# Talk:The Batman (film)

@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)

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)

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)

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)
@Trailblazer101, i have to say that i agree with the concerns raised here earlier. since these initial comments, the article has only grown (though modestly) to 13.7k words. according to WP:LENGTH it's between "probably should be" and "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", and closer to the latter. everyone here has clearly worked really hard on this, but i strongly recommend that some of the content be spun off and cut. the production section is the biggest culprit given that it is responsible for over half of the article's massive length. i don't think we need a list of all the products used to market the film, nor do we need a comprehensive point-by-point of the proposed affleck batman film. feel free to do with this opinion as you wish but i might be concerned about its fate at GAN.--Plifal (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to look into what a potential split could be like in the draftspace and my sandbox, because I do want this to pass GAN and am more than willing to find a working compromise to adequately address these size concerns. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I have started a mock-up at Draft:Production of The Batman (film). Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
the mock-up looks good! it's a good place to keep the content that's still encyclopaedic but not as relevant for people not specifically intrigued by the production. in this article, as an example, i would probably cut everything after " ... the first draft in March 2016." in the first paragraph of the production section before picking back up with "Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara confirmed at CinemaCon in April 2016 that Affleck would direct the Batman film." then excising content before "Affleck revealed the title was ... " such that information related to casting and the intricacies are spared for the 'Production of The Batman' article while the general reader gets an overview of the subject. apologies, i know this is a lot of work ahead, but i hope this helps with a rough idea. also paging @Patrick Welsh and @Jessintime as the originators of the discussion in case they wanted to add or contradict anything.--Plifal (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
No, by all means, I appreciate it and am open to feedback and other perspectives. I won't be tending to this as frequently until later next month because I have other commitments, so it's too early for me to fully dedicate myself to this overhaul, but this is a good start and a nice frame for reference. Thank you for everyone's input thus far. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
The draft looks good to me. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jessintime, Patrick Welsh,  and Plifal: I just wanted to touch base and let you all know that I have fleshed out what the article would look like post-overhaul in my personal workspace (just doing some copyediting and tidying up details, ie trimming the Marketing specifics, as mentioned), and I have gotten the production overview in a good spot, which you may view at my sandbox here, and I think the draft has is pretty close to being ready for a split soon. I am also considering replacing the image in the Marketing section with the short teaser video itself considering that video was the subject of commentary. I'm probably going to be able to make the split this weekend if there are no objections. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Trailblazer101, no objections! all i'd say is that in the new mock-up production section for this article, there is maybe a weighted emphasis on development/preproduction over filming and post-production. not by any means a big deal but maybe something worth double checking. really nice work!!--Plifal (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Why thank you! I'll look into what more specific filming details I can summarize in the overview. I should be able to get the draft and summary squared away within approximately the next week. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
My word count tracker says the main body is 14948 words. The detail is still too much 6 months later. It's an unreasonable ask of a reviewer, frankly, given the extensive source review required (there are 430 refs). It'll be a very frustrating experience for nominator and reviewer alike to litigate the size problems (mentioned by several editors here). If it did pass (I am sceptical), someone will inevitably open a GAR. This shouldn't have been nom'd for GA before the sub-article was brought to mainspace and this was trimmed substantially. The article needs some loving curation – the biggest challenge of producing good content is deciding what to omit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I nominated it before a split was even suggested. I am fine tuning the production draft for the mainspace with a few more reference errors to sort out and determining what else ought to remain or be cut from the main article before moving it to the mainspace. I wouldn't have nominated it earlier had I known the size would have been an issue. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I nominated it before a split was even suggested: I saw this January 6 comment suggesting a spinoff article, compared to the February 5 nomination. It certainly doesn't look that way.
If you can get it down to 7000–8000 words I'd say there's a decent shot at FAC here. Some issues, like WP:FILM has strong words about ScreenRant – it can get through at GA sometimes but FAC is likely a no; same for Comic Book Resources, Inverse, a few others. I really like this movie, so if you do eventually want to go for FAC, open a PR after GAN and I'll give my thoughts. Cheers — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: My apologies for the belated response. I must have gotten my timeline mixed up when I made that comment, so that misspoken response is on me. I have made a thorough pass at the article and replaced most of the questionable Valnet-owned sites with other refs, and have gotten the production draft into a very stable position to be moved to the mainspace, which I will do shortly. There are a few more Screen Rant refs I would like to replace and I will take another pass at the sourcing before going forward with the move. Out of every other article I have worked on, this is the one I would most like to get past GA and hopefully FA, so I will definitely run it by you for a peer review once I cross that bridge. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers, Jessintime, Patrick Welsh,  and Plifal: I have formally completed the content split with the current sub-article located at Production of The Batman (film) alongside my overhaul and copyedit of this main article. I am happy to discuss any concerns about these changes, though this is by no means complete and I am still planning on swapping out various references for more reputable sources and adding a bit more specifics about the filming to the overview, though I figured now was as good as any time to get this move completed. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 05:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and I have also started to compile refs for a potential critical review roundup at my sandbox here, similar to what is presently done at Superman (2025 film). — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 05:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
did a quick skim-through on the length and sources; apart from aforementioned valnet sites i have no pressing concerns about either. nice job! i think it's a good perspective to write around the filming. the production section itself is a little too overlinked but can be easily fixed by cutting down on some of the linked names or something.--Plifal (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
@Trailblazer101: That word count difference is huge – great work! I have limited time for actual editing right now but I'd make time to do the GA review if you nominate it. Haven't reviewed the article in detail but the prose looks good, so there's a world where a thorough GA review lets you skip PR. – ImaginesTigers 10:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you to you both! I am glad and ecstatic. I have trimmed some linked names from the production section that were not really necessary for an overview, and expanded with a critical response summary attributed to multiple reliable sources, nine in total. I know that brought the word count up a bit, but I tried making the refs less clunky and do not think they are unwieldy, though I think the refs and quotes are necessary to cover all bases of the reception. I did some further copyediting to help mitigate the word count expansion while rounding out a few other areas. I wouldn't want to submit a GA nom unless I was fully certain that I would be able to commit the necessary time to one, which I am presently uncertain if I will be able to as of writing, though I really want to. I have seen the primary genre come up in past edits and discussions and am looking into what sources refer to it as to determine if it needs elaboration there, but other than that and the lead expansion with more of an overall overview, I think this article is in pretty good standing. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: I have nominated this article for a GA review, if you are still interested in reviewing it, that would be much appreciated. :) — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 19:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Brilliant! Glad to hear it. I am knee-deep in helping with an FAR right now so please bear with me – next weekend is most likely. – ImaginesTigers 20:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
No worries and no rush. You're all good. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Trailblazer101, you should be, it looks great! re. genre--this is something i've struggled with too with respect to high and low, ultimately it may be the case that there is no clear-cut definition. in that case i defined it based on a plurality of sources, and how the sources talked about the film in their respective genres. had ImaginesTigers not already offered i would have gladly taken this one on! best of luck.--Plifal (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
(although similarly if you need a review or extra eyes on something some other time, don't hesitate to ping me!)--Plifal (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Why thank you for the kind words and advice! I will be sure to keep that in mind. I think, similar to other superhero film articles, I will just leave the main genre as is for now, but I am always finding more refs to potentially use later on. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I've suffered a personal loss recently which has drastically affected my editing time. @Plifal, if you do want to take this on, please don't let me get in the way. If you do take it on, and the article passes, I'll definitely provide a review at PR/FAC down the line. – ImaginesTigers 12:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
i'm so sorry to hear that. my condolences and best wishes to you and your loved ones.
i'm still willing to do the gar, but if i don't get around to it in this week upcoming i might also be too engaged with real-life stuff to do it efficiently. @Trailblazer101, so long as you don't mind--feel free to give your thoughts.--Plifal (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I am so terribly sorry for your loss, ImaginesTigers. My condolences. Please, take as much time as you need to grieve, and no need to worry about a GAR. That can wait. Plifal, if you feel up to it, then you may handle it at your own leisure, but by no means is anyone obligated to as I understand other commitments come first. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)