Talk:The Batman (film)

Short description should include director name

Please note WP:SHORTDESC the purpose of which is to help disambiguate similar titles. WP:SDEXAMPLES shows that the best way to do this is of the form: Year Film by Director. For the sake of brevity an editor removed Matt Reeves name from the short description (diff) unfortunately a generic short description undermines a key purpose of the short description. Matt Reeves should be restored to short description. If brevity is a concern then information such as nationality or genre can be omitted instead. -- 109.76.130.9 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Reeves should be mentioned as he is notable, and I have restored it as such. I have removed the "American" bit from the SD as it is not the most descriptive term we could use there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Prep for GA Nom

@Dcdiehardfan and ZooBlazer: The Bat-Signal has been lit! I just wanted to let both of you know that I have made the rounds through the article in the past few months c/e-ing and reorganizing some para details, reformatted various refs and images, and added some missing details to the point where I am sitting comfortable for additional perspectives and moving forward with this process in the hopes of getting this article onto the path of the GA nom that we had previously discussed. I have some more free time coming up during this week so I will be able to assist and coordinate if you both are able to begin further work on this in that time. I'm thinking a good goal would be to get this promoted to Good Article status ahead of The Penguin's September premiere, which should ideally give us enough time to work out the remaining nuts and bolts of this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For starters, I do think a good plan would be to rummage through the ref ideas at the top and see what we may incorporate into the article that isn't already. I'm sure The Art of The Batman has some interesting details, although I do not readily have it available but could get it unless someone else does (if not, no worries!). I already ensured there were stable archives and ref formatting for those refs to prep for them being implemented. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Trailblazer101! I'm very excited to hear that! I took a decent break these past few months so I'm definitely eager to get started on Wiki work once again. I should also be available to coordinate some GA work throughout this summer for a while. I would like to get this promoted, but I think it's a bit improbable it'll happen prior to The Penguin's premiere as it'll still take time. Still, it'll be good. I also don't have The Art book but I think there's more than enough detail anyways. And awesome work on the refs, for now, I'm just gonna look through the article and see if there's any other additional CE I can do. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I figured September as a rough goal time is a bit ambitious, though I'm content in taking the necessary amount of time in sorting through this process. I agree that there is a lot of interesting information throughout this article already, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to help as much as I can. My wiki time has been super limited the last couple months and that may continue for a while. -- ZooBlazer 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course. And btw, @Trailblazer101, just from a quick scan, I think there's still a decent bit of prose and filler content, so at some point, there could be some more trims. I also think some of the pictures could be improved, such as the set photos and the premiere photo, ie getting photos from perhaps the October 2020 shoot or a group photo. I don't think there's more content that needs to be included, and our biggest priority for the article rn can be verifying the refs and doing Copyvio checks. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree on the set photos and premiere one. I had a difficult time finding any ones that were already freely available, though I do think either the Oct 2020 shoot or group photo would be much more helpful. I'm sure there are some free files available, such as on Flickr, with the proper license. Some trimming throughout I agree would also be good. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I should have more free time now if you still need help to prep for a nomination. -- ZooBlazer 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

minor typo to correct

Hi all. First time here, just created an account, but the page is semi-protected so I can't edit it. In the section about the Batsuit, there's mention of a boot gaiter, but it's currently spelled 'gator' on the page. :) Brianhawken (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary section

In keeping with the spirit of pages being objective references for information, this entire “thematic analysis” section is completely unnecessary. It reads like a self serving prop up for a single article and asserts a solitary opinion as fact. I therefore suggest the entire section removed. It is wholly unnecessary as it clutters the page with grandiose nonsense more fit for any one of the hundred clickbait sites out there. One of which it seems to be mostly sourced from with an author of no repute, credentials or authority on that which is attempting to be passed of as factual. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Such sections are standard on Wikipedia, as suggested by the manual of style for film articles. Also that it is sourced to a single article is untrue; I actually see eight articles from eight different publications used as references. Yes, none of them are the New York Times, but they are fine for a comic-book movie. They are definitely not unreliable enough to warrant the deletion of the entire section.—indopug (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is actually untrue as the manual indicates “themes” not “thematic analysis”. The difference here being one which is inherently in the media and the second being opinion derived. While there may be “8 different sources”, the section over-relies on source 386 for about 83% of its content. Like you noted above, it’s a “comic-book movie” and hardly warrants manufactured depth based on the random opinion of a clickbait site. Furthermore, endorsement of such things weakens Wikipedia as a whole in being an objective reference point freely accessible to all and serves to push shameless self promotion and grandstanding. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have an opinion. It is not shared by many. But good luck with gaining some consensus on this claptrap. danzig138 (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with this section. The critical commentary and discussion of thematic analysis is well-supported by multiple reliable sources. One having a few more instances than others is no reason to remove an entire section. "Thematic analysis" is the critical analysis of what the work's themes are perceived to be, and this is in-line with that scope. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)