This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, when it received 18,548,575 views. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Starting this discussion for the other editor involved. Fn45-2 ( talk · contribs) has been wanting to add this information regarding the Snyder Cut of Justice League see here.
There are a few problems with this. The first is that the controversy around Justice League is not relevant to this page. Second, Snyder's Cut isn't considered the actual follow up to this film. The base (Whedon) cut is considered the follow up to this film. The only source that includes Snyder's Cut of JL is Warner Bros trying to market the Snyder films into a single package. Either way, that's irrelevant because it's a revisionist history. As of right now, the Whedon cut is the only official cut for WB. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Superman (1978 film) is followed by Superman II and not Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, even though that is considered the "true" sequel to the first film
Eliza Dushku was also considered for Catwoman in the film. Sources: [1] [2] [3] 201.188.144.240 ( talk) 04:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add on this page how the director's cut was far more acclaimed than the original theatrical cut of the film, which is true, since there are a lot of people who say that the film is a masterpiece in the director's cut rather than the theatrical. JonSnow05 ( talk) 19:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@ GoneIn60 Thank you (at least in this instance.lol) for AGF.
tbh, there is SO much inactivity here, that I really don't think it's the big deal you are making it out to be. Maybe there was a big brouhaha many eons ago, but that's not relevant now.
That said, I tried to really give the benefit of the doubt here.lol Especially after the dust-up and fuss you put up over at the Indy5 page for "redundant" language, and for being so particular with a lead per the etiquette of WP:LEAD. However, after bending over backwards and even allowing myself to strain credulity here, by looking at those archived dust ups over this article, I have some serious concerns and deal-breakers here if we are to be fully-objective and apply your logic from elsewhere to this page:
For starters, while you're certainly correct that it would appear that "language has been thoroughly discussed and refined over the years" (to death, I may add, it would seem) you are implying some binding consensus among editors in the past that simply doesn't exist her. You would need a proper vote in the form of an RFC that an admin would later need to come in just to make sure that there wasn't any abuse of process. For instance, imagine if the Trump-election deniers argued that election misinformation (i.e.that Biden lost!derp) or that the Earth was flat, then an admin would likely overrule any improper consensus that gave WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position or any form of WP:OR. So if I missing something here, and there was something in the way of a former RFC then maybe share me a link to that so I can feel better about this absurd bloated-lead that smacks of spin in the form of WP:WEASEL words and a WP:FALSEBALANCE? Again, there is no formal binding consensus here. So its fair game to the rest of us.
Then there are the sources themselves. The movie has a low 29% on RT, and in hindsight with the death of the Snyderverse due to recent box office bombs and the new James Gunn era of DC, it's clear that this movie has been appraised at as "generally negative" film. With a critical consensus that low it's more than "unfavorable" and the sources really use the word "negative" the most. But, the sources in their own voices aren't really concluding this sorta mixed reception and legacy implied by the lead. It would be one thing if this movie has been re-appraised over the years like John Carpenter's "The Thing" which now enjoys a cult status. But, if anything, this movie is disliked just as much now as it was then. Also, most important of all, it's not like I'm advocating the removal of this content entirely. I want to be clear about that, and heard. I'm just saying it's not appropriate in the lead. I carefully read the article here and the same content appears in the body and reads just fine. WP:LEAD requires us to be as concise and cogent as possible, to only list what is WP:NOTABLE. That redundant, odd, bloated, watered-down brief history is simply not necessary, then, in the lead as it appears, again, in the body where it is appropriately formatted and presented.
I will also AGF here and assume you are not acting as a gatekeeper for the page, with my reasonable edits, since neither of us WP:OWN the page. Even if there was a strong feeling from editors back in the day on how this should look, MOS:FILMLEAD has evolved A LOT since those wild west days. And more importantly, there is a lot of inactivity on the page over this article (especially the lead) and enough years have passed that it is clear this film hasn't received some reappraisal by the press. However, I'm aware this is this weird Snyderverse-following that goes to war regularly with the equally zealous Marvel-following. So my hope is that such a dynamic isn't spilling into pages like this.
So what I propose given all that: I'd like to restore the reasonable revision I made earlier, and see how the community reacts. Since you are so invested in this, given your past participation, let's see if others feel the same way. Of course, neither of us should WP:CANVASS support for either position. And should a lot of editors object to the changes I made, then I will likely leave it alone... or least escalate it then to the film administration arbitration boards here, and maybe push for a proper RFC to make it official? But I really don't see that happening here. This should ended with either one of us acting as a gatekeeper here, whether it is you making a point to revert me NOR me being stubborn and reverting everyone else should I be wrong. Thanks again for being WP:CIVIL and inviting me to open this discussion (as you mentioned in your comments) I invite you to maintain that spirit with me, and let's see how the rest of the community responds to that change (which I have faith in non-controversial to say the least). Have a good one brother. CoffeeMeAlready ( talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
suffered from poor reviews", which is true: some of the reviews were in fact poor. The analysis here isn't saying that overall reception is negative, in my opinion. Later in the article, it even states: "
Similar to Batman v Superman, Man of Steel and his version of Justice League received mixed reviews from fans and critics." So as an overall reception, that source actually seems to be supporting "mixed".
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "
have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. That's exactly who I pinged. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (When referencing Rotten Tomatoes, reference the score from All Critics, not Top Critics.) There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in writing; prevalent styles of summarizing or use of templates are not required to be followed. Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them. To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances, consider whether it is best to place the data lower in the section. To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used.CoffeeMeAlready ( talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
JonSnow05, as indicated on your talk page, the recent change you made to the article is unsourced. Critics were not polled again on the Ultimate Edition, and while some found it to be a significant improvement, others still suggest the improvements may not have changed its overall reception. The Home media section describes this in more detail. Unless you can bring valid sources to the table, this claim should be removed. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Should the ‘who’ at the end of the introduction be ‘whom’? 173.73.140.206 ( talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
An IMDB link for the director's cut, named Ultimate Edition, was added in early 2022. That IMDB entry was recently merged with the film´s regular page and both links now lead to the same (theatrical release) page. The separate link is now dead weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.133 ( talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, when it received 18,548,575 views. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Starting this discussion for the other editor involved. Fn45-2 ( talk · contribs) has been wanting to add this information regarding the Snyder Cut of Justice League see here.
There are a few problems with this. The first is that the controversy around Justice League is not relevant to this page. Second, Snyder's Cut isn't considered the actual follow up to this film. The base (Whedon) cut is considered the follow up to this film. The only source that includes Snyder's Cut of JL is Warner Bros trying to market the Snyder films into a single package. Either way, that's irrelevant because it's a revisionist history. As of right now, the Whedon cut is the only official cut for WB. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Superman (1978 film) is followed by Superman II and not Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, even though that is considered the "true" sequel to the first film
Eliza Dushku was also considered for Catwoman in the film. Sources: [1] [2] [3] 201.188.144.240 ( talk) 04:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add on this page how the director's cut was far more acclaimed than the original theatrical cut of the film, which is true, since there are a lot of people who say that the film is a masterpiece in the director's cut rather than the theatrical. JonSnow05 ( talk) 19:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@ GoneIn60 Thank you (at least in this instance.lol) for AGF.
tbh, there is SO much inactivity here, that I really don't think it's the big deal you are making it out to be. Maybe there was a big brouhaha many eons ago, but that's not relevant now.
That said, I tried to really give the benefit of the doubt here.lol Especially after the dust-up and fuss you put up over at the Indy5 page for "redundant" language, and for being so particular with a lead per the etiquette of WP:LEAD. However, after bending over backwards and even allowing myself to strain credulity here, by looking at those archived dust ups over this article, I have some serious concerns and deal-breakers here if we are to be fully-objective and apply your logic from elsewhere to this page:
For starters, while you're certainly correct that it would appear that "language has been thoroughly discussed and refined over the years" (to death, I may add, it would seem) you are implying some binding consensus among editors in the past that simply doesn't exist her. You would need a proper vote in the form of an RFC that an admin would later need to come in just to make sure that there wasn't any abuse of process. For instance, imagine if the Trump-election deniers argued that election misinformation (i.e.that Biden lost!derp) or that the Earth was flat, then an admin would likely overrule any improper consensus that gave WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position or any form of WP:OR. So if I missing something here, and there was something in the way of a former RFC then maybe share me a link to that so I can feel better about this absurd bloated-lead that smacks of spin in the form of WP:WEASEL words and a WP:FALSEBALANCE? Again, there is no formal binding consensus here. So its fair game to the rest of us.
Then there are the sources themselves. The movie has a low 29% on RT, and in hindsight with the death of the Snyderverse due to recent box office bombs and the new James Gunn era of DC, it's clear that this movie has been appraised at as "generally negative" film. With a critical consensus that low it's more than "unfavorable" and the sources really use the word "negative" the most. But, the sources in their own voices aren't really concluding this sorta mixed reception and legacy implied by the lead. It would be one thing if this movie has been re-appraised over the years like John Carpenter's "The Thing" which now enjoys a cult status. But, if anything, this movie is disliked just as much now as it was then. Also, most important of all, it's not like I'm advocating the removal of this content entirely. I want to be clear about that, and heard. I'm just saying it's not appropriate in the lead. I carefully read the article here and the same content appears in the body and reads just fine. WP:LEAD requires us to be as concise and cogent as possible, to only list what is WP:NOTABLE. That redundant, odd, bloated, watered-down brief history is simply not necessary, then, in the lead as it appears, again, in the body where it is appropriately formatted and presented.
I will also AGF here and assume you are not acting as a gatekeeper for the page, with my reasonable edits, since neither of us WP:OWN the page. Even if there was a strong feeling from editors back in the day on how this should look, MOS:FILMLEAD has evolved A LOT since those wild west days. And more importantly, there is a lot of inactivity on the page over this article (especially the lead) and enough years have passed that it is clear this film hasn't received some reappraisal by the press. However, I'm aware this is this weird Snyderverse-following that goes to war regularly with the equally zealous Marvel-following. So my hope is that such a dynamic isn't spilling into pages like this.
So what I propose given all that: I'd like to restore the reasonable revision I made earlier, and see how the community reacts. Since you are so invested in this, given your past participation, let's see if others feel the same way. Of course, neither of us should WP:CANVASS support for either position. And should a lot of editors object to the changes I made, then I will likely leave it alone... or least escalate it then to the film administration arbitration boards here, and maybe push for a proper RFC to make it official? But I really don't see that happening here. This should ended with either one of us acting as a gatekeeper here, whether it is you making a point to revert me NOR me being stubborn and reverting everyone else should I be wrong. Thanks again for being WP:CIVIL and inviting me to open this discussion (as you mentioned in your comments) I invite you to maintain that spirit with me, and let's see how the rest of the community responds to that change (which I have faith in non-controversial to say the least). Have a good one brother. CoffeeMeAlready ( talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
suffered from poor reviews", which is true: some of the reviews were in fact poor. The analysis here isn't saying that overall reception is negative, in my opinion. Later in the article, it even states: "
Similar to Batman v Superman, Man of Steel and his version of Justice League received mixed reviews from fans and critics." So as an overall reception, that source actually seems to be supporting "mixed".
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "
have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. That's exactly who I pinged. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (When referencing Rotten Tomatoes, reference the score from All Critics, not Top Critics.) There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in writing; prevalent styles of summarizing or use of templates are not required to be followed. Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them. To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances, consider whether it is best to place the data lower in the section. To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used.CoffeeMeAlready ( talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
JonSnow05, as indicated on your talk page, the recent change you made to the article is unsourced. Critics were not polled again on the Ultimate Edition, and while some found it to be a significant improvement, others still suggest the improvements may not have changed its overall reception. The Home media section describes this in more detail. Unless you can bring valid sources to the table, this claim should be removed. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Should the ‘who’ at the end of the introduction be ‘whom’? 173.73.140.206 ( talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
An IMDB link for the director's cut, named Ultimate Edition, was added in early 2022. That IMDB entry was recently merged with the film´s regular page and both links now lead to the same (theatrical release) page. The separate link is now dead weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.133 ( talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)