Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Requested move 22 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe → Worlds of DC – Recent rename of the franchise, per sources in the article and initial usage in lead and infobox, and per suggested RM above. -- AlexTW 12:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator (question was neutral, supporting position listed here); if a movie is renamed, do we keep the old title because that's what the public called it? No, we change it. Wonder Woman 1984 was and is commonly known as Wonder Woman 2, but was moved as soon as the title changed. Why? It was the official name. DCEU was never its common name; per the source, "The DC Extended Universe, or DCEU for short, was the unofficial name", and "The DC Extended Universe has been officially named the "Worlds of DC" as revealed during this year's SDCC Warner Bros. and DC Hall H panel." -- AlexTW 12:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
An unofficial name can still be the most common name. As far as I know no name was as common as DCEU prior to this recent announcement. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose All we got as proof is a banner saying "Welcome to the Worlds of DC," which just be a tagline that could mean "Welcome to the DC Universe." There is no logo for the brand, no TM marker on the banner. Oh, and here's an article debunking the rumor: [1]. Worlds of DC is no more official than DC Extended Universe. SeanWheeler (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if 'Worlds of DC' is the official name (as stated during SDCC) then that is the name the page should be titled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.212.125 (talk)
    • Wikipedia does not blindly use official names. Per WP:COMMONNAME: “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's ‘official’ name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
And your reply to the given example that shows that we do indeed use official titles? -- AlexTW 15:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
What Wonder Woman 1984? I can’t say that I’m overly familiar with the circumstances surrounding that topic. But WP:OTHERSTUFF always exists and Wikipedia routinely fails to live up to its own standards. That said, the use of official names is not forbidden but it also needs to be the common name. At this point it’s just to early to tell if that is the case here.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi: It’s “way too early“. The official title (if it is the official title) was just announced yesterday. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, time should be given to see if the official title actually becomes the title most commonly used in reliable sources.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's certainly not the common name at the moment and there is a good chance it it is not the official name but just a term used at a single event. Last year the article was briefly moved to Justice League Universe [2] because a single tv special had once used that term. Here we go again. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure if non users opinion would be considered, but there is only one source, which is screenrant.com. Most other website which published the same article cited Screenrant. Screenrant creates the article based on the banner shown during SDCC. It could literally just be a welcome message. Furthermore, there is no official trademark filed by Warner Brothers. According to Batman-news.com, the terms had not been used anywhere else, including press release made by Warner Brothers. This is very likely a case of misreporting where people read too much into the words. -115.66.196.146 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whatever the result will be, there should be a section in this article about how the film series and media franchise is named. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as far as I'm seeing, Worlds at DC might not even be the name of the universe. It could have simply been the name of the panel/SDCC exhibit. Additionally, if it is the name, I'm also seeing it being considered as a larger umbrella name for all DC films (DCEU ones, plus ones like the upcoming Joker), so even still, it wouldn't apply to the films and scope as listed in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too early for me.--Dipralb (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not clear that this is actually the name of the universe, that is just an assumption that is being made. And even if it was, it is too early to see if it will become the common name. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No official announcement on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.167.249 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the studio hasn't commented or stated specifically if the implied/suggested change is their official name or not (I tend to lean towards that it is), I'm going to hold off making an official stance. As for all the "common name" B.S., as far as I've seen almost every article since SDCC has been calling it "Worlds of DC" since the announcement. A lot of editors just like to get petty and strangle the heck out of other editors suggestions. Up until a couple of months ago - rarely any editors had input on this page. Funny how times change. Should the studio state that "Worlds of DC" is the franchise's official name, then I completely one thousand percent Support this suggestion. Until then however, maybe we hold off. There are plenty of rules by the way against using fan-made/unofficial titles for pages. @AlexTheWhovian: has a point, regarding how film titles change and are adjusted. Seeing as this page is a film series, it makes sense to follow suit. Regardless - the fact that this page chose to be named by an unofficial/studio disputed/non-sanctioned name is rather ridiculous to begin with.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is policy. If you have a problem with it then I suggest you take it up there. "There are plenty of rules by the way against using fan-made/unofficial titles for pages" which one would that be? There is no such statement at WP:AT.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: there are various examples of "do not invent names" all over WP guidelines. If you have not noticed these nor understood them to mean just that, then perhaps you need to re-read them.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: And which name did we invent?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: you didn't invent a name. But you're using a journalist's invented name. It's not official at all, and never was. That's my point. Just because it has commonly been used, doesn't make it at all accurate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: That's what I thought you'd say. You are misinterpreting the policy. It is telling editors "do not invent names," not "do not use invented names." The policy goes out of its way to caution the use of official names, and says nothing of unofficial names. Remember, WP:OR only applies to Wikipedia editors, not reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat:, I couldn't disagree more. Encyclopedias shouldn't use unofficial names for anything. There is no good example of a page that uses an unofficial name for it's title. I understand the guidelines. Just because it's become common due to the lack of a name, doesn't make it the right name for the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Then again your issue is with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia itself, in which case you should take it up on the policy page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I think North Korea is a much better article title than the official "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". We write articles to help our readers, not the article subjects. It helps readers to use terms they know. There are also many cases where even the subject prefers an unofficial name, e.g. Bill Clinton and not "William Jefferson Clinton". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: - those are both poor examples, as each are official/shortened versions of the name. Neither are unofficial titles. @TriiipleThreat: - again there are no guidelines that encourage unofficial names being used. Especially for a franchise that doesn't even have a name yet. My point is that when the studio releases an official title, that is the one that everyone will use. Just because DCEU is a commonly used abbreviation (due to journalists) doesn't make it a 'WP:COMMONNAME'. I will go to the policy page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Your refusal to get the point is astounding. The guidelines encourage the use of the most commonly used title, regardless if its official or not. My point is that when the studio releases an official title, that is the one that everyone will use. You're probably right but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We'll just have to wait and see, but there are no guarantees and we're not subject to the whims of a film studio. Just because DCEU is a commonly used abbreviation (due to journalists) doesn't make it a 'WP:COMMONNAME'. LOLWUT, "just because DCEU is a commonly used name doesn't make it a common name." I'm done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, "North Korea" is not only unofficial but strongly opposed by the government which claims all of Korea. Their own shortened form is just "Korea". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now) - Untill there's an official statement from Warner Bros., or reliable websites citing an official/producer from WB, it should stay as it is for now. BUT, if such a statement will be revealed, I don't see why we souldn't change it from the unofficial name to the official one. DCF94 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, pending confirmation of the name being official and a substantial increase in usage. If outlets hard stop using DCEU after the name is confirmed, I would support a move at that time. Sock (tock talk) 16:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too early to move. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: While it is true that there was an official announcement and I propose to support it, I think that however, it would have to wait for a legalization decision to be licensed by a legal entity as a registered trademark.Shinobilanterncorps (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not yet. Wait for more official confirmation. - wolf 20:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
List of references using "Worlds of DC"

Nergaal (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

They are all making an assumption based on the same information that we are looking at, and there are more sources still who have pointed out the fact that no actual announcement has been made. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97:, and yet those articles are doing exactly what you requested in your first argument. Articles since SDCC have been calling it the "Worlds of DC" universe. Whether is correct or not from the studio's standpoint, @Nergaal:'s references are valid. Someone just needs to pose a question to someone involved. Only a matter of time before there's direct comment from the studio.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: They may be valid, but that doesn't mean we should jump to adjusting our article here, especially since we have a number, probably stronger, sources stating it is most definitely not a name change or update to the universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93:, they're exactly what you stated you were looking for. On top of that, what sources are you referring to stating that it is not the name? I'm not necessarily saying that it is. The only source I have seen that states it is not, is a Batman news site, which is a fan-page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There was no "rename" as DCEU was not its official name at the first place. It was actually coined by journalist Keith Staskiewicz of EW. Fans and media are jumping into conclusion after seeing a banner at SDCC. As of now, the studio has not announced it as their franchise name. It's too early to have a discussion about this.--Let There Be Sunshine 17:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Let There Be Sunshine:, thank you for your input. This is exactly what I'm referring to in my comments. The studio has never named this franchise. They have never once called it the DCEU, it as a journalist. And yet there's a debate about keeping it as the page title for WP:commontitle purposes. Once the studio states what the franchise is named, it has to stay as-is. Regardless when it is given a name, the page needs to reflect it, because as of right now it's so inaccurate (i.e.: There is no franchise titled DCEU).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per other opposers. JOEBRO64 22:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unofficial and quite misleading.Hotwiki (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because while neither the DCEU nor Worlds of DC are official, the latter has officially been used as a banner created by Warner Bros themselves, so it should be considered the "main unofficial" name, if that makes sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.218.15 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The point as made by others is that the banner is just literally a welcome message, and is not supposed to be taken as an official announcement. While many websites report on this, the only source of information is still this banner. others already pointed out that there is no trademark made, no mention of the name on press releases etc which is why this should not be taken as official. -115.66.196.146 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Worlds of DC

Why was the page move reverted? Yes, you could say it's "more commonly known as the DC Extended Universe", but that's because that is it's old name and "Worlds of DC" wasn't a name before today. Therefore, it is now a deprecated title, the article should remain moved to reflect its new title, and the lead should read "The Worlds of DC (WDC), previously known as the DC Extended Universe (DCEU)". -- AlexTW 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

TOTALLY Agree on this one. The studio had never once referred to the film franchise as "DC Extended Universe" anyhow. The page should be moved and have a redirect link to it for searches of 'DC Extended Universe'. It is should also read that it was "previously known by the unofficial title of DC Extended Universe'.... from here on out it's called the Worlds of DC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
At this point it’s still the WP:COMMONNAME. We have no idea how things might turn out. The WP:OFFICIALNAME, which guidelines suggest not to use unless it’s also the common name, may never catch on with the general public. Per WP:NAMECHANGES: we should wait to see how reliable sources handle it moving forward. We are in WP:NORUSH.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
An yet, there is also the guideline to never use unofficial titles for pages... the studio's officially named the franchise. That is how the page should reflect this. Your concern with 'common name' is unfounded as it has always been negated and waved away by the studios involved. A redirect link can easily be added to this page for those individuals that attempt searching it by 'DC Extended Universe'.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
What guideline might that be? WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear, it’s the name most commonly used by reliable sources. “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).” If reliable sources from here on commonly use “The Worlds of DC” then we will change the name at that point. For now we will wait and see.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Why don't rename this article The Worlds of DC?OscarFercho (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Per above but you are more than welcome to request a move.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name to be recognizable. It's possible The Worlds of DC will soon become the common name but we don't know. Some official names never catch on. And personally I would like to see exactly what has been said officially before even judging whether it's the official name and not just a term used in one promotional event. I haven't seen the name on an official website. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah there's no actual statement, just speculation based on a banner. See: https://www.cbr.com/warner-bros-dc-extended-universe-worlds-of-dc-reveal/

The announcement came during Warner Bros.’ Hall H panel at Comic-Con International in San Diego, when the DC Films segment was introduced with a banner reading, “Welcome to the Worlds of DC.” This move signifies the unofficial name, the DC Extended Universe, can finally be retired.

It should, of course, be noted that Warner Bros. has not officially announced that the shared film universe is now Worlds of DC, but several attendees displayed the new banner on Twitter during the panel.

Uthanc (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

How is that supposed to be the name? People are reading in too much. This is like saying "Welcome to my restaurant". This does not mean the restaurant name is "my restaurant". -115.66.196.146 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The DCEU had been referred by many names before. It's been officially called "DC Universe" before. For all we know, Worlds of DC could just be the name of the Comic-Con exhibit. We have to wait for that term to be commonly used before we move it. And right now, it's still best known as the DC Extended Universe. Captain Marvel has been officially Shazam since 2011, but we still name his page Captain Marvel (DC Comics). SeanWheeler (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
According to batman-news, there isnt any press release from WB, nor is the name being used at all officially (yet). All other clickbait sites that reported this "news" link to the original article by screenrant. this might just be a case of people misreading the text like i said. "World of X" can be used for many things. "Welcome to the World of DC" is literally just a welcome message!!!. I do not think we should even add this "World of DC" until it is used officially. DCEU had never been used by WB since that is unofficial. But IF this "World of DC" is really official, there is no reason for WB not to use it. So i rather we wait. -115.66.196.146 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It has never been officially named the DCEU and we have not gotten a confirmation by DC about the 'Worlds of DC' title so I believe until a confirmation is made by a DC official, we should name it "Untitled DC Cinematic Universe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic Moore (talk • contribs) 06:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mystic Moore: This! The article title like that will clarify that, 1) there is a DC cinematic universe going on, and 2) it is not officially named yet. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mystic Moore: Anyway, why don't you suggest Untitled DC Cinematic Universe or other neutral titles at #Requested move 22 July 2018? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
DC Extended Universe is still the WP:COMMONNAME for the universe, official or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
And "Untitled DC Cinematic Universe" sounds rather bad to me. It claims it's untitled when there is a common name and some sources claim there is an official name. And the capitalization of "Cinematic Universe" implies it is a real name. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not actually about how it sounds to you and secondly the DCEU is an unofficial name and anybody who says it is apart from officials is lying. DC Extended Universe is commonly used when talking about it, but it isn't official, which is why, Untitled DC Cinematic Universe, while not catchy, implies, that hey, this doesn't have an official title, but this is a universe of films made by DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic Moore (talk • contribs)

If we make up a title instead of using a sourced title then it does become relevant how it sounds to editors. Capitalization is used for proper names so "DC Cinematic Universe" sounds like a proper name and not a description like "DC shared film universe" or whatever. "some sources claim there is an official name" was a reference to "Worlds of DC" (which I don't personally think is an official name). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

103.255.6.69 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Why not both it's should be (Worlds of DC,also known as DCEU)103.255.6.69 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The section below voted on whether or not we move to Worlds of DC. There were four supporters and eighteen who oppose. We've already reached a consensus. DC Extended Universe stays as it is. SeanWheeler (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Untitled DC Cinematic Universe"...? Yeesh, no. Put me down for "oppose". And "Worlds of DC" is out for now. DCEU is the name to go with for now, per commonname, until DC announces a new, official name. - theWOLFchild 15:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Supergirl director

@DisneyMetalhead:, yes "as in a ship". The helmsman steers the ship, as in they literally set which direction the ship will go, using the "helm". That is why "helm the project" is a common phrase, especially in the entertainment industry. The phrase is currently used in forty (40) other articles right here on the English Wikipedia. A Google search turns up 144,000 results, just for that particular wording. It's not "too crafty" or "wordy" (especially when you replace four words with seven!). You've been here almost two years, have almost 5000 edits, so I'm sure you're familiar with WP:BRD. You Boldly edit. I Revert. If you disagree, we Discuss on the talk page. If you choose to continually revert, using edit summaries to make your arguments, you are essentially edit warring. I've put the particular edit back to WP:QUO and started this discussion to give you an opportunity to say why you are so vehemently against the use of such a common phrase, one used in numerous other film articles here. Thank you - wolf 17:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not vehemently against anything. I know that it is a common phrase. Is it however a phrase that would be used in an encyclopedia? I would argue not. It's "theatrical slang" and sounds like something on a fan site or a crafty journalist's periodical. Using something that is 'common', doesn't necessarily make it the best choice. I'm amazed that you are so into the phrase that you would want it on the page so badly...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead:... it's not that I "want it on the page so so badly", I just didn't see the need for the revert, certainly not to repeatedly revert, and to do so while an active discussion is taking place. (Hence the question about your vehemence in regards to this). What's the harm in following the guidelines here? (Such as, leaving it be until the discussion has concluded?) Calling it "fanboy and goopy" seems like an unnecessary personal attack and a personal POV, so do you have a more substantive reason to remove it? And lastly, your (unsupported) comment that it is "theatrical slang", that you would "argue doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia" does not account for the fact that it's currently being used in at least 40 other articles in this encyclopadia alone. This edit (and phrase that you acknowledge is "common") seemed reasonable, and you've still offerred no reason, either supported by P&G or consensus, to change it. Lastly, do you intend to remove it from every other article? - wolf 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with DisneyMetalhead on this one. It's a bit unclear and slang-y; I'd wager it falls under WP:JARGON. JOEBRO64 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: How do find it "unclear"...? Do you mean in general? Because, as I already demonstrated, (and as is supported by DMH) this is a common phrase, both here on Wikipedia and across numerous other sites indexed by Google. Or, do you mean personally? That being the case, I would refer you to the opening sentences of the OP. So really it seems rather clear. As for being "slang-y", (again unsupported) you wanted to change it to "Warner Bros. ... is reportedly eyeing Reed Morano" [for the job.] Is that more or less "slang-y"? You've also cited the MOS guideline "WP:JARGON"... are you really asserting that "helm the project" is to "technical" for most readers to understand? (as that is what wp:jargon is about). And lastly, I'll ask you the same thing I asked DMH; if you are so against the inclusion of this phrase, does that mean you intend to remove it from the dozens and dozens of other articles here that also contain it? - wolf 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right. And jargon isn't just technical: it's stuff not a single normal person would say. No normal person would say "helm the project". "Eyeing Reed Morano..." is something a normal person would say. JOEBRO64 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no good reason to say "helm", which is unnecessarily flowery and WP:JARGONy, when you there are so many easy ways of simply saying that she is going to direct the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Which was my point exactly. Not to mention Thewolfchild's argument that "40 other articles" use it is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JOEBRO64 22:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: "Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right."
So if it's common (which we have established), then how is it "wrong"? Just what makes it "wrong"?
"And jargon isn't just technical: it's stuff not a single normal person would say."
Ok, well... I must've missed that. Could you please point out, exactly, where in WP:JARGON it says that?
"No normal person would say "helm the project". "Eyeing Reed Morano..." is something a normal person would say."
lol... wut? Do you have policy or guideline to support that? Just what are you basing your definition of "normal" on? (Becasue otherwise, it sure seems like a lot of "abnormal" people are using this phrase.)
"Which was my point exactly. Not to mention Thewolfchild's argument that "40 other articles" use it is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS"
I'm sorry, but I have to ask; do you actually read these "WP:links" before you cite them? (Such as QUO?) JARGON is not what you claim it to be and OSE is an essay, and even then it opens with "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.". So, if anything, the usage in 40 other articles validates the use of this phrase. - wolf 23:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: - "No good reason" and "flowery" seem very POV-ish, considering that DMH, Joe and I have now all agreed on how commonly used this phrase is. As for JARGON, see my reply above. I'll ask you the same thing I ask them; if you are so against the use of this phrase in in this article, does that mean you intend to remove it from all the other numerous articles that contain it? Thanks - wolf 23:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said I was "so against" it, I just don't see the need to fight for the word when there is a simple solution to the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: Sorry, but how did I misinterpret "There is no good reason to say "helm", which is unnecessarily flowery and WP:JARGONy" as you being "against" using a phrase that contained "helm"...? But aside from that, I agree, there is no need to "fight". I saw a change that I didn't think was necessary and reverted. I had thought my edit summary would be sufficient, it apparently wasn't, so why not discuss it? (Like we're all supposed to) For me, I just want to understand why these two editors (you seem to have excluded yourself now) are so against this phrase, that they both agree is commonly used and is used in numerous articles here, that they would resort to edit-warring and personal attacks. Will they act like this again if they come across this phrase in another article? (Because they very well could). Will they act like this if they come across another phrase they disagree with? (One that only "fanboys" or people who are not "normal" would use?) This is as much about the process, as it is the phrase, (at least for me), and I'd like to see if there is a resolution to had, collegially. Thanks for your reply. - wolf 00:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Added note; it didn't occur to me before to check whether or not this phrase was a part of a quote or not. (I didn't add the original edit, Unknown-7272 did a week ago). They attached two sources with their edit, and while the phrase "helm the project" wasn't in either cite, the word "helm" was used three times in the Deadline article;

  • Title: "Female Director Scorecard: Warner Bros Lining Up Its Superheroes"
  • "Mimi Leder — to helm DreamWorks’ first live-action title, The Peacemaker."
  • "New Gods from Ava DuVernay, the first woman of color to helm a $100M-plus budgeted, live-action film...
  • "Jennifer Yuh Nelson ... has been tapped by the studio to helm the sci-fi crime thriller The Juliet..."

And while the phrase "helm the project" was not in the actual GWW article, the word "helm" was on the page in the title of another GWW article listed below the main article;

  • "UPDATE:’GAME OF THRONES’ DIRECTOR ALIK SAKHAROV TO HELM ‘WITCHER’ EPISODES

To be fair to the editor that added this content, they actually only added the word "helm", as the words "...the project" were already a part of the section on Reed Morano. Just an added 'fyi'. Anyone else have anything to add? - wolf 01:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I see you edited the section of content that is being discussed. So I take it you had no intention of waiting for the outcome of this discussion befor editing? Or even contributing any further, especially in view of the additional supportive sourcing with quotes that was added? Do you normally just edit articles whichever way suits you, or do you ever collaborate and work towards a resolution? I'm certainly willing to discuss, so let me know. Thanks - wolf 02:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, looks like this is being continued down below. - wolf 20:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The word "reportedly" has now been removed. - wolf 01:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reportedly?

What’s up with this awkward phrasing? Is she or isn’t she the top choice? If she is then remove the word ”reportedly”. “Reportedly” in this context is being used as an expression of doubt and doesn’t belong in the article. If she isn’t or if you’re unsure then remove it all. Per WP:RUMOR: “ Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

extended content
Well, the QUO version, before the contested edits began, does not contain "reportedly" or any other words that express doubt or speculation. I had hoped to maintain that version, at least until discussion on the matter concluded, but that has been difficult as others continue to revert or change to their preferred versions, instead of engaging and seeking resolution. Perhaps Joebro64 will self-revert and kill two birds with one stone... - wolf 07:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Your refusal to get the point is astounding. I'm not going to revert my 100% valid edit that is backed by policies. JOEBRO64 10:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
An edit that is "100% valid" (because you say so), "backed by policies" (essays, actually) and changed at least a half dozen times by you since the first contested edit a day or so ago, and at least three times, again by you, while discussion was still active. The helm edit wasn't even mine to begin with, but how is it any less "valid"? What "point" am I "refusing" to get? Or is IDHT just another "WP:link" you've cited without a reason, or even an understanding of what it means? How about this; take a break from your WP:BATTLEGROUND refuse-to-engage approach and try answering just one question. Any question. Who knows...? Maybe we'll actually resolve something. - wolf 12:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I'm ignoring the rest of this discussion, because Thewolfchild clearly just doesn't want to listen and I don't feel like arguing (Personal attack removed) JOEBRO64 16:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Pfft! "Listen" to what? Other than edit war against policy, write some of the most inane, ridiculous comments I've seen in quite some time, and post juvenile personal attacks, you have made zero effort at any kind of civil dialogue. As such, there has been nothing to "listen" to. So, please... "ignore" all you like. Your withdrawal from this matter is most welcome. - wolf 19:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reportedly pt II

@DisneyMetalhead: with this edit you re-added the the word "reportedly" to the section on Reed Morano. As you can see above, TriiipleThreat pointed out that such wording violates WP:RUMOR, part of a Wikipedia policy. The editor that added the word the first time, agreed and removed the word from his edit. No other editors contested this. I would suggest you, at the very least, revise your edit to remove the word "reportedly" again. Further to that, I would also suggest you take that section back to QUO while the discussion above regarding that content is still active. Thanks - wolf 02:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild - This is becoming hilariously unnecessary. Look at this talk page's discussion regarding the word "helm". Not to mention its length. Are you kidding me? So far the consensus is that this is not at all justified. You are simply trying to preserve your edit, and such a small and minuscule edit as well. There is no need for a consensus on such a small and extraneous detail. You have multiple editors telling you that it is jargon, it is slang, it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia page -regardless of how many articles use the phrase (again backing up what I stated originally; that it's a flamboyant journalist's wording). I do not need to revert my edit when this conversation is all very one-sided. None of the comments agree with you. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, and honestly - what's the point? Really? Secondly, 'reportedly' isn't against any policies. It's an official term used in various mediums. It is not a synonym to "rumor" (which is a ridiculous argument). For the sake of your sanity, I will change the word.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, Wikipedia is not supposed to directly quote articles' titles and headlines - so your comment regarding the fact that an article regarding the filmmaker does or doesn't state "helm" is completely irrelevant. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: Wow, your POV, and indeed your entire interpretation, of what has gone on here is... interesting. Let's put this into perspective though, shall we?

  • This was not my edit to begin with. (pretty sure that has been stated a few times now). That edit was made by someone else, updating the article, with sourcing attached.
  • You seem to have problem with it and boldly changed it, with the edit summary; "'helm'?...as in a ship?? No, no need to use crafty words. Direct/concise wording is better.".
  • I noticed that on my watchlist. Now, no offence, I don't know the extent of your vocabulary, but the simple fact "helm" is a commonly used word meant to direct, manage or lead, in some effort such as a project, or a film. (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/helm) It seemed you may have not known that. By the way, other then the phrase "helm the project", the phrase "helm the film" is used in 34 articles here on Wikipedia. That's now 74 articles that use just those two phrases alone.
  • So, it seems you weren't aware of that, so I reverted you, (back to quo) and explained why with the edit summary: ""helm a project" (as lead or direct) is actually quite commonly used, especially in the film industry. You'll likely find it on other pages here as well.".
  • Now, if you disagreed, as per BRD, that should have lead to a discussion. But instead, you reverted. And have since reverted or edited that content another six times. JoeBro64 edited or reverted that same content another five times. Me? After I started the discussion here, I only edited it twice, each a day apart, and with edit summaries encouraging discussion.
  • You are correct that this is, or at least it should be, a minor issue. But the same guidelines should still apply. You change something, get reverted, if you disagree, you discuss it. But you didn't discuss, you come after and basically told me "this is how it's going to be because I say so". And that was about it. JoeBro64's comments initially followed the same attitude, before deteriorating. And though Adamstom.97 briefly popped in, he just as quickly backed out. The two (or three) of you do not form a "consensus". It's not a straight "3 to 1, you lose" vote. (You should know this). Consensus is based on the strength of arguments, backed by sourcing and policy & guidelines. What have you brought, other than a clear case of "I don't like it ? You claim "helm" and/or "helm the project" is "wordy", "too crafty", "fanboy and goopy" (?) and "theatrical slang". All personal opinion, not supported by SFA. JoeBro64's response was equally anaemic, citing JARGON, which doesn't even apply, and then some essays he apparently didn't even read.
  • At least you guys agreed that the word and/or phrase is commonly used. But in addition to that, I pointed out that it's used in 40 (now make 74) articles here, mostly other film-related articles like this one, Google shows 144,000+ hits, iow; widespread use, I showed that that word/phrase was used four times in the the attached sources, and now I've added a dictionary definition in support as well. And your response to all this? Basically along the lines of; "I don't care! None of it counts in my book!".
  • I'll say it again, you're right that this is a lot for something that should have been simple. You should have "simply" acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with the content in the first place and let it be, especially after the first revert. Instead, you're showing a lot of WP:IDHT and WP:OWN. - wolf 20:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Thewolfchild - you have created the dispute. No one else took issue with my deletion of a phrase which shouldn't be within any Wikipedia pages (regardless of how many articles it is used in). Just because it is common in the entertainment industry (yes, "jargon") doesn't mean that it belongs here. That's what my stance ahs been from the start. Flowery, fluffy journalist lingo doesn't belong in an encyclopedia no matter how you spin it. My mistake that it is not 'your' edit, but you continue to drag this out and create such an issue when really there is more than one way to state this and there is definitely a better word-choice, given the solid/valid arguments from each of the editors that you just stated 'backed out'. The reality of it is that it is a tedius and petty disagreement, and one that definitely doesn't need to be dragged out like this. There is no "WP:OWNing" nor "WP:IDHT" -- or at least not intentionally. The goal is simply to keep Wikipedia professional. Using editorial/journalist/entertainment phraseology, is not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: - Again, I agree - this dispute that we created didn't need to be this long (or "dragged out", or "tedious", etc.). But as I said above, this is about the process as much as the edit. The guidelines apply, whether it's an entire section, paragraph, sentence, phrase or a single word. If we follow that process, it usually doesn't take this much effort for a resolution. But, to be blunt, you (and Joe) did not follow the process, you have not collaborated in good faith and you are still pushing your own personal opinion, backed by, well... absolutely nothing. Just what are these "the solid/valid arguments" that you, Joe and AT97 provided? (Other than "goopy", "jargon-y" and "normal people don't say that"...?) While you are correct, this is an encyclopaedia, it's one that depends entirely on sourcing. I've provided sourcing, where's yours? You say this word/phrase doesn't belong in this encyclopaedia, yet I found it in 70+ other, film-related articles. (Do you realize how many of them are GA/FA?) How do you account for that? (Or the Google results?). Even if your reverting based on WP:IDLI, rejecting all the reasoning I've provided based on WP:IDHT and forcing in your preferred version based on WP:OWN is "not intentional", that is no excuse and is no way to edit collaboratively. Many people don't like to be reverted, but the edit should've remained at QUO, arguably you should've started a discussion instead of reverting a second time (or any time after) and the edit should still remain at QUO until there is an agreement, a consensus, or an outcome determined through dispute resolution. You can't just keep saying "you're wrong, I'm right", then after forcing me to provide more rationale, complain that I'm dragging this out becasue of all the rationale I've provided. And what's more, I'm pretty sure you already know all of this. - wolf 17:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(break)

..................wow........... you know what - this is going in circles and going nowhere. No, there is no need for a consensus on one word. There's no discussion when there's more than one way to say something. There is zero need for this. We obviously disagree and there will be no agreement. That's the conclusion of this conversation. We disagree. The solution will be to choose other wording than we both prefer. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: "Wow" indeed. "The solution will be to choose other wording than we both prefer"... now, if you had said something like that on the talk page, after the first time you were reverted, that would have been following the process and attempting to work collaboratively (and all this could probably have been avoided). In this specific instance, if you had said that then, I likely would've been inclined to agree with you and we could've come up with alternative wording (that didn't violate wp:rumor) and moved on. The current wording;
"Warner Bros. is considering Reed Morano to direct because it wants a female filmmaker attached to the project." is rather clunky. How about;
"Warner Bros. is seeking a female director and Reed Morano is currently "the frontrunner" to lead project."[1] ...? Or something like that, with a little more flow, and a little less grade school-ish?

References

  1. ^ "Reed-Morano-circling-Supergirl-movie". film-news.co.uk. 28 August 2018. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
However, all that said, there still remains the fact that the word 'helm', and phrases containing that word, are commonly used (as you've already acknowledged), and they are found on film-related articles throughout this project. Which leaves open the question; the next time you come across that word or phrase, are you again going to arbitrarily remove it simply because you don't like it? Or just leave it be? I ask because, how you reacted here, and how you react to this word/phrase in other articles, is indicative of how you'll likely react to content disputes in general. I certainly wouldn't want this to occur again, anywhere, and I don't think you would either. So... what would you do? Thanks - wolf 17:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, well... it's been a week, and there is no effort at a compromised re-write, no reaction to the edit I made a few days ago, and no response to any of the related questions that have been repeatedly posed. So it seems this matter is now considered closed. (Might as well quit while I'm ahead anyway) Have a nice day. - wolf 07:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Henry Cavil quit the DCEU

Superman actor Henry Cavil walked out on the DCEU after learning there are no upcoming projects featuring him so DCEU starts a Supergirl movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.90.28.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's only speculation based on the fact he was unable to star in Shazam! and there are no Superman-related films on the schedule. JOEBRO64 11:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Television series based on DC Extended Universe???

Why does not include Krypton the TV series for the DC Extended Universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Google search Krypton DCEU finds many sources saying it is not part of the DCEU. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The Krypton-DCEU connections are just speculation based on a comment David S. Goyer made a few years ago that it was set 200 years before the timeline seen in MoS. I'm pretty sure it's since been established that it doesn't take place in the DCEU. JOEBRO64 23:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Is The Joker (2018) real

The movie is not under upcoming projects on this site.Joseph.ludwig (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)joseph.ludwig

The Joker movie is a standalone, not part of this Universe. -115.66.196.146 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Recently, there have been significant contributions to non-registered editors. Though we generally assume good-faith in their edits, the article has become constantly influx and the page's structure is now always changing. Due to the conflicting edits and to prevent edit warring, I would propose that a Semi-protection be placed on the article for a time. Some editors have began deleting portions of the page and making significant edits without taking to the talk-page first. I have attempted reaching out to them to alert them of this mis-step, and constantly refer to WP:QUO when I revert one of their edits, to no avail. I have most recently reverted to the WP:QUO article format, and yet there are now edits stating that the article name is "Worlds of DC" when the talk page and note on the article was consensus-ed that there is no official title yet. Please change "Worlds of DC" to "DC Extended Universe" for the time being. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

DisneyMetalHead, go to WP:RPP. Hayholt (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
DisneyMetalhead, take action at WP:RPP. (Re-doing ping with correct user name.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Users: Hayholt, and Jonesey95. I appreciate the help! I have taken action at that page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Cyborg and Green Lantern Corp

Should we remove the release date? Is there any source that say those are still the dates? It is unlikely cyborg will be announced anytime soon. Green Lantern while having progress, still did not have any updated release date. -155.69.160.77 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Cyborg should be removed but Green lantern Corps should not

Uhhh, no. That's not how this works. Encyclopedias state facts. The facts are that both movies still have slated release dates. Until the studio provides updates they shall remain where they are. Also all comments have to be signed^--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This is utter nonsense. A movie (Cyborg) that's still "in development" is gonna be released before a movie (Wonder Woman 1984) that's been filming?70.112.229.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

^That comment is unfounded. The films are to be listed as the studio sees them. Not how you or anyone else sees them. This is an online encyclopedia, not a fan-site. If you want/are looking for one of those, you are in the wrong place, Special user: Contribution/70.112.229.80. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Blackhawk AGAIN

Hey everyone! We apparently previously had the consensus reached that this film was not going to be associated with the DCEU simply because not enough sources had stated as much. Since its announcement, there are now various/numerous reliable sources discussing Speilberg joining the DC Film universe, and discussing how the DCEU has hired excellent directors in recent months. All of these things indicate that the movie will indeed be a part of the shared film universe. Because of this I have added the film several times only for it to be reverted. You can see the references I included in my edit where I had included the film on the page. Bringing discussion here, as editors are beginning to argue.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • User:TheJoebro64 & User:OhsalveelCesar, I am 'pinging' you to this discussion as you both have expressed opposition to the addition of this project to the DCEU article. Your input is valued and needs to be voiced here. Have you both read the reliable sources that I had included in my edits, that now state Blackhawk as being DCEU?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The only source you added that said it was in the DCEU was the Geek.com one, but I think it's obviously making an assumption. Furthermore, I haven't seen any new sources about Blackhawk since it was announced. We shouldn't just be adding films because they're DC-related and in development; we should only add films that have been explicitly confirmed to be DCEU. For example, a movie based on The Sandman has been in development since around 2013 but shouldn't be listed here because it's unclear if it will be set in the DCEU. JOEBRO64 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • User:TheJoebro64, that's a valid point you make that there have not been any updates since its announcement - but on the contrary there are various sources that state the film is DCEU. I can attach them below if you would care to read them(?). All sources simply state the film as DCEU. I think its assumptious to assume the film is not a part of the DC Films' shared universe, when multiple sources state that it is. Though Sandman has been in development for a long time - no sources state it is a part of the franchise (that I'm aware of at least).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion: There has been no further response from editors involved, since the beginning of the month. The film therefore will be included per updated sources stating that the film is a DCEU installment. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What? If there's no consensus to change then we don't add it. JOEBRO64 14:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: - You didn't respond for the duration of the month, which can mean you no longer have rebuttal. Read each of the sources I have added and then you can further discuss this here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The only ones that you added that said it was DCEU were the SyFy one, which we previously established on this talk page was making an assumption, and another that looked unreliable. Since we know WB is planning multiple DC film franchises we can't say that this will be DCEU. Also stop arguing that Wonder Woman proves it's DCEU because one actor character is a Blackhawk Squadron member, that's your original research based on someone's random tweet. JOEBRO64 12:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: - no, I was doing zero WP:OR when I stated that the character in Wonder Woman is a member of the Blackhawk squad. That is confirmed by the tweet, as well as articles that have followed. Not to mention, the actor's social media post states "coming soon". In retrospect it's obvious he was talking about the Blackhawk film. Secondly, those are not the only articles that stated the film is DCEU. "DC Extended Universe" is not even an official title for the series. Because of this, the other articles discuss how since Walter Hamada became the new runner of the franchise, they films have added various successful directors - talking at-length about the various directors attached to upcoming films. Did you read each of the articles? Lastly, the studio isn't developing 'multiple DC franchises'. Just the DCEU and then a standalone movie with Joker which comes out next year. There is not second franchise. Should Joker be successful, we may see other one-off films, but Blackhawk is not one of those - given the references which speculated on a second film series stated that it would deal with the darker and more "adult" themes, similar to the DC Black comic book run. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"DCEU"

I think it was wise for Warner Bros/DC to not make DCEU "official" and canon. It opens up the door for other films, like the Joaquin Phoenix Joker film for side projects outside of the shared universe.


Commentary aside, on question though. Is "gotham City Sirens" official? Blue Beetle? Zatanna?

Wasn't the new name "Worlds of DC"? https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/10/09/james-gunn-snyder-cut-justice-league/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.133.94.176 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hayholt (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


  • The only 'official' ones are Gotham City Sirens and Blue Beetle. Both have filmmakers attached and have been covered extensively, as well as confirmed by WB. The Zatanna film is non-existent.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: The thread started by "User:Hayholt" has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet account.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought there was something fishy about that account... JOEBRO64 14:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

The Blackhawk movie is in the DCEU. 75.162.130.119 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /Alex/21 03:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

more renovation and development for DCEU

Can you add tables? With awards and nominations for the films ? I see some pages in wikipedia and have tables for this is good if have. And tables for Home media release ? And add pic of lady director of movie Birds of Prey ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.120.159 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

In an interview on 3rd February 2019, mark strong, the actor portraying Dr Sivana on Shazam! Asserted that green lantern is part of dceu. While this hasn't been confirmed by any other key person(s) involved with the dceu, according to Mark Strong, the upcoming green lantern corps is a reboot of the 2011 movie, much like the upcoming untitled batman movie. Hrishikesh236 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

in section Music: Film soundtracks add full title of Soundtrack: Man of Steel (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Wonder Woman (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Justice League (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Aquaman (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.255.14 (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The section stated is clearly about soundtracks. Listing the film titles is good enough.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Further protection(?)

I hate to suggest this, but it appears that anon users continue to revert and edit the page significantly, without citing any sources for their changes. These anon editors are repeatedly stating WP:OR opinions for their edits, and seem to be working 'together'. Since there has been sock puppetry going on, there is a possibility this will continue. Anyone against further protection of the page?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no sock puppetry or original research going on here. First, there are absolutely no connections to each of the users reverting you besides the fact that they all disagree with you. That's consensus through editing. Second, the changes they are making are sourced. There are sources in the article that state Cyborg and Green Lantern don't have release dates anymore. And The Flash is likely going to be released in 2021. You constantly reverting these changes and using bogus arguments is a sign of you thinking you own the article. JOEBRO64 20:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: - it has already been verified that there was indeed sock puppetry on this article. That's been verified. Next, you may want to take another look at guidelines for WP:OR as it clearly states: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect." I have not exhibited any behaviors associated with WP:OR, but rather WP:STEWARDSHIP (which clearly states: "Stewardship or shepherding of an article or group of related articles may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter."), and was merely stating time and time again that there were no sources added/referenced for the edits that we are now discussing. Furthermore, I have remained neutral and never once stated my own opinion on the matter. Using the references and citations, with only reliable sources has been my comments from the get-go, so take a step back and realize that you're accusing a collaborative editor. Merely looking out for the integrity of the article. Lastly - an article stating that The Flash is "likely" on track for 2021, isn't a very solid argument - as it is not definitive. Also: where are the "references" you are referring to which state that Cyborg and Green Lantern Corps are no longer slated for release?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the references that you so knowledgeably are now referencing were indeed added after I reverted previous edits. Also - what makes Collider's one article that is not at all studio official confirmation, the defining article what removes two films from their original release dates?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Collider article isn't the only one that says the movies aren't going to be released next year, here are more that say they're not on the schedule or exclude them from it: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I'm not trying to be aggressive, I'm just trying to reason with you. Multiple people disagree with you, but you seem to just ignore them. Also, I didn't realize that Hayholt was a sock, but their edits here were mostly just trying to add the Zatanna movie that's just been rumored; there aren't any socks teaming up against you (trust me, that would be pretty damn obvious) JOEBRO64 20:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalHead should be Banned from editing this page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64:, User:70.112.229.80^ exhibits exactly what I was talking about over a month ago. It violates WP:No personal attacks to the letter. I have not made any edits to any articles that are indicative of destructive behavior. Each edit I had made specifically on this page is to preserve the most accurate information for said article. Likewise, I would draw your attention to WP:CIVIL, specifically: Avoiding incivility: Try not to get too intense/Take a Real-Life check/Be professional/Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment sections. I am WP:CIVIL - Avoiding incivility by Explain[ing] [my]self - I haven't thought that sock accounts are 'teaming up' against me as you indicated. There's no need to "appear to ridicule my comment" by WP:IDENTIFYingUNCIVIL - 1. Direct rudeness - profanity. My intent for the comments at the start of this thread are simply that editors need to Assume Good Faith with others. Calling me out by name in edit summaries, and here on this page as User:70.112.229.80 did, is against guidelines and regulations. I have no miffs against/with anyone. This behavior just needs to stop.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
? This makes no sense. Explain to me how I was being uncivil. I correctly pointed out that you were ignoring consensus and editing against what sources say, and you seem to be taking offense at that? JOEBRO64 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: - as stated above: "Try to not get too intense"/"Take a Real-Life check"/"Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comments". All are sub-sections of the WP:CIVIL #Avoiding incivility link I provided. My statement was just that because there had been sock accounts, there may be others. That's all that happened; I was insinuating that socks were 'ganging up on [me]', as you stated. My previous comment was me Explain[ing] [my]self so that other editors can assume good faith in the edits I have made.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is full of issues. For one thing, even the cited ssources are being taken out of context. For example, theheads of dc and WB have never said the Dceu is longer connected. They are simply focusing individual films. Which exactly what marvel did. seems to me this page has been hijacked by marvel fans. Killercarlson (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Killercarlson: Plausible, yet not provable. Secondly, WP allows edits to various articles by any editor regardless of their preferences to media. I would agree however, that many sources have been misrepresented, including your example of the studio focusing on individual films at this time. The only thing we can do, with the current state of the article is: Keep your head on a swivel, my friend. Any WP:VANDALISM can be reverted in the article history.

The Suicide Squad (2021)

A couple of editors seem to believe that the exclusive report from Collider, regarding what new characters James Gunn will be adding to the roster of Task Force X in this movie is nothing but 'rumors'. Despite this, the article states that at the time they received their intel, the characters are in the script. Since then, various other reliable sources have reported on the matter. I am bringing this here, as the particular editors who disagree keep stating that it needs to be brought to the talk page. Collider, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Forbes, and various others have never been claimed to be unreliable in the past. The simple argument by one of the disagreeing editors states that the sources are blanksource[d] formatting.

My argument against simple reverting because of a distaste for format, is that the most constructive contribution to a page would be formatting the sources yourself. This avoids prolonged reverts, disputes, and edit-warring -- especially since/if the only issue is formatting. Let's all be a little more collaborative, and Assume WP:GOODFAITH. There's no need for micromanaging. Format sources, so that the confirmed information isn't lost.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand you're doing this in good faith, the problem is that the information isn't confirmed to be 100% true, so it's still just an unverified rumor at this point. The Collider article itself states "A rewrite could, of course, change things, so keep in mind that none of this is confirmed, it’s just what we’re hearing from sources right now" (emphasis mine). It's not unheard of for studios to send out false information to isolate spoilers; from what I've heard Marvel did that with MCU movies and Nintendo's done it with the Super Smash Bros. games. JOEBRO64 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If the issue is with the roster in The Suicide Squad, that makes sense and can be held off until a firmer statement is made. What I don't understand is the revert with all the information added to Untitled Justice League sequel, The Flash, and The Batman that I have added several times from reliable sources.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem I have with the Batman stuff is that it's also unconfirmed that the Penguin will appear in the film at this point, even if it seems likely. The Flash stuff has been confirmed but I think we should wait until we get an official synopsis to add that it'll explore the multiple incarnations of the character because right now I think it makes no sense for someone who doesn't know anything about the comics. TBH I'd remove Justice League 2 from the films in development section because as of now it seems extremely unlikely that it's going to get made anytime soon, especially given the comments that WB is no longer focusing on the interconnected films. Patty Jenkins' comments about potentially directing it seem like they're just "oh and maybe I'll do this" stuff that doesn't confirm if she's actually interested in pursuing the project. JOEBRO64 18:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64:, Forbes is a reliable source for information on Wikipedia. They specifically call out Penguin - and so the inclusion in the paragraph is productive and necessary. Additionally the 'rogues gallery' information comes directly from the film's writer/director. Also important information. We can obviously exclude information on The Flash regarding other incarnations of The Flash, but the actor/now-writer states that it will introduce "The Flash multiverse". Having that information is also constructive. As for removing Justice League 2 - that makes zero sense. They haven't said that they won't make a teamup, but rather they are currently focused on standalone character movies first. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No, Forbes staff are reliable. The article you added is from the "Contributors" section, which lack the editorial oversight the staff section has and thus fails WP:SPS. JOEBRO64 18:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn)

Recently there have been several editors who repeatedly erase/delete the subtitle of the movie from this page. They have stated that a CONSENSUS was reached on the articles page to only use a portion of the title. From what I understand, that applies only to said article. The basis of WP:COMMONNAME, is negated here on this article by WP:OFFICIALNAMES - Where there is an official title name that is not the article title, where it states: "It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized". Because of this, the article's content, the fact that there is an official title, that is not the article name at Birds of Prey article, and according to the studio (unless changed/altered) - inclusion of the full title here is correct/needed/just and in no way a violation of the consensus at the film's talkpage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, if there have been several editors, then it seems you are the only one who opposes it. Clearly you understand this incorrectly; one line does not "negate" a policy (yes, COMMONNAME is a policy). The consensus was to title and refer to the movie as Birds of Prey. That applies to references to the movie. Inclusion of the name in perhaps its first mention? Sure. The entire article? No. Where this article has everything to do with all things DCEU, the full title is the proper use here. Can you back that up with a policy? -- /Alex/21 21:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Alex's post above sums up my thoughts on this. JOEBRO64 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Alex 21/theuserformerlyknownas:AlexTheWhovian&AlexTW I have not misread/misunderstood any policy. I cited the policy and the constituent that is on the COMMONNAME explanation article. The consensus was for the Birds of Prey article. Listing the entire film title is not against any policies. Nor is it destructive/combative. It is the facts. I'm using your own question here: can you back up any of your accusations with any policies? as stated before, WP:OFFICIALNAMES - Where there is an official title name that is not the article title very clearly states: "It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized". This article is specific to the films in the franchise. The first mention of the film is in the leading paragraph, followed by the sub-section header name. Following policy and guidelines, WP:QUO justifies that the entire film name be used here. There's no disputing that, as the policy maintains exactly what I'm stating in its explanation (as cited twice now).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice try at the ping, but it's failed the several times you've tried it. I know who I am. OFFICIALNAMES is for the article pertaining to the subject itself. This is not the Birds of Prey article, and thus does not pertain. There is no further agreement supporting you to list the full name in this article. Also, per WP:QUO, "it is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling." -- /Alex/21 12:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Alex 21, theuserformerlyknownas:AlexTheWhovian/AlexTW, I'm not attempting to 'ping', or I would use the ping function. The several times I have stated your various editing names is in good-natured, friendly, comradeship (calling back to times we have collaborated before). Your statement above: "OFFICIALNAMES is for the article pertaining to the subject itself. This is not the Birds of Prey article, and thus does not pertain" confirms exactly what I have said from the start. The consensus on the Birds of Prey page was regarding how the article should be named. It has nothing to do with how it is referenced on this page, or any other page for that matter. This article pertains to the franchise as a whole. Additionally, because it is about the film - including the full title here is constructive and productive to the content here-in. I have not 'reverted' - nor have I WP:Stonewalled. I once again cite WP:OFFICIALNAMES #Where there is an official name that is not the article title -- "It should always be provided early in an article-'s introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized." That is a very black and white regulation and statement as pertains to WP:OFFICIALNAMES that you keep referring to/arguing for. No Stonewall Jackson-ing here (that's a meta-reference joke btw). Just following rules to the letter. Cheers, bub.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
DisneyMetalhead, cute how you're still doing it, kiddo, trying to get a gimmick. Also, I was never known as User:AlexTW. Once editors start agreeing with you, I'll be happy to continue. I see no bold here. -- /Alex/21 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:Alex 21, theUserformerlyknownas:AlexTheWhovian&abbreviatedinthepastas:AlexTW; for one thing - because your user page tells us everything (yes including your blood type) - I can definitively state I've never had a 24 year old call me "kiddo"... (LMFAO). It's not meant to be 'cute' (is that the slang that's hip these days?!)... as I stated it's supposed to bring to your remembrance the times we've collaborated in the past. No editor has to agree with me, in order for you to be collaborative. The examples I gave come directly from Wikipedia. That's how this works. The 'bolding' you claim to not notice comes in the sub-header with the film title in it (i.e.: Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn) (2020)... I thought that was obvious). Wikipedia agrees with me, and you have supported my case as I pointed out in my previous comment. Nothing you have stated supports your argument, as the WP:OFFICIALNAMES you keep citing - states exactly what I have highlighted three times now in previous responses. Cheers, bub.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, I'll be happy to respond once you quit your cute gimmick, kiddo. Until then, I find it nothing but sarcastic and thus deliberately in bad faith and NOTHERE. No bold here. -- /Alex/21 06:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Echoing Alex and Joe; the shortened (and commonly known) title should be primarily used. First mention of the title within the subsection can be in full. Prefall 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21:, @TheJoebro64:, and @Prefall: - the statement clearly says that the official title should be used at first mention. This supports my argument that the sub-section header about the film should use the full-title. Alex21: That's where the 'bolded' format would be used that I have stated several times now.
At first mention in its relative article. Please state the correct guideline for use in an article of an "expanded setting". The only bold in the lead of this article is for "DC Extended Universe (DCEU)". -- /Alex/21 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I have already stated it. A sub-header within an article is bolded, and italicized. That is where the first mention of the film arises. Per Wikipedia guidelines and formatting, that I have cited numerous times now, the full title can/should be used.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So, all of the film titles should be bolded at first mention here? No, it only relates to the article of the subject. -- /Alex/21 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It applies to the sub-section headers. As I've stated before. Bolding in the intro paragraph is for the 'title'/nickname of the franchise. Bolding in the sub-section headers is respective to the paragraph's content (i.e.: the respective film). It's as simply stated as I have quoted several times now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I see no quotes concerning the bolding in paragraphs concerning their respective content, only quotes concerning the bolding in the article's introduction; that is, the lead. -- /Alex/21 04:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Image layout

A discussion should be started here concerning the layout and location of the images within this article. -- /Alex/21 00:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to do so. The article has been around ever since BvS was announced. The format and WP:QUO has been since then that the images for the filmmakers would be adjusted on the article so both the layout of the article is nice and uniform, as well as so that when accessed by a mobile device - the images are right above each sub-section regarding the film they are associated with. I was not WP:SQS-ing like @Alex 21: stated, but rather stating the facts. It has been the WP:QUO since its inception. The reverts were absolute unnecessary, as the article should first provide facts, but secondly formatting the page so that the article is presentable is also nice.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I get you like the "QUO", but forcing the article to a state of five years ago is WP:SQS. (I'm checking the article history, and the images were added well into the article's existence and history, so "since its inception" is clearly false.) Deliberately creating misleading Wiki layout purely for a layout reasoning is disruptive editing. All content must belong to its respective sections, anything related to a section must be in the correct section. Wikipedia is not laid out purely for easy access. That means, images should lie within their respective sections, not "right above" them. For example, why was David Ayer in BvS:DOJ? He had nothing to do with the film. If it's purely for layout, to make the article look "nice", then you need a consensus for that. That is not what Wikipedia is for. -- /Alex/21 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Prefall added a number of the images on 8 May 2017, two and a half years into the article's existence, and yes, they were added into their correct subsections rather than above them. -- /Alex/21 03:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: you clearly misunderstand what I said. The images have been added along the way. But predominantly the consensus of the article has been the format that was here before you joined the collaborative efforts of this article. The fact that you are analyzing every single detail of what I have to say is excessive. The format, as you've adjusted it is a mess. That's the fact. An article should have structure additional to facts. The only person that would be 'confused' (as exhibited by your question) is an editor that doesn't realize that David Ayer is not "in BvS:DoJ". Any reader on Wikipedia sees the image aligned with the respective film. There are no guidelines within WP that state what you have just declared. "All content should lie within their respective sections".... formatting and viewing the page through computer and mobile devices places the images in the correct locations. Layout/structure is secondary to facts, but it is constructive as it seeks to improve the appearance of the article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DC_Extended_Universe/Archive_4&oldid=895732841"