Talk:List of Justice League episodes/Archive2

So, now what?

What do people see as our next realistic goal for this page? We have images, we have summaries, we have directoral/production information, we have crossover information (I was considering Batman Beyond crossovers but I don't think that would be appropriate). Are things good as they are? Do things need to be expanded? Darquis 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming back into this after a break--like I said before, it looks damn fine as-is. Maybe we should all collectively sit on this, as there is no new info to add now that the show is done, and go back to do the other series' guides? Or--and I'd love this--whip DCAU into a FA page. rootology (T) 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. --Chris Griswold 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get concensus on this--aside from filling in data holes on the tables, done? rootology (T) 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my vote, and I'll be with you on DCAU.--Gillespee 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fill the tables, and I think this sucker's done. 67.160.61.148 05:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(it'd be great if I weren't signed out huh? Darquis 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) )

Not to rock the boat, but seeing as certain episodes are linked to individual pages anyway, ala the way TV series such as Buffy, Angel, Doctor Who etc. are laid out, perhaps we should start working on doing the same for the majority of the other episodes, and improving the ones already up? Just a suggestion. Could have potential.

Radical AdZ

We've previously had extensive discussion that ledt to an overwhelming concensus against the idea. Currectly, only "For the Man Who Has Everything" is linked, and it links to an article about the original comicbook story, which does mention the episode adapted from it. I've removed links to the two other episodes, which we added by a vandal who was blocked at the time he did it and did so against concensus he had railed against for months. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the archived discussions. We've been through this MORE than enough already. CovenantD 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, pardon me all over the place. No harm done.

Radical AdZ

Now missing images

I don't have the time to redo the images (again). Murdoch, do you want to do this for the now present holes? rootology (T) 08:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure... --Murdoch 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm done. With more time, I could have uploaded better chosen pics. In the future, if you want, I can't replace a few with better versions.

Also, I oppologize for talking down to you before. Sometimes I got a little carried away. --Murdoch 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, no harm, no foul. Thanks for redoing them. :) rootology (T) 02:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Every image is now tagged for a valid fair use for this article. rootology (T) 21:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Major change

I think we should revamp this page to match, say, like List of Supernatural episodes (which I've been working on). Can you think of another page we should emulate? Please tell me what you think here, before I start to do it. - Peregrinefisher 05:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Destroyer

Why is it the episode Destroyer's page has been redirected to the main JLU page? It was marked a vandalism, but the previous page seemed rather complete and detailed. 66.109.248.114

Replaced pictures

May I ask why Lunar Chaos (Talk) and Wallerberjazz (Talk) have been replacing a perfectly acceptable episode list with pictures of terrible quality and resolution? --Murdoch 12:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I reversed the pictures back to the old ones. I see no good reason why the episode guide should have those horrible pictures with washed-out colors. Most weren't even representative of the episodes, which is the main idea. Please leave them as they are, unless you want to replace some with better ones, and not some random ones with terrible quality. --Murdoch 11:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Change

An unregistered user, who may have registered as Magic Man has been making major revisions to episode summaries in JLU. Would anyone mind if I revert back to the previous version? Hewinsj 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The missing information is useful.Calviin 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

wild cards

the ep

'wild cards" has two parts

theleftist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.102.254.33 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect Image

The image for Chaos at the Earth's Core is a screen cap from Dark Heart. Does anyone feel like replacing it? Hewinsj 02:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Starcrossed

Just because it's the name of a Justice League episode doesn't mean it should redirect here... (gosh, such a long list too). There was an article explaining the term before, where did it go? 69.236.102.225 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and I believe the article your looking for is Star-crossed. I have also found a video game, Music Album, and City that are similar to this. While Starcrossed article was originally a detailed episode summary for this show, the word should redirect to a Disambiguation page rather than here. If I can I'll work on setting it up a little later. Hewinsj 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just created the disambiguation for Starcrossed and changed the redirect to go there. Check it out and see how it works for you. Hewinsj 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks! 69.236.94.41 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I like to be helpful when I can. Hewinsj 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Starcrossed redirected here because the editors of Justice League episodes had decided not to have separate aricles for each episode, so they redirected the episode articles they had created to this page. see the archived discussion. Gman124 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize why it redirected here, I just disagree that the term should have ever been designated as an episode title without any footer as it is a literary term. It should have been named Starcrossed (Justice League) or something, with a disambiguation page set up to direct to this and other uses of the term. No big deal though, just a problem that you fix when you come to it. Now that that episode is no longer around, the fix should hold up and also retain history in the respective pages. Hewinsj 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Starcrossed should have its own page, I would think. It did not premiere in the US in its episodic form, but rather as a feature length film on DVD. (Note the huge gap of time between the broadcast premieres of "Comfort and Joy" and "Starcrossed" (the episodes). I can't seem to find an archived discussion for an AfD, despite the fact that the discussion above states there was an article for the work at some time in the past. Indeed, it appeared that User:TTN simply blanked the page after waiting three weeks for anyone to join the discussion he initiated at the bottom of this page. I'm unclear why the season 1 finale would deserve its own page, but this thing, which was essentially a series finale, does not. This storyline fundamentally altered the nature of the program. If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, I intend to revert the page from a redirect to an actual article again. I ask for comment upon that course of action. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you found references? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't been looking all that long, but at least one seems to pas the general guidelines of WP:SOURCE. Animation Insider, which does have editorial oversight, published this article which establishes a few basic facts and this review, which can be used to cite plot points. I'll post more as I find 'em. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this Variety page establishes that Rich Fogel, John Ridley and Dwayne McDuffie were nominated for a 2005 WGA Award for Outstanding Achievement in Television Writing for writing Starcrossed. That's pretty much enough to establish the subject's notability, I'd think. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. To make a really good article, you may need some DVD commentary. Does that exist? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm also struggling to find my copies of both the episodic and film versions of the program. I recall there being something either in a commentary or an extra feature which suggested that there was a bit of a difference in content between the two versions. I know there's a substantive presentation difference in the two, as only the movie version is in true 16:9. I've found evidence of that here, but I can't substantiate the editorial oversight of the source. In the meantime, here's another nifty piece. This, though from the MIT student newspaper, is a mixed review from a source independent of the subject and with editorial oversight. And it gives the views of people close to the target age range of the intended audience. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a ton of stuff about Starcrossed at comicbookresources.com, a generally-accepted news source (with professional, or at least paid, staff. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you actually start the article, please provide a link here to it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you used a different search term than "Starcrossed", but there wasn't really anything on that site worth placing into an article. The only real world information is just a brief statement that they always knew that they would do the storyline, which isn't very signifcant. It would be better placed in the main article. I suggest creating a sandbox to work on the article, and then when you feel it is up to par, post it on Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard or somewhere similar. TTN (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like clarification of this real-world notion for fiction. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, would you like Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard to resolve? The mere fact that Starcrossed was nominated for a major writing award is just about all that's required to establish notability, but other sources listed above also establish its notability in terms of narrative impact on Justice League. A featured article was written on "Abyssinia, Henry", organized principally on its narrative effect on M*A*S*H (TV series), so I'm not sure I'm understanding the resistance to this similar episode. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my apologies. I've just noticed that I didn't actually post a number of sources I subsequently found, particularly those at CBR. I'll definitely let others look at the article before posting it, though, so you can comment on notability. However, I'd still like a basic idea of what you expect the Noticeboard to adjudicate, so that I can address those issues while writing. The purpose of the Noticeboard seems to be contested. Thanks :) CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The noticeboard is just a place to obtain comments on it. As I said, somewhere similar like a project talk page would be fine as well. It just needs to be somewhere people actually frequent, so you can get some ideas from others on the topic. I also just suggest working any relevant information into the main articles. They are in very poor shape, so sources would help them out. TTN (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

JUSTICE LEAGUE THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN

This episode isn't included. I have it. But I don't know what episode it was. I believe it was from the first season of the "Justice League" Lobo was on it trying to replace Superman after he was thought to be killed. They had a funeral for him and everything. Batman grieved.

Anyone know the episode number for this?70.11.252.15 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called "Hereafter" and it is on the list - Season 2 of JL. Gillespee 05:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Screencap

Looks like we lost an image for season 2. The same image was also on the Harley Quinn article, so it should be replaced if possible. Anybody want to take care of it? Hewinsj 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The first two JLU seasons

I just remembered, as indicated in the DVDs, in terms of production, the first 2 JLU seasons were actually just one. The production order was 26 episodes and they were all featured as "season one" in the DVD. I don't know why did cartoon network (or people) started to label them as separated seasons, I thought it was because of the airing dynamics, but I just remembered and confirmed these episodes were actually aired in a row (the only pause was actually a 3 month lapse between the 3rd and 4th episodes of season two). All these episodes can clearly and legitimately be called "Season one: 2004-2005" with the "third" season being relabeled "season two: 2005-2006". It'd make sense with:

• The way the producers labeled the seasons in the DVDs.
• The airing dynamics and schedule.
• The sagas: season one is Cadmus saga and season two is the Secret Society saga.
• The production order

--T-man, the wise 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This may have been a bit presumptuous of me, but yesterday I changed the table to reflect that JLU is actually 2 seasons, not 3. Hope I didn't step on any toes, but the show is in fact 2 seasons and having 3 seasons listed in the Wiki is incorrect. Langis 14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No toes stepped on here. [Warner Home Video] says your right. The episode list for season 2 starts with I am Legion. I have a feeling someone posting an episode guide at TV.com got the production numbers wrong which led to some confusion when this list was being made. Hewinsj 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that real world information isn't part of WP:N or any accepted guideline I'm aware of. Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)