Comics: DC Comics B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Template:WP Superman

A great many minor edits (often made with the semi-bot AWB program) keep switching back and forth between, for example, "(4th series)" and "volume 4" or "vol. 4" or "v4".

This piles confusion on confusion, especially for Legion newcomers. It doesn't help that Chaim Keller's ubiquitous Legion.hlp reference file uses a different numbering for the various editions of Legion of Super-Heroes from that of the Overstreet comic book price guide (and pretty much the rest of Legion fandom).

I would suggest that Legion articles ought to simply stick to the generally accepted usage that this main article is currently employing. That is, the Overstreet guide's usage. For example, with the early-'80s newly-numbered high-gloss-paper series, either "volume 3" or "v3". To use the intermediate "vol. 3" reduces clarity without saving much space.

Greybird 17:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m purposing an operation to make the Legion pages around here a bit more intuitive… I don’t want to scare anyone away from learning more about the Legion.

I’d like to reorganize the pages for each Legion member and try and combine some of the characters that were essentially based on the same identity. For example, Light Lass, Gossamer and Spark all merged into one page, etc. Then I would like to put a warning box at the top of each character page: This page is about a comic book character who has appareared in several different contunities of the Legion of Super-Heroes. For the current version of the chacter featured in The Legion of Super-Heroes comic book click here. With a link that takes you down to the Threeboot version of the character.

I also think we need to reorganize this page and the others to become more user friendly for new readers to the new book. I’d like to put a small description at the top that the current book is a brand new continuity, for information about it, please click here, with a link that takes you to down to the Threeboot section. I assume there may be a small influx of readers to the WaK books and definitely a lot of research going to be done on the Legion because of the cartoon that’s premiering this month.

camtin 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good I would add that all versions of the character should include consistant terminology. Cute names like the Threeboot and the 5 year gap are counterinituitive and only mean something to extablished fans.

Is there any reason not to use the most intuitive of them, "2004 reboot"? Other reboots can then just be called by their names the 1994 reboot and the 1989 reboot.

for new readers I don't think anything else makes sense. Kidkyoto

In regards to this comment: "Ironically, this fell in the middle of what is widely considered to be a low point in the Legion's history. The Conway stories were not very well-received, and often seemed to lack ambition." This is an unsupportable, clearly subjective claim (can it be demonstrated that the stories were widely disliked, and what are the criteria for possessing "ambition" in regards to a 1980 mainstream super-team comic?). Generally speaking, comments like that are only appropriate if the alleged fan discontentment actually amounted to something (the Spider-Man Clone saga, for instance)

Rather than many small quasi-stubs, could it not make sense to expand List of Legion of Super-Heroes members into a table? This would also make it simpler to track where and where not there are changes between the original and rebooted versions. unkamunka 02:15 15 Dec 2003 (UTC).

Is there any place in the article for a outline of the in-comic history of the Legion? --khaosworks 03:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure! I'd suggest renaming the History header to Publication history, and adding a new section entitled Team history or Fictional biography, perhaps with sub-sections for the pre-reboot and post-reboot teams. This will mirror the structure I've been using for some other DC articles, such as The Flash, Green Lantern and Hawkman. -mhr 03:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question - why is the new Mark Waid/Barry Kitson reboot called a "reimagining"? I mean, obviously it can't be called "the reboot", but I can't find a cite for it in the external links. It seems very clunky as a term, unlike reboot itself, post-boot, pre-boot, pre-Crisis, and so on.

For the record, in the fan circles I hang out in the three major continuity eras of LoS are usually called pre-boot, reboot, and newboot (or somewhat more raunchily, preboot!Legion, postboot!Legion, and bitchy!Legion, but nevermind that, heh), but if pos. I'd like to know whether the current header is based on a quote or an official naming that I missed before I go in and change all those pages. - Tinderblast 02:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because that's what Waid called it repeatedly in Wizard and elsewhere. Plus a "newboot" won't be "new" for very long (you can call it bitchy!Legion if you want tho :p) - SoM 02:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I wanted to know. (And I do, secretly ;). -Tinderblast 04:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase I have been hearing used for the current continuity of the Legion is the Threeboot. I like this, and have been using it, since it tacitly acknowledges the Glorith as Time Trapper period as a seperate reboot.

Preboot: Superboy (young Kal-El) and Supergirl (Kara Zor-El) were members.

Crisis on Infinite Earths happens, and (eventually) wipes out Superboy and Supergirl from Legion history. the various ad hoc kludges eventually lead to the MordruVerse for a couple of issues, then a 'running' reboot with Glorith taking the Time Trappers place. Valor (Lar Gand/Mon-El) takes the place of Superboy. Story basically takes up where it left off, with the changes in place.

Zero Hour reboot: total restart, from the begining.

Threeboot: current continuity. Post Infinite Crisis. VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the 2004 reboot? That's as clear as you can get. Kidkyoto

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)

What about the fact that the Legion had itself an entire Big 8 newsgroup - the only superhero group to ever do so? And should we list all the Legion-related titles that were published, including Karate Kid, Wanderers, Valor, Cosmic Boy, Legionnaires 3, Science Police, Inferno, Timber Wolf, etc? DS 17:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a Wildfire wiki but I am not sure how to add Wildfire to the "List of Legion Members" page; anyone who knows how to do so is welcome to do so. Also a picture of him would be nice, and if anyone wants to add on reboot history I'd be grateful. Manticore 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Static (I think, it's been awhile) mention a faux LSH, w mems incl Fanboy ("In Here"). And (with N small irony) Dave's "Legion of Substitute X-Men" (as I call them) in 107-8. I'd mention both... Trekphiler 09:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i know that earth-247 was "revealed" to be the DnA Legion's earth. BUT isn't that much like how Earth-Eight "would be the home of Kyle Rayner, Huntress if the multiverse continued to exist."? So did the adventures really take place on Earth-247 or did Earth-247 exist because of the Alex's multiverse split. Exvicious 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point! I'm going with the latter. And thank you for clearing up something that had been subconsciously bothering me. I didn't want to have to think of it as another "pocket universe" kinda thing. CovenantD 23:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's a smart way to look at it. The Legion reboots kind of break my heart. --Chris Griswold 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And something else that's been driving me nuts about that - "Earth-8" wasn't part of the merged Earth in Crisis - only 1 (Silver Age DC), 2 (Golden Age DC), 4 (Charlton), S (Marvel Family/Fawcett) and X (Quality) were - all the other Earths were simply obliterated. So Kyle, etc must have been from one of the five merged Earths, they simply couldn't have been from something which retroactively didn't exist. - SoM 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-8 is where Kyle, the new Huntress, the new Firestorm, and Breach *would have come from* had it not been destroyed. Because there was no Earth-8, when they were "created", they got pushed into Earth-Post-Crisis. wizardimps 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, remember that in their last appearance the Legion was lost in the time/space stream. What if when Luthor split the Earths they found their way to that one? Shikari mentioned that she found them, she ended up in New Earth's future while the rest of the team was lost and now that they're in the multiverse she could find them? wizardimps 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoM, the way I interpret it, each of the 5 remaining worlds contained within them the potential for the rest of the multiverse, even if that particlular universe had been destroyed by the Anti-Monitor. Kinda like a ZIP file embedded in the coding of the post-Crisis universe. :) CovenantD 14:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like DNA. --Chris Griswold 07:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the various trade paperbacks are being listed, shouldn't the DC Archive editions be listed? I've never been able to afford them, but it is my understanding that they reprint all the stories the Legion played major parts in, up through the mid70s. (DC's website lists Volume 12 as including Superboy & the LSH #s 213-223 and Karate Kid#1. The earlier volumes don't list the issues included...) VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 05:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content if those came out entirely. What you see now listed as trade paperbacks is actually a revamp of a table somebody inserted much further up and called a bibliography. I didn't feel comfortable just removing it, so I corrected the placement, formatting and heading. CovenantD 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed AMethyst as a member of the Legion 5 Year Gap. She was listed for some odd reason. I know Amethyst first appeared in the Legion of Super-Heroes as an additional story, but she never actually joined the team, so why was she listed along with Wildfire as part of the 5 Year Gap? CureWhite

It had something to do with The White Witch. Wasn't she posessed by the Amethyst Lord of Order for a time? Though I agree with you removing the phrasing. "Return of...Amethyst" would mean she had been a member before, which she never was. Better placement would be in the White Witch's article by someone with access to the issues in question. --VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]] 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for members who are no longer in continuity, like White Witch, Tellus, Gates, etc. would it be better to put Unknown in the Superherobox, or would No Longer in Continuity be acceptable? I put No Longer in Continuity when I added some stuff to Tellus, but thought would check here... ---VikÞor [[User talk:Vik-Thor|Talk]]

I added this to the trade paperback section recently, since it includes The Death Of Superboy. That being the story that explains Clark Kent's/Superboy's existance in LOSH despite being out of existance Post Crisis.

Isn't it more accurate to say that the original continuity ended with v4 issue 3? The continuity for the rest of the Bierbaum run is fundamentally different from what came before.Rhindle The Red 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added this:

"(and an initial rejection because his powers were boring),"

based on Daniels' DC Comics. Trekphiler 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad it's not accurate; the initial rejection was a hoax, with the reason put forth that his powers were useless considering that of the others. Also, whatever "Daniels' DC Comics" is, a link would be more helpful than a casual mention of the source. --Joe Sewell 16:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's talking about one of Les Daniels' coffee-table books. In any case, as you say, Daniels has it wrong, as any reading of Adventure Comics #247 will show. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any interviews with the shows creators on why they chose these partciular characters for the show? As an X-Man fan, their powers seem to be more than a little familiar to me. --68.103.154.140 06:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more about the TV show on the show's page here, with some references on the characters. However, while the show's creators have discussed the characters, they haven't specifically mentioned why these as opposed to others. They were all active during the Silver Age (1960s).

As an X-Men fan, though, you should note that the Legionnaires predate the X-Men with similar powers. Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl both first appeared in 1958, Phantom Girl, Brainiac 5, Bouncing Boy, and Triplicate Girl in 1961, and Timber Wolf in 1964. X-Men #1 came out in 1963. The Shi'Ar Imperial Guard, by the way, was created to be a deliberate copy of the Legion. -- Wizardimps 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that Supergirl was sent to Kandor where she met "descendants of the surviving Kryptonians". However, the Kandor article says that Kandor, even post-Birthright, isn't populated by Kryptonians. Ken Arromdee 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the artist credit for the current team image is correct. Isn't that Barry Kitson's art? Puffy Treat 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is. I changed it. Cite from Kitson's website: http://barrykitson.pentnet.com/sectionpage.phtml?page=legion Hope no one's feathers were ruffled.69.121.181.87 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of the person above, what with the current JLA/JSA crossover apparently featuring the return of some pre-reboot characters, should the crossover at least get a mention on the official Legion page? TehMCP 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should definitely be some mentioning since the Legion's appearance has some major bearing on continuity. CasimirAngel 23:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow. This article is heavily biased with images of recent incarnations. Two of the post-ZH teens, two from the current version, one post-Infinite Crisis of the classic version and one cartoon version. Not a single image of the original team that's actually from that era. The Legion didn't suddenly spring into being in 1994, ya know.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]