Wikipedia

Talk:Joker (character)/Archive 5

< Talk:Joker (character)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Requested move 12 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago98 comments24 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because there actually seems to be a broad agreement that the current title is less than optimal. The problem obviously comes in deciding what to move it to. The two options with reasonable support are "The Joker" and "Joker (character)" and it's my finding that this discussion has not found a consensus either way. Votes are roughly split and both sides have made reasonable arguments about whether the WP:THE guideline would recommend the use of the definite article in the title or not. Jenks24 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


Joker (comics) → The Joker (character) – Per The Doctor (Doctor Who) and Wolverine (character). --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Still there is only Wolverine and Joker to change? This is a mighty slow step to start changing. Maybe saying all Batman rogues should have their names changed or X-Men would get somewhere if we feel that (character) is the better title. We have a whole bundle of articles to start questioning whether (comics) or (character) should be on the article title. We should fixate on them all together. Then I wouldn't mind the inconsistent difference. Jhenderson 777 03:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    It's not as simple as that—in some cases (comics) or something else really is more appropriate—because, say, there are other articles with a legitimate claim to (character), or other concerns. Certainly in any case like this one where BASENAME (character) redirects to BASENAME (comics)—those articles should all be moved. Evaluation should be done on the other characters, but (a) it's a lot of work, and (b) there are a lot of WP:CMC users who remain opposed to both the policy and the consensus and stand ready to oppose every requested move. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If it is, for whatever reason, an issue of whether or not the character is the primary "the Joker", then a sound case can be made in the character's favor, as many references can be provided. Therefore, it can be demonstrated with evidence that the character is the most well-known "the Joker" and thus, should be given the primary designation of The Joker. For those who oppose this, my question is why and what is your argument against it? If it can be argued that the character is the most well-known "the Joker", then that, to me, seems to take precedent over all other suggestions thus far. JosephSpiral (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: If this is moved, pages like Penguin and Riddler will also probably need moving. There's also an ongoing discussion about Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager), also about use of the article, and some people here might want to oppose. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If characters' eponymous titles are the reason why we are moving away from the (comics) designation, couldn't the eponymous titles use the designation of (comic book title), (graphic novel), or something along those lines, and we could continue using Joker (comics)? Every comic book character who already has an eponymous title would have to be given whatever designation we agree on. Also, any character who gets a new title in their name would need the new designation as soon as the title comes out. Furthermore, there will be the widespread discrepancy of some characters having a designation of (character) with others having (comics). That's getting very into it, but I think that's where we're headed. Regardless, movie and animated depictions should not have their own articles; they should remain within one primary article about the character. JosephSpiral (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      I disagree with that last point. If an animated or other depiction has enough independent influence and notability, and if attempting to properly cover the specific depiction would lead to an incredibly unbalanced article in both the character's article and the actual work's/series' page, I think it's probably worth giving it its own article, especially if said depiction varies wildly from the "main" version of the character. These would be the exceptions to the rule, however. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      If a depiction of a character in some particular medium were so extensively documented that it merited its own article, that article would, of course, and regardless of length, be but a sub-article of the main character article. The base article of a character should always be about the character—the character is primary, and its manifestation in various media (even if restricted to a single medium) is subordinate to that. There is no such thing as a "comic book character", a "film character", or a "novel character"—only a character who happens to appear in comic books, films, or movies. The medium does not "own" the character. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      I agree with Curly Turkey that we should not have different articles based upon all the different mediums in which a character appears. This would make finding information about a character particularly monotonous, as several articles would have to be viewed if, for example, someone wanted to read about the Joker as he has appeared throughout the years, which would incorporate different mediums. In addition, we can expect to see conflicting information about characters in these dissociated articles. The exception, as The Millionth One stated, would be if covering a character's appearance in a medium other than comic books leads to an unbalanced primary article. Then a separate article for the character's appearance in that particular medium can be used. JosephSpiral (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As per some other folks, and as I mentioned way up list somewhere, simply The Joker, with no identifying trailer, seems like the primary topic. There's only one The Joker in most people's universe, and this page likely has that distinction. Randy Kryn 3:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Several editors, myself included, favor this. JosephSpiral (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't read every word here, has anyone mentioned that the page itself starts out with the words: The Joker, which is the guy's proper name, but for some reason the "The" is not bolded and the Joker is, so the first two words are: The Joker. Be like having: David Letterman or Franklin D. Roosevelt. The proper name is already there, just has to be formalized (I'll be bold and go bold it and see if it's reversed). Randy Kryn 4:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    As has already been demonstrated, "Joker" sans "the" is used with great frequency, including in DC book titles. Wikipedia article titling policies is to leave out articles unless they are inseparable from the rest of the title (say, in a book title, or certain band names). Given the frequency with which "the" is not used, it cannot be used in the article title. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    There are several Dr. Who episodes which just used 'Doctor', and yet the page 'The Doctor' was recently changed to reflect the full title. The words 'The Joker' are so common to this subject that they are used on all the related templates, the page's infobox, etc. And if the proper name is "Joker", why does the lead start with "The Joker" and not just "Joker..."? Riddle me that!(sorry, couldn't resist) Randy Kryn 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Is the Doctor Who character himself ever referred to simply as "Doctor"? Joker is, and with great frequency. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    All the time. His companions call him Doctor, others call him Doctor. It's when people talk about him that his common name is 'The Doctor'. Same with this page. As for the first word of the page being "The" instead of "Joker", why is the "The" there? Randy Kryn 21:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    The Doctor's a confusing example—one would expect a doctor to be addressed as "Doctor" and not "Hey, the Doctor" (remember "Sounds good, Mr. The Kid!"?). In a TV Guide listing, is it even credible that the character could be called simply "Doctor"?: "In this week's episode, Doctor gets his panties in a bunch." With Joker, not only can you, but it's done with great frequency. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote/Comment: I'm getting a bit tired of seeing this page on pop up on my watchlist, so here's my opinion, and this is a blanket opinion that I apologize if it sounds too blunt or biased, but: I agree with whatever opinion Curly Turkey states. That editor seems to be advocating the opinion I have more thoroughly than I have the capacity to do right now, so I'll leave it at that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion has gotten sidetracked and is, quite frankly, a mess. The original proposal was to move Joker (comics) to The Joker (character). The new proposal not only changes "(comics)" to "(character)" but for some reason now adds the definite article. The use of the definite article or lack thereof seems to be the biggest problem. I don't think it's worth voting to see if editors want to use the definite article or not, because it seems people may not want a designation based on just that, myself included. I believe we should take a vote on all the suggestions thus far. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of words here, so I'm going to throw this at the bottom: I do not support any effort to divorce these articles from their primary medium. This page is well written and the character's been featured in many stories in many media over the years. It's the exception, and I don't think any consensus here should apply beyond this article. This is what most articles would end up being - overall correct, but vague and unsourced. Not to mention a bear to maintain as well-meaning editors include "missing" information. I'd wager that most users find their way to articles about comic book characters for the FCB, and I think an article structure that keeps the FCB of the primary comic character the main focus is the best route. All that said, I support moving this page to the DAB-free The Joker. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

I've created this subsection as a place for votes, to keep things orderly and easy to tally. I suggest everyone list their preferences in order, as many people are in favor of more than one designation based on what is doable. The first choice listed will be the primary choice, with subsequent choices used as tie breakers. We don't need to state reasons as they've been exhausted. Let's just vote and see where everyone stands. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

174.141.182.82, per WP:VOTE, there needs to be a discussion first. If the text in the above section isn't a discussion, I don't know what is. I didn't mean "vote" in the true ballot or strawpoll voting sense. This is a place for everyone to state what they support and oppose in an organized way. The end goal is to gain consensus, but we need to figure out what designations editors support. The discussion up above is a mess, and it's incredibly difficult sorting through every side discussion to figure out what people are actually supporting and opposing, as some appear contradictory or unclear. By finding out what everyone supports and opposes in an organized way, we can work towards consensus. I thought it was a given that whatever most editors support will then be discussed to ensure consensus; it wouldn't just become the new designation. JosephSpiral (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There haven't been any comments lately. It was originally stated that Joker (comics) was not suitable because of the conflict it may have with eponymous publications. Do editors still believe a change must be made? If so, how do editors suggest we proceed forward? JosephSpiral (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

JosephSpiral I think certainly that change would be advantageous in providing representation of the character as he is regularly known. We have articles such as The Edge and The Notorious B.I.G. Why not The Joker? GregKaye 15:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
For the reasons already given above: the article in "The" Joker is dropped all the time, in dialogue, in titles, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd suggest a neutral third party user (maybe an admin?) provide closure to this discussion to summarize the consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that third party/admins may need to step in. At this rate, we won't reach consensus. JosephSpiral (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is clearly the most famous fictional character called "Joker". Anyone who has ever read comics thinks of this character when they hear the name "Joker". JIP | Talk 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • summarizing from the prior section:
    • Oppose "Joker (comics)" this is a basic failure under WP:PRECISE -- there are multiple comics topics (multiple characters, multiple comic books).
    • Oppose "Joker (character)" this is a basic failure under WP:PRECISE -- multiple characters named Joker are covered in various articles
    • Oppose "Joker (comics character)" this is a basic failure under WP:PRECISE -- multiple characters named Joker are covered in various articles
    • Oppose "The Joker (comics)" this is a basic failure under WP:PRECISE -- multiple properties called Joker (the character, the comic book)
    • Oppose "Joker (DC Comics)" this is a basic failure under WP:PRECISE -- multiple DC Comics properties called Joker (the character, the graphic novel)
    • Oppose "The Joker (DC Comics)" this is a basic failure under WP:PRECISE -- multiple DC Comics properties called Joker (the character, the comic book)
    • Oppose "The Joker", I think the playing card is the primary topic
    • Oppose "Joker", this is clearly not the primary topic, and the disambiguation page should stay at Joker
    • Support "Joker (DC Comics character)", one of the shortest way to satisfy WP:PRECISE
    • Support "The Joker (DC Comics character)", one of the shortest way to satisfy WP:PRECISE
    • I'd prefer "The Joker (DC Comics character)"
    • per WP:PRECISE ambiguous disambiguation should not be used, the title should carry enough disambiguation to clearly distinguish it from other topics that could use the same title, so that no other topic on Wikipedia can use the same title -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I say Leave it the way it is. I also say it doesn't really matter. As long as it says Joker in the title and it's obviously the article about this Joker, it doesn't matter. This whole section is a mess. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is there a reason why the first three lead paragraphs have no references? JosephSpiral (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, material that is not controversial and that will not likely to be challegend can be without a source in the lead. That's is the case, of course, if the material is source in the body of the article, which it is. Do you think something in particular is contentious, JosephSpiral? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Gabriel Yuji, there's a line that reads, "The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary." I did not see a reference for it in the body. JosephSpiral (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you've asked this before Joseph, but loads of the Characterization section is dedicated to this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Darkwarriorblake, I haven't asked this before. I didn't find that specific reference in the "Characterization" section, but it's not a big deal. Like Gabriel Yuji said, the body of the article provides enough references so as not to be required in the lead paragraphs. JosephSpiral (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jared Leto portraying the Joker in 2016

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

When listing the actors who have played the Joker, it should be established that actor Jared Leto will be portraying the character in the 2016 film, Suicide Squad. NominalMuffin (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article. I assume you mean the lead, in which case no, it isn't even out yet, we can't list every single film appearance and we have no idea what the level of involvement or notability will be. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead mentions 3 actors who have portrayed the Joker in live action. The body mentions 4. Surely you can see why so many editors think this is an omission, not a notability issue. I've watched numerous editors add Leto to the lead since the role was announced, but you're only person I've seen revert it. From where I'm sitting, it's pretty obvious the consensus is that Leto's Joker is already considered notable enough to be in the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
People suddenly crawl out of the woodwork to add information to a Wikipedia article like it's a news site when that information is recently popular, news at 11. As explained to Cartoon, you add Leto now when he's in a film that for all intents and purposes doesn't actually exist yet, then where is hte limit. He's the Joker, he'll be in movie after movie after movie and tv shows potentially as well, so where do you draw the line? Easiest? Notability. Cesar Romero is a pop culture icon as the Joker, Nicholson was already famous and then became a pop culture icon as the Joker, Heath Ledger won an Oscar for being the Joker. These three people are easily identifiable not because they just played the Joker but because playing the Joker was a notable event for all three that has produced a lasting, enduring legacy. Leto has done nothing but be cast as the Joker, and if add him then what is the argument against adding Cameron Monaghan from the Gotham TV series, and every voice actor ever? There is no reasonable argument against them if you're adding people who aren't notable apart from playing the Joker. They are covered in the article body so there is no argument for them being omitted, so it's purely fan-reasoning that Leto needs to be namedropped in the lead just because. This is a substantial and reasonable argument and it would have been beneficial for you to post here and discuss the reasoning BEFORE re-adding the content. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Before we go any further, I'd like to ask a direct question: Do you honestly believe Leto's Joker in Suicide Squad (and presumably further DC movies) won't be notable, either culturally or for him?
Also, if you check the time stamps, I started this dicussion at 12:27 on the 21st. The information was added by yet another editor on the 22nd. You reverted him, at which point I reverted you and pointed you toward this conversation. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is WP:CRYSTALBALL. He might be notable, he might end up being a cameo, he might end up a forgotten footnote, we don't know what the case will be, what I do know is that we do not know, and as such the information does not belong in the lead when it is covered in the body, and again I reiterate that it is not practical to add everyone who portrays the Joker in live action, but all three of the people there already are embedded in culture not just meeting a gateway of future notability. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of CrystalBall. I'm not asking if you know the role will be notable. I'm asking if you honestly think it won't be. I need the answer to this, because this discussion will be much easier if I know where you stand. Given his early promotion in stills and trailers, I don't think you can seriously argue that he "might just be a cameo." Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It will get attention because of the character, I do not know if the character will be well received or long-lasting. I do know it doesn't belong in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Now, here's how the lead is currently worded: "The Joker has been Batman's adversary in ... film by Jack Nicholson in 1989's Batman, Heath Ledger in 2008's The Dark Knight, and Jared Leto in 2016's Suicide Squad. Mark Hamill, Michael Emerson, Troy Baker, and others have voiced the animated character." This wording does not indicate, in any way, that the list of film appearances has been limited to notable versions. The list of voice actors, on the other hand, does include the "and others" caveat. As worded, leaving Leto out makes the article look incomplete, not trunicated by design. Given that he's just one person, it would also seem biased to reduce him to an "and others" label. I understand your point about the SS version potentially being a footnote in the character's history, but considering how many different people have added the line, and how the lead is currently written, I think Leto's name should be included. It's not giving any undue weight to the subject, since it's mentioned equally with the other film versions. Crystal Ball doesn't apply, since he's role in the film isn't speculation. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cesar Romero deserves linking :P

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If we can't edit, at least do the man a kindness and link his name. - 58.178.230.2 (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

His name is linked (overlinked in fact). Graham Beards (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article is a duplicate, exactly the same subject, with the same scope.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever template you added was for a completed merger discussion. The character article exists because a user blocked this articles promotion to FA because they believed that the article dedicated to the characters non-comic appearances was insufficient, and this belief was bizarrely upheld by the closer. So now the character article is there, and this article can be promoted. Feel free to take it up with the user who blocked its promotion necessitating the character article, but it cannot be merged here because it literally cannot be promoted if it is.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
most recently in justice league number 50, it is revealed that there are three jokers. the first being the one first introduced in 1940. the second is the killing jokes version, and the third is the new 52 joker.

216.248.127.58 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)   Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.Killer Moff (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"a 28-vote plurality"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reference to a 28-vote plurality is unclear. The circumstance is not a plurality. In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_A_Death_in_the_Family, it is stated that "Over 10,000 votes were cast, with the final vote being 5,343 votes for Jason to die over 5,271 for him to live." I propose that the sentence be changed to: Todd was unpopular with fans; rather than modify his character, DC opted to let them vote for his fate and a final vote of 5,343 votes to 5,271 had the Joker beat Todd to death with a crowbar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botsauce (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a story (I don't know how verifiable it is) that someone used an autodialer to spam the "kill" toll number.

Scott Snyder's Batman #38, The Joker's immortality

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Joker's immortality was established in Scott Snyder's Batman #38 and is part of the Batman: Endgame series. Is it worthy of note that comic panels in #38 credit the source of The Joker's immortality to a chemical called "Dionesium"?

Other panels show that Dionesium comes from the prehistoric meteor which gave Vandal Savage his immortality. It is also reveled that the meteor sparked pools of radiation, later called "Lazarus Pits", which are used by Ra's Al Ghul for the purpose of regeneration. Is the correlation between these villains and their shared source of immortality worthy of mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amodernvillain (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a major plot point and explains how Bruce Wayne (and possible the "New 52" Joker as well) was alive after he supposedly died there. Also it is a major plot point in Batman vol 2 #40 where Batman uses an immune response blocker to test the Joker's supposed immortality. If the Joker just found the pool then the block would prevent him from healing but if he as was claimed found the pool hundreds of years ago then the blocker would only slow his healing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Post-Endgame

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I should mention that Bruce Wayne was said to have been exposed to the Dionesium pool the Joker had found (or had used centuries ago) and was restored to life with no memory of who he was. While trying to figure out what to do with his life (with everything but being the Batman revealed to him by Alfred Pennyworth) he meets a stranger who smiles a lot (It is heavily implied that this is the Joker who has no real memory of who either of them was). While this is all going on Gotham in under siege by a criminal onslaught created a criminal known as Mister Bloom that only Batman can defeat. Realizing thanks to his talk with the smiling stranger that he is Batman he forces Alfred Pennyworth to use a machine Batman designed to turn a clone of him into the next Batman. After repeatedly going through a series of Elseworld like settings Bruce Wayne realizes the only way to truly restore Batman is to let Bruce Wayne die.

Later Batman acquires the Mobius Chair and asks "What's the Joker's real name?" and the response causes him to say "No that is not possible. Eventually it is revealed that the answer was there are three Jokers who "from the looks of the artwork, it appears that the three jokers include the original, Jerry Robinson Joker; the Brian Bolland Killing Joke Joker; and the Scott Snyder/Greg Capullo "New 52" Joker". In DC Universe - Rebirth #1 Batman tells Alfred that the Joker was in Civic City killing people while the Joker has also been caught just outside Baltimore three hours ago and was in transit Arkham Asylum as there were talking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • ultimately that's too much detail. Do you want to have detailed plot descriptions for every appearance of the character? That may be the realm of a fan site, but not here. We don't know yet how much of this, if any, is going to be notable going forward. Killer Moff (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"arguably"

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"The character's maiming of Barbara arguably turned her into a more-important character in the DC Universe" This is cited to a print source (Manning, Matthew K. (2011). The Joker: A Visual History of the Clown Prince of Crime), but I'm curious about the adverb "arguably". It seems like a single source would argue one way or the other. Does this word actually come from the book? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No. "DC chose not to roll back Barbara Gordon's paralysis after The Killing Joke, and in the process made her more important to the DC Universe than she had ever been as Batgirl. Training he r upper body to perfection but using a wheelchair for mobility, she moved into a Gotham clock tower and used her skills as a networked data-gatherer to feed information to other superheroes as the mysterious Oracle." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I've rewritten that section to better match the source. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

Latest comment: 7 years ago41 comments5 people in discussion

Any key detail on the character should be here on one page. This means The Joker (The Dark Knight) wouldn't have its own article. Its key details basically rehash parts of this page, and it's rather repetitive to have multiple pages on one character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there might be a bit too many pages on this character, but I don't think The Joker (The Dark Knight) is the page to remove. That particular version of the character has gained enough mainstream recognition and notability (not to mention reliable sources) to warrant an article. However, the page that I feel really needs to be deleted is Joker (character). Apparently, when Darkwarriorblake first nominated Joker (comics) for Good Article status, it was denied because of a lack of a hub page for the Joker character. The problem with that is that Joker (comics) is the hub page for the character. The character is primarily a comics character, and the title "Joker (comics)" is to comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. Not to mention that the article already has sections for "Alternative versions" and "In other media". Joker (character) is 100% redundant and needs to be removed. DarkKnight2149 16:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to nominate it for FAC again this weekend, then if the same user objects you can raise the issue with him. But while I explained those other articles, I was shouted down and my FAC was rejected. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't deny that The Dark Knight's Joker got lots of publicity, but it still is the same basic character and we don't need to repeat character details on more than one page for a character. Having a separate "Joker (character)" article is no better when there is already this page. You can safely redirect it here with no reasonable worries. TDK edition can also be described here quite well in the "Alternate versions" and "In other media" sections. Having separate entries on each of his incarnations might be fine for a Batman/DC Comics fansite, but that's not what Wikipedia is or should be. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: Understandable. The FAC is the reason I've been waiting to pursue a deletion.DarkKnight2149 18:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: There is too much information in the article to fit into that one section. The film character has also become a notable topic in its own right, which is why it has an article. We don't just give articles to every film version of comic characters. There's a reason why Batman (1989 film character) and Joker (Batman '66) don't have articles. DarkKnight2149 18:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, all you really need is a bit on casting, praise, accolades, and maybe production/plot details. That shouldn't have to take up more than two or three paragraphs. It essentially is borderline fancruft to have multiple pages for the same basic character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the TDK Joker article existing or not, but it's content could not fit here as the film section is a summary rather than a detailed account. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
If mainly filled with plot, then such details are fine for TDK film's main page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The TDK article isn't mainly filled with plot. And the majority of the cited information in the article doesn't constitute fancruft. The TDK article doesn't really rehash much from this article and, as mentioned earlier, that version of the character has become a notable topic on its own. DarkKnight2149 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I said having multiple pages on the same basic character is fancruft, not necessarily the amount of detail on the page. Don't forget how that and this are both the same basic character. If no aspect of Joker was notable at all, then any article on him would probably just redirect to a list of Batman characters. Wikipedia again isn't supposed to be a Batman/DC Comics fansite, which is the only type of place anyone could reasonably justify having multiple Joker articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I get that this isn't a Joker fansite, but which of the articles aren't warranted? We've established that Joker (character) will likely be deleted after the FAC (and rightly so). The only reason Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker exists is because not all of that information would fit in this article. Joker (graphic novel) has to do with a specific story, and not the character. Joker (comic book) is, again, not about the character. I've already explained my opinion on the TDK article. Are there any others? DarkKnight2149 21:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Other media" and "Alternative versions" really are lists (the former is a list of appearances while the latter is a list of incarnations) as opposed to character biographies like this (to some extent) is. Books are also a separate thing and fine to keep since they are specific stories. It's multiple character articles (lists aren't exactly the same as articles) that simply aren't warranted per the reasons I gave before. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
But aside from the TDK article and Joker (character), which other character articles are there for the Joker? And while I agree on your position about this not being a Batman fansite, if the separate articles each have a reason to exist on their own (which Joker (character) doesn't), then I think we need a better reason to delete them than "there's too many of them". As I mentioned earlier, the TDK article is well cited, noteworthy, and it doesn't rehash this article too much. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There no other pages of such sort that I can think of. Citing again IS NOT the concern and doesn't change the fact that TDK Joker is still the same basic character as incarnations like Suicide Squad Joker or 1989 Joker. It basically is a disguised content fork. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That reasoning pretty much comes down to your personal perception on how similar the versions are to one another, and isn't an objective reason to turn that page into a redirect. I, for instance, think that all three versions are very different from one another. And I've explained earlier the reasons that the TDK page exists, and the other versions you mentioned don't have enough notability, information, impact, ETC, to have an article (which is why the TDK character does and they don't). And, again, the article really doesn't rehash much from other articles except in the Plot section. And when it comes down to it, there just isn't a consensus to turn it into a redirect. I have yet to see anyone else support redirecting it here and there is too much encyclopedic content to simply merge it with this article. DarkKnight2149 00:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Joker (character) debate

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character)
  • Oh, God, Darkknight2149, don't start up this garbage that the comics character is the character. The article on the comics version of the character cannot be the base page. The comics version of the character is a sub-version of the character itself. Where the character first appeared is irrelevant. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Curly Turkey: Except the comics character IS indeed the primary version of the character, as the character was created for DC Comics and was merely adapted for other media... Literally the exact same thing for every other article about comics characters. Joker (comics) is the base article, and there is no excuse for the existence of Joker (character).
      • Please, Darkknight2149, crawl out of the basement. You're making an embarassment of yourself. There's a whole world out there outside your longboxes. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Now you are making non-arguments to invalidate an opposing point of view. Childish, really. Regardless, you'll be happy to know that I find your argument equally absurd. By your logic, "An article about an original novel can't be the base page. Because there's a film adaptation, we have to create ANOTHER page about the story itself!"
The character was created by writers hired by DC Comics for DC Comics publications. All subsequent films, video games, ETC, were adaptations of the comic book character. Go to the store and buy a movie with the Joker in it. I guarantee you it will say some variation of "Based on the characters from DC Comics" on the box. DarkKnight2149 00:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The arguments have been made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joker (comics)/archive1, and the decision to overthrow WP:COMICS ridicluous local consensus to privilege "comics" over "character" was made here. Also read up on Semantics—you really need to understand this. Educate yourself and stop wasting our time and patience with this basement-dwelling garbage. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll continue to not report that second "basement dwelling" personal attack (though if you keep making them, I might decide otherwise; comment on content, not contributor). But back to the discussion at hand, I'll read over those links, though I doubt they'll tell me anything that I won't disagree with. But I have to ask: where exactly do you think the character came from? DarkKnight2149 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"where exactly do you think the character came from?" is an entirely irrelevant question. Do a little research and a little thinking and you'll learn why (it's really not in the least bit hard to understand). You'll notice the base Popeye article doesn't focus on comics, despite Thimble Theatre being the most widely distributed comic strip of the 1930s. This is standard throughout Wikipedia (Tarzan, Conan the Barbarian, Zorro, etc), and only the superhero subgroup of WP:COMICS tries to get away with doing otherwise.
"I doubt they'll tell me anything that I won't disagree with"—yes, you display the attitude of someone who intends to raise a ruckus no matter what. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Assume bad faith, much? You really should lose the "I'm absolutely right and you're an idiot for disagreeing with me" arguments, because they aren't going to get you anywhere on Wikipedia. Your slippery slop, one-size-fits-all mentality doesn't work. Go look at any of these many superhero and supervillain articles and you will see how they are handled when compared to Popeye and the like.
Speaking of doing research, I suggest you read WP:NCC. According to those guidelines, "the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)"." While all of the superhero articles are primarily about the comic version of the character (because that's where they originate), they always discuss the other media that the character appears in as well.
Joker (comics) is the base page. Period. The only reason that there are pages like Joker in other media (keywords: "other media") is because all of that information couldn't fit onto this article. And as per WP:NCC, the page is called "Joker (comics)" and not "Joker (character)". This page, as with all of the other superhero pages, also touches upon the other media versions, how he is characterised, the alternate interpretations of the character, cultural impact, ETC. And the article isn't any different from all of the other supervillain articles. DarkKnight2149 19:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"Go look at any of these many superhero and supervillain articles"—yes, yes, we know. That's the problem—that the fanbois handle the superhero articles differently from all the other articles on Wikipedia for no reason whatsoever. WP:COMICS doesn't get to override these things. WP:COMICS doesn't WP:OWN characters that appear in comics.
"I suggest you read WP:NCC. According to those guidelines, blah blah blah"—yes, I've already pointed to where those guidelines have been overturned per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I fully realize you will not accept it, but that's for you and your mother to work out. The community has spoken.
"Joker (comics) is the base page. Period."—just as I predicted. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to make the decision. "Joker (comics)" cannot be the based page because (a) "Joker IS-A comics" doesn't work; and (b) the base page must be about the character, not the subtopic of the character's comics appearances. It's surprising how hard it is for you to grasp something so straightforward.
Of course, you'll be as disruptive about this stuff as you can, and thus torpedo the FAC while creating lots of pointless dramah. You're most definitely WP:NOTHERE. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Except Joker (comics) isn't just about the comics character. It also has information regarding the general characterisation of the character, other media interpretations of the character, and alternative versions of him (like every other supervillain article). As previously mentioned, Joker in other media (again, other media) was split into another article because there was too much information to include in this one. Same with Alternative versions of Joker. And this page is called "Joker (comics)" because of WP:NCC. Like it or not, Joker (character) is completely useless and redundant, doing little aside from just repeating the information already on this page.
"that's for you and your mother to work out." If you spout one more personal attack, I'm reporting you. I've been generous enough to ignore all of your previous ones, but you are continuing to be uncivil. You claim that I'm trying to start some sort of "dramah", yet the only person I see insulting everyone who disagrees with them is you. DarkKnight2149 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Except Joker (comics) isn't just about the comics character.—then rename it. It has to be renamed anyways, since "Joker IS-A comics" is unacceptible. Before renaming, it has to be decided whether the article will be about the character, or the character's appearances in comics.
"And this page is called "Joker (comics)" because of WP:NCC"—no, we've already been through this. WP:NCC does not require this article to be called "Joker (comics)"—"Joker (character)" takes precedence (as you are already well aware), and "Joker in comics" (or somesuch) requires no parenthetical disambiguation. "Joker (comics)" is unacceptable, for all the reasons you supposedly have already read through—for example, it is not an article about a comics publication titled Joker. Please tone down the drama and try to understand—it's really remarkably straightforward. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The article should be renamed to avoid confusion with Joker (comic book) and Joker (graphic novel), per the discussion at Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to be renamed, but for the reasons mentioned by Argento Surfer, not out of some misplaced attempt to streamline character articles. Regardless, the current incarnation of the Joker (character) article simply needs to go. And the way that Joker (comics) is currently written is fine.
Curly Turkey, most of your arguments regarding why a separate character article needs to exist have pretty much hinged on WP:OTHERSTUFF "one-size-fits-all" arguments regarding how non-comic character articles are written, while neglecting how these supervillain articles actually are written.
If you truly believe this strongly about this, you should be starting discussions to change how comic book character articles are dealt with as a whole, instead of focusing on this one particular article just to prove a point. And it's very difficult to argue that you have the consensus if the entire WikiProject is apparently against you. DarkKnight2149 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"... you should be starting discussions to change how comic book character articles are dealt with as a whole ..."—the community's already had that discussion. I've already pointed you to it. Argento Surfer has pointed you to another one at the Wolverine article. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT only makes you look bad.
BTW, you mean "superhero articles"—other comics articles don't follow those broken WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-violating articles. The onus is on you, Darkknight2149, to demonstrate why superhero articles should get a free pass from community standards and semantics. If this article is about Joker's appearances in comics, then Joker in comics (or somesuch) should be unobjectionable. Put your POV away and consider the general reader. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Uh, no. First of all, articles like Kick-Ass (character), Wolverine (character), and Garfield (character) are all primarily from the perspective of the comic characters (just like every other comic book character article), and include "Other media" sections for the adaptations. This is standard. Re-read those articles. They aren't called "(character)" for the reasons that you apparently think. This is how comic characters are widely handled. Look around. We don't go and create ANOTHER duplicate article, like the current Joker (character) article.
Secondly, I fail to see the "local consensus" you claim to have come to in this and this discussion. Wolverine (character) was moved to distinguish it from the likes of Wolverine (comic book), not because "The comic version can't be the character..."
And in the second discussion (specifically Proposal 2, as Proposal 1 had no outcome), there is again NOTHING that supports the existence of the current Joker (character) article. That discussion was about using the article title "(character)" over "(comics)", not about changing the focus of all of the comic character articles. Joker (character) is just a rehash of Joker (comics) and needs to be deleted as such. Right now, there is no consensus to change all of the comic book character articles, like you are suggesting.
In short, This is what I think needs to happen - The current Joker (character) should be deleted. Then, we should change the title of this article to "Joker (character)". That's about it. The focus of the article is fine. DarkKnight2149 20:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to overturn community standards, you'll have to bring it up with the community. Good luck with that. I'm sure you'll be maximally disruptive on the way. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
And what "community standards" what that be? Again, nothing in those links justifies the existence of the duplicate article (Joker (character)). Because of the existence of Joker (comic book), I can understand moving this article to that title while deleting the current Joker (character). However, aside from the usual changes to meet Featured Article status, I don't see any reason to heavily modify Joker (comics), which is already a Good Article. DarkKnight2149 01:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"And what "community standards" what that be?"—seriously, this WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude got obnoxious long ago—but of course you declared you'd disagree with the evidence before even reading it, so this BF POV-pushing isn't in the least surprising. Next you'll be telling us something like mammals are a subset of bears—a character cannot be a subset of a character's appearance in medium X, and naming this article Joker (character) will only misdirect the large majority of readers who will be coming here after seeing something such as the Suicide Squad movie. We have a straightforward problem with a straightforward solution, one that would require minimal tidying up of this article, and here you are gumming up the works with a wall of POV and declaring a maximally disruptive "solution". This is a nicely-researched and -written article—please don't screw everything up for everybody. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:IDONTHEARTHAT does not apply here, as you have failed to demonstrate that your P.O.V. is the community consensus.
"you declared you'd disagree with the evidence before even reading it" - First of all, what evidence? Again, nothing in those links supports your P.O.V. Those discussions were about using (character) in the article title. Nothing there supports the existence of the duplicate Joker (character), or altering all of the comic character articles to change the focus. I also never said that I disagreed with them before I read them.
"only misdirect the large majority of readers who will be coming here after seeing something such as the Suicide Squad movie" - Adaptations are for the "In other media" section. You don't even have a credible argument there. And as I said earlier, find any movie with the Joker in it, and it will say some variation of "Based on the characters from DC Comics".
"a character cannot be a subset of a character's appearance in medium X" - You don't listen, do you? Look around. Most fictional character articles are primarily about the source material version of the character, with the other media represented in the "In other media" section. Wolverine (character), Kick-Ass (character), and Garfield (character) are all primarily about the comics characters. Even non-comics character articles, like Count Dracula and Francis Dolarhyde are primarily about the original characters from the novels. Darth Vader is primarily about the film character. HAL 9000 is primarily about the original novel character, despite the film receiving universal fame. So now, even your WP:OTHERSTUFF claim about how "all other Wikipedia articles are this way" is starting to lose credibility.
You can talk about how your P.O.V. is the "community consensus" and how "this is how everything else on Wikipedia is handled", but without actual proof, these are very, very dubious claims. You are arguing against how you think comic book character articles should be handled, versus how they actually are handled. And now, even your statement that "that the fanbois handle the superhero articles differently from all the other articles on Wikipedia for no reason whatsoever" has been debunked. Whatever next claim is, you should probably consider it very carefully before posting it. DarkKnight2149 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You've debunked nothing—you just won't stop talking. Good luck convincing anyone outside WP:COMICS of your delusions. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"You've debunked nothing" - Aside from the multiple paragraphs of information that you conveniently have no legitimate argument against? Unless something else comes up, I think I'm done here.
Aside from multiple paragraphs of hot air and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Yes, you're done here. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"Good luck convincing anyone outside WP:COMICS of your delusions." - If you're that convinced that the consensus is that far on your side, then I guess you don't have to worry about Joker (comics) being deleted. DarkKnight2149 22:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
So let's see you do it. Remember to inform WP:WikiProject Fictional characters, WP:WikiProject Film, WP:WikiProject Television, and WP:WikiProject Animation when you do. WP:COMICS folk have a habit of keeping things within their own WProject to push their POV. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"So let's see you do it. Remember to inform WP:WikiProject Fictional characters, WP:WikiProject Film, WP:WikiProject Television, and WP:WikiProject Animation" - Don't mind if I do! DarkKnight2149 23:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"Aside from multiple paragraphs of hot air and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT." - If that's what you call addressing each of your points and going into precise detail as to why you are wrong, then yep! DarkKnight2149 23:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Because simple solutions to simple problems make for poor dramah. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

can i edit this plz Fahdsamaha133 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Joker (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joker_(character)/Archive_5&oldid=1136853364"