# Talk:Batman & Robin (film)

An editor recently changed the article to claim the film was panned. The film only received "generally unfavorable reviews" from Metacritic, it didn't fall into the lower category of "overwhelming dislike". The sources currently in the article are not enough to support that claim that the film was panned, it violates NPOV to say otherwise without adding more sources. (Claims of audience response, or that the audience panned the film aren't supported by sources either.) -- 109.79.68.139 (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
It is almost funny to see previous discussions above, that editors had to even argue that reviews were negative and not average: Talk:Batman_&_Robin_(film)#Average_vs._Negative. 
Then also another discussion where editors had to argue that it wasn't objectively fair to say the film was not panned, even though the reviews were negative: Talk:Batman_&_Robin_(film)#critical_reaction
My edit reverted a recent unsourced claim that the film was panned.[1] That seems to be in keeping WP:STATUSQUO that was achieved after consensus discussions. -- 109.79.68.139 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There are sources out there that describe it as being "panned", but unless these sources are worked into the article body, there is no basis for us to include such phrasing in the lead. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 12:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Huh, I had no idea we had apologists of Batman & Robin on Wiki.
Claiming that the film wasn't panned or didn't receive overwhelmingly negative reviews is straight up delusional. I find it amusing that in the same opening paragraphs describing Batman and Robin, is that it's listed as one of the worst films ever made yet saying the film was panned by critics is a step too far.
Metacritic's standard of grading only labels films as universal acclaim, mostly favorable reviews, mixed or average reviews, and generally unfavorable reviews. A film can have a zero on Metacritic and will still be labeled as "generally unfavorable."
Any film that's in the red zone on Metacritic (generally unfavorable reviews) means the film has received very scathing reviews. Lotsofsalt (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
On Metacritic the film received one positive review, 9 average reviews and 11 negative reviews. That's a pretty mixed bag, so "generally unfavorable" seems like an apt description. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing their subjective opinion on the subject, and neither should any Wikipedia editor on any talk page ever. To reiterate my point above, Metacritic is the only source currently used in the article to make a summary statement about the general critical response. Unless you provide better sources (and incorporate those into the article body first per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), we have no choice but to stick with that one. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Batman 4 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#Batman 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 04:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To address some of the recent changes that IPs keep restoring; we can't identify general trends based on individual reviews in the lead. Doing so would clearly violate WP:SYNTH because we would be combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. We can't use "panned" either because the only source currently used in the article body to support a general summary of the critical response is Metacritic, which uses "unfavorable", which doesn't have quite as negative of a connotation as "panned". I will revert these changes anytime they are restored and refer to this thread, in keeping with WP:BRD. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 12:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this specific situation, but yes I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. Unless a source or group of sources summarizes the critical reception for us (similar to what RT does for most feature films), then we cannot include a summary statement that we have created ourselves. Creating one would be a form of SYNTH. This guidance was also added recently to MOS:FILM. See the 3rd paragraph of WP:FILMLEAD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
GoneIn60, great to hear that MOS finally addresses this. Synthesis of reviews in lead sections has become commonplace, and any attempts to remove are often immediately challenged in my experience because editors are so used to it. It's kind of incredible how many GAs (and I believe even FAs) are out there that contain this sort of phrasing without any proper sourcing to back it up. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I fight it all the time as well (and a lot more recently). Even some veteran editors that participate at WT:FILM have defended summary statements in the past. That's what led to the recent discussion 7-8 months ago to get it inserted into a guideline. But much like we have with genre edit warriors, I imagine it will continue to be a problem with drive-by IPs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The IP edits are disruptive, and infringe on multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL and MOS:LEAD. If it happens again then semi-protection will have to be sought. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Betty Logan, my request for page protection yesterday was declined, and I was advised to to start a discussion here. Let's see what happens. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
That is par for the course. Admins are usually reluctant to grant page protection if there has been no attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page. Often, an IP editor may be unaware of the various policies and guidelines that regulate article content. If it happens again I would suggest reverting (and including a link to this discussion in the edit summary) and leaving a note at the editor's talk page directing them to this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, I had previously left messages on two IP talk pages (I believe there are two editors behind all of these IPs) without any response so far. I doubt we'll get though to them, but I understand now that it's best practice to also start a thread at the article talk before seeking page protection. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's the recent page protection denial, and here is all the disruption from the past 3 weeks. Seems like a slam dunk case to me.
14:01, April 5, 2023 by 205.155.79.200 (talk)
12:59, April 5, 2023 by 64.39.114.83 (talk) – same exact edit as 205.155.79.200 but from a different IP
10:44, April 4, 2023 by 24.1.85.35 (talk) – Different kind of disruption, but same area
18:03, March 21, 2023 by 205.155.82.48 (talk)
11:59, March 21, 2023 by 64.39.124.228 (talk)
16:26, March 20, 2023 by multiple IPs including 205.155.77.3 (talk)
16:29, March 16, 2023 by 64.39.124.50 (talk)
Not sure if Ritchie333 is willing to revisit and take another look, but we either need to block the two main IP range culprits, or we need to simply protect the page. If more time is needed, then at least we can link back to this on the next PP request. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
...and the Cal State IP is back at it again. The persistence is kind of impressive. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, thoughts? Didn't get a response from Ritchie so figured we'd bring out the big guns! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, one of them is an IP sock of a blocked editor, so I re-blocked it for a while.  I also range blocked the other IPs because they've been warned constantly over the past few months, and I'd already range blocked one of their IP ranges. If more show up, I could do page protection or further range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Much appreciated! I almost forgot about this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
...NinjaRobotPirate, looking at these recent edits (diff, diff, diff), I think it's safe to say that IP disruption is persistent enough to warrant semi-protection. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 I blocked the new IP, which should be enough.  There doesn't seem to be much in the way of constructive editing, but the disruption is also pretty intermittent.  I think policy leans toward just blocking the IPs as they pop up in that circumstance.  We've got a bunch of them who, individually, go through dozens of articles, changing random things without sources.  One of them might change the runtime, another might change the distributor, and another might change "mixed reviews" to "positive reviews".  It's a constant thing.  Most of them have been blocked several times in the past and simply need someone to alert an admin about them so they can be blocked again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just hope you won't get annoyed by me pinging you every time I encounter a new IP. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind cleaning stuff up once a week or something like that.  That's pretty low key.  The problem is that there isn't really a good place to report disruptive IP editors who aren't vandals.  It would probably get declined at WP:AIV because it's not vandalism and ignored at WP:ANI because it's not urgent.  Some day, maybe I'll see if there's any interest in creating one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia is too centralised in some respects. Perhaps what the film project needs is an "admin attention" page where perhaps these types of issues can be picked up by admins who belong the project (provided they don't infringe WP:INVOLVED). Admins who belong a particular project generally have a better understanding of the various issues that arise (genre wars anybody?) and are more familiar with the MOS (i.e. FILMPLOT etc). Provided it doesn't descend into content protectionism for established editors that would be infinitely superior to the current system. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I would wholeheartedly support a forum like this. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have retargeted Pamela_Isley_(Batman_&_Robin) to redirect here instead of Poison Ivy. I don't believe that the old version [2] would survive at WP:AFD as an independent article, and I haven't moved the merge tag over but it is possible that some content may be worth integrating here. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)