Talk:DC Universe Animated Original Movies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Justice League The New Frontier.png

The image Image:Justice League The New Frontier.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First Showcase short?

The DC Showcase section states: "The first one announced is to be based on Jonah Hex...The first short film, based on The Spectre..."
So which is first? Jonah Hex or the Spectre? Or Jonah Hex vs the Spectre? GoingBatty (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Are these DC Universe Original Animated Movies set in the same universe as the DC comic universe or even an alternate universe of it or is it distinct altogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonah Hex was the first one to be announced while The Spectre was the first to be released. Kc007 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Showcase

I think we should remove Showcase from the announced portion of this article and add it as its own sub-heading. DC Showcase isn't going to be a movie, but a series of shorts that will be released with on with the feature length movies. I think we should give it its own subheading under which we can write about each separate short and tell which movie it was released with. Kc007 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Aquaman

Under the "Unannounced projects" section, it states Timm would like to do an Aquaman movie, while under the "Cancelled projects" section, it states Timm said there are no plans for an Aquaman movie. Was an Aquaman movie ever a project in process? Should these sections be updated? GoingBatty (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorting Table by Rotten Tomatoes Percentage

Any offering with 100% sorts to the bottom. After 50%. Anthing to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MistySpock (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

JLA Adventures: Trapped In Time, Target Exclusive

Here's the source for the film. 71.188.18.94 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a completely separate project that isn't associated with the DC Universe Animated Original Movies. The DCUAOM haven't done any stealth releases, retailer exclusivity, or children targeted content. This might just be similar to Lego Batman: The Movie – DC Super Heroes Unite where it is a DC Comics release, but it doesn't fit into this DCUAOM line. I'm going to remove it from this page for now, but if it features the logo and branding on release, we can add it back to the page. GamingBuddha (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I rescued the text and moved it to JLA Adventures: Trapped in Time. GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
On the DVD cover, it appears to have the DC Comics logo in the bottom left. I don't know if that means anything, but still. 98.110.5.128 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it means that it's a DC film. It's as simple as that. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@GoingBatty here's another source detailing who the writing of the film is, ect. I found it while looking for more information on the film. Nevermind. 98.110.5.128 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Woman and sales figure

The text claims there were no more Wonder Woman projects and no Batgirl, either, because Wonder Woman didn't sell well. The gross figures list Wonder WOman as the fifth-biggest grosser and say it took in way more money than any Justice League or Green Lantern project, both of which saw more made. Is WOnder Woman being held to a different standard or are the gross figures misleading? Ace of Sevens (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

New name for this page

Shouldn't the name for this page be "DC Universe Animated Original Movies"? That's how it is written on the dvd boxes and on the official website.

  • On the DVD dvd boxes: "DC UNIVERSE ANIMATED ORIGINAL MOVIE"--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

at one time it said bruce timm wanted to adapt kingdom come now it does not. i hope Mr. timm didn't lose interest in it. cause i was really hoping to see it animated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvelfan28 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


  • I think DC Universe Animated Original Movies is now DC Universe Original Movies (source) (Dusk (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
That's also what it's called on Son of Batman. GamingBuddha (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gods and Monsters casting list

This cast list was included on the Gods and Monsters section and there was no citation or reference included. "Kevin Conroy as Bruce Wayne/Batman Susan Eisenberg as Diana Prince/Wonder Women George Newbern as Clark Kent/Superman Charlie Schlatter as Barry Allen/Flash Josh Keaton as Hal Jordan/Green Lantern Carl Lumbly as J'onn J'onzz/Martian Manhunter" I've removed it. 2601:C:780:234:842E:9A17:BABF:4DAA (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I Believe this was simply fan-casting. Npamusic (talk)

Justice League: Gods and Monsters - First Look and Story Details

Here's a source giving a first look at the film and story details, characters, ect. Also, is there a draft page for the film and mini-series? Npamusic (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Batman: The Killing Joke, Batman: Bad Blood, and Justice League vs. Titans; 2016 releases announced.

Here are the sources: Source 1 and Source 2. Npamusic (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

New Pages

Is it not time to give next years movies their own separate articles? I'll do it, just don't want my work deleted. Matt14451 (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on DC Universe Animated Original Movies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed section

I've removed the following section:

:Continuities

Superman/Batman
This continuity is based on the Superman/Batman story line.
Justice League
This continuity is based on the JLA story lines published in 2000.
Batman: Dark Knight Universe'
This continuity is based on Frank Miller's Batman (Dark Knight Universe).
DC Animated Movie Universe
This shared universe is based on The New 52 continuity.
Justice League: Gods and Monsters

Without references from reliable sources, that explicitly connecting a given project with a storyline, we cannot include it. without RS, its Sherlocking and Synthesis, and it cannot be in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)`

I also undid one of the restorations of this material per WP:BRD. I am not familiar with the topic, but as Jack Sebastian has pointed out, the material is completely unsourced. It's WP:OR and had been challenged. Without a talk page discussion and reliable sources it should not be in the article. Meters (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It is a fact that these are one continuity, they share an art style, creative team or characters. What is a solution that you suggest to keep these in the article? What about incorporating it into the individual descriptions for the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Matt14451. Verifiability, and not truth is the litmus test for inclusion. That you consider it a fact isn't helpful, since we cannot cite you. You need to find reliable, third-party sources that explicitly note that movie 'A' is based upon comic book continuity 'B'. Doing anything else is considered original research.
In answer to your second suggestion, we cannot simply expand on the descriptions of the titles, because it is simply 'putting perfume on a pig'; it only masks the problem - it doesn't fix it. We need sources for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Pedanticism-Sulloa09 (talk)
Could you be troubled to expand on your answer? Are you saying that I am addressing this matter too formally? How about this, then: 'yo, chucklebutt! Stop adding stuff that you can't prove, cuz' we ain't having any o' that trash.' I can speak to the masses, yo; I just try to stay formal so thin-skinned folk don't take offense. Choose your poison. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any skin in this game, but this kind of immaturity doesn't solve anything, Jack. I think what he means is that you're being too much of a stickler for rules; I'll leave you two chuckleheads to settle that amongst yourselves. Crusadestudent (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I was supposed to glean that from a one-word reply on a talk page after a slow-motion edit war occurring over days? As for being a stickler for the rules, I guess I am guilty as charged there. The rules are the only thing that keep this from turning into a fan forum or crapfest like Conservapedia. We are not sources. We can't quote ourselves. If you are looking at Wikipedia as a line on a resume or a ticket to immortality, you're going to be really, really disappointed. The policies and guidelines are pretty loose in most places, but we cite stuff to cover ourselves legally. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=48447 Within this article, one finds a transcription and video source of Director Jay Oliva confirming a link between Flashpoint Paradox and Justice League: War. While slogging through these articles searching for information that I already know does sound like a barrel of fun, I'll leave it to a truly die-hard fan to use this stepping stone to build a basis for the removed list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.254.170 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Then add the item back with the reference. That's what we were looking for. Maybe even phrase it as an out of universe bullet-point. Instead convert how they decided to use the source in the animation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not a good editor, I have no idea how to add citations (I'm new), but can someone figure out how to add continuities back while appeasing this jerk? I'm using the continuities list to guide my way through the films and it's an absolute pain to have to dig through old versions to get beneficial information. Yeah, watching the films and drawing the stunningly obvious conclusions is original research, I guess, but the continuities are all self evident from the films themselves. Why do we need to reference an article about the films when we have *the films themselves*? Bswalsh415 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that you don't call other editors jerks who are simply asking you to follow the rules or ask for help. Calling us jerks is great way for us to simply dismiss you as yet another fanboy assclown. See how that made you feel? Focus on that, because every time you call someone else a name, they feel exactly the same way.
Now, on to the meat of the matter. What seems to you to be an obvious solution isn't always so obvious. For example, in the telelvision series Gotham, absolutely everyone thought that Jerome Valeska (portrayed by Cameron Monaghan) was the Joker. Clearly, this isn't the case. Obvious is not obvious. This is why we use references of people making the comparisons you think are obvious, so we can point and laugh when they are wrong. We can't cite you. We can cite someone else who makes these connections. Until you can do that, we can't connect the movies to the comic book stories. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, looks like I struck a nerve. I guess we are on opposite sides of this and will be editing actively against one another. I haven't yet seen all of the films, but the ones I have seen have lined up with the previously published continuity list by story cues, references, and post scene credits exactly. So I will keep reverting any edit that removes the list. You can add a "citation needed" or a warning of some kind, but I see no value in denying Wikipedia users valuable information just because no one is willing to go the massive effort of tracking down printed references to things the movies have already explicitly shown us. As a caveat, I'll state again that I haven't yet seen everything on the list, so I'm not going to start counter editing you right away, and I will correct errors in the list that I find. But I will keep adding it back. Until the end of time. Unless you can give me a very good reason not to, your previous efforts leave me unmoved. Bswalsh415 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. If you keep adding WP:UNSOURCED information to the article and keep violating WP:CIVIL, you will be blocked. Jack is in the right here and you are in the wrong. (Except for Jack calling you a name.) If you feel the information is important, then take the time to locate citations to support that information. Have you checked the Wikipedia article for each of the movies? They might already have citations there you can cut and paste. You can put any citation that makes it clear where the information comes from. <ref>http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/2012/12/press-release-for-batman-the-dark-knight-returns-part-two-animated-feature/</ref> for instance is sufficient. Someone else or a bot will fill it in with details. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Bswalsh415I thought I'd point out that my calling you a name was done as a simple lesson in editing constructively and empathetically; I do not actually consider you 'yet another fanboy assclown'.
Richard-of-Earth offers you a lot of really good advice, Bwalsh; this isn't a pissing contest; Wikipedia works best when it works collaboratively. Those who cannot escape the 'i'm-tougher-than-you' mindset of internet forums and flame wars never last long in Wikipedia; we try to approach the problem from a different point of view. Rule #1 of Wikipedia is that you are never going to be the smartest person in an article - even an article about yourself. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but its absolutely correct. Rule #2 is that if you can't work well with others, you can't work in Wikipedia. Rule #3 is that you always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so be nice. Rule #4 is that Wikipedia works off of references, not our best guesses. No editor can use their own knowledge to add info to an article. Everything likely to be challenged has to be cited.
There are other rules, but I think you might find those the most useful. If you want help, we are all willing to help you out, but you have to be willing to listen to that help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Unreleased projects

Three movies have been added as unreleased projects from an announcement at SDCC 2016. Not only does the format and style need cleaning, but that canceled projects section needs dealing with, as the movie has been put back on track again. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Do what you feel needs doing then another user may correct you. Matt14451 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on DC Universe Animated Original Movies. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DC Universe Animated Original Movies. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on DC Universe Animated Original Movies. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Watchmen movie

I see no reason to not include it in this list. It's being made by the same group as the other animated movies, it's been revealed by the same studio, and Watchmen are now being added into the mainstream Universe in the comics itself. Unless there's a larger consensus to remove it, I see no reason why it shouldn't be in this article. Kude90 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DC Universe Animated Original Movies. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

new movies have been announced

source: https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2018/07/20/batman-hush-is-getting-an-animated-movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.111.72 (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Batman Ninja

Why isn't Batman Ninja on this list? It's produced by Warner Brothers, and it's a DC Universe animated movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:57F:E260:28AC:A205:338E:BDE0 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell Batman Ninja was added but then removed on the claim it is not part of the DC Universe Movies line. It does not have the logo for instance. But I am not sure myself. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Does Justice League vs the Fatal Five (2019) belong here?

I notice that Justice League vs the Fatal Five appears both on this page as UAOM #34, and as DCAU #05 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_animated_universe#Feature-length_films

So which universe does this film belong in? The template at the bottom of the page is confusing, too. - 45.131.210.17 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Deathstoke: Knights & Dragons

Pardon my asking but is Deathstroke: Knights and Dragons a part of the DC Universe Animated Original Movies? I thought it was in the same vein as Constantine: City of Demons, a compilation of episodes in a movie format? Please let me know - RVDDP2501 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding 'Batman: Soul of the Dragon' to released project list

Batman: Soul of the Dragon is mentioned in upcoming projects with an incorrect release date (January 26th), but the movie has been released already on January 12 and available for digital download, see Batman: Soul of the Dragon. meowmeow \S-) (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Constantine: City of Demons

Constantine: City of Demons has been mistakenly added to the list of films in this article. However, unlike other entries, it was never billed as a "DC Universe Original Movie" and it a compilation of a web series on CW Seed, like Vixen, Freedom Fighters: The Ray, and Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons, all of which are also not included in this article. – Zntrip 06:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Article format dispute

The following conversation comes from User:Ganthet2814's and my talk pages:

Per Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries, I'm going to ask that you please stop adding the image galley to this article. Thanks.-5- (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That rule doesn't outright prohibit what's presented, and each image has an appropriate FUR. Beyond that, there is no reason other than your gripe with me for removing the table. If you want to remove the images go ahead, but I'd ask that you leave the table alone. Ganthet2814 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does actually. Unless it's listed here it's not acceptable. I also see no reason that this should be in table format. There's no limit on the number of sub-sections in an article, and it makes it easy for users to navigate to the film which they want information about.-5- (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered.
This implies that it is not a rule, rather a guideline that is not always to be followed by the letter and to the death, as you suggest. The breaking format clutters the entire page and makes the information a little more difficult to read, beyond the fact that there will be many more releases under this umbrella and will become even more clunky then it already is. A table makes the formatting cleaner and simpler. Ganthet2814 (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's the same reason you never see album cover images on discography articles. I actually think the table makes things too cluttered. The sub-sections are by far more organized and navigable.-5- (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
By dividing things into clean cells it creates a clear separation without having too many page breaks, making it difficult to both edit and access information. Discography articles aren't as well served by something represented in visual media, unlike a film series. Ganthet2814 (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to bring up film series, it's the same reason you never see film posters for film series articles. Also, the following film series articles are not in table format: Superman (film series), Batman in film, Spider-Man in film, X-Men (film series), i.e. every film series article. Show me a film series article that uses the format you want to use, and I may reconsider. If you can't, then I ask that you please stop.-5- (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There are not ten films in each of those with many more to come. Practically, the table makes perfect sense considering the future of the series. Practicality should be considered. Ganthet2814 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's your article: Star Trek (film series). Eleven films succinct in the table, the closest film series article to carry the same amount of productions. Ganthet2814 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The article that you bring up has an issue tag at the top about not meeting Wikipedia's quality standards. If you don't mind, I'm going to bring this to dispute resolution.-5- (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to string it out through bureaucracy. I gave you your example, and you are not following through with your statement regarding an example. That article's talk makes no mention of the table as the problem with the page. Ganthet2814 (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's bad alright. Everything looks crammed together and only two of the films are actually connected to each other. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: I think I prefer the non-table version, and here's why. First, jamming the descriptions of the films and voice actors into a cell in a table is messy and hard to read; since it's already prose, it would seem better to be in a non-table format. But beyond that, I think using the tables seems to imply some relationship between the films. On the Star Trek article it works better because they're all Star Trek films; here, though, the only connection between the films is that they're put out by DC, and I don't find that to be enough of a connection.

As a side note, you both have absolutely broken 3RR here, and I've issued warnings to both of you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion - To address the images issue, having an appropriate "rationale" does not actually mean it meets criteria. You have to meet the 10 criteria set forth by WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE. I can think of one most important criteria that this page does not have....critical commentary on the image itself. Nothing discusses the cover art for these films. This isn't like a franchise article where there is a single comprehensive image to represent the whole article, and this isn't an article for any one single film so picking one wouldn't work either. As for the table, I'm against it as well. By placing these films in a table you're somehow putting a connection on them where there is not one. The only things these films have in common is that they are all animated and from the same production company. They are not connected in any other way and putting them in what basically amounts so a television episode table would be inappropriate. Does the page need some work, yes it does, but I don't think putting the films in a table is the direction this needs to go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And a 5th... Creating a gallery of 10 non-free image goes so far beyond policy it isn't funny. They simply are not needed here. On the articles on the individual films, yes, but not here. As for the table... I have to agree with Bignole and HelloAnnyong, a TV series episode table is the wrong fit for a series of unrelated OAVs release under a single brand marking. - J Greb (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And a 6th... I've been reading this page for over 10 years now. The table is a HUGE problem and completly ruins the page. (a long term reader (no account sorry)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:BF07:FC01:B4C8:F940:8E9:F428 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Table for short films

I suggest we make a table for the short films like we do for the main films Jagyson (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Long Halloween as whole

Excuse me if I'm off truck, but why the cinematic adaption of "The Long Halloween" got to separated into two different articles for its both parts while the cinematic adaption of The Dark Knight Returns got to be whole article for its both parts? 79.176.63.153 (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gargoyle King (talk • contribs)

Seriously? Can't anyone answer to my question and explain me why "The Long Halloween" adaption different from "The Dark Knight Returns" adaption in splitting the article into two parts? 79.176.63.153 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be one combined article.136.49.32.166 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Batman: The Long Halloween, Part One which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Continuities: film or comic?

The continuities section seems to shuffle around a lot based on the whim of the most recent editor, and has always been poorly referenced. Should it pull together film continuities (eg Crisis On Two Earths / Doom) or comic continuities (eg JLA)? Because they're really not the same thing. Right now it's trying to do both, and not doing a good job at either. Owen Ralph (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be the film continuity as the article is about the movies, not the comics. However, I think listing the continuities in this section is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE. Even if they have a citation, the citation becomes out of date when the next comic/film comes out. If a movie is in continuity with another and it is important to the story of that movie then it can be mentioned in the description of that movie. Figuring out what movies are in what continuities should be left to fan sites, not Wikipedia. I would be happy to see the section go away and just a mention that there are several continuities to the movies and if we can find a citation mention that DC does not always make it clear what movies are in what continuity. Perhaps some link to Multiverse (DC Comics) should be included. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagree with Richard-of-Earth. The lists as they are currently (July 2021) are clear, concise, accurate, and useful. They don't necessarily need external citations because an alert viewer will be able to place the movies in proper context. Let me put it this way, just because Faulkner didn't give the Yoknapatawpha County novels titles such as Yoknapatawpha County 1, Yoknapatawpha County 2, Yoknapatawpha County 3, Yoknapatawpha County 4, etc. doesn't mean that a reader can't figure out that they're about characters living in the same place and time. Also, it's not "FANCRUFT" or "UNDUE" to discuss those novels as being in continuity--it's scholarship.136.49.32.166 (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. At least for the standards of Wikipedia. To my mind if it was scholarly it would be published in a venue we could cite. That is scholarly for Wikipedia's purposes. I do recognize there are bodies of knowledge out there that Wikipedia does not recognize because they are not published to acceptable standards. There is WP:WTC and WP:BLUE about what does not need to be cited. I just do not feel it applies here, especially if people keep changing it without citations to support the changes. All that said, I also recognize that the continuity section is useful and enjoyed, so as long as it does not get out of hand and create edit wars to detract and distract, I am willing to tolerate a little undue fancruft, Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Richard-of-Earth, I'm well aware that there is FANCRUFT on Wikipedia, but if you really want to purge the website of that, try visiting the Lenkov-verse page, which is a lot of "work" for really little gain.136.49.32.166 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Audience scores are not allowed

Please note WP:UGC and MOS:TVRECEPTION Audience scores are not allowed. WP:IMDB is not a reliable source of anything and user voted web polls are WP:USERGENERATED and especially unreliable. The Audience scores should not have been added in the first place and should be removed from the article. (I might do it later, it is too big a task to do from a mobile device.) -- 109.79.70.137 (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Checking the edit history I see that fixed this at least once before but my edit was ignored[1] despite clearly stating the relevant guidelines. It would be better if editors actively working on this article would follow the Wikipedia guidelines and remove the audience scores and keep them removed. -- 109.79.70.137 (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I have again removed the audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.[2] -- 109.78.198.49 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DC_Universe_Animated_Original_Movies/Archive_1&oldid=1168508639"