Talk:The Batman (film)

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)

Revisiting GA nom

@Dcdiehardfan, ZooBlazer, TheJoebro64, Adamstom.97, and Facu-el Millo: Pinging as you all have either been significant contributors to this article and/or were involved earlier in this discussion. I have done some further work rummaging though the ref ideas up top and copyediting the article to the point where I think this article is in good shape to move forward with a GA nom. There still may be some more material worth adding, particularly from these refs (here, here, and here, if anyone else wants to take a stab at them.) I do not think we necessarily need any more details from the art book for simplicities sake. I unfortunately do not think there are any other fair use images from the premiere that we could use other than the one presently included, which is not the best but I think having something there is better than nothing. I did include an external video on the behind-the-scenes VFX in that dedicated section to help break up the walls of text. A copyvio check also came back with unlikely results. I just wanted to touch base with you all to see if there was anything else that you think could be included or improved upon, or if you have any other thoughts. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably well past good enough to be nominated already. -- ZooBlazer 01:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with the article lately but I agree that it should be good for a nomination, on a quick check the coverage looks good and if anything major is missing that should get picked up in the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Roger that. I have now nominated the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 Yep, I second the nomination and think we're finally ready! :D -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2025 (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)

drive-by comment

I don't have much experience editing film articles, and I don't know the relevant literature on this one. But when I came to look at the article last night after watching the movie, I was overwhelmed by its enormous length.

According to WP:LENGTH, anything with a body of over 9,000 words probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. The current readable prose size of this article is 13,570. That would be very hard to justify.

The policy article linked above includes some suggestions for parring things back or shortening it, such as by creating at WP:SPINOFF article and using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

Just something to think about for those working on the article. I'm not following, so please tag me if you have questions.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the production stuff could be split into a second article, like Production of Justice League (film). For instance, I don't think this article needs a blow-by-blow account of the Batfleck film that was never made. The other subsections under production are fairly long too. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh and Jessintime: There is absolutely no requirement that articles of that length and size need to be split up, it is merely a policy suggestion. I have been working on-and-off for the better part of a year now copyediting this article to get it into a comfortable position for readability with its prose and scope (ie, rewording comments and trimming the size of some paragraphs, rearranging the contents, etc.), though I do not find this article difficult to read through and applaud all the informative work that has gone into it. These types of genre films tend to have a lot of coverage on how they are made, so the production section naturally has more specific details covering that aspect.

I will note that the earlier Affleck-developed film details are included because they were originally for this film before Reeves took over and changed it, rather than it being from a completely unrelated production, so those should not be removed. The Justice League article has its own production sub-article because that film's production scope was so extensively covered, but the coverage of this film's production is nowhere near the extent of that one and I think any split would leave out key details from making this article complete and could be an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Not everything needs a split, but could always go with a nice fresh copyediting. I know I've had better luck coming back to this article and others after a while and copyediting it in more ways than one to improvement.

Similar concerns on article length for another superhero film were raised at Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine, though I will caution that it ought to be expected for these genre articles to have a fairly large amount of content. I'm still working on copyediting to prep for a GA nomination, so if there are any specific areas anyone is concerned about or has some thoughts on, I am open to working together and hearing those out. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)