Talk:Batman: Arkham Knight

Anonymous source
Editor Favre1fan93 seems dedicated to stating a rumor as fact and quoting therefor an anonymous source. The cited source for the quote not to maniacally screw over customers—but because they believed it was good enough, Klepek, Patrick (July 1, 2015). "Sources: Warner Bros. Knew That Arkham Knight PC Was A Mess For Months". Kotaku, clearly states that the sources were anonymous. ''Two sources, requesting anonymity to avoid jeopardizing their careers, spoke with Kotaku over the past week in hopes of explaining how the broken PC version of Arkham Knight made it out the door. They both said that Warner Bros. was aware of the many issues facing Arkham Knight on PC and that the publisher chose to ship the game regardless, not to maniacally screw over customers—but because they believed it was good enough. Other sources treated the knowledge as rumor, see e.g.'' "Rumor: Warner Bros. knew Batman: Arkham Knight was broken on PC before release" Gamezone; and the reliablity of the Kotaku source was even questioned in the comments on the Kotaku webpage. Based on this lack of unanimity of opinion, and failure to establish Warner Bros. knowledge of the defects with reliable sources, it would seem to violate WP:NPOV as well as WP:UNDUE to include this anonymous quote in the Wikipedia article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote is a good insight into the report. In how it is used in article, the words "reported" and "their sources" are used to indicate that this is not fact, but the opinions of the sources. I don't believe that is in any violation. And should WB games respond to such claims (I don't believe they have), their response could and should be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
 * The source remains anonymous without indicia of reliability. Also, you haven't addressed the issue of WP:UNDUE.  Does not the use of the quote give undue emphasis to Warner Bros. knowledge or lack thereof, in an article that is supposed to be about the game? --Bejnar (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nine months RossButsy (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Nine months RossButsy (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Marketing Section
The Times Square ad image needs to be a little bit bigger, preferably the size I've set it to now and that's because the image is based on content. Readers need to see what the image says and it's not actually visible in the size that was previously set. The objective is to make the article more readable and "view-able" on mobile devices and tablets. The image should be large enough to comprehend without it actually being clicked on for a second time and that's exactly the case here. Majority of the people who're just "reading" Wikipedia, just scroll through the article and just the see the images and try to understand the gravity of the article and if the image is small or requires a second click to see, then it is highly likely that they would not see it. So, let the image stick to the size I've set it to. Thanks! D437 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is purely promotional content, a picture of advertising. I have removed it, ending the controversy.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly why the picture was placed in the Marketing section of the article. Doesn't it make sense to show a marketing ploy in the section? And isn't it the formal convention to discuss edits before actually reverting or in this case entirely removing the image? D437 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of if the picture should be kept or not, it is too large. If readers want to see it in its detail, that is what the gallery viewer and/or the actual file location is for. I'm restoring the smaller size back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See, I get it, the image is a panorama shot, its big and all that, but the current size is too small and my proposed is supposedly too big for everyone here, what if we agree on a size that's not in the extremes? Say, something in between what your proposed image size is and my proposed size is? Say something at about 400px or 375px where its not too large to make it look awkward or too small for readers to not be able to see the image at all. Let's work this out and help people. Thanks! D437 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It really shouldn't go higher than 350. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've set it at 350px. No more reverts or edits, its final. 350. D437 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing is ever final. That's not how Wikipedia works. And my comment wasn't that it should be 350. Just that it shouldn't go higher than that. 300 is still an adequate size for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what, fine. Keep it your way. Its because of "editors" like you that Wikipedia will never be accepted as a proper/legit/cite-able source anywhere in the world. Thank you. I will remove the image entirely from Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. D437 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

minor corrections/doubts
is "scarecrow's nightmare" a DLC or a challenge map? that's not specified, or is wrong (as it says DLC in the article) please correct it in order to avoid confusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And another thing, acording to the source lex luthor and kate kane-batwoman- are referenced by means of easter eggs in the game but in th article says that they actually physicaly appear in the game wich is clearly wrong. this should-or better yet must, be changed
 * "Scarecrow's Nightmare" is DLC challenge maps. Wording for Lex and Kate Kane is fine. "Appearance" does not mean only physical. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim" or "positive reviews"?
There has been an ongoing battle for a while (but not a reversion war) with both registered and unregistered editor on whether this game, like Batman: Arkham Asylum, holds critical acclaim or was only met with positive reviews. So, which is it? Discuss. — CobraWiki ( jabber 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Positive reviews" is the best terminology, because A) it has less than 90 on both GameRankings and Metacritic. Still good but not "critical acclaim"; and B) the PC version got far more critical reviews, particularly because of its technical mishaps. So that right there means it was not "critically acclaimed". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It is most appropriate to say critical acclaim for the console versions, because A) there are many other games that have the same rating on Metacritic or even lower that are cited as critical acclaim. B) So many publications praised the console versions, many saying it was one of the best games of the year and some saying the console generation. C) Metacritic should not be the ultimate deciding factor of whether or not it's critical acclaim, it should be looking at all publications as a whole. The console versions should say critical acclaim and the PC versions should say negative reviews.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.78.244 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)