Jump to content

Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Requested move no. 5

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Those arguing to keep the article at this current title cited WP:RECENTISM and a previous requested move. RECENTISM is an essay that says "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention." Citing RECENTISM for a film that was released 5 years ago is an extremely weak argument. Further, the previous requested move was two and a half years ago and consensus can change. Those supporting the move cite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a guideline on disambiguation. The arguments in favor of moving the article vastly outweigh those against the move, even though by strictly vote counting, there are more favoring keeping the current title. Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight – I read the previous discussion and I think arguments presented against moving this page are not valid. People who are typing "(The) Dark Knight" are not looking for Batman, they're obviously looking for the film. If anything, Batman is unanimously known as "Batman", and he's not being implied when people mention "The Dark Knight". I think it's more than obvious that everyone uses the term "Batman" when referring to the character, and "The Dark Knight" when referring to the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomuser112 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Pageviews in May 2013
  • Dark Knight - 4,917 times
  • The Dark Knight - 10,933 times
  • The Dark Knight (film) - 221,754 times

Initial discussion

  • Firstly, we don't poll, we reach consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and !votes count for nothing; it's all or nothing. As for my personal opinion, I oppose the move, as there are many more uses for the term "The Dark Knight" than the film (a comic series, a nickname, and other media, for instance). Also, the current title is easy to find, as it follows the naming convention of Wikipedia's film documentation.  drewmunn  talk  18:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, and thirdy, your support is implied by your opening the discussion, you don't need to reiterate it.
    There are plenty of films that don't end with "(film)", but the fact remains that "The Dark Knight" is much more than a film. Just because you haven't come across it in other uses doesn't mean they're not prevalent.  drewmunn  talk  19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    The numbers speak for themselves. Also, "The Dark Knight" cannot refer to "much more" than the film because there are only a few titles listed on the disambiguation page. If anything, Batman is unanimously referred to as "Batman", not "The Dark Knight". Randomuser112 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    I take it you're not a long-time DC reader? You don't seem to understand the significance of the term prior to its selection as a film title, as demonstrated throughout this discussion. Your listing of stats doesn't show the full picture; we don't know how many people clicked onto a certain page before going elsewhere; people going to "The Dark Knight" don't necessarily direct straight to the film article, they may well be looking for "Batman".  drewmunn  talk  21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter anyway. Let's say 100% of readers who type "Dark Knight" want to go to Batman (which doesn't happen in reality) - then what? Most of the people still use the term "The Dark Knight" to refer to the film, as evidenced by the numbers presented above (and any search you'll conduct on Google). As for the significance of the term over the history, I'd say "(The) Dark Knight" has never been widely used. DC Comics fans knew what it referred to (before the film came out), but the overwhelming majority of people has always known Batman by his major name. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    That answers my question then; you're not a long time-reader. The fact is, the term "Batman" is younger than the character, and "The Dark Knight" is a designation that's been around as long (if not longer) than his official name. Google searches count for nothing, they are personalised views of a snapshot of data; scroll back in time to 2005 and you'd see the term meant nothing other than "Batman", and you'd be surprised how many people, even outside fandom, knew it referred to Bruce Wayne. Now, even more people know it does (see the line "a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a Dark Knight"). The film brought extra prominence to the term, but not necessarily as a film title. You can argue as long as you want, it's already clear that consensus is against you (or undecided, if support is given), and nothing you've said so far has any bearing on changing the minds of the people who've written here. In fact, the things you're saying can easily be used to back up the argument for a disambiguation page; underestimating the prominence of a phrase through parochial thinking.  drewmunn  talk  07:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    "you're not a long time-reader" - why should I be a long-time reader? This is not a DC comic book fandom site where people know the exact etymology of technical terms. People searching "The Dark Knight" always want to get to the film, and that's the only thing that matters. Randomuser112 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "The Dark Knight" should be left as a redir to "Dark Knight", as the term refers to more than just this one film.|| Tako (bother me) || 18:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Randomuser112 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives two definitions of primary topic, one fits, the other doesn't: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." oh. Seems that's the Batman character and franchise, not the film. The film is just one of numerous things using the phrase. Meaning, primary topic is /not/ a valid argument here. The / Dark Knight works better as a dab page, that's it.|| Tako (bother me) || 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Your argument does not make any sense. The film was not released yesterday. And "Dark Knight" is merely a nickname for Batman, nothing else. People use the word "Batman" when referring to the character. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Just 'cause you don't agree with my argument doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. "The Dark Knight" is a nickname that has been used since the 1940s, and is so relevant to the character, that's it has been used in publishing and other media since then. The term explicitly relates to Batman. As the primary topic definition says, "if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". The Dark Knight film released in 2008. "The Dark Knight" to refer to Batman first used in...Detective Comics #45 (November, 1940)? Clearly, the term, as it is used to refer explicitly to Batman, has been around and used for a lot longer than the film.|| Tako (bother me) || 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry, but I definitely think that a billion-dollar-grossing film is more important than an obscure nickname. I seriously doubt there's anyone who types "The Dark Knight" to get to the Batman article. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Okay, now you are just...wrong. "Obscure nickname". Yeah. So obscure that it's the TITLE OF THE FILM, USED IN ADVERTISING, and IN OTHER MEDIA AND PUBLICATIONS NOT related to the film. || Tako (bother me) || 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
                • In comparison with "Batman", it's obscure. Not everyone knew that "The Dark Knight" referred to Batman until the film was released. Since then, everybody uses the term "The Dark Knight" to refer to the film. Your argument is null and void. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Currently the film is overwhelmingly the primary topic. I don't think that can be realistically contested, and I agree that most people searching for the Batman article would probably not pass through this disambiguation page. But The Dark Knight as a phrase had such a long association before the film was even made—indeed it was chosen as the film's title because of that long-standing association—and I think that association will continue for many more years to come. People may associate The Dark Knight with the film now, but will that still be the case in 20–30 years time? Once the film passes out of popular culture it is more than likely people will primarily associate the the phrase with the character again rather than a 30 year old film. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And how does that matter now? People/comic book fans will always associate "Dark Knight" with Batman, but it doesn't change the fact that it's nothing more than a nickname, and it also doesn't change the fact that the term has become almost synonymous with the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Recentism certainly applies to this case. Five years after the release of the film and one year on from the sequel isn't an adequate test of time. Given that the character was the primary association before the film then it is reasonable that it could be again at some point. If The Dark Knight is appearing on "top film" lists in 20-30 years time effectively cementing its reputation as a classic film then the recentism argument becomes less applicable, but at the moment such a move would be purely in response to a recent cultural event. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you fully understand the importance of this film. The Dark Knight is not a B movie with no impact. It's already one of the most popular films of all time, plus it received an insurmountable amount of acclaim and influence. #15 on Empire's list of the 500 Greatest films of all time is not enough? Randomuser112 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Empire is hardly Sight & Sound, is it? Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you now trying to make the film look insignificant? Don't waste your time. The importance of this film is gigantic. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We're talking about a 70-year association with a character versus a 5-year old film. Betty explains quite well above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states that it's all about pageviews. The film - 220,000 hits, the DAB - 15,000. Enough said. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Have you even read any of the above arguments before dismissing them? PRIMARYTOPIC says (and I copypasta):

"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

— WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
Notice, that this...says nothing about page views! || Tako (bother me) || 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I guess you need to be a little more attentive. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"Dark Knight" itself is a nickname which has no educational value at all. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Attentive? Maybe you should read it. I've read the section. It's not a valid argument here, as it says:

"In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic."

You cannot use PRIMARYTOPIC as an argument here, because it literally says, if there is a conflict, discuss it. There's a conflict here, maybe. You're pointing to something that says to discuss it.|| Tako (bother me) || 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
As the nom is a newly-registered user, maybe they are not fully conversant with the intricacies of our policies and guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the guideline states! A topic is primary for a term (Batman being the topic, and "The Dark Knight" being the term) if it ("it" being the topic) has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic (Batman certainly has greater enduring notability than the film) associated with that term (and Batman is provably to associated with the term "The Dark Knight". The first criterion favors the film, the second the character, so there isn't a clear winner here. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
None of the criteria favors the term over the film because the nickname itself has zero educational value. We're not comparing "Batman" with "The Dark Knight (film)", we're comparing the nickname "Dark Knight" with the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic", "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors". See - we can all quote different passages from it. We are discussing usage now. You have your opinion, we each have ours. Shouting "Primary Topic!" every time someone places their opinion is not constructive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "shouting" anything. I'm presenting evidence, which you're refusing to accept. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm also not following your "page views are evidence" logic in any way. "The Dark Knight" has had 12,318 hits and "The Dark Knight (film)" 254,475. That means a maximum of 4.8% of the people visiting the "(film)" article could have conceivably come from "The Dark Knight". Statistically, therefore your use of the page views as a logical reason makes no sense; I could understand it if "The Dark Knight" had more, but it doesn't. To the contrary, the statistics show a possible 73.5% of visitors to the DAB ended up on another article, not "The Dark Knight (film)". All of this aside, you quote the same statistics as proof that this is the most notable page of the topic. It'd be interesting if you'd elaborate on your statistical thinking behind how the numbers back you up...  drewmunn  talk  16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
""The Dark Knight" has had 12,318 hits and "The Dark Knight (film)" 254,475. That means a maximum of 4.8% of the people visiting the "(film)" article could have conceivably come from "The Dark Knight"." You can't know this. You don't know how many people went from the DAB page to each page. The fact that the film article receives 20 times as many hits as the DAB page says it all. By typing "The Dark Knight", people are hoping to get to the film article. Why would anyone type "The Dark Knight" to get to Batman? It's 15 characters versus 6 characters. Randomuser112 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It's all pure statistics; my job is to work this sort of thing out, and work it out I have. It's actually a fairly simple calculation: If people visit "The Dark Knight", a hit is recorded there. If they wanted "The Dark Knight (film)", they'll click onto it, and they'll have a hit recorded there as well. The percentage of hits on the "(film)" article that are also on the DAB is the maximum traffic along that route. That is, please note, the maximum, so there can be no more than 4.8% of the traffic on the "(film)" article originating at "The Dark Knight". The rest of the calculation is the same, but takes the hits from every article listed on the DAB and works out the percentage hits on the "(film)" compared to every other article. People may not be looking directly for the "Batman" article, but there are many other articles listed on that page. It's also conceivable that they've forgotten his name, although that's a long shot, but may explain it.  drewmunn  talk  16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Combined: ~142,000 hits. The film gets more views than ALL the remaining titles combined, and there's a remainder of 80,000 hits in favor of the film. Also, four of the titles listed on the DAB page are only partial title matches. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You've forgotten Batman, which trumps everything. Anyway, you still don't seem to get what you're writing. If "The Dark Knight" got more hits than "The Dark Knight (film)", then you'd have an argument for moving. It doesn't, so there are more hits at "The Dark Knight (film)", showing that to be the preferred title for visitors.  drewmunn  talk  17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Batman has nothing to with this because it's not a title match. " If "The Dark Knight" got more hits than "The Dark Knight (film)", then you'd have an argument for moving. It doesn't, so there are more hits at "The Dark Knight (film)", showing that to be the preferred title for visitors" - that's not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says. The stats are used in order identify the primary topic. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Batman is the primary link from the DAB, so it is relevant. A primary topic may be selected from the DAB, but the topic is self-sustained; it gets more hits than the DAB, so that's not the primary method of reaching the topic. Just because something linked from a DAB has the most hits out of everything else on the DAB doesn't mean that it is the most prominent topic amongst the list; it means it's the most popular article. As you're so fond of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, let me give you this as a quote: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term." Batman, therefore, by your understanding of the guidelines, should be the target of a redirect based at "The Dark Knight".  drewmunn  talk  17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No it shouldn't, because, again, people who type "The Dark Knight" (15 characters) do NOT intend to get to the Batman (6 characters) page. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you know? Are you all 12,318 of the people who visited the page? Your assumption that they don't want to get to Batman is as much OR as me saying that they were all looking for information on the guy in Monty Python who gets his arm chopped off.  drewmunn  talk  17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Discuss whatever you want, just be ready to back up your incredbily ridiculous statements. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not OR because "The Dark Knight" is not even a slight title match with "Batman". Logically, people typing "The Dark Knight" cannot be intending to get to the Batman page. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Logic doesn't rule us; our readers are not agents of The Matrix, but people who can make mistakes and get confused over what they are looking for.  drewmunn  talk  18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if you are trying to cajole me into believing that there are people who type "The Dark Knight" to get to the Batman article, then I'm done arguing with you. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I said I was done, but then I saw this. It is sad and insulting that you accuse me first of having ulterior motives, then of attempting to "cajole" you into believing something. You have repeatedly shown that you understand neither the topic of this discussion nor the guidelines on which Wikipedia operates. You need to take some serious time learning more about how to behave on talk pages; your current behaviour is not conducive of a productive atmosphere and will gain you neither respect nor influence. Granted, a fresh opinion can sometimes be a catalyst for useful change, but not if executed in a way that disregards entirely both the subject under discussion and editors who are well founded and highly respected. You deleted one editor's comment after he suggested you needed more time to learn about Wikipedia and its guidelines, and he was completely accurate. You also need to remember that, just because Christopher Nolan introduced you to Batman and the phrase "The Dark Knight" a few years ago does not mean that everybody else on the planet follows your logic and thought patterns exactly. The character has been around for nearly a quarter of a century, and both him and his alias "The Dark Knight" are far more prominent than the name of a single film that isn't even current. I am not an easily riled man, and I am more than happy to guide new and inexperienced editors though their time on Wikipedia, but you have displayed both a lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to learn. Granted, you did make changes suggested at the beginning of the discussion, and for that I applaud you. However, you need to accept that opposition to your opinion, the providing of evidence contrary to your beliefs, or the suggestion that you need time to learn is not a reason for you to attack an editor or delete a comment. The outcome of this move request is already evident (no consensus, no move), so you now have a perfect opportunity to build on your experience and become a more learned editor.  drewmunn  talk  20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Either that, or you could go and start a request for Batman (film) to be moved to Batman. After all, the contents of the target article should be at Bruce Wayne; Batman's only a nickname, it's not like it's steeped in decades of tradition and legacy, is it?
"Batman" is MUCH more widespread than "The Dark Knight". You need to realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of Wikipedia readers are not comic book fans. Anyway, the hits for Dark Knight + The Dark Knight are less than 15,000. Let's assume ALL of the people who type either of those two word combinations want to get to Batman. The Batman article gets more than 500K hits monthly, and the aforementioned total of 15K is not even 2.95% of that amount. And don't forget that this is a very generous assumption, because I think it's more than clear that at least half of the people that go to the DAB page then continue to The Dark Knight (film). See, a MAXIMUM of 2.95% of readers could've reached the Batman page from the DAB page. Also, any search in Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. makes it clear that "Dark Knight" more commonly refers to the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This has to stop. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or are choosing to ignore it. Your "more than clear" and other apparent definite truths are OR, as I've previously noted, and your knowledge of the subject is limited. If this continues, we're going to end up somewhere rather nasty, so please do what I have done, and accept that the other party disagrees, and leave it. Please read through my suggestions on your course of action, and take the time you need to becoming a more proficient editor.  drewmunn  talk  21:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Yahoo and Bing are the same thing
Stop changing the topic. My proficiency as an editor has nothing to do with this page - take those "suggestions" elsewhere. Just because you childishly disagree with me doesn't mean that I'm incorrect. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to minimise the effect this has on other editors, I'll reply on your talk page.  drewmunn  talk  07:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a HUGE bias coming from American Batman/DC comics fans who think the entire world's perception is limited to that of the US. Batman, outside of the US/UK, is NOT known as the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight, first and foremost, refers to the film itself because that's how the billion-dollar-grossing film was officially titled, trademarked and marketed. Randomuser112 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I find that interpretation impossible, since even the film makes the implication that Batman is The Dark Knight, and its sequel movie reinforces that. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The film MADE the term "The Dark Knight" prominent, and people searching "Dark Knight" are looking for the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dark Knight stays as the disambiguation page, The Dark Knight (film) moves to The Dark Knight per WP:PRECISION. A hatnote ""Dark Knight" is also a term used to refer to Batman. For other uses, see Dark Knight" is added to the film page. None of the other titles listed on the DAB page have a full title match except for the film. I think this is a perfect compromise for both sides of this argument. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You seem a little fixated on Full Title Matches; we're not a search engine, we are trying to get people to what they want the fastest. Anyway, many users miss out "The" for speed and efficiency, so I oppose per above.  drewmunn  talk  17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Huh? If a user misses out "The", they are taken to a DAB page where they can choose where to get. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Then shouldn't that also point here? Haha, now I'm playing mind games on you... *strokes goatee whilst waggling fingers in front of your face*. But seriously, that just creates confusion. The terms "The Dark Knight" and "Dark Knight" are synonymous in their relationship to Batman. They are used interchangeably and should not be treated differently because a single film was made.  drewmunn  talk  17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That's not what WP:PRECISION says. Randomuser112 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Since now you're doing your best just to oppose me, I'm choosing to stop discussing this issue with you. Let's wait for other people to weigh in. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not just trying opposing you out of habit, I'm doing it because I believe you are wrong. I understand that you don't want to continue, but know that I will continue to make my opinion known as I always have; in a civil and acceptable manner. My closing words to you at this time would be ones of advice: you don't seem to fully understand the subject you are attempting to broach, nor the guidelines you are trying to use to back yourself up. Take some time to get used to these before instigating any more discussions.  drewmunn  talk  18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe you're totally wrong. You're using pageview statistics (which are in the film's favor) to back up your ludicrous statement. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Believe what you will, my point is made.  drewmunn  talk  20:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The same for me. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me a source that states that "The" is part of the title when referring to the character and not the film? Randomuser112 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Dark Knight Returns".  drewmunn  talk  21:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a partial title match. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No matter how many ubelievably irrelevant "arguments" you come up with, the fact that people are much more likely to be looking for the film will not change. Pageviews speak wonders. Randomuser112 (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was also previously discussed (check the talk archives). There's been little change in the meanwhile. The prominence of the film has declined since the last discussion, and will continue to in relation to the historic usage by the character -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    "The prominence of the film has declined since the last discussion" - prove it. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the pages listed on the DAB are full title matches except for the film. "The Dark Knight (film)" should be moved to "The Dark Knight" and a hatnote stating "Dark Knight is also a nickname for the DC Comics character Batman. For other uses, see Dark Knight" should be added to the film page per WP:PRECISION. I'm waiting for arguments against this change. Randomuser112 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose because the term "The Dark Knight" has a multifaceted use that mainly refers to Batman. We can all agree that the film is the most popular topic, but the term is so commonly used in various media, even if just in part. The film title itself is derived from the core meaning of the term. In this context, I do not think the film page should displace the disambiguation page. In addition, the disambiguation page has little traffic, which reflects how it only plays a minor role in navigating to the film article. Most readers reach the Wikipedia article through a search engine (since the film article appears at the top) and perhaps through Wikipedia's search box (which provides a drop-down menu of possibilities, with "The Dark Knight (film)" at the top). I think in this case, having the "(film)" disambiguation is helpful to make the film stand out amidst topics that share the term, again even in part. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    That's not what WP:PRECISION says. It's not up to you to decide which one is more important. None of those page have a full title match with "The Dark Knight" except for the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is up to us editors to interpret and apply policies and guidelines. Interpretations can differ. In this case, you think that The Dark Knight is precise enough to identify the film and that The Dark Knight (film) is too overly precise. I disagree because I think "The Dark Knight" as a general term does not refer only to the film; the film derives its title from the larger meaning. We see the general term used repeatedly. So I do not think the film has primary-topic claim to the term, and that a disambiguation page is sufficient. I believe WP:PTM applies here: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title." The "generic context" is what I mean here. The current setup is not detrimental to Wikipedia and its readers. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    WP:PTM: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." Again, the film is the only full-title match. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    What about the last part, "no significant risk of confusion or reference"? "The Dark Knight" is a term that is frequently used because it refers to Batman. That's why I quoted what I did. Items like Batman: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Coaster are pretty much similar in a generic context. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    You seem to have misunderstood that guideline. It's meant to stop users adding, say "Dark Knight Citrus Farm" to the disambiguation page just because it uses the term "Dark Knight". There is no chance of confusion between that and the actual topic, which is Batman. However, what you keep incessantly referring to as "title matches" are not the problem here. The problem is that "The Dark Knight" refers to Batman first, and a film second. Just because the name of the film is the same as the nickname doesn't mean the film is more important in any way, not even primarytopic or precision, both of which you seem happy to throw around as solid evidence that you're right no matter what. These are, again, guidelines you don't seem to grasp. Adding the word "film" to the end of an article about a film is not overly precise, especially when the term on it's own means so much more. You can title match your way to kingdom come, one film is not going to change decades of legacy (another thing you seem blissfully unaware of). --2.120.111.201 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is you who has misunderstood the guideline. "The Dark Knight" is a nickname for Batman, and Batman doesn't have a title match with "The Dark Knight". That's why The Dark Knight should be the title of the film. The importance of the term "The Dark Knight" in relation to the character is unimportant because it doesn't have a title match with the character's name. This is what the guideline says. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    I am interested: do you have a special button on your keyboard marked "title match"? If not, it'd save you a lot of time if you did. People who knew of Batman and DC before Christopher Nolan got his grubby little mitts on it (you know, that's strangly most people, just not you it seems) are likely to want more than a single film out of the search term "The Dark Knight". What you call unimportant is in fact so important, they named a film after it. How's that for circular reasoning? What you claim is important only exists because of what you say is unimportant. I think I, and the majority of the users in this page so far, are of the opinion that the reason the phrase even exists is far more important than a single film. 2.120.111.201 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    Your argument is nonexistent because people typing "The Dark Knight" are sure as hell inteding to get to the film page. Nobody types 15 characters ("The Dark Knight") when they can get the same result by typing 6 characters ("Batman"). Randomuser112 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    Both of you may want to consider the likelihood that you're not going to change the other person's mind. That being the case, I recommend disengaging and doing wiki work elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess the only solution is to take this issue to WP:MRV. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Having disengaged, I've been following this discussion to see where it goes. My only comment at this time would be that you can't take it to an MRV because the move is not currently closed. Also, be aware that the outcome of the request, whatever it is, will likely not fall into either of the two categories that would make it eligible for review:
  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.
Reviews aren't meant to be undertaken because someone disagrees with the outcome, nor are they places to continue the debate; they should be used to discuss the way in which the move's closing administrator chose, and the reasons given. I do not want to get back into this debate, but just wished to point this out before any issues arise from incorrectly opening a review. This request can be closed tomorrow (GMT), but it's unlikely it will be, as consensus has not been reached. However, it is up to the administrator looking it over to decide whether it is likely to ever be reached, and they may close on the grounds that it won't.  drewmunn  talk  06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The other party (which you're a part of) still isn't making any arguments. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states that the entire thing is all about historic importance/educational value and pageviews. The film takes both of these criteria. Since when is the nickname "The Dark Knight" an educational topic? What historic importance does it have? I say that nickname has zero historic importance. The film has had a significant amount of cultural impact, for example. What cultural impact did the nickname have? Film studies have been conducted on The Dark Knight. What educational value does the nickname have? See, none of you are making any arguments at all, insteading sticking to your absurd theory of how American 10-year-old DC Comics fanboys who spend a lot of time on the Internet extensively use the term to refer to Batman.
In short, The Dark Knight (film) needs to be moved to The Dark Knight. This is not even a discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I told you I'm not getting back into this. We don't agree, and I've disengaged for the sake of my sanity. I've asked you civily not to insult me, and remind you that this still applies. The side on which I am have consistently put up solid arguments, and you have also made your views known. We are obviously not go big to change each others' minds, so I suggest you disengage also. Some of your arguments may be reasoned, others are not. That is the way of things, and I suggest you accept that as I have. Now, I'm off to watch Monsters (2010 film) again, the subject of many media studies, yet still not located on the main "Monsters" page. 😄  drewmunn  talk  10:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Drew and suggest you don't wear yourself out over this. I've had this experience myself with an external link template that I don't think belongs on Wikipedia, but the consensus has been against me twice at WP:TFD. This discussion has garnered plenty of opinions, so it will be closed soon by an admin who will decide an outcome. It's possible that the admin would agree with you, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and I think the opposing opinions express legitimate concerns. There's not an explicit right or wrong answer here; WP:IAR exists to remind us that it is not imperative to follow the rules down to the last detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that this conversation has reached a standstill, I have requested a closure of it by an uninvolved party at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:The_Dark_Knight_.28film.29.23Requested_move_no._2. If someone disagrees with the outcome of the closure, then they can appeal the closure per WP:MRV. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I decided to try to create an article about the nickname. It may help give encyclopedic meaning to a term that did not have one before this discussion. You can see the new article at The Dark Knight (nickname). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Another thought (sorry this comes so late in the discussion) is that we could apply WP:SETINDEX here. We could have context for the nickname upfront, and we could list the various encyclopedic topics that use the nickname. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That might have a future; converting the page you've created the nickname into a SETINDEX page located at The Dark Knight (or Dark Knight and have the former still redirect to the latter) and breaking down into media types and other usages etc.  drewmunn  talk  18:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Recentism means half of an article like Barack Obama shouldn't be about this week's political news. Recentism means the 21st century shouldn't dominate the History of the United Kingdom article. Recentism does not mean we should give the finger to readers looking for a commercially and critically successful film that is the clearly demonstrated WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its title just because the film is somewhat recent. Show me a reader who uses "Dark Knight" to find Batman because he or she doesn't know to type "Batman" and I might change my mind. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    BDD, what do you think about The Dark Knight (nickname) (newly created) and applying WP:SETINDEX to link all related topics? The film derives its name from the common nickname, and so does various other media. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    No offense, Erik, because that page is well made and sourced, but it's hard to see a page like that being anything but the product of RM arguments. I wouldn't really invoke WP:POINT, as I think in this case you're improving Wikipedia to make a point, but I continue to think most users who search for "The Dark Knight" are looking for the film. Also, that article should probably be at Dark Knight (nickname) per WP:THE; compare to Joker (comics). I'd put the nickname in the hatnote, though. (This article is about the film. For the nickname of Batman, see The Dark Knight (nickname). For other uses, see The Dark Knight (disambiguation).) --BDD (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    My thinking with the nickname article is that "The Dark Knight" is kind of like a dictionary term. Some terms are so basic that they do not warrant encyclopedic coverage. Some terms do. I researched the matter to see if the nickname had encyclopedic weight, and I think it does. So I think there is a possibility of applying WP:CONCEPTDAB here, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says a broad-concept article can be the primary topic. Considering the mix of this broad concept with the various uses in media, I was thinking that WP:SETINDEX could apply to explain the nickname and highlight where it's been used (warranting partial entries better than a standard disambiguation page). Sure, this came out of this RM discussion, but is that a bad thing? The RM discussion for Big (film) led to the film article's move from "Big" to "Big (film)" solely based on the dictionary term. Here, we have a term with demonstrated encyclopedic weight. And the thing is, people are finding the film article with ease; the disambiguation page is much, much less trafficked than the film article. So navigation really is a non-issue. I think the possibility of them arriving at the nickname article would show the breadth of the term. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    The nickname has no encyclopedic value at all. Encyclopedic value can be applied to titles that the nickname stands for, and in this case it's a bunch of comic book series whose importance is not even close to that of the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought until I saw the actual article. I figured you could find a bunch of sources that use the term but not discuss it. But judging by the state of the article, that's not the case. Whatever the outcome here, I think Erik has created a valuable article. --BDD (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Post-relisting

  • Nathan, people typing "The Dark Knight" may be looking for any part of the Batman mythos that is covered by the wide term "The Dark Knight". The film makes up a tiny (part of the zeitgeist, yes, but barely a scratch on the suface of 3/4 of a century of legacy) part of this mythos. Stating that the term "The Dark Knight" is only used in regards this single film is, in my opinion, a little short sighted when the rest of the cultural impact is studied. May I request a little more detail on your opinion of the mythos in general, and why you believe the term means nothing other than the film? Thanks.  drewmunn  talk  19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    I already offered my solution to this entire problem. The Dark Knight (film) --> The Dark Knight; Dark Knight stays as the disambiguation page. Randomuser112 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    What cultural impact has the nickname had? Randomuser112 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ooh, I don't know... How about being the source of naming for comic series, books, films, parodies, rides, etc. You cannot say something has no cultural impact when your arguing about it on a page of a film named after it. Anyway, it's not my burden to prove it, it's yours to disprove; "I cannot prove conclusively that there isn't a teapot orbiting the earth, and I shouldn't have to just because you say there is one".  drewmunn  talk  06:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Shut up. Your inability to back up 1% of what you're saying is staggering. Randomuser112 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Do not tell me to shut up. How dare you‽ You have no right to be so vindictive, especially when your reasons for doing so are so very transparent; if you cannot counter an argument with your standard response, you lash out. You will never gain respect editing like that, and your opinions are unlikely to carry any weight when reviewed if all they are backed up by are volatile comments born from a lack of cohesive response.  drewmunn  talk  06:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    What the fuck are you referring to now? Just leave this place. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Again, you have no right to say that. If you'd stopped responding with personal attacks when I announced my disengaging from the debate above, this discussion would be half the size and I'd probably still respect you as a user, despite your differing opinion.  drewmunn  talk  07:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Stop playing the victim. Unfortunately, you have not yet disengaged from the discussion. Just stop commenting on this page. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    I reiterate, this is a different discussion. I was attempting, prior to your decision to join in with it, to solicit useful views from Nathan on his decision to close. I have completely disengaged from the original debate, and am discussing a different topic here. You brought the debate to this otherwise civil section. I have disengaged from the aforementioned debate, and am still completely within my right to discuss anything else on this talk page. Not everything here is about your views, you know.  drewmunn  talk  07:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Nathan, can you please provide reasoning for your decision to relist? You did not justify your decision to relist, you simply gave your view on the substance of the debate—and it is a view that has already been flushed out in this conversation. This discussion has clearly ground to a halt after substantial participation on both sides; what more do you believe can be discussed? Even if you don't feel there is consensus here (which is debatable, given the vivid discussion and the number of !votes), per WP:RELIST, a "no-consensus" closure is appropriate where the conversation appears exhausted, and you have provided no reasoning as to why this conversation is not exhausted. It appears you took the relisting opportunity to give your own view and to repeat views that have already been discussed instead of determining whether consensus exists or whether a no-consensus closure is appropriate, and unless some reasoning is offered, I will be asking another editor to review this discussion for closure. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
"It appears you took the relisting opportunity to give your own view and to repeat views that have already been discussed instead of determining whether consensus exists or whether a no-consensus closure is appropriate" is utter bullshit. I made two edits regarding this:[1] and [2] The first is the edit on this page. The second, in its entirety, said "Consensus was unclear, so I {{relisted}} it." I would welcome how in those two edits you gathered that I gave my own view and repeated the views that have already been discussed. In fact, I did determine if consensus existed. I stated it right there, "Consensus was unclear..." I determined that relisting the debate was a better alternative to closure as no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Nathan, I'd appreciate it if you toned down the profanity - this discussion seriously isn't that big a deal, and I'm sorry if I offended you, because it wasn't my intention. But I realized I made an error; I confused your relisting notice on this page with the first comment made by Randomuser112. My apologies for imputing that you stated your opinion in this matter. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This entire thing has become a straw poll with people adding their votes without providing any argumentation. The number of opposers means nothing in this case. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume BarrelProof is essentially agreeing with the previous opposition arguments. It happens late in discussions like this one. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
While this may be true of some editors in this conversation, many have provided lengthy arguments, and the very least, the number of !votes from those editors who do provide such argumentation is relevant though not dispositive to finding consensus (or finding no consensus). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
All of those "arguments" boil down either to recentism or to histocial usage, both of which do not apply in favor of the nickname for the reasons I've provided. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. It is clear that no one who has been involved in this conversation should make the determination as to whether consensus exists (one way or the other) or whether no consensus exists. That is why I asked an uninvolved editor to close the discussion (with an opportunity for editors displeased with the outcome to appeal to other uninvolved editors under WP:MRV), although instead got a relisting, which is only prolonging the issue. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
But how can consensus even exist when the other party keeps rehashing the same canceled-out arguments? Randomuser112 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite possibly there isn't a consensus, in which case WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. But other editors may think that there is. Would you agree, though, that at this point, it's best for editors from outside this conversation to assess quality/quantity of the arguments and determine whether consensus or no consensus exists, rather than continuing here? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is still ongoing, no matter how you look at it. No need for anyone to close it. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
"the other party keeps rehashing the same canceled-out arguments" - yet, your own only argument (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) isn't an argument. It's a guideline that says to have a discussion. Welcome to the discussion! Before you decide that other's arguments are flawed or non-existent, how about trying to put forth an argument that isn't "your argument is null and void"? || Tako (bother me) || 23:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've explained a million times why your arguments do not work in this case. And if you think the only argument I've presented is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then I'm done arguing with you. You might want to re-read the entire discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you're done arguing? Finally. Then, try to interpret this without arguing against it: You're trying to disprove arguments, but that's notwhat this is about. Every argument works, in every case. There's no need to try to counter-argue everything someone opposed to you says. That's not how you reach consensus, or have a proper discussion. You've replied to every point someone has brought up with something akin to, "this is not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, you're wrong." You've made your point. You don't need to re-hash it. (You've said the other party is doing it - so are you!) If you've said something once, great, you don't need to respond with the same content to everyone. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (if applicable) does not overrule anything, it is not an argument ender. It is a guideline, a standard which should but /doesn't have to be followed/; not a law, not a policy. Consensus is about trying to /persuade/ other editors, you're just trying to tell them they're wrong. It ends up being a pissing contest (see WP:WIN). So, rather than trying to win an pointless battle and arguing with every single editor opposed to the page move, how about WP:TEAMWORK? get along with others and discuss, rather than argue? Saying "your argument is null and void" because you don't agree with it...isn't very collaborative. || Tako (bother me) || 00:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I always "try to disprove arguments" that are irrelevant. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
(after an edit conflict) Since someone said they don't understand what argument I was making, I'll try to clarify. What I said was "We've been through all this before. Nothing new here." I was suggesting that the arguments don't seem new – that the situation doesn't really seem to have changed in any substantial way, so we shouldn't bother repeating it all ad nauseam. The arguments weren't persuasive enough to make a move before, it doesn't appear to me that the consensus has changed, and there's value in stability, so I think we should just close the move request discussion as "not moved" or "no consensus" and focus on other things. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
"The arguments weren't persuasive enough to make a move before". Cool. I say the arguments are not persuasive enough not to move. See my arguments above. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, specifically, "A topic is primary for a term...if it is highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (my emphasis). Yes, "The Dark Knight" can refer to Batman as well as the movie but, although I haven't conducted extensive research, I can't imagine someone not knowing the name "Batman" but remembering "the Dark Knight" for the character. Nor can I imagine anyone eschewing "Batman" as a search term in favour of the much longer "The Dark Knight". As a search term, "The Dark Knight" is almost exclusively for the film and the title should reflect that. —  AjaxSmack  00:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but that's not what I see at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To me it appears to say "A topic is primary for a term...if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" (my emphasis). Can you please double-check to make sure you quoted it correctly? (Haven't we been through this discussion before?) —BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Survey on Closing the Discussion

This conversation has seemingly come to a standstill. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:The_Dark_Knight_.28film.29.23Requested_move_no._2, I recently requested that an uninvolved editor close this discussion; however, instead this conversation was re-listed with little rationale given for the decision to re-list, and in the few hours since then, editors on both sides have continued to rehash the same points, as they have for the past few days; there seems to be little new to discuss at this point. Rather than continue this rehashing ad infinitum, I would like gauge both sides views on whether this conversation should be closed by an uninvolved editor--but NOT on the outcome of the closing. The outcome of the closing would be determined by the judgment of the uninvolved editor who reviews the quality and quantity of arguments made here, and the outcome would be either "consensus for moving the article", "consensus for not moving the article", or "no consensus". If you were to disagree with the outcome of the closing, you could appeal it per WP:MRV, in which case more uninvolved editors will review that decision. Remember, this survey is about whether to close, not on the outcome of the close. If people believe we should close this discussion now, we can put in another request to do so; however, I do not want to make this call on my own. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep open Personally, I don't think this discussion should be closed now. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Close It's already been relisted, clearly it's time to close. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Close As remarked above, I think there has been adequate discussion and I advise closure. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The person in charge (Nathan) disagrees, so let's continue discussing. Randomuser112 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
He's actually not in charge of anything regarding this discussion, really. || Tako (bother me) || 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
He relisted the discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Which doesn't mean he's in charge. Anyone not involved could still close it at any time. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Then why was this discussion relisted after all? Randomuser112 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In my view, it shouldn't have been relisted, given the lack of reasons justifying that decision. But regardless, per WP:RELIST, a relisting doesn't require that a discussion continue for any certain period of time longer before it can be closed - which is why I started this survey, to see if others would like to submit another request despite the relisting. But this survey isn't binding, and an uninvolved editor may still choose to close this discussion at any time regardless of either this survey or the previous relisting decision if they feel the criteria for closure has been met per WP:CLOSE. And the appropriate avenue to challenge a decision to close would then be WP:MRV. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
And who's to decide whether there is consensus or not? Randomuser112 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In this particular case, it'll be whichever uninvolved editor (hopefully administrator) decides to close this discussion after determining the closure criteria are satisfied, unless that decision is appealed per WP:MRV. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Close - No new arguments are being made, 16 editors have participated, and this is clearly a case of WP:DEADHORSE now. It's time to stop arguing in circles and making the same points over and over. Some in this discussion are so damn adamant about their side "winning" (so much for consensus building?) that clearly there is going to be a "loser" in this argument, and there's no need to prolong that inevitability. Bear in mind that WP:MRV is available after a closure if necessary, so a closure isn't necessarily the end, but this stage needs to end. And whoever ultimately does "lose" I suggest reads WP:How to lose and then gets over it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We need more editors to involve in this discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
As you have noted yourself, most new editors are simply repeating the same old arguments. And this discussion has already had more participants than most discussions on article talk pages by far. All good things must come to an end. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion is becoming more cyclic than the Tour de France. Neither side is putting forward anything new, and people on neither side appear to be willing to change their views. I would welcome a second opinion from an uninvolved editor, and am considering whether or not the outcome provided by Nathan is worth a review; I'd like to think it's obvious that this is getting nowhere. I've already been part of one discussion that blighted the face of Wikipedia over a page name, I'd prefer it if we kept this relatively short in comparison.  drewmunn  talk  06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    You have literally no concept of discussion, do you? This is a completely different matter, yet you happily apply your wonderfully parochial opinion of me to anything I say. I have disengaged from the debate, and offered my opinion here on a separate manner. I ask that you respect me, and cease your attacks.  drewmunn  talk  07:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    "You have literally no concept of discussion, do you?" Says the guy who couldn't construct a decent argument to save his ass. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Again with the personal attacks! This discussion (yes, there was meant to be a "this", it's non-existence is a typo) is not about our opinions on the matter, it is about deciding what should be done to resolve them. Do everyone a favour, read my latest comment in the section above, and end this. Everyone can have their own opinions. From the history of this section, you seem perfectly willing to accept them from any other user, ergo, your response to me is nothing but purely personal.  drewmunn  talk  07:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't even understand why you're on here. Can you please stay on topic and not grow me tired of your incredibly out of place advices? Randomuser112 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Stay on topic? The only reason we're on this topic is because you decided to bring a grudge to this section. I am disengaging before I smash a hole in my iPad screen out of frustration. My point here is made, good day to you sir.  drewmunn  talk  07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    You've got no idea what you're talking about. Don't take things too personally and calm down. Randomuser112 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    That statement is either a complete oxymoron or plain patronising. Anyway, if you haven't already, may I suggest you watch The Experiments - The Gameshow.  drewmunn  talk  08:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Just go away. Randomuser112 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is this nonsense? The moment Nathan relisted and stepped into the convo, he was no longer an uninvolved editor. This closing as a Move makes no sense. There is no consensus. || Tako (bother me) || 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is. The lack of argumentation from your side did not help you, you know. Randomuser112 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
And...you still have no idea what you're talking about. You're trying to WIN, rather than improve Wikipedia. This isn't about a lack of arguments on either side. The fact is: There is simply is no consensus to move the page. This should not have been closed as a Move. An overwhelming majority of editors have Opposed it - with valid arguments. Nathan closed this simply to push it to Move Review, which should not have been done on his part. || Tako (bother me) || 17:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
"An overwhelming majority of editors have Opposed it - with valid arguments" I call this bullshit because I've refuted those "valid arguments" (they weren't even valid) numerous times. This page will be moved to The Dark Knight soon, and if you have anything against it, you can go to WP:MR. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
And you STILL don't get it. || Tako (bother me) || 17:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Neither do you. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Nathan's relisting (and explanation of his rationale for doing so) would mean that he should not close. However, when closing, Nathan said "the previous requested move was two and a half years ago". Excuse me, but the last of the four previous requested moves (in Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 13) was closed on 25 November, 2012. That was seven months ago, not 30 months ago. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A review is under way if you wish to make this comment there.  drewmunn  talk  18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you – I just did. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

More on Ledger's Joker

I found some useful content in these sources, which don't seem to be in the article. So someone pls add them:

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

Add category Gangster films, Batman films are gangster 201.43.37.241 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014: Incorrect labeling

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises are not "British-American" superhero productions. They are American, in the same way that the Sony produced Spider-man films are not "Japanese-American" superhero productions. Please revise.

198.105.45.134 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

The character of Batman is fully owned by Warner Brothers.  No production was actually handled by any British companies in The Dark Knight film series.

Synocpy was given a production credit through the director, but Warner Brother provided all the funding meaning THEY (American company) produced the film series. This should be fixed to prevent future confusion. 198.105.45.134 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Country Change as this does not make sense.

Please Change "British-American" to American in the opening paragraph.

The Dark Knight Trilogy was fulled funded by Warner Brothers, the property of Batman is owned by an American studio. The only possible tie to this being a "British Production" is that Syncopy is Christopher Nolans production company, but even then this is a poor argument as most of Nolan's work in pre-production and elsewhere was in the State.

We don't classify this as British-American for the same reason we don't classify Identity Thief or Oblivion British-American and why we don't classify Spiderman and Japanese American.

A film like Skyfall, where the production studio and the funding is driver primary from the U.K. is British-American (If not outright British) but not The Dark Knight Trilogy or Inception.

198.105.45.134 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that conclusion? According to the European Lumiere project all three films of Nolan's Batman Triology are listed as Joint US/Great Britain productions. The code it uses is "US / GB INC", and it explains that as: "A film categorised as US / GB inc is a work produced entirely or partly in the United Kingdom where the main producer is a US-registered company acting through a UK-registered company established specifically for the production of the work." I presume that since in the Country Section of Infobox Template it explicitly cites this database that the information in it is considered reliable.AbramTerger (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on credits

I would like to get a consensus on how to present the Based on credits in the info box. It was recently changed to reflect what is the on the poster: "Based on Batman characters created by Bob Kane and published by DC Comics". I prefer what is in the film which does not give Kane a based on credit: "Based upon characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics" but instead a "created by" credit: "Batman Created by Bob Kane" which does not need to be listed in the infobox. I prefer this since:

  • it is in the primary source of the film as opposed to the secondary source of the poster.
  • The film credit is a more accurate reflection of the facts. Kane created Batman. Others contributed to Batman's development, and while Kane contributed (in collaboration with others) on the creation of many of the characters in the Batman universe, none (other than Batman) was the sole creation of Kane and some of the characters were created without Kane.
  • Having the credit: "Based on Batman characters created by Bob Kane" seems to also open the door to editors who want to add to the based on list with some of the writers who created some of those other Batman characters (eg Finger & Robinson, O'Neil & Adams, and Dixon, Moench, & Nolan, etc)

I am not going to start an edit war, it can stay as it is until discussed and a consensus is reached. AbramTerger (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the addition of Finger as he is not listed in the credits, even the latest ones and did not get involved until after the creation of Batman. If this continues to be an issue, I propose that we go back to the credit in the film which is a more accurate description of what happened, and not include the "created by" credit at all, just the "based on" credit

Rounding Dollars

I have again rounded the Box Office dollars per MOS:LARGENUM. If there are reasons for us to NOT use the established WP style, let's discuss and come to a consensus about the reasons for the deviation. Styles are established to try and maintain consistency between articles.AbramTerger (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of box office grosses, rounding the dollars is actually quite against the established WP style. I've read the MOS, so I see where you're coming from (and actually agree that it should be rounded), but it isn't the norm.
With my support in mind, why are we making it in millions? Why not just "$1 billion"? $1,004.6 million looks really off, in my opinion. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the billions, but on other pages, it was felt that using millions was an easier comparison and on MOJO they have pages with the values in millions, so I am living with the values in terms of millions. [There as an argument that 1,000 million is more clear than billion since in some countries a billion is a million million and others it is a thousand million. But WP guidelines are short scale so that argument seems moot to me].AbramTerger (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I say we change "highly positive reviews" to "widespread critical acclaim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Change Highly Positive Reviews to Widespread Critical Acclaim

Change Highly Positive Reviews to Widespread Critical Acclaim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.3.109 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source and it'll be done. DonQuixote (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Country of Origin

The American Film Institute does not credit the United Kingdom as a country of origin with regards to production of this film. But, on the contrary the British Film Institute does and labels it as a production of the United States and United Kingdom. So, who takes a backseat between these two institutes? This is an American financed film owned by an American studio (Warner Bros.) and produced mostly by an American film production company (Legendary Pictures). Einsteinbomb (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Been discussed before here. Wrath X (talk) 7:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Name of the Joker"

The introduction of the article is suggesting that the antagonist and fictional criminal mastermind of the film is calling himself "The Joker." This, I think, can be rightly judged as quite an mistake, and indeed a falsehood. Let me share the bases of my thought on this issue.

1. It is never suggested that the character in question is presenting himself as "the Joker" in the film. There is nothing in the script in words, in dialogue, that supports it. Full screenplay: http://www.joblo.com/scripts/The_Dark_Knight.pdf 2. It is a major thematic detail. Christopher Nolan (writer, director) on The Joker: "... (The Joker) is an absolute... He is a catalyst for action, people are reacting off and being affected by him..." (source of quote: http://www.slashfilm.com/interview-christopher-nolan/) The fact that the surrounding characters themselves have to name their enemy carries thematic heft. It is one of the ways the story proves that thee character is a force ("an absolute") to be reacted upon. Therefor, writing that the character names himself proves thematically misleading.

Since this is the very first thing the article mentions of the story and The Joker, it is all the more important to be accurate with this detail, so to present a fair characteristic of the character.

A proposal of change in writing: "... criminal mastermind, called ´The Joker´." Another proposal: "... criminal mastermind, ´The Joker´."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.177.85.214 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "criminal mastermind known as 'The Joker'". Good catch! Sock (tock talk) 19:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015

Ledger became the first actor to portray a comic strip/comic book/graphic novel character to win an Oscar
Thanks!

187.190.63.216 (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a hoping to add information on the cast box of the Dark Knight (film) page

I'm hoping to add a description of the Joker. Here's how it goes: "A maniacal criminal mastermind who rises to dominating power by terrorizing Gotham and plunging it into anarchy." BFlatley (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Knight/Archive_14&oldid=1200947679"