| Revision as of 01:58, 1 August 2006 editErik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,847 edits Possible new title← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:23, 5 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,016,627 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{FilmsWikiProject|class=Future}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Comics}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Film}} | |||
| }} | |||
| == |
== Edit war == | ||
| Don't redirect any of the possible titles shown in the article to the page. If you do this, it may be far too late to change the title if the film releases with one of the titles in the article. ] | |||
| There's an edit war going on about whether this page (]) should redirect to ] or to the disambiguation page ]. Edit wars are stupid. Please discuss the matter instead of reverting back and forth. If the edit war continues, the page will be locked. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any chance that they will use the story line from the unfinished film Batman Triumphant? | |||
| :Because it can mean the charcter and the movie, is should aim at the disambig page. ] (]) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Merge Notice == | |||
| Having read the poorly written and underused other page ], I support the merge of the two, so long as that article, BBS, redirects here to UBBS, for the ease of finding by new Wikiusers. Once the sequel is titled, we can move this article there, with a redirect.] 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, but it could be argued that the movie is the ] for the phrase "The Dark Knight". I can see arguments on both sides of this, and it would be good to hear those arguments expressed by people who feel strongly about it either way. (I don't, myself.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Put this page under protection == | |||
| Jack Black as The Joker, I believe that's more bullsh*t then that brown stuff that comes out of a bull's butt. And yet that unregistered user keeps putting it up there. It's the same with the likes of Mark Hamil or Robin Williams. Now I know I keep putting Sandler up there but it's because Sandler has confirmed this on his website. Unlike the other three, so I sugest we put this page under protection from the new and unregistered users of wikipedia. | |||
| ::I've started a discussion ] concerning this redirect. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The discussion page on the disambiguation page has for the most part agreed on this redirecting to the film and that it should stay that way until a different consensus is reached.] (]) 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Frankie Muniz as Robin. WTH? Isnt he like 20? DG was ''8'' when Batman started training him... Anycase, good page | |||
| ::::The current discussion absolutely does not have such agreement, i see five editors echoing my comment to NOT redirect it as such. let's not close this before that closes, thank you. ] (]) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the unfounded bullshit about "new characters." Nothing substantial can be found on these comicbook sites. lets keep this page closed until official releases from Warner Brothers are given to the press | |||
| There is no real dispute that this is what the vast majority of people are looking for when they specifically search for "The Dark Knight". There should be an "otheruses" note on the top of the film page saying that people should look at the disambiguation page if they meant something else. ] (]) 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Don't qoute me, but I think Robin Williams turned down the role of the Riddler in Batman Forever, maybe that's why his name is popping up.] 06:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on what evidence? The term is ambiguous and should lead to the disambiguation page. ] ≠ ] 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Citations == | |||
| ::''Based on what evidence?'' | |||
| This article is in need of citations. If they aren't provided soon, I'm going to start removing uncited rumors. ] 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know. How far down the do you want to go until you find something ''not'' pertaining to the movie? ] (]) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's try to limit rumors to those which can be substantiated by reliable sites and articles. Those listings which continue to be based on 'also supposedly in the running/mix/ my cousin's cousin...; will be removed.] 02:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you feel the film should be the primary topic, then propose a move at ]. In no case should the plain title be a redirect to the same title with a parenthetical disambiguation phrase. If it is in fact the primary topic, then the article should be moved to the undisambiguated title. ] ≠ ] 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The rumored choices == | |||
| We need to settle this childish edit/revert war. Sandler's name is ONLY mentioned inasmuch as he's cited as REPRESENTATIVE of the comedic names flying around in Hollywood. Until we see something more tangible regarding ANY actor, we should NOT report them. For example: 'A guy in hollywood told another guy who told me so i sent it to this rumor site that X,Y, and Z are just three of the KIND of guys trying to grow batwings out of their butts to be the new batman" is NOT substantial. "Actor QRS said on this show or that show that when his agent went to put his name in, his agent bumped into TUV's agent, who was also putting in TUV's name, and who said that GHI had been making noise about it." This rumor, unlike the previous, at least gives a tangible chain to the rumor, by identifying those who said it back a number of steps, as well as having reasonable credibility, I.E. three actors and two agents competing for the role, instead of the pool cleaner's brother's barrista. That said, I suggest that the link being repeatedly cited for Sandler be dropped, and any other actors whose listing are reliant on the same link should be dropped. If no other links are provided to substantiate, I'll whittle the page down in the next two days to reflect only credible reports.] 05:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Why is there any question about this? Leave it as is; there ARE multiple meanings, and Ghits are not the only barometer used at Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I REPEAT: NO Adam Sandler without a clear and distinct reference to him. A throwaway at the end of a quote stating that the rumors in Hollywood include a 'Sandler', without even a first name, is not enough. A quote directly referencing the level of interest in Sandler by execs or filmmakers, or even a statement of his own interest in a role in the film, would be sufficient. Lacking that, Sandler stays off. This is not an anti-Sandler thing, it's simply that if we threw up every 'dude, a guy at a cafe on Rodeo said that his manicurist heard that blah blah blah." FOAF is not substantial enough to bear repeating on Misplaced Pages. Direct quotes, or repeated sourcing is.] 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, there are multiple meanings, but there is a persuasive argument to be made that the film is now the ''primary'' meaning. A discussion at ] might be useful, to see what a broader spectrum of editors thinks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Good luck, but the editor responsible for reinserting this bit has never responded to anything on a talk page, not even their own. They even refused to include a reference for the first couple of weeks. I think we just have to be diligent about reverting unreliable sources. ] 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Move discussion in progress== | |||
| ::Don't waste time picking fights, just focus and work on the article.] 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:The Dark Knight (film) crosspost --> —] 05:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Move discussion in progress == | |||
| :Look here CovenantD on this website there have been others who have demanded citation and when I contribute using information I saw off Entertainment News programs or statements in Talk Show interviews they all don't mind. So why don't you do the same | |||
| I can contribute too you know{{unsigned|DaffyDuck619}} | |||
| There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#Requested move 19 July 2022 crosspost --> —] 06:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you can. However, I suggest you read ] before you try to insert uncited rumors again. ] 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Daffy, I know you don't understand this concept, so I'll try it in small words. You can put your words here, but there are rules. One rule is that stuff you put here should either be true, or at least you believe it to be true, and either way, you need to provide evidence. You don't believe in that, so we have a problem. When you start to actually give REAL citations, we might get somewhere. But you don't give air-dates on the tv shows you pretend to see, and you keep using a rumor about a rumor, which two other editors on this article have decided is too specious to restate here on Misplaced Pages. I recommend that you wait until somethign you can link to which is stronger than a rumor about a rumor is found on the internet, or research the proper citation of a TV show. Best of all, find a transcript of the show, or a video capture clip somewhere which you can provide a link to. I know you've gto a thing for supporting Adam Sandler, but you need to stop it here. At this point, your behavior is gettign intolerable, and I will ask for an administrator to look this over if you can't accept that we want reasonable citations. You don't give us those. You didn't get by with a cited rumor of a rumor, so now your'e citing some Australian TV show, which cannot be substantiated and verified by most editors. Until you can cite properly, and cite valid, verifiable material, you will find your contributions will continue to be reverted out. ] 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If this habit if DaffyDuck619's of posting unsourced material, or edit warring continues, I think it'll be time for an arbitration, citing the consues violations, the 3 revert rule, and so on.] 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As challenged by Daffy, here are the first names of some actors found on an IMDb simple search for 'Sandler', in order of appearance in the list: Andrew, Jared, Henry, Marc, Ethan, Scott, Todd, Zachary, Stan, Bobby, Jack, Lou, Robert, Tony, Justin, Tony (again), Gera, Eli, Don, Albert, and Mike. That's just the actors with the surname 'Sandler' listed on IMDb. There are probably more out there. Again, I state: Until a valid, specific and reliable citation can be found, Adam Sandler will be reverted.] 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == proposed fan-made poster == | |||
| I added a file (11 KB) of a proposed poster, showing the Joker based on ]'s Gwynplaine from the 1928 (1927 ?) film '']''. | |||
| I do not know who created the picture. Feel free to use it. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Veidtasjoker.jpg | |||
| --] 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == edits by: 58.165.74.85 == | |||
| Of these ten edits, two contradict each other (the second or thid edit made a note that scarecrow won't be back, the last says he will, then cites a report that some sketches of a variant mask for the first movie, better matching the action figure, were seen by the author ofthe cited article). Of the other edits, some use wiki as a crystal ball, which future film pages MUST studiously avoid. Do not get intot he third batman film on here. The rest of the casting and plot rumors are unsourced, and some contradict other rumors out there. Bob Hoskins, for example, was rumored to be in the running against philip seymour hoffman for the Penguin, not Boss Maroni. If this has changed, cite a page about it.] 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Citations using batmanonfilm.com == | |||
| I'd like to see more diverse citation. Wiki's UBBS should NOT be a barding up of each rumor on BoF. Whenever possible, we should work to find more original citation. Cite who BoF cites, or find independent confirmation. BoF makes it's way off posting EVERY rumor it can, to increase traffic and ad clicks. They do some great work, but Wiki editors can do better. Let's make a concerted effort to encourage better citations. ] 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I added a note to the editors in the "New characters" section, hopefully to limit additional unvalid rumors. Expand on the note if you want; it could save us a lot of grief in the time leading up to actual movie announcements. ] 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Heath Ledger as The Joker== | |||
| It seems fairly verified that Heath Ledger is The Joker, according to this . It makes sense that this would be announced at Comic-Con 2006, but I'm trying to find more sources for verification. My question is how to deal with all the casting rumors about The Joker leading up to this announcement? ] 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, I don't count that as a "reliable source." Perhaps if they mentioned where on the floor, or from whom, but the way it reads now it's nothing more than another rumor. ] 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Agreed'''. Until such time as a verified 'official announcement'/'official confirmation' is released, Ledger should stay on the rumor list, and I will edit as such repeatedly. It's not that I doubt the Good Faith efforts of other editors, but that, as discussed, we need to hold to a reasonably good standard of editorship and citation. ] 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think, in all honesty, for the 2 years I have been editing Wikipédia (just see my user page in Français) that the page doesn't reflect the fact that EVERYONE in the buisiness now know Heath Ledger is the new Joker. Batman-on-film, Latino Review, IGN did confirm this threw the grapevines. Although it should be noted no official confirmation was issued by the studio, Heath Ledger's status ain't one like P. Bettany or Lachy Hulme. Moreso, the comment I made was pretty appropriate before ] reverted it. --] 01:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please note that Batman-on-Film cited LatinoReview.com. IGN did the same. I just checked, so it's not three sources verifying Heath Ledger as the Joker. LatinoReview.com is the basis of this rumor, if you trackback any other "Heath Ledger announcement" sources. Heath Ledger is nothing more than a rumor until an announcement is made. --] 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi, I'm apparently just 'someone' as well as 'Ashkenazi'. Solving your problems with a page with racist personal attacks will NOT get you anywhere. Accept that we're holding this page to a reasonable standard of citation, find a valid citation that doesn't fall apart under mild scrutiny, such as a direct quote from Christopher Nolan, Julius Schwartz, or any other 'expert' with qualifications to genuinely be 'in the know'. On a tangential note, if you ever leave another bigoted anti-semitic attack on my talk page, I will submit it for arbitration.] 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: :: It would be more appropriate that LatinoReview started the bal and Batman on Film picked it up as IGN did - just like you said. But now, Batman-on-Film (very reliable) is now convinced that this rumor is true after ''checking out with their own sources''. It's not bots citing one another but a 2nd source confirming what another dug up. | |||
| ::::: I recently revamped the article, and I got rid of a lot of bad information from Batman-on-Film, so I haven't experienced any kind of reliability from that particular site. Batman-on-Film does not have a valid second source "confirming" the LatinoReview.com announcement, which doesn't appear to be a valid source in itself. The same goes for IGN. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on credible information, so even if the Heath Ledger rumor is true, a valid source is necessary to report him as the new Joker. Just play the waiting game -- let the aftermath of Comic-Con die down and see if his name still pops up from any valid sources. --] 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And as far as bigotry and racism terms being thrown around for no good reason (for I called you Mr Ashkenazi) - you should check out the definition of the word ] before throwing words you can't really use. If I were writing I was gay on my User page and someone pointed it out by calling me Mr Gay I wouldn't go beserk crying for racism and homophobe. I wonder if I called you Mr Scotland I would've had the same response. Need theatricality in your life ? --] 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless of your bigotries, I think it's clear, we're not accepting anythign that goes back to LatinoReview. The fact that Batman on Film claims to have a secret source that confirms LR, but won't reveal anything giving their 'source' credibility, means it's not up to the standards we've asked for here. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Read the talk, read the history. There are two other editors here on the talk of the same mind, and there are others in the history. ] 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm disapointed in the conviviality of the english version of Misplaced Pages. It's not up to the Wikipédia I know. At least I don't get answered with racism subpoena and drama queens. And as far as this article goes, I'm a pretty understanding gentleman, I'll bow out in front of the majority and the great work that has been done so far. --] 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I wanted to cite this as an example of why Batman-on-Film, like other rumor mills, is not a certifiable source: "I can confirm (as I did a few weeks ago) that while an offer has been made to Heath Ledger, Ledger has not signed any deal, and is reluctant to do so (at the moment.) Ledger is not a lock." Misplaced Pages, including this article, is not meant to be a source of breaking news but a source of well-informed news. As said before, any news must have valid citations, and not the word of "scoopers". --] 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Revamped article== | |||
| *Revised the opening paragraph to identify the movie's background for newcomers | |||
| *Removed plot suggestions, as citations pointed to speculative sources | |||
| *Cleaned up cast of "returning characters", cited more directly | |||
| *Removed "new character" entries about Talia al Ghul and Catwoman due to lack of verifiable sources | |||
| *Went through Two-Face candidates and reduced number to actual considerations or responses by actors themselves | |||
| *Went through Joker candidates and reduced number to actual considerations or responses by actors themselves | |||
| I have found Batman-on-Film.com to be a relatively poor source, rampant with speculative rumors. Casting news from "scoopers" or "insiders" from that site or a similar site should not be added without a verifiable news source. --] 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :great work overall. I'm tempted to run down a few more of the rumored folks and see what's what, but overall, youv'e done an excellent job of giving a well-timed overhaul to this page. Now, so long as no one reverts it to the last Adam Sandler rumor, we'll be fine to build this page up again stronger, better. We have the money, we have the technology, we can rebuild him.... it. ] 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've changed the article's links from embedded citations to footnote references. If this is a problem, let me know. It seems more professional to cite this way. Also, I think that Jake Gyllenhaal should be removed from the list of rumored players for Harvey Dent, as nothing I've found online is a verifiable source. In addition, is it even worth keeping Heath Ledger? Even if there was interest in Ledger as Joker, it seems inappropriate to keep him on the list of possibilities without any kind of verification from the studio, director, or actor himself, as the other possible players have responded in some way. (If we did go ahead with this, it may not be necessary to have the "Names in bold indicate actors who have expressed interest in the role" footnote.) --] 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I like the refer's better this way, agreed. As for Gyllenhaal, I suspect that no matter how much we discuss the need for solid cites here, we'll just be setting up for more and more edit wars as more and more various fan-boys continue to add their favorite pick, no matter the lack of citable evidence. Between us, we waste our 3 reverts a day on heath Ledger already. If we step too far, we'll get bit. Soome whiner with a closet full of heath or jake posters will complain on the 3R rule or something, and the page will rot out. Leave Gyllenhaal up for a while, till the Ledger stuff wears off or gets confirmed.] 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Harvey Dent== | |||
| {{spoiler}} | |||
| If you go to the ] article, you will see a soft redirect to ] that "exists to avoid revealing a critical plot twist without warning." Since this is the case, it's my suggestion that Harvey Dent not be identified as Two-Face outside of spoiler-marked sections. I am sure that most Batman fans would know that Harvey Dent = Two-Face, but we should conceal the identity for the sake of casual moviegoers who come across this film article. If they want to find out who Harvey Dent is, they can decide whether to follow through with the soft redirect. Is this agreeable? --] 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm gonna disagree. Even if you don't know, it's NOT a spoiler. Not knowing Superman is Clark isn't a spoiler. It's meeting the character. I'd say that PLOT is spoil-able, while generally characters aren't. I think that a majority of the movie-going audience will have seen enough of the many mass media versions of two-face to know who Two-Face is, and that anyone who doesn't will benefit more by knowing than find it a spoiler.] 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That sounds reasonable, although I'm curious as to why there is a soft redirect at all. I'll revert the article to mention Two-Face again. --] 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{endspoiler}} | |||
| == Boss Maroni == | |||
| While I believe in the good faith of the edits adding maroni, the IMDb page is a grammatically poor submission by an anonymous poster. Much as I'd like to delete it, I'm going to give it a couple days to materialize further, then delete. Thoughts?] 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it should be deleted. I've seen fake submissions to IMDb, such as Ed Norton portraying "John Bauer" on IMDb's 24 Season 5 cast list. Imagine my shock when it didn't pan out. I've also seen rumors of Salvatore Maroni (as well as Roman Sionis a.k.a. Black Mask) on sites such as BOF and , but nothing credible. --] 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Dark Knight== | |||
| A user attempted to change the article to the title, "The Dark Knight." I reverted partially because it's unverified and partially because it was not a clean job of doing so. I looked into the new title, and apparently this Comic Book Resources mentioned the new title and the confirmation of Heath Ledger as the Joker. There is supposed to be a press release from Warner Bros. on Tuesday morning about all this, so until the studio goes public with this news, these changes should not yet be implemented. --] 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:23, 5 February 2024
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Edit war
There's an edit war going on about whether this page (The Dark Knight) should redirect to The Dark Knight (film) or to the disambiguation page Dark Knight. Edit wars are stupid. Please discuss the matter instead of reverting back and forth. If the edit war continues, the page will be locked. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Because it can mean the charcter and the movie, is should aim at the disambig page. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but it could be argued that the movie is the primary topic for the phrase "The Dark Knight". I can see arguments on both sides of this, and it would be good to hear those arguments expressed by people who feel strongly about it either way. (I don't, myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion back here concerning this redirect. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion page on the disambiguation page has for the most part agreed on this redirecting to the film and that it should stay that way until a different consensus is reached.Phoenixmuffin (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The current discussion absolutely does not have such agreement, i see five editors echoing my comment to NOT redirect it as such. let's not close this before that closes, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no real dispute that this is what the vast majority of people are looking for when they specifically search for "The Dark Knight". There should be an "otheruses" note on the top of the film page saying that people should look at the disambiguation page if they meant something else. 24.210.118.103 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence? The term is ambiguous and should lead to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence?
- I don't know. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go until you find something not pertaining to the movie? 24.210.118.103 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel the film should be the primary topic, then propose a move at WP:RM. In no case should the plain title be a redirect to the same title with a parenthetical disambiguation phrase. If it is in fact the primary topic, then the article should be moved to the undisambiguated title. older ≠ wiser 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is there any question about this? Leave it as is; there ARE multiple meanings, and Ghits are not the only barometer used at Misplaced Pages. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there are multiple meanings, but there is a persuasive argument to be made that the film is now the primary meaning. A discussion at WP:RM might be useful, to see what a broader spectrum of editors thinks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Dark Knight (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Dark Knight (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Categories: