Talk:Justice League/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crossovers

Is this section a work in progress? It seems undue to focus on Marvel when there are an abundance of crossovers with other companies. See JLA vs Predator, JLA Witchblade, Black Hammer/Justice League for some. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. Kurzon (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What I don't want to do, though, is give a full listing of inter-company crossovers, even if there aren't many. This article should not be a database. Rather, we should describe why these crossovers happen and what the interests and concerns of the company's are. Why doesn't it happen more often? Why does it happen at all? How are the profits shared? etc Kurzon (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely, and didn't mean to suggest that it should become a list of minor comics. I think the newer version is better than before, but still needs some tweaking. I don't have any specific suggestions at this moment, but I'll give it some thought. To help make your point about the concerns, I remember the companies looked into trading a character for a year during the Amalgam event, but the lawyers convinced them it wasn't worth it. Marvel/DC crossovers were also halted around 2001 because of bad feelings between Paul Levitz and Bill Jemas, with DC directly saying there would be no more while Jemas was at Marvel. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thanks. What I'm going to do is dig up some interviews with writers and editors who worked on the crossovers in question to learn what sort of interesting things happened "behind the scenes", to give us some insight into what makes inter-company crossovers so special and so rare. This might take me a while so bear with me if you don't see updates for a few days. Kurzon (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No rush. I have a plethora of old Wizards and other sources I can check as well. I'm not sure how much of it will be JLA focused, but maybe we can boost the quality of Intercompany crossover in the process. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will happily share notes with you. Kurzon (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I came across this interview with the guys who did JLA/Avengers back in 2003, and found this nice tidbit:

Those were really the final days of both companies being "Mom & Pop" shops. Now, with both Marvel and DC being integrated multi-platform companies, the inter-mingling of competing IP is a much more complicated and complex situation, along with the fact that you wind up spending considerable resources on a project for which you only recoup half of the eventual profits (and that you cannot utilize across other lines of business beyond the publishing) make it a lot more difficult to justify. It's hard to justify both the allocation of resources and also the difficulties of navigating the politics between two competing corporate giants. So it's not impossible that it could never happen again, but the factors against it happening are considerable.

This tells us the hassles involved in inter-company crossovers that make them rare, and why another DC/Marvel crossover is very unlikely. Of course, the fact that Who Framed Roger Rabbit? happened doesn't mean it's impossible. Kurzon (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I imagine that inter-company crossovers with the Justice League are very plot-driven, because of the huge cast which doesn't all share the same continuity. I heard that the 2019 crossover with Black Hammer was more character-driven. Do you know anything about that one? It would be an interesting exception to note. Kurzon (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't, but @Hellboybookeeper: has an interest in Black Hammer, I think. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hammer of Justice! falls in a weird place, since the characters are often interacting with characters they are homages to. In many ways, it was simply a vehicle to have characters reacting to funhouse mirror versions of themselves or to deliberately call attention to the tonal differences between the series. —Hellboybookeeper (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Tom Brevoort noted that DC and Marvel don't like doing inter-company crossovers because each company gets only half the revenue, and the hassles of negotiating legal issues and corporate politics further eats into profits. So these crossovers are not as profitable as fully in-house publications and therefore it doesn't make good business sense to do them on a frequent basis. You generally want to maximize profits. In 2017 Dan Didio remarked that DC and Marvel only did crossovers when their sales were low. I suppose when sales of in-house publications are low anyway, it becomes more interesting to expand your catalog with an inter-company crossover. When sales are good, it makes more sense to focus on the more profitable in-house titles. That, anyway, is the picture I pieced together from the various interviews I read. Do you have anything to back up my interpretation? I'm not sure of it because by that reasoning, DC wouldn't do any inter-company crossovers with anyone right now, yet it keeps doing them with smaller firms like Dark Horse. Kurzon (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Collected Editions

With the collected editions removed from this page, could we instead have a separate page listing them in the same way as [[1]] Considering [[2]] other comic based pages feature a collected edition section, I think this should follow suit, especially considering how comprehensive and informative it was GrantLucas64 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. I will say, though, that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a sales catalog for DC Comics. I think it would be better to list story arcs, with issues and their date of publication, along with authors and editors. Kurzon (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind that line of thought, but considering the precedent of having things like that be catalogued on so many other pages, I think it would be odd to omit it only on this one. Especially considering the sheer amount of story arcs, a collected edition list would actually be more concise GrantLucas64 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting

I am going to be rewriting large parts of this article, removing a lot of the lore. Wikipedia shouldn't be about lore. It should be about the real world. So I want to change the article's focus to the real world aspects such as the creative process, corporate politics, copyright disputes, executive mandates, sales, merchandising, etc. If someone wants to study the lore, they should go to Wikia. Wikipedia should be about the real world. You can look at my draft in Draft:Justice League Kurzon (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jc37: Why don't you deign to make a few remarks? Kurzon (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jc37: Did you just revert my revision out of reflex, or do you have actual criticisms? Because by reverting my revision, you deny other editors a look. Kurzon (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your thoughts above.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be comparing what we do to Wikia, either positively or negatively.

Yes, having a real-world perspective is important. But so is history and context.

All that aside, my concern was and is the rather large amounts of removals. There's a big difference between re-writing and removing.

So with that in mind, Can you please explain specifics about each large chunk of text you are removing than just merely "it's lore". - jc37 18:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Superhero articles tend to be bloated listings of trivia, such as what happened in this or that crossover. I don't think non-comic book nerds are interested in such trivia. They want broad overviews writing in a concise and accessible style. Wikipedia is where you go when you want to learn about something for the first time. It should not be for nerds, by nerds. Kurzon (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree and disagree. Crossover events, are just that, "events", so they tend to get more eyes on them, and (important to us in referencing) they tend to get more coverage. I agree though that explanatory text (especially "in-world") should be as concise as possible, especially on an overview article like this one. Especially since the JL (in its various incarnations) tends to be present at nearly every DC Comics event. Even the Death of Superman had the JL involved.

So that aside, (looking from a perspective of re-writing and paring to be concise), where first do you think we should look? Or in other words what section of the page do you think is the worst in need of cleanup? - jc37 18:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As an example, look at what the lede was before I started working on the article, and compare it to its current state. It was just a load of trivia, no analytical overview. Kurzon (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I definitely see a laundry list of names that seriously needn't be in the lead. - jc37 18:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's something with superhero articles in general. Sperging on trivia. I figured that most human beings on not interested in what Superman did in this or that issue of a comic book (especially since comic books are a niche market, most people know Superman through TV and movies). They want a concise broad overview, they just want to "get" what Superman is and what he means to the real world. That's the theory I used when I rewrote the Superman article a few years ago. Do you like the Superman article as it is now? That's what I want to do for Justice League.

And I will confess that I had a lot of arguments over what I was doing for the Superman article. I promise to be more congenial this time around, I'm not opening that can of worms again. Kurzon (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid WP:RECENTISM. Comics were, at one time, a really big deal. (For reference, read up on Fawcett and Captain Marvel, for example).

And I'm not going to presume what our readers want. I'd like to think we have a rather broad readership base : )

That said, I agree that concise is good, as long as we do not lose history and context.

And "congenial" is always a good thing : ) - jc37 19:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will say that these two removals in particular are problematic: [3] [4]. References for each of these should be easily found. - jc37 19:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I would ask you not to revert my edits just because they lack references, particularly when the old text didn't have many references either. Don't make a superficial assessment of my work. Kurzon (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying. Indeed, I believe in the wiki-way.

You removed this info. I find that problematic, since this info is relevant, and can be referenced. - jc37 19:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jc37: Well, when it comes to this edit I think we should delve too much into Marvel stuff. This is Justice League, DC Comics. Kurzon (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We're not. For both of these edits, these are very much milestones of the Silver Age of Comics, and directly related to the Justice League. This is an example of that "real world perspective" mentioned above. - jc37 19:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah OK maybe you have an argument, maybe it's just a question of degree. Kurzon (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So to move forward, I agree there is more than a bit of excess in this article. As an overview article, that links to other articles, some of these details are better located in the more-specific sub-articles.

So with that in mind, and since you have already shown in your edits what you think could/should be removed. I will go ahead and make a single edit cleaning out some of the excess where I think we agree, and then we can discuss. So that we can see where we are and hopefully find consensus. - jc37 22:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, just merely a couple of changes in that edit. In one spot, removing excess from the start of a paragraph. Some text re-writing about separate earths, and the removal of a chunk of plot synopsis, which probably is not needed in this as an overview article. Do you agree or disagree with each of the types of edits and why? Trying to figure out the places where you and I may or may not have common ground. - jc37 22:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A thing I want to do is segregate lore from information regarding editorial and marketing decisions. The real-world stuff and the fictional stuff should be in separate sections. Kurzon (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In some cases that is appropriate and in some it is not. It depends upon context. - jc37 12:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

So I did a single edit, explained what the changes in that edit were specifically and asked for your thought so we could start to find a commonground. Which is one of the things to do in a discussion when trying to achieve consensus. While I'm waiting for your thoughts (since the edit is easily readable in the page history) I'll revert subsequent edits for now. - jc37 12:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the current bit on Justice League Detroit:

Seeking to capitalize on the popularity of their other team books, which focused upon heroes in their late teens/early 20s, Gerry Conway and artist Chuck Patton revamped the Justice League series. After most of the original heroes fail to help fend off an invasion of Martians, Aquaman dissolves the League and rewrites its charter to allow only heroes who will devote their full-time to the roster.[57] The new team initially consists of Aquaman, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter, Elongated Man, the Vixen, and a trio of teenage heroes Gypsy, Steel, and Vibe.[58] Aquaman leaves the team after a year, due to resolving marital problems, and his role as leader is assumed by the Martian Manhunter.

The final storyline for the original Justice League of America series (#258–261), by writer J. M. DeMatteis and artist Luke McDonnell,[59] concludes with the murders of Vibe and Steel at the hands of robots created by long-time League nemesis Professor Ivo, and the resignations of Vixen, Gypsy, and the Elongated Man during the events of DC's Legends miniseries, which sees the team disband.

I want to replace it with this:

From the Justice League's inception in 1960 up until 1984, the team's roster always included a number of A-list characters who had their own solo books, such as Green Lantern and Superman. But in Justice League of America Annual #2 (1984), the Justice League was revised to entirely comprise more obscure characters who did not have their own solo books, such as Vixen, Vibe, and Martian Manhunter. The original A-list members would not be brought back into the cast until 1996. This era of the Justice League, which lasted about two years, is popularly known as "Justice League Detroit". The impetus behind this change was to sidestep the convoluted continuities of the classic characters by using lesser-known characters, thus allowing for more character-driven stories; and to give the team a more youthful, hipper feel similar to that of the Teen Titans and the X-Men, which were selling better. The cast was multicultural: Gypsy was Romani, Vibe was Latino, Vixen was Black. However, the writing of Vibe and Gypsy was criticized for using clichés of their ethnic groups, symptomatic of writers who were well-meaning but out of touch with certain minorities, something for which said writers (Gerry Conway and Chuck Patton) later expressed regret.

The existing text is just lore. My text is more analytical, a description of the creative process, editorial decisions, and reader reaction. It's about the real world. Isn't that just better? Kurzon (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting information. However, the reference in the existing text notes what you leave out. about teens/ etc. And the "lore" part provides the "how" of the creators' implementation, thus providing context. As I mentioned above, concise context is preferable because it gives a better overview.

Also, you have added some assertions of what the creators stated, In that case, since you are quoting them, that actually does need a reference to be included in the article.

I think the best result would be a combination of your text and the existing text. Re-writing, rather than just blanket removal. - jc37 14:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have references. Kurzon (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Great : ) - jc37 15:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example of showing how to merge the texts, as I mentioned:

Seeking to capitalize on the popularity of their other team books like the New Teen Titans, which focused upon heroes in their late teens/early 20s, and thus to give the team a more youthful feel, Gerry Conway and artist Chuck Patton decided to revamp the Justice League series. Another impetus behind this change was to sidestep the convoluted continuities of the classic characters by using lesser-known characters, thus allowing for more character-driven stories. Up until that point, the team's roster included the company's more popular characters, several of whom had their own long-running solo titles, such as Superman and Wonder Woman. This change was initially implemented in Justice League of America Annual #2. After most of the original heroes are absent during an invasion of Martians, Aquaman dissolves the League and rewrites its charter to allow only heroes who will devote their full-time to the roster.[57] The new team initially comprised of existing characters who did not currently have their own solo titles: Aquaman, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter, Elongated Man, as well as the newer characters, Gypsy, Steel, Vibe, and Vixen, the latter of whom had her inaugural series cancelled during the DC Implosion. This era of the Justice League, which lasted about two years, is popularly known as "Justice League Detroit". The final storyline for the original Justice League of America series (#258–261), by writer J. M. DeMatteis and artist Luke McDonnell,[59] concludes with the murders of Vibe and Steel at the hands of robots created by long-time League nemesis Professor Ivo, and the resignations of Vixen, Gypsy, and the Elongated Man during the events of DC's Legends miniseries, during which, the team disbands.

I didn't add the assertion, but that can of course be added with references. Though I did remove several inaccuracies. Like stating the Cindy Reynolds is Romani... - jc37 15:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any utility in mention lore trivia, such as Aquaman's marital problems (it's just a contrivance to get him off the team, who cares?). And we don't need to list all the members because there is a dedicated article for that. Kurzon (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the marital issues. And no, we should list the initial members for each incarnation. It shows how each new incarnation was implemented. - jc37 15:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I tightened up the text more - combining lists of characters, for example. Do you have any thoughts/concerns/additions? - jc37 15:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No need for a full list of characters. It doesn't say anything insightful. There is a dedicated article for that stuff: List of Justice League members Kurzon (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That list page does not list the initial incarnation of each team. The JLI listing, for example, doesn't indicate that Black Canary was a member. - jc37 15:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the broader point is that this is an overview page about a team of individuals. And so we should show what that team comprised of at each incarnation, not merely that "something" that happened to be called "Justice League" existed. A group is a sum of its parts - jc37 15:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If that page does not list the initial incarnation of the team, then you fix that page. Kurzon (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Whether or not a list exists (per WP:SS), has zero to do with whether overview coverage should exist in the primary overview article. It obviously should. - jc37 16:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to say how the Justice League Detroit disbanded. What we should write is what kind of stories that Justice League Detroit was. Justice League Detroit was character-driven stories using obscure characters who were more flawed and limited than the likes of Superman and Wonder Woman. Morrison's JLA was epic plot-driven stories that evoked a pantheon of gods. Justice League International was a drive to cement the fusion of the multiverse by mixing in characters like Jay Garrick and Captain Marvel. Justice League Dark is character-driven stories where the heroes are often left scarred by their experiences. That's the sort of stuff that is really worth telling. Kurzon (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a case of "better than". We do not subjectively determine what is "worth telling" or not "worth telling. We provide an overview of the topic for our readers to allow them to get a full sense of that topic. We do not do that by leaving out context. - jc37 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course we have to determine! We do that all the time when we decide what topics are noteworthy or what information is pertinent. I suspect you're not into actually writing articles. I've looked at your contrib history. Almost all your contribs are on talk pages or admin boards. Kurzon (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

lol - You read over 15 years of edits and that was your conclusion, k

So here's the thing. Before I start quoting policy to you, you know, things like comment on the content, not the contributor. I think I'd like you to imagine something.

Imagine an admin notices in their watchlist large sections of text being removed from an article - Something that could be considered disruptive editing.

Now the admin has several options of what they could do, depending on the situation. One of which is of course to merely revert and warn, or even to WP:RBI.

But instead, the admin takes a closer look at the situation. Sees that this is a long term contributor. Sees that they have a not insignificant block log with a history of being blocked for removing chunks of text and not explaining their edits, and ownership issues, among other things.

This is of course where escalating blocks could start.

But seeing as this is a long term contributor, and in some cases, they've shown they can discuss when they want to, the admin makes a different choice. To toss their admin hat aside and instead to try to engage the long-term editor in a discussion about the edits. And give them a chance to show they are better than what they have been doing in the past. Work towards collaboration etc.

And it's sort of working, but they keep pushing a POV contrary to policy, and further many of the edits are factually inaccurate or dowright false. Plus many of the sentences in the edits don't pass the laugh test for paraphrasing. This is far too close to plaigiarism/copyvio. And many of the edits simply show a considerable lack of knowledge of the topic, almost as if all they know is from parroting reference text.

So what to do at this point? Give up on the editor, or try to continue to engage? The admin could be wasting their time.

But maybe - maybe - there's a chance something fruitful could come of this. After all, does it really benefit Wikipedia to see another long term contributor to be eventually globally banned from Wikipedia for what is easily correctable nonsense, as we have seen so many others banned in the last few months, for way for less than this? I think the community is losing their patience for this kind of thing. So anyway, I guess we'll see. - jc37 16:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As for me, I'm going to revert your additions (again) - they are filled with completely false information, among other things. I would be happy to continue to try to discuss with you about the fiction MoS, and editing policy and so on, or whatever. But if you have decided not to, please feel free to let me know and there are of course other process routes to follow. Up to you. - jc37 16:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What did I get wrong? Kurzon (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For now, I'll stick to the Detroit text we were discussing above.

Starting with some simpler ones: Cindy reynolds (Gypsy) isn't Romani. Vixen was slated to have her own title (it was made, though they only published copyright copy). Aquaman had several titles over the years. Martian manhunter was long the backup series in Detective comics (characters did not need to be the "title" character to be considered to have their own series.).

Some of the edits also misrepresent what was going on at the time, by omission of detail.

The effects of various events during the time period between the DC implosion and Crisis on infinite earths. for example. Justice League, because it encompasses so many of their characters, and thus is a "cross-over" title, is often ground zero for whatever is going on in the offices at DC Comics.

We shouldn't just take some info and pull it out of the context of the time.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Contextual_presentation wouldn't be a bad place to start. - jc37 18:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So, instead of touching up my edits, I have to run my edits past you until they're perfect before I can post them? Kurzon (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration is where "we" come to consensus through discussion. We're past the being bold stage of editing.

You started with the detroit section. so we were discussing that section. You presented suggested text and so did I. I'm happy to continue to discuss them and to see your proposed edits.

Did you take a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Contextual_presentation yet? Some of what I have been mentioning is also expressed there.

We can write in a "real-world perspective" and still present the context necessary for the reader to understand this overview of the information. - jc37 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, look at this:

From the Justice League's inception in 1960 up until 1984, the team's roster always included a number of A-list characters who had their own solo books, such as Green Lantern and Superman. But in Justice League of America Annual #2 (1984), the Justice League was revised to entirely comprise more obscure characters, such as Vixen, Vibe, and Martian Manhunter. The original A-list members would not be brought back into the cast until 1996. This era of the Justice League, which lasted about two years, is popularly known as "Justice League Detroit". The impetus behind this change was to sidestep the convoluted continuities of the classic characters by using lesser-known characters, thus allowing for more character-driven stories; and to give the team a more youthful, hipper feel similar to that of the Teen Titans and the X-Men, which were selling better. The cast was multicultural: Gypsy was Romani, Vibe was Latino, Vixen was Black. However, the writing of Vibe and Gypsy was criticized for using clichés of their ethnic groups, symptomatic of writers who were well-meaning but out of touch with certain minorities, something for which said writers (Gerry Conway and Chuck Patton) later expressed regret.

I checked around and it seems that Gypsy is indeed descended from the Romani. If she were just pretending to be Romani, that would have been even more insulting, like a white guy wearing blackface. I doubt Conway and Patton were that stupid. Kurzon (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

In the Detroit bit as it is now, it says that Aquaman reformed the Justice League because he was frustrated that the members were just part-timers. That's just a contrivance that the writer used to replace the classic A-list members with obscure B and C-listers. It's not the real reason that the change happened, so we needn't bother mentioning that bit of trivia. The real reason is that the writers wanted to write character-driven stories, and using more obscure characters gave the writers more flexibility to do so. Kurzon (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's what we do: I will make piecemeal edits to the article, and if you have issues with my content, you edit my edit. You don't revert my edit. Kurzon (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Kurzon, you have completely BUTCHERED this article. While striving to avoid "recentism", you managed to completely ELIMINATE all reference to the book as it exists today, with the exception of the more recent collected editions and members list. Avoiding trivia is one thing, but imho as a 56 year collecter of Justice League of America and it's successor titles, you went about 200 light-years too far.Duncan Beach (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I "butchered" a grotesque monstrosity and remade it into something sleeker. Why don't you explain in detail what is lacking? As I said, I don't think it's useful to detail the trivia of what happened in this or that comic. Kurzon (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Duncan Beach: I haven't read the comics in a while, so I don't know how to describe the Justice League comics of the past 15 years. Can you give me a summary of what has changed in the comics since 2006? I don't want a synopsis, I want an analytical description (comedy, epic, intimate, plot-driven, etc.) Kurzon (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I would have to say analytically, that the series has gotten darker in the past fifteen years - The writers seem to be taking out characters permanently that even twenty years ago would've retired, been relocated somehow, etc. The stories ARE more plot-driven, here more than almost everywhere else outside novelization comics (The Dark Tower series coming immediately to mind). This is why a roster of the current AND original members of a team are vital, as well as references to retcons. Comics are not a niche item, as you'd have been able to tell easily by spending ANY amount of time in a bookstore or public library. Graphic novels and collected editions are some of the hottest sellers. Oh, and the Justice League is a seminal team -- without them, there'd have been no Avengers or Fantastic Four, nor any X-Men. I could say that American Football is a "niche market" and I'd be far more accurate than you were. You didn't make it sleeker, you just made it more useless by eliminating what you naively deemed "trivia". Art historians and collectors would agree with me. I hope you take a few moments to think about what your edits mean to a near-constant user of Wikipedia before you reply. Thanks for the time you spent reading this.

Duncan Beach (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Duncan Beach: Right... I'll get on it, then. Can you recommend me any sources that I could cite that describes what you just described? That would be useful. Kurzon (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) {{}} You would mostly have to read the comics themselves, although magazines like Wizard might also have articles, and of course, there are plenty of websites devoted to comics to consult. If you live in the U.S.A. that should be no problem - whatever your local bookstore doesn't have, should be available at the public library, either in the stacks themselves or through inter-library loan. Duncan Beach (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Why have large parts of this article been removed. There is nothing about the new 52 or dc rebirth eras of the justice league, even though those were important relaunches. Why is this article less detailed than the avengers one. This seems like a case of a MCU fan erasing large parts of the Justice League's history. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is Kurzon? They clearly don't know what they are talking about. Can someone report them? This is clearly an article vandalism. There's not even basic knowledge for for people who want to know a bit about the Justice League. Literally so much has been removed.

@Kurzon Hello, I'm 138.88.227.232. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kurzon (unintentional vandalism/test) please don't remove information again. — Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Kurzon, I'm begging you please just leave this article alone. This information is useful for people who want to learn more about the Justice League. They need information about collected editions and the publication history including recent eras. I don't want to get the admins in here.

@Kurzon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This person has repeatedly removed important information from the Justice League article. They has also done so to many different articles. Multiple warnings have been issued. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Graphic novels and publications have been removed

The graphic novel/collected editions section is no longer on this page. 184.103.78.255 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This article is not supposed to be a sales catalog for DC Comics. Kurzon (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to add another discussion. I couldn’t figure out how to add it to our my previous discussion. I understand your reasoning but if you go to any other comic page it lists the collective additions or story arcs. I understand that Wikipedia is not a sales point but it seems odd that justice league is the only page that is omitting a story arc section or collected editions. I do come to this page quite often specifically to look at what story arc is next in order. I do this not just with justice league but with any of the comics that I read. Wikipedia has always been a strong sort of comic knowledge And again I point out that it’s odd that justice league is the only page that is missing the section.

On another note, I would like to thank you for everything you do and Wikipedia. 184.103.78.255 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's because I removed the catalog from this article, and I haven't gotten around to fixing the other articles. There are lots of problems with superhero articles. Kurzon (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please report Kurzon? They've butchered this article. WE need this information back. It provided a concise overview of available DC collected editions. I'm begging someone please revert Kurzon's changes this article is horrendous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.227.232 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want this article to be a catalog for DC products when the DC Comics website offers that in better, more up-to-date detail? Throwing in this catalog doesn't offer anything insightful. Kurzon (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I also don't know why you want to revert the trimming I did to the publication history. I felt that the old version had too much fancruft. I don't think readers are looking for such detailed synopses of old comics. Rather, it's better to give a concise description of the writing styles, themes, and major editorial decisions. Besides, there is a dedicated Justice League Wikia out there. Kurzon (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dude, come on, talk to me instead of edit-warring. You started all this, so why don't you have anything to say? Kurzon (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@kurzon I am very familiar with the Justice League wikia. It's not that detailed. The Wikipedia article as it is is actually more detailed and gives more concise, easy to read information about the different eras of the Justice League than the fandom wiki. Also in the fandom wiki you have to search different incarnations of the league. This article gives a good summary of each publication era of the league. If you've noticed all other superhero articles follow the same structure of publication history and fictional biography. I also noticed there were some people who also disagreed with the changes you made above. I and many others would very much appreciate it if you kept it as it is now. Please I'm asking politely. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon Also many other superhero team articles include collected edition information. It's been that way for years. I actually use that information. It's very convenient to find and read and useful for readers. I don't understand why you would change it just for this article. 138.88.227.232 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restore the collected editions section for now. Right now you're the first person I've met who claims to find that section actually useful. It's rather baffling because on the DC Comics website you can get a more complete and up-to-date catalog of their collected editions (they're the ones trying to sell them, after all). As for trimming fancruft, I've had quite a few conversations with other editors over the years and they largely agree with me that the fancruft needed trimming. Just because other comics articles have the same problem doesn't mean it's not a problem, it only means I haven't gotten around to fixing those yet. My impression is that the reason the fancruft hangs around is not that editors actually like it, but because they're too lazy or too busy to fix it themselves. Rewriting Wikipedia articles is hard work, I know from experience. I don't know if you have a better perspective. You don't have a registered account on this website, and your IP's edit history is about only a year long, with little participation in Talk pages. I have been here 17 years and have been working on comics articles since my first day. Kurzon (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon Can you at least add information about the New 52 and DC Rebirth eras of the league? Why does the comic book information stop in 2006? You need the recent information. Without that information this article is not up to date. The Avengers article is more detailed.

Yeah, I should do that. I've had a little trouble because I can't think of much that distinguishes the JLA era (1996-2006) from the era that came after it. I don't want to write a synopsis of what happened, I want to describe the writing style and themes. Kurzon (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon Well the New 52 era (2011-2016) and the DC Rebirth era (2016-2017) are two different eras. So they should be two different sections. The new 52 was a huge relaunch. That should be its own section. Maybe you can get other editors who are more familiar with comics to help you. Also you could use the Avengers article as a template. That one includes more information than this article. Also the Avengers article includes more synopsis, I don't understand why you can't include that. If you're going to change Justice League why not also change the Avengers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.206.188 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I should do the Avengers too sometime. So much work! I move a mountain and they complain that I haven't moved the whole Earth.Kurzon (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon Why are you doing this alone? Aren't there other editors to help you? Also modern age isn't 2006 to the present. The modern age of comics started in 1985, so any Justice league comics published after 1985 would technically be considered modern age. You have to break modern age down into different eras. Post crisis, New 52, DC rebirth, and the recent Infinite Frontier relaunch. Those are all distinct publication eras. You can't lump them all up they're all different. You really do need people who are actually versed in comics history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.206.188 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you really are new here. 99% of editors on Wikipedia don't do any serious work here, by which I mean doing research and extensive writing and revisions. I am such a rarity that most editors are stunned when I move in on an article and actually start tackling major structural issues. So yeah I am always alone in practice. Kurzon (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon I don't usually care but I have strong grievances against the way you completely changed this article. There's barely any useful information and you're missing so much recent information about the league. What if someone came here to find recent information about the league. If editors don't care too much then why change this article at all. Why can't you just leave it the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.227.232 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think other people will appreciate this article more after my improvements. Kurzon (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, as a sometime collector of Justice League of America (Silver to Modern) I DO NOT appreciate the changes you've made. Wiping out over 15 years worth of information based on your prejudice against graphic arts and the nerds who appreciate it is NOT "improving". Duncan Beach (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Duncan Beach: Hey, I am also a comic book nerd. Kurzon (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Duncan Beach: You're a "lifetime collector". Okay... have you ever used this article to make purchasing decisions? You can get this information from DC Comics' online catalog or using Amazon.com's search engine. I figured that this article need not be a sales catalog for DC Comics, so I wanted to delete that stuff. I also deleted the lengthy synopses and replaced them with a little literary analysis. Kurzon (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you most certainly can NOT get this info from DC. They only ever advertise the most CURRENT collections/graphic novels. Also, I said I was a SOMETIME collector, not a lifetime collector. My working life ended some time ago, and my pension does not stand regular purchases - which means that I have to make 'wish lists', for which this article WAS invaluable before you started mucking about with it! Duncan Beach (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Look up the definition of 'sometime', sometime. My advice to you is to use a paper-and-ink dictionary to do so, as the online ones tend to have gaps. Duncan Beach (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to mention the article needs to be updated.. The New 52 relaunch made significant changes to the origins of the team and that version was used by the DCEU.. it's probably even more influential than the Morrison relaunch that gets it's own section. If I had my preferences, i would take out the entire trade paperback section and put in more plot stuff.... I agree that there was too much before, but the new version is way too sparse.. there should be a middle ground that works better... but I just don't have the time myself to do a big rewrite right now. Spanneraol (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: I don't think there is much point in describing plot details unless it represents an important paradigm shift. For instance, during the Detroit era of the Justice League, they switched to a cast of C-listers and new characters, and that was a major change worth writing about because up to that point the Justice League was an all-star cast and was about cross-promotion. Writing about stuff like Green Arrow marrying Black Canary is spergy trivia. Kurzon (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The New 52 relaunch was a big deal and received significant media coverage, boosted DC's sales, and redefined the company's entire output. It also launched a decade-long trend of rebooting on a broad scale to raise sales (see Marvel NOW, ALL NEW Marvel NOW, ANAD Marvel NOW, etc). Omitting the New 52 because it didn't represent a shift in writing style is bizarre. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying to include trivial stuff like GA's marriage (which should be listed on his page) but major storylines should be included... and the Geoff Johns/Jim Lee era for the New 52 WAS "an important paradigm shift". 13:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Ok, maybe you can help me with that. How exactly did it "redefine the company's entire output"? Kurzon (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It represented a clean break with the prior continuity with the purpose of increasing the appeal to new readers in a way that had never been done before and inspired imitation. See this article for some coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Justice League Alien Invasion.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Rc comics

It was created in 2019 by ryan arthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.145.189 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)