Jump to content

Talk:DC Extended Universe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.66.196.146 (talk) at 04:57, 4 May 2019 (→Time to split?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Screenwriting credit system

Just a heads up, this is incorrect. Per WGA screenwriting credit system, a team is identified by the use of an ampersand ("&") between the names of the members of the team. The names of writers (or writing teams) who wrote individually of one another are separated by the word "and." An individual writer who works on a script independently of a team or another independent writer will also have his/her name joined to the list of credits by an "and." "Later additions and rewrites" are not the only cases. -- /Alex/21 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: are you WP:HOUNDING me?... what I stated was an abbreviated version of the exact quote of what you said. Teams/collaborations are separated by an '&' symbol while additional writers who did not work with a collaboration or an independent writer is presented with 'and' between the names. That's what I was trying to say when I made the short statement.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing this article for months, your accusation is baseless. Am I not allowed to comment on any of your edits? The statement was false, and thus needed correcting. The screenwriting credit system has nothing to do with later additions or rewrites. -- /Alex/21 03:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: you are welcome to comment on any edits, as is anyone. Your amount of time editing the article is 'baseless'/and irrelevant I asked you if you are WP:HOUNDING me as a question. Not a statement. Also, re-read your definition. It absolutely has to do with later additions and re-writes. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Cast/characters

The table with each of the characters has a solid format as-is. However, I have attempted adding character's full names as presented in the films and yet they continue to be reverted. Where this article is specific to the franchise as opposed to just and individual film - listing the character's complete name is both constructive, and good form. A character's first and last names, intercepted by their nickname (with quotes) has been and should be the format here. Aliases (if there are any [i.e.: Batman for example]) should follow below the character name.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FILMCAST. JOEBRO64 11:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64:, Ther is nothing within that section says anything about excluding character's full names within a franchise's character table.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Lex Luthor is not referred to as "Alexander 'Lex' Luthor Jr." in the credits or reliable sources. JOEBRO64 19:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Why the franchise will not have television series based on DC Extended Universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.84.72 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

there is an "on april 2019" = "in" month year) 2605:E000:9149:8300:51B:BBA8:9377:9822 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to split?

This article is currently 246k bytes long. WP:SPLIT says that articles over 100k bytes should almost certainly be divided, and I'm sure most will agree that the Films and Future sections are bloating the article as-is. Any opposition to creating List of DC Extended Universe films at this point? JOEBRO64 20:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already basically a list of films. There's nothing much outside of that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't supposed to just be a list though. As I've said before, it's supposed to be about the production, marketing, performance, and reception of the franchise as a whole, and the equivalent MCU page was much smaller when it was split. I do have a draft I've slowly been building to rewrite this page, as I've noticed it's missing a lot of important information (e.g. how Snyder conceived it as a standalone five-film series and tons of critical commentary). JOEBRO64 21:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MCU isn’t a fair comparison as it is a lot more than films. This is basically just films.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MCU also has TV shows, such as Agents of Shield. Faromics (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The equivalent MCU page you quote is 300k bytes long. So what exactly is your point? -115.66.196.146 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DC_Extended_Universe&oldid=895426248"