Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 7

new poster
TAKE IT DOWN. ITS DISTURBING AND THE FIRST ONE WAS BETTER! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since its the latest poster of the movie, so I think it should be displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the reasons why it should be taken down? because YOU say it's "disturbing".. and because YOU think the first one was better. Your personal opinion should have no weight in this matter, the new poster is official and it is a part of the movie so it should be displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.155.98 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bale quotes
Some nice quotes here about how Bale and ledger worked together on this and various other things - might be worth integrating. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the Game be mentioned?
Should the development of the game based on this film be mentioned or not? It says so right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_computer_and_video_games#Future_video_game_appearances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk • contribs)
 * I removed this rumour. If there were a game, well, we'd know it'd existed. Maybe people are just tired of making VG cash-ins on films. Likewise, there's no KOTCS game. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a secret project but it's happening....64.7.28.70 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Future Film "No Robin"
I found a article where Bale Quotes "If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work." I wan to put this in the article but idk where seeing there is no section about "Future Developments" --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Early Dark Knight Reviews: Batman Christian Bale Says 'No Robin'


 * That may be more useful for Batman (film series). — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all there. Alientraveller (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Helpful?
Found this, which I am sure has been seen by one or the other before. As it was commentary during the filming, I thought it might be appropriate to the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Its just a review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's four pages of production information and the like, which will certainly be useful to this article's caretakers should anything good be found that's not be already included here. Steve  T • C 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read it, it's nothing new. Alientraveller (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, that was all pretty dismissive. I wouldn't have added it here if it contained naught but duplicated info found in this article. It isn't. To begin with, it's not just a review (as the story was written during filming - not much really to review, right?) I offered it bc there's some pretty nifty stuff about Ledger's performance and how the other actors on set described it. Also, a lot about Nolan's interaction with the cast. Precious little of that in this article. Considering that most of the reviews this far are talking posthumous Oscar for Ledger for this, it sorta seems worth mentioning. And no, not in Ledger's article (or at least, not just there). -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but Travers' review does have hope for a posthumous nomination. Of course, if you feel there's something new you can implement it. That's what this free encyclopedia is about. Alientraveller (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pic of Harvey Dent's District Attorney Poster
I uploaded a pic of Harvey Dent's District Attorney Poster but was removed. It should be displayed and not taken down again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to conform to WP:NFCC when we include non-free images. For example, the non-free images used in the article have their significances established through coverage from secondary sources.  The poster does not have this kind of coverage, and even if it did, I don't think it would be very representative of the film.  If anything, it's more appropriate for marketing, but we already have an image there. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But that pic is in the Two-Face article, so it should be displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk • contribs) 16:30, July 3, 2008


 * I'm not sure if the picture has a place there, either. When the film comes out, a image of scarred Harvey Deny can go there.  It really does not have a place here, though. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations
The trailer won the Best Trailer of the Year Award and it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker and Dent not according to the comics
This should be mentioned that Joer and Harvey Dent are not the ones according to the comics. In the comics, Joker fell in a tank of chemicals and thats how his new appearance was formed and also became insane. But in the film, he is just a criminal mastermind with a clown's make up. That goes same for Harvey Dent. From the third trailer, it seems that Acid was no thrown on him, but it happened with gasoline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.47.220 (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Name a film exactly like the comics. Alientraveller (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on here, it is what it is, the first movie wasn't exactly like any comic book either, so let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.155.98 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Up-to-date poster
I am almost positive that this is the most reccent poster: http://www.themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/joker-dark-knight-3.jpg

Should we change it? --Harvey &quot;Two-Face&quot; Dent (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's the most recent. In any case, I think we are staying with the international poster because there are a lot of posters that have come out.  The international poster seems like the best choice since it won't have any kind of systemic bias toward the United States and best reflect the film's global reach. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of well-sourced pertinent material previously discussed
Someone came along and removed a chunk of well-sourced pertinent material previously discussed without any prior discussion on this talk page before doing so, or any sign of consensus. I have restored it to the article. Some sources are referred back to and I haven't time to check each one of the sources [that was removed wholesale in that manner to see if they are being referred to subsequently]. Adequate discussion of such controversial editing of this article needed prior to removing well-sourced material from the article; see Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines for guidance. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the material. Just because there's more about the Joker and Heath Ledger doesn't mean it has to be trimmed down.  There's clearly been more coverage about the actor and his role than any other cast member. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to all the quotes about Ledger's performance? Those are unnecessary. It's not important to note what Mark Hamill said about the small snippet he saw of Ledger's performance. Any commentary on Ledger's performance would best be reserved for a "Reception" section, and even then, it would be more relevant to include the opinions of reviewers, instead of Guillermo Del Toro. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The material in the article that the (apparently-above) editor keeps removing has already been discussed (also see archived talk pages) and it has been considered well-sourced pertinent material, significant and notable enough to include. Please sign with 4 tildes so that user name shows up. Thank you. (See notices at top.)  --NYScholar (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus (over several months) that the material that User:WesleyDodds removed more than once today has "encyclopedic value"; see WP:3RR re: such reverting and Edit warring. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quotations that were removed need to be included and integrated in the article sections; since they pertain particularly to either Heath Ledger's playing the role of the Joker or his actual performance prior to the film's release based on the trailer, they do not fit into the "Critical reception" section (as currently developed); the Jack Nicholson comment needs restoration; it is pertinent and has been removed and restored by editors over an extended period of time (please consult the editing history of the article as well as the talk page/archived talk pages). If two editors object to deleting the material that one editor has been removing, that does not indicate that the editor doing the removing has any "consensus" to make those deletions. The view of what is or is not "encyclopedic" is a judgment of editors, not an "objective" matter. The material seemed notable, important, and interesting and I see no rationale for deleting it, nor did another editor who comments in response above. --NYScholar (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a long reply that got deleted because my page accidentally refreshed. In short: just because a topic has already been discussed doesn't mean discussion can't be reopened; these are quotes by neither critics, researchers, or even the crew, just observers who've only seen minimal footage of Ledger in the role at best; and compare the same situation to examples of installments in a film franchise you are not familiar with. If there's a new adaptation of Dracula, it's pointless to include quotes from actors who previously played Dr. Van Helsing about the new guy portraying the role. Also, I simply forgot to sign my name, which I can assure you is not a common practice on my part. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New disambiguation page
I typed in "The Dark Night" on the search panel, and I had to go through two redirects (or whatever they're called) to get here: Dark Night of the Soul and Dark Night (film). Should we make a new disambig. page to list these? I think so -  Corn.u.co.pia ♥  Disc.us.sion  02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I could see us adding "For the Batman Begins sequel, see The Dark Knight".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, guess I'm just about the dumbest user there is. I'll come back when I learn how to spell Knight, lol.  Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ  Disc.us.sion  03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make you dumb. It was actually good that you stumbled across that, because it lets us know what someone may come along and mispell the title.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. That means that deep down I'm a genius!  Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ  Disc.us.sion  03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor who adds new material must follow prevailing citation format
Moving here from article; not in proper citation format; not responsibility of other editors to reformat; responsibility of editors adding the material to follow prevailing citation format: >> [added another problematic insertion not in proper citation format. Please read the article and the related editing policies and guidelines. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)] B. Alan Orange of MovieWeb gives 5/5 stars calling The Dark Knight "an outstanding achievement in pulp cinema". Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter describes The Dark Knight as "pure adrenaline" that is "one nervy blend of top entertainment and thoughtful character study." >> >> [Added another insertion that needs proper formatting if included. See below as well. --NYScholar (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]
 * << . . . and it currently holds a 100% on Rottentomatoes.com.
 * <<Justin Chang of Variety describes The Dark Knight as "an ambitious, full-bodied crime epic of gratifying scope and moral complexity."

Promotion
I'm a little concerned that the article is sounding too promotional. Ironically, it's not the "Promotion" (née "Marketing") section I have a problem with, it's the "Official movie premiere" and "Related special events" sections. Do we really need to know that Zimmer and Howard will be "performing together for the very first time"? Do we really need the "Related special events" section at all? I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to stuffing articles full of whatever I can find, but it's always with the intention of a subsequent cull down to the good stuff. Will this be pertinent information in a year's time? Is a completely separate section with details of "The Dark Night Gala, a sold-out 'Special Event' tribute to director Christopher Nolan" relevant even now? I think we need to lose the PR guff and place the good information from these sections in their proper place. Steve T • C 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't see how a movie premiere would be worth writing about in the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much detailing "the premiere will be on xxx", which I'm OK with, it's that it's currently worded like a PR piece, and given too much prominence by having its own section. Steve  T • C 07:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Find most of those changes acceptable, though I made some format corrections, improved coherence, and restored deleted Wikified links; someone had deleted a source citation referred to three times in previous material, and I restored a citation template for it. (No need for double brackets around dates in citation templates; they show up properly without them: see WP:CITE templates (consistency of format throughout this article; prevailing citation format). --NYScholar (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Midnight" showings, as stated in WB source citation, begin on July 17, 2008 (not the 18th); 12:00 a.m. = "midnight" = 24:00 (the last hour, the "witching hour") on that date; 12:01 a.m. is the beginning of July 18, 2008; I've restored the sourced date; see official Web site; it's right on the home/welcome page, as linked in EL and in the infobox (as per W:MOS format). --NYScholar (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, July 16, 2008, in Australia, is July 17, 2008, in North America (the U.S.), depending also on actual time of day or night; allowing for world time zone differences, if Warner Bros. set the release date that way, the (apparent) differences in dates are also relative to differences in world time zones ; see archived discussions relating to release dates; some nationalistic competition led to earlier edit warring about that, it appears; one just wants to be factual here, not to skew the information toward any national (or nationalistic) preferences. --NYScholar (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [Sorry for all the time-zone-related edits in the section (Theatrical release) with the dates; the insertion of a time zone required parallel changes. --NYScholar (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)]
 * [My local (New York) cinema just sent out an e-mail notice for its upcoming schedule next week saying that its midnight showing (mentioned on the Warner Bros. official film website--which says check local listings), is at 12:01 (a.m.) July 18 ("limited" advance ticket seats). --NYScholar (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)]


 * Whether it's on a website or not, isn't the publisher we should be citing for Rolling Stone Wenner Publishing, as per Template:cite news? Steve  T • C 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The prevailing format in the article is to cite the short name for the web location within italics.  It is of no use to readers to see "Wenner Publishing"; the publisher is the website.  Using it indicates that the publication accessed for verification purposes is a web-based publication, not a print publication.  The linked work title already lists the publisher of the print publication.  We are not using the print version; we are using the Web version, and the short version of the Web site address (URL) indicates its publisher.  The other information is arcane and not necessary for our citation purposes, which are for ease of finding the cited source (that is, the Web site).  Style formats (see Style manuals) do not indicate publishing firm name generally except for book titles.  This is a Web-based publication of a magazine/journal.  Similarly, it is not useful to readers to indicate the print publisher's name for newspapers like The New York Times; doing so is useless to readers; what they need is information relating to finding the source to verify and/or to consult it otherwise. [added new sign., posted a bit earlier; see sig. below.] --NYScholar (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Prevailing citation templates/citation formats

 * [See also:, subsequent sections of this talk page, and archived talk pages for previous discussions. --NYScholar (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)]

The fields in citation templates are optional and one chooses those most useful to readers. In endnotes one does not reverse the normal order of names either; last name, first name order is only really useful for alphabetized lists (Bibliography, "References" that are not endnotes/note citations/footnotes). [This aricle has consistently been using the "author=" field in the citation templates; there are many different citation templates posted throughout Wikipedia; some of them contradict one another in presentation and explanation. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)]

[Note:] The dates are not showing up in the order that they used to; perhaps the templates were revised after first used in this article. It used to be that the dates appeared within parentheses toward beginning of citation or after author's or authors' names when using the template called "cite web" but not with "cite news"; now all the dates are appearing up front it seems. --NYScholar (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When editing a long-established article such as this one, editors are supposed to follow the prevailing citation format used throughout it, not to alter it to their own idiosyncratic preferences or interpretations. Please see WP:MOS and WP:CITE particularly; there are many choices among templates and fields within templates; the choice prevailing here is one of the simplest ones. Our concern is verification of sources and ease of finding the sources cited, espec. if the URLs no longer function in the future; Wenn Publishing etc. would be of no use in such situations; the italicized shortened Web address (URL) however, can be used in a Web Archive search, where one needs to use at least some form of "http://". --NYScholar (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But surely the information given in the  field will provide that information, should it be required. I'm happy to go along with the "prevailing citation format", but I will at least question it when I think that format may be in error. I thought the   field was there not for this additional naming/verification of the citation, but in order to support the claim that the publication named in the   field is a reliable source. Naming Wenn Publishing is saying that Rolling Stone is not a self-published source of indeterminate reliability, but that it has a proper publisher with a reputation, that it's notable enough for us to use.  Steve  T • C 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But there is already a Wikified link to that (and other) publications, which make crystal clear that it and they are not self-published; I think that concern is a red-herring; if they were self-published, they would not be cited in this article. With a magazine as well known as Rolling Stone, there is no chance that one would think the magazine is self-published; self-published blogs and websites are not acceptable as sources in this article generally; see WP:V and WP:BLP; there are too many allusions to living persons in this article to use self-published sources; I have had to remove them in the past.  A bigger problem with the citations templates for "journals" ("cite journal") is that they do not put issue numbers and volume numbers and dates of publication in proper relation: it should read: issue no. (date in parentheses): page numbers.  It does not come out that way and it is necessary to tinker with some of the templates so that the publishing information posts in the proper order.  There are some discrepancies in this article still, due to the problematic templates; "cite news" is best for newspapers; but there are differences between magazines and other periodical publications called "journals" that Wikipedia's citation templates obscure.  I would prefer the dates (month, day, year) to follow the name of a newspaper, but somehow that's been reversed in "cite news".  See Style guides and Wiki-linked citation-related information via WP:MOS for further guidance and better understanding of the problems with these Wikipedia citation templates. --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify further: a magazine like Rolling Stone is, in Wikipedia, already considered a reliable, "third-party published source"; if one were giving the publisher as Wenner Publishing, however, to a person who does not know better, it might actually appear self-published (by the owner of the company, Jann Wenner), rather than a "third-party published source"; in this case, as in most others cited in this article, if the material appears on the Web, or even in print, the Web, or print, publisher cannot be the author of the article being cited unless the author is already acceptable as a reliable source due to his or her already-recognized notability as an expert (some such sources here are included due to that factor); first-party published blogs and Websites, published by the authors (subjects) themselves being cited as sources, are not generally considered citable; they are permitted to be listed in the EL sections of articles on those subjects according to WP:BLP, but not in articles about other subjects, particularly not in articles about or discussing other living persons. WP:EL and WP:BLP make these kinds of distinctions among permissible and non-permissible sources in articles like this one.  --NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia using citation templates is not required; but once one kind prevails (as it has been adapted to purposes of the particular article), one does not go back to one of the many types of templates and change the format to them if doing so is no improvement to the article. In this case, adding the publisher's firm name (e.g., Wenner Publishing) is not an improvement to this article (in my view as expressed above). The citation templates have been adapted to be most useful to readers. Citation templates are one option, there are many different contradictory kinds of templates, and one does one's best to create a format that is useful and not confusing to readers. "Consistency" is the hallmark of bibliographical style formatting; inconsistent use of different features of different kinds of citation templates possible in Wikipedia (but not required) is confusing to readers. What is required is consistency. --NYScholar (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) [added a few clarifications. This comment section responds to a question in previous section, also answered there. --NYScholar (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)]
 * BTW: "Wenner Publishing" is actually now part of "Wenner Media LLC"; the infobox/article on Rolling Stone seems to need updating. --NYScholar (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database
It is inappropriate to directly cite Internet Movie Database in a film article; the website does not hold up in a FAC process. IMDb has now been removed thrice -- by myself, Steve, and Alientraveller. Please do not re-add it. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to keep removing the sources used for material in the article, you need also to remove the information taken from them or to find better sources for it. IMDb sections are used throughout many Wikipedia articles as sources, not just as EL. You need to be more careful in reading the statements that have been documented by the source(s). You really are hindering work on this article, in my view. --NYScholar (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see any information in the article that came directly from IMDb, looking at the "Notes" section. It does not matter that IMDb is prevalent throughout many film articles; it does not appropriate the website's usage.  Trivia sections are just as rampant, after all.  If you look at Featured film Articles, IMDb is never directly cited.  Also, can I suggest taking a breather?  You've edited this article very extensively the past few days. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Gordons, I think I see what you mean now about information from IMDb. I'm fine with the removal of their names until the film or a reliable source shows what their names are.  It's not critical cast information at the moment. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your removal of my work is bordering on violating WP:AGF, and I object to it. It is unnecessary, and I don't appreciate your personal aspersions in the editing summaries.  Please desist.  I've worked hard on this article over a very long period of time, and I don't appreciate the disrespectful and gratuitous remarks.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your removal is neither based on Wikipedia policies or Wikipedia guidelines. Please cite the policies and guidelines when removing other editors' work.  Removing sources of information that is properly documented according to WP:V and WP:BLP is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Erik. Use other sources for article content. IMDb is best used as an external link. They dont' have much in the way of standards over there, and rarely redact incorrect information in a timely manner. ThuranX (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)Further, I find the sniping seen here obnoxious. And, finally, I don't see any need for accessdates on the ELs, especially daily updating of them. If you're really reading all the way through each EL each day to confirm no changes have been made invalidating the value, you're welcome to waste your time, but most of us will AGF on EL's. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You have done a lot of good work for the article, so I am simply contesting a couple of points in all which you have done. I suggested taking a breather because I have personally gotten caught up in editing an article in a fast and furious manner.  Regarding the usage of IMDb, it is not considered a reliable source, but it is still used as an external link per #4 of WP:EL.  In addition, WP:EL says nothing about mentioning the last-accessed date for external links, so if you could rationalize these dates' inclusions, please do so.  I really do appreciate all the other contributions you have made, so try to understand that I'm criticizing two points, not your character. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: your points above; recently, while working on Jason Isaacs, I came across some editor's creation of a "source" note for charts of filmographies and other media works in that article; please take a look at that; frequently, in articles about actors and writers in Wikipedia, I come across all kinds of unsourced lists and charts of works/bibliographies/filmographies, which draw upon ELs without citing them as sources but which clearly have lifted the material from sources like IMDb.com, without even acknowledging them. If IMDb.com is not a "reliable source", then how can the editor who originally created that "source" note in, e.g., Jason Isaacs, and other editors continue to use it in such manner? Seeing its use (often unacknowledged) throughout Wikipedia articles, unchallenged, I have apparently been misled to think that Wikipedia is tolerating this usage of IMDb.com as a source (not just as an EL).   --NYScholar (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This is a huge project. that some articles are held to higher standards isn't a reason to lower those standards, but to apply them to other articles. ThuranX (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec/x2) Please find the Wikipedia policy stating that "IMDb is best used as an external link" and for the claim that it [separate webpages from the site] cannot be used as a source of information in the article; in my experience, although it takes time to correct incorrect information in IMDb.com listings of filmographies and credits for cast and crew (I was citing only the latter section of the IMDb.com site as a "source"), it is generally more reliable than Wikipedia itself. I have found all kinds of false information inserted into this article (and many others), and have spent a lot of time verifying the citations and correcting errors throughout this article. You need to verify every statement in this article as carefully as you have been objecting to the use of a webpage in IMDb.com as a source. There is no comparable source for such complete lists of cast and crew as this webpage. Even the official website of Warner Bros. does not give this information; the Variety source cited links to the wrong movie. Did you check its hyperlinks? --NYScholar (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that addresses whether or not a specific website is appropriate for inclusion or not. Like I've said, citing IMDb directly has not been considered appropriate in the FAC process, and it has been discouraged multiple times in the past in peer reviews and article reviews.  I'm not arguing the merits of IMDb vs. the merits of Wikipedia, either.  I know the latter is imperfect in many, many articles, but the WikiProject doesn't directly implement IMDb.  If this article had its mistakes, thank you for taking the time to fix them.  I noticed that the Variety article linked to the wrong film and chuckled; it's a mistake like the one another editor made a few discussions above.  So regarding accessdates for external links, what is the basis for them? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My "good faith" response is: helpfulness to readers (like annotations of external links and occasional annotations in reference citations); anything particularly useful to readers that will make their understanding of the article better; e.g., see WP:MOS overall aims and Citing sources example; which is parallel to the editorial interpolated note that I added to this EL section; so far no one has proliferated unnec. links since I posted the note, though, of course, now the article is semi-protected, and that could change if vandals attack it, though I hope that they don't. --NYScholar (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Format (procedural) question
I have wondered for a long time why one needs to repeat the ELs already prominently displayed in the Infobox of films, actors, etc. in the EL sections of articles. Why does not the EL section just contain additional reliable and useful links, in keeping with WP:EL and WP:BLP? Why is it necessary or useful to have the repetitions (redundancies)? --NYScholar (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a good question, honestly, and I don't think I've seen a solid answer. (I think the "best" answer I've seen is that the person doesn't have to scroll down all the way, and other answers equate to "It's not worth removing all the links in all the articles".)  It might be something worth bringing up at WT:FILM. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few reasons. One is the IMDb thing. It's not a verifable source, as it's built by anonymous editors, like WP. Just like you can't source WP for WP articles, you shouldn't source IMDb. However, people coming here may find that link useful for surfing the topic throughout the internet, and it does have a lot of often useful information, even if it fails WP:RS. Likewise, a few other links seem to be de facto standards and often get added, like a movie's official site, which usually fails RS asa promotional and COI situation. However, it's still something fans are likely to be, or become, interested in, via our article. Some people miss those in the Infobox, and find the 'external links' section more useful. Further, some ELs lack a place in the IB, and thus need a place to go, so including all such in a since aggregate location seems common sense good. ThuranX (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to say you would be OK with IMDb, AMG, and the official site being removed from the infobox? I think NYScholar is trying to understand the justification for why these three websites appear in the infobox and under the "External links" section. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, to add, WP:EL, #4, says this: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." If that is questionable, that may be something to take up at WT:EL. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think NYScholar is trying to understand the justification for why these three websites appear in the infobox and under the "External links" section." Yes, that is what I was wondering about articles throughout Wikipedia that have the same ELs in the infoboxes and the EL sections. My reason for giving access dates in EL sections is same as reason for the repetitions/redundancies: readers' convenience.  Makes more work, but, espec. for long articles, can be visually and informationally useful.  Re: general format: Manual of Style (links); giving the last date accessed suggests (most-recent) "accessibility" of the links.  --NYScholar (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Going back to the accessibility of ELs, I could understand the addition of the access date in a potentially transient URL. However, the so-called "staple" links in film articles are highly stationary.  If IMDb or RT stop working for whatever reason, then it's a systemic problem.  For example, if we came across a specific article comparing The Dark Knight to Batman comics that had more than enough information to implement, I could understand including it as an EL and having an access date.  The commonplace links in film articles should be OK quite indefinitely, so I'm questioning the need to "test" the link all the time ("Is it OK?  Is it OK?  Is it OK?").  Like ThuranX said, it's more work than necessary.  No policy or guideline to cite here, sorry... just a little bit of common sense. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not "testing" the links all the time; what happens is, in actuality, I have checked the sites linked to in EL secs. to see if they have new information, and then sometimes been able (when official sites are in the ELs) to refer to them in updating the information in the article. My giving the last date accessed is, as I say, just a convenience.  I don't care whether or not it has been removed.  But calling me "anal retentive" for putting it there is not in keeping with WP:AGF; I had good reasons for putting them there.  If it is not Wikipedia format to put access dates in EL sections, that's fine w/ me.  It is easier for me not to put them in than for me to take the time to do so.  Re: stability ("Stable" sites); actually, the Warner Bros. official film site had added the "midnight" show feature after the last time I had accessed it, and that is when I first starting adding access dates to the EL sections (for that reason; bec. new features were (in my exp. anyway) showing up (it seemed to me) on the site(s).  Same, btw, would be true for RT, which is now used as a source and, acc. to WP:EL, does not get repeated in the EL sec. to avoid violating WP:Spam, for one reason. --17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Anal retentive" was a poor choice of words on my part; I was referring to the apparent repetitious process, not you directly, but I apologize the poor phrasing. Thank you for explaining your rationale in using ELs.  In regard to using the official site, I would think that it's more appropriate to update the accessdate if it is directly pertinent to content in the article than if it is an external link to help the reader along.  Regarding RT, I removed it per the discussion we had above about the early statistic not being reliable.  However, I'm not sure why you perceive it as spam.  The community consensus of WP:FILM was that it was an appropriate EL for inclusion, provided that there was an abundance of reviews and per WP:EL: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."  Like we've discussed about RT before, the reviews from there were implemented, but there will soon be many more than is appropriate for the Wikipedia article.  Thus, it seems most appropriate to highlight it as an EL (not now, obviously, but when the reviews become numerous). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC)I've never liked them being in the infobox, but that means very little, as getting sensible consensus on some of that stuff is impossible. I don't get the accessdates thing though. So what if the site updates? We are NOT sourcing from it, and it's expected that sites like IMDb and the official sites will update regularly. That's exactly why actual sources need accessdates; to give better references. Journalists need to note that they've edited an article; an accessdate before a writer's edit can be revised in the wiki-article, but sourcing the rapidly changing promotional hoohah isn't really needed. As for RT, I really wish we didn't use that so often. It's a lazy way to get a reception section built; but again, some editors love it. ThuranX (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The guideline in WP:EL for not including RT as an external link when it is already listed as a source (it is not an "official" website, like the film site, which is in the Infobox, the EL sec., and used as source citations): "WP:EL: Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not 'external links' for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section. See Verifiability and Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations. (Sec. link and italics added.)" --NYScholar (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking at it differently. It means to say that when you write sentences using Rotten Tomatoes in the body of the article, you cannot put the link in the "External links" section and imply that you got your content from there.  RT is used for two different purposes in this article; in the body, it is providing an overall perspective of reviews with the percentages and is cited in "Notes", and (separately), it is offered as an external link that has accumulated multiple reviews in "External links".  Do you see what I mean? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any justification for including Rotten Tomatoes as an EL; it is properly linked as a source and currently the way it is used in the article follows WP:EL. --NYScholar (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been debated in adfinitum in the (archived) talk pages of WP:EL and WP:BLP. --NYScholar (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are provided in "External links" sections because they provide access to more reviews than a Wikipedia article can cite. There are specific aspects of these websites that are incorporated into the Wikipedia article, but there are additional aspects (reviews that are not implemented) that warrants extra content that readers can explore.  What is specifically the issue with providing clear access to websites as external links, as opposed to notes buried in multiple other notes?  With these websites as ELs, we're saying, "These websites have more content than the article can use; feel free to check them out." — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is contrary to WP:V and WP:CITE to list items in EL sections and just "imply that you got your content from there"; source citations are required throughout the texts of articles, and WP:EL says they are not repeated in EL when used as sources for the article. Exceptions that I see often are official websites (such as the Warner Bros. official website), which I just used a parenthetical citation to cite and which someone changed to a citation template; it is the official website acc. to the infobox, but even so, statements need to give in-line or parenthetical citations to all sources used for material in an article, in according with core Wikipedia policies, one of which is WP:V. One doesn't just "imply" what sources of statements are; one gives source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing practices that contradict and that are contrary to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines really need to be examined and to follow these policies and guidelines; people should not just make up their own editing rules; that's why the policies and guidelines exist. I still object to adding RT to EL sec. It's already linked properly as a source in the section on "Critical reception". --NYScholar (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I do not think you are understanding what I said about your passage from WP:EL. I told you that you cannot add content to a Wikipedia article and include the source link in "External links" as a reference.  That's what the passage means when it says, "Links to these source sites are not 'external links' for the purposes of this guideline."  We're agreeing that we cannot say that ELs are the implied source links for the article body, so I'm not sure why you're engaging me on that particular point.  We don't want to imply.  If we cited the percentage from RT in the article body, we'd set it up so it shows in "Notes".  When we add RT to "External links", we are not making any reference to the Wikipedia article at all.  We are just saying, "Here is more information than can be housed in this Wikipedia article; feel free to check it out."  It is essentially a separate application of the same resource.  [After the edit conflict, WP:EL clearly says it's OK to add links that have extra content, like RT and MC.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Eric, but this matter has been discussed over and over in many archived pages (now 21) of WP:EL and in relation to EL sections in heated debates in WP:BLP; your position is not a consensus position. There is currently no need for adding RT to the EL section (or the other material that you added despite this discussion in the editorial interpolations. Material in EL sections are supposed to follow WP:EL, and also must keep from violating WP:BLP: see tagged templates above.  Links of the kind that you are trying to add to this EL section have forums and message boards and blogs that violate WP:BLP, which includes references to ELs used in articles pertaining to living persons (such as this one).  --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external links
I'm going to take a break from this article and its talk page, but I request for any editors who are reading to ensure that the commented-out RT and BOM links stay in the article. The links were removed despite precedent and appropriate implementation (see this). — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not proper to insert into the article links to material that is dubious or questionable or controversial in nature when the article concerns living persons, whether as "sources" or as "external links": See policy in WP:BLP, which explicitly rules out such external links (even in editorial interpolations). Please follow the policies and guidelines as linked in the templates at top of this page and throughout these comments. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above). --NYScholar (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the material removed: (visible earlier in editing preview mode in article and earlier removed by consensus): --NYScholar (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a good day. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you claiming to be "dubious" or "questionable"?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think you're on to a loser if you're claiming the links should be eliminated because they also host forums and messageboards. To pick one newspaper at random, The Guardian website has a large area set aside where readers can air their views. Does this mean we cannot link to their website? No, this is obfuscating the issue. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are perfectly acceptable external links that conform to WP:EL. Steve  T • C 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They offer nothing now that is not already in the other ELs or in the source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RT is already used as a source and has currently no usefulness for the EL section. The other site offers nothing useful that isn't already accessible in other links or in the sources cited in the article. If that situation changes, the ELs might be reconsidered as useful. Right now, they are not. One does not put ELs in for their possible "future" usefulness. One waits until their usefulness is not questionable. --NYScholar (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BOM and RT are standard external links in all films. They are perfectly fine as they are. I don't understand exactly why they should be hidden, but even if they stay that way it's best to have them already prepped and ready to go then have to go search for their pages again.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the other example given: The Guardian is a far more highly-respected and far more reliable news source and source of reviews than Rotten Tomatoes; any review used in RT can be cited individually with a full citation as a source if it is useful as a source, with full citation template information given. After the release of the movie, there will be many sites that link to reviews of the film; one will choose the most reliable and most acceptable among them, given WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:EL, which all pertain to editing this article. --NYScholar (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't believe that RT conforms to WP:BLP, then please remove it right now as an inline citation. Otherwise, allow its use. Steve  T • C 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up for the removed items. They were already removed after previous discussions among editors. --NYScholar (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have an issue, take it up with the manual of style page. Cheers. You're trying to make a point with this article, yet are failing to realize that the point you should be making needs to be done on the guideline page that governs all film articles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; the point relates specifically to this article and to WP:EL governing this article: repeating the point that I and others made earlier about BOM and RT (currently): "They offer nothing now that is not already in the other ELs or in the source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)" --NYScholar (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bignole - I didn't intentionally mask the edit. It autofilled the field when I tried to type "fixed" and I didn't catch it the first time. The second edit was cause I messed up the format. Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where the above discussions offered a consensus for NYScholar's edits. I oppose the prosification (word?) of RT stats as a lazy way to write a reactions/reception section, but don't oppose it as an EL. I'm not sure where he sees consensu for those edits. ThuranX (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So I don't see where those links violate WP:EL. IT specifically states that external reviews are to be included. Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not say that; re-read the previous discussion and the linked quotations from WP:EL; you are quoting totally out of context. The "external reviews" are already sourced that are accessible in RT in the source citation; re-read the full presentation of the discussion in WP:EL. Right now, RT is used as a source of reviews; it does not cite "interviews" so that part does not relate anyway. (scroll up to previous discussions) and look at the editing differences and editing history summaries of others as well as of me relating to deleting RT earlier; it has nothing now that is not already cited in the source citation. --NYScholar (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Several points I'd like to make:
 * The use of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the "External links" section is a well-established practice that has demonstrated its suitability and usefulness time and time again. Their inclusion does not cause an issue with WP:BLP; it has not been demonstrated that they do. To claim otherwise is akin to claiming they contravene any other Wikipedia policy or guideline without proof. It is up to the editor who objects to its inclusion to prove that it is unsuitable, against the consensus of the members of the film project and against the tacit approval of the community as a whole.
 * That Rotten Tomatoes (and, eventually, Metacritic) will also be cited in the "Critical reception" section is irrelevant. Their use in the section will be to cite specific facts ("all/most/some critics gave the film positive reviews"). Their use in the "External links" section is for their wider usefulness as a repository of links to reviews that are too numerous to quote in the article. This is not in opposition to WP:EL and the editor has not demonstrated that it is. The section he quotes above does not even say that; it's an instruction to editors to include the source they are quoting for a specific fact in the references or notes section, not the "External links" section. It does not then preclude the link's use in the "External links" section for its wider usefulness. There is a difference.
 * If the editor wishes to hide them until the film is released, or until they contain more information than at present a little closer to the release, then this is fine by me (though it might not be to others).
 * Everything else is just muddling the issue. These points have already been made and have not been answered, but they have become lost amidst the irrelevancies in this discussion. And please, everyone, be careful of WP:3RR too. Steve  T • C 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What's more important here is that you've WAY violated 3RR. Time for a break NYScholar? And I don't see consensus, just a loud guy on a corner with a wikibible. Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What is most important is following Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to WP:EL and policies pertaining to WP:BLP as pertains to ELs. Have those of you migrating to this article even you read this article??? See The Dark Knight (film), sentence 1 and the source citation to RT. That suffices and WP:EL says it "should not" be in the EL section, because it is already cited as a source in the article. The URL given is the same as the URL that people have been inserting and removing (for cause) from the EL section. Please read both this article (espec. that sec.) and WP:EL and WP:BLP, pertaining to ELs. Thank you. Please do not keep knee-jerk reinserting this item to the EL sec. I've cited the appropriate WP:EL sections above; please stop. Thank you. I have other things to do. --NYScholar (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "WP:EL says it "should not" be in the EL section, because it is already cited as a source in the article". No, it really doesn't. Please read my reply to you above Stuthomas4's. Thank you, Steve  T • C 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I read your reply more than once; it is contrary to WP:EL; please re-read; you seem continually to miss what it says not to do. --NYScholar (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That you say something does not make it so. Please demonstrate that it does. I realise this is merely a difference in interpretation of the passage, and that we might be wrong, but I hope you will accept that your interpretation of it is the minority view, even though you quite correctly retain the right to carry on holding it. It really isn't worth all this fuss arguing about. Steve  T • C 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that it's not a hard a fast rule and open to interpretation. "...consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we get that and yet it's common practice to link those sites. So chill out. Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is "common practice" is not always in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which editors are required to follow; the RT site has no section that has content that pertains to this article that is not already cited as a source; all the sections say "N/A" (not applicable) and repeat the same information about the film in the source citation section; it is only the same synopsis and information already cited throughout the article and in the other ELs listed. BOM also offers nothing not already accessible in cited sources; I've left them up, but strongly protest their current inclusion. Also, when adding material to this article, please follow its prevailing format; that sec of ELs is alphabetized and has been until people coming along lately (and earlier vandals) destroyed the alphabetical order. --NYScholar (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "I've left them up, but strongly protest their current inclusion" - that's all we're asking. The RT link provides links to more reviews than we currently (or will) link to. There is one use right there, more useful in the EL section than buried within the 117 citations above. You hold a viewpoint that is unfortunately (for you) the minority one. Trust me, we've all been there. The best thing to do in the circumstances is accept the fact that a majority of people are interpreting a guideline differently to you and carry on contributing as normal. Thank you, Steve  T • C 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Steve, Erik, and Bignole on this. I find that NYSCholar's behaviors' become tendentious, and given my tendency to keep at it when there's no point, and the fact that often leads to me wasting time and getting hollered at, I'm also dropping this page. From my watchlist, not just for a week. I'm tired of fighting people who don't listen, and I'm already doing it in enough places. bye. ThuranX (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ecx2) I have no more time for this. I am logging out of Wikipedia to spend my time in more productive ways; I have other work to do and also need some rest from this argument. I don't make the policies and guidelines in Wikipedia; I just read them and try to follow them. It would be nice if other people did the same thing. In this case the guideline is very clear (I quoted it above). The fact that the site RT has sections that are all listed as "N/A" except for the first one, which one goes to in the EL and which is already cited as such in the source citation is the whole point; it offers nothing that is not already in the source citation or other ELs listed already (ditto BOM). --NYScholar (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also taking a break from this discussion; it's obvious that you do not intend to read the words that I wrote or reply to the specific points I made. Hide BOM for all I care, until it has some more information. But Rotten Tomatoes is more useful to the reader (remember them?) in the "External links" section instead of being buried within 116 other links in the "References" section, yet it must be listed within that section to provide confirmation of the cited fact. How to get around this? Put it in both! Which the majority opinion believes WP:EL specifically allows. Indeed, listing it there is in total compliance with WP:EL, per the passage you quoted! Steve  T • C 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tired of the kind of personal aspersions being used instead of logic; I removed the source citation and re-cast the paragraph; the primary source citations support the sentence; Smith's comment is not given in Rotten Tomatoes; it is documented by a different secondary source which follows it as an in-line citation. This solves this problem and follows guidelines more accurately in WP:EL. --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Film's Release in Montpelier, Vermont on July 12
It's mentioned that Senator Patrick Leahy has a cameo in the film, but what is not mentioned is that he's worked a deal out with WB to have the film released in his hometown of Montpelier, VT, on July 12. The tickets cost $50, with a reception beforehand (also costing $50). All the proceeds will benefit the Kellogg-Hubbard library of Montpelier. Here are some links to verify:

NPR Audio Clip

Report from a Local News Site

Report from a Local Newspaper

Report from Boston Globe

I'd like this to be added to the "Theatrical Release" section, as it seems to fit best there.

Notxenu (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not put it in the article on him (which you can edit); this article will not be able to cite such local information. It is of "local" interest and will be seen via the cross-linked Wikipedia article when when clicks on his name; you (or others with a log-in identity) can link to a specific section of an article on him in the way you Wikify the link. Including this information will distract from the section. Every local screening of the film is not going to be cited in this article. If you want to develop the material of local interest in that article on him, please create a log-in identity in Wikipedia and do so. From media news accounts I've read about him, Senator Leahy is quite "obsessed" with Batman movies, and that may already be discussed in his article (where it might be a kind of "trivia" that may or may not be worthy of inclusion.) I don't have time to do that kind of further work. --NYScholar (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence with the most notable source; the rest are too local and not notable enough. I will be offline doing other things and not able to work on this further.  --NYScholar (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)  I don't think it's necessary to add a reference to the NPR clip; the text says the same thing as the Boston Globe article already cited.  (I've heard the news reports too and seen them on TV; the newspaper citation is the most useful account.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception
Is it just me, or is this section a bit wierd? I've never seen an article use the phrase "for example", and the wording/tense is a bit wierd. Instead of "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gives The Dark Knight...", shouldn't it be "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave The Dark Knight..."? Is this because the film hasn't been released yet? Because that would explain a lot.  Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ  Disc.us.sion  15:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When you have questions like these, please examine the editing history summaries to save people who made the edits time. I already explained that conventional punctuation [typographical error: meant: presentations] of (literary and critical) texts (and written/published reviews are such texts) use the present verb tense in stating what an author does: e.g., "says"; "writes"; "states"; "rates"; "asserts"; etc. This is conventional and standard writing practice and I follow such practices in what I write, as do other literary and critical writers. Summarizing "critical reception" is a literary-critical kind of writing; "for example" is also standard and wholly acceptable. I really don't understand how editors in Wikipedia do not know basic elementary facts about writing. Please examine Style guides (see their template) as well as WP:MOS. Wikipedia does not "invent" conventions; it adapts them (and frequently does not do so in a consistent or clear manner); for information, see my user page and the linked user boxes. Please examine editing history summaries of articles for information about why people make the changes that they do. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Neutral point of view and WP:POV, WP:MOS, and sections in WP:CITE (Reliable sources) and so on, editors of Wikipedia are presenting "representative" views of reliable sources on a subject; this section is clearly presenting only a "representative" selection of evaluations of the film (prior to its release) and will be developed further after its release (next week). The first sentence of the paragraph is supported by the examples that follow.  No website in existence offers a complete account of every review of a literary or artistic work.  Every account of "critical reception" presents examples of what is available; no single person would be able to account for everything published; hence, "for example"; in this case, a very important transition and part of the coherence of the paragraph.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The convention for describing texts (what they/writers "do") is that published texts appear to be "present"; every time one reads a text, one encounters what it "says" (in the present); that is one of the bases for using the present tense. All of Wikipedia is a form of a "text"; notice my own use of the present tense in describing what I "write" in it (not "wrote").  --NYScholar (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Choice of using present or past tense to describe actions is a different matter from describing what a text says. If discussing what "reviewers did" historically, that is a different matter; one chooses verb tense with one's purposes in mind.  Right now, the section is summarizing and quoting from what the writers say in their texts; what the texts state (not "stated"; the texts still "state" what they state, and the reviewers and other writers still provide ratings ("rate", "evaluate" "grade" as it were in the case of the A), and so on.  The use of the present tense provides overall coherence to that section (thus far).  When looking back on what reviewers collectively "did to the film" or "for the film" etc., one might say something like "reviewers helped to create a positive impression of the film"; "for example, in his early review, Travers states: "...." and so on; depends on how the paragraph is ultimately constructed; right now, the reviews are still "coming in" and that paragraph summarizes what they state (as texts).  --NYScholar (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All well and good, and I'm not about to dispute that. But, and this is meant as genuinely friendly advice only, did you really need to explain that three times and in such patronizing language to he who asked the question? 90.211.7.232 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's a prickly one that NYScholar. I think it's the "scholar" part of that name that he's emphasizing. Kinda reminds me of that old Jimmy Fallon character "The IT Guy" where he makes everyone else feel lame for even having a question in the first place.Stuthomas4 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with 90.211.7.232... the key to working with other editors is to create a collaborative environment. I think incorporating a cordial tone in discussions would be ideal. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This section is getting a bit heated and uncivil. How about we cool our tongues a bit please. This goes to ALL.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) For the record: I spent a lot of time to respond and to take seriously the original query (from the user who may not have stayed here long enough to read it); and I responded to that user's query in what I regard as a cordial manner. I see nothing uncordial in my reply. I simply do not understand what I said that I do not understand. Writing an encyclopedia entry is a kind of writing, and one does need to know the basic elementary rules of writing in writing any such entry; if one lacks such knowledge or experience, there are plenty of guides available online and in print for further guidance; Wikipedia itself is certainly not the world's authority on writing; there are much better guides available upon which Wikipedia itself draws some of its information, and it offers such guidance in its own template on Style guides (as well as in many references listed via WP:CITE and Reliable sources. As a teacher of writing and a practitioner of writing, I am aware of the kinds of gaps in knowledge that one finds among writers ("editors") throughout Wikipedia. If I took the time to explain the reasons for use of the present tense, I did so because I find such gaps in knowledge among Wikipedia "editors" a consistent problem in Wikipedia.  This response (above)is a response in a talk page responding initially to the user asking the question but this response (above) exists for the benefit of other Wikipedians who may also need an explanation as well. Such efforts by editors like me to respond seriously to a query really need to be appreciated, not maligned. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I found the bit about editors with a lack of basic writing knowledge to be a bit smug. I don't think it was presented in the best of ways, as it seemed more to be a retaliation against those that felt your choice in tense was incorrect. Your assertion of your academic prowess comes off as more of a smack in the face of your fellow editors, as it is unnecessary for you to assert the fact that you teach writing. You do not need to glorify your skills here, nor would simply stating that you have them make anyone believe or disbelieve your ability to write. This appearance of belittling your fellow editors with comments like, "I am aware of the kinds of gaps in knowledge that one finds among writers ("editors") throughout Wikipedia," and "I find such gaps in knowledge among Wikipedia "editors" a consistent problem in Wikipedia," is not called for. This may not be your intention, but constantly acknowledging that there are editors on Wikipedia that cannot write as well as you, or just as well as other editors, is a little belittling to those that fit that category. In case you were not aware, Wikipedia is filled with editors of all shapes, sizes, ages, colors, and temperments (as I'm sure you've already seen). That is why the level of writing various from editor to editor and article to article. We are aware of this, and do not need it thrown back in everyone's face as if we believe that there are no writing problems on Wikipedia, and we are all the best writers in the world. Again, this does not mean that it was your intention to present such a tone, I'm merely trying to explain how it is perceived (at least by myself that just read it all). That being said, it does not give anyone the right to attack you in response to what they felt was disrespect.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply put: WP:AGF. Please stop commenting on me and my so-called "tone" of voice, which is not possible to determine from what I have written.  You are misrepresenting my intentions, mis-describing my "tone" and getting far far from the point of the response.  Such behavior in a talk page is simply unproductive and, in my view, extremely immature.  I will be offline doing other work and other things, and really have no desire to continue this discussion.  My comments deal with the use of verb tense; the commments of those after my explanation deal with me as a contributor, which is off limits and should not be discussed.  So please, "cool it".  Thank you.  Move on to something else related to editing the article and improving it. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec):To quote (again) from the template at the top with the link to Talk page guidelines: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Dark Knight (film) article." This is not a place for "discussing" contributors, "tone" of voice in people's comments, or the subject of the article, or for silly gratuitous links to matters not relating to "discussing improvements" to this article.  Please try to focus.  In explaining use of the present verb tense, I had in mind the future editing of that and other sections, which use the present tense because they are comments on what writers and texts do (in reviews and other articles).  Please stop attributing false motives and making false assumptions about me as a contributor. Such discussion is off limits in this article talk page and should also be off limits in other Wikipedia space, if one follows Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant argument. Your behaviour has become a problem. You profess to be too busy to deal with this (I refer to your User Page) and yet you are still here stirring up trouble in the community at large. You deflect criticism with needless redirects to Wiki Pages. We all understand the rules and regulations of the site. But if we criticize you at your page you delete the comment. If we criticize you here you cry foul. You leave us no recourse. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For a PhD it's incredibly ignorant to nitpick that tone of voice cannot be determined by writing. It's an obvious fact. Your writing style is condescending. Simply Put. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have unstruck Bignole's comments, as a relatively uninvolved editor, his outside view of this bears on the sheer weight of how much the consensus goes against NYScholar's conduct, attitude, and edits. That policies can be shouted does not mean they are policies which actually apply. That said, there's little hope of fixing the article from NYScholar's true version. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[I have posted warnings on the talk pages of those harrassing me. I am sorry that they are also engaged in these tactics on the talk page of this article and others' talk pages. They are violating Talk page guidelines, and they should know better. They need to examine their own "conduct" and to revise it accordingly. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Ah, go take it to WP:AN/I or something. No one here wants to hear anything you have to say anymore, you've managed to alienate everyone who regularly edits here. It's all insulting, condescending, and hiding behind shouted policy. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring my own heading for my own comments

 * [Warning: It directly violates Talk page guidelines to place a user's name in a heading in an article talk page. To do so is a further instance of violating WP:NPA.  These are my comments, and I am using my own heading for the section in which I am placing them. --NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Please review WP:NPA, Talk page guidelines, and WP:AGF

 * [added heading for my comments. --NYScholar (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)]

Please stop the personal remarks and the gender assumptions; not all scholars are male and not all people interested in editing this article are male. Please use gender-neutral language. If you need more information about my editing practices, please visit my user page and the userboxes placed in it for that purpose. Thank you. Try being more constructive. If someone takes the time to respond to a question, assume good faith: WP:AGF; the aim is to improve the writing of this article. --NYScholar (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I was getting cranky about the whole affair. I've left an olive branch on your talk page.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Other comments
With all due respect I don't think you assume good faith. I feel that your general attitude is indignant and condescending. While it's clear that you're a tireless contributor, your penchant for an unwavering faith that yours is the final and only true interpretation of the wiki laws, coupled with the apparent disbelief how the rest of us could possibly be so idiotic as to not have memorized Strunk & White leave me with a less than pleasing taste in my mouth. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You violate WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, in reviewing your user page and, in particular, your archived talk pages, you seem to have many disputes covering a wide range of topics and involving a wide range of users. It is you, I'm afraid, that is in dire need of a lesson in wiki etiquette. Having a PhD and the time to contribute nearly half of the last 500 edits on the Dark Night page (yes I counted) does not give you carte blanche to brow beat the rest of the community. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You violate WP:NPA. Please review the policy. --NYScholar (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's driven three regular contributors from this page; It will drive you away soon. It's not interested in your opinion, and It thanks you very much to keep it to yourself. Erik, Steve, and I all left. I'm only looking in to see how bad the car accident is now. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use gender-neutral language and stop the personal attacks. They do not contribute constructively to editing this article. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Please see the templates at the top of this page and the linked policies and guidelines and please follow WP:NPA, which clearly states to focus on constructive editing and not on contributors. It applies to all Wikipedia space, including talk pages of articles and user talk pages. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are generic attacks ok then? I quote: "I really don't understand how editors in Wikipedia do not know basic elementary facts about writing." That's just above a little bit for those of you following along. We don't all have PhD's. What you call constructive is really just page squatting and intimidation. So, neener neener neener.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, then. I've corrected the gender above. As for the so called personal attacks, it's all true. You continued to edit against consensus, ignored our objections, disregarded our opinions, and told us we are too stupid to edit. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [The previous editor deleted comments posted earlier to which my response refers. The editor used capital letters (shouting, and wrote "SHE"; I refer the editor to Etiquette.  My comment below refers to the deleted remarks, which are visible in the editing history. It violates Talk page guidelines to make such major deletions after another user has responded to the comments, because the context of the response.  I am surprised that these users are not recognizing their violations of these Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Perhaps they are not aware that they are violating them, but they are doing so, and they should desist, or they may be blocked.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)]


 * That is not "gender-neutral language"; you have no way of knowing whether a contributor is male or female. Scholars may be male or female.  Stop focusing on contributors and their sexes and focus on editing the article:  Please see Talk page guidelines, linked in the template above.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hahahahahahaha. We spent days focusing on the contributions, and you wouldn't listen. You drove three editors away, and since those three, myself included, comprised the majority of the consensus against your edits, you now think you have carte blanche. Hysterical perception there. Wildly funny. ThuranX (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I applaud your efforts at gender-neutrality, it's really not the issue here. Getting worked up about it doesn't really resolve the larger issue of the major way in which your actions have made you persona non grata. You hide your actions behind the letter of the law when in fact the sprit is what's been violated here. --23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talk • contribs)


 * Again, please see WP:AGF, as well as WP:NPA, and please stop addressing [and harrassing] me. This is not a message board.  The article is not about contributors; this talk page is not about contributors; the article is about a film, and the talk page is about editing the article about a film.  Please restore focus on editing the article in a manner that improves it.  Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [ec: added bracketed explanation of what I meant; please stop the harrassment. Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)]


 * If editors cannot be addressed, then editors cannot discuss the edits eidtors make in a proper context, nor can editors attempt to find consensus with editors, because any discussion would, by the nature of discussion either directly or indirectly address others. As such, the entire wikipedia project is thoroughly invalid, isn't it? Luckily, as editors cannot discuss with others, this means that discussion is no longer needed before rolling back all of a given editor's contributions. SO let's get started. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way. It's not harassment. You've gone out of your way to alienate all the other good faith editors with pedantic rants and brow beating. We're just trying to get you to see the light as it were. Additionally, you're just as liable to get blocked for your behaviour so try to hold the threats to a low rumble. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I move to archive this whole d@#$%^ discussion and let NYScholar have his/her/it's way. He/She/It makes a point that the discussion have gotten wildly off topic. It doesn't resolve the issue. And given his/her/it's long history of problem with other users I am convinced the problem lies in the accuser, not the group at large. He/She/It is only capable of sending me links to wiki etiquette when his/her/it's own behaviour is already in violation of that entire clause. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Michael Hall's Part
Why is the description of Mike Engle contained in "" ? For what we know now, that's the truth. The "" would lead a reader to think it was false.162.115.108.120 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)LessThanCurt


 * It quotes the source given in the citation following the quotes. By not giving more text, we avoid speculation about what else he might be, if anythign at all more than a reporter. ThuranX (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But when quotation marks are used not in a direct quote it gives the feeling of something more than what this person is saying. If that is a direct quote out of someones lips it should have a "so-and-so said" after it.  At this point, to the viewer, A reporter is all Anthony Michael Hall is, nothing more, contrary to what the " " indicate.Lessthancurt (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)LessThanCurt


 * Please read the talk page, and possibly WP:AGF, a policy about assuming things are the way they are for a good reason. There was a great deal of discussion about Hall's role, and people kept filling it with hypotheses, speculation, rumors, and crap. Eventually, the quote was taken, and has consensus. If you think it needs more, I suggest you take it up with NYScholar. That editor has claimed dominion here. ThuranX (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it needs the " " taken out. I've stated this twice. It is fact that Mike Engel IS a TV reporter, the "" Are unnescessary and can lead to speculation.  I don't think it needs more, it needs less, two " to be exact.  NYScholar, please address this.Lessthancurt (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)LessThanCurt


 * The description of that character was not my own edit originally; someone had provided the source citation and stated that the character is an "anchor man", which the source does not state; I quoted what the source actually does state as a correction of that earlier description (which may or may not be false; I don't know at this time). Hall's character may indeed be an "anchor man," but the source does not state that and I have no other source that does state that.  It was simply a correction of an earlier statement falsely attributed to the source cited.  Please read the source.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consult WP:MOS on use of quotation marks. [Note: There are some inconsistencies with other Style guides in how Wikipedia explains the use of quotation marks.] Using quotation marks indicates a quotation; it does not mean that something is false; most of the time, it means the opposite (it is a form of documentation).  Among Wikipedians, there is sometimes confusion of actual quotation marks with so-called scare quotes and actual use of quotation marks for actual phrases being quoted.  These are not "scare quotes".  This is a direct quotation from the source [with the quotation marks placed] around the phrase(s)[as they are taken from the source]; anyone can click on the link to the source and see that.  The quotation is necessary because the previous information was not from the source given.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [clarification in brackets. Accidentally omitted some words I intended. --NYScholar (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]


 * I see what you are doing here. It's the same as in a newspaper when someone uses [ ] to shorten or make easy sense of someones description of something.Lessthancurt (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)LessThanCurt

Video Game
The article no longer mentions a video game. Was it cancled? 71.182.145.40 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's a secret project with no confirmations and gossip is just not tolerated 'round these parts. (But I happen to know it's happening) -- 64.7.28.70 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Time of the preview showings of the film
The film's website advertises the showings as at "midnight" on July 17, 2008; my own local theater is showing it at 12:01 a.m. on July 18, 2008; I tried to clarify that 24:00 (midnight) is still on July 17 in my editing comments. My local theater has only sold 3 tickets as of today; it is in a very rural location. One may want to compare how the ticket sales are throughout a variety of kinds of locations in the United States if there are reliable sources for such information. --NYScholar (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very useful updated content added here: Diffs. (and next). I hope it stays in.  --NYScholar (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [After checking the source, I made some format and punctuation changes for accuracy of presentation, including some necessary use of quotation marks for material taken from the source (when using the exact words of the source, such quotation marks are necessary). --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Critical reception
One also wants to try to maintain Neutral point of view in editing this article; it may be harder to do as the film's opening becomes closer and more film reviews are published; one wants to try to avoid skewing the article [away from neutrality] and violating Wikipedia core policies; WP:POV is also helpful to consult. --NYScholar (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [added clarification. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]