Template talk:Legion of Super-Heroes

Comics: DC Comics Template‑class

This template 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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by DC Comics work group.

Please add more and update this template as you see fit. I added as much as I know about the Legion to this, and I will continue to update this as I have more time. Sgetz (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legion has had literally dozens of members during its many incarnations. Do you think it is appropriate to list all of them that have a full article? If not, how should we choose? Perhaps we should consider just listing the Founders and the Superboys/Supergirl? Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the most common members should be in the list. It helps to tie them together. I was kind of looking at the G.I. Joe template, that lists the characters that appear most often, as a template. I linked the word members back to the master list of all members. Just my two cents. Sgetz (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense then. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Cosmic King and Saturn Queen need to be listed individually? They haven't really appeared outside of stories with the Legion of Super-Villains, which is already linked. Keeping Lightning Lord up makes sense, though, since Mekt has had alot of storylines with the Legion apart from the LSV. Perhaps we should replace them with

Glorith, or Leland McCauley. Actually, I may add some of those anyway... Additionally, we should consider a line for important Legion supporting characters like R. J. Brande, Lori Morning and Rond Vidar (for that matter, I should probably write up articles for Shvaugn, Marla and Dr. Gym'll). What do you think? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds good to me on adding the supporters. I found the Legion of Super-Heroes as a whole to be very tricky to find information on. I hope that as we add more into this, it might make find some of these Legion members a bit easier. As for the villains, I guess we can remove them if they are on the other page. I do agree we should leave Mekt since he has some other significance. Sgetz (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed Cosmic King and Saturn Queen and replaced them with Glorith, Universo and Leland McCauley. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address recently added the Five Years Later storyline under "Eras." I have reverted this, since it clearly doesn't belong there (as it was part of the original publishing continuity, not a continuity in and of itself), but it may have a place as a link under storylines. Personally, I think it does not, since it wasn't really a unified storyline on its own (in my humble opinion), but I wanted to check here with everyone else rather than dismiss it out of hand. Is there support for adding "Five Years Later" to the list of storylines in the template? Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his more recent edit summary, he proposed adding it as a "sub-era." I am still opposed to including it under eras; is there any support for this? Additionally, I have invited him to comment here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a controversial issue and that some view it as a distinct era (a reboot without the reboot) and some consider it the same continuity as the original continuity (just with a ridiculously higher number of retcons). But there is no denying that it is a *very* different period for the team and that virtually every character can be said to be "different" than the character was in the coninuity that had previously existed.

Now, remembering that templates are meant to be navigation aids, I think people interested in the team would benefit from having this unique era included in the template. The logical place is the "era" section, as that is where the distinct versions of the group are found. If it is not considered an era unto itself, it is, at the very least, a "sub-era".

This doesn't need to be a debate about the validity or non-validity of the "Five Years Later" era being part of the original continuity. The only question here is: does it belong in the template, and, if so, where? 128.151.71.16 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% sure where it might best fit, but I guess by the lengthy description given here as for why it should be here, I can see that maybe there should be a direct link to it. As someone that is not familiar with this era that well, I do not know really where to place it. I guess some type of sub era type designation, but as it is the only one that fits into the category, I do not think there should be a whole category devoted to it. Perhaps we could classify it under the era by some way? Sgetz (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, by those arguements, 128.151.71.16, I'll agree that it does belong in the template. However, I still think that it doesn't belong under "Eras." All four of the links currently under the eras section are distinct and full continuities, each a total break from the others. 5-years later, while it does contain a mind-numbing number of retcons as you point out, is still a part of the original continuity. It would be as if... as if we seperated the pre-Crisis and post-Crisis versions of the Legion because of the Pocket Superboy retcon; that was a major retcon that affected all of Legion history, but it was still the same continuity. I feel that the same thing applies to the five years later period. I would support adding it under "storylines," though.

By the way, in an unrelated topic, have you considered creating a username? It would be alot simpler than addressing you as 128.151.71.16, I should think. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had usernames in the past, but prefer anonymity at the moment. (No, I wasn't banned or anything.)

The difference between "Five Years Later" and the Pocket Universe, is that the Pocket Universe really only affected Superboy/Superman. Given the changes of the Crisis, the Legion actually came away relatively unscathed. They lost any appearance with Superman, but all their main stories, all their characters stayed pretty much the same. After the events of, what, issue three of the "Five Years Later" story (it's too long ago for me to remember), their history was fundamentally changed from who had inspired them to character names, to their basic natures. They cannot be said to be the same people that had existed before. Reality had been completely altered.

Your problem seems to be placing it in the "Era" section because it is not an "era" as the fanbase has chosen to define it. But other templates have subsections, so it should be fine here. If we rework the way the eras are listed, it may make it clearer. So instead of

Original continuity (1958–1994) · Rebooted (1994–2004) · "Threeboot" continuity (2005–2009) · Post-Infinite Crisis (2007–)

we go with something like

Original continuity ("Five Years Later") · Rebooted · "Threeboot" · Post-Infinite Crisis

or

Original continuity 1958-1994 ("Five Years Later" 1989-1994) · Rebooted 1994-2004 · "Threeboot" 2005-2009 · Post-Infinite Crisis 2007-

128.151.71.16 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can kind of see your point on that one. I still don't really agree that it should be under Eras, but it does need to be in there, and it doesn't truely belong under "storylines" either, so I guess that works best. I support the last option, because it keeps the publication dates intact (making it clearer that Five Years Later is a subsection of the original continuity). Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]