Template talk:Superman

Regarding the Untitled Superman Returns Sequel, calling it Superman VI is premature at this time, as such, I'd like to simpy call it 'untitled superman returns sequel', so as to not start a false rumor, nor create duplicating pages.ThuranX 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I agree, calling it "Superman VI" makes Superman Returns seem like a sequel to IV. I've shortened it to "Untitled Sequel" just for space constraints in the box (It's in the "Brandon Routh" section so it should be obvious it's a sequel to SR) - this is similar to how I shortened Superman: The Animated Series to just "Animated Series". —EatMyShortz 04:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, we've had two goes in the past few days at adding some indication of which films are in the "Official Film Continuity" - I deleted the first one but I'll discuss this newer, less intrusive one (asterisks). But to discuss: What is "official" film continuity? Both times, it's been marked as Superman, Superman II and Superman Returns. I'd say that's Bryan Singer's "official continuity" but just because SR retconned Superman III and IV doesn't mean they are no longer "official" sequels to S1 and S2. You could just as easily argue that Superman I-IV are "official" and SR is not. I am not trying to bash SR or Bryan Singer, I'm just saying there is really no "official" continuity and it isn't really necessary for us to highlight this controversial discussion in what is supposed to be a simple links box. —EatMyShortz 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Where is it cited that those films are the "offical" film canon? And do we care enough to list this in a infobox? Remove any mention of "Offical Continuity" and remove the asterisks. Colonial One 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. It's meaningless.Rhindle The Red 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not going to start an edit type thing, but in light of the otherwise thorough job done here, and the relatively significant nature of Superpup with regard to George Reeves' series and death, i think that including it under the 'other' category isn't thoroughly inappropriate.ThuranX 03:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

All the other major actor who have portrayed Superman are in here, but how can we fit in Dean Cain? Not under the Films section, but I think he should a mention. Perhaps reformating the Films section and having a new Actors section, or something like that? Thoughts? --Colonial One 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. The only reason George Reeves got listed was for the Mole Men serial, not for the TV show. Likewise, Gerard Christpoher and the other guy haven't been listed for their Superboy roles. Dean Cain's work is fully detailed under the entry for his series. Remember, this is a template for Superman, not for actors who've portrayed Superman. ThuranX 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've made a set of edits to reduce the unwieldy size of this to match the style after a large number of edits made at Template:The Batman. Since that page was originally modelled on this one, it makes sense to match this one to that one. Hope no body worked to hard on this one. ThuranX 18:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some background: ThuranX recently created {{The Batman}} on the model of this template. When editors more familiar with the Batman articles than this original edited it, he became upset (see Template talk:The Batman), and edited this template to match "the same mess you've made" the Batman template. I don't think that's necessary: as Emerson said, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" — not that I'm calling ThuranX a "little mind", just saying that there's no need for the two templates to match point-for-point. The histories of Superman and Batman are different, and the templates should reflect that. At least, that's my opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

more background. All edits to the batman template were made either without REAL discussion, or with none. where My input was given, it was disregarded. Discussion consisted of 'post to talk page regarding change, make change to page, change talk page to claim done as per talk page discussion', often in a period of a minute or three. Given that the ddraconian nature of the edits was clear, it only makes logical sense to stop fighting and assimilate. Thus, I have contributed to this page by making it like the other page. less bulky, less information oriented, and more streamlined. Perhaps my last edit of useless dead peopel seemed snarky to Josiah Rowe. In accordance with his critique, I have reverted the page to the last 'good' edit to match the Batman template.ThuranX 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just like the Batman template this one is also bloated, there should only be four sections on this template: Heroes, Supporting Characters, Villains & Locations. Why are there Canceled, Alternate versions, Broadcast, Live Action and Other Media sections on a comics template? Use those to make a separate "Superman Media" template and focus this one more on comics. Also in my opinion you should get rid of the Comics and Storylines sections they aren't needed. --Basique 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll go ahead and do that. ThuranX 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is insane. First MiB reverts my edits, then he does EXACTLY what I did, calls MY version POV, and claims his is good? This is Orwellian. ThuranX 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We have a listing for the Legion cartoon; should the Superfriends/Justice League cartoons be on as well? Or should any of them be there? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Split the "other media" appearances of Superman into its own infobox: Template:Superman in other media. The media information wasn't relevant to many Superman-related articles (characters, for example). - jc37 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good job. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

We're discussing standardization of the Batman/Superman templates at Template_talk:Batman#Template_width. Doczilla 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd start a category where we would discuss the standards for inclusion of items in the Superman navbox. I dropped Livewire from and added Prankster to the list of villains under the principle that any character listed under "Villains" in the Superman navbox should be listed among Superman's "Major Enemies" on the List of Superman enemies, which is linked in the navbox from the Villains header. Earlier, I removed Volcana both based on this principle, and on the understanding that the Superman navbox is oriented toward the comic book version(s) of the character, and therefore should not include characters who haven't appeared in the comics. Spiderboy12 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just undid several additions to the navbox by an IP-only editor for reasons explained in the tag added to the edit. Please note that the villains and supporting characters listed in the template should be major characters in the Superman comic-book mythos. Mala's historical importance as Superman's first Kryptonian foe to appear in comics (in 1950) notwithstanding, he appears in only a couple comics, and then fades into history. Phantom Zone villains other than Zod are covered in the Phantom Zone page, linked via the Phantom Zone villains listing. Mercy Graves is Luthor's henchwoman and hardly rises to the level of major villain. Also, there is separate navbox for Superman in other media, so the movie-only villain Nuclear Man should not be listed here either. I've kept Bibbo for now; I'm undecided about whether he's really a major enough character for the navbox. Spiderboy12 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't edit right now because I am not established enough yet, but I really think Chloe Sullivan should not be listed in the characters section, as she is a character that is specific to Smallville, and has never appeared in the comics. I'd like to see Cat Grant in the navbox instead. Also has anyone considered making a third section of characters? Since the villians have their own section, may I suggest a section be made called "Heroes & Allies" which would have Superman, Superboy, the various Supergirls, Steel, Eradicator, Gangbuster, Krypto etc. Then the villian section, and finally rename the remaing section "Supporting Characters", and put Jimmy, Perry, Cat, Lana, Ma & Pa, etc. there. Just a suggestion Firestorm566 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed about Chloe, and I just removed her. I don't agree about Cat Grant. Though I like the character, I think if we include her, we should include a number of supporting characters of similar stature, such as Morgan Edge, Steve Lombard (who's also coming back into the comics!), Lucy Lane, Dan Turpin, Inspector Henderson, Maggie Sawyer, Susie Tompkins (an oldie but a goodie!), and so forth. The idea is to keep the template list to a small number of major characters. There's plenty of room for debate about individual characters, of course. As for the split between "Heroes & Allies" and "Supporting Characters", I don't really see the need. The "Characters" list is short enough not to cause any confusion. Spiderboy12 (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because so many story arcs could potentially be included in the Superman navbox, I suggest removing the Storylines section completely. Instead, add a link for the "Storylines" category to Miscellanea, and also include perhaps "Origin of Superman" and "Death of Superman", because the "Origin" is really ubiquitous to any version of Kal-El and not a storyline per se, and "Death of Superman" may be the best-known comic book story arc, period. Don't get me wrong; I love the Alan Moore-scripted "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" and the various recent arcs added by Brown Shoes22, but I'm not sure that they belong in a navigation template of limited size. Rather, they should be added to the Superman Storylines category, if they are not already present. Anyone else have any thoughts? Spiderboy12 03:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove that section. The recent addition of numerous stories makes it clear that there is insufficient way to agree on which storylines belong there. Doczilla 07:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Refactored the section, which should help. - jc37 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good move, jc37. Thanks. Spiderboy12 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that a lot of superhero templates have been recolored to match the character's costume (i.e. Template:Spider-Man, Template:Captain America). Would anyone be opposed to a Red, Blue and Yellow theme for the Superman template?--Darknus823 (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You mean like {{Thor}}? Though that may be a little confusing. - J Greb (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

How about this one? Hyperzoanoid (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Massive eye strain... hidden links because of color clashes... I'd say no.

- J Greb (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is Adventure Comics listed among the former titles? That series never starred Superman. Shouldn't the link be too Adventures of Superman, instead? --TimPendragon (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Superboy (Kal-El) was featured in Adventure Comics from #103 (1946) to #315 (1964), and again from #453-458, and he nearly always appeared on the cover. That doesn't count his appearances in the series as a member of the Legion (featured in Adventure Comics from #300-380), during which time the cover logo read, in full, "Adventure Comics starring Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes." Again, Superboy was usually on the cover. Finally, Superboy appeared as a Legion member in the Adventure Comics digests, #491-503, which were all-reprint issues. Since Superboy was just the young Superman, you can most certainly say that Superman starred in Adventure for most of the series' run. That doesn't count the run of Adventure dedicated to Kal's cousin, Supergirl (roughly #381-425). Spiderboy12 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alright, you've corrected me on that. However, I'd still suggest a link to Adventures of Superman in the template. I know it's a redirect to another title, but someone looking for Adventures might not know that. --TimPendragon (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Given the prominent role they played in the youth of the Silver Age Superman and the current Superman, I think there needs to be a link to the Legion of Super-Heroes article in this template, either in the supporting characters or miscellanea section. Thoughts? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:13, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

I noticed in browsing through the history that the Legion was part of the template, but was removed out of fear that this would open the door to adding Batman, the JLA, etc. While I see the point of this fear, I do not think it is warranted. Batman, the JLA and all the rest began as their own characters and interacted with Superman later; Superman was not a vital part of their development, nor they in his. The Legion, however, began as a Superboy story and continued to be just a supporting story in Superman books for many years. While they may have grown into their own feature, they didn't start out that way. Additionally, in both the original continuity and the current one with the return of the Original Legion, they played a very important role in Kal's formative years, and his development into a hero; I think they fit the definition of supporting characters of Superman quite well for the purposes of this template. I am going to be bold and add them back in; if anyone objects, we can discuss it here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any powered or costumed characters of any kind belong in the Supporting Characters section. If they belong on the template anywhere, it should be the Superman Family section. Also, if Legion are included the Justice League should be as well. Also, a group is not a character. Mon-El is the strongest Super connection and he is already on the Superman Family section. Maybe there should be an "affiliations" section, or something.

Firestorm566 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would have no objection to an affiliations section. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

While Legion do deserve a mention their own canon is so vast that perhaps they could use a template of their own, as could Supergirl for that matter.90.195.111.208 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

They do have a template of their own; that doesn't mean they don't belong on this one. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems obvious to me that the Legion (and maybe the JLA too, if you guys insist) is important enough to Superman's backstory and development (and vice-versa) that they need to be linked to in this template. The real question is where to put them. I see four options:

1. Add them to the Superman Family section.

• It seems like the most logical place for them, since this is where the other superpowered associates of Superman are listed.
• However, they've never really been referred to as part of the "Superman Family" directly.

2. Add them to the Supporting Characters section.

• While the title certainly seems more appropriate to their original role, this section seems to contain characters who are (usually) not superpowered.

3. Add them to the Miscellanea section.

• The Legion doesn't really seem to fit with the other links already in that section. The miscellanea section seems to be being used for alternate versions and media of the characters.

4. Create a new section called "Teams" (or "Affiliations" if you'd rather).

• This seems like the most viable option, as it doesn't try to shoehorn the Legion (and I suppose the JLA) into a section that it really doesn't belong in. It also has the advantage of being narrowly defined enough that the section is not likely to explode to a rediculous size or include more tangentially connected characters, like Batman.

Therefore, I support creating a new "Teams" section in the template, between the "Villains" and "Locations" sections. Thoughts? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who else belives we should lighten down the villain list, and only include the "main" ones? Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRebo120 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Novels

Lena Thorul is a peripheral character in the Elliott S! Maggin novel "Superman: Miracle Monday". The magician Max Maven threatens to find out and disclose her identity as Lex Luthor's sister in order to get Superman to come visit him at the Magic Castle.

76.104.160.235 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Lena Luthor and Miracle Monday are already in the template, if you were suggesting adding either of those. — Bility (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed him because he doesn't seem to be a regular supporting character. What does anyone else think of that? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I also object to characters like Chloe Sullivan being included when she is an original TV character who has failed to successfully transition into other media, in favour of characters like Batman who have been consistently co-starring/playing supporting roles in Superman stories, or Wonder Woman who is his current love interest in comics canon as well as the current direct-to-DVD animated movie continuity.

I am aware that Wonder Woman is a love interest of his. But that's something usually explored in a Justice League comic book or a crossover comic book and I am trying to make this as Superman centered as I can. Lobo was even removed because it was established that even though he appears in Superman media and clashes with Superman that he is a primary character of his own. Same with Guardian (from me). We got a Justice League navbox to explore them being together. If they aren't Metropolis or Smallville characters just like Batman characters isn't Gotham City characters. Then maybe they need to be stand alone? Just a thought. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Crossovers, by their nature, usually run on limited time or instalments and not meant to be indefinite. The currently ongoing Superman/Wonder Woman comic is not a one-off instance, it's a comic book series co-starring characters who play a recurring role in each other's mythos. How different it is from a book titled Batman and Robin, or how does it differ between similar past titles like Green Arrow/Black Canary or Green Arrow/Green Lantern in the past? It's technically not part of the Justice League media even though their relationship originated as a result of their involvement with the League, and since their romantic relationship is a major part of each other's lives now with no signs of DC shelving it, it is very plausible that future writers will have Wonder Woman appearing in his solo book as a recurring role and vice versa. If we go by your strict definition of Lobo being excluded even though he IS a notable Superman antagonist in the franchise's history, then Darkseid and Brainiac are certainly NOT characters who literally originated from Smallville or Metropolis, especially when the former is depicted as more of an overall Justice League threat in recent years, and both have battled not just Superman but also with the rest of the League on multiple occasions. Keep in mind as well that these days Catwoman is also treated as a primary character of her own, which is not mutually exclusive with her involvement in the bigger picture that is the Batman franchise media.

You have to understand that aside from the mostly self-contained Vertigo imprint comics, traditionally DC have always allowed more connectivity in their universe (be it within the Prime/New Earth or across the multiverse), and their characters to crossover and mingle in each other's books and solo adventures outside of the various Justice League series. Superman was already teaming up or guest starring in Batman comics and vice versa since the 1950's, before the Justice League was formed! Whereas for many years up until Secret Wars and especially since the late 1990's, the Spider-Man, X-Men, Avengers, Daredevil and Fantastic Four often had very little to do with each other in Marvel's comic books. For me, the purpose of compiling lists like these isn't to identify who is mutually exclusive to the franchise media of certain character IP's, but which of these characters have a stronger link to it based on the prevalence of their media presence (which does not necessarily mean comics > movies or vice versa) over the years, as well as current continuity. For e.g., just because Julie Madison was Batman's first love interest, doesn't mean she is still an important part of the big picture. Another e.g., Harley Quinn and Renee Montoya were created for the classic animated series, but fan popularity and some visionary comic book writers have enabled them to make the successful jump into the comic books and eventually across all Batman media, whereas Chloe Sullivan never quite did, and for intents and purposes is an exclusively Smallville TV show character. It's all about identifying how tenuous the overall history of their ties to the main character in question, not from which media their character originated from or how well established is the IP behind the character prior to their co-starring billing with another character IP. Haleth (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The DC Universe has just about anybody meeting somebody at one point. Especially Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman etc. The less in universal argument would be is how recurring are they in a particular comic book that stars that character. For example how many times is Batman a supporting character of Superman in Action Comics. Even if he does appear it's what we call a special appearance of Batman in a Superman comic book. World's Finest Comics or a Justice League comic book or a Brave and the Bold comic book should be a terrible example. It's a comic book that shows the same universal characters together just like the new movie. That doesn't mean they are centric. Also supporting characters is hardly superheroes but more normal people affiliated with the superhero. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another reason why I am so against it is because I know editors like User:J Greb would be against it. I don't know if he is active anymore but he did know best from comic book navboxes many of times. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm still kicking around, though less actively these days.

With Henderson there are two things point to not including him here:

1. He originates outside of the comics. For the most part this group of templates self limits to the comic book material, not characters drawn from radio, television, or film. Henderson was created for, and used extensively in the radio series The Adventures of Superman which ran from 1940 through 1951. Hw was carried over to TV in 1952. He didn't appear in comics until 1974, and even then he was a minor character.
2. Is pretty much that last part, in the comics he's a minor character. Most of the cases where a media import - Harley, Montoya, and the like - has become important to the comics, inclusion in the comic skewed navboxes makes sense. (In that vein, Mercy Grave's inclusion almost makes sense, and Liverwire's doesn't.)

As an aside, the point Jhenderson777 brings up regarding Wonder Woman is whether the character is really a supporting character and/or really integral to the topic at hand. Wonder Woman and Superman, not so much. Batman and Catwoman, very much so. (I also tend to disagree with Catwoman or other Bat-villains needing separate 'boxes.)

- J Greb (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jhenderson and J Greb in regards to Wonder Woman. It would be inappropriate and misleading to include her in a Superman template. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply