Why Separate Pre-Crisis Earth-One and New Earth Pages?[]
I am puzzled by this page's claim that most of the Pre-Crisis Earth-One Scarecrow's continuity was deleted by the Crisis for the New Earth version. Is this really true? I am aware that changes were made to the Scarecrow's characterization, origins, and first encounter with Batman, but I highly doubt that facts pertaining to the New Earth Scarecrow specifically invalidate most of his Earth-One self's career and history. I would also like to modify this page to state that it is assumed that much of the Earth-One Scarecrow's early career is shared by the Earth-Two Scarecrow, instead of considering the Earth-One Scarecrow's early career a big, mysterious blank. Foofinscoops 03:17 June 26, 2016 (UTC)
- The Crisis modified and erased most of the history of characters from Earths One and Two. This is specially true when talking about major characters both on Pre and Post-Crisis. Scarecrow is an (almost) major character, in terms of relevance in Earth-One, since he didn't appear as much as other members of Batman's rogues gallery, but he was of some importance. The Earth-Two version had just 2 actual appearances and a third one that was retconned. (Both versions not relevant enough) However, Crane became a major player in New Earth, thus his timeline in Earth-One is considered to be exclusive to that universe since there is no possible way to merge both versions with a logical explanation (Mainly because of his interactions with Earth-One characters) Also, I think that assuming information is absolutely wrong. If it's not stated in-universe, then there's no reason why we should assume the Earth One and Two share the same origin. If there is no clear origin, is DC's fault for not organizing their information, we just index the information we're provided. - S.S. (talk) 05:38, June 26, 2016 (UTC)
- Even still, it's pretty apparent that Post-Crisis Green Arrow was a direct continuation of the Earth-One version, and specifically not the Earth-Two version. Just the same, the Post-Crisis Scarecrow's origin and history seem mostly to line up with the Earth-One version; indeed, most, if not all, of Post-Crisis Batman continuity that was not introduced through retcons is just carry-over from the Pre-Crisis Earth-One Batman continuity, so the assumption is not invalid. In my personal opinion, it actually makes more sense to separate the pages for Poison Ivy (on account of her significantly altered Post-Crisis origin, first encounters with Batman, and expanded power set) and Mr. Freeze (for his completely retooled set of motivations and characterization from the Post-Zero Hour era of Batman continuity) into Pre- and Post-Crisis versions. Foofinscoops 08:13 July 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, the assumption is not invalid from an understanding point of view, but for the sake of indexing in-universe information, it's wrong. "Pretty apparent" and "seem mostly" are not terms we'd like to consider as definitive facts. While it's been stated that most of the history between certain universes mirror each other, it is still wrong to add that in the history section. It should be included as a Note, perhaps. But to say that the origin is the exact same, is just as bad as copying the information from the one article and paste it on the other page.
Now, regarding Ivy and Freeze; both are special cases. When the Post-Crisis universe was introduced, they were not changed right away. Years passed before some writers decided to modify certain elements of the characters and their history. That's why, up until the 90's, both characters were still treated as what you'd call the "Earth-One" versions. By the time they were changed, they had already a significant history on the New Earth Post-Crisis universe. Therefore, it would be impractical to separate those pages. It would be like trying to separate New Earth Superman's page everytime a new origin is introduced every decade or so. - S.S. (talk) 15:56, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, the assumption is not invalid from an understanding point of view, but for the sake of indexing in-universe information, it's wrong. "Pretty apparent" and "seem mostly" are not terms we'd like to consider as definitive facts. While it's been stated that most of the history between certain universes mirror each other, it is still wrong to add that in the history section. It should be included as a Note, perhaps. But to say that the origin is the exact same, is just as bad as copying the information from the one article and paste it on the other page.
- I'd say that explanation you gave makes sense. Foofinscoops 22:06, July 8, 2016 (UTC)