Talk:The Superman Family

I agree to the merger. Let's just call it "Superman Family" and will have two sections: the classic "family", and the modern representation (Team Superman). Also "Team Superman" should be redirected to the Superman Family article. Please discuss.--Captain Cook 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Their is no need for a merge since the articles are based on two seperate comics book series. First, as I said before, Team Superman has had their own comic book series (the article mentions that), and it is the more currently used term for a collection of S-type heroes. Superman Family is just some obscure silver-age titles which really has no real connection to the Team Superman comics, and if there were to be a merge, Superman Family should redirected to Team Superman, not the other way around, since the Team Superman article is a little more well written, and a little more effort appears to have been put into it (ie the Super Hero Box). MetaStar 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Team Superman" and "Superman Family" are totally different in concept, timing and delivery. They should be kept separate. CovenantD 04:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Superman Family should NOT be merged into the "Team Superman" article. The term 'Superman Family' has been used prominently since the Silver Age, and includes non-super-people. It is not a "team." This is actually the first time I've heard the phrase 'Team Superman,' but good for them if they have a well-written article. Adding to the Superman Family article is on my to do's, so it should be able to stand on its own soon. In the meantime, NO, don't even think about it ;P Slugabed 09:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So how long do we leave the Merge tag on this when the overwhelming sentiment on both pages is to leave them separate? CovenantD 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of proper procedure, I'd prefer just to take it off. To be fair, though, maybe we should leave it until this article is expanded upon. I'll be able to, but not for a few weeks (trying to finish my degree project so I can graduate!) Slugabed 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One more voice in favor of NOT merging the two articles. It seems like a consensus has been reached here regarding not merging the two articles. Rray 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Superman supporting characters

I see that someone has removed this article from the category Category:Superman supporting characters - should we put it back? Additionally, should there be links to Supporting characters of Superman? j-beda 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is about the publication titled Superman Family. A comic book is not a supporting character. So the answer is no, I don't think it should be categorized, but it can have a See also or inline reference. CovenantD 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense - I had not been thinging the Superman Family was about the publication, but rather about the grouping of characters, which is also how it was often used. j-beda 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Daring New Adventures of Supergirl

Hi! I wrote the "Ill-planned and ill-conceived Daring New Adventures of Supergirl" since that horrid series was the very real reason the character declined in up to then highest sales and its demise in Crisis. Not one fan remembers it fondly. I wonder if you could change it again from "Unsuccessful" which puts the blame in the character, to "Ill-conceived" which puts the blame rightly in the Editors...User:DAVID. BTW please don´t merge "Superman Family" into "Team Superman".

One day later: Anybody??

Please sign in and use ~~~~ to sign and date your comments. I removed the "ill-planned, ill-conceived" as it seemed a bit non-neutral point of view. Maybe an article for The Daring New Adventures of Supergirl could explore documentation on how it was planned and conceived and executed and back that up with whatever references might be appropriate, but is probably does not belong in the "Superman Family" article. I do not recall the title myself, and I have no reason to doubt your statement, but at the very least an encyclopedia article needs to say "the fans thought it was junk" rather than "it was junk". j-beda 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK...Thanks. Good enough for me. I only did not want it to appear as though the character is guilty for faulty DC decisions, made in that particularly though time for DC.

As for writing an article about it...I did, a loong one, explaining how a "DC in turmoil" in 1982-4 began lobbying Warner Brothers execs for TWO YEARS, trying desperately to make Superman the only survivor of Krypton, and WB stood solidly for two years behind Supergirl until it caved in after 1984 and accepted Jeannette Kahn´s character assassination long planned (in order to make Wonder W. the biggest heroine in the world which was all along her only plan). ...but it dissapeared one hour later with no explanation...so I am not interested in it now.

I think passions still wun high in the subjest, pro and counter! So I am inclined to wait a little longer. Anyhow she is back and it is all I am interested in for now. Thank you again! You seem to be neutral, and I appreciate it. DAVID

'Flagship' and overall grammar comment

"The title was in part an amalgamation of the titles Superman's Girl Friend: Lois Lane and Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen with the second series of Supergirl, therefore immediately becoming DC's flagship title with the highest sales for the remainder." I'm not sure that I understand the flow of the sentence. Although 'amalgamating' the Jimmy and Lois titles, it took over Jimmy's numbering. There had only been one Supergirl series to that date. Is there any source for 'Superman Family' being DC's 'flagship title' and it's sales figures? MaJiC 17:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)