Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 3

message: From BOF, Production Weekly states that The Dark Knight began production on January 11th.  Does Production Weekly qualify as a reliable source to include this information?  I haven't found any other sites reporting on it (yet). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess... The site has a pretty crappy way of displaying "information", though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding.  I've included the information, but if there's a secondary citation that points out The Dark Knight in that mess, I'll use that instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production start 

message: While I don't care for LatinoReview.com as a reliable source, the site revealed some casting news:
#Matt Damon turned down the role for Harvey Dent.
#Filmmakers met with Josh Lucas. (Already mentioned in the article, I believe.)
#Interest has been expressed in Jamie Foxx and Ed Norton.
#Katie Holmes will not be reprising her role as Rachel Dawes. (Recently confirmed with Variety citation in article.)
I'm posting this information so an eye can be kept out for reliable sources reporting this information, such as the Variety citation about Holmes dropping out of her role.  If there's something more authoritative reporting #1 and #3, then include the information and use that citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely I wouldn't cite LR for concrete information, either, but they ARE the ones that broke Heath Ledger being Joker. Mcflytrap 20:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's common for actors/actresses to string the media along for potential roles.  Dominic Purcell did it for the Hulk.  Do you have a citation for Danielle Harris signing on as Talia Al Ghul? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we appreciate the heads-up on this news, but we can't include the information because it's not yet verifiable.  For example, a lot of actors were rumored to be Harvey Dent for this film, like Ryan Phillippe and Ethan Hawke, but Aaron Eckhart turned out to be the one.  When someone from the studio (and not being anonymous) reveals the casting, then we can include the information and the citation in the article.  In the meantime, rumors are not notable enough for inclusion because anyone can make them up, you know?  Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed there is a new cast for the movie, which is Nestor Carbonell. I don't see his name in both imdb for the movie and his own profile. Are you sure this information is correct? HoneyBee 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't update Nestor's page, nor IMDb. If they don't have it I wouldn't think twice about it, because we don't base our information from what they post, especially what IMDb posts. We have a source for it, you can read it to see if you think it is reliable enough.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Does it say what part? I'd hold it till we know more information.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. It's probably 'Head waiter', victim 7, harry the henpecked husband in the restaurant, or something else which needs a body, but for which local talent will suffice. ThuranX 13:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, then I'd just keep it here and when we know more we can make a formal decision. I mean, we're fighting about not including name actors in the role of bank managers and whatnot, so probably need to fair to the lesser known actors and not include them either. Which makes me wonder why we have Hall on the list when for all we know he's in a bit part himself.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That was my thinking, I was primarily interested in bringing it here nad getting some consensus before anyone else sought to add it. As the article edit history shows, though, nothing can stop some editors. But now we've got something to point to. ThuranX 17:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hurt.  I included the citation for this in #Citations for possible use with the same query on June 3, but no response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, oops for me too, Erik. mucho apologies. ThuranX 21:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting news 

message: According to SuperHeroHype.com, The Dark Knight is being filmed under the shooting title, "Rory's First Kiss."  The article cites Reel Chicago, which only said, "Moskal also has talked with Warner’s about a major film, whose secret subject is hidden under the title of 'Rory’s First Kiss.' It could shoot here for 80 days over the summer."  SHH said that "Rory is the name of The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan's son".  So is this information something we can include?  Or is it too much of an assumption?  If we cite Reel Chicago directly, then it would not seem verifiable.  We could cite both SHH and Reel Chicago for the so-called connection that's being drawn.  Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be drawing conclusions that are not that "concrete". I think it's something that interesting to be included if we had verification, but I doubt we'll get that until the DVD. If they are shooting under a hidden title, I don't think they'd verify it to the public. Bignole 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we'll see if there's any follow-up on it.  The links will be on the talk page or one of the archives, so we can retrieve it if necessary in the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely something they'd reveal post-release. Also, I'm not sure how I feel about that cover title in general. I'd really prefer something ballsy like "the Intimidation Game". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Websearch gets Gilmore Girls data. Lame... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second (or thirding?) Holding off for more confirmation. I think it's probably true, but it's OR as is. And let's be VERY careful in the next few days with this, it's likely that BOF and others will be 'citing' this as fact when they're drawing conclusions. Make sure any cites are solid. Just a friendly reminder. ThuranX 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rory's First Kiss" 

message: This can be moved to the Batman on Film section after it's been read.  Obviously, you guys are right in not citing Batman on Film as it is essentially a voice for the fans as well as a medium to report to them.  After reviewing the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, I feel that you are correct in your decision to avoid citing Batman on Film.  I hope it's understood that I wasn't trying to stir up any animosity, and it should be noted that I avoided ad hominem and personal attacks in the post I made a few days ago.  
However, I do want it to be known that if I feel Batman on Film HAS been treated unfairly regarding upcoming citations, I will certainly voice my opinion.  In the future I am certain that Batman on Film WILL have a place in this article as their reports get more and more accurate regarding this upcoming project.  I will remain respectful towards the article and present things to the rest of you if I feel that they deserve some level of credit for a certain bit of news.  Being a Batman on Film user myself, you have to understand that a lot of animosity was building up on both ends.  I believe this was because you, as a group of writers, might have said some things within this discussion that could be considered insulting to the people who maintain and use Batman on Film.  
So I'm sorry for making a snap judgement earlier as I did.  As I said before, I want this article to be as good as the rest of you do, but I also want it to remain objective.  Any subjective biases against certain websites, I think, should be set aside.  With that said, for the time being Batman on Film doesn't have too much to offer regarding the Dark Knight, as far as news that comes from a solid source.  This will happen in the future, however, and I hope the rest of you will consider this when the time comes: Batman on Film isn't just a fanboy site...they do have some journalistic integrity and in my opinion are totally credible.  
To wrap it up, I'm not here to work against any of you guys, even if you aren't particularly fans of Batman on Film.  If the time comes where they deserve some credit, I will present it and defend them in a diplomatic manner.  Let's work together to make a great Wikipedia article on The Dark Knight.  Lastanzabianca
:Have you read the BOF thread about Wikipedia?  I ventured to the forum to explain to the community about the Wikipedia approach.  We don't hate BOF, but we don't consider it a source that many would find verifiable.  I'm sure that reports that rank high in terms of information attribution (someone with the project that makes his/her identity public) would be acceptable from BOF, but like most movie sites, BOF would not rank high on website attribution if it depends on reports by someone within the project that submits reports anonymously.  We're looking for information of the more public variety, so it can be placed indisputably in the Wikipedia article, without being challenged by anyone.  As I told the BOF community, it seems that our goals are the same, to inform about TDK, but we just have different means of doing so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An Apology on my Part

message: Since there is a persistence in adding unconfirmed information about Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes, I would like to inform new editors that this is not confirmed information.  The origin of the information is LatinoReview.com, reported by "two of [the site's] strongest on the money sources".  Whether this information is correct or not doesn't matter; the anonymity makes the report unverifiable.  When the studio officially confirms that Gyllenhaal is in the role, then the inclusion can be made to the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maggie Gyllenhaal 

message: The Hollywood Reporter mentions Morgan Freeman's return, but I can't tell if this is a general assumption (like one that has been made before in previous articles) or if this is something "new".  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll go for that.  If The Hollywood Reporter is reporting it, then we'll go along with it.  We'll see how the Freeman casting pans out. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ...yet Variety doesn't mention anything about Freeman.  Hmm. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope.  I think we just permitted his name to be mentioned so we wouldn't fight anonymous editors about it.  As far as I know, though, it's generally assumed that he will return, though nothing has actually said so. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan Freeman 

message: Well, that was fun.  Hopefully everyone's in agreement with Eckhart portraying Harvey Dent per the Variety citation.  I personally think that "final negotiatons" (as quoted by The Hollywood Reporter) really means it's a done deal.  Appreciate the line of defense, though.  I guess with this news, we can expect interviews with Eckhart and Nolan, so keep an eye out for anything that confirms Goyer's rather old premise (of Dent not being scarred until the third film) or comic book influences on the character of Harvey Dent a.k.a. Two-Face.  Now there's the Maggie Gyllenhaal rumor on which we could use confirmation already... considering that the two aforementioned sources haven't mentioned anything about her, the wait should continue for something reliable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in the casting section. "Eckhart's concept of Two-Face".   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it under Influences, 'cause the Cast section seems more fact-based.  Maybe we can rename the Influences section to a title that's closer to the characters' adaptation for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we can get some information from Ledger about his take on The Joker that we might just have a nice section (or subsection) right there. Either place it with casting or place it with influences. We could also add info from Bale about what he's going to do differently or the same with Bruce/Bats. Again, this is if we can find the info, but I think it would nice to have a section about the actors' takes on their respective roles.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Eckhart's description would become ancillary if there is later information about the influences on the portrayal of Harvey Dent in this film (i.e., The Long Halloween).  Take a look at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 1#Quotes -- not sure if any of these would really attribute any more to the portrayal of the Joker in the film.  In addition, I just thought Eckhart's description fix the context of his own character rather nicely, which is why I included it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that we should ignore something is it doesn't link with the comics. This is a film, after all, and the film is being made by individuals that see Batman from a different side, the same with the secondary characters of the film. Each has their own interpretation of what should go into what, and Eckhart could read some comics, let's say The Long Halloween, and that could be the basis for where the Nolans write his backstory, but what makes Eckhart "Two-Face" is what he personally puts into the character. What he puts into the character directly reflects back onto the film. At least that's how I see it.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Influences is about works that influenced the film. Granted, an actors insight is useful, but that's now Influences: its something else. What, I'm unsure of. Leave it for now, it can find a better place when more information arises. WikiNew 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't saying put it in the influences section. I think actors' takes on their characters is relevant, but relevant to their own sections (or a subsection in the Production header).   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: got it. ThuranX 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron Eckhart 

message: This citation has Eckhart saying, "Batman is a complex character, and Two-Face comes a little bit from the same world.  But [at the same time] he's apart from it.  I'm looking for the tension between the two, the similarities between the two.  I want to find what's similar to Batman and then find what's opposite to him."  This seems like a worthwhile addition to the article, though, I'm not sure where it could belong.  Any suggestions? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in the casting section. "Eckhart's concept of Two-Face".   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it under Influences, 'cause the Cast section seems more fact-based.  Maybe we can rename the Influences section to a title that's closer to the characters' adaptation for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we can get some information from Ledger about his take on The Joker that we might just have a nice section (or subsection) right there. Either place it with casting or place it with influences. We could also add info from Bale about what he's going to do differently or the same with Bruce/Bats. Again, this is if we can find the info, but I think it would nice to have a section about the actors' takes on their respective roles.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Eckhart's description would become ancillary if there is later information about the influences on the portrayal of Harvey Dent in this film (i.e., The Long Halloween).  Take a look at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 1#Quotes -- not sure if any of these would really attribute any more to the portrayal of the Joker in the film.  In addition, I just thought Eckhart's description fix the context of his own character rather nicely, which is why I included it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that we should ignore something is it doesn't link with the comics. This is a film, after all, and the film is being made by individuals that see Batman from a different side, the same with the secondary characters of the film. Each has their own interpretation of what should go into what, and Eckhart could read some comics, let's say The Long Halloween, and that could be the basis for where the Nolans write his backstory, but what makes Eckhart "Two-Face" is what he personally puts into the character. What he puts into the character directly reflects back onto the film. At least that's how I see it.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Influences is about works that influenced the film. Granted, an actors insight is useful, but that's now Influences: its something else. What, I'm unsure of. Leave it for now, it can find a better place when more information arises. WikiNew 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't saying put it in the influences section. I think actors' takes on their characters is relevant, but relevant to their own sections (or a subsection in the Production header).   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: USA Today has Eckhart saying, "You're going to see a good part of my face and then a good part of (the chemically disfigured) Two Face. I'll be looking at other personalities to get an idea of how to play this complicated guy."  This explains the recent edit by a GIPU about the possibility of seeing the scarred part before the third film, as opposed to what Goyer has said.  Of course, Goyer's information could easily be outdated, but the two face-sides could reflect psychological problems that eventually become unleashed in the third film.  I know this is just speculation, but just wanted to find out other editors' takes on this.  Also, I think the study of other personalities could be added to Eckhart's paragraph in the "Character interpretations" section.  Any takers? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: got it. ThuranX 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA Today

message: The JLA film article isn't up, and this single citation isn't enough for it, but I'm dumping it here for later use: http://www.joblo.com/batman-joins-league. ThuranX 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOurce link: 

message: I have requested that the page be fully protected to stop the revert warring. There are better ways to handle disputes than endlessly reverting. Start by talking about it. Leebo T/C 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted at AN/I about this issue, and asked that this editor be blocked at the IP, with new account creation blocked as well. In the meantime, full page protection in the NON-HJO as robin version might be acceptable. Further, Leebo, I recommend you follow up more thoroughly before assuming that editors are revertign in bad faith. The editor adding the info has used 4 different accounts to do so, refuses to acknowledge vandalism warnings, and refuses requests for citation. It's vandalism, pure and simple. ThuranX 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the way vandalism should be handled either. Warn the vandal, then report to WP:AIV if they continue past a final warning. If there are so many users vandalizing in one day, yes it needs to be protected. I mentioned talking about it because there were requests in the edit summaries for citations. Leebo T/C 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should have actually DONE something, instead of insulting the editors here by suggesting we don't know how to deal with vandals. I fixed the vandalism, and then I was busy posting vandalism warnings, and following up at AN/I because WP:RCU clearly states that obvious vandalism patterns don't need a check, just blocking action. So I WAS dealing with it properly. Next time, don't come in and insult those of us doing something, acting like you're the only one who knows what to do. It's quite condescending to your fellow editors, and forgets the good faith and teamwork ideas Wikipedia's based in. ThuranX 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope no one is getting the wrong impression. I am not trying to give you guys a hard time; I'm trying to help by eliminating the chance for the user to vandalize. Yes, I'm an outside user who has not previously edited the page, but it's frustrating as a recent changes patroller to see vandals continue without anything but reverts in their way. I'm aware that you are not new users, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I was talking down to you about the issue. I was not trying to insult anybody. Leebo T/C 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fair enough. However, if you had checked the vandals' talk pages, you'd ahve seen efforts being made. That said, no harm, no foul. ThuranX 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, and some of the anonymous users had no warning, while the main user had a request for citations. It seems that I was only seconds early, as you were leaving the appropriate warnings as I checked and went to RFPP. I hope the page continues to progress without any more problems. Had I realized this page was being watched by so many people, I may have waited for the regulars to handle it. That's ignorance on my part, as I had not heard of this film. Leebo T/C 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like I missed some fun this afternoon... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warring 

message: Is this real?? If so I think it'd be good if someone put it up on the Dark Knight 2008 film page! I haven't seen or heard anything about it yet. http://www.evilology.net/uploaded/joker2ge1nx.jpg Foogurl 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that pic was circulating the web well before Ledger was even cast.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole's right.  It's ancient fanmade art.  Thanks for trying to help, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The photo that is up there now should probably be taken down, right? It's hardly official, we don't even know if it's real or not. Even if it is, it's clearly a makeup test, not an official promo photo. Fullmetaljacuzzi 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I put that up because it was shown on G4 TV, who I assumed would be reliable. My bad. Ryratt 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official pic of Heath Ledger as the Joker? 

message: Is this a fake?  Looks pretty real to me. Mcflytrap 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could quite possibly be real. The problem is we can't prove it's him behind the mask, and we don't know the legality of this image. It's obviously someone's personal image, as it's taken from high up, probably just far enough away that no one saw.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are pictures like this and the one of the "bank" really appropriate for this article?  Seems to be intrusive to me... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the pic on the left is obviously Ledger, and he's wearing the exact same outfit.  Would there be legal issues as the person that took the picture is the one that posted it? Mcflytrap 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As obvious as it is, with that little snafu that happened with the other pics, that's one of the reasons behind no original research. As for legality, we don't know if that guy that took the pictures released them to the public domain, or just to that site that has them.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic of Heath with gun and clown mask 

message: Is there any attributable source for his involvement?  The sources, which are all online, point to BOF, which I find questionable... even Eric Roberts gets press in actual newspapers as well as a listing in IMDb, but Fichtner does not.  Does anyone know anything concrete about his role? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that unless we get a good source (we all know BoF is awesome, but unreliable), we should drop the listing. Further, barring him having a part with substance, like being the key witness ABOUT the Joker, he wouldn't rate anyways. So we'd need a source for him being involved, and for the scope of the role. ThuranX 11:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You all KILL me.  Fichtner is in this film, but you want to be all high and mighty and say that he isn't because the lack of "mainstream" confirmation.  Puh-Leez!  It's what is called a "CAMEO," where an actor takes a role that is brief in a film and doesn't get much onscreen "credit."  Look, I love this site, but if you are going to list Superhero Hype and IMDB as "reliable" sources -- fantastic sites, but they report as much "rumors" as BOF does!  Someone here has an axe to grind with BOF plain and simple.  And while I do LOVE Wiki, it is notorious for BS info.  Yes, I run BOF, but it is the, THE, #1 Batman website on the Net.  And it is more than legit in what we report.  Get over yourselves!  I've linked to y'all for years, and that day is OVER (and this will be deleated, of course). --Bramey60 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IF you're the operator of BoF, you should be aware of the concepts of citation. We do NOT use IMDb on this page, and superherohype articles are tracked back to their origins whenever possible, so that more reliable sources can be used. Only in cases of exclusivity do we actively cite SH, and most of the regular editors here are nearly fanatic in our distaste for IMDb sourcing, as it's like having two wikipeidas, and sourcing each with the other.  Further, you aren't so legit that you didn't fall for the faked Joker hoax. We work hard on this page. That we don't include cameos in the list of stars isn't a fault. Most Good Article status articles on films do NOT include exhaustive cast lists, but only significantly notable cast, usually those with poster and advertisement billings, and those whose portrayals, debuts, or characters are notable in regard to the film. Is Fitchner likely to make this his 'breakout' role? dubious. His debut? Nope. Is he going to bring some amazing level of depth to 'Held up bank Teller'? dubious. He's getting a paycheck to drop to the set floor 100 times, cower, and give up the keys tot he vault or whatever. Maybe get squibbed. but by your own admission it's a cameo, notable ONLY for the fact that it's an experienced actor performing. That's NOT what we comsider notable information. As the release gets closer, we may learn more to change our minds. when the movie comes out, we might reconsider. But right now, there's consensus to NOT include a C-list character actor getting a paycheck for a couple days of work. And for hte record, some of us editors read and enjoy BoF, and use it to track down RS for the news you post. But we don't cite SH, or IMDb, so we don't cite you.  ThuranX 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bramey60, I believe we've already discussed the merits (or lack thereof) of BOF as an external link.  We don't rely on the accounts of anonymous scoopers to complete the article with information.  While we want to be as comprehensive as possible about the film, we do not want to sacrifice attribution to do so.  In addition, many films have cameos.  We can't tell at this point if Fichtner's role is worth mentioning, as opposed to Stan Lee appearing in the Spider-Man films.  If there are attributable sources reporting that information, I would probably be fine with including it.  If you have one, feel free to provide it, and we'll see about including it.  Furthermore, your claim to run BOF constitutes a conflict of interest, and it's a case of bias for a site owner to proclaim his site as reputable.  We are interested in producing a well-cited encyclopedic article about the film, and we're not interested in whether or not you link to us.  The condescending tone of your comment is not appreciated, and I ask you to be more civil in regard to the attributable nature of this Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Fichtner 

message: When I removed the information about Cillian Murphy, I realized that it might've been too opinionated of a deletion.  The reason I don't think there needs to be content about non-returnees (at this point) is that there isn't any further information.  If there is reasoning supplied, such as the director saying, "We felt like we need to move on," or "Scarecrow's story is over," then it would warrant inclusion.  Otherwise, it seems like non-information to report, unlike what the director said about Robin and the Penguin. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It isn't unusual to have a one film villain, or any character for that matter.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Support as well, in the spirit of WP:BEANS and the numerous bad edits we already revert out. ThuranX 13:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-returnees 

message: Has anyone been able to crack the pixelated image on http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/ yet? If so, what is the policy for putting the image up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicaladz (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 19, 2007
:I doubt anyone has, I certainly haven't figured anything out about the interaction with the image, beyond the initial tiny hole. If I knew another trick... But once it's out, I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't pass fair use, unless it revealed something incredible, like the look of Two-Face, or the Joker. And even then, it would probably need discussion here before hitting the article. ThuranX 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this pic?  http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/JeremyHope/heath_joker_ibelieveinharveydenttoo.jpg yeah it reveals in pretty good detail the face of the joker i HAVE cracked it and thats what it is 65.123.157.253 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone actually got a source stating that's the new look of the Joker? (and I sure hope not, it looks like a meth'd up drag queen.) ThuranX 15:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ain't It Cool News posted this image. "Moriarty passed this on to me and I don't know where he got it, so it could definitely have come from another website... But it's not everywhere yet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 May 2007
===Possible hoax?===
*The Dark Knight WHOIS Search results shows registrant as Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
*I Believe in Harvey Dent WHOIS Search results shows registrant as Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
*I Believe in Harvey Dent Too WHOIS Search results shows registrant as Domains by Proxy, Inc.
I know it would be original research to interject these observations.  Considering that not too long ago there was a fake Joker image created via Photoshop, I'm concerned about the validity of the information.  If you come across an attributable source from the studio explaining their viral marketing approach, feel free to share... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With the evidence against it, I say we remove all information pertaining to that second site.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing about viral marketing, though -- the methods can be purposely surreptitious.  If we exclude this information, we're probably going to get in a tussle with the fanboys.  Let's keep it to minimal information (like not including how these fanboys feel about the so-called image) and see if there will be attributable coverage during the coming week. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Empire is reporting it, and that's a fairly respectable site.  Should I go ahead and use that one to describe the result of the third teaser page?  I'm not sure about actually including the image itself in the article at this point, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm weary of including it as well, because even they say we've been fooled before. No one has said anything about WB acknowledging the site as being official. I mean, if it isn't official, who would care, it's free publicity. The whole thing just makes me uneasy.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What bugs me most is that the 'test shot hoax' had the so-called "Chelsea smile" going on. This all makes me think that the production is testing out the looks, or deliberately faking them, to gauge reactions early. We'd be reporting the facts we see, but also giving them direct feedback. And if the "Chelsea Smile" stuff is fake, and based on the recent batman comic in which they gave the Joker a similar look, then where does that leave us? I can see too many ways this is hyped hoaxing, and would prefer waiting for  word from WB before including it at all. Let's not forget that most of the same websites we're citing also hyped up the first hoax. ThuranX 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC
In the promotional section of the page, it states that Total Film has confirmed the Ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com image of The Joker as being a fake. Is this true? Please provide links to trustworthy pages to prove your answer. 24.76.173.213 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Total Film is calling it fake based on the same logic that I used.  However, since it's viral marketing, this may be a purposeful technique.  At this point, since the image has no attributable source as opposed to the first two teaser pages, we'll need to wait for confirmation from the studio. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "I Believe Too" site was registered just three days before the first one, though. From Batman-On-Film:
TOTAL FILM is claiming that the Heath Ledger Joker pic is fake. Here's what I wrote Saturday right after the story broke:
"The domain [for The Joker site] was registered on May 14th -- 3 days before IBELIEVEINHARVEYDENT.COM went live. The domain was obtained by proxy, so no way to tell if Warner Bros. actually owns it or not." 
So the Dent site goes live on May 17th, yet the Joker site was registered 3 days prior. How in the hell could someone have guessed that well to set up a fake website?! BOF contacted Warner Bros. Saturday for confirmation, and as of yet, no "official" confirmation or denial. And they won't -- it would take away from the affect if they did. Aaaannndddd... 
It is real. End of story.'''
--66.165.48.250 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, "I believe in Harvey Dent" (the one without Ledger) was created on May 11, 2007. So if BOF is saying it was created on the 17th, then they obviously cannot read that well. May 17 was the last recorded update.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably means that Warner Brothers made them remove the image of Harvey Dent, which was the point of the image of Ledger.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: according to superhero hype, a trailer is expected 206.75.160.103 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means WB hired a different company for the viral promotion. From SuperHeroHype:
The new image of Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight has now been removed from IBelieveinHarveyDentToo.com. It's been replaced with red text that gives the error, "Page not found." If you highlight the entire page, however, you'll see a ton of Ha Ha Ha's with some letters here and there that don't belong. String those letters together and what do you get? - "See you in December."
We assume you'll get a first look at The Joker in a trailer for the sequel at that time. Warner Bros. has both Nicole Kidman's The Golden Compass and Will Smith's I Am Legend opening in December, to which the teaser could be attached to.
So who is behind all this? It looks to be 42 Entertainment, the company which previously created the "I Love Bees" promotion for "Halo 2" and "Year Zero" for the Nine Inch Nails album "Year Zero." The company just registered SeeYouinDecember.com yesterday, so stay tuned.
It's real. --CmdrClow 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not proof of anything. We cannot verify, reliably if that is the look of the Joker, or if Warner Brothers actually created the site as a marketing gimmick. How many times did people say that first image of Ledger was the one from the movie? Just about everyone and their mothers, even places we usually use for reliable information.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it being posted on Heath Ledger's OFFICIAL website?--CmdrClow 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say it is the official website? A Google search doesn't even yield that site on the first page. Gdo01 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My search to verify your claim brought it up as the third result on the first page. --CmdrClow 06:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't make it official, just makes it the most popular. Kryptonsite isn't the "official" website for Smallville, but it's the most popular fansite there is for the show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh please, you're in denial. I have no idea what "first image of Ledger" you're talking about, but this new picture is clearly real. The fact that we know 42 Entertainment is behind it should be more than enough proof. This is a viral marketing campaign and likely an alternate reality game and it's only going to get bigger. It definitely deserves to at least be mentioned in the promotion section, even if we can't conclusively say "this is how the Joker will look in the movie." Hell, even if it did all turn out to be some elaborate fake (which it won't) it would still be notable. -- DocNox 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about of verifiability isn't clear? I didn't say the image wasn't Ledger, or that it wasn't what he will look like in the film. We deal in verifiability here. What we cannot verify is that Warner Brothers IS using viral marketing to promote their film. From what I gather, that's kind of the idea behind the concept of viral marketing. As for "Ledger's site", I'm pretty sure he isn't doing the updating, and they are just following suit that it's the "official look" for the film. Unfortunately, I've heard "official look" for this film way too many times for me to believe anything other than "Warner Brothers has released an official image...", or "Warner Brothers has officially claimed to be behind the viral marketing technique..."   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's notable enough to be included in the article even if we can't verify that WB is behind it (although common sense says they are). What we can verify is that 42 Entertainment is using viral marketing to promote the film and that it has made a very large splash in the fan community. As well as that WB has yet to deny their involvment, which I certainly think they would have done by now if they weren't. -- DocNox 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 42 Entertainment registered the seeyouindecember.com site that is clearly connected to this campaign. Also how about the fact that ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com was registered 3 days before ibelieveinharveydent.com went live? If the people making it weren't connected to WB they would have needed a time machine to know about it. But in anycase my entire point was that this is noteworthy whether WB is behind it or not. Certainly more noteworthy than that fake Ledger photo you mention, which the only place I know of that it was reported was on aintitcoolnews. -- DocNox 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above, ibelieveinharveydent was created on the May 11, with May 17 being the last update. May 14 was ibelieveinharveydenttoo. Gdo01 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said denttoo was registered before dent, I said it was registered before dent went live. There's a difference. Dent didn't go live until the 17, and denttoo was registered on the 14. - DocNox 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the dates, 42 Entertainment did register "seeyouindecember.com", which is linked to the "ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com" site. That's undeniable. 42 Entertainment has been known to do campaigns like this for other projects, such as "ilovebees" for Halo 2. I believe that the link of 42 Entertainment to "ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com" is good enough to at least mention this. It definitely should be noted.
The fake picture of Ledger months ago didn't have these links. If it had viral advertising signs, such as e-mail and 42 Entertainment, then it would've been more believable. The person who made the picture even originally said it was a fan work, if I remember correctly.
Also, WB would want to distance themselves from "ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com". It gets people wondering whether or not it is real. "ilovebees" was found through a flash in a Halo 2 trailer. Microsoft didn't jump up and say that it was real when it started, but when it caught on, they admitted their involvement. When something catches on is when you want to be connected with it. When something turns out to be a dump is when you don't want to be connected with it. WB wouldn't risk it being a dump and being associated with them.--Icweiner 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might deserve mentioning on their article, but not here. If they are doing viral marketing on their own accord then that's their problem. There has been nothing verifiable that links Warner Brothers to them. Again, it's free publicity, why would they care if people thought it was real? They would know the truth, and they would know when the truth will finally come out. Why not have people at least thinking something? Like I said, free publicity IF they had nothing to do with it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, should we make a note of it in the article? Not give it too much attention, but something minor, almost like trivia? If any official details are announced, we can expand it, and if not, then it'll just be a little bit of trivia.ArchKnight47 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Arbitrary timespans aren't useful. I think that a reasonable level of verification has been established. Simply wait until WB, or the producers themselves, 'certify' that the site is legit hype, and not a fan prank. That's the typical level required by WP:ATT, so we should abide by it. Also, avoid trolling. ThuranX 03:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what IGN had to say regarding the picture, and their posting it on IGN movies:
As for the Joker pic, we have repeatedly checked with Warner Bros. and they have coyly had "no comment." If it were a fake pic or a stolen image, rest assured, we would have been asked by them to remove it. This is the nature of viral marketing. Let the masses build the buzz for you, the thinking goes.
Common sense and their experience dictates that the picture is real. --CmdrClow 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to see what verifiability is really about. They are assuming that WB would ask them to take it down. The only time I've seen studios demand images be taken down are when someone steals the real thing. What the hell do they care if someone makes a fake image and posts it on the web, that's their right. If they want to claim that it's from TDK, w/e. So long as they aren't trying to charge people under the guise that they are working for WB.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Total Film has admitted they're wrong about it: the Joker picture is real, whether you like or not. Alientraveller 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a little hard. lol. We haven't said it was fake, we said we cannot verifiy its authenticity because Warner won't claim it. It could very well be real; probably is, but we just can't verify it right now.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How can we accept it as that? I've seen no mainstream news source talking about this image, I've seen no fans up in arms buying Batman tickets in advance. How can you measure that this campaign has been the best when you can't even measure if its been successful? Gdo01 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could if we could verify it. All sources point to WB not saying anything. If we say they did, when they say "no comment", we're basically using original research. I think Erik is right when he says we should wait for major news organizations to report on it, because right now web-based sources are all just doing the "I'm betting it's real, so we'll report it as such" game.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not base my perspective on the fact that Total Film initially declared the image fake.  However, their follow-up says, "It's still not official."  That's what we're waiting for -- an official statement.  Movie sites are only credible when they provide publicly revealed information -- interviews, press releases, set visits, etc. -- and not when they report what's been perceived, like this event has been. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BOF has been wrong as much as they've been right. I think they are sure because Warner isn't denying anything, which basically says they are guilty of it. But it also says we cannot verifiably say that they did it, or that the image is real. It's a great plan, keep us thinking about it. Then they'll come out and say "Yes, Yes...we did it", and we'll be thinking about how they played coy the whole time and made us doubt.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm playing into the game of Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A joke worthy of our subject itself. Alientraveller 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a question of providing an attributable source.  Looking at how BOF addressed the matter, the author actually says, "Thanks to "Anjow" and all the other BOF'ers that did the detective work."  People like you and me played detectives to find out this so-called truth -- that's not acceptable by attribution standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that this is the first viral marketing campaign I've seen where no one is claiming responsibility, as opposed to something like The 4400, probably. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, someone went through all the trouble of created the first faux image of Ledger. Don't underestimate the "free time" of Batman geeks (again, not calling it fake, saying we cannot verify it's authencity). Also, you get a link to the DENT teaser page, not to the other. The other was never linked to the TDK teaser page, that was something else.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because if we say "it could be a hoax" it's still original research. We don't know if it is or it isn't, and we can't play coy and say "we don't know, but it could be this". That's what IGN is doing, and they can do that. If it turns out to be fake, then there isn't a point for it to be on the page, because it means Warner Brothers had nothing to do with it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But we can't do the comparisons ourselves. We need reliable sources to do that for us. We need places like Variety or CNN (not necessarily those, but you get the idea of who I'm talking about) actually discussing the "commotion" being created by the release of that image. About how Warner Brothers won't acknowledge that it is there campaign. We need sources outside the web for that, because the only commotion out there is web based. Of course IGN will post something, but we need something from a news organization that isn't only bound to the web.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Buzz Echo says, "Sites like superherohype.com and cinematical.com are incorectly reporting that 42entertainment, an advertising company, registered the domain name “SeeYouinDecember.com”. In fact the name was registered anonymously via domainsbyproxy.com as you can plainly see for yourself."  The link provided was this.  There doesn't seem to be any conclusive and attributable proof that it came from 42 Entertainment at this point.  The charade continues... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you're getting into forumish speculation, and further and further from actual verification, the standard set for Wikipedia. For all we know, the playing cards inspired the hoax page. And again, persistence of the 'Chelsea Smile' makes me wonder, since it appeared in that earlier hoax. ThuranX 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Crap, forgot to log in.  This was me ^^ Theredcomet2000 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That extra tidbit they mention reads like it was taken from their Wikipedia article. Unless this company has only done Halo 2 and NIN Year Zero. But it reads like it was taken from their article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because that's not our job, nad that's not how Wikipedia works. We report based on verifiable sources, not by becoming investigative journalists. Even if we did ask, we couldn't use it, because no one else can verify it. see WP:ATT for some more on this idea. ThuranX 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole is not owning the article at all.  I agree with his stance that we need attribution for this viral marketing approach.  Furthermore, there is not as much real-world publicity about this campaign as there has been online.  Using the furor of movie sites' fan bases is a poor measurement of its impact.  Fake images are not notable in an encyclopedia -- imagine The Dark Knight twenty years from now, all fleshed out after the film's release.  Information about fake images are unlikely to be in the public scope (as in mainstream newspapers, not movie sites that report everything under the sun about a film in production).  If you can provide an attributable site (one that has more than just an online presence as well as an editorial oversight) that talks about the campaign, feel free to share. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The only "actual" photo of Ledger as the Joker is a side shot, blurred, with lights. Which are comparing to a profile shot, upclose, infocus, with a black background (to which you cannot see more than a face). Yeah, that's conclusive. Again, why would they care if someone was claiming to have a "real" image or not? It doesn't affect them in any other way than free publicity. If the photo was fake, they can't do anything about it, because it wouldn't be a copyright infringement. Regardless, read the section carefully. We aren't saying it's fake, we are saying that we cannot verify its authenticity. Please understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not TRUTH.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't mention anything about the viral marketing campaign, and please don't say that we are supposed to take the out of focus show of Ledger from the side view and compare it to a profile shot?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with the P.D. from the USA Today article, and I would assume that the one one SHH is good too, so long as someone wasn't photoshopping a Joker image into that blurry section. Other than that, I'm saying we can't even begin to compare either one of them with the image that was released on ibelieveinharveydenttoo.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, for some reason I was thinking "police department" (it's early, and I just got up). I don't remember the PD image from before.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I really am out of it. I didn't understand you meant that you wanted a Joker image, but didn't want to have to lose the image of the outside shot of the bank. Well, hold onto the image of the bank. Put it in Wiki Commons or something and save it for a rainy day.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is someone going to add the official Joker shot in the USA Today article?  The one where you can see Chris Nolan directing and Wally Pfister behind the camera? Mcflytrap 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one in the USA Today article was the bank scene, SHH was using the Nolan image, which I don't like attributing a blurry image of Ledger from SHH (who is part of ComingSoon.net).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't see that, but if you can source it directly to the USA Today link, go for it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, my problem is that SHH doesn't say where they got their image, and if you follow the link to USA Today, it's a different image.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the image on the USA Today site here. Although I personally think the one with Joker in the sad clown mask is good too. --DocNox 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you anonymous user for that bit of ignorance. The image in the USA Today article is not the image that was shown at ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. It is a completely different image. Second, nothing in that article talks about viral marketing. Last, actually read what I type instead of simply picking a couple words and running with it. There is a difference between verifiability and truth, and Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. What I said was that we cannot verify the image, because Warner Brothers has not confirmed the website as theirs. Obviously denying something that just about everyone knows is true doesn't make it verifiable. The only thing verifiable is that Warner Brothers hasn't confirmed the site, or the image is theirs. It has nothing to do with whether or not we know that it actually is; it has everthing to do with being able to verify, reliably, that it is. The sooner you all recognize the difference between verifiability and truth, the sooner we can stop having these ridiculous arguments over and over and over again.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you verify that? I was watching G4 when that little announcement was made here on Wikipedia. Unless it was on the little "feed" at the bottom, they didn't have any program devoted to that. You can't just say "G4 announced" and not back it up with something to verify. Ok, ignorance plays again. Why don't you go back and read it again. ThuranX was the one calling it a Chelsea smile, I said no such thing. As a matter of fake, this is the first time I've said the word "chelsea" since it was brought up on this page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we have to be able to verify that. Find it written down on their site somewhere. Lastly, i'll ignore the personal attack, but if it happens again consider this your first and only warning.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A threat that I'll report his personal attacks to a noticeboard? LOL, ok...take it as a threat then. Regardless, I can't verify your word. And that's not truthiness.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole isn't threatening the user about the information, he's warning the user about the implicit personal attack.  Also, I don't believe that you can cite a news TV show unless they are accessible by the public with a DVD set or something similar.  We're looking for something either online or in print to verify the information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL, at what point did I say "You're ignorant"? The only two instances of that word in this section are from you, and me (just now). Having "ignorance" doesn't make one an ignorant person, just ignorant of had occurred. If you were offended then I apologize. As for the "anonymous user" part, I'm not going to attempt to start typing random numbers in an effort to match an IP address, and you aren't registered so I can't call you by a specific name. If you registered, I'd be glad to call you by whatever name you wish.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we saw that already.  It's not an official confirmation from the studio, it's an assumption made by that site and many others.  Some have been appropriate in saying "It's not official yet."  That's what we're waiting for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't know because we cannot verify the content of a television episode. We can verify the written transcript of that episode, but not the episode itself. We can't determine if Warner Brothers confirmed it to them or if they were making an assumption. It would strike me as odd that they would confirm it with G4, a gaming network, and not any other major news organization, or at least a website focused on film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All these IP comments are from one troll who cannot be bothered to register an account. I recommend that per WP:TROLL, all feeds stop. ThuranX 05:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't about G4's "credibility", they could be the most reliable people in the world. But reliability and verifiability do not go hand in hand. We have to be able to point to a reliable source and say "here it is, it says it right here". It needs to be both reliable and verifiable, and you have one without the other then you probably can't use it. If G4 says "Warner Brothers has told us that the viral campaign was theres", and we can link to that, then we could probably use that. But we can't say "in an episode on G4, they mentioned the viral marketing was WB's", because we first cannot prove G4 said that, and someone's word doesn't pass verifiability criteria. Second, we don't know what they are reporting, because they aren't saying that WB told them anything (if they said it that way). It isn't about truth, it's about proving the facts.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't use SSH unless they had a personal interview with someone from the film. Generally, we come here and go "SHH just posted this, we should find a verifiable source to prove it". "Can't we post it and edit it out if its false?" Sorry, we can't. I mean, we can literally do it, but we are not supposed to. What if we posted that Christian Bale was killed on his page? People come to our page, and against better judgement will report things they see here, and before it can be changed the damage is done. It's the principle. It's the same reason we won't take information from places they say "I heard from a reliable source that wants to remain anonymous..." How do we know who he heard it from. We can't prove he heard any such thing, and could be blowing smoke up our butts. If we can't prove it, we can't post it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viral Dent/Joker page

message: *The Dark Knight WHOIS Search results shows registrant as Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
*I Believe in Harvey Dent WHOIS Search results shows registrant as Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
*I Believe in Harvey Dent Too WHOIS Search results shows registrant as Domains by Proxy, Inc.
I know it would be original research to interject these observations.  Considering that not too long ago there was a fake Joker image created via Photoshop, I'm concerned about the validity of the information.  If you come across an attributable source from the studio explaining their viral marketing approach, feel free to share... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the evidence against it, I say we remove all information pertaining to that second site.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing about viral marketing, though -- the methods can be purposely surreptitious.  If we exclude this information, we're probably going to get in a tussle with the fanboys.  Let's keep it to minimal information (like not including how these fanboys feel about the so-called image) and see if there will be attributable coverage during the coming week. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Empire is reporting it, and that's a fairly respectable site.  Should I go ahead and use that one to describe the result of the third teaser page?  I'm not sure about actually including the image itself in the article at this point, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm weary of including it as well, because even they say we've been fooled before. No one has said anything about WB acknowledging the site as being official. I mean, if it isn't official, who would care, it's free publicity. The whole thing just makes me uneasy.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What bugs me most is that the 'test shot hoax' had the so-called "Chelsea smile" going on. This all makes me think that the production is testing out the looks, or deliberately faking them, to gauge reactions early. We'd be reporting the facts we see, but also giving them direct feedback. And if the "Chelsea Smile" stuff is fake, and based on the recent batman comic in which they gave the Joker a similar look, then where does that leave us? I can see too many ways this is hyped hoaxing, and would prefer waiting for  word from WB before including it at all. Let's not forget that most of the same websites we're citing also hyped up the first hoax. ThuranX 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC
In the promotional section of the page, it states that Total Film has confirmed the Ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com image of The Joker as being a fake. Is this true? Please provide links to trustworthy pages to prove your answer. 24.76.173.213 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Total Film is calling it fake based on the same logic that I used.  However, since it's viral marketing, this may be a purposeful technique.  At this point, since the image has no attributable source as opposed to the first two teaser pages, we'll need to wait for confirmation from the studio. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "I Believe Too" site was registered just three days before the first one, though. From Batman-On-Film:
TOTAL FILM is claiming that the Heath Ledger Joker pic is fake. Here's what I wrote Saturday right after the story broke:
"The domain [for The Joker site] was registered on May 14th -- 3 days before IBELIEVEINHARVEYDENT.COM went live. The domain was obtained by proxy, so no way to tell if Warner Bros. actually owns it or not." 
So the Dent site goes live on May 17th, yet the Joker site was registered 3 days prior. How in the hell could someone have guessed that well to set up a fake website?! BOF contacted Warner Bros. Saturday for confirmation, and as of yet, no "official" confirmation or denial. And they won't -- it would take away from the affect if they did. Aaaannndddd... 
It is real. End of story.'''
--66.165.48.250 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, "I believe in Harvey Dent" (the one without Ledger) was created on May 11, 2007. So if BOF is saying it was created on the 17th, then they obviously cannot read that well. May 17 was the last recorded update.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably means that Warner Brothers made them remove the image of Harvey Dent, which was the point of the image of Ledger.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: according to superhero hype, a trailer is expected 206.75.160.103 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means WB hired a different company for the viral promotion. From SuperHeroHype:
The new image of Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight has now been removed from IBelieveinHarveyDentToo.com. It's been replaced with red text that gives the error, "Page not found." If you highlight the entire page, however, you'll see a ton of Ha Ha Ha's with some letters here and there that don't belong. String those letters together and what do you get? - "See you in December."
We assume you'll get a first look at The Joker in a trailer for the sequel at that time. Warner Bros. has both Nicole Kidman's The Golden Compass and Will Smith's I Am Legend opening in December, to which the teaser could be attached to.
So who is behind all this? It looks to be 42 Entertainment, the company which previously created the "I Love Bees" promotion for "Halo 2" and "Year Zero" for the Nine Inch Nails album "Year Zero." The company just registered SeeYouinDecember.com yesterday, so stay tuned.
It's real. --CmdrClow 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not proof of anything. We cannot verify, reliably if that is the look of the Joker, or if Warner Brothers actually created the site as a marketing gimmick. How many times did people say that first image of Ledger was the one from the movie? Just about everyone and their mothers, even places we usually use for reliable information.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it being posted on Heath Ledger's OFFICIAL website?--CmdrClow 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say it is the official website? A Google search doesn't even yield that site on the first page. Gdo01 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My search to verify your claim brought it up as the third result on the first page. --CmdrClow 06:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't make it official, just makes it the most popular. Kryptonsite isn't the "official" website for Smallville, but it's the most popular fansite there is for the show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh please, you're in denial. I have no idea what "first image of Ledger" you're talking about, but this new picture is clearly real. The fact that we know 42 Entertainment is behind it should be more than enough proof. This is a viral marketing campaign and likely an alternate reality game and it's only going to get bigger. It definitely deserves to at least be mentioned in the promotion section, even if we can't conclusively say "this is how the Joker will look in the movie." Hell, even if it did all turn out to be some elaborate fake (which it won't) it would still be notable. -- DocNox 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about of verifiability isn't clear? I didn't say the image wasn't Ledger, or that it wasn't what he will look like in the film. We deal in verifiability here. What we cannot verify is that Warner Brothers IS using viral marketing to promote their film. From what I gather, that's kind of the idea behind the concept of viral marketing. As for "Ledger's site", I'm pretty sure he isn't doing the updating, and they are just following suit that it's the "official look" for the film. Unfortunately, I've heard "official look" for this film way too many times for me to believe anything other than "Warner Brothers has released an official image...", or "Warner Brothers has officially claimed to be behind the viral marketing technique..."   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's notable enough to be included in the article even if we can't verify that WB is behind it (although common sense says they are). What we can verify is that 42 Entertainment is using viral marketing to promote the film and that it has made a very large splash in the fan community. As well as that WB has yet to deny their involvment, which I certainly think they would have done by now if they weren't. -- DocNox 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 42 Entertainment registered the seeyouindecember.com site that is clearly connected to this campaign. Also how about the fact that ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com was registered 3 days before ibelieveinharveydent.com went live? If the people making it weren't connected to WB they would have needed a time machine to know about it. But in anycase my entire point was that this is noteworthy whether WB is behind it or not. Certainly more noteworthy than that fake Ledger photo you mention, which the only place I know of that it was reported was on aintitcoolnews. -- DocNox 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above, ibelieveinharveydent was created on the May 11, with May 17 being the last update. May 14 was ibelieveinharveydenttoo. Gdo01 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said denttoo was registered before dent, I said it was registered before dent went live. There's a difference. Dent didn't go live until the 17, and denttoo was registered on the 14. - DocNox 02:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the dates, 42 Entertainment did register "seeyouindecember.com", which is linked to the "ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com" site. That's undeniable. 42 Entertainment has been known to do campaigns like this for other projects, such as "ilovebees" for Halo 2. I believe that the link of 42 Entertainment to "ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com" is good enough to at least mention this. It definitely should be noted.
The fake picture of Ledger months ago didn't have these links. If it had viral advertising signs, such as e-mail and 42 Entertainment, then it would've been more believable. The person who made the picture even originally said it was a fan work, if I remember correctly.
Also, WB would want to distance themselves from "ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com". It gets people wondering whether or not it is real. "ilovebees" was found through a flash in a Halo 2 trailer. Microsoft didn't jump up and say that it was real when it started, but when it caught on, they admitted their involvement. When something catches on is when you want to be connected with it. When something turns out to be a dump is when you don't want to be connected with it. WB wouldn't risk it being a dump and being associated with them.--Icweiner 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might deserve mentioning on their article, but not here. If they are doing viral marketing on their own accord then that's their problem. There has been nothing verifiable that links Warner Brothers to them. Again, it's free publicity, why would they care if people thought it was real? They would know the truth, and they would know when the truth will finally come out. Why not have people at least thinking something? Like I said, free publicity IF they had nothing to do with it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, should we make a note of it in the article? Not give it too much attention, but something minor, almost like trivia? If any official details are announced, we can expand it, and if not, then it'll just be a little bit of trivia.ArchKnight47 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Arbitrary timespans aren't useful. I think that a reasonable level of verification has been established. Simply wait until WB, or the producers themselves, 'certify' that the site is legit hype, and not a fan prank. That's the typical level required by WP:ATT, so we should abide by it. Also, avoid trolling. ThuranX 03:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what IGN had to say regarding the picture, and their posting it on IGN movies:
As for the Joker pic, we have repeatedly checked with Warner Bros. and they have coyly had "no comment." If it were a fake pic or a stolen image, rest assured, we would have been asked by them to remove it. This is the nature of viral marketing. Let the masses build the buzz for you, the thinking goes.
Common sense and their experience dictates that the picture is real. --CmdrClow 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to see what verifiability is really about. They are assuming that WB would ask them to take it down. The only time I've seen studios demand images be taken down are when someone steals the real thing. What the hell do they care if someone makes a fake image and posts it on the web, that's their right. If they want to claim that it's from TDK, w/e. So long as they aren't trying to charge people under the guise that they are working for WB.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Total Film has admitted they're wrong about it: the Joker picture is real, whether you like or not. Alientraveller 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a little hard. lol. We haven't said it was fake, we said we cannot verifiy its authenticity because Warner won't claim it. It could very well be real; probably is, but we just can't verify it right now.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How can we accept it as that? I've seen no mainstream news source talking about this image, I've seen no fans up in arms buying Batman tickets in advance. How can you measure that this campaign has been the best when you can't even measure if its been successful? Gdo01 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could if we could verify it. All sources point to WB not saying anything. If we say they did, when they say "no comment", we're basically using original research. I think Erik is right when he says we should wait for major news organizations to report on it, because right now web-based sources are all just doing the "I'm betting it's real, so we'll report it as such" game.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not base my perspective on the fact that Total Film initially declared the image fake.  However, their follow-up says, "It's still not official."  That's what we're waiting for -- an official statement.  Movie sites are only credible when they provide publicly revealed information -- interviews, press releases, set visits, etc. -- and not when they report what's been perceived, like this event has been. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BOF has been wrong as much as they've been right. I think they are sure because Warner isn't denying anything, which basically says they are guilty of it. But it also says we cannot verifiably say that they did it, or that the image is real. It's a great plan, keep us thinking about it. Then they'll come out and say "Yes, Yes...we did it", and we'll be thinking about how they played coy the whole time and made us doubt.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm playing into the game of Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A joke worthy of our subject itself. Alientraveller 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a question of providing an attributable source.  Looking at how BOF addressed the matter, the author actually says, "Thanks to "Anjow" and all the other BOF'ers that did the detective work."  People like you and me played detectives to find out this so-called truth -- that's not acceptable by attribution standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that this is the first viral marketing campaign I've seen where no one is claiming responsibility, as opposed to something like The 4400, probably. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, someone went through all the trouble of created the first faux image of Ledger. Don't underestimate the "free time" of Batman geeks (again, not calling it fake, saying we cannot verify it's authencity). Also, you get a link to the DENT teaser page, not to the other. The other was never linked to the TDK teaser page, that was something else.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because if we say "it could be a hoax" it's still original research. We don't know if it is or it isn't, and we can't play coy and say "we don't know, but it could be this". That's what IGN is doing, and they can do that. If it turns out to be fake, then there isn't a point for it to be on the page, because it means Warner Brothers had nothing to do with it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But we can't do the comparisons ourselves. We need reliable sources to do that for us. We need places like Variety or CNN (not necessarily those, but you get the idea of who I'm talking about) actually discussing the "commotion" being created by the release of that image. About how Warner Brothers won't acknowledge that it is there campaign. We need sources outside the web for that, because the only commotion out there is web based. Of course IGN will post something, but we need something from a news organization that isn't only bound to the web.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Buzz Echo says, "Sites like superherohype.com and cinematical.com are incorectly reporting that 42entertainment, an advertising company, registered the domain name “SeeYouinDecember.com”. In fact the name was registered anonymously via domainsbyproxy.com as you can plainly see for yourself."  The link provided was this.  There doesn't seem to be any conclusive and attributable proof that it came from 42 Entertainment at this point.  The charade continues... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you're getting into forumish speculation, and further and further from actual verification, the standard set for Wikipedia. For all we know, the playing cards inspired the hoax page. And again, persistence of the 'Chelsea Smile' makes me wonder, since it appeared in that earlier hoax. ThuranX 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Crap, forgot to log in.  This was me ^^ Theredcomet2000 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That extra tidbit they mention reads like it was taken from their Wikipedia article. Unless this company has only done Halo 2 and NIN Year Zero. But it reads like it was taken from their article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because that's not our job, nad that's not how Wikipedia works. We report based on verifiable sources, not by becoming investigative journalists. Even if we did ask, we couldn't use it, because no one else can verify it. see WP:ATT for some more on this idea. ThuranX 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole is not owning the article at all.  I agree with his stance that we need attribution for this viral marketing approach.  Furthermore, there is not as much real-world publicity about this campaign as there has been online.  Using the furor of movie sites' fan bases is a poor measurement of its impact.  Fake images are not notable in an encyclopedia -- imagine The Dark Knight twenty years from now, all fleshed out after the film's release.  Information about fake images are unlikely to be in the public scope (as in mainstream newspapers, not movie sites that report everything under the sun about a film in production).  If you can provide an attributable site (one that has more than just an online presence as well as an editorial oversight) that talks about the campaign, feel free to share. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The only "actual" photo of Ledger as the Joker is a side shot, blurred, with lights. Which are comparing to a profile shot, upclose, infocus, with a black background (to which you cannot see more than a face). Yeah, that's conclusive. Again, why would they care if someone was claiming to have a "real" image or not? It doesn't affect them in any other way than free publicity. If the photo was fake, they can't do anything about it, because it wouldn't be a copyright infringement. Regardless, read the section carefully. We aren't saying it's fake, we are saying that we cannot verify its authenticity. Please understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not TRUTH.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible hoax?

message: Btw, as further proof of authenticity, look here:  Alientraveller 09:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mention anything about the viral marketing campaign, and please don't say that we are supposed to take the out of focus show of Ledger from the side view and compare it to a profile shot?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with the P.D. from the USA Today article, and I would assume that the one one SHH is good too, so long as someone wasn't photoshopping a Joker image into that blurry section. Other than that, I'm saying we can't even begin to compare either one of them with the image that was released on ibelieveinharveydenttoo.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, for some reason I was thinking "police department" (it's early, and I just got up). I don't remember the PD image from before.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I really am out of it. I didn't understand you meant that you wanted a Joker image, but didn't want to have to lose the image of the outside shot of the bank. Well, hold onto the image of the bank. Put it in Wiki Commons or something and save it for a rainy day.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is someone going to add the official Joker shot in the USA Today article?  The one where you can see Chris Nolan directing and Wally Pfister behind the camera? Mcflytrap 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one in the USA Today article was the bank scene, SHH was using the Nolan image, which I don't like attributing a blurry image of Ledger from SHH (who is part of ComingSoon.net).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't see that, but if you can source it directly to the USA Today link, go for it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, my problem is that SHH doesn't say where they got their image, and if you follow the link to USA Today, it's a different image.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the image on the USA Today site here. Although I personally think the one with Joker in the sad clown mask is good too. --DocNox 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you anonymous user for that bit of ignorance. The image in the USA Today article is not the image that was shown at ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. It is a completely different image. Second, nothing in that article talks about viral marketing. Last, actually read what I type instead of simply picking a couple words and running with it. There is a difference between verifiability and truth, and Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. What I said was that we cannot verify the image, because Warner Brothers has not confirmed the website as theirs. Obviously denying something that just about everyone knows is true doesn't make it verifiable. The only thing verifiable is that Warner Brothers hasn't confirmed the site, or the image is theirs. It has nothing to do with whether or not we know that it actually is; it has everthing to do with being able to verify, reliably, that it is. The sooner you all recognize the difference between verifiability and truth, the sooner we can stop having these ridiculous arguments over and over and over again.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you verify that? I was watching G4 when that little announcement was made here on Wikipedia. Unless it was on the little "feed" at the bottom, they didn't have any program devoted to that. You can't just say "G4 announced" and not back it up with something to verify. Ok, ignorance plays again. Why don't you go back and read it again. ThuranX was the one calling it a Chelsea smile, I said no such thing. As a matter of fake, this is the first time I've said the word "chelsea" since it was brought up on this page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we have to be able to verify that. Find it written down on their site somewhere. Lastly, i'll ignore the personal attack, but if it happens again consider this your first and only warning.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A threat that I'll report his personal attacks to a noticeboard? LOL, ok...take it as a threat then. Regardless, I can't verify your word. And that's not truthiness.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole isn't threatening the user about the information, he's warning the user about the implicit personal attack.  Also, I don't believe that you can cite a news TV show unless they are accessible by the public with a DVD set or something similar.  We're looking for something either online or in print to verify the information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL, at what point did I say "You're ignorant"? The only two instances of that word in this section are from you, and me (just now). Having "ignorance" doesn't make one an ignorant person, just ignorant of had occurred. If you were offended then I apologize. As for the "anonymous user" part, I'm not going to attempt to start typing random numbers in an effort to match an IP address, and you aren't registered so I can't call you by a specific name. If you registered, I'd be glad to call you by whatever name you wish.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we saw that already.  It's not an official confirmation from the studio, it's an assumption made by that site and many others.  Some have been appropriate in saying "It's not official yet."  That's what we're waiting for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't know because we cannot verify the content of a television episode. We can verify the written transcript of that episode, but not the episode itself. We can't determine if Warner Brothers confirmed it to them or if they were making an assumption. It would strike me as odd that they would confirm it with G4, a gaming network, and not any other major news organization, or at least a website focused on film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All these IP comments are from one troll who cannot be bothered to register an account. I recommend that per WP:TROLL, all feeds stop. ThuranX 05:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't about G4's "credibility", they could be the most reliable people in the world. But reliability and verifiability do not go hand in hand. We have to be able to point to a reliable source and say "here it is, it says it right here". It needs to be both reliable and verifiable, and you have one without the other then you probably can't use it. If G4 says "Warner Brothers has told us that the viral campaign was theres", and we can link to that, then we could probably use that. But we can't say "in an episode on G4, they mentioned the viral marketing was WB's", because we first cannot prove G4 said that, and someone's word doesn't pass verifiability criteria. Second, we don't know what they are reporting, because they aren't saying that WB told them anything (if they said it that way). It isn't about truth, it's about proving the facts.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't use SSH unless they had a personal interview with someone from the film. Generally, we come here and go "SHH just posted this, we should find a verifiable source to prove it". "Can't we post it and edit it out if its false?" Sorry, we can't. I mean, we can literally do it, but we are not supposed to. What if we posted that Christian Bale was killed on his page? People come to our page, and against better judgement will report things they see here, and before it can be changed the damage is done. It's the principle. It's the same reason we won't take information from places they say "I heard from a reliable source that wants to remain anonymous..." How do we know who he heard it from. We can't prove he heard any such thing, and could be blowing smoke up our butts. If we can't prove it, we can't post it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Officially-released pic

message: I don't know why, but the references sections isn't coming up. Maybe it's a problem with all the hidden text surrounding it. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was. Tsk tsk, shouldn't play with things they don't understand. I fixed it, and you should be able to view everything that you are supposed to now.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: Not sure if this was already discussed to death, but I read in RedEye (a Chicago Trib eyecandy rag) about Ledger's Joker; there was a pic there that looked essentially like Ledger in clown white and smeared lipstick. There is also a new image of Ledger wearing the rubber clown mask discussed before. I could upload them here for perusal and/or inclusion into the article. I would rather put them here first, so everyone could frenzy on it before inclusion:
:Image:TDK Ledger.jpg
:Image:Tdk Ledger clown.jpg
(both are from here). I have not put a lot of caution into the fair use, as they are for display piurposes. Anyone seeing the benefit of these is free to fix the Rationale - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No professional news organization has reported the first image. So we cannot verify it is the poster. I think it was USA Today the reported the later, but a better image was also reported in the above section. The problem is that using either the clown mask, or the image above means we sacrafice a free image to put a non-free image on the page.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Btw, the clown mask image was from the 5/29/07 issue of USA Today. It seems to be a citable source for the image and, since there doesn't appear to be a free equivalent, I am unsure why the mask image isn't usable? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that was what I said. So was this image, which is the other one I was talking about. I'm saying the only one that hasn't been reported was the poster, which is probably fanmade. As I said, when we were discussing it above, the question was the only real section to put it in was the "Production" section, and that has a free image. So, if we include it, we will be substituting something free for something non-free.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. 'Dawn breaks over wooden head.' Now I get it. Nevermind. Just tryin' to lend a mitt ot two. Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ledger pics

message: *
:Ledger talks a little bit about his preparation for his role as the Joker, but there doesn't seem to be anything that could be included. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Visual effects company working on the film.  Not sure if it would be too promotional to include? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably nothing new here, just continues the suggestion that Harvey Dent won't be Two-Face right away, and who is credited with what for the story and script.  (The Wikipedia article nails the credentials; yessss.) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Filming information from as attributable of a source as you can get! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Danny Goldring in an unknown role; placing here until it can be determined if his role is significant enough to list.  It doesn't appear that he's a major actor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for possible use 

message: I vote to have a trivia section. So far the one piece we could put on their is that this is the first batman movie not to be released in June. Im putting it to a vote.TheManWhoLaughs 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AVTRIVIA. Case closed. Alientraveller 15:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not case closed there are trivia sections in other articles. Its being put to a vote. Thats one for yes. One for no.TheManWhoLaughs 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a guideline. Articles with trivia are B-class. All GA and FA articles do not have trivia. Again, case closed. Alientraveller 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This IS NOT a vote. You are trying to ignore an official rule. Stop that, or stop editing here if you will not accept what you are editing. Alientraveller 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont try to threaten me into doing what you want me to do. It is going to be voted on. I dont care if you dont like it. Voting is the fair way to go about this. Youve voiced youre opinion and now let others voice theirs.TheManWhoLaughs 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit. If you actually read WP:AVTRIVIA you will understand this is the rule. I'm sorry if you disagree but this is the rule so follow it. Alientraveller 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, the 1966 Batman was released on July 30. Alientraveller 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever. It's just you who wants to ignore a rule. Go ahead, everybody will revert a trivia section because they actually want this article to be clear, concise and informative. Here's another rule: Polls are evil. Alientraveller 16:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok now youre contradicting youreself. You want it to be informative but yet you dont want to put knowledge on it? And further more who do you think you are the freakin owner of wiki? Plus you think just because you made a page saying polls are evil they are? Get off here with youre biased and uninformative information.TheManWhoLaughs 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you don't want to follow rules? What gives you the right to ignore them? Trivia is a lazy way of writing information: right now, this article will not be tainted by a list of random information without context or notability. Alientraveller 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You've worked on 14 GA and FA articles this week, but just yesterday you asked us what GA and GA mean?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:AVTRIV.  Content should be integrated into encyclopedic parts of the article whenever possible, and if it isn't, it's probably too trivial for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a persistent matter, I'll try to explain it better to you, TheManWhoLaughs.  We're opposed to a trivia section because articles do not get Good Article or Featured Article status when one exists.  Look for yourself; you will not find any such section in articles of these statuses.  They have been critically reviewed, and the consensus is unanimous in removing trivia from the article and integrating it into another part whenever possible.  In addition, we don't do voting processes here, we reach consensus.  That consensus has already been reached, and exacerbated by three editors (myself, Bignole, and Alientraveller), who have had multiple successes with film articles without the need for a trivia section.  Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not all content on a film will be shown here.  The fact that TDK's release date is a month different from the other Batman films is not significant in the grand scheme. If TDK came out in the winter as opposed to the Caped Crusader's summer tentpoles, that may be worth noting, not by us, but by a reputable and verifiable news source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote no as well...for the very reasons stated here. Mcflytrap 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are evil. And trivia sections are bad. Borisblue 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: trivia section

message: The subsections of production make for an excellent way to include pre-production data in neatly grouped sections. After release, we can revise if/as needed. It was a successful way to manage other upcoming films, and I see no reason to mess with success. Nothing says it's written in stone, and cannot change after release, but for now, keeping various sections categorized and organized helps build the article with a solid structure, and gives IPs and new editors (who often seem attracted to upcoming film pages) a guiding structure for their additions. ThuranX 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My $0.02: The Production section looks OK either way, at first glance.  It's the application of subsections to a Production section causing only one- or two-sentence paragraphs per subsection that I find to be the problem.  Currently, I would rather be without subsections because there is unnecessary housing of certain bits, particularly Development information -- some would belong in a Writing subsection, some would belong in a Casting subsection or the Cast section itself.  We don't have enough information right now to really fill these out.  In addition, Nolan was fairly secretive with Batman Begins, and it's likely that he will do the same here.  There's not going to be a great deal of attributable information (read: no spy reports) to help this article up.  Spider-Man 3 lived just fine without subsections until the explosion of coverage in the months leading up to it warranted separation of the content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsections 

message: A set pic reveals that the Mayor of Gotham is called "Robert Garcia" 
It doesn't count as a reliable source. But don't worry, we'll all know come July 18 next year. Alientraveller 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nestor Carbonell's character 

message: That fan made teaser poster is hideous! It's armature at best. At least use publicity photos or something?!
And why is there a rumor section?
:Because some anonymous user added it, and the poster, both have been reverted back to their normal states. Next time, check the history to see if it occured recently. You deleted the poster, but didn't return the one that was there previously. Bignole 09:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Wikipedia start using Fan art in articles?! 

message: The addition last night of a NEW Lachey Hulme rumor made me go hunt it down. Unsuprisingly, I found nothing on the Herald's site anywhere. It's another fake out by his supporters, nothing more. ThuranX 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lachey Hulme unfounded. 

message: Pictures of Cillian Murphy on-set with Chris Nolan in Chicago have surfaced, perhaps its time to include him in the cast?
That isn't verifiable, and last we read in an interview Murphy wasn't sure of returning. Alientraveller 09:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem. Appearances can be deceiving. We cannot accurately verify that is him. For all we know, The Joker may have some accident that forces him to wear a mask until he undergoes some operation to give him his trademark face. I don't know, because nothing has been announced. It could be Murphy, it could be anyone, but nothing says it is Murphy.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the standards should be stricter than that.  Even if a scooper revealed pictures that clearly identified Cillian Murphy in his role, such pictures can be faked (as has been done with the Joker already) or recycled from the previous film's production to pass off as news. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I was merely stating that nothing has actually attributed this image to that actor, only by speculation. The video itself it isn't even that clear what's going on. In the eyes of the policy, this doesn't meet the standards, and just about anything short of an official announcement from WB or Cillian wouldn't either.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nothing personal but why the fuck do you guys act like this is some sort of investigation? it's cillian murphy, add him already.. OH WAIT IT DOESNT FALL UNDER THE WIKIPEDIA BIBLE SO WE CANT L0Lz~!
Sign your comments please. And yes, we are all under Wikipedia guidelines, including you. Alientraveller 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you know it's the Scarecrow? I only saw a guy with something covering his face. I certainly didn't see his face, nor did I see the object covering it that clearly. At least, these are the arguments I see as rebuttles to that picture (and not my personal opinion of the picture, just to clear that up).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: SuperHeroHype.com's postings of scooper reports aren't attributable.  They are pretty much ignored.  What postings are acknowledged from SHH are set visits and interviews and press releases.  The actual source of this information is someone with an undisclosed identity, surreptitiously providing information about the film.  That's not appropriately verifiable.  If Murphy says in an interview tomorrow that he will have a cameo as Scarecrow, then that's verifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What picture? The IMAX picture? I believe that is attributed to the LA Times.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't reliable when they don't attribute information to a reliable source. The "I was out at the set and caught this" from "scooper so-n-so". I don't know who this scooper is, and I cannot verify he was actually on the set. Even the so-called image of a Batman double isn't in focus enough to verify that (which pictures aren't verification of anything in the world of photoshop). It's about verification, just like with the Joker image. WB has still yet to confirm that is a legitimate image of theirs.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well with the current picture we kill two birds with one stone: Joker and IMAX. The new Batsuit picture looks almost the same anyway. Alientraveller 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is more information about the filming process than there is on the design of the Batsuit. It's all about how you justify the images, and one or two lines of informatin usually isn't enough to justify an image.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The film is a long ways away and by the time it comes out I'm sure the article will be much large and more images will be justifiable, even more so when the DVD comes out and we have all that juicy DVD commentary for the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, what's with All The Crazy? People wanting - no, insisting they add the Scarecrow stuff. None of it appears to be verifiable or reliable. Perhaps some of that Five Pillars mojo is called for... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude... relax.  He's just commenting that the GIPUs are rather persistent on adding the Scarecrow information, even though it's not attributable.  At least this means that they think this is a good place to go for the information.  We'll have to ride it out, though... it's clear to us that the source doesn't work, while we have to explain that to them (all the while reverting). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, is he ever not in a bad mood? Grow a sense of humor already. Yes, Erik, that was precisely what I was commenting on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that is because they have been specifically asked about that title. If it doesn't then that should probably be removed. If there is a citation (reliable) that shows Warner Brothers being asked about the image and them doing a "no comment", that maybe it could be worked up. But we can't just assume they are doing a "no comment" if they don't literally do that.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, considering I don't have a script, how do you know there are scenes in TDK? How do you know someone didn't just video some friends acting out in a parking garage? If you don't like verifiability, you are more than welcome to try other sites. By the way, my little unnamed friend, USA Network likes characters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, it doesn't matter. Images do not meet verifiability criteria. Only official announcements from third party sources.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you verify when they were taken? Can you verify that someone didn't use photoshop on them?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me)
No, but what I said was not "PUT THAT INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE, YOU %&$#/... DON´T YOU SEE IT´S TRUE?????" but that at least we now know it´s true, it´s just becuase of coommon sense.franshu190.31.38.245 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scarecrow 

message: This might sound weird to everyone, but somewhere I heard that Liam Neson might be returning in this movie as Ra's al Ghul again. I saw someone post this information on some chat boards at either IGN or IMDb, one of those. It had a photo of someone that looked a lot like Neson on the set of Dark Knight. I'm not to sure if it's real. I'll try to find the photo but since it was on a board I'm not sure if it is correct. Can anyone else confirm or that it is or isn't him? Thanks. ManofSTEEL2772 06:18 June 22, 2007
:...that would be an unwelcome rumor added to the mix.  If it's too challenging to find an attributable source (read: not an anonymous report) of something on that scale, then it's highly doubtful that it's true. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)We'd need to see the link to where you saw it, but anything on IMDb's message boards is 10 times more likely to be crap than to have decent spelling. IGN's not much better. Unless and until a truly reliable source has that information, I wouldn't expect to see it in the article, per WP:ATT. ThuranX 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ra's al Ghul

message: I've seen at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/trivia that as a joke, one bat suit was made with nipples and was presented to Christian Bale as the real bat suit. Can someone find a photo of this suit? David Pro 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has no relevance to this article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb's trivia is an unreliable source. Alientraveller 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nipple batsuit 

message: In addition to the teaser page with the political campaign poster for "I believe in Harvey Dent" an additional page has been registered but left unlinked to the main batman site on warnerbros.com.  The site is located at www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com and upon visiting the site users are greeted with Red text on a black back ground stating "Page Not Found"  however by clicling select all under a browsers edit tab a hidden message on the page is revealed, and hidden in that message are random out of place letters that when put in order spell out "See you in December".  Maedrarle 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this has been discussed at length here on the talk page; we cannot confirm it's WB's page, and so have not included it. ThuranX 06:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the original version of the site that revealed the first image of the Joker?  Or has that been suggested to be some sort of hoax and I missed it somewhere?--MythicFox 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Warner's have not officially confirmed it to be their's, and we can't include it per WP:V. What a sly marketing campaign eh? Alientraveller 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Alien. It isn't so much that we don't believe it, but that we cannot verify it was Warner Brothers' marketing tool. The law of verifiability isn't about truth, but proof. Occassionally it sucks, when you know something to be true, but cannot prove it with reliable sources. All I've read is a lot of assumptions that it is the official pic, plus you have that fanmade poster running around with Ledger's face on it, so it doesn't help matters.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Awesome, glad to get attributable information about that.  Is the Susan Bonds information from Empire?  We should include what she said about having fans work together for the image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Marketing 

message: Why hasn't Chucky Venice's role been mentioned? and check out this one - an asian actor has land a major role in the film .................. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...284518/1/.html
:Um, you might want to fix the link if you want us to look at it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick search. Near as I can find, this all traces back to a MySpace page for a london-based english black actor, not an asian, and it's his promotional bio which mentions The Dark Knight. So we can't cite it for being on MySpace, (a blog), being a COI (his own self-promotion) and for not being substantiated by the production (lack of RS). IN addition, without knowing WHO he's playing, there is no way to judge if it's a major role, worth documenting. It may be that sincethey are filming in England, this is a case like that of the local Chicago actor described above; they hired local talent for the small roles, so they would have to fly over nad put up less talent, and this one actor's making a lot of noise about a bit part to bolster his own reputation. We'll find out if he's genuinely important to the story, and report it then. ThuranX 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chucky Venice's role 

message: I thought it was odd that MTV made that post about David Banner auditioning for the role of "Gamble" in our cast and characters section, and now SHH is mentioning an actor by the name of "Nathan Gamble" . Right now SHH isn't verifiable, but could there been a mix up in the MTV Movie blog?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SHH cites Variety.  It depends on if David Banner lied to MTV that he had a role.  Otherwise, it may be pure coincidence.  I would just rely on both for now -- the MTV Movies Blog should be attributable enough because the author, Larry Carroll, has done movie coverage in the regular MTV News sphere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for bringing the information here!  It's been placed in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could MTV have screwed up?  

message: I think this could be useful:
http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=5946
franshu190.30.181.25 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are videos and photos that confirm that what h´s saying is true, but, as you said,I´m not sure whether this information is really useful and could improve the article or not. Maybe this information would fit better  in The Joker article, just maybe.franshu190.30.181.25 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but again, no matter what article you place it in, the issue of RS isn't going to change. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gotham evacuated