Talk:The Batman (film)

Calling All "The Batman" Fans!
to all of "The Batman" fans, would anyone be willing to help with Draft:Edward Nashton (The Batman franchise). any help would be much appreciated! Jstewart2007 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note that it is highly unlikely that draft will make it to the mainspace anytime soon. Draft:Bruce Wayne (The Batman franchise) has a better chance, but the prospects are still quite slim. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated box office on May 8
I want to update the box office because on May 8, 2023, on the "2022 in film" page, the film's gross was updated through Box Office Mojo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1153888051 181.67.203.170 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition, all mentions of box office earnings are already accurate with the diff given. I am confused about what change is needed. If you decide to reopen, please clarify what you need changed.  Heart  (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to update the box office number from $770.9 million to $771 million by checking the Box Office Mojo here: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tttt1877830/
 * The box office was updated as of May 8, 2023, as I posted above. 181.67.203.170 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source said $770,962,583 but people are posted above what the source says, you shouldn't round up, I've removed the field as you're just abusing it. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO to before the dispute was raised. I encourage this to be resolved swiftly, and to follow the numbers as provided by the source. I am however not aware if there is any specific guideline on rounding that could be of use here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If a source says something, you should make sure wikipedia is equal to the source, you get a number from a source and start to round it up or down, then you're no longer following what the source says. Rounding up or down seems a breach of WP:OR in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with WP:OR. Reliable sources round large numbers (on the order of millions and greater) all the time. DonQuixote (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I ask, have you read MOS:UNCERTAINTY? Govvy (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've taught undergraduate physics lab for decades. MOS:UNCERTAINTY doesn't apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, per the MOS:LARGENUM part of what you pointed to
 * The speed of light is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s
 * but Particle velocities eventually reached almost two-thirds the 300-million-metre-per-second speed of light.
 * which does apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've met a nuclear physicist who couldn't install a printer driver correctly in a school! If you have an exact number, why would you change that number? From accurate to inaccurate due to rounding a number? The source said one thing, so you feel it's right to change what the source says? From a legal prospective it could be said you're fiddling with the numbers??!! Govvy (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have an exact number, why would you change that number?
 * Context matters. The infobox is for quick-and-dirty information. Three significant digits in the infobox is adequate for an article of this type. A more accurate figure can be mentioned in the article proper. Seriously, as implied in the above example, using 299,792,458 m/s or 300 million m/s or 3.0×108m/s depends on context. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It still counts as changing the number changing 770,962,583 to 770.9, that's reducing the actual figure by 62,583 instead of increasing it by 37,417. 771 is more accurate. Indagate (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, by the rules of arithmetic, that rounds up to 771.0 million anyways, so Govvy is incorrect even wrt that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's my issue with rounding up. Imagine a film that has made $999,962,583. A lot of benchmarks in the industry define the $1 billion mark as a milestone, and some technical observers would be apt to point out that the film in our imaginary example did not reach the $1 billion mark on technical grounds. While we aren't near a milestone in this example, it's still fair to want to be consistent across Wikipedia. In my opinion, you should either round down to $770.9 (despite the greater margin of inaccuracy) or simply stick with the full number. Just my opinion. I have to assume this has been thoroughly discussed many times at WT:FILM over the years if anyone cares to dig up past discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To break the stalemate, I propose that whatever the consensus be, whether it be a floor or ceiling in regards to rounding up the matter, perhaps there could be a footnote detailed the actual amount? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The number of significant digits isn't set in stone and can vary depending on context. In the context of this film, there isn't that much difference between 770.96 and 771 so it shouldn't matter as much. DonQuixote (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That problem only arises with milestones or numbers that are considered "important", not in 770 to 771 and not in most cases. —El Millo (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Rounding up wouldn't be the end of the world in this situation, but I think the context matters. In the infobox, there's more leeway to sticking with 4 significant digits and retaining $770.9 million, but in running prose, I'd be more likely to state $771 million. Regardless of the outcome here, someone could report the full number in an efn footnote. Seems like a good compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Except rounding results in 771.0 million. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I think I have an idea. I think that first, we can just snag a tilde to whatever quantity is chosen (ie ~771M or ~770.9M) and then have a footnote there to clarify if it's rounded up or down. Does this break the stalemate? In the prose, is it ok if we say that the film made "approximately $771/770.9M" or do we want to be precise? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All of that is inherently implied in rounded figures and unnecessary if you use the 771 figure. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In prose, I would not use the full number, and the use of "approximately" isn't generally needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @DonQuixote @GoneIn60 I notice this thread hasn't been updated in a few days. With that being said, have we decided on any final consensus yet? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With only a handful of participants, the consensus here would be rough, but I am fine with the rounded $771 million figure as long as an efn is used in the infobox next to the stated amount. The efn can simply say, "rounded from $770.96 million", or something along those lines. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't mind as long as you use proper arguments and precedents. (If you really want to use the 770 figure, the applicable convention is to use '+' or 'plus' or to outright state that the actual figure is more than that.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright folks, I'll dip my toes in the water here and go for @GoneIn60's approach if that's ok. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a valid reason not to round up from 770.96 to 771. There's no particular significance to the 771 figure, it's not comparable to going from 999 to a billion or from 499 to 500. There's no need for any clarification either, as it's just common practice to round up, especially when the difference is so small. —El Millo (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We also never do this when rounding up or down box office gross in film infoboxes, it's just a common practice and there's hardly ever been any confusion. Unless there's a specific reason for this film in particular, we shouldn't be doing it. —El Millo (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Facu-el Millo So what do you think we should do then? Stick to 770 or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless the difference between the actual value and 771 is significant, it's rather unnecessary. As El Millo pointed out, it's not like a billion or 500.
 * Also, I'd like to add that exact figures are only important (over rounded figures) if your intention is to present data that others are going to use to perform some kind of calculation (this is actually where WP:UNCERTAINTY is applicable). Since this is a general encyclopaedia article about a film, and the actual figure is available when you follow the citations back to the source, rounded figures are adequate here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, per this edit, the actual rounding that you want is from 770.96 because otherwise it'll be 771.0 from proper rounding to four digits. DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep it rounded up to $771 million, as it currently is. There's no exceptional reason to treat this figure or this film differently than any other figure. The only exceptions would be milestones, such as 100 million, 500 million or 1 billion, depending on the scale of the film of course, as for some films 100 million doesn't count as a milestone and for some smaller films 50 million could count as one. —El Millo (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, and with that rationale, I think it's safe to say that there's also no need for a footnote. With that being said, is it safe to say that all agrees to resolving the dispute by sticking to the SQUO? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we'd be sticking to the status quo because we see no compelling reason to change our approach. We seem to have majority in favor of the status quo. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, no efn then. Not a world-ending concern. Worth keeping in mind in future situations where the rounding is more extreme or near an industry-accepted milestone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "under discussion" notice as we've come to consensus. —El Millo (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Short description should include director name
Please note WP:SHORTDESC the purpose of which is to help disambiguate similar titles. WP:SDEXAMPLES shows that the best way to do this is of the form: Year Film by Director. For the sake of brevity an editor removed Matt Reeves name from the short description (diff) unfortunately a generic short description undermines a key purpose of the short description. Matt Reeves should be restored to short description. If brevity is a concern then information such as nationality or genre can be omitted instead. -- 109.76.130.9 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that Reeves should be mentioned as he is notable, and I have restored it as such. I have removed the "American" bit from the SD as it is not the most descriptive term we could use there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Prep for GA Nom
The Bat-Signal has been lit! I just wanted to let both of you know that I have made the rounds through the article in the past few months c/e-ing and reorganizing some para details, reformatted various refs and images, and added some missing details to the point where I am sitting comfortable for additional perspectives and moving forward with this process in the hopes of getting this article onto the path of the GA nom that we had previously discussed. I have some more free time coming up during this week so I will be able to assist and coordinate if you both are able to begin further work on this in that time. I'm thinking a good goal would be to get this promoted to Good Article status ahead of The Penguin's September premiere, which should ideally give us enough time to work out the remaining nuts and bolts of this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * For starters, I do think a good plan would be to rummage through the ref ideas at the top and see what we may incorporate into the article that isn't already. I'm sure The Art of The Batman has some interesting details, although I do not readily have it available but could get it unless someone else does (if not, no worries!). I already ensured there were stable archives and ref formatting for those refs to prep for them being implemented. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Trailblazer101! I'm very excited to hear that! I took a decent break these past few months so I'm definitely eager to get started on Wiki work once again. I should also be available to coordinate some GA work throughout this summer for a while. I would like to get this promoted, but I think it's a bit improbable it'll happen prior to The Penguin's premiere as it'll still take time. Still, it'll be good. I also don't have The Art book but I think there's more than enough detail anyways. And awesome work on the refs, for now, I'm just gonna look through the article and see if there's any other additional CE I can do. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! I figured September as a rough goal time is a bit ambitious, though I'm content in taking the necessary amount of time in sorting through this process. I agree that there is a lot of interesting information throughout this article already, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help as much as I can. My wiki time has been super limited the last couple months and that may continue for a while. --  Zoo Blazer  17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. And btw, @Trailblazer101, just from a quick scan, I think there's still a decent bit of prose and filler content, so at some point, there could be some more trims. I also think some of the pictures could be improved, such as the set photos and the premiere photo, ie getting photos from perhaps the October 2020 shoot or a group photo. I don't think there's more content that needs to be included, and our biggest priority for the article rn can be verifying the refs and doing Copyvio checks. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree on the set photos and premiere one. I had a difficult time finding any ones that were already freely available, though I do think either the Oct 2020 shoot or group photo would be much more helpful. I'm sure there are some free files available, such as on Flickr, with the proper license. Some trimming throughout I agree would also be good. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)