Talk:DC Extended Universe/Archive 2

The Batman title
Apparently some editors don't understand what a working title is. A working title is the title of a film that is still being worked on. That's all. Every single title listed in this article for every film from Wonder Woman onwards is a working title. Working titles are always subject to change: Justice League 's title might change, Aquaman 's title might change, Cyborg 's title might change. Until the films are released, the titles are by definition working titles. Ben Affleck has explicitly stated that the working title of his Batman film is The Batman. This information is reliably sourced in the article. If we're not going to use that title because it's a working title, then it follows that for consistency's sake we need to change "Wonder Woman" to "Untitled Wonder Woman film" and "Justice League" to "Untitled Justice League film" and "Aquaman" to "Untitled Aquaman film", etc. Which would, of course, be ridiculous. -- Forty.4 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those movies were announced two years ago with that titles, not as undeterminated titles, your point of view is extreme. The Batman has been all this time a working title and there's not an official annuncement of release yet.OscarFercho (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, they are all working titles. All of them, equally. And, in fact, Justice League was announced two years ago as Justice League Part 1; the current working title is simply Justice League. There's nothing 'undetermined' about "The Batman" - Affleck has explicitly stated that it's the title they're currently using. The lack of a release date is irrelevant to the issue of the working title; we know the film is in development. This is all reliably sourced information. -- Forty.4 (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't questioned the reliability of the sourced info, but I'm disagree with use the title of The Batman, that's induce to a confussion and mistaking information.OscarFercho (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no mistake. It's the correct working title. Just as Gotham City Sirens and Dark Universe (previously Justice League Dark btw) are the correct working titles. It's all sourced and it's all current and correct, there's no confusion. -- Forty.4 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the message above on this Talk Page. After supposedly stating that The Batman was the title, Ben Affleck retracted his statement. That is not the official title.  Dark Knight  2149  04:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no retraction of the working title in that source. He just says the title might change. Of course it might. So might Green Lantern Corps or Cyborg. Justice League Part 1 and Justice League Dark already changed. They're all working titles. The working title hasn't been retracted and the film continues to be called The Batman by reliable sources:, which is what we're supposed to be reflecting here. -- Forty.4 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Darkknight2149 has right, Affleck retracted, this not even a properly working title; i.e. Dark Universe it's a title officialy given by the studio, not as the comic that inspired, but The Batman it's just a reference name, not a working title.OscarFercho (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the filmmakers are referring to the film as The Batman while they're working on it, then that's the working title. Here is a direct quote from writer-director-producer-star Ben Affleck on the film's working title: “I think it's going to be called ‘The Batman’ … at least that’s what we are going with now.” Please provide a direct quote in which he retracts this statement, because there is no retraction in the SlashFilm article, he just says the exact same thing with less conviction (ie: "it's the working title, we might change it"). And again, reliable sources continue to call the film The Batman, and Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect reliable sources. -- Forty.4 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SlashFilm only repeats the notices of other reliable sources. What's the original source? We need to do only what you want?OscarFercho (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we have to reflect reliable sources. The original source is E! News, and SlashFilm didn't quote Affleck fully. If you watch the video, the full quote is: "We don't have a name for it right now, we're just calling it The Batman or Batman movie or The Batman." Well, yes, we know it's a Batman movie, and that they're calling it The Batman, and we know that that's a working title that might change, as Affleck already clearly stated in Variety; there's nothing new here, and there's certainly no retraction. And again, reliable sources are all calling this film The Batman. -- Forty.4 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, If We know that's a woking title and might change, why must to use in this article? Will induce to a confussion.OscarFercho (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See on the Batman in film article.OscarFercho (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What confusion? As I've explained twice now, ALL of these titles are working titles, by definition. Until the films are released, these are working titles and are all subject to change (and a couple of them have changed already). I'm not editing the Batman in film article, but pointing to an error in another article is no justification for reproducing the same error in this one. -- Forty.4 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But Affleck clearly stated that "The Batman" isnt the title...yet. And I just want all the wikipedia articles arnt contradicting, and batman in film Article has the title as Untitled Batman Reboot/Film. -- Beefeaterforreal (talk)8:55,17 December 2016 PT

He clearly stated that The Batman IS the working title. That's what they're currently calling it. That's what 'working title' means. Of course it's not the final title. Neither is Justice League or Gotham City Sirens or Green Lantern Corps. They're all working titles until they're released. Any of them could change (Justice League already did). -- Forty.4 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are't working titles, those are titles revealed on official statements of Warner; of course, might easy change, but are titles given for the studio. The right on this article is no use The Batman as working title.OscarFercho (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They are working titles. I've explained three times now what a working title is - a title used while a film is still being worked on. Whether it's announced by the studio or announced by the writer-director-producer-star is completely irrelevant. Either way it's a working title and either way, as with all working titles, it's subject to change (as we've already seen in the cases of Justice League Part 1 and Justice League Dark). And, again, The Batman is now the title being used by reliable sources, which is what we're supposed to reflect in the article. -- Forty.4 (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we are now three users say the same, I don't understand your point of maintain a working title as a certain.OscarFercho (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. We're not using it as a 'certain' or 'final' title. We're using ALL these titles as working titles, because that's what they are until the films come out. And Wikipedia is not a democracy; we go by reliable sources. Why are you forcing me to repeat myself? Neither of us have said anything new for the past four posts. Either find a reliable source that states the working title is not The Batman, or drop it, because this is pointless. We have a primary source and reliable secondary sources backing The Batman as the working title, and they're referenced in the article. -- Forty.4 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Forty.4, I'm not sure that you're using the term "working title" properly. We (meaning Wikipedia) define working title as, "[a] temporary title of a product or project used during its development." It's not explicitly when it's "being worked on," as you've said above. Additionally, we are NOT listing "working titles" for Wonder Woman and Justice League. There are logos, there are trailers, and there are sources indicating that these two films will bear their respective titles (not working titles or shooting titles or production titles). It is possible that the title of either of those films could change? Absolutely. That's not the point: it has been made clear at this point by WB that the title of Wonder Woman is intended to be, in fact, "Wonder Woman." We use what information we have. When Affleck says, "We don't have a name for it right now, we're just calling it The Batman or Batman movie or The Batman," that's a clear indication that THAT film does not yet have an official title. In our list of films within the DCEU, we don't list working titles or shooting titles. We list official titles, and if we don't know an official title, we indicate so. -RM (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "we don't list working titles or shooting titles" - Yes we do, if that's what reliable sources are calling the film (WP:UCRN: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. ... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers.") I'll grant you that Wonder Woman and Justice League are further along and their titles are obviously much less likely to change (or change again in the case of Justice League) at this point than The Batman or Gotham City Sirens or Green Lantern Corps, but they are still working titles. The Wiki stub on working titles contains no references supporting the given definition; the dictionary definition is "A temporary or provisional title given to a film, book, or other product or project." And again, all these titles are more or less (depending on release date) provisional; provisional doesn't mean temporary, a provisional title can and often does become the final release title. But none of us can know that, which is why Dark Universe was originally listed here as Justice League Dark, and Justice League was listed as Justice League Part 1, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was listed as Batman vs. Superman. As you say, "we use what information we have" - insofar as that information is supported by reliable sources. -- Forty.4 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources using The Batman:, , , , , , etc, etc, etc. -- Forty.4 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, four users we are now. Rmaynardjr has right, the certain is that The Batman is not the title, is simply a working title. Forty.4, please, accept use the reference as Untitled Batman film, not The Batman.OscarFercho (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would almost agree with you, except for the fact that Affleck explicitly said, "We don't have a name for it right now." I think that pretty clearly sums it up: there is no title yet. Simple as that. Don't complicate this unnecessarily. We don't list shooting titles, we never do that (or at least never in a way that implies that the shooting title will be the official title). If we did, we'd be changing the Episode VIII page title to Space Bear, since that's the shooting title for that film. We list the title that appears in the billing block. In our current circumstances, we don't have a billing block for any upcoming films, but we do have sources that indicate official titles or a lack thereof. Your sources refer to the film as "The Batman," but they do so of their own accord, without Affleck's explicit titling of the film. One of them even says, "tentatively titled The Batman." Oscar, keep in mind that it has nothing to do with the number of editors on either side of an argument, but the argument they present.-RM (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not doing it "without Affleck's explicit titling of the film", they're doing it with his explicit announcement of the film's working/provisional/tentative title. That he later stressed that he "might change it" doesn't negate that announcement. Of course he might. We have Affleck's announcement of the working title, we have Irons using that title, and we have plenty of reliable sources using that title, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. If it changes later, then we can change it. -- Forty.4 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that, from an encyclopaedia's perspective, the best time to write about a work of fiction is after it's been published/released. There's no rush. DonQuixote (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter! He indicated that it's not the official title of the film at this time. We list billing block titles, or a title that is implied to be a billing block title by the name of a YouTube video released by WB, etc. We don't list working titles. We mention them, but we don't use them to refer to films in articles. Show me an example of this anywhere on Wikipedia. -RM (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily list billing block titles. We list the common name, ie: the name used predominantly in reliable sources. In this case, that's clearly The Batman. (And not to encourage any WP:OTHERSTUFF lines of argument, but since you asked, working title Pacific Rim: Maelstrom was an article title until a few days ago.) -- Forty.4 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the pacific rim title was ans official title "Principal photography on the film began on November 9, 2016, in Australia, with the official title to be Pacific Rim: Maelstrom. On December 14, 2016, the title was changed to Pacific Rim: Uprising." that is from the wiki article and so Pacific Rim: Maelstrom wasnt a working title it was an official title, The Batman is just a name affleck threw out there and the latest comment he said about the title was WE DONT HAVE A NAME FOR IT YET  ---Beefeaterforreal (talk) 2:20, 18 December 2016 PT
 * First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, so none of this is really relevant; I only answered the question I was asked. But actually, these cases are very similar. The sources given for the 'official title' are primary sources from Instagram (star John Boyega) and Twitter (diretor Stephen DeKnight) showing a script and a clapperboard. No explicit statement on the title, no use of the word 'Maelstrom' in the posts, no marketing material or anything of the sort, no official announcement from the studio. Zip. Primary sources displaying a working title, that's all. Now, back to Batman. We have a primary source (Affleck) stating the current working title is The Batman, a second primary source (Irons) using that title in an interview, and plenty of reliable secondary sources using that title in reference to the film, making the title the clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Forty.4 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All the examples you put here its of the official announcements later changed. What's the problem with wait for an official statement of Warner given a concrete title for the film?OscarFercho (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what 'examples' you're referring to. But the problem with waiting is that we're supposed to reflect reliable sources, not follow our own whims. You might want to wait, but the sources aren't waiting, they're already calling it The Batman on the basis of Affleck's announcement, therefore so should we. -- Forty.4 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is getting us nowhere. DonQuixote brought up a good point... the best time to write an article about this is AFTER it's been released, and this is precisely why. I understand why you believe The Batman to be the title, I really do. And I honestly believe that it will be the title. But can you honestly say you don't see our point of view, too? If Affleck says "we don't have a title" and we turn around and give it a title, that contradicts the MOST primary of all sources. Aside from all that, I think there's something to be said for the simplicity of the title: it's easy to refer to a movie as "The Batman Movie" or "Batman" etc. if you're talking about a movie featuring Batman, whether you're Affleck, Irons, or a Wikipedia editor. I really think this is a case where those secondary sources have jumped the gun and given the film a name that, common as it is, is currently unsourced and possibly inaccurate. -RM (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That Affleck quote is partial and misleading. The full quote is "We don't have a name for it right now, we're just calling it The Batman or Batman movie or The Batman." That's not a retraction or a contradiction of his initial announcement (“I think it's going to be called ‘The Batman’ … at least that’s what we are going with now. I might change it.”), it's actually a restatement of the same information, albeit more equivocal and with a greater emphasis on the possibility of a future title change. You're 100% speculating with the rest of your post. We're supposed to reflect what appears in reliable sources. Right now that's The Batman. -- Forty.4 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't understand what's the problem with use the term Untitled Batman film, as in Batman in film article, and wait for an official statement of Warner; just for not induce to a confussion.OscarFercho (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep talking about "original research",Forty.4, and yet you keep insisting that the Untitled Batman Film should be called The Batman (which I hope the official title is) and according to what you said you would have called that"original research" ---Beefeaterforreal (talk) 2:20, 18 December 2016 PT
 * Original research = no reliable sources. I've cited sources in every post; my entire argument is based on what primary sources and reliable secondary sources are calling this film. -- Forty.4 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's simply, I think that The Batman is wrong to use as heading on the subsection 'cause induce to a confussion; that's not a certain title, or even a concrete working title.OscarFercho (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've said that. But you need to engage with this on the level of policy-based arguments and reliable sources. Simply saying you disagree over and over is pointless. This is the name used in primary sources and reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. -- Forty.4 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You only impose your opinion, even with numerous arguments of other users. Its useless this dicussion if you impose your point of view and denied the consensous here.OscarFercho (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So apparently Wikipedia is a democracy after all! Ok. I tried. We're now ignoring or overriding primary and secondary sources in a key part of this article based mostly on the whims of a couple of editors. -- Forty.4 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Affleck's comments after the name was first reported are telling: "And someone said, 'what are you calling it?' and I had said, like, back when we were promoting another movie, I was like ‘we don’t have a name for it, we’re just going with 'The Batman' or 'Batman movie', and I said that, and everyone was like 'Affleck announces the name of his Batman movie.'" Until something more definitive than that comes out, we shouldn't be saying it's definitely called The Batman. As for the claim that we don't use democracy, we're also not a news site and shouldn't be held to their editorial standards.  Calidum   05:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is only a primary consensous until we have a more concrete title of the project so-called The Batman, not a democracy.OscarFercho (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

-- how about lets all relax and just anticipate how awesome this movie is going to be! Beefeaterforreal (talk) 9:48 December 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefeaterforreal (talk • contribs) 05:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

✅ .OscarFercho (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Order of announcement
In the other projects section, films are being put in order by which film will probably get made first or the most the info. The order should be in the form of when the film was first announced. Meaning Lobo should be mentioned first (if we're counting the debatable connection of 2009) and last is Batgirl. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast table
Any particular reason we need "directly referenced" and "indirectly referenced" in the table? I don't think they have a place here, but if there's a reason for this then I'll be happy to leave it. -RM (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the reasoning for adding those, they should not be there. The cast table is for the actual cast, so "Mentioned", "Indirectly referenced", and "Directly referenced" need to go as they obviously do not have anything to do with the cast; Michael Shannon needs to be removed from Batman v Superman since he was not in the cast (which we even state in the note); Jason Momoa needs to be removed from Suicide Squad because we only include photograph-only appearances if someone was cast specifically for these appearances rather than archive footage being used to create them (see Zoe Kravitz in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them); and the actors playing younger versions of characters really shouldn't be here either, as they just aren't notable in terms of the overall shared universe.


 * Also remember that for this overview table, we are only including characters who have appeared in multiple films with at least one billing block listing, and that films shouldn't be included in the overview table until there is a recurring character confirmed to be appearing in them. This is really what the table should be:


 * - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll use your table to update the page, my only stipulation (or rather, suggested edit) is that we include young actors. If multiple actors portray a particular character in a particular movie, they should all be given credit. While we're on the subject of this table, I wanted to ask what the rules are regarding a cameo appearance. I feel like the fact that Batman appears (both in and out of costume) in three distinct scenes in SS is enough to make his appearance simply "an appearance," not a cameo. But that sort of subjectivity really shouldn't be allowed. I recall someone saying a couple months ago that an uncredited appearance is considered a cameo, but Costner IS credited in BvS and his appearance is still minimal enough to be considered a cameo, while Affleck is uncredited in SS. Is there some way to objectively determine whether an appearance is a cameo? Or should we do away with noting cameos altoegther, and simply say an appearance is an appearance, period? -RM (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Young actors really aren't notable enough for an overview table like this, which is also the conclusion that has been reached at all the various MCU tables. If an actor makes a noteable appearance as a character then they should be included regardless of who else portrays that character and at what age. For instance, in an X-Men table the actors who portray Charles and Erik as children are not notable enough to be mentioned in the scope of such a table, but both Stewart and McAvoy, and McKellen and Fassbender, are, irrelevant of the fact that they play the characters at different ages (I don't know if the X-Men tables actually reflect this or not, as they are a mess at the moment). Character age is an in-universe issue, and this table should reflect the real-world issues. Also, a cameo appearance should just be uncredited appearances, as the only reason that should make such an appearance noteworthy is the fact that they are not credited, not the fact that some editors feel the actor wasn't in the film enough. I'm not entirely sure which appearances in the table should rightfully be uncredited or not.


 * Keep in mind that non-appearances are considered trivial and not notable.  Dark Knight  2149  18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that younger actors aren't notable, the reason I brought it up is because the table is organized by character and film, not by actor. Actors are simply used to indicate a character's presence in a film. But to be honest I think the table is easier to read and looks nicer without them, so I won't push it. Should we mark cameos as uncredited then instead of cameos? -RM (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what I think the key should look like:




 * This table only includes characters that have appeared in multiple DCEU films, and have been credited in at least one film's main billing.
 * A dark grey cell indicates the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has not yet been announced.
 * A indicates an uncredited cameo appearance.


 * - adamstom97 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll change it in a day or so unless anyone objects or suggests anything else. -RM (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd think that the table would be better suited looking like this. More streamlined and accurate. Covers all announced films, the actors announced for them, and each film's various stages of development. Also, in regard to the current cast list on the apage, how was Harley Quinn "Directly Referenced" in BvS: DoJ? Nurseline247 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (ROI)




 * This table only includes characters which have appeared in multiple films within the shared universe, where at least one of their appearances was credited in the film's main billing.
 * A dark grey cell indicates the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has not yet been announced.
 * A indicates a voice-only role.
 * A indicates a cameo role.
 * A indicates an appearance through photograph(s).
 * A indicates a role as a younger version of the character.
 * A indicates a role as an older version of the character.
 * How is this more streamlined? It only adds more characters that shouldn't be on the list according to our rules. We really don't need to include "references" or "mentions," only appearances. And aside from that, the various stages of production are covered elsewhere, we don't need them here. Still planning on using the first version unless anyone has any other objections. -RM (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes made. -RM (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

How and when was the Joker referenced in Man of Steel? That's debatable.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Amber Heard
I read through the press release: it does appear that as of right now, she has second billing and accordingly should be listed in the table. However, it's not an official billing block. Theoretically, all of her scenes could be cut and she might not appear in the film (unlikely as that is, it's not impossible). What do we think about using the press release for the cast table? -RM (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I figured the press release for principal photography was concrete enough, but I can see how that can be a little WP:CRYSTAL. Feel free to hide it again. Prefall  16:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know we've had issues with including too many characters in this table in the past. I'd rather play by the rules we set. But I'm happy to place her in the table the moment we get a billing block. -RM (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Logo for page
What is it that makes the image chosen for the page the 'logo' for the franchise? I have never seen that type-font anywhere in any of the movies. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the logo for the DC Comics film productions? I know that's not the official logo, but what is there now also doesn't really stand as the logo for the series. Just wanting to hear other opinions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous infobox image was the Wonder Woman-themed DC logo, but was changed in this edit. As far as I know, the "DC Films" logo has only been used on the official Facebook page and not in any of the film's media releases. I'm in favor of swapping to a logo that has actually been used. Prefall  03:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With the release of Wonder Woman the DCEU, with DC Entertainment release an animated sequence that preceded the company's logo. Why not use that logo as the image for this page? The image at the top is inaccurate as it appears in none of the films listed herewith and is deceiving as it says that it is the DC Extended Universe logo -- which it is not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we have to wait for official footage of it to be released. Prefall  03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Waiting for the footage to release is not necessary, as long as the 'DC' logo part is in the image.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What has ever come of this users: Prefall and 50.232.205.246? The film is out as is the shared universe's official DC logo. Who's going to change it? Definitely, needs to be something different from the Facebook fan page logo that is here currently.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the "DC Films" logo was also used on the DCEU special that aired on The CW in January 2016. It can be seen in the background of this video. As far as I know, the logo has not been used in any further promotional material, so I'm still in favor of replacing it with the new DC intro. Someone with proper knowledge of Wikipedia's fair use policy (not me) can upload it whenever. Prefall  22:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Prefall, this is true and while DC Films is the sub-studio that they have created under Warner Bros., the page is about the DCEU which is more than just a studio. Someone with Wikipedia fair use knowledge (also not me) should upload it. If you know anyone of such status, let them know and we'll get that changed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Diana Prince's name
Very minor Wonder Woman spoiler here, in case you haven't seen it: in the film, Diana begins to introduce herself as "Diana, Princess of Themyscira-" when Steve Trevor cuts her off, offering the suggestion "Diana Prince" instead, as a means of sounding less out of place. Unless there's some other origin of Diana's last name than this, it would seem to me that Prince isn't a real last name at all, and accordingly we really should refer to her name as "Diana" (and alphabetize her as such) in the recurring character list, and alter the second line to say "Wonder Woman / Princess of Themyscira". Thoughts? -RM (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any opposition? I'm going to go ahead and change it in a couple days unless anyone wants to voice an alternative. -RM (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * She's officially credited as "Diana Prince/Wonder Woman" in BvS. I don't think the name's origin has any bearing. Prefall  16:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring less to the origin itself and more to the fact that the name isn't real (which is confirmed by its origin). Diana is her only name, and Prince appears to be a pseudonym of sorts. On the MCU equivalent of this page, we list Thor as "Thor" and not "Thor Odinson" even though he's sometimes referred to with a last name. I know it's not a perfect comparison, but it demonstrates a point: since her name is Diana, and Prince is made up, I think she should probably be referred to as Diana (with a note that Prince is sometimes used as a stand-in surname but that she does not have a real surname). -RM (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I do think it would be best to fall back on the official crediting here, but I wouldn't oppose simply "Diana" either. Prefall  20:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do think we should note the reason for not including her "surname." I just think it's a bit odd to organize her according to a name that Steve Trevor literally just made up on the spot. Her given name is Diana, and her hero name is Wonder Woman. So if we use those two for the first and second lines and then add a note (Diana also sometimes uses the surname "Prince"), I think we should cover all of our bases. -RM (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, definitely oppose this. Users: Rmaynardjr and Prefall - Diana Prince is the character's name. She was only Diana when she was on the island. Once Steve Trevor invented that surname on the spot, it makes sense that she took that on as her surname. Not everything has to be spoonfed to us as an audience. The character was Diana Prince in Batman v Superman. We needn't get so picky that we overthink things and step on the toes of an official film studio. The argument that Thor isn't listed with his surname is also ridiculous. Thor should and could be listed with his last name as it is stated multiple times throughout the Marvel Cinematic Universe.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I don't think we should alphabetize Thor by his "last name," given that it's not a surname at all. Nor is Prince in Diana's case. Her birth name is Diana, NOT Diana Prince. There's really no room for argument there, it is simply true according to the films. If we're going to keep alphabetizing her according to the made-up last name, that's fine. But don't call my arguments ridiculous. Thor and Diana don't have surnames, and I just don't think they should be sorted as if they do. -RM (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RM, it may not be her "actual" name, but she is credited with it in BvS, and has probably adopted it as her last name while living on Earth by that time, so I don't think there is a problem with listing her as such. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Adamstom.97 1000%. Diana may have been born simply with one name, but in a modern-day (following any of the events in Wonder Woman) she would need a last name. Anyone regardless of who they are needs a first and last name. She is credited as Diana Prince in Batman v Superman so logic states that "Oh, she must've adopted the surname, and/or legally done so". Seeing as I could go and change my name to anything I want to via the social security office - your argument here is a dead end. The fact that she adopted the last name only makes her story with Steve Trevor that much more meaningful. In the MCU, Thor's last name is in fact Odinson. It's said multiple times throughout the films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not putting up much of an argument. I just said I thought we should call her Diana, not Diana Prince. It's fine. It's not the end of the world. One thing, though: A surname is a family name. Odinson is not a family name, it's patronymic. It doesn't carry the same "weight" of a surname, because Odin and any of Thor's children will not bear the same "last name" (technically, Loki wouldn't either). -RM (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Krypton in the DCEU or not
Is Krypton in the DCEu or not?? I mean, yes Goyer said it takes place 200 years before Man of Steel, but he could have just meant before Supermans story and not the movie. No other source ever stated its connection to the DCEU. The trailer is out, yes it has a Man of Steel feeling and even that metal thingy in which Jor El implanted his mind in Man of Steel. Does that mean it is connected now or not?Phoenix (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not clear whether the series is in fact a part of the DCEU or not. Likely being that they want to see if the series will be successful or not. Obviously, the style and even the House of El logo are the same, so I would say it is being set up to be an expansion of the Krypton mythology in the franchise. Got to wait for official comments from the studio though.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

An article with Heroic Hollywood states that Krypton is a part of the DCEU, after having an interview with the TV series' star. That can be read | here. I was wondering what other editors think of the article, and potential of including the series on the DCEU page?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Phoenix, what did you think about this topic, after reading the article I linked to my comment^?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DisneyMetalhead The thing is that we still havent heard from Syfy, Goyer, Johns or WB if Kripton is in the DCEU. The article states that Krypton is in it, but NO ONE from the show said that it is inside it. Its like with Black Lightning and if its in the Arrowverse; Berlanti immedaitely came out and said "nope, its not in the Arowverse". Up untill Goyer or somebody else at WB comes out and says that Krypton is in the DCEU,we are just gonna have to wait it.Phoenix (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Phoenix it's true. The sad truth is that in today's world studios are so afraid of fanboy response to anything (i.e.: see Fox's X-Men TV shows, Legion and The Gifted). Connections to already established series are downplayed until the new media is a success. While that promotes standalone strength which thus far has encouraged solid film-making, it is unfortunate that the online unsilent majority has such an influence on productions. We'll wait it out, though the production style is undoubtedly DCEU through and through. That House of El symbol is a dead giveaway.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Geoff Johns and via THR, Krypton is a standalone show set in its own universe. Prefall  21:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Conundrum regarding release dates
WB's slate has always been a mess, so I'm not sure if the article's handling of certain dates is as accurate as it should be. Here's a timeline of the events:

I think it is best to remove the unconfirmed dates from the article. This will affect Shazam, Cyborg (which was not even acknowledged in the recent slate announcement), and Green Lantern Corps. Does anyone disagree? Prefall 05:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In August 2014, WB assigned dates to 9 untitled DC films. Two months later, they announced a slate of 10 films, but only attached years to them rather than specific dates.
 * Over the years, numerous reliable sources have "matched" the order of the initial slate to the placeholder dates.  However, WB did not confirm any of those dates beyond Justice League.
 * An updated slate announcement occurred at Comic-Con last weekend, which lacked any release years or dates.
 * This week, a THR report on Shazam being the next DC film to enter production says that it will "likely release in 2019", indicating that a release date is not yet known. And today, in confirming Wonder Woman 2's release date, THR stated that the only other DC films with release dates are Justice League and Aquaman.
 * With no responses after four days, I have gone ahead and boldly made the change. Prefall  07:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Late to respond, but I agreed with your reasoning, per how things were actually revealed and "officially" confirmed (or not). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted the changes . What are your thoughts on these points? Prefall  03:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Prefall, we cannot assume things purely based off of speculation. The only DCEU films which have had their release dates adjusted per official announcements from WB are the Justice League sequel, and Flash (now retitled Flashpoint). Until there is officially a press release with new release dates - these need to remain. The 2017 SDCC announcement was merely the titles of upcoming films - no release dates, besides Shazam and Wonder Woman II. Because of these reasons, the release dates all need to remain as stated by Warner Bros.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with that - article authors' inconsistencies in their pages make no differences to the studios' official announcements.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source on them confirming a release date for Shazam at SDCC? I don't recall that. Still, I have adjusted the article to only include years as per their official slate announcement in 2014. That should suffice for now. Prefall  04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Variety is now also saying that Aquaman and WW2 are the only post-JL films with release dates. Prefall 02:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC) What they are stating could or could not be accurate, as rumours are often speculation. The issue here however is that the article is simply stating that they are the films with slated release dates.--65.130.247.132 (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Batman & Cyborg
http://www.superherohype.com/news/403519-the-batman-not-part-of-dceu-plus-luthor-cut-from-justice-league

The Batman is a stand alone possible trilogy not connected to the DCEU. Cyborg movie is scrapped. --2601:5C6:8201:2D36:D1DB:E391:5AB3:C27A (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Inconclusive thus far. WB announced The Batman as part of their upcoming slate at SDCC (which occurred after the Reeves interview). The actors are still indicating that Cyborg is an active project despite WB's lack of communication regarding it. Prefall  01:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

All Reeves was saying obviously is that the film doesn't need to lead into other films, but can be self-contained. Heck, maybe it will be a prequel film(?). We just don't know. The actor who plays Cyborg has stated that the film is still in development.--65.130.247.132 (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Again fanboys run wild with one statement from an article that is taking a quote out of context. Reeves now confirms the film is IN the DCEU, it just focuses on Batman and not other characters. Read it | here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Joker origin film
The studio has now announced that a Joker origin film is currently in development by Warner Bros. albeit with a younger actor taking the role. Writers, a director, and producers are all attached and announced. The question is what the 'banner' is that the report discusses. Speculation has turned to the DC Multiverse as a possibility but the fact remains that the studio has stated the intention is to expand on their DC films' characters, | here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read about this too, and though the report is confusing I believe that many times journalists get a piece of the information and somehow get it all confused. It's likely that the film is intended to be 'standalone' in that it is a prequel and that's why they need a younger actor. I would say because the studio has announced it and hasn't said that it is "NOT" a part of the DCEU, that it should be listed here until the information from the studio states otherwise.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With the journalist stating that the film will be 'under a different banner' it could be as simple as "DC Origins" or something of the like. Until the studio comes out and says that it is not a part of the DCEU - which is probably not the case - I see no issue in listing it in the Undated films section of this page.--65.130.166.61 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you need proof that it is in the universe, not the other way around. They have said it is something else, and everyone seems to be pretty clear that it is not meant to be part of the DCEU. If that changes in the future, then it can be added here, but it should not be here now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Lobo and Deadshot films
Both of these movies were confirmed by the studio to be in development, why have they been removed from this page?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Deadshot has not been confirmed as being greenlit yet. Last we heard WB was still "looking into" the project and that was 9 months ago. WB has yet to acknowledge Lobo as part of the DCEU. Prefall  18:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When Jason Mamoa was in the running for Aquaman, he was also rumored to be a Lobo contender. Same can be said of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. Along with that, a writer from Wonder Woman is reported to be writing for the Lobo film as a next project in the DC film universe. It's pretty plain here and here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also reliable sources that plainly state that Deadshot's film is in development within the studio here and here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily oppose the inclusion of Lobo as certain reliable sources believe it will be in the DCEU, but it is worth proceeding with caution due to WB's lack of confirmation.
 * As for Deadshot, the Hollywood Reporter article is what I was referring to. They say WB was only "looking into" it at that point, unlike Suicide Squad 2 and Gotham City Sirens, which were in active production. It seems their quote is often misunderstood as "a Deadshot film is for sure happening." Prefall  06:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Until the studio states that Lobo is not a part of the DCEU, reliable sources have stated that it is. It should be included here.--65.130.247.132 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lobo feature film
This project has been added and then deleted multiple times on this page. Never has any editor that disagrees with the listing stated why they are removing it. Seeing as the film is generally known to the mass-media right now as a DCEU film, it needs to be on this page. Until WB says that it's not, I agree that we need to list it here.--71.35.234.85 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sirens
Joker and Harley? ==

Deadline reports that the Gotham City Sirens film has transformed into the now-confirmed Joker and Harley Quinn movie, with a new creative team (no more Ayer). Variety says that it is unclear at this point. I don't think it is worth making the change yet until further information is available, but thought it was a useful note. Prefall 02:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hate to point this out, but I'm sure glad that ScreenRant was correct months ago when they announced a Joker/Harley Quinn film. It is not official whether or not the Joker/Harley Quinn film is Gotham City Sirens. David Ayer has talked about the latter multiple times recently.--65.130.247.132 (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Deadline has now updated their story, stating that the films are indeed separate. Prefall 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you a Deadline junky? That's where all of your references and citations come from, which is fine -I'm just curious as to why that could be?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Deadline is a major reliable source that many people use to get their news, and who is often the original source of this info (meaning, other sites are sourcing their info from Deadline) which is the one we want to add to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A.K.A., 50.232.205.246 - they're definitely Deadline fans. They're not the only reliable sources, nor are they always the original source as adamstom97 stated. Various other sources are often times the original source that gets a 'scoop' on a entertainment news headline.--71.35.234.85 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Films
can we move Shazam, Cyborg, and Green Lantern Corps to the Upcoming Films section since they all have announced release dates ? Phileo (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the source? --luckymustard (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ^haha this guy.... the 'source' is the inittial announcement, User:luckymustard. No other source is needed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It still seems like a link to something would be nice to provide when discussing these movies User:Phileo. I don't know what this "inittial announcement" is that you are referring to User:DisneyMetalhead. --luckymustard (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * here is a source: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/warner-bros-dates-dc-comics-animated-movies-1202498011/ --Phileo (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The initial announcement I referred to was way back when the slate for the DCEU was announced. The films have release dates. That's reference enough. Also - at SDCC this year their releases were again reiterated. It's common knowledge now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Harley Quinn/Joker film
An editor keeps reverting edits that incorporate the newly announced film that is in development, without giving a good reason other than stating that the section needs a good source. Screenrant has been and is a reliable source throughout Wikipedia - so I don't know what they're looking for. The film should be listed on this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Screenrant is not a reliable source for contentious material such as this. One look at their news archive shows they just post any rumors or speculation they can find, including from sources such as Reddit and 4chan.    And in my experience, rumors that are not corroborated by The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, or Deadline are best to be avoided.  Prefall  13:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ...I have never heard Screenrant called unreliable. They do well at citing their sources and are referenced all over Wikipedia. The articles you just called out by name are ones with the word 'rumor' in them. Not to mention that multiple sources have reported on the Joker/Harley Quinn film. You're now upping the contentious nature of the discussion by selectively choosing which sources are reliable and which are not? That doesn't make sense to me.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. There are sources that are reliable and those that are not. A quick Google search only shows the report covered by sites such as Nerdist, CBR, Bleeding Cool, Moviepilot, Cinemablend, etc. So, just more sites that regularly re-post speculation and rumors. Those sources may be fine to use for something that is easily verifiable, such as interviews, but not when it comes to spreading rumors that originate from themselves.
 * This is not a rumor mill nor fan page, so there should be no problem with waiting until it is confirmed by an actor/producer or an established source per WP:FILM/R. Prefall  03:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Prefall, not one of those sources I listed are 'rumor mill' nor 'fansite' material. Your antagonistic, non-collaborative attitude towards other editors is conflictive and not at all constructive.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My rumor mill and fan page comments were in reference to this article, which is a prime target for the latest rumors and trivia. I'm not sure how I'm being antagonistic and non-collaborative. My perspective has always been to stay as close to the confirmed details as possible to avoid the risk of misleading readers. Prefall  06:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A Joker and Harley Quinn film has now been confirmed by THR. Prefall 01:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that Hollywood Reporter is reliable enough for you. Seems like you are picking and choosing what sources to trust.--65.130.247.132 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how Wikipedia works, yes. Prefall  03:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Suicide Squad 2 writer/director
The writer/director has officially been named as Gavin O'Connor. As this page includes director images per each of said filmmaker's first entry into the franchise, his image needs to be added next to the Suicide Squad 2 listing. The issue is, his page does not have an image yet and I have already attempted to do so, and the edit was reverted. Someone who knows what they're doing should definitely add the image on his page, and then we can add one here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Krypton TV series
I know this has been a discussion before, but in | this report and | this report, David S. Goyer (the show's creator/writer/producer) explicitly states that the series will take place 200 years before Man of Steel. He further states that the film scratched the surface on what Krypton, the new series will further explore the history of the planet. That, along with the fact that many of the visuals revealed in the series' trailer, including the House of El symbol and the planet itself should be enough to include the TV series on this page. At least until stated otherwise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe is not the official title?!
So this bit of new comes as a shock. Apparently the DCEU is not an official title and noone involved with the production of the films uses it. There should shortly be an official title with this statement, as it's sure to "blow up" the internet. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I found an insightful article where it's pointed out that during the TV special "Dawn of the Justice League", the banner kept reading Justice League Universe. As this was produced and created by WB, it seems that would be the actual only 'officially' used title by the studio. Though they have yet to clarify what the real name of the film series is, perhaps this option will become the shared universe's legitimate title. We shall see in the coming days/weeks.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if we need to consider WP:COMMONNAME, but it is worth keeping in mind. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to consider WP:COMMONNAME as that is what policy dictates.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But then there is also Naming conventions (films) if we consider a cinematic universe as a film series. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That leaves room for wiggle-room, and in this case I think the COMMONNAME is quite overwhelming in its use. I think DCEU is most appropriate for now, but that doesn't mean "Justice League Universe" can't be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Using WP:COMMONNAME for now, until the studio states what their official name will be works well. With the studio calling the series the Justice League Universe - both should be mentioned as they are currently so.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, so I've been rudely asked to take the possible rename issue to the talk page. Granted, I was already going to, but here we go. To see whether the page should be moved, I'm opening a Requested Move below.


 * Georgina V Hobart (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't really have come as a surprise to anyone here, since many people on this very page pointed out long ago that Warner Brothers have never used the term "DCEU" in official announcements, and that the Kevin Smith TV special actually used a variety of monikers throughout, with the presenters mostly referring to the "DC Films Universe" when they spoke. However DC fans seemed so desperate to give their fledgling universe a name (and possibly to avoid the unfortunate "DC-FU" acronym) that they jumped at the DCEU reference in the EW article without second thought. The irony of course now is that it is this very Wikipedia article which has helped to popularise the term, and that popularity is being used to justify sticking with it; amusingly circular logic!

Requested Move: 1st October 2017

 * 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: not moved  Dr Strauss   talk   19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe → Justice League Universe – Based on the recent revelation that DC Films does not use the brand name "DC Extended Universe"; that that title is unofficial, as well as the realisation that there is an official name that has been used by Geoff Johns and Warner Bros.: "Justice League Universe", in the "Dawn of the Justice League" television special. Georgina V Hobart (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Dr Strauss   talk   13:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Per Above Point. ( Also wondering, can the "Justice League Universe" banner used in the special be seen as the franchise's logo? ) Georgina V Hobart (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move for now. DC Extended Universe is overwhelmingly the common name. I don't even see proper indication that Justice League Universe is an official name for the shared universe in the films. The term was used in a January 2016 tv special with Justice League in the title: Dawn of the Justice League. There have been three films since and one before. None of them are Justice League films and I haven't seen the term used about any of them. It looks to me like there isn't an official name and some fans just dug up an old tv special when they heard DC Extended Universe is not official. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia policy is clear here. We use the name most commonly used in reliable sources. Also I suggest the OP read the essay WP:Official names.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not enough elements yet for change.OscarFercho (talk)
 * Oppose for now per PrimeHunter and TriiipleThreat. I have also reformatted the RM discussion since consensus is not based on the number of votes. The OP had formatted each section to keep a tally on such numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lowercase DC extended universe as first choice per WP:COMMONNAME. Lower case is required here per MOS:CAPS since this is not a proper name. This will also be consistent with our treatment of other fictional-universe articles when they are not trademarks, e.g. Star Wars expanded universe. I think it is likely that this will eventually be at the trademark/official-name Justice League Universe, so I don't oppose moving it there now, though that's not strictly "procedure".  We frequently make exceptions of this kind, e.g. when a company or a person changes their legal name. It's a WP:ABOUTSELF policy matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it is a proper name. The issue here is that it is not an official name. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See reference to precedent above - "not a trademark". Also WP:SSF and Manual of Style/Capital letters and discussion of a specific referent at proper noun. Do not apply caps to distinguish one thing from others. A proper name must apply to a specific referent but a specific referent does not mean that it is a proper name. That it is commonly capped in sources but such sources are "specialied" or confined to a special interest group is WP:SSF. Also, naming is conferred by "naming rights" (parents name a child and a trademark claims a name) or by "broad" acknowledgement - not just within the DC clique. It is acknowledged that "Justice League Universe" is the "correct" name. Metonymys or "nicknames" are rarely capitalised except when applied to people (Bill for William etc) Hope this helps explain. Regards 09:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Lowercase DC extended universe as first choice per WP:COMMONNAME. Points by User:SMcCandlish are well made. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's sixes for me right now: Support - the fact that the studio produced the TV special as the first 'official' look at the shared universe and what was/is upcoming. Geoff Johns was a part of creating the special and "Justice League Universe" was very clearly displayed throughout the footage, including being called such multiple times directly by the co-runner of the franchise/co-Head of DC Films himself. On the flipside, I would Oppose a move, for should they now decide to change it/alter it -- that may be different in the future.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support  WP:TITLE — "The choice of article title should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." A general audience wants easily identifiable titles, and since the Justice League Universe involves Justice League personnel, that title would be more appealing to a general audience. Besides, the title can always be changed back in the future if need be.— Spin tendo Talk 01:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But readers already commonly refer to it as the "DC Extended Universe" so if anything they'll be looking for a page called that. Besides if we went by what you are talking about the proper title would be "Justice League (film series)" since it's about a series of films. "Universe" could be about anything: films, television series, comic books, a fictional solar system.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wondering: what Justice League banner is "Georgina V Hobart" referring to? I see no banner in the documentary except for the actual "Dawn of the Justice League" logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.46.23 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, the user who proposed this change was just — Nurseline247. (You frequent editors of DC Extended Universe really need to get better at spotting this person.) Anyways, seeing as how the proponent of this move has been rightfully banned, no one else supported it, and it's been 7 days since the move was 1st proposed — I now propose that this discussion be brought to an end with the result being no change.  — Spin tendo Talk 12:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also—If it makes any difference, I change my vote (even if Favre1fan93 says there is no vote) to lowercase extended universe. Spin tendo Talk 12:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There are two options that I'd favor: either keep at current title or rename to the original title, DC Comics' shared universe films. I don't think that "Justice League Universe" is necessarily an official name either; it was just used for the special, not anything else (unlike the MCU). JOE  BRO  64  23:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if we're still taking opinions. Grandpallama (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Note The discussion opener has been blocked on checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2017 (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.

Undated section
Once again, the undated section has been reordered for popularity, not by announcement. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks more like alphabetical order. But it would be more beneficial to have it ordered by announcement. This is such a wannabe page of Marvel Cinematic Universe. Do it right or don't do it at all (I get this is more down to the handling from WB/DC, so we're working with what we've got, but this still could be better.) -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't Batman in Batman vs. Superman?
And Justice League? He's not listed so in the recurring characters table but is listed for unreleased movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.99.115 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

He sure was. It was someone's formatting gaffe that messed up the table. After much trial and error, I fixed it. Crboyer (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Failure franchise
I think this page needs to recognise the fact that Justice League has caused a major fall for the franchise. The Justice League film page just about references this with Zac Snyder not directing anymore, but it needs to be properly referenced. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It will be recognised on this page when reliable secondary sources start talking about it so that we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is preposterous. Speculation is not fact. The studio has since reinstated their plans and immediate film-slate. No online commentary/speculation here.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DC Extended Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203092314/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/03/15/christian-bale-superman-wolfgang-petersen-batman-vs-superman/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/03/15/christian-bale-superman-wolfgang-petersen-batman-vs-superman/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905010138/http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/09/ritchie-locked-for-lobo.html?nid=2854 to http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/09/ritchie-locked-for-lobo.html?nid=2854

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Matt Reeves
There's been some debate about whether or not Matt Reeves is writing a screenplay to The Batman. There are very few references to such a thing (specifically an article by The Wrap), while all others simply say that he is having/giving the script a re-write. What should the consensus be? That there is no named screenwriter, until the studio states he is the screenwriter, or? Thoughts?--206.81.136.61 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue that we cannot make a clear decision on that until the studio says otherwise. Hence the current status of the 'In development' chart. The article some editor provided was made by a fan-site and is the only source I've ever seen that says he's the 'screenwriter'. Since it is not reliable, we will have to wait until a better source clarifies that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Valid Sources
What is the criteria of a valid sources?? Also can someone give me an example of valid sources DC SONE (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as they are not fan-sites.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No fan-sites, and hopefully multiple sources are available for information. I'd say that's a safe way to determine reliability.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Director images
Does anyone actually check this talk page? Haha, it doesn't seem like it but I'll place this here in case. We need director images for David O'Connor (on Suicide Squad 2), and John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (on Flashpoint). Their respective pages don't have images or those would work. Anytime that I have attempted added a photo - they're always reverted. Someone who knows how to do it correctly - please do so. Many thanks!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)