Talk:Dark Knight

Move request
From WP:RM:
 * Dark Knight → Dark knight — DAB page should use uncapitalized form —132.205.44.134 22:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know of no guideline stating this, especially when all the items being disambiguated are proper nouns, and thus capitalised. --Stemonitis 06:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this page is in fact disambiguating things named "Dark Knight," then it should be there. SnowFire 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed re:capitalization, and further support retention of the 'The'. Batman isn't called 'Dark Knight' but specifically The Dark Knight. Editors continue to alter the pages, and one current half-witted solution would have TDK go to Batman, hatnote back to Dark knight, which would redirect to TDK. Genius. These were fine until about a week ago, when a new editor mucked it all up. Undo his mistakes, leave the whole mess alone. ThuranX 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think your understanding of what people have suggested is mistaken. Why would somebody propose a redirect at Dark Knight back to Batman when they're talking about having a disambig there with a hatnote at Batman which The Dark Knight would be redirecting to instead of here?  It seems to me you may be a bit confused. In any case, there's no reason to call a solution half-witted, especially since it's actually fairly reasonable for a disambiguation page to exist for a title that has multiple usages.  It's done on Gautama Buddha after all.  There's two redirects named there, both of which lead back to the original article, which seems to me to be the sound practice.  And Batman already links to a disambiguation page.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, has anybody else noticed The Batman exists as a disambiguation page of its own? Should it be redirected?  At the least, somebody should probably clean up the links.  FrozenPurpleCube

Change the title
The reason I moved this page to read "The Dark Knight (disambiguation)" and pointed people typing in "The Dark Knight" to The Dark Knight (film) is because if somebody types that in, they're going to expect to find the movie page, not this disambiguation page, and then I put a link on the movie page to the disambiguation page. Why did you change it back? Even if it's left as "Dark knight (disambiguation)", that's okay, but as I said, if you type "The Dark Knight" into the box and click "Go", it should direct you to the film page, not to the disambiguation page. Comments? Suggestions? Please provide a rationale, or I'm changing it back. Thanks. cocoapropo (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "The Dark Knight" most likely specifically refers to the film.  That page should say "For other uses, see Dark Knight (disambiguation)".  The redirect from "The Dark Knight" to "Dark Knight (disambiguation)" is nonsensical. -- Renesis (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clean up the talk page locations while you are at it, they are all a mess. -- Renesis (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Dark Knight" is a pre-established moniker for Batman, so there is zero reason to make the article about the recent film the primary topic. The disambiguation page serves as a catch-all so we don't assume whether the reader wants to know about Batman, the film, the video game, the graphic novel, etc. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Zero reason? How about this isn't a Batman-o-pedia? This encyclopedia is about real life topics.  So we consider what is the most common result for a search term. It's certainly better going to the film than redirecting to Dark Knight (disambiguation). -- Renesis (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So if this isn't Batman-o-pedia, then wouldn't the disambiguation page be perfectly acceptable in providing the range of topics having "Dark Knight" in them? :) Besides, WP:NCF says, "But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, title the film article like this: Film Title (film)."  Obviously the film title "The Dark Knight" is not the primary topic, so it is going to be disambiguated anyway. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that as the title of the article itself, for me the question is the target of the title "The Dark Knight" (with The included). I think it should be redirected to the film instead of the disambiguation page, which is appropriate at dark knight.  When The is included, it's much more clear that it is a proper noun, referencing the film, and will become even more-so as the film inevitably becomes a fixture of film discussion in the future, given the records it has set/broken. (This is similar to the Rock Band/Rock band controversy, which was decided to point to two different articles, given the capitalization distinction) -- Renesis (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. "The Dark Knight" should automatically go to the film page. The movie is the only item in that list that is the exact title of "The Dark Knight". The only other exact match is The Dark Knight being the nickname of Batman, but this movie's significance surpasses that given its box office and pop culture impact. A link to the disambiguation page can be included at the top of the article. Phoenixmuffin (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

More people seem to be for The Dark Knight going to the film page and not this page. Considering that the film is more relevant beyond the Batman mythos and popular culture I'm changing it. I'm also including an otheruse link at the top of the film page that leads to this page, so hopefully most parties should be satisfied. Phoenixmuffin (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly me thought that when more people said to do one thing that more people had to disagree before something was changed. The Dark Knight is a proper noun that refers to the film. "the dark knight" "The dark knight" "The Dark knight", "dark Knight", "dark knight", "Dark knight", and "The dark Knight" probably all go to this page. It's ONE variation of the numerous ways it could be typed. There's plenty of re-directs for this disambiguation page, and until popular opinion on this discussion page changes the re-direct should not be changed.Phoenixmuffin (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that The Dark Knight film is such a phenomenon at the box office and with the critics and such, people probably are looking to go to that page when they type "the dark knight" into search. 24.60.239.47 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet someone keeps changing it. Rest assured I will keep changing it back until it is decided upon otherwise in here.Phoenixmuffin (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia.  See discussion that was linked to at your talk page. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there an additional discussion on this apart from this page, then? I feel it's unfair to be told I'm disrupting Wikipedia just because I was unaware of a superfluous discussion page on the issue.Phoenixmuffin (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of anyone trying to see previous opinions on this subject, the conversations mentioned above are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and Talk:The Dark Knight. There doesn't seem to be a consensus supporting either position. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Black knight?
What does Batman (Dark Knight) have to do with black knight? And therefore, what does black knight have to do with Batman? I find the last revert unjustified and propose removal of interlinks --Masterius (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms are near synonyms. Inclusion as see also terms is quite sensible. older ≠ wiser 17:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Synonyms? The terms are unrelated. One looking for black knights, armour-claded sword-wielding heroes of historical and romance novels, won't be interested in some comics superhero character from Gotham City. And otherwise. The analogue, based on dark≈black, in this case is simply meaningless. --Masterius (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You assume someone knows what they are looking for. The terms are close enough to be confused and confusing as to merit a mention. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just google it. Considering the popularity of the film, of course they know what they are looking for. So being confused is really unreasonable. 'See also' section should point to related subjects: like 'knight errant' to 'paladin' and 'black knight' to 'ronin', etc. And to opposite: like 'black knight' to 'white knight', etc. --Masterius (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You assume much. Not everyone is a fan of the film. You haven't offered any reason for removing the link other than that you don't like it and that you don't think anyone could be confused. That isn't very convincing. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave the reason: subjects are unrelated. One shouldn't be a fan of something to know about it. In fact, it would be suprising if someone have never heard of the film. I suppose you simply want to advertise the character to the non-Batman interested persons by providind the interlinks. --Masterius (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The terms are formed from near synonyms, which by itself is reason enough to mention in the see also on a disambiguation page. I've no particular interest in advertising anything. The terms are similar enough to be confused and the minimal benefit outweighs the negligible harm. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The modern reality (and Hollywood) has already distinguished the terms. So there is no actual benefit (even minimal) in the interlinks. In fact, the harm is in them, because the links confuse, not the terms. --Masterius (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that based on evidence or your supposition? older ≠ wiser 12:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the evidence of people calling Batman the Black Knight nowadays? There is the evidence of using the term 'Dark Knight' in historical and romance novels? And so there is the evidence of people confusing the terms? Proved should be leaving something, not removing. --Masterius (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is a disambiguation page for the term "Dark Knight". It is not an article about Batman or the movies. It is next to impossible to prove that people could not confuse the terms, and considering the similarity of the terms, it is rather likely that some people might confuse them. MOSDAB indicates that on a disambiguation page a see also section can include terms which might be confused with the title being disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be easily proven: if people do confuse the terms, then you can find it all over the internet. And unless something really changes, the term 'Dark Knight' mostly refers to Batman and the things relating to franchise. And so MOSDAB indicates that easily confused are:
 * Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
 * Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont
 * Different forms of Title, for example Splitting, Split, and Splitter
 * Links to indexes of article titles beginning with Title (using ) and/or article titles containing Title (using )
 * And the terms black knight and dark knight do not fit into any of these categories. Black and dark, which are two different words in both spelling and writing. --Masterius (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- unindent I've no idea what you mean by saying if people do confuse the terms, then you can find it all over the internet. The terms black knight and dark knight do indeed qualify for the first bullet as terms which can be confused. It's obvious that neither of us are going to convince the other. I suggest you might solicit some other opinions from WT:MOSDAB regulars. older ≠ wiser 03:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Dark Knight (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2019

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closure.  Calidum   17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Dark Knight → Dark knight – Per MOSCAPS. Not all entries are capped therefore the title should not be Primergrey (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not uncontroversial. Every entry titled "Dark Knight", is title case. The only non-title case entry isn't even exact match. older ≠ wiser 03:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The usual standard for this is preponderance, not whether or not all possible titles are capped. Disambiguation pages don't fall under WP:MOSCAPS in that way; they automatically deal with a number of different topics that are capitalized differently in reliable sources. Note also WP:DABNAME: "The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives." Dekimasu よ! 05:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose' per Dekimasu. Easy misunderstanding, but we do tend to name dabs based on the most common format (perhaps weighted by popularity of the listed alternatives). -- Netoholic @ 06:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, "Dark Knight" seems the most common name.Nohomersryan (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above/WP:COMMONNAME. Bingo bro   (Chat)  13:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2019 (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.