was part of the same continuous publishing history with the original Legion. The post-IC Legion is a return to that after a 13 year hiatus. I think that is a significant enough divergance to justify their seperation, while the Five Years Later and associated events I view as just a storyline or series of storylines within the original Legion continuity. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to stop meeting like this :-) - I'm not sure I follow the logic of "continuous publishing history"; the book went on hiatus for two months, and was then renumbered, which was a signal (IMO) that it was a break from the earlier book, irrespective of the title. The three major differences you cite between V3 and LS are ALSO differences between V3 and V4, and not the most major ones between those two. As stated in the main article, the LS Legion could be considered consistent with the pre-Crisis LSH. While there was no Superboy (the Pocket Universe was created post-Crisis) or Supergirl (who died in the Crisis and whose existence was gradually forgotten), this group still traces its original inspiration to Superman (even if he was never Superboy). To me, the V3/V4 change seems similar to the differences between Earth 1 & Earth 2, though for different reasons.

However, if the publishing continuity is what is most important, I may disagree, but if consensus says different, I will not dispute. -- Couillaud (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here - Well, I don't think we're going to get anywhere just going round in circles. Let's wait for everyone else to catch up so we can find a consensus, shall we? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the mix... The real break in continuity came in LSHv4 #5-6, the two issues after Mon-El slugged the Time Trapper. So there were no continuity changes between V3 and V4 per se, but rather completely within V4. As for the source of inspiration for the LS Legion, Legion of Three Worlds #3 has a scene set in 20th century Smallville, in which Dawnstar, Polar Boy, and Wildfire fly over a sign that says "Welcome to Smallville: Home of the Super-Boy". Kal is still a "suburban legend", as Polar Boy explains, and he also states that the Legionnaires are not there for "Superboy." So "Super-Boy" may again be the Legion's inspiration. I'd stick with treating the original "Earth-1" Legion, the post-Crisis V3/early V4 Legion (no Supergirl, Luthor, LSP, etc.), the "Glorithverse" V4 Legion, and the LS Legion as all variations on the same Legion of Super-Heroes (1958 team), which seems to be DC's view. Spiderboy12 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede that the Post-IC Legion belongs in the Original (1958) Legion article if the 5-Years Later, Glorithverse, Magic Wars etc Legion is kept in that article as well. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is no opposition to the idea of separate articles, nor any problems with the Post-Zero Hour/Threeboot articles, although there is some controversy over the "original" Legion. I propose that the moves be made with the three articles as described above with a new discussion on the Legion of Super-Heroes (1958 team) talk page over any further splitting for Five Years Later, Lightning Saga, etc.--Marcus Brute (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support of Marcus's proposed solution. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no objections have risen, I have begun the move. I finished Legion of Super-Heroes (2004 team) and am currently working on the 1994 team. Of course, any positive changes are appreciated.--Marcus Brute (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support I support this, but since the different versions all exist on alternate Earths I think that should be the point of differentiation, New Earth, Earth 50, Earth Prime, etc. --Xero (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs a major rewrite

This entire article needs a major rewrite as do all the linked pages. Since it has now been established that there are multiple Legions on alternate Earths, the term reboot no longer qualifies. And any Legion outside of teh main Earth One group should now be under the "Other Versions" banner. --Xero (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Wikipedia isn't supposed to focus on the in-universe stuff. The publishing history is more important, and as far as publishing history is concerned they were basically separate. Wikipedia isn't going to reorganize every Legion article when DC changes the Legion's continuity every 20 minutes. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's twice in two comments you've had to use that phrase, "publishing history is more important", and I agree, with reservations. However, perhaps there might be a sub-article possible about major (and less-major) shifts in LSH continuity in order to keep everyone satisfied and informed on what the current continuity is, assuming anyone knows what it currently is. It could give a respite to this particular back-and-forth debate, and then we could have a whole new debate on meaningless trivia.  :-) -- Couillaud (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Where is it written in stone that "publishing history is more important"? Last thing this topic, or any topic for that matter, needs is a Wikinazi trying to reduce the usefulness of an article. Both the publishing history *and* the in-universe history are equally important, and they need to be included as such. 66.90.148.162 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

addition

This story is fairly unique in comic history, as it destroys and reconstructs the entire universe, all the way back to the beginning of time, not just once, but twice, in the same issue.

The quote above has been put in and removed from the article multiple times. The quote needs a source from an independent reliable source as written. If all we had was the end of the sentence, after the comma, then it could use the book itself as the source. The first part is the problematic portion. Determining if something is unique can not be done by a Wikipedia editor. It must be something that a reliable source that is independent of the book must do. ~ GB fan 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• GB fan - are you by any chance familiar with the LoS, (LOSH) .. eh, "Legion of Super-Heroes" by any chance? The article really does need some work, and given the convoluted history of this particular comic brand/franchise - it really is a tough subject for one editor to handle alone. Anyone else familiar with these?

— Ched (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about it. Not sure how I originally got involved in that dispute. ~ GB fan 13:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Workforce (comics) was proposed for deletion, but redirect was suggested as an alternative. Or, at least redirect ... Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost a year and no one is saying anything. Enjoyer of World (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. On reflection, given the start date of 1995, a better target might be Legion of Super-Heroes (1994 team), which ran from 1994 to 2004 and therefore seems to cover the relevant period more specifically. Klbrain (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)