Talk:The Dark Knight: Difference between revisions

Heads-up on including new information

As with any other article on Wikipedia, The Dark Knight should have a high standard of verifiability. When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors. To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly. (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.) Also, the citation must be a reliable source. Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous -- the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth. Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc. If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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"

• Early Dark Knight Reviews: Batman Christian Bale Says 'No Robin'

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be more useful for Batman (film series)#Future. —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 (UTC)

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 "Two-Face" 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 Wikipedia: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:

• << . . . and it currently holds a 100% on Rottentomatoes.com.

>> [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." >>

• <<Justin Chang of Variety describes The Dark Knight as "an ambitious, full-bodied crime epic of gratifying scope and moral complexity."

>> [Added another insertion that needs proper formatting if included. See below as well. --NYScholar (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]

Notes

--NYScholar (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, users [whether anonymous IP users or other editors] should not just drop by to toss in external links to review after review of the film published on the Web; only notable and representative reviews are needed and they need to be well integrated in the text of the article. Otherwise this section will unnecessarily become a "Quote farm". If one wants to add more quotations from reviews, try adding them in the Wikiquote page that is already cross-referenced at the end of the article. It makes greater sense also to wait to develop the section on "Critical reception" further after the film's release when there are more reliable and more notable sources to cite than self-published Web site reviews. Blogs and self-published Web sites are not generally in keeping with WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources. Please see the tagged notices in the top of this page. --NYScholar (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That Wikiquote page (both as "The Dark Knight" and as "The Dark Knight (film)") was deleted for a variety of reasons (see the logs by clicking on the link given). As soon as the film is actually released, it can be developed with the kinds of quotations that people have been adding to the "Critical reception" section, to avoid massive redundancies in this article. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is already listed in the EL section; the external link to it is in the proper section; it does not need additional citation; Wikipedia recommends avoiding usages like "currently" because of the relativity; "a 100%" what? the insertion as quoted above (moved to talk page above) is not clear and not particularly significant, especially since the film is not yet released. Please see the template notice on the top of the article re: future films. Thanks. The article could remain relatively stable until after its actual release. After more published reviews from representative reliable and notable sources become accessible, one will have much more material to select from than one does now. --NYScholar (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the time it took you to write all this crap, you could have fixed it all yourself! We don't need an essay on what is wrong with the page. If you don't like it, fix it! Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm not taking any more of my time to fix other people's work that they need to do themselves; I've spent many hours fixing citations over months. Re: "a 100 %" (rating); it's based on merely 5 reviews, which is not notable enough to cite as a rating. It's too early to cite such a "statistic." WP:AGF and don't refer to other editors' hard work and comments as "crap"; Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines are not "crap"; editors are supposed to learn what they are and to follow them. --NYScholar (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, I was just joking, looks like someone needs a wiki-break. But seriously, this mass of writing is not needed, you could have written what you wrote in a shorter and nicer manner; it's not like we don't trust you... Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I detected no "joking" in your post calling my comments "crap"; you are missing the point: Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines exist for a purpose, to improve articles. The material I removed does not improve the article. If you want to add it, you need to do so with proper citation format. That is the job of the editor adding the material (as per Wikipedia policy), not my job. It's not a question of "trust"; it's a question of your taking the time as an editor to do the necessary work and not to make unnecessary work for other people. The reason I've commented about this problem on this talk page is to avoid its continual recurrence. There is nothing un-"nice" about my comments; yours was objectionable ("crap"). It is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Etiquette to post what you did. My commenting on editing procedures for citations is not "personal"; it is a comment about editing practices and how to improve (not diminish) the quality of this article. Please focus on the point (citation formats). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2)Well, I for one think NYScholar's edits are generally good, and I also read your comment as deliberately hostile. Explaining his edits, given how many he did this weekend, is a good thing, as it provides a place for any needed discussions for consensus building. Further, per the 100%, given that that's based on test audiences, ?(official premiere's next week), it's ridiculous to assume that one, such reviews are well founded on the release version, two, that they are truly neutral voices. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is going way too far. I never said that I don't agree with anything that the "Scholar" said, I just said that the mass of writing was unneeded. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, and no I was not "deliberately hostile", just a little big-mouthish :-( Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the point somewhat, I feel the statement "Early reviews for The Dark Knight prior to its theatrical release have been unanimous in praise" does require inline citation; based upon experience with other film articles, it's almost certain to be challenged, even in the short time leading up to the film's release. I have therefore added a link to the Rotten Tomatoes page (though I have not included any statistics). If you believe this means the link should be removed from the EL section, then I'm fine with that. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand holding off on implementing RT in the article, but why can't it exist as an external link for now? It makes no claims and provides content off-wiki for the readers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's now listed as a source in the article; it is not needed as a separate link too; it could be listed, but it need not be. For guidance, see WP:EL. I or someone else may re-add it later, but let's seek some consensus on doing so first; is it really so desirable? (Anyone who Googles the film title is going to find many sources of comparable usefulness; the EL section doesn't list everything; it is intended as a short list of the most reliable and informative links. [I think, and can avoid redundancies.] I've also done some vb. t. and other minor revisions to that section for better readability (and proper conventional use of verb tenses in paraphrasing and quoting texts). Also, we must remember to maintain adherence to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: If/when there are some negative reviews of the film, those will need to be represented (selectively) as well. This section is not a catchall for every review published on the film; it needs to be "representative" of the critical commentary on the film (after it is released). --NYScholar (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) [amended; --NYScholar (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]

Considering that the implementation of RT in the article is not comprehensive and will be even less comprehensive in due time, I think we should restore the RT link. WP:EL indicates, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Normally, RT links aren't added this early, but I think that there is enough content there as a result of hype for the film to warrant inclusion in this article. If anything, RT is more appropriate to include than Box Office Mojo since BOM will not have any actual content for nearly two weeks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But it already is deemed "suitable for inclusion in the article", which is already citing its "reviews ... [omitting: "and interviews"]"; it is already cited as a source of that very information and integrated in the section on "Critical reviews"; to list it again would be redundant. I have no objection to removing BOM. It could be cited if it has anything not yet cited in a source citation later in the text. Right now, if it is not useful, why list it in EL at all? --NYScholar (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For consistency, I've also removed the BOM EL, which is redundant and not useful at this time, and added an editorial interpolation; this EL section needs to look professional and not to include hyperlinks to forums and unreliable other sites or fansites; those are already in the official sites and too many of those kinds of links appear to violate WP:ADVERT. --NYScholar (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Relax! :) It's not the end of the world if someone adds junk... we've kept a lot of it out of the article so far, and we appreciate your further clean-up. I'm not sure if the note is necessary... speaking from personal experience, solicitors are not deterred by it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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: #Heads-up on including new information, 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 url= 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 publisher= 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 work= 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#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources; 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#Sources 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#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources 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#Links to be considered. 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded links 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#Sources? 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#Links to considered, #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: Wikipedia: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#What should be linked: "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#References and citation: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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#Sources, 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#Reliable sources, 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):

• The Dark Knight at Box Office Mojo
• The Dark Knight at Rotten Tomatoes

--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#Reliable sources and WP:V#Sources 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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#Reliable sources as pertains to ELs. Have those of you migrating to this article even you read this article??? See The Dark Knight (film)#Critical reception, 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#Reliable sources, 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 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV, WP:MOS, and sections in WP:CITE (Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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)

He's driven three regular contributors from this page; he will drive you away soon. He's not interested in your opinion, and he 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)

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)

VG

The article no longer mentions a video game. Was it cancled? 71.182.145.40 (talk)