Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Batman films/archive1

Batman films

 * Major contributors: Wildroot and Alientraveller

Every film article from Warner Bros.' Batman series is of GA status, except for Batman (1989 film), which is at A-Class status. It fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. I brought Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin to GA-status, while Alientraveller contributed with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Wildroot (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to me. One thing though: A-class is an unofficial status, mainly pertaining to wikiprojects. I have looked and it is a Good Article (an official status) so all is fine. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I really hate to oppose this because I love Batman, but if the topic is "Batman films" then I don't see a way around including Batman (1966 film). Also, you need to find a free image for the topic box. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason why we aren't including the 1966 film is because a consensus was reached to only include the Batman films produced by Warner Bros. Pictures. The 1966 film was done by 20th Century Fox. Also, it's kind of hard to describe a free use description for a nominated good topic. I can understand to put a free use image for an article, but this topic is still in nomination and is not "official" on Wikipedia, yet. I hope that makes sense. Wildroot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus as to which articles to include in a topic is decided in its nomination, not in a separate discussion. It needs to be explained why the 1966 film does not fall under the definition of "Batman films", the scope that this topic defined. Also, something like Image:Batpod.jpg would be a good free image. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only discussion I could find was about whether or not to include the 1966 film in the Batman (film series) article. Even if the 1966 film is not in the lead article of the topic, the 1966 film article still belongs in the topic. Also, I'm thinking Batman: Mask of the Phantasm should also be included in the topic, as it was a theatrically released feature film. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be better if I changed the topic to "Warner Bros. Batman films" instead of simply "Batman films"? That way, the 1966 film wouldn't have to be included. Even though Mask of the Phantasm is at GA-status (thanks to me), I just can't see that being a part of the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan Warner Bros. series. Wildroot (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would, of course, limit the scope to a manageable size. The question now arises of whether or not it is too arbitrary; it is similar to "Halloween films by John Carpenter", found at Featured topic removal candidates/Halloween film series/archive1. Gary King  ( talk ) 04:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand you not wanting to lump in the '66 film and the animated film in with the others, as clearly there is a very large difference between them and the others qualitatively. However, they are both batman films and for the topic to be truely complete I think they should probably be included. I'm not sure there is a good way to limit the scope of the topic without being too narrow. But if these 2 films go into the topic it doesn't necessarily mean you have to include these 2 films in the topic lead article, but a brief mention or at least a "see also" link might be nice to add regardless of whether this becomes a featured topic or not. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But still, if we add in the 1966 film, then this whole topic wouldn't pass because the 1966 film article would have to be at GA-status. Do you know how hard it is to find encyclopedic info for some lame-ass movie made in the 1960s? Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to get the '66 article to GA-status. That way, this topic would never get to GA-status and it would be all of your guys' fault. Would you like to live your life like that, knowing that you ruined a perfectly good topic on some website? Would you? Yeah, didn't think so. Whatever, I'm tired. I really need to get some rest. It's 1:08 AM where I live. On a closing note, I think it would be alright if we just had a "See also" section for the 1966 film in Batman (film series). Yes or No? Wildroot (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources out there that talk about (or make fun of) that movie. It's camp classic.  There are more obscure article that have managed to get GA.  For example, the Simpsons Wikiproject has gotten several bad, forgettable episodes to GA.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm with Rreagan007 on this one. Time and time again people say "but this article can't get to GA", and time and time again, when they actually try to get the article to GA, they succeed. It's more a case of it being more effort to get to GA than that it can't get to GA. So yes, the 1966 film should be included. As for the animated film, there are other animated films though, like Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. The difference between these and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is that the latter was released at the cinemas, whereas the former were direct-to-video releases, but this doesn't stop the former from being Batman films! Having said that, I would consider it permissible to call the topic "Live action Batman films" and get all the animated films out of the scope, I think this would be a fairly sensible narrowing (see also the groupings on Batman in popular media). But any narrowing to exclude the 1966 film would seem to me to be more arbitrary. You can't even argue it should be excluded for continuity reasons, because you already have two separate continuities within your proposed topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing over "continuity reasons", it's "film studio" reasons if that makes sense. The six films in my proposed topic have been produced by Warner Brothers. I never said anything about continuity. Wildroot (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I would agree with having one series as a topic by itself, but if you are going to include the '90s series with the '00 series, you have to include the old ones too. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the topic works well this way, and if you include the 1966 one, you have to include the older ones, and yes, there are older ones from the 1940's, and there is a very good argument that these are the core batman films, not the ones created previously. Further, maybe no one bothered to read the lead article, but it is about the most recent 6 movies and no others, so the lead article is also focused on the recent, definitive movies as well, so it only makes sense to list only them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well maybe the lead article is wrong to do that? Also the pair from the 40s were in fact serials, which makes them distinct from a regular film, and by renaming the topic "feature films" then this problem is avoided - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. The lead is being arbitrary, but you can exclude serials the same way that you can exclude TV shows.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead isn't being arbitrary. The Batman film series that magazines and movie buffs call only refers to the recent films produced by Warner Brothers. Maybe I should call this topic "Live action Warner Bros. Batman films". Wildroot (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't quite understand your justification is for that grouping. The four 1990s movies seem to be a completely separate series from the 2000s series (especially given that the Joker appears twice between the two of them).  If you are grouping two separate series together, why exclude a third?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why why the Nolan series is combined with the Burton/Schumacher series is that because all six films were produced by Warner Brothers, while the 1966 film wasn't. Besides, do you know how awkward it would be to have this: Batman (Burton/Schumacher series) or Batman (Nolan film series). It's simple enough to just have it as Batman (film series), otherwise the parenthesis' would be completely ridiculous. Wildroot (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need those two new articles, which is why I proposed adding the '60s movie rather than splitting the article up. But in any case, the fact that they have the same producer may be a good justification.  After all, the Zelda topic only includes the games made my Nintendo.  I'll have to think on this a bit more.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - a good set of articles. And I see no problem in only using these, the topic is as specific on inclusion as the Zelda one (it simply has to be put in "Working definition" that it is Batman, live-action, Warner Bros.). igordebraga ≠ 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I think this might qualify, but there is something i am not conferable with. Zginder 2008-11-30T06:16Z (UTC)
 * Support After doing some more reading, I have changed my mind. Zginder 2008-12-02T02:55Z (UTC)


 * Neutral - As someone who's never really edited a Batman article, I'm sure my opinion isn't that important, but it seems to me that this is a very, very narrow topic, all things considered. First, we're cutting the entire Batman franchise down to the movies.  Then, further, down to the live action movies. Then further down to the live action movies by Warner Bros.  Then, further, we're taking out Catwoman (which is in the WB Batman Films Category.  Could I make a Featured Topic of "Young American Boys (8-9 years old) with red hair and freckles who prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla and like to wear their ball caps backwards"?  At what point have we narrowed the topic down too far? TheUncleBob (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * About a specific point that you brought up: to be fair to the nominators, the lead article is only about the film series. That sounds reasonable to me considering that the Batman franchise is humongous. Gary King  ( talk ) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I completely understand the need to narrow the topic down. "Young American Boys" would be too vast of a topic as well.  What needs to be found is a happy medium between the "Young American Boys" and the "Young American Boys (8-9 years old) with red hair and freckles who prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla and like to wear their ball caps backwards"... TheUncleBob (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Wildroot (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking for the animated films or the 1960's one is OK... but you expect the inclusion of Catwoman (film), with it barely having any connection with the Caped Crusader? (it isn't even mentioned in the Batman (film series) article... the cartoons aren't either, and the old one is a "See Also", but that's a detail) igordebraga ≠ 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that it isn't in the lead article is not really an excuse. In fact, it is a strike against the topic because an article that users feel should be included is not mentioned in it.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't required that articles be included in the lead to be included in the topic. As for the Catwoman movie, it doesn't have Batman in it so I'm fine with leaving that out of a "Batman films" topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Changing the title to "Batman feature films" will be much better for this topic. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that really solves anything. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen official lists of Batman feature films that only include the films listed in this topic. Probably something worth exploring. Gary King  ( talk ) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What about renaming this to "Batman live-action movies"? Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Renaming this to "Live-action Batman movies" would mean that Batman (serial), Batman and Robin (serial) and Batman (1966 film) would still need to be included. Renaming this to "Live-action Batman feature films" would mean that Batman (1966 film) would still need to be included - rst20xx (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree with rst20xx's assessment. I just don't see a way to keep the '66 film out. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Warner Brothers. That's the way to keep the '66 film out. Plus, think about that Zelda good topic. It only includes the games made my Nintendo. Just like this topic only includes the films made by Warner Brothers. Wildroot (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Zelda has been made by Nintendo since the beginning. Warner Bros only took over Batman in the 80s - rst20xx (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a compelling argument for why the topic should be restricted according to which film studio made it? It just seems very arbitrary and unnatural to me as a means for excluding the '66 film. Maybe if all the Warner movies had been in the same continuity I would agree with it, but the hard restart of Batman Begins makes it more difficult for me to swallow.Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Batman Battle at Box Office Mojo. Maybe not compelling, but shows what I mean in terms what the general public and the Internet, magazines, rest of media, etc. think of the "Batman films". The serials or the Adam West stuff isn't really mentioned in conjunction. For example, with the release of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, many of the critics were comparing/contrasting with the Burton/Schumacher series. Wildroot (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close with no consensus to promote - 4 supports, 3 opposes, one neutral. A majority support then, but not consensus - rst20xx (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)