Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 4

message: Hey, does anyone know anything about any official trailer(s) that have been released, and can add a section about them? Thus far, almost all the "trailers" I've seen are fake. Thanks. 70.251.75.230 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trailer 

message: Someone has stated that they were an extra for an evacuee in Gothan city and were placed on some ships with green screens where the Joker blows everything up. Look here. www.hollywoodchicago.com/2007/07/exclusive-photos-of-gotham-ships-at.html Can we add this somewhere in the article?
No. I stopped reading at "anonymous contribution" Not attributable or sourceable. DurinsBane87 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gothan City Blow up ships

message: I've added the movie, taken from flixster (http://www.flixster.com/photos.do?imageId=7486827&gallery=moviePhotos769959054). Squadoosh 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fake. Alientraveller 10:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's definitely fake. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you guys know it's a fake? Squadoosh 11:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I know a poster on Superherohype.com made it. Alientraveller 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie Poster

message: I'd like to merge the paragraphs in Cast and characters to the relevant character entries (Joker, Dent, Dawes).  Would this be agreeable?  I doubt we'd have much more character descriptions beyond a sentence, so it seems worthwhile to add some real-world context to each casting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? The characters are so rich, it seems premature considering how much depth the film will have. Alientraveller 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a more fulfilling entry in an encyclopedic sense.  Each entry (most of them) would have real-world context.  It seems to me that it would be less of a "Let's list all the characters because they're recognized elsewhere in the franchise" fanboy section.  Just a quick question: What happened to the information about Eckhart studying psychological aspects of the dual personality and similar topics for his role?  I was thinking about it as something to include with his entry, but it's gone. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eckhart never said anything about studying people with split-personalities. I checked that cite thoroughly. Alientraveller 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not split-personalities, but this: "I'll be looking at other personalities to get an idea of how to play this complicated guy."  We had a whole discussion about it in the last archive. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and characters 

message: Does anyone really care that David Banner auditioned for the role?  Is it really worth noting? Mcflytrap 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Alientraveller 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that?  Does every other film page list not-so-famous people that auditioned for a small role in a film? If it was a household name like Bill Clinton or Jesus Christ, I'd tend to agree with you. Mcflytrap 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant because of the role he auditioned for, that of a named villian expectedd to be in the film. Had he auditioned for 'maitre d' ' then no, but as it appears the character will be important, then it matters.ThuranX 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As we get closer to the time of release, that detail may be worth cutting, or moving to the actor's wikipage. For now though, whiel the section's still being built... ThuranX 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gamble

message: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=5968
It has a source and I think it could be in the development section.
franshu190.30.135.126 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting 

message: *Batman begins to hate heat —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know he stated that he hated wearing the Batsuit. But, he did sign on to do the sequel!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:58, 08 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The headlines are here for possible use in the article, not for general commentary.  I hope you understand; the talk page, per guidelines, is meant to be used to discuss improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: Now that it's been proved that the ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com site is official, and we know without a doubt that the picture of Heath Ledger as the Joker is definitely real, is there anything to prevent us from adding said picture to the article? ~Griggs~ 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair-use guidelines. There isn't a place for it at the moment.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bignole.  The unfortunate fact is that there is no attributable coverage about the Joker's look beyond identification purposes, and WP:FU requires more than that -- critical commentary, to be specific.  That's why we have a picture of the Batpod; it visually shows the details that are explained in the neighboring paragraph.  The Joker picture would not fit anywhere at the moment, though I'm sure when we uncover more about the Joker's design and make-up, we can include the image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. And please register, so that we can communicate with you directly, on your user talk page. Thank you. ThuranX 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker's Picture 

message: Check this out. Could we use this in the article? http://comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/3742.asp
I don't think it's true and I hate the Riddeler but has anyone else heard of this news? Personally I don't think it's true but who knows. We might be able to mention something about this rumor. Correct?
ManofSTEEL2772
:Not verifiable. Alientraveller 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care until the studio announces it. Alientraveller 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no official confirmation that Mr. Hall will be the Riddler.  Confirmation via insider reports do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria.  In a similar situation, at Iron Man, many anonymous editors changed Shaun Toub to be The Mandarin, though ultimately, he was portraying Yin Sen.  That's what jumping the gun will get you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Erik, and a 'scoop' that uses except instead of expect and doesn't proof-read? not worth much salt. (And my vote's for him to be Jeremiah Arkham anyway.) ThuranX 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthony Michael Hall's role

message: Youtube page ! Fake?--Brown Shoes22 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is real, it's a copyright violation. Alientraveller 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been seeing that linked around for a couple weeks. If it's real, copyvio, not citable, if it's fake, it's interesting, but ... weak. ThuranX 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, did not happen. 24.76.118.132 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Knight Teaser Trailer is attached to the Harry Potter movie ? 

message: The Joker, the batmobile, etc., here:
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=F83DDCC8F382BB7FC5D8D6744B81CF5C?contentId=3789512&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
Plus, the article gives some info about where they´re currently filming.
Who filmed that. Maybe we could add something about it in the article. ManofSTEEL2772
:All images seem to be removed, and tht leaves a summary of what we already know, and a 'holy guacamole' that I'm sure FOX's usual mouth-breathing audience thinks is incredibly clever and nouveau. Also, Man of Steel, please register an account here. Accounts make it much easier to reply to you. Thank you. ThuranX 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try to keep the discussion on topic and not use it as an opportunity to throw out blanket insults.  Thanks. Mcflytrap 11:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What blanket insults? Alientraveller 11:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thuran's comment about "Fox's usual mouth-breathing audience".  Lots of love and tolerance. Mcflytrap 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that's funny. Alientraveller 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only funny if your brain is the size of a walnut. Mcflytrap 08:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When you do register, I'll look for it, and hopefully stop by to welcome you. Don't worry about User pages, there are three major benefits that come with registering. One, You can maintain a 'watchlist', allowing you to find your favorite articles, and monitor their growth. Two, Others can see your contrib list, making it easy to help you out, or correct a series of mistakes you might make for you. Third, and best, you'll have a talk page, where other editors can reach you, and critique (not criticize) yoru edits, and work to collaborate on a page to improve it. ThuranX 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very interesting 

message: Why is the production and everything calling the movie Rory's first Kiss. It's not like it's a secret. So should this really be in the article or not?
ManofSTEEL2772 (yes I'm still trying to get registered)
:because when movies film, they often use a false name to throw people of the scent. this time, the code was cracked, but really, 90% of chicago doesn't know the code name, so it still gives some privacy... as for registering, jsut click the register like at the top of the page, upper right hand corner. ThuranX 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan. ThuranX 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rory's First Kiss

message: I've been thinking lately that despite the structure of Cast sections in articles like Spider-Man 3, a more appropriate structure would be actual inclusion of real-world context behind each character in the film, beyond who played that role.  It seems that the actor/role/brief char. description is commonplace with articles of franchise films like Star Wars, superhero films, et cetera.  I want to suggest going in the direction of providing more critical commentary about the background of each role, especially when most actors are usually inquired about their roles in today's media.  I've been taking this approach with Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters (though the section headings could be improved) as to reflect stronger real-world context behind each character.  I mentioned this a while ago when I noticed missing information about how Eckhart would be approaching the role, and I'd like to revisit it here.  It would warrant shuffling of the content, and it would make placement easier in some places, since if there is a one-sentence detail about a character, it won't have to be forced into a paragraph, but instead rest fittingly in the bulleted entry.  Thoughts on this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great way to approach it, and I'd like to see that tried. Throw it up there, let's see if it sticks, I'd certainly support it, though I'm not sure it should be in the 'Cast' listing. Perhaps under filming, a subheading "Portrayals". that has a catchy title, and isn't used much. I think it would properly refer to the section as referrig to the act of acting(sorry).  Anyways, I'd like to see such a section, if not in place of the list itself. Seems to me there was an interview with bale about how batmans wasn't brand new, but still fairly new.. that might help. I can't remember where I read it though. ThuranX 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background in Cast 

message: http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6040 is this valid and could we use it somewhere or not? ManofSTEEL2772
:It doesn't appear verifiable.  A scooper sent it into SHH, and the site says, "...what looks to be a legit description."  Besides, it's junk information to describe trailers scene-by-scene.  If this information is true, I'm sure a teaser will become available (perhaps at Comic-Con) to link to at this Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teaser Description

message: Does anyone think it would be better to have the Batsuit over the Batcycle in the article?  There seems to be enough information about the Batsuit to warrant the image, and it seems more important to show the new Batsuit than what he rides for now.  Later, with more content, we can have both. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have more information on the Batcycle now though, and the picture of the new costume isn't good anyway: I would wait for something full-frontal like the picture in the Batman Begins article. No pun intended by the way. Alientraveller 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It may be better to wait for a frontal view in better lighting. The current one is a side-angle shot, at night. It get a good idea of all the changes you have to have a high-res image to see all the new details, which we can't have.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me; just thought I'd ask, due to the attempted addition of the Batsuit image by the GIPU. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd with the crowd. baa baa... but it's a great suit shot for promo purposes. I made it into a wallpaper, LOL. and i'm also glad we talked this through back here, to have a sense of consensus to point to for GIPUs and curious editors. ThuranX 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While guessing about what readers are more interested in is pointless, reasons for it would be more valuable. I think that since there's more interesting information about the construction and uses of the ride than the suit, Accompanying the section with the cycle makes more sense. The suit's a modified item, the machine is new. ThuranX 06:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batsuit over Batcycle 

message: Heads up, guys... http://www.whysoserious.com/ looks like another possible viral marketing website.  WHOIS doesn't clearly show the site as part of Warner Bros., so it looks like we're in for another barrage of unverifiable edits.  To initiate the consensus, I don't believe it's appropriate to include this site in the article without official confirmation that it belongs to the studio.  Anyone can can create such a site.  Let's keep an eye out for what is reported. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need verifiable reliable sources confirming not only the website, but that the dollar bills are part of Warner Brothers' marketing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The site does not comply with Wikipedia's verifiability or reliable source policies, so it does not belong in the article until there is official confirmation for it.  We've seen plenty of fake images pass through here; no reason why this couldn't be a fake site, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Attack of the show is not verifiable, and not reliable. They are a scooper show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine that you prefer your media, as long as we include the media coverage when it becomes attributable.  Wikipedia does not need to be up-to-date.  It's the tortoise of the race.  Slow and steady article development in line with policies, not an onslaught of news tidbits that are unverifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Studying the site's content does not ensure its verifiability.  Also, even if Attack of the Show reported it, there needs to be a static reliable source which can be checked by any editor in the future.  You can't cite something that was just shown on TV; later visitors can't verify that for themselves.  When the site is confirmed as coming from the studio in a static reliable source, we will include it.  We went through this same situation with the Harvey Dent sites, and a magazine confirmed that the site was part of the marketing campaign. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not speculate here... per talk page guidelines, the talk page is not a forum for general discussion.  IMDb would be a better place to have that discussion.  Here, we'll just have to sit tight until something verifiable comes out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine.  We can wait. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's going to be rather unimportant to the people who might have been able to make it out if it is confirmed especially if the sites ripped down like I believe in Harvey Dent too viral and leave a cryptic message like last time--GasSnake or Poison Oak 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody knows except for what that site (whether it's official or not) says.  That's why there's the argument that it does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If the site is part of a campaign, then I'm sure that there will be coverage from reliable sources about the site and whatever the countdown means.  We'll include that information as soon as it's available and verifiable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site IS legit, Erik. I'm glad it's been posted on the page. The HD trailers all went up this afternoon after a long delay. There was also a new photo showing Ledger as the Joker holding Rachel Dawes up by knife-point. That photo has since been taken down. Anyhow, the site is legit. Time to mention it on the page. TabascoMan77 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning it on the page isn't going to happen without a reliable source covering it. Why? Original research. If you start interpreting the site, and explaining things on it, with no reliable source to back you up, then it's OR. You cannot explain the treasure hunt, because there would be no way to verify it took place. Wiki isn't a how-to guide, so you can't post passwords and the lot so that people can play the game themselves. We need reliable coverage of the event. Someone will talk about it eventually. This isn't a scooper site; we don't have to be update by the minute.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, BigNole: THE SITE IS LEGIT. I don't know if you've checked recently, but three HD-quality versions of the official teaser trailer (which I, myself, saw at The Simpsons Movie) are now up for view on the site. On top of that, there WAS a picture of Ledger and Gyllenhall on the site that Superhero Hype now has on their site. I'm not asking to report passwords and the like, I'm saying that there needs to be a mention that the games took place...because they did. I wasn't born yesterday. I'm a pretty reliable guy and am not looking to pull a fast one. The entire re-write about the BMWFilms "The Hire" page on Wikipedia is all due to me. I would think I have a tiny bit of clout. Tabascoman77 17:27 (PST), 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And I repeat, reporting on the website is original research. Please read that policy. Per the policy, any OR can and should be removed on the spot. The website itself should be fine for the EL section, but it is not, and "I repeat", it is NOT ok to write up your own observations into the article. Find news coverage (reliable) that reports on the game itself. Do not report on it yourself, as it will be removed each and every time. You can reliable all you want in your own eyes, but you do not pass Wikipedia's criteria for such (read the link above).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So its not OK to write up fact? Fact that the trailer was released, that it is legit, that WB confirmed it legit? That Gyllenhaal and Ledger apparently aren't in the film yet they are? That WB never had a panel at comic con and that the SImpsons Movie didn't have the trailer in front of it? Your reasonings are very stubborn and very unbeleivable. 24.76.118.132 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources. We need them to verify information. We cannot take the word of editors. We now have a source for the teaser appearing with The Simpsons. The marketing website is in the external links section. Unless there is coverage about the website, the only info that will be included is the link to the page. We don't describe trailers, and we don't describe websites. Peole can click a link for that themselves.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me)
Bignole why are you being such a bunghole man it has the offical WB seal that the bottom it's been confirmed legit at the DC panel and what do you want ledger to approach you and to say it's real? it has it on the site just check it--GasSnake or Poison Oak 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep your incivility and personal attacks to yourself please. Also, you'd do kindly to actually read the marketing section, as the website and the teaser trailer are mentioned there.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ;Unfortunately, we cannot take the word of any passerby that went. We need published, reliable coverage to include any information in the article. And we already have that website linked and mentioned in the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No they aren't. Please read reliable souces to find out what is reliable. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, we aren't here to show people how to do things. Find a reliable souce that discusses the scavenger hunt, plain and simple.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me)
http://www.podcasts.cinematical.com/2007/07/27/the-dark-knight-teaser-trailer-hits-with-new-joker-photo/
This link talks about the trialer and the phone number that was released at the 2007 Comic Con in San Diego --Huper Phuff talk 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whysoserious.com 

message: Variety has confirmed it's a warner bros site http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117969414.html?categoryId=13&cs=1 71.107.96.117 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: The "critical analysis", as stated, is commentary and OR.  Wikipedia is not the place for one's view on different subjects.  It's also not the place for three pictures smashed together.  The new section is trivial, at best and needs a MAJOR rewrite, if it is to stay. PureSoldier 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement that the new section was OR.  The editor was trying to justify the use of the new Joker image with his own commentary.  He has violated 3RR in reverting multiple editors' removals of his contributions, and a report has been filed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical analysis

message: On the site why so serious. Whats the phone #?Lord Sinestro 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you rephrase that? Your writing is too mobile phone-ish for me. Alientraveller 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, doesn't sound that important. Alientraveller 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki isn't a directory. We aren't here to publish phone numbers, or help further along someone else's marketing techniques. Provide a reliable source that discusses the phone number. You can't just say "Call this number, and it will prove it".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The phone #

message: It appears this film follows after the end of Batman Begins, but is there any evidence or information available yet that says whether or not this will lead into the plot of the 1989 Batman film, or if it will take a completely different direction with the Joker and become a new storyline rather than a Star Wars-esque wrap-around to the original movies? 24.99.238.8 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film continuity? 

message: Thought I'd give you all the heads up on this one ready for the inevitable rush of people eager to place the link in the article. Haven't checked out its authenticity or otherwise yet.
- Bill 12.02BST 31st July 2007
===Hidden Message===
To add to that, there is a hidden message hidden in the source code for Rent-a-Clown.com, Hidden as lower case letters in a Series of "HAHAHA"s that are spread out through out the actual source code for the site. This is an obvious reference to the hidden text and message from ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. Unlike the message on that site though which is "see you in december", likely a reference to the release date of the first real trailer or further promotional material, this message is more of a taunt simply reading "made you look". I think it is perhaps worth mentioning in effect to show the detail and effort that is being put into the ARG viral campaign for the film. epocalypse 17:32, July 31, 2007 (UCT)
:The detail is not notable because it has not received independent coverage by a reliable source.  Your analysis of the detail constitutes original research as well, so it's not appropriate for the encyclopedic context of the article.  If there is independent coverage about the effort of this viral marketing campaign, that coverage can be reported in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like some guy got pics of his friends and everyone and comicon in the new joker makeup, and/or did it to others for free, then put them up. Maybe it was a promotion from ComicCon? if so, it's inherently LESS notable, as it's a gallery from an onsite promotion, not actual adding to the plot and so on. ThuranX 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a correction: Whysoserious.com, under the studio, redirects to Rent-a-clown.com, so it's not fan-based or anything.  Of course, your arguments still stand, in terms of notability and verifiability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we update the EL section to reflect the redirect?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  Per WP:EL, supplementary content should be provided by the links.  Pictures of the people who participated in the Great Joke Hunt of 2007 don't really add anything to the article.  The problem now, though, is that whysoserious.com used to host the teaser trailer, but now it's gone.  I guess that's why there's that minor site that's been attempting to be added as of late. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I think Alien did the right thing by removing it, since it doesn't add anything any longer. Though, we might want to remove that inline citation that used that website, since it's technically not going to show what it was citing any longer.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rent-a-clown.com 

message: To add to that, there is a hidden message hidden in the source code for Rent-a-Clown.com, Hidden as lower case letters in a Series of "HAHAHA"s that are spread out through out the actual source code for the site. This is an obvious reference to the hidden text and message from ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. Unlike the message on that site though which is "see you in december", likely a reference to the release date of the first real trailer or further promotional material, this message is more of a taunt simply reading "made you look". I think it is perhaps worth mentioning in effect to show the detail and effort that is being put into the ARG viral campaign for the film. epocalypse 17:32, July 31, 2007 (UCT)
:The detail is not notable because it has not received independent coverage by a reliable source.  Your analysis of the detail constitutes original research as well, so it's not appropriate for the encyclopedic context of the article.  If there is independent coverage about the effort of this viral marketing campaign, that coverage can be reported in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like some guy got pics of his friends and everyone and comicon in the new joker makeup, and/or did it to others for free, then put them up. Maybe it was a promotion from ComicCon? if so, it's inherently LESS notable, as it's a gallery from an onsite promotion, not actual adding to the plot and so on. ThuranX 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a correction: Whysoserious.com, under the studio, redirects to Rent-a-clown.com, so it's not fan-based or anything.  Of course, your arguments still stand, in terms of notability and verifiability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we update the EL section to reflect the redirect?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  Per WP:EL, supplementary content should be provided by the links.  Pictures of the people who participated in the Great Joke Hunt of 2007 don't really add anything to the article.  The problem now, though, is that whysoserious.com used to host the teaser trailer, but now it's gone.  I guess that's why there's that minor site that's been attempting to be added as of late. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I think Alien did the right thing by removing it, since it doesn't add anything any longer. Though, we might want to remove that inline citation that used that website, since it's technically not going to show what it was citing any longer.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden Message

message: *A dark -- but not so secret -- 'Knight' for sequel - Interesting article about how production has been difficult to keep secret.  I'm going through my headline dump, so I can't work it in at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always add the info to the filming aspects of the article. It has the perfect lead-in from Nolan's comments about shooting in IMAX. Thoughts? TabascoMan77 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it's Chicago-related, I've included it in the same context as the other Chicago details.  I've also included mention of Rory's First Kiss using the citation from The Guardian (which I provided in a discussion since archived, and now have finally implemented).  Feel free to look over the changes made and make any comments or copy-edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: Does anyone outside the rap music scene know who he is?  Does anyone outside the rap music scene care that he auditioned for Gamble yet lost out?  This is hardly notable. Mcflytrap 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other actors auditioning for a role are always notable. Alientraveller 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that we don't know the degree of Gamble's role in the film, and that David Banner seems notable, and that MTV covered the audition, it seems best to include the information for the time being.  When the film comes out, we can determine if his role is notable enough to warrant mention of Banner auditioning for Gamble.  The same would go for other roles, such as the mayor of Gotham City. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Banner

message: details of a panel at WizardWorld where the scarred and horrific image of the Joker is confirmed as the film image. AlanD 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know that. Alientraveller 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terribly sorry if I've offended, was sent the info and posted it up here to try and be helpful not to seek sarcasm.AlanD 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joker Image

message: It should be at least mentioned in the marketing section, in my opinion.franshu190.30.207.17 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are You talking about the WizardWorld Panal, cuz if so then i totally agree that it should be mentioned. After all, they did officially reveal that Harvey becomes Two-Face there. The Great Morgil 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No verifiable, reliable source, then it doesn't go in. I don't know what would actually go in regardless. Just to say "there was some exclusive footage at WizardWorld"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scooper site, or a place to come for current events on your favorite subject. Things have to have encyclopedic relevance...and yes, I know there are plenty of articles that don't adhere to that, but this one tries to.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bignole.  It's not encyclopedic to report the emergence of every promotional item in relation to the film.  The viral marketing campaigns have been notable, but it's commonplace for footage to be shown.  The footage mention would be fleeting because when the film comes out, there won't be much use for mentioning it.  The viral marketing, though, is something that can remain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Footage being shown isn't as notable as a viral marketing campaign, which I don't think is that notable itself considering the lack of coverage it actually got outside the comic book community. It's just simple footage. No more, no less.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's commonplace for footage of upcoming films to be shown, whether at conferences or expos or in teasers and TV spots.  Unless there is some unique notability for its presentation, such as what was done to show both the first Joker image and the first teaser trailer for this film, or for a certain untitled teaser, it doesn't really warrant inclusion.  Is it really notable to mention that The Invasion or some other upcoming release just had a new TV spot last night?  I would suggest thinking of this article in terms of the long run; what information would be appropriate to last "forever" here?  Commonplace commercial acts would not be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So clearly you care more for fiction than facts. Alientraveller 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I have to say "you're outta yo mind" if you think a trailer airing is more important than the real world content such as how much money the film makes Chicago--if it helped in some way other then some novice amount of cash, like if the city was in a deficit which was fixed because of this production. Wikipedia is not a news organization, or an entertainment chathouse. We aren't here to serve your filming needs; try SuperHeroHype, or BatmanOnFilm if you want that. We're here to bring the public the best encyclopedic articles possible. Something as extraneous as footage shown at WizardWorld is not encyclopedic, and neither is mentioning a trailer being aired. I think linking to the trailer is sufficient.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To the anonymous editor, we have no intention of catering to fanboys.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this involves the real-world context of what has influenced the film's development or how the film's production has impacted local economies of its shooting locations and whatever else WP:MOSFILMS entails.  A list of scenes shown in the exclusive footage is not long-lasting, encyclopedic information.  The interest of actors in portraying the Joker and Harvey Dent reflects the popularity of this revitalized franchise; it's part of the film's reputation that actors would express interest in a role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually do think marketing sections are senseless, unless they have some notability to them. Some films have that some do not. In most cases, it would be one of the first sections I would vote to be removed if an article became too long--unless evidence can be shown that the marketing was notable in some way. Also, "exclusive footage" is not marketing when it's shown to a limited number of people who have access to the event. It isn't some wide-scale event.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole is right.  It's rather indiscriminate to say that a studio has provided a film by promoting its footage or by distributing promotional materials.  Like Bignole said, if there are unique marketing ploys, like the two viral marketing campaigns that have been had for this film, it can be covered as notable highlights of the marketing.  For example, in Production, cameras are used to film these movies, extras are hired to stand in the background, lights need to be hooked up for interior scenes.  These are things to expect, and the distribution of footage and promotional materials like posters are also to be expected.  I don't believe that revealing footage of the film, whether for this or in upcoming trailers or TV spots, are notable in the long run.  We don't cover the revealing of images like the new Batsuit or the Batpod, but since there was content based on them, it was included.  We included real-world context from that convention about production, but there's nothing unique about footage being shown.  Films eventually show footage before their release at some point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Only those things which make a particular marketing campaign unique, and/or draw attention in a non-traditional manner, such as 360 experiences and so on, are worth noting. Finally, franshu, PLEASE register. You switch IPs regularly, making conversation with you in any way other than talk pages impossible. Register the franshu name, thank you. ThuranX 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not notable that footage was shown but it's very notable that a not-so-well-known rapper auditioned for a minor role, and lost! Mcflytrap 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  exclusive footage 

message: Are we sure Gordon is commissioner now? Wasn't he just promoted to a lieutenant in the last movie? Or has that been re-retconned?
:It could be someone's mistake while reporting, or it could be that we don't know the amount of time that has passed since the last film and he could have gotten promoted again.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the source, Gordan says "We can call him commissioner now." I think it's a bit to ambiguous at this point to add the information. The Filmaker 22:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, if you do not have an actual reliable source, that is beyond "I was there.", than we cannot keep the information. The Filmaker 00:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the fact that any and all electronic devices were banned from the event, I think any evidence is impossible. The Great Morgil 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thus, it cannot be included. No reliable sources. The Filmaker 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also add that since our cast lists are supposed to reflect either the official cast list or the cast as they first appear, he may end the film with the fall of Loeb and the rise of Gordon. Until we know, let's hold off. ThuranX 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon's rank? 

message: Why was the Premise section removed and included in the lead section?  It doesn't conform to WP:LEAD, which should be a concise overview of the article.  I don't think we had the most developed lead section before the premise was merged into it, but I think the Premise section should exist on its own.  What we could do is write a fuller lead section that encompasses the production and the marketing of the film, and the premise can be mentioned very briefly, "Batman confronts the Joker," or something like that.  It just seems odd to have "unique" information in the lead section that does not exist in the article, even though that Premise section is small.  (My expectation is that an official synopsis will be revealed in time, in which we can rewrite in a neutral tone, to lengthen the section some more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even notice the change. I don't believe it should have been moved either.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: restored it. ThuranX 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged it into the lead section because I found the small section to ugly, and felt it didn't deserve it's own section. The lead is normally an overview of the entire article that does not contain as Erik put it "unique information", however this does not mean that unique information is forbidden, nor is it even discouraged. And there is no reason I can see that it shouldn't be allowed in the lead, provided that it is not trivial and cannot be merged into other sections with subjects that deserve there own sections. The Star Wars film articles, up until recently, contained the note akin to "Among fans it is commonly referred to as (abbreviation for film title)". (for the record, they were removed for the lack of a good reference) If you'd like to find actual reasonings for it being an overview. The cast section pretty much provides the same information, with Batman, Gordon, and Dent rounding up criminals and fighting the Joker, although reference can still be kept. The Filmaker 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it can be granted that there will be some redundancy between Synopsis-type sections and Cast sections about plot details, whether the article is for a future film or a released film.  I understand that unique information can exist in the lead section under certain circumstances, but this information is usually sentences like the one you mentioned, not a full paragraph.  I believe that we should instead rewrite the lead section to encompass the article better, with a sentence mention of the premise like I mentioned before, about Batman dealing with the Joker.  (I don't usually focus on lead sections for future films since they tend to change rapidly, but we could have a full one here for the sake of being comprehensive.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premise section 

message: After researching the website IGN.com in the movie section they have seemed to have gotten a screen new actual footage trailer and from the information given it seems to be that A.Two face will appears in this movie B.Nothing on scarecrow has been said meaning he might be in the movie for nothing but a quick cameo and C.That Ledger will neither be doing a Jack Nicholson take or Mark Hammill(In the TAS) take on the joker but from what the film makers say he has his own style that is just as good check it out http://movies.ign.com/articles/812/812404p1.html
:I'm not positive whether or not IGN.com falls under WP:RS. But I'm not an expert on the subject. The Filmaker 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already cited, and IGN is a reliable source: a diamond in the rough. Alientraveller 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IGN is fairly reputable in its own right; it provides exclusive interviews and set visits.  However, when it reports something as a rumor, it should be overlooked.  It's not The New York Times in terms of scooper reports being substantial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some information 

message: Look here http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11644 can we use this somewhere or not? ManofSTEEL 2772
:At the moment, no, because we have no critical commentary to accompany any new images. But, it should be ok to leave this link here for later, when the article is more developed. There were some good images in there, like one of the Joker and Batman, and I'm sure that when the article is more fleshed out these will provide better quality then a simply screenshot via DVD. That is, if we find that what's on those pages is something we can use.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Images

message: If these arent correctly sourced or cited with truth, i apologize.
(link removed)
(link removed)
(link removed)     found them there.
:As said below, these cannot be included unless they are used with critical commentary. The Filmaker 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that the images have been removed from numerous websites, which is more reason not to include the images.  I don't think it matters to discuss their inclusion due to the illegal distribution.  When images are distributed in an official capacity, we can see about matching them with any relevant content in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Joker pics. 

message: in the article you discuss the design of the new batsuit. there are pictures out there that show the new suit. i would like to see a picture of the batsuit in the article because you can describe it all you want but i know that you dont get the full effect of how different it is unless you see. this is just a suggestion but i do believe it would improve the article because you do describe the differences, so show them as well. ~DOUBLE D~  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.19.73.142 (talk)  
:Consensus was reached here. Alientraveller 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason for not using it is because we had to decide on either the Batsuit or the Batpod, and the Batpod had more real world content available describing it. We cannot have both, because the section on the design cannot support two images.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An additional reason is that the current official image of the Batsuit is not quite clear, either.  The illegally leaked photos of the new Batsuit obviously cannot belong on Wikipedia.  When more overall information about Design is forthcoming (see length of Batman Begins#Batsuit), we can incorporate that information and the relevant photo. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman Picture 

message: The budget for the movie now exceeds $200 million, see here http://movies.ign.com/articles/814/814250p1.html
Consider changing the budget info of the main article accordingly. 72.49.194.69 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IGN isn't as reliable as the Chicago offices. Alientraveller 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that IGN cites a scooper report from HollywoodChicago.com.  So someone purportedly involved with the studio sharing this information isn't verifiable.  $50 million is a big difference, and I'm sure a more reliable source will surface about the budget growth, provided that it's true. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: IGN isn't as reliable dude. Don't mess with wording silly boy/girl. Alientraveller 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be condescending.  I think he just needed a clearer explanation about why the IGN citation would not be appropriate here (the scooper issue).  I'm sure if IGN had an exclusive interview with a producer that said the budget went up to $200 million, IGN would be appropriate to cite here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry there fellow editors. Alientraveller 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Budget info 

message: cbs2chicago.com says: "Star Christian Bale will be seen hanging out around the IBM Building on Wabash -- since that's doubling for the headquarters of Wayne Enterprises."  I don't remember if this was covered in Batman Begins, but the article for the building is here.  Worth including? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight conflict -- 330 North Wabash isn't the home to IBM anymore, Hyatt Center (on S. Wacker Drive) is.  So which building should it be assumed?  Hyatt Center looks like the one, so I don't know how to word this reference with the apparent conflict. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we wait. Besides, wasn't Wayne Enterprises the Chicago Board of Trade Building? Alientraveller 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, we'll wait, but I have a feeling that it's 330 North Wabash -- it was known as IBM Plaza, where Hyatt Center hosts a bunch of companies.  I don't remember the film, though... I thought that was the central water hub?  Bignole saw the movie recently, he should be able to tell us. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as exteriors are concerned, neither really look like Wayne Enterprises, they could have doubled on the inside. But, I'm sure I'll be going through the DVD special features for the BB FA drive after the review section is done, and if it was different then we could note that they changed the building stand-ins.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Loeb is in this film, so Colin McFarlane should be added into the cast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk • contribs) 
:Unless you actually have a reliable source... Alientraveller 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loeb

message: I'm a Chicago journalist and film critic. I haven't updated anything in this article until now and I'm noticing everything I'm adding is being deleted. I have been a Chicago journalist since 2000. I have been reporting accurately on The Dark Knight since day one of filming. I can point out hundreds of news articles around the Web from other legitimate publications that have referenced my reports. My news thread on The Dark Knight www.hollywoodchicago.com/labels/dark_knight.html here] has a good deal of verifiable information that is not in the Wikipedia article for the film. What is the best way for me to include this information such that I meet Wikipedia's policies? --AdamFendelman 06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left you a long note about this on your talk page. The bare bones of it is, you've admitted yourself that it's your blog, and comprised of original content. Both are red flags on Wikipedia, and while occcasionally blogs can be cited, within narrow constraints, Original Content is almost 100% no no. (I say almost because WP is huge, and if I make it absolute, someone will show up in a blink to show me the ONE exception to policy). That's why in the nutshell. Sorry it works out that way, but ultimately, it make this place stronger and stable. ThuranX 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what was said above by the editor, thanks for mentioning this. I would not have found the content otherwise and I found it very informative and full of interesting details. 72.49.194.69 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the reasons that Alientraveller and ThuranX have left on your talk page.  The information is not appropriately verifiable in not coming from a reliable source, among the reasons of spam and COI.  Twenty years down the road, looking back at this article, it would not strike anyone as encyclopedic that a film critic's blog of scooper contacts was used to substantiate information about the film.  If the information is verifiable, it will become publicized in more reliable sources in due time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HollywoodChicago.com

message: I´ve seen the promotional logo has been changed and now is one with the joker´s face. I thought that poster was fake, and I think that this had even been discussed before. Franshu 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blame the ignorant newbie, that's all. Alientraveller 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He might not even be aware that the image was fake.  Let's AGF, huh?  It should have been removed, in any case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that he was ignorant if he added a fake, so I sent him a message. Alientraveller 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional logo 

message: 'Dark Knight' flies to Hong Kong - Not sure if this adds anything to the detail already in the article about the Hong Kong filming.  There's a lot of uncertain detail, but just placing it here if anyone seems anything worth implementing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it go under Ledger or Caine's information? Alientraveller 09:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it depends... I was thinking that the relevance may be less later on when obviously everyone will be comparing Ledger's Joker to Nicholson's Joker.  I think it should go with Ledger's information as a temporary description.  For example, "Caine described Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker to be 'like a clown figure, benign but wicked', and that Ledger's portrayal in comparison was that of a 'really scary psychopath'."  Sound good? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The technician headline's relevant to the production, but not the plot stuff. In-universe, it's nothing, real world, fairly important, as deaths on set are rare, not ordinary. My 2 cents. ThuranX 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, dude, it's in Filming. Alientraveller 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was taking a broader perspective in looking at the issue, meaning that the death doesn't shape the in-universe outcome of the film (as other production details would do, like filming locations), but the rarity of a crewperson's death on set makes it notable.  At least, that's what I got out of his 2 cents. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik got it. Exacty what I meant. It's notable as an event in and of itself, exclusive of the production, as a result of both it's relative rarity and the... 'size' of the productionv (not unlike the helicopter crash on Twilight Zone). I know it's in the article, AT, I'm merely supporting that. ThuranX 03:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: Six Flags theme parks has announced 3 new attractions to come out in 2008 featuring the Dark Knight name. These new rides are based off of the Dark Knight film and will create a marketing alliance in 2008. The description of the rides states that you "Be transformed into a citizen of
Gotham City — caught in the middle of a city under siege and torn apart by The Joker. 
With The Dark Knight, experience the ride of a lifetime.  Venture through demented hallways of twists, turns and hallucinatory images, while being tormented by The Joker himself.  Then set foot onto a distressed, vandalized train platform.  You can only guess at what awaits as you speed through six
180-degree hairpin turns, climb unseen hills, plunge into pitch darkness and dip into unforeseen danger.  As you attempt to escape the terror, your only hope is that Gotham's Silent Guardian —Batman — can save you! " September 27th 2007
These rides are opening at Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey, Six Flags Great America in Illinois, and Six Flags New England in Massachusetts.
This would be useful information in the marketing section for The Dark Knight Film.
http://www.sixflags.com/greatAmerica/rides/TheDarkKnightCoaster.aspx
http://www.sixflags.com/newEngland/rides/TheDarkKnightCoaster.aspx
http://www.sixflags.com/greatAdventure/rides/TheDarkKnightCoaster.aspx
:A couple of actual headlines to address this: Daily Herald and UltimateRollercoaster.com. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Knight Marketing  

message: I have looked and found that so far there are more British Actors than American! Y2J RKO 22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being...?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be his point is that there are more British actors on this movie than Americans. Of course, what you meant to ask is that why put that here on a talk page for thew article when it should be on a discussion forum. Good question... --Vinnyvinny2 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure if he was just stating a fact, or if he was trying to insinuate that this is a British film and not an American film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To throw in my $0.02, unless there's a verifiable reason for this selection (could simply be happenstance), or maybe when a reviewer makes that observation when the film comes out, it doesn't warrant a mention in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be like a random coincidence. If we fill the article with things like this, then we will have an unmanageable trivia section, which I understand isn't loved by the wikipedia staff. --Vinnyvinny2 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let them do as they will, but if it start to become a long list of pointless facts, then it has to go. I'm hopping off for dinner. --Vinnyvinny2 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain 

message: Time Magazine; October 8, 2007, page 27, has a brief mention of the film. "Filing for the next Batman installment is set to begin this November in bustling Hong Kong, but local politicians are worried that noisy film sets and traffic jams could disrupt the metropolis. An official warned residents to "prepare earplugs" for the helicopters that will be used to film lat-night scenes." Could this information go into the production section, or is Time Magazine an unreliable resource? ARBlackwood 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why you're using hte hostile sarcasm, but yes, the nformation can go in, go ahead and add it in. ThuranX 05:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on local concern over the noise is in the article. Alientraveller 12:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't using hostile sarcasm, I'm still not 100% clear on Wikipedia's use of irrefutable resources. ARBlackwood 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TIME magazine = good source. Almost all news organizations would be considered reliable sources. Now, if MSNBC says, "we heard from an anonymous source..." I wouldn't consider the information itself reliable, regardless of MSNBC's reliability. There information may be 100% true, but we're built on verifiability and not truth, and we wouldn't be able to verify an anonymous source. Blogs would be unreliable, unless they are the blog of someone working on the film, and by someone working on the film I mean someone who has a significant position, like the writer, producer, director, production manager, etc etc. The blog of the "Best Boy" wouldn't really cut it. Verifiability is the top priority, and usually you can determine the reliability of a source by the verifiability of the information. Push comes to shove, just ask...as you did. Someone will always weigh in.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on the matter about avoiding mainstream newspapers' usage of anonymous sources -- they do this a lot with politics.  I think that because of the reliable source's background for fact-checking and editorial oversight permits the mention of that information, though the reliable source should be identified.  Reports from anonymous sources are not as acceptable from movie websites because of the lack of reliable source criteria if the information is not publicly from the primary sources (filmmakers).  On movie websites, all it would take is a friend-of-a-friend to e-mail the webmaster and pass along the information, which will have dubious circulation.  However, if The New York Times writes about reports from inside the studio regarding troubles with production, that's verifiable content per WP:V. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict per usual) The general rule of thumb, at least for film information, is that mainstream newspapers and magazines are considered reliable because the criteria is to have a reputation for fact-checking and having editorial oversight.  Websites are trickier because they tend to be the forefront of rumors in some cases, but they can provide some great interviews in others.  Time definitely qualifies as a good reliable source, but I think that the existing Reuters citation in the article covers the bases.  If you think that there's anything missing in the description, feel free to say so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing could be applied to those political "anonymous sources". All it takes is one disgruntled employee to spread some rumors under an "anonymous" title. Doesn't necessarily meant any facts were checked.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how political articles receive coverage of anonymous sources by reliable sources like the New York Times, but for content to be verifiable, it needs to be published by a reliable source.  Reliable sources have editorial oversight, so anonymous sources would be certain to be tied to the production.  With movie websites, there's no assurance that an anonymous person reporting a scoop truly has ties with the film's production.  Here's an example that came to mind: Across the Universe, "Mr. Roth’s moves have left Ms. Taymor feeling helpless and considering taking her name off the movie, according to an individual close to the movie who would not be named because of the sensitivity of the situation."  Wouldn't it be acceptable to include this detail or similar details using proper wording? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd concur with Erik here, BigNole. Esp. in light of the coverage in instances like Jayson Blair and CBS News/dan rather, the usual verification protocols broke down, and then the story about the story makes news. Usually all serious journalistic endeavours hold some significant standards, even Fox news, though not any of it's attendant 'analysis' shows, like Oreilly, Hannity, and so on.  What makes Fox suh a target is that it seems to pick and choose what facts are reported, and what context they're given, not thatthe facts themselves are false, just that taken in the wrong, or no, context, it's easy to mislead. As Erik says, though, JoBlo and AICN don't have to use those standards, and indeed, if they were using those standards, they'd have little to nothing to report, so their standards aren't the same. It's not perfect, but it's reliable enough that when a major news organization cites an anon source, it's  usually to confirm facts they've already found, or use facts to build a case around such a report. It's very rare to see an anon source as the ONLY source for the facts. ThuranX 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To me, no. I don't typically like using information from sources who keep their names in the dark, as it makes it hard to attribute the verified information to someone. The information is verifiable, yes, the source is reliable, yes, but the information itself is not reliable to me because we cannot attribute to anyone but "an individual close to the movie". What if that individual was the Dolly Grip? They're close to the movie, yet I wouldn't trust their knowledge of the events that took place, most likely, behind closed doors. That's just me.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Filming the Narrows

message: 5 QUESTIONS WITH… CHRISTOPHER NOLAN - Nolan on how The Dark Knight will be structured. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented the citation, but I'm not sure if I captured correctly what the director said.  Feel free to take a look at my revision and comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragmented storytelling 

message: Should the use of the Keysi Fighting Method in the Dark Knight be mentioned in this article?(http://www.keysikfm.com/darkknight.php) 24.24.90.148 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The detail has been added, though the fighting method article could use some improvement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keysi 

message: There will be a 7 minute preview of The Dark Knight in the imax version of "I Am Legend".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman0056 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard about this, but is there actual confirmation about the preview rather than movie blog rumblings? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview 

message: Total Film talked to Christian Bale, who said about the Joker, "It’s a much more anarchic, punk rock, almost junkie version of it.  He’s that kind of psycho kid that just will do anything and has absolutely no conscience and morals – I think they’ve done a real nice job with his look. It’s certainly a whole lot more dangerous; there’s a bit of Clockwork Orange there, a bit of Sid Vicious, a whole lot of great, anarchic personalities blended within The Joker."  How shall we whittle this down to describe the character in the appropriate bulleted entry? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to use bullets?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to put Bale's description somewhere in the bulleted entry beginning with Heath Ledger as The Joker. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh..lol. Do you think we really need to whittle any down? We don't really have much more than casting news in there now.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant summarizing the quote to the keywords.  Something like, "Bale described the Joker to have anarchic and punk rock traits to the character, citing influences from A Clockwork Orange and Sid Vicious in Ledger's portrayal."  (Hey, didn't we have A Clockwork Orange descriptive bit cited in this article sometime ago?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I vaguely remember something like that, but you'd be hard pressed to find it from the history. I'd defintely include the "no conscience and morals" bit.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker's attributes 

message: When we go into November, I suggest we archive all October discussions to Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/Archive 4 and any discussion afterward will go into Archive 5. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about archiving 

message: I found this in SHH:
http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6414
There´s no doubt is a reliable source, as its an official page. I don´t know if we could state that a new trailer will come out this halloween, but at least its useful to show how influenced this film was by THE LONG HALLOWEEN.Franshu 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that common imagery isn't indicative of much. We've had discussions about the level of detail regarding marketing, and the inclusion of each and every image would constitute little more than a trivia list or 'indiscriminate collection of facts'. Further, can we be sure that the subtleties of the advertising are being managed by Nolan and the creative team of the film, or is that aspect being run by a marketing group who found an image in the comics which would be well noted by comics folks and which was appropraite to the calendar and season. ThuranX 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no verifiable content by reliable sources about what a pumpkin on that website means.  For all we know, it could mean, "Happy Halloween!" and nothing more.  Until we hear more about the reason for the pumpkin, there's no encyclopedic value in mentioning its appearance in the month of All Hallows' Eve. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like it; depending on what it turns out to be, we can use that SHH headline if necessary (or hopefully something better) when the event takes place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like the directions lead you to a letter in the alphabet. The message still has yet to be deciphered; there are a few missing letters. Using common sense, I filled in the blanks and got this: "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules," which seems befitting to how Bale described the Joker as being anarchistic. 63.139.169.49 16:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween 

message: Can we put more detail in the Marketing section?  There is some information regarding the marketing campaign by 42 Entertainment, but the information, as it stands today, is begging an update, missing information about the websites themselves, and references (such as 'Anticipation') which are insufficient at best.  For example, searching for "Whysoserious" or "Why so serious" returns 0 applicable results, as with variations on "I believe in harvey dent too".  These would be common searches for people looking for information about the movie's marketing and/or alternate reality games. For reference, es.wikipedia.org has more accurate information about the movie's viral marketing.  Thebruce0 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean a more in-depth description of the website as it is seen by the user.  The issue with adding such descriptions is that the information is not verifiable -- not able to be checked by other users -- down the road when the website's content is updated.  Let me know if this is what you mean, because I'm not sure if there's any additional verifiable content about 42 Entertainment's marketing campaign out there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the spanish page doesn't particularly have more accurate information, but instead, more information overall. Included are the fact that a panel was held at Wizard World Chicago, and who was there (an that's about it), and a scene-by-scene, line-by-line of the teaser shown there. We've discussed such material, and added what consensus was found to add. I don't think our coverage lacks at all. ThuranX 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing 

message: Because it seems to have been for a very long time. You might understand that for whatever failings Wikipedia might perpetuate it is a publicly open encyclopedia to be edited by all. Not just one to be adopted as a conceited vanguard by fanboys wanting to protect their precious little film. Le Gibbon 06:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith about the editors.  I actually just noticed that this article was semi-protected a couple of days ago and was wondering why it has been under protection for so long.  I'll see what I can find out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contacted the admin who last protected the page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been unprotected as a result of the actions of this "fanboy". :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page constantly protected? 

message: There is an article at the German site Kino.de (translated here).  I've included the IMAX preview information, but I'm not sure what else would fit in the Wikipedia article for the time being.  I don't want to enter a synthesis of the Premise section, which can become too interpretative.  Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is also at SHH. I think the white lenses thing should be mentioned as well.
http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6436
Franshu 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that was the next bit that I put in, actually, since we have a paragraph about the Batsuit.  It's just the plot detail that concerns me -- at Spider-Man 3 before its release, we had a mish-mash of sources trying to represent the film's plot.  Ultimately, we decided to stick with a simpler premise.  There's plot detail at the article like Batman visiting Hong Kong and that the Joker's "birth" won't be shown, so they don't seem to fit at the moment.  When the film comes out, it'll be clear why Batman visits Hong Kong, and I'm sure there'd be commentary about the filmmakers not showing how the Joker came to be, if this was really the case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess we'll see if film critics and audiences have a problem with it or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article 

message: When I added information about Mel Wesson from here (his official site), I noticed the teaser poster but wasn't sure about its authenticity.  Comics2Film.com has brought up the issue, so I'd like to ask to make sure that this poster is authentic (via reliable sources) for replacing the promotional logo in the article.  We've seen fake posters and fan art before, so let's have some confirmation about this latest possibility before actually adding it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it on the Superherohype.com boards, it's fan art. Alientraveller 14:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw that poster awhile ago--at least a few weeks.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know, thanks for the heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's really pretty lame. Mcflytrap 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new poster