Jump to content

Talk:The Dark Knight: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Requested move no. 2: {{subst:relisting}}
Line 100: Line 100:
{{Requested move/dated|The Dark Knight}}
{{Requested move/dated|The Dark Knight}}


[[:The Dark Knight (film)]] → {{no redirect|The Dark Knight}} – I read the previous discussion and I think arguments presented against moving this page are not valid. People who are typing "(The) Dark Knight" are not looking for Batman, they're obviously looking for the film. If anything, Batman is unanimously known as "Batman", and he's not being implied when people mention "The Dark Knight". I think it's more than obvious that everyone uses the term "Batman" when referring to the character, and "The Dark Knight" when referring to the film.{{unsigned|Randomuser112}} 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
[[:The Dark Knight (film)]] → {{no redirect|The Dark Knight}} – I read the previous discussion and I think arguments presented against moving this page are not valid. People who are typing "(The) Dark Knight" are not looking for Batman, they're obviously looking for the film. If anything, Batman is unanimously known as "Batman", and he's not being implied when people mention "The Dark Knight". I think it's more than obvious that everyone uses the term "Batman" when referring to the character, and "The Dark Knight" when referring to the film. <small>--'''Relisted'''. [[User:Nathan Johnson|Nathan Johnson]] ([[User talk:Nathan Johnson|talk]]) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)</small> {{unsigned|Randomuser112}} 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


;Pageviews in May 2013
;Pageviews in May 2013

Revision as of 19:42, 3 July 2013

Good articleThe Dark Knight has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 12, 2008Good topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Proposal:List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters

Further information: Talk:Batman Begins § Proposal:List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters

--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informal RfC: The Joker

Hi all. You may have noticed the latest (as of now) edits to the main article are regarding the way we convey the fate of the Joker. Connor Behan altered the article, and I reverted those changes in favour of the original version. However, after he reverted back, I chose not to get into an edit war. As such, I'm here for your opinions on which version you prefer. The original version was:

The Joker is then taken into custody.

Connor's edit was made because he felt that the Joker's fate is not known. So, he substituted that sentence for:

The Joker is last seen restrained before the SWAT team.

Which do you prefer? My personal reasoning for preferring the original is that he is in police custody when we last see him. We never know what happened to him after the fact, but he is in their custody. I feel Connor's edit leans heavily on the fourth wall; we portray the plot in a way that's impartial and informative, but this tends closer to a retelling in fictional format. Anyway, I'm here for other peoples' opinions, so fire away. drewmunn talk 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly wanted to make sure that we don't assume anything about whether the cops do the right thing. I didn't think the use of the fourth wall was bad when I wrote it, but your objection on those grounds makes perfect sense. Could we change the wording to any of these alternatives? "The SWAT team arrives and confronts the Joker", "The Joker is unable to free himself before the SWAT team arrives" or even "The SWAT team arrives to take the Joker into custody." That way we are clear about the intent rather than the result. Connor Behan (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I never got back to you, I much prefer the alternative suggested by you; it provides leeway, and remains objective. Thanks! drewmunn talk 08:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the cast should be ordered

I don't want to cause a edit war here. But how the cast should be ordered in this article doesn't really matter. There is no consensus on how the cast should be ordered. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is advisable for all to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The point of following the cycle is to see if one's edit will be contested, and if it is, to set up a discussion to make a case for the edit or to figure out a compromise. If necessary, other editors can be notified to determine a consensus, especially regarding a narrow issue such as this where there is not much room for flexibility. Secondly, I see that two time frames have been mentioned: Bluerules's ordering, which he says existed until February 2013, and a different ordering that existed since then. Is this correct? Also, Bluerules cited following the film credits for the ordering of the cast members. Was the ordering since last February based on the film poster or anything else? Per MOS:FILM#Cast, "Name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." I think that logic can be extended to a specific ordering. Let's hold off on changing the ordering until we can all make our points and counter-points. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I made a mistake on my part- the order I support was used until January 5. Anyways, the ordering since last January was based on the film's end credits. I've always argued in favor of using the ending credits as the basis for the order (unless they were alphabetical or by appearance) because they are an actual part of the film, whereas posters are promotional material. Additionally, the end credits provide a comprehensive cast listing, while the poster is limited to the biggest names. Bluerules (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, though do you mean that the ordering until last January was based on the film's end credits? And after that, it was based on the poster credits? I assume you were trying to restore the ordering to what it was last January. I would be fine with ordering based on the end credits except for the caveats you mention. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant the order used until January 5th was based on the ending credits. The current order is based on the poster and I was attempting to bring it back to its previous revision. Bluerules (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am fine with following the end credits for ordering, though can it be articulated what the ordering is, if not alphabetical or by appearance? Is it generally considered prominence of the roles in descending order? I'll ping the others to see what they have to say. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes the ending cast credits can be seriously confusing in some film articles with the names are placed at and there are other small time actors who are above the names listed in the credits which are not on various film articles. I don't think movies that are list alphabetical or by appearance in end credits should be included because it can create confusion among readers. The movies with those kind of end credits should be listed by beginning credits. As for the others one, I think they should be listed by the listed by main actors in the poster while others on it should be listed by time of character appearances or something like that. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree not to use the end credits if it is alphabetical or by appearance. But are there cases where the end credits are neither but the small-time actors are at the top? Even if that is true, I do not think that is the situation here. Either ordering is fine by me, as neither ordering is detrimental to Wikipedia, but if we had to stick to one option, the end credits approach makes sense to me. Do you think the ordering of the end credits for The Dark Knight is problematic or not? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that there are no specific guidelines in place for the ordering of cast lists. Perhaps we should bring it up at WikiProject Film and see if we can get some kind of site-wide consensus? —Flax5 21:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are guidelines, list the infobox starring by the poster billing block if one is available, otherwise use the film end credits. If one is in place there's no reason to replace one with the other beyond a personal preference for people being listed higher in one version than the other. Being higher up in the list doesn't make you any more important than being ON the list, and if Harrison Ford was listed above Mark Hamill on the poster and in the end credits, it wouldn't make Hamill's role less notable to be listed number 2. There seems to be a misconception that the lists are based on a fan-girl like boy band rating of hottest to nottest, when it's a simple list and we use the billing block purely because it is the first available and it helps prevent the general implementation of favoritism by certain users to have something we can point to as the template for why the names are listed in the order. If the poster billing is in place, there is no reason to change it to film credits, and if you use film credits where do you cut off the list? Where you decide the cast stops being important? Or do you list them all ad infinitum like some Roman style orgy of names all writhing over each other, sweaty and greasy as they clamor for the top of the pile and the better angle? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in place does not mean it should not be changed. The cast section of Alex Cross said Jean Reno portrayed a character named "Leon Mercier". That is not correct, the real name of the character is Giles Mercier. Do we keep the incorrect information in the article because it's already there? Of course not. And no, being listed second does mean you're less important than the first billed performer. Silver medalists aren't more notable than their gold counterparts and it's the same thing with film. The top listed name is the first person the audience sees. He or she stands above the rest of the cast. TV Tropes has a page called Billing Displacement for a reason. Now when it comes to using the credit list, the ideal cut-off point would be where the characters start being identified by their occupations or characteristics instead of their names. Some films already have a cut-off point; Heat listed all the notable roles first, and then billed the rest by appearance. Others, like Zathura have relatively small cast lists, so no cut off is needed. Incidentally, posters have the opposite problem: they don't always include prominent actors. The billing block of Holes makes no mention of Khleo, who plays one of the most important characters in the film. Do we omit Khleo from the cast just because the poster did? Bluerules (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request 05-07-2013

Please change "including the International Finance Centre, Hong Kong's tallest building" to "including the International Finance Centre, Hong Kong's second tallest building". Thanks. --K.sanny (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite that change? drewmunn talk 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a reliable source. - Camyoung54 talk 21:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these will do as reliable sources, let me know if not: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=11, http://www.synotrip.com/hong-kong/shopping/international-finance-centre--ifc--649.shtml, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong K.sanny (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've taken the liberty of altering the wording slightly, stating that it was, at the time of filming, the tallest building. Thanks for pointing it out! drewmunn talk 08:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move no. 2

The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight – I read the previous discussion and I think arguments presented against moving this page are not valid. People who are typing "(The) Dark Knight" are not looking for Batman, they're obviously looking for the film. If anything, Batman is unanimously known as "Batman", and he's not being implied when people mention "The Dark Knight". I think it's more than obvious that everyone uses the term "Batman" when referring to the character, and "The Dark Knight" when referring to the film. --Relisted. Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomuser112 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews in May 2013
  • Dark Knight - 4,917 times
  • The Dark Knight - 10,933 times
  • The Dark Knight (film) - 221,754 times

Reaching consensus

  • Firstly, we don't poll, we reach consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and !votes count for nothing; it's all or nothing. As for my personal opinion, I oppose the move, as there are many more uses for the term "The Dark Knight" than the film (a comic series, a nickname, and other media, for instance). Also, the current title is easy to find, as it follows the naming convention of Wikipedia's film documentation.  drewmunn  talk  18:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, and thirdy, your support is implied by your opening the discussion, you don't need to reiterate it.[reply]
    There are plenty of films that don't end with "(film)", but the fact remains that "The Dark Knight" is much more than a film. Just because you haven't come across it in other uses doesn't mean they're not prevalent.  drewmunn  talk  19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The numbers speak for themselves. Also, "The Dark Knight" cannot refer to "much more" than the film because there are only a few titles listed on the disambiguation page. If anything, Batman is unanimously referred to as "Batman", not "The Dark Knight". Randomuser112 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it you're not a long-time DC reader? You don't seem to understand the significance of the term prior to its selection as a film title, as demonstrated throughout this discussion. Your listing of stats doesn't show the full picture; we don't know how many people clicked onto a certain page before going elsewhere; people going to "The Dark Knight" don't necessarily direct straight to the film article, they may well be looking for "Batman".  drewmunn  talk  21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter anyway. Let's say 100% of readers who type "Dark Knight" want to go to Batman (which doesn't happen in reality) - then what? Most of the people still use the term "The Dark Knight" to refer to the film, as evidenced by the numbers presented above (and any search you'll conduct on Google). As for the significance of the term over the history, I'd say "(The) Dark Knight" has never been widely used. DC Comics fans knew what it referred to (before the film came out), but the overwhelming majority of people has always known Batman by his major name. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That answers my question then; you're not a long time-reader. The fact is, the term "Batman" is younger than the character, and "The Dark Knight" is a designation that's been around as long (if not longer) than his official name. Google searches count for nothing, they are personalised views of a snapshot of data; scroll back in time to 2005 and you'd see the term meant nothing other than "Batman", and you'd be surprised how many people, even outside fandom, knew it referred to Bruce Wayne. Now, even more people know it does (see the line "a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a Dark Knight"). The film brought extra prominence to the term, but not necessarily as a film title. You can argue as long as you want, it's already clear that consensus is against you (or undecided, if support is given), and nothing you've said so far has any bearing on changing the minds of the people who've written here. In fact, the things you're saying can easily be used to back up the argument for a disambiguation page; underestimating the prominence of a phrase through parochial thinking.  drewmunn  talk  07:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "you're not a long time-reader" - why should I be a long-time reader? This is not a DC comic book fandom site where people know the exact etymology of technical terms. People searching "The Dark Knight" always want to get to the film, and that's the only thing that matters. Randomuser112 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "The Dark Knight" should be left as a redir to "Dark Knight", as the term refers to more than just this one film.|| Tako (bother me) || 18:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Randomuser112 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives two definitions of primary topic, one fits, the other doesn't: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." oh. Seems that's the Batman character and franchise, not the film. The film is just one of numerous things using the phrase. Meaning, primary topic is /not/ a valid argument here. The / Dark Knight works better as a dab page, that's it.|| Tako (bother me) || 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument does not make any sense. The film was not released yesterday. And "Dark Knight" is merely a nickname for Batman, nothing else. People use the word "Batman" when referring to the character. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just 'cause you don't agree with my argument doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. "The Dark Knight" is a nickname that has been used since the 1940s, and is so relevant to the character, that's it has been used in publishing and other media since then. The term explicitly relates to Batman. As the primary topic definition says, "if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". The Dark Knight film released in 2008. "The Dark Knight" to refer to Batman first used in...Detective Comics #45 (November, 1940)? Clearly, the term, as it is used to refer explicitly to Batman, has been around and used for a lot longer than the film.|| Tako (bother me) || 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but I definitely think that a billion-dollar-grossing film is more important than an obscure nickname. I seriously doubt there's anyone who types "The Dark Knight" to get to the Batman article. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, now you are just...wrong. "Obscure nickname". Yeah. So obscure that it's the TITLE OF THE FILM, USED IN ADVERTISING, and IN OTHER MEDIA AND PUBLICATIONS NOT related to the film. || Tako (bother me) || 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • In comparison with "Batman", it's obscure. Not everyone knew that "The Dark Knight" referred to Batman until the film was released. Since then, everybody uses the term "The Dark Knight" to refer to the film. Your argument is null and void. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Currently the film is overwhelmingly the primary topic. I don't think that can be realistically contested, and I agree that most people searching for the Batman article would probably not pass through this disambiguation page. But The Dark Knight as a phrase had such a long association before the film was even made—indeed it was chosen as the film's title because of that long-standing association—and I think that association will continue for many more years to come. People may associate The Dark Knight with the film now, but will that still be the case in 20–30 years time? Once the film passes out of popular culture it is more than likely people will primarily associate the the phrase with the character again rather than a 30 year old film. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how does that matter now? People/comic book fans will always associate "Dark Knight" with Batman, but it doesn't change the fact that it's nothing more than a nickname, and it also doesn't change the fact that the term has become almost synonymous with the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism certainly applies to this case. Five years after the release of the film and one year on from the sequel isn't an adequate test of time. Given that the character was the primary association before the film then it is reasonable that it could be again at some point. If The Dark Knight is appearing on "top film" lists in 20-30 years time effectively cementing its reputation as a classic film then the recentism argument becomes less applicable, but at the moment such a move would be purely in response to a recent cultural event. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you fully understand the importance of this film. The Dark Knight is not a B movie with no impact. It's already one of the most popular films of all time, plus it received an insurmountable amount of acclaim and influence. #15 on Empire's list of the 500 Greatest films of all time is not enough? Randomuser112 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Empire is hardly Sight & Sound, is it? Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you now trying to make the film look insignificant? Don't waste your time. The importance of this film is gigantic. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We're talking about a 70-year association with a character versus a 5-year old film. Betty explains quite well above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states that it's all about pageviews. The film - 220,000 hits, the DAB - 15,000. Enough said. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read any of the above arguments before dismissing them? PRIMARYTOPIC says (and I copypasta):

"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

— WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
Notice, that this...says nothing about page views! || Tako (bother me) || 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I guess you need to be a little more attentive. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Dark Knight" itself is a nickname which has no educational value at all. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attentive? Maybe you should read it. I've read the section. It's not a valid argument here, as it says:

"In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic."

You cannot use PRIMARYTOPIC as an argument here, because it literally says, if there is a conflict, discuss it. There's a conflict here, maybe. You're pointing to something that says to discuss it.|| Tako (bother me) || 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom is a newly-registered user, maybe they are not fully conversant with the intricacies of our policies and guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the guideline states! A topic is primary for a term (Batman being the topic, and "The Dark Knight" being the term) if it ("it" being the topic) has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic (Batman certainly has greater enduring notability than the film) associated with that term (and Batman is provably to associated with the term "The Dark Knight". The first criterion favors the film, the second the character, so there isn't a clear winner here. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the criteria favors the term over the film because the nickname itself has zero educational value. We're not comparing "Batman" with "The Dark Knight (film)", we're comparing the nickname "Dark Knight" with the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic", "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors". See - we can all quote different passages from it. We are discussing usage now. You have your opinion, we each have ours. Shouting "Primary Topic!" every time someone places their opinion is not constructive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "shouting" anything. I'm presenting evidence, which you're refusing to accept. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not following your "page views are evidence" logic in any way. "The Dark Knight" has had 12,318 hits and "The Dark Knight (film)" 254,475. That means a maximum of 4.8% of the people visiting the "(film)" article could have conceivably come from "The Dark Knight". Statistically, therefore your use of the page views as a logical reason makes no sense; I could understand it if "The Dark Knight" had more, but it doesn't. To the contrary, the statistics show a possible 73.5% of visitors to the DAB ended up on another article, not "The Dark Knight (film)". All of this aside, you quote the same statistics as proof that this is the most notable page of the topic. It'd be interesting if you'd elaborate on your statistical thinking behind how the numbers back you up...  drewmunn  talk  16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""The Dark Knight" has had 12,318 hits and "The Dark Knight (film)" 254,475. That means a maximum of 4.8% of the people visiting the "(film)" article could have conceivably come from "The Dark Knight"." You can't know this. You don't know how many people went from the DAB page to each page. The fact that the film article receives 20 times as many hits as the DAB page says it all. By typing "The Dark Knight", people are hoping to get to the film article. Why would anyone type "The Dark Knight" to get to Batman? It's 15 characters versus 6 characters. Randomuser112 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all pure statistics; my job is to work this sort of thing out, and work it out I have. It's actually a fairly simple calculation: If people visit "The Dark Knight", a hit is recorded there. If they wanted "The Dark Knight (film)", they'll click onto it, and they'll have a hit recorded there as well. The percentage of hits on the "(film)" article that are also on the DAB is the maximum traffic along that route. That is, please note, the maximum, so there can be no more than 4.8% of the traffic on the "(film)" article originating at "The Dark Knight". The rest of the calculation is the same, but takes the hits from every article listed on the DAB and works out the percentage hits on the "(film)" compared to every other article. People may not be looking directly for the "Batman" article, but there are many other articles listed on that page. It's also conceivable that they've forgotten his name, although that's a long shot, but may explain it.  drewmunn  talk  16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combined: ~142,000 hits. The film gets more views than ALL the remaining titles combined, and there's a remainder of 80,000 hits in favor of the film. Also, four of the titles listed on the DAB page are only partial title matches. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've forgotten Batman, which trumps everything. Anyway, you still don't seem to get what you're writing. If "The Dark Knight" got more hits than "The Dark Knight (film)", then you'd have an argument for moving. It doesn't, so there are more hits at "The Dark Knight (film)", showing that to be the preferred title for visitors.  drewmunn  talk  17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Batman has nothing to with this because it's not a title match. " If "The Dark Knight" got more hits than "The Dark Knight (film)", then you'd have an argument for moving. It doesn't, so there are more hits at "The Dark Knight (film)", showing that to be the preferred title for visitors" - that's not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says. The stats are used in order identify the primary topic. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Batman is the primary link from the DAB, so it is relevant. A primary topic may be selected from the DAB, but the topic is self-sustained; it gets more hits than the DAB, so that's not the primary method of reaching the topic. Just because something linked from a DAB has the most hits out of everything else on the DAB doesn't mean that it is the most prominent topic amongst the list; it means it's the most popular article. As you're so fond of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, let me give you this as a quote: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term." Batman, therefore, by your understanding of the guidelines, should be the target of a redirect based at "The Dark Knight".  drewmunn  talk  17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't, because, again, people who type "The Dark Knight" (15 characters) do NOT intend to get to the Batman (6 characters) page. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? Are you all 12,318 of the people who visited the page? Your assumption that they don't want to get to Batman is as much OR as me saying that they were all looking for information on the guy in Monty Python who gets his arm chopped off.  drewmunn  talk  17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OR because "The Dark Knight" is not even a slight title match with "Batman". Logically, people typing "The Dark Knight" cannot be intending to get to the Batman page. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Logic doesn't rule us; our readers are not agents of The Matrix, but people who can make mistakes and get confused over what they are looking for.  drewmunn  talk  18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you are trying to cajole me into believing that there are people who type "The Dark Knight" to get to the Batman article, then I'm done arguing with you. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said I was done, but then I saw this. It is sad and insulting that you accuse me first of having ulterior motives, then of attempting to "cajole" you into believing something. You have repeatedly shown that you understand neither the topic of this discussion nor the guidelines on which Wikipedia operates. You need to take some serious time learning more about how to behave on talk pages; your current behaviour is not conducive of a productive atmosphere and will gain you neither respect nor influence. Granted, a fresh opinion can sometimes be a catalyst for useful change, but not if executed in a way that disregards entirely both the subject under discussion and editors who are well founded and highly respected. You deleted one editor's comment after he suggested you needed more time to learn about Wikipedia and its guidelines, and he was completely accurate. You also need to remember that, just because Christopher Nolan introduced you to Batman and the phrase "The Dark Knight" a few years ago does not mean that everybody else on the planet follows your logic and thought patterns exactly. The character has been around for nearly a quarter of a century, and both him and his alias "The Dark Knight" are far more prominent than the name of a single film that isn't even current. I am not an easily riled man, and I am more than happy to guide new and inexperienced editors though their time on Wikipedia, but you have displayed both a lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to learn. Granted, you did make changes suggested at the beginning of the discussion, and for that I applaud you. However, you need to accept that opposition to your opinion, the providing of evidence contrary to your beliefs, or the suggestion that you need time to learn is not a reason for you to attack an editor or delete a comment. The outcome of this move request is already evident (no consensus, no move), so you now have a perfect opportunity to build on your experience and become a more learned editor.  drewmunn  talk  20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Either that, or you could go and start a request for Batman (film) to be moved to Batman. After all, the contents of the target article should be at Bruce Wayne; Batman's only a nickname, it's not like it's steeped in decades of tradition and legacy, is it?[reply]
"Batman" is MUCH more widespread than "The Dark Knight". You need to realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of Wikipedia readers are not comic book fans. Anyway, the hits for Dark Knight + The Dark Knight are less than 15,000. Let's assume ALL of the people who type either of those two word combinations want to get to Batman. The Batman article gets more than 500K hits monthly, and the aforementioned total of 15K is not even 2.95% of that amount. And don't forget that this is a very generous assumption, because I think it's more than clear that at least half of the people that go to the DAB page then continue to The Dark Knight (film). See, a MAXIMUM of 2.95% of readers could've reached the Batman page from the DAB page. Also, any search in Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. makes it clear that "Dark Knight" more commonly refers to the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has to stop. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or are choosing to ignore it. Your "more than clear" and other apparent definite truths are OR, as I've previously noted, and your knowledge of the subject is limited. If this continues, we're going to end up somewhere rather nasty, so please do what I have done, and accept that the other party disagrees, and leave it. Please read through my suggestions on your course of action, and take the time you need to becoming a more proficient editor.  drewmunn  talk  21:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Yahoo and Bing are the same thing[reply]

Stop changing the topic. My proficiency as an editor has nothing to do with this page - take those "suggestions" elsewhere. Just because you childishly disagree with me doesn't mean that I'm incorrect. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to minimise the effect this has on other editors, I'll reply on your talk page.  drewmunn  talk  07:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a HUGE bias coming from American Batman/DC comics fans who think the entire world's perception is limited to that of the US. Batman, outside of the US/UK, is NOT known as the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight, first and foremost, refers to the film itself because that's how the billion-dollar-grossing film was officially titled, trademarked and marketed. Randomuser112 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that interpretation impossible, since even the film makes the implication that Batman is The Dark Knight, and its sequel movie reinforces that. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The film MADE the term "The Dark Knight" prominent, and people searching "Dark Knight" are looking for the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Recentism means half of an article like Barack Obama shouldn't be about this week's political news. Recentism means the 21st century shouldn't dominate the History of the United Kingdom article. Recentism does not mean we should give the finger to readers looking for a commercially and critically successful film that is the clearly demonstrated WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its title just because the film is somewhat recent. Show me a reader who uses "Dark Knight" to find Batman because he or she doesn't know to type "Batman" and I might change my mind. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other option

Dark Knight stays as the disambiguation page, The Dark Knight (film) moves to The Dark Knight per WP:PRECISION. A hatnote ""Dark Knight" is also a term used to refer to Batman. For other uses, see Dark Knight" is added to the film page. None of the other titles listed on the DAB page have a full title match except for the film. I think this is a perfect compromise for both sides of this argument. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Option: Survey

  • You seem a little fixated on Full Title Matches; we're not a search engine, we are trying to get people to what they want the fastest. Anyway, many users miss out "The" for speed and efficiency, so I oppose per above.  drewmunn  talk  17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? If a user misses out "The", they are taken to a DAB page where they can choose where to get. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't that also point here? Haha, now I'm playing mind games on you... *strokes goatee whilst waggling fingers in front of your face*. But seriously, that just creates confusion. The terms "The Dark Knight" and "Dark Knight" are synonymous in their relationship to Batman. They are used interchangeably and should not be treated differently because a single film was made.  drewmunn  talk  17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:PRECISION says. Randomuser112 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since now you're doing your best just to oppose me, I'm choosing to stop discussing this issue with you. Let's wait for other people to weigh in. Randomuser112 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just trying opposing you out of habit, I'm doing it because I believe you are wrong. I understand that you don't want to continue, but know that I will continue to make my opinion known as I always have; in a civil and acceptable manner. My closing words to you at this time would be ones of advice: you don't seem to fully understand the subject you are attempting to broach, nor the guidelines you are trying to use to back yourself up. Take some time to get used to these before instigating any more discussions.  drewmunn  talk  18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're totally wrong. You're using pageview statistics (which are in the film's favor) to back up your ludicrous statement. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you will, my point is made.  drewmunn  talk  20:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same for me. Randomuser112 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a source that states that "The" is part of the title when referring to the character and not the film? Randomuser112 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Dark Knight Returns".  drewmunn  talk  21:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a partial title match. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many ubelievably irrelevant "arguments" you come up with, the fact that people are much more likely to be looking for the film will not change. Pageviews speak wonders. Randomuser112 (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

None of the pages listed on the DAB are full title matches except for the film. "The Dark Knight (film)" should be moved to "The Dark Knight" and a hatnote stating "Dark Knight is also a nickname for the DC Comics character Batman. For other uses, see Dark Knight" should be added to the film page per WP:PRECISION. I'm waiting for arguments against this change. Randomuser112 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose because the term "The Dark Knight" has a multifaceted use that mainly refers to Batman. We can all agree that the film is the most popular topic, but the term is so commonly used in various media, even if just in part. The film title itself is derived from the core meaning of the term. In this context, I do not think the film page should displace the disambiguation page. In addition, the disambiguation page has little traffic, which reflects how it only plays a minor role in navigating to the film article. Most readers reach the Wikipedia article through a search engine (since the film article appears at the top) and perhaps through Wikipedia's search box (which provides a drop-down menu of possibilities, with "The Dark Knight (film)" at the top). I think in this case, having the "(film)" disambiguation is helpful to make the film stand out amidst topics that share the term, again even in part. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what WP:PRECISION says. It's not up to you to decide which one is more important. None of those page have a full title match with "The Dark Knight" except for the film. Randomuser112 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is up to us editors to interpret and apply policies and guidelines. Interpretations can differ. In this case, you think that The Dark Knight is precise enough to identify the film and that The Dark Knight (film) is too overly precise. I disagree because I think "The Dark Knight" as a general term does not refer only to the film; the film derives its title from the larger meaning. We see the general term used repeatedly. So I do not think the film has primary-topic claim to the term, and that a disambiguation page is sufficient. I believe WP:PTM applies here: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title." The "generic context" is what I mean here. The current setup is not detrimental to Wikipedia and its readers. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PTM: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." Again, the film is the only full-title match. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the last part, "no significant risk of confusion or reference"? "The Dark Knight" is a term that is frequently used because it refers to Batman. That's why I quoted what I did. Items like Batman: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Coaster are pretty much similar in a generic context. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have misunderstood that guideline. It's meant to stop users adding, say "Dark Knight Citrus Farm" to the disambiguation page just because it uses the term "Dark Knight". There is no chance of confusion between that and the actual topic, which is Batman. However, what you keep incessantly referring to as "title matches" are not the problem here. The problem is that "The Dark Knight" refers to Batman first, and a film second. Just because the name of the film is the same as the nickname doesn't mean the film is more important in any way, not even primarytopic or precision, both of which you seem happy to throw around as solid evidence that you're right no matter what. These are, again, guidelines you don't seem to grasp. Adding the word "film" to the end of an article about a film is not overly precise, especially when the term on it's own means so much more. You can title match your way to kingdom come, one film is not going to change decades of legacy (another thing you seem blissfully unaware of). --2.120.111.201 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you who has misunderstood the guideline. "The Dark Knight" is a nickname for Batman, and Batman doesn't have a title match with "The Dark Knight". That's why The Dark Knight should be the title of the film. The importance of the term "The Dark Knight" in relation to the character is unimportant because it doesn't have a title match with the character's name. This is what the guideline says. Randomuser112 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested: do you have a special button on your keyboard marked "title match"? If not, it'd save you a lot of time if you did. People who knew of Batman and DC before Christopher Nolan got his grubby little mitts on it (you know, that's strangly most people, just not you it seems) are likely to want more than a single film out of the search term "The Dark Knight". What you call unimportant is in fact so important, they named a film after it. How's that for circular reasoning? What you claim is important only exists because of what you say is unimportant. I think I, and the majority of the users in this page so far, are of the opinion that the reason the phrase even exists is far more important than a single film. 2.120.111.201 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is nonexistent because people typing "The Dark Knight" are sure as hell inteding to get to the film page. Nobody types 15 characters ("The Dark Knight") when they can get the same result by typing 6 characters ("Batman"). Randomuser112 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you may want to consider the likelihood that you're not going to change the other person's mind. That being the case, I recommend disengaging and doing wiki work elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only solution is to take this issue to WP:MRV. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having disengaged, I've been following this discussion to see where it goes. My only comment at this time would be that you can't take it to an MRV because the move is not currently closed. Also, be aware that the outcome of the request, whatever it is, will likely not fall into either of the two categories that would make it eligible for review:
  • [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move.
  • [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the RM: [identify information here] and the RM should be reopened and relisted.
Reviews aren't meant to be undertaken because someone disagrees with the outcome, nor are they places to continue the debate; they should be used to discuss the way in which the move's closing administrator chose, and the reasons given. I do not want to get back into this debate, but just wished to point this out before any issues arise from incorrectly opening a review. This request can be closed tomorrow (GMT), but it's unlikely it will be, as consensus has not been reached. However, it is up to the administrator looking it over to decide whether it is likely to ever be reached, and they may close on the grounds that it won't.  drewmunn  talk  06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other party (which you're a part of) still isn't making any arguments. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states that the entire thing is all about historic importance/educational value and pageviews. The film takes both of these criteria. Since when is the nickname "The Dark Knight" an educational topic? What historic importance does it have? I say that nickname has zero historic importance. The film has had a significant amount of cultural impact, for example. What cultural impact did the nickname have? Film studies have been conducted on The Dark Knight. What educational value does the nickname have? See, none of you are making any arguments at all, insteading sticking to your absurd theory of how American 10-year-old DC Comics fanboys who spend a lot of time on the Internet extensively use the term to refer to Batman.
In short, The Dark Knight (film) needs to be moved to The Dark Knight. This is not even a discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I told you I'm not getting back into this. We don't agree, and I've disengaged for the sake of my sanity. I've asked you civily not to insult me, and remind you that this still applies. The side on which I am have consistently put up solid arguments, and you have also made your views known. We are obviously not go big to change each others' minds, so I suggest you disengage also. Some of your arguments may be reasoned, others are not. That is the way of things, and I suggest you accept that as I have. Now, I'm off to watch Monsters (2010 film) again, the subject of many media studies, yet still not located on the main "Monsters" page. 😄  drewmunn  talk  10:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Drew and suggest you don't wear yourself out over this. I've had this experience myself with an external link template that I don't think belongs on Wikipedia, but the consensus has been against me twice at WP:TFD. This discussion has garnered plenty of opinions, so it will be closed soon by an admin who will decide an outcome. It's possible that the admin would agree with you, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and I think the opposing opinions express legitimate concerns. There's not an explicit right or wrong answer here; WP:IAR exists to remind us that it is not imperative to follow the rules down to the last detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this conversation has reached a standstill, I have requested a closure of it by an uninvolved party at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:The_Dark_Knight_.28film.29.23Requested_move_no._2. If someone disagrees with the outcome of the closure, then they can appeal the closure per WP:MRV. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to try to create an article about the nickname. It may help give encyclopedic meaning to a term that did not have one before this discussion. You can see the new article at The Dark Knight (nickname). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought (sorry this comes so late in the discussion) is that we could apply WP:SETINDEX here. We could have context for the nickname upfront, and we could list the various encyclopedic topics that use the nickname. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That might have a future; converting the page you've created the nickname into a SETINDEX page located at The Dark Knight (or Dark Knight and have the former still redirect to the latter) and breaking down into media types and other usages etc.  drewmunn  talk  18:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Knight&oldid=562735661"