![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
TAKE IT DOWN. ITS DISTURBING AND THE FIRST ONE WAS BETTER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 ( talk) 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
THANKYOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 ( talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Since its the latest poster of the movie, so I think it should be displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 12:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
These are the reasons why it should be taken down? because YOU say it's "disturbing".. and because YOU think the first one was better.
Your personal opinion should have no weight in this matter, the new poster is official and it is a part of the movie so it should be displayed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.146.155.98 (
talk)
23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Some nice quotes here about how Bale and ledger worked together on this and various other things - might be worth integrating. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Should the development of the game based on this film be mentioned or not? It says so right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_computer_and_video_games#Future_video_game_appearances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk • contribs)
It's a secret project but it's happening.... 64.7.28.70 ( talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I found a article where Bale Quotes "If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work." I wan to put this in the article but idk where seeing there is no section about "Future Developments"
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Found this, which I am sure has been seen by one or the other before. As it was commentary during the filming, I thought it might be appropriate to the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Its just a review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded a pic of Harvey Dent's District Attorney Poster but was removed. It should be displayed and not taken down again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The trailer won the Best Trailer of the Year Award and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This should be mentioned that Joer and Harvey Dent are not the ones according to the comics. In the comics, Joker fell in a tank of chemicals and thats how his new appearance was formed and also became insane. But in the film, he is just a criminal mastermind with a clown's make up. That goes same for Harvey Dent. From the third trailer, it seems that Acid was no thrown on him, but it happened with gasoline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 04:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be on here, it is what it is, the first movie wasn't exactly like any comic book either, so let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.155.98 ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am almost positive that this is the most reccent poster: http://www.themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/joker-dark-knight-3.jpg
Should we change it? -- Harvey "Two-Face" Dent ( talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone came along and removed a chunk of well-sourced pertinent material previously discussed without any prior discussion on this talk page before doing so, or any sign of consensus. I have restored it to the article. Some sources are referred back to and I haven't time to check each one of the sources [that was removed wholesale in that manner to see if they are being referred to subsequently]. Adequate discussion of such controversial editing of this article needed prior to removing well-sourced material from the article; see Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines for guidance. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The material in the article that the (apparently-above) editor keeps removing has already been discussed (also see archived talk pages) and it has been considered well-sourced pertinent material, significant and notable enough to include. Please sign with 4 tildes so that user name shows up. Thank you. (See notices at top.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There was consensus (over several months) that the material that User:WesleyDodds removed more than once today has "encyclopedic value"; see WP:3RR re: such reverting and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the quotations that were removed need to be included and integrated in the article sections; since they pertain particularly to either Heath Ledger's playing the role of the Joker or his actual performance prior to the film's release based on the trailer, they do not fit into the "Critical reception" section (as currently developed); the Jack Nicholson comment needs restoration; it is pertinent and has been removed and restored by editors over an extended period of time (please consult the editing history of the article as well as the talk page/archived talk pages). If two editors object to deleting the material that one editor has been removing, that does not indicate that the editor doing the removing has any "consensus" to make those deletions. The view of what is or is not "encyclopedic" is a judgment of editors, not an "objective" matter. The material seemed notable, important, and interesting and I see no rationale for deleting it, nor did another editor who comments in response above. -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I typed in "The Dark Night" on the search panel, and I had to go through two redirects (or whatever they're called) to get here: Dark Night of the Soul and Dark Night (film). Should we make a new disambig. page to list these? I think so - Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving here from article; not in proper citation format; not responsibility of other editors to reformat; responsibility of editors adding the material to follow prevailing citation format:
>> [added another problematic insertion not in proper citation format. Please read the article and the related editing policies and guidelines. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
B. Alan Orange of MovieWeb gives 5/5 stars calling The Dark Knight "an outstanding achievement in pulp cinema". [2] Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter describes The Dark Knight as "pure adrenaline" that is "one nervy blend of top entertainment and thoughtful character study." [3] >>
[4] >> [Added another insertion that needs proper formatting if included. See below as well. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 04:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, users [whether anonymous IP users or other editors] should not just drop by to toss in external links to review after review of the film published on the Web; only notable and representative reviews are needed and they need to be well integrated in the text of the article. Otherwise this section will unnecessarily become a "Quote farm". If one wants to add more quotations from reviews, try adding them in the Wikiquote page that is already cross-referenced at the end of the article. It makes greater sense also to wait to develop the section on "Critical reception" further after the film's release when there are more reliable and more notable sources to cite than self-published Web site reviews. Blogs and self-published Web sites are not generally in keeping with WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources. Please see the tagged notices in the top of this page. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is already listed in the EL section; the external link to it is in the proper section; it does not need additional citation; Wikipedia recommends avoiding usages like "currently" because of the relativity; "a 100%" what? the insertion as quoted above (moved to talk page above) is not clear and not particularly significant, especially since the film is not yet released. Please see the template notice on the top of the article re: future films. Thanks. The article could remain relatively stable until after its actual release. After more published reviews from representative reliable and notable sources become accessible, one will have much more material to select from than one does now. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I'm not taking any more of my time to fix other people's work that they need to do themselves; I've spent many hours fixing citations over months. Re: "a 100 %" (rating); it's based on merely 5 reviews, which is not notable enough to cite as a rating. It's too early to cite such a "statistic." WP:AGF and don't refer to other editors' hard work and comments as "crap"; Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines are not "crap"; editors are supposed to learn what they are and to follow them. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Returning to the point somewhat, I feel the statement "Early reviews for The Dark Knight prior to its theatrical release have been unanimous in praise" does require inline citation; based upon experience with other film articles, it's almost certain to be challenged, even in the short time leading up to the film's release. I have therefore added a link to the Rotten Tomatoes page (though I have not included any statistics). If you believe this means the link should be removed from the EL section, then I'm fine with that. All the best, Steve T • C 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that the article is sounding too promotional. Ironically, it's not the "Promotion" (née "Marketing") section I have a problem with, it's the " Official movie premiere" and " Related special events" sections. Do we really need to know that Zimmer and Howard will be "performing together for the very first time"? Do we really need the "Related special events" section at all? I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to stuffing articles full of whatever I can find, but it's always with the intention of a subsequent cull down to the good stuff. Will this be pertinent information in a year's time? Is a completely separate section with details of "The Dark Night Gala, a sold-out 'Special Event' tribute to director Christopher Nolan" relevant even now? I think we need to lose the PR guff and place the good information from these sections in their proper place. Steve T • C 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The fields in citation templates are optional and one chooses those most useful to readers. In endnotes one does not reverse the normal order of names either; last name, first name order is only really useful for alphabetized lists (Bibliography, "References" that are not endnotes/note citations/footnotes). [This aricle has consistently been using the "author=" field in the citation templates; there are many different citation templates posted throughout Wikipedia; some of them contradict one another in presentation and explanation. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[Note:] The dates are not showing up in the order that they used to; perhaps the templates were revised after first used in this article. It used to be that the dates appeared within parentheses toward beginning of citation or after author's or authors' names when using the template called "cite web" but not with "cite news"; now all the dates are appearing up front it seems. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
When editing a long-established article such as this one, editors are supposed to follow the prevailing citation format used throughout it, not to alter it to their own idiosyncratic preferences or interpretations. Please see WP:MOS and WP:CITE particularly; there are many choices among templates and fields within templates; the choice prevailing here is one of the simplest ones. Our concern is verification of sources and ease of finding the sources cited, espec. if the URLs no longer function in the future; Wenn Publishing etc. would be of no use in such situations; the italicized shortened Web address (URL) however, can be used in a Web Archive search, where one needs to use at least some form of "http://". -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
url=
field will provide that information, should it be required. I'm happy to go along with the "prevailing citation format", but I will at least question it when I think that format may be in error. I thought the publisher=
field was there not for this additional naming/verification of the citation, but in order to support the claim that the publication named in the work=
field is a reliable source. Naming Wenn Publishing is saying that Rolling Stone is not a
self-published source of indeterminate reliability, but that it has a proper publisher with a reputation, that it's notable enough for us to use.
Steve
T •
C
21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia using citation templates is not required; but once one kind prevails (as it has been adapted to purposes of the particular article), one does not go back to one of the many types of templates and change the format to them if doing so is no improvement to the article. In this case, adding the publisher's firm name (e.g., Wenner Publishing) is not an improvement to this article (in my view as expressed above). The citation templates have been adapted to be most useful to readers. Citation templates are one option, there are many different contradictory kinds of templates, and one does one's best to create a format that is useful and not confusing to readers. "Consistency" is the hallmark of bibliographical style formatting; inconsistent use of different features of different kinds of citation templates possible in Wikipedia (but not required) is confusing to readers. What is required is consistency. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) [added a few clarifications. This comment section responds to a question in previous section, also answered there. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to directly cite Internet Movie Database in a film article; the website does not hold up in a FAC process. IMDb has now been removed thrice -- by myself, Steve, and Alientraveller. Please do not re-add it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to keep removing the sources used for material in the article, you need also to remove the information taken from them or to find better sources for it. IMDb sections are used throughout many Wikipedia articles as sources, not just as EL. You need to be more careful in reading the statements that have been documented by the source(s). You really are hindering work on this article, in my view. -- NYScholar ( talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec/x2) Please find the Wikipedia policy stating that "IMDb is best used as an external link" and for the claim that it [separate webpages from the site] cannot be used as a source of information in the article; in my experience, although it takes time to correct incorrect information in IMDb.com listings of filmographies and credits for cast and crew (I was citing only the latter section of the IMDb.com site as a "source"), it is generally more reliable than Wikipedia itself. I have found all kinds of false information inserted into this article (and many others), and have spent a lot of time verifying the citations and correcting errors throughout this article. You need to verify every statement in this article as carefully as you have been objecting to the use of a webpage in IMDb.com as a source. There is no comparable source for such complete lists of cast and crew as this webpage. Even the official website of Warner Bros. does not give this information; the Variety source cited links to the wrong movie. Did you check its hyperlinks? -- NYScholar ( talk) 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have wondered for a long time why one needs to repeat the ELs already prominently displayed in the Infobox of films, actors, etc. in the EL sections of articles. Why does not the EL section just contain additional reliable and useful links, in keeping with WP:EL and WP:BLP#Sources? Why is it necessary or useful to have the repetitions (redundancies)? -- NYScholar ( talk) 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The guideline in WP:EL for not including RT as an external link when it is already listed as a source (it is not an "official" website, like the film site, which is in the Infobox, the EL sec., and used as source citations):
WP:EL#References and citation: Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations. (Sec. link and italics added.)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any justification for including Rotten Tomatoes as an EL; it is properly linked as a source and currently the way it is used in the article follows WP:EL. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This matter has been debated in adfinitum in the (archived) talk pages of WP:EL and WP:BLP. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is contrary to WP:V and WP:CITE to list items in EL sections and just "imply that you got your content from there"; source citations are required throughout the texts of articles, and WP:EL says they are not repeated in EL when used as sources for the article. Exceptions that I see often are official websites (such as the Warner Bros. official website), which I just used a parenthetical citation to cite and which someone changed to a citation template; it is the official website acc. to the infobox, but even so, statements need to give in-line or parenthetical citations to all sources used for material in an article, in according with core Wikipedia policies, one of which is WP:V. One doesn't just "imply" what sources of statements are; one gives source citations. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Editing practices that contradict and that are contrary to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines really need to be examined and to follow these policies and guidelines; people should not just make up their own editing rules; that's why the policies and guidelines exist. I still object to adding RT to EL sec. It's already linked properly as a source in the section on "Critical reception". -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Eric, but this matter has been discussed over and over in many archived pages (now 21) of WP:EL and in relation to EL sections in heated debates in WP:BLP; your position is not a consensus position. There is currently no need for adding RT to the EL section (or the other material that you added despite this discussion in the editorial interpolations. Material in EL sections are supposed to follow WP:EL, and also must keep from violating WP:BLP: see tagged templates above. Links of the kind that you are trying to add to this EL section have forums and message boards and blogs that violate WP:BLP#Sources, which includes references to ELs used in articles pertaining to living persons (such as this one). -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break from this article and its talk page, but I request for any editors who are reading to ensure that the commented-out RT and BOM links stay in the article. The links were removed despite precedent and appropriate implementation (see this). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not proper to insert into the article links to material that is dubious or questionable or controversial in nature when the article concerns living persons, whether as "sources" or as "external links": See policy in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which explicitly rules out such external links (even in editorial interpolations). Please follow the policies and guidelines as linked in the templates at top of this page and throughout these comments. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).
-- NYScholar ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's the material removed: (visible earlier in editing preview mode in article and earlier removed by consensus):
-- NYScholar ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
They offer nothing now that is not already in the other ELs or in the source citations. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
RT is already used as a source and has currently no usefulness for the EL section. The other site offers nothing useful that isn't already accessible in other links or in the sources cited in the article. If that situation changes, the ELs might be reconsidered as useful. Right now, they are not. One does not put ELs in for their possible "future" usefulness. One waits until their usefulness is not questionable. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In terms of the other example given: The Guardian is a far more highly-respected and far more reliable news source and source of reviews than Rotten Tomatoes; any review used in RT can be cited individually with a full citation as a source if it is useful as a source, with full citation template information given. After the release of the movie, there will be many sites that link to reviews of the film; one will choose the most reliable and most acceptable among them, given WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:V#Sources and WP:EL, which all pertain to editing this article. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Scroll up for the removed items. They were already removed after previous discussions among editors. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; the point relates specifically to this article and to WP:EL governing this article: repeating the point that I and others made earlier about BOM and RT (currently): "They offer nothing now that is not already in the other ELs or in the source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)" -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Bignole - I didn't intentionally mask the edit. It autofilled the field when I tried to type "fixed" and I didn't catch it the first time. The second edit was cause I messed up the format. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where the above discussions offered a consensus for NYScholar's edits. I oppose the prosification (word?) of RT stats as a lazy way to write a reactions/reception section, but don't oppose it as an EL. I'm not sure where he sees consensu for those edits. ThuranX ( talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So I don't see where those links violate WP:EL. IT specifically states that external reviews are to be included. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not say that; re-read the previous discussion and the linked quotations from WP:EL; you are quoting totally out of context. The "external reviews" are already sourced that are accessible in RT in the source citation; re-read the full presentation of the discussion in WP:EL. Right now, RT is used as a source of reviews; it does not cite "interviews" so that part does not relate anyway. (scroll up to previous discussions) and look at the editing differences and editing history summaries of others as well as of me relating to deleting RT earlier; it has nothing now that is not already cited in the source citation. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What's more important here is that you've WAY violated 3RR. Time for a break NYScholar? And I don't see consensus, just a loud guy on a corner with a wikibible. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)What is most important is following Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to WP:EL and policies pertaining to WP:BLP#Reliable sources as pertains to ELs. Have those of you migrating to this article even you read this article??? See The Dark Knight (film)#Critical reception, sentence 1 and the source citation to RT. That suffices and WP:EL says it "should not" be in the EL section, because it is already cited as a source in the article. The URL given is the same as the URL that people have been inserting and removing (for cause) from the EL section. Please read both this article (espec. that sec.) and WP:EL and WP:BLP#Reliable sources, pertaining to ELs. Thank you. Please do not keep knee-jerk reinserting this item to the EL sec. I've cited the appropriate WP:EL sections above; please stop. Thank you. I have other things to do. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we get that and yet it's common practice to link those sites. So chill out. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What is "common practice" is not always in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which editors are required to follow; the RT site has no section that has content that pertains to this article that is not already cited as a source; all the sections say "N/A" (not applicable) and repeat the same information about the film in the source citation section; it is only the same synopsis and information already cited throughout the article and in the other ELs listed. BOM also offers nothing not already accessible in cited sources; I've left them up, but strongly protest their current inclusion. Also, when adding material to this article, please follow its prevailing format; that sec of ELs is alphabetized and has been until people coming along lately (and earlier vandals) destroyed the alphabetical order. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have tired of the kind of personal aspersions being used instead of logic; I removed the source citation and re-cast the paragraph; the primary source citations support the sentence; Smith's comment is not given in Rotten Tomatoes; it is documented by a different secondary source which follows it as an in-line citation. This solves this problem and follows guidelines more accurately in WP:EL. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's mentioned that Senator Patrick Leahy has a cameo in the film, but what is not mentioned is that he's worked a deal out with WB to have the film released in his hometown of Montpelier, VT, on July 12. The tickets cost $50, with a reception beforehand (also costing $50). All the proceeds will benefit the Kellogg-Hubbard library of Montpelier. Here are some links to verify:
I'd like this to be added to the "Theatrical Release" section, as it seems to fit best there.
Notxenu ( talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not put it in the article on him (which you can edit); this article will not be able to cite such local information. It is of "local" interest and will be seen via the cross-linked Wikipedia article when when clicks on his name; you (or others with a log-in identity) can link to a specific section of an article on him in the way you Wikify the link. Including this information will distract from the section. Every local screening of the film is not going to be cited in this article. If you want to develop the material of local interest in that article on him, please create a log-in identity in Wikipedia and do so. From media news accounts I've read about him, Senator Leahy is quite "obsessed" with Batman movies, and that may already be discussed in his article (where it might be a kind of "trivia" that may or may not be worthy of inclusion.) I don't have time to do that kind of further work. -- NYScholar ( talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this section a bit wierd? I've never seen an article use the phrase "for example", and the wording/tense is a bit wierd. Instead of "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gives The Dark Knight...", shouldn't it be "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave The Dark Knight..."? Is this because the film hasn't been released yet? Because that would explain a lot. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 15:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
When you have questions like these, please examine the editing history summaries to save people who made the edits time. I already explained that conventional punctuation [typographical error: meant: presentations] of (literary and critical) texts (and written/published reviews are such texts) use the present verb tense in stating what an author does: e.g., "says"; "writes"; "states"; "rates"; "asserts"; etc. This is conventional and standard writing practice and I follow such practices in what I write, as do other literary and critical writers. Summarizing "critical reception" is a literary-critical kind of writing; "for example" is also standard and wholly acceptable. I really don't understand how editors in Wikipedia do not know basic elementary facts about writing. Please examine
Style guides (see their template) as well as
WP:MOS. Wikipedia does not "invent" conventions; it adapts them (and frequently does not do so in a consistent or clear manner); for information, see my user page and the linked user boxes. Please examine editing history summaries of articles for information about why people make the changes that they do. Thank you. --
NYScholar (
talk)
16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
[I have posted warnings on the talk pages of those harrassing me. I am sorry that they are also engaged in these tactics on the talk page of this article and others' talk pages. They are violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and they should know better. They need to examine their own "conduct" and to revise it accordingly. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, go take it to WP:AN/I or something. No one here wants to hear anything you have to say anymore, you've managed to alienate everyone who regularly edits here. It's all insulting, condescending, and hiding behind shouted policy. ThuranX ( talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop the personal remarks and the gender assumptions; not all scholars are male and not all people interested in editing this article are male. Please use gender-neutral language. If you need more information about my editing practices, please visit my user page and the userboxes placed in it for that purpose. Thank you. Try being more constructive. If someone takes the time to respond to a question, assume good faith: WP:AGF; the aim is to improve the writing of this article. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect I don't think you assume good faith. I feel that your general attitude is indignant and condescending. While it's clear that you're a tireless contributor, your penchant for an unwavering faith that yours is the final and only true interpretation of the wiki laws, coupled with the apparent disbelief how the rest of us could possibly be so idiotic as to not have memorized Strunk & White leave me with a less than pleasing taste in my mouth. -- Stuthomas4 ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Please use gender-neutral language and stop the personal attacks. They do not contribute constructively to editing this article. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Please see the templates at the top of this page and the linked policies and guidelines and please follow WP:NPA, which clearly states to focus on constructive editing and not on contributors. It applies to all Wikipedia space, including talk pages of articles and user talk pages. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is the description of Mike Engle contained in "" ? For what we know now, that's the truth. The "" would lead a reader to think it was false. 162.115.108.120 ( talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)LessThanCurt
The article no longer mentions a video game. Was it cancled? 71.182.145.40 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The film's website advertises the showings as at "midnight" on July 17, 2008; my own local theater is showing it at 12:01 a.m. on July 18, 2008; I tried to clarify that 24:00 (midnight) is still on July 17 in my editing comments. My local theater has only sold 3 tickets as of today; it is in a very rural location. One may want to compare how the ticket sales are throughout a variety of kinds of locations in the United States if there are reliable sources for such information. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
One also wants to try to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in editing this article; it may be harder to do as the film's opening becomes closer and more film reviews are published; one wants to try to avoid skewing the article [away from neutrality] and violating Wikipedia core policies; WP:POV is also helpful to consult. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [added clarification. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
TAKE IT DOWN. ITS DISTURBING AND THE FIRST ONE WAS BETTER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 ( talk) 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
THANKYOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 ( talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Since its the latest poster of the movie, so I think it should be displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 12:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
These are the reasons why it should be taken down? because YOU say it's "disturbing".. and because YOU think the first one was better.
Your personal opinion should have no weight in this matter, the new poster is official and it is a part of the movie so it should be displayed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.146.155.98 (
talk)
23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Some nice quotes here about how Bale and ledger worked together on this and various other things - might be worth integrating. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Should the development of the game based on this film be mentioned or not? It says so right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_computer_and_video_games#Future_video_game_appearances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk • contribs)
It's a secret project but it's happening.... 64.7.28.70 ( talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I found a article where Bale Quotes "If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work." I wan to put this in the article but idk where seeing there is no section about "Future Developments"
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Found this, which I am sure has been seen by one or the other before. As it was commentary during the filming, I thought it might be appropriate to the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Its just a review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded a pic of Harvey Dent's District Attorney Poster but was removed. It should be displayed and not taken down again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The trailer won the Best Trailer of the Year Award and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This should be mentioned that Joer and Harvey Dent are not the ones according to the comics. In the comics, Joker fell in a tank of chemicals and thats how his new appearance was formed and also became insane. But in the film, he is just a criminal mastermind with a clown's make up. That goes same for Harvey Dent. From the third trailer, it seems that Acid was no thrown on him, but it happened with gasoline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 ( talk) 04:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be on here, it is what it is, the first movie wasn't exactly like any comic book either, so let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.155.98 ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am almost positive that this is the most reccent poster: http://www.themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/joker-dark-knight-3.jpg
Should we change it? -- Harvey "Two-Face" Dent ( talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone came along and removed a chunk of well-sourced pertinent material previously discussed without any prior discussion on this talk page before doing so, or any sign of consensus. I have restored it to the article. Some sources are referred back to and I haven't time to check each one of the sources [that was removed wholesale in that manner to see if they are being referred to subsequently]. Adequate discussion of such controversial editing of this article needed prior to removing well-sourced material from the article; see Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines for guidance. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The material in the article that the (apparently-above) editor keeps removing has already been discussed (also see archived talk pages) and it has been considered well-sourced pertinent material, significant and notable enough to include. Please sign with 4 tildes so that user name shows up. Thank you. (See notices at top.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There was consensus (over several months) that the material that User:WesleyDodds removed more than once today has "encyclopedic value"; see WP:3RR re: such reverting and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the quotations that were removed need to be included and integrated in the article sections; since they pertain particularly to either Heath Ledger's playing the role of the Joker or his actual performance prior to the film's release based on the trailer, they do not fit into the "Critical reception" section (as currently developed); the Jack Nicholson comment needs restoration; it is pertinent and has been removed and restored by editors over an extended period of time (please consult the editing history of the article as well as the talk page/archived talk pages). If two editors object to deleting the material that one editor has been removing, that does not indicate that the editor doing the removing has any "consensus" to make those deletions. The view of what is or is not "encyclopedic" is a judgment of editors, not an "objective" matter. The material seemed notable, important, and interesting and I see no rationale for deleting it, nor did another editor who comments in response above. -- NYScholar ( talk) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I typed in "The Dark Night" on the search panel, and I had to go through two redirects (or whatever they're called) to get here: Dark Night of the Soul and Dark Night (film). Should we make a new disambig. page to list these? I think so - Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving here from article; not in proper citation format; not responsibility of other editors to reformat; responsibility of editors adding the material to follow prevailing citation format:
>> [added another problematic insertion not in proper citation format. Please read the article and the related editing policies and guidelines. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
B. Alan Orange of MovieWeb gives 5/5 stars calling The Dark Knight "an outstanding achievement in pulp cinema". [2] Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter describes The Dark Knight as "pure adrenaline" that is "one nervy blend of top entertainment and thoughtful character study." [3] >>
[4] >> [Added another insertion that needs proper formatting if included. See below as well. -- NYScholar ( talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 04:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, users [whether anonymous IP users or other editors] should not just drop by to toss in external links to review after review of the film published on the Web; only notable and representative reviews are needed and they need to be well integrated in the text of the article. Otherwise this section will unnecessarily become a "Quote farm". If one wants to add more quotations from reviews, try adding them in the Wikiquote page that is already cross-referenced at the end of the article. It makes greater sense also to wait to develop the section on "Critical reception" further after the film's release when there are more reliable and more notable sources to cite than self-published Web site reviews. Blogs and self-published Web sites are not generally in keeping with WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources. Please see the tagged notices in the top of this page. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is already listed in the EL section; the external link to it is in the proper section; it does not need additional citation; Wikipedia recommends avoiding usages like "currently" because of the relativity; "a 100%" what? the insertion as quoted above (moved to talk page above) is not clear and not particularly significant, especially since the film is not yet released. Please see the template notice on the top of the article re: future films. Thanks. The article could remain relatively stable until after its actual release. After more published reviews from representative reliable and notable sources become accessible, one will have much more material to select from than one does now. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I'm not taking any more of my time to fix other people's work that they need to do themselves; I've spent many hours fixing citations over months. Re: "a 100 %" (rating); it's based on merely 5 reviews, which is not notable enough to cite as a rating. It's too early to cite such a "statistic." WP:AGF and don't refer to other editors' hard work and comments as "crap"; Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines are not "crap"; editors are supposed to learn what they are and to follow them. -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Returning to the point somewhat, I feel the statement "Early reviews for The Dark Knight prior to its theatrical release have been unanimous in praise" does require inline citation; based upon experience with other film articles, it's almost certain to be challenged, even in the short time leading up to the film's release. I have therefore added a link to the Rotten Tomatoes page (though I have not included any statistics). If you believe this means the link should be removed from the EL section, then I'm fine with that. All the best, Steve T • C 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that the article is sounding too promotional. Ironically, it's not the "Promotion" (née "Marketing") section I have a problem with, it's the " Official movie premiere" and " Related special events" sections. Do we really need to know that Zimmer and Howard will be "performing together for the very first time"? Do we really need the "Related special events" section at all? I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to stuffing articles full of whatever I can find, but it's always with the intention of a subsequent cull down to the good stuff. Will this be pertinent information in a year's time? Is a completely separate section with details of "The Dark Night Gala, a sold-out 'Special Event' tribute to director Christopher Nolan" relevant even now? I think we need to lose the PR guff and place the good information from these sections in their proper place. Steve T • C 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The fields in citation templates are optional and one chooses those most useful to readers. In endnotes one does not reverse the normal order of names either; last name, first name order is only really useful for alphabetized lists (Bibliography, "References" that are not endnotes/note citations/footnotes). [This aricle has consistently been using the "author=" field in the citation templates; there are many different citation templates posted throughout Wikipedia; some of them contradict one another in presentation and explanation. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[Note:] The dates are not showing up in the order that they used to; perhaps the templates were revised after first used in this article. It used to be that the dates appeared within parentheses toward beginning of citation or after author's or authors' names when using the template called "cite web" but not with "cite news"; now all the dates are appearing up front it seems. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
When editing a long-established article such as this one, editors are supposed to follow the prevailing citation format used throughout it, not to alter it to their own idiosyncratic preferences or interpretations. Please see WP:MOS and WP:CITE particularly; there are many choices among templates and fields within templates; the choice prevailing here is one of the simplest ones. Our concern is verification of sources and ease of finding the sources cited, espec. if the URLs no longer function in the future; Wenn Publishing etc. would be of no use in such situations; the italicized shortened Web address (URL) however, can be used in a Web Archive search, where one needs to use at least some form of "http://". -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
url=
field will provide that information, should it be required. I'm happy to go along with the "prevailing citation format", but I will at least question it when I think that format may be in error. I thought the publisher=
field was there not for this additional naming/verification of the citation, but in order to support the claim that the publication named in the work=
field is a reliable source. Naming Wenn Publishing is saying that Rolling Stone is not a
self-published source of indeterminate reliability, but that it has a proper publisher with a reputation, that it's notable enough for us to use.
Steve
T •
C
21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia using citation templates is not required; but once one kind prevails (as it has been adapted to purposes of the particular article), one does not go back to one of the many types of templates and change the format to them if doing so is no improvement to the article. In this case, adding the publisher's firm name (e.g., Wenner Publishing) is not an improvement to this article (in my view as expressed above). The citation templates have been adapted to be most useful to readers. Citation templates are one option, there are many different contradictory kinds of templates, and one does one's best to create a format that is useful and not confusing to readers. "Consistency" is the hallmark of bibliographical style formatting; inconsistent use of different features of different kinds of citation templates possible in Wikipedia (but not required) is confusing to readers. What is required is consistency. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) [added a few clarifications. This comment section responds to a question in previous section, also answered there. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to directly cite Internet Movie Database in a film article; the website does not hold up in a FAC process. IMDb has now been removed thrice -- by myself, Steve, and Alientraveller. Please do not re-add it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to keep removing the sources used for material in the article, you need also to remove the information taken from them or to find better sources for it. IMDb sections are used throughout many Wikipedia articles as sources, not just as EL. You need to be more careful in reading the statements that have been documented by the source(s). You really are hindering work on this article, in my view. -- NYScholar ( talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec/x2) Please find the Wikipedia policy stating that "IMDb is best used as an external link" and for the claim that it [separate webpages from the site] cannot be used as a source of information in the article; in my experience, although it takes time to correct incorrect information in IMDb.com listings of filmographies and credits for cast and crew (I was citing only the latter section of the IMDb.com site as a "source"), it is generally more reliable than Wikipedia itself. I have found all kinds of false information inserted into this article (and many others), and have spent a lot of time verifying the citations and correcting errors throughout this article. You need to verify every statement in this article as carefully as you have been objecting to the use of a webpage in IMDb.com as a source. There is no comparable source for such complete lists of cast and crew as this webpage. Even the official website of Warner Bros. does not give this information; the Variety source cited links to the wrong movie. Did you check its hyperlinks? -- NYScholar ( talk) 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have wondered for a long time why one needs to repeat the ELs already prominently displayed in the Infobox of films, actors, etc. in the EL sections of articles. Why does not the EL section just contain additional reliable and useful links, in keeping with WP:EL and WP:BLP#Sources? Why is it necessary or useful to have the repetitions (redundancies)? -- NYScholar ( talk) 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The guideline in WP:EL for not including RT as an external link when it is already listed as a source (it is not an "official" website, like the film site, which is in the Infobox, the EL sec., and used as source citations):
WP:EL#References and citation: Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations. (Sec. link and italics added.)
-- NYScholar ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any justification for including Rotten Tomatoes as an EL; it is properly linked as a source and currently the way it is used in the article follows WP:EL. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This matter has been debated in adfinitum in the (archived) talk pages of WP:EL and WP:BLP. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is contrary to WP:V and WP:CITE to list items in EL sections and just "imply that you got your content from there"; source citations are required throughout the texts of articles, and WP:EL says they are not repeated in EL when used as sources for the article. Exceptions that I see often are official websites (such as the Warner Bros. official website), which I just used a parenthetical citation to cite and which someone changed to a citation template; it is the official website acc. to the infobox, but even so, statements need to give in-line or parenthetical citations to all sources used for material in an article, in according with core Wikipedia policies, one of which is WP:V. One doesn't just "imply" what sources of statements are; one gives source citations. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Editing practices that contradict and that are contrary to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines really need to be examined and to follow these policies and guidelines; people should not just make up their own editing rules; that's why the policies and guidelines exist. I still object to adding RT to EL sec. It's already linked properly as a source in the section on "Critical reception". -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Eric, but this matter has been discussed over and over in many archived pages (now 21) of WP:EL and in relation to EL sections in heated debates in WP:BLP; your position is not a consensus position. There is currently no need for adding RT to the EL section (or the other material that you added despite this discussion in the editorial interpolations. Material in EL sections are supposed to follow WP:EL, and also must keep from violating WP:BLP: see tagged templates above. Links of the kind that you are trying to add to this EL section have forums and message boards and blogs that violate WP:BLP#Sources, which includes references to ELs used in articles pertaining to living persons (such as this one). -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break from this article and its talk page, but I request for any editors who are reading to ensure that the commented-out RT and BOM links stay in the article. The links were removed despite precedent and appropriate implementation (see this). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not proper to insert into the article links to material that is dubious or questionable or controversial in nature when the article concerns living persons, whether as "sources" or as "external links": See policy in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which explicitly rules out such external links (even in editorial interpolations). Please follow the policies and guidelines as linked in the templates at top of this page and throughout these comments. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).
-- NYScholar ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's the material removed: (visible earlier in editing preview mode in article and earlier removed by consensus):
-- NYScholar ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
They offer nothing now that is not already in the other ELs or in the source citations. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
RT is already used as a source and has currently no usefulness for the EL section. The other site offers nothing useful that isn't already accessible in other links or in the sources cited in the article. If that situation changes, the ELs might be reconsidered as useful. Right now, they are not. One does not put ELs in for their possible "future" usefulness. One waits until their usefulness is not questionable. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In terms of the other example given: The Guardian is a far more highly-respected and far more reliable news source and source of reviews than Rotten Tomatoes; any review used in RT can be cited individually with a full citation as a source if it is useful as a source, with full citation template information given. After the release of the movie, there will be many sites that link to reviews of the film; one will choose the most reliable and most acceptable among them, given WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:V#Sources and WP:EL, which all pertain to editing this article. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Scroll up for the removed items. They were already removed after previous discussions among editors. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; the point relates specifically to this article and to WP:EL governing this article: repeating the point that I and others made earlier about BOM and RT (currently): "They offer nothing now that is not already in the other ELs or in the source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)" -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Bignole - I didn't intentionally mask the edit. It autofilled the field when I tried to type "fixed" and I didn't catch it the first time. The second edit was cause I messed up the format. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where the above discussions offered a consensus for NYScholar's edits. I oppose the prosification (word?) of RT stats as a lazy way to write a reactions/reception section, but don't oppose it as an EL. I'm not sure where he sees consensu for those edits. ThuranX ( talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So I don't see where those links violate WP:EL. IT specifically states that external reviews are to be included. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not say that; re-read the previous discussion and the linked quotations from WP:EL; you are quoting totally out of context. The "external reviews" are already sourced that are accessible in RT in the source citation; re-read the full presentation of the discussion in WP:EL. Right now, RT is used as a source of reviews; it does not cite "interviews" so that part does not relate anyway. (scroll up to previous discussions) and look at the editing differences and editing history summaries of others as well as of me relating to deleting RT earlier; it has nothing now that is not already cited in the source citation. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What's more important here is that you've WAY violated 3RR. Time for a break NYScholar? And I don't see consensus, just a loud guy on a corner with a wikibible. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)What is most important is following Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to WP:EL and policies pertaining to WP:BLP#Reliable sources as pertains to ELs. Have those of you migrating to this article even you read this article??? See The Dark Knight (film)#Critical reception, sentence 1 and the source citation to RT. That suffices and WP:EL says it "should not" be in the EL section, because it is already cited as a source in the article. The URL given is the same as the URL that people have been inserting and removing (for cause) from the EL section. Please read both this article (espec. that sec.) and WP:EL and WP:BLP#Reliable sources, pertaining to ELs. Thank you. Please do not keep knee-jerk reinserting this item to the EL sec. I've cited the appropriate WP:EL sections above; please stop. Thank you. I have other things to do. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we get that and yet it's common practice to link those sites. So chill out. Stuthomas4 ( talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What is "common practice" is not always in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which editors are required to follow; the RT site has no section that has content that pertains to this article that is not already cited as a source; all the sections say "N/A" (not applicable) and repeat the same information about the film in the source citation section; it is only the same synopsis and information already cited throughout the article and in the other ELs listed. BOM also offers nothing not already accessible in cited sources; I've left them up, but strongly protest their current inclusion. Also, when adding material to this article, please follow its prevailing format; that sec of ELs is alphabetized and has been until people coming along lately (and earlier vandals) destroyed the alphabetical order. -- NYScholar ( talk) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have tired of the kind of personal aspersions being used instead of logic; I removed the source citation and re-cast the paragraph; the primary source citations support the sentence; Smith's comment is not given in Rotten Tomatoes; it is documented by a different secondary source which follows it as an in-line citation. This solves this problem and follows guidelines more accurately in WP:EL. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's mentioned that Senator Patrick Leahy has a cameo in the film, but what is not mentioned is that he's worked a deal out with WB to have the film released in his hometown of Montpelier, VT, on July 12. The tickets cost $50, with a reception beforehand (also costing $50). All the proceeds will benefit the Kellogg-Hubbard library of Montpelier. Here are some links to verify:
I'd like this to be added to the "Theatrical Release" section, as it seems to fit best there.
Notxenu ( talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not put it in the article on him (which you can edit); this article will not be able to cite such local information. It is of "local" interest and will be seen via the cross-linked Wikipedia article when when clicks on his name; you (or others with a log-in identity) can link to a specific section of an article on him in the way you Wikify the link. Including this information will distract from the section. Every local screening of the film is not going to be cited in this article. If you want to develop the material of local interest in that article on him, please create a log-in identity in Wikipedia and do so. From media news accounts I've read about him, Senator Leahy is quite "obsessed" with Batman movies, and that may already be discussed in his article (where it might be a kind of "trivia" that may or may not be worthy of inclusion.) I don't have time to do that kind of further work. -- NYScholar ( talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this section a bit wierd? I've never seen an article use the phrase "for example", and the wording/tense is a bit wierd. Instead of "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gives The Dark Knight...", shouldn't it be "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave The Dark Knight..."? Is this because the film hasn't been released yet? Because that would explain a lot. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 15:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
When you have questions like these, please examine the editing history summaries to save people who made the edits time. I already explained that conventional punctuation [typographical error: meant: presentations] of (literary and critical) texts (and written/published reviews are such texts) use the present verb tense in stating what an author does: e.g., "says"; "writes"; "states"; "rates"; "asserts"; etc. This is conventional and standard writing practice and I follow such practices in what I write, as do other literary and critical writers. Summarizing "critical reception" is a literary-critical kind of writing; "for example" is also standard and wholly acceptable. I really don't understand how editors in Wikipedia do not know basic elementary facts about writing. Please examine
Style guides (see their template) as well as
WP:MOS. Wikipedia does not "invent" conventions; it adapts them (and frequently does not do so in a consistent or clear manner); for information, see my user page and the linked user boxes. Please examine editing history summaries of articles for information about why people make the changes that they do. Thank you. --
NYScholar (
talk)
16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
[I have posted warnings on the talk pages of those harrassing me. I am sorry that they are also engaged in these tactics on the talk page of this article and others' talk pages. They are violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and they should know better. They need to examine their own "conduct" and to revise it accordingly. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, go take it to WP:AN/I or something. No one here wants to hear anything you have to say anymore, you've managed to alienate everyone who regularly edits here. It's all insulting, condescending, and hiding behind shouted policy. ThuranX ( talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop the personal remarks and the gender assumptions; not all scholars are male and not all people interested in editing this article are male. Please use gender-neutral language. If you need more information about my editing practices, please visit my user page and the userboxes placed in it for that purpose. Thank you. Try being more constructive. If someone takes the time to respond to a question, assume good faith: WP:AGF; the aim is to improve the writing of this article. -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect I don't think you assume good faith. I feel that your general attitude is indignant and condescending. While it's clear that you're a tireless contributor, your penchant for an unwavering faith that yours is the final and only true interpretation of the wiki laws, coupled with the apparent disbelief how the rest of us could possibly be so idiotic as to not have memorized Strunk & White leave me with a less than pleasing taste in my mouth. -- Stuthomas4 ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Please use gender-neutral language and stop the personal attacks. They do not contribute constructively to editing this article. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Please see the templates at the top of this page and the linked policies and guidelines and please follow WP:NPA, which clearly states to focus on constructive editing and not on contributors. It applies to all Wikipedia space, including talk pages of articles and user talk pages. Thank you. -- NYScholar ( talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is the description of Mike Engle contained in "" ? For what we know now, that's the truth. The "" would lead a reader to think it was false. 162.115.108.120 ( talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)LessThanCurt
The article no longer mentions a video game. Was it cancled? 71.182.145.40 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The film's website advertises the showings as at "midnight" on July 17, 2008; my own local theater is showing it at 12:01 a.m. on July 18, 2008; I tried to clarify that 24:00 (midnight) is still on July 17 in my editing comments. My local theater has only sold 3 tickets as of today; it is in a very rural location. One may want to compare how the ticket sales are throughout a variety of kinds of locations in the United States if there are reliable sources for such information. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
One also wants to try to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in editing this article; it may be harder to do as the film's opening becomes closer and more film reviews are published; one wants to try to avoid skewing the article [away from neutrality] and violating Wikipedia core policies; WP:POV is also helpful to consult. -- NYScholar ( talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [added clarification. -- NYScholar ( talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)