Talk:Batman & Robin (film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Batman & Robin (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead

• I'm a bit confused by the lead. Although I know that the film is part of a series, it doesn't say as such until the second sentence, after it has says "Chris O'Donnell returning" and "introducing Batgirl".

Plot

• I'd suggest wikilinking Gotham.
• Bat-Signal and Bat-signal. Which is correct? Also no need to link twice.

Cast

• "However, Batman is facing an argument with Robin feeling he can take on villains without him." There should be a comma between Robin and feeling. However it might need rewording anyway. Who feels he can take on villains alone? Batman or Robin?
• Is MacGregor's Syndrome a fictional disease?

Development

• Are the links to February 1996 and March 1996 necessary?
• There's several use of brackets. I'm not a big fan of brackets, if the text is vital then I feel it's better without brackets.

Box office

• "In contrast, The Lost World grossed over $600 million globally." Do you have a reference for this?

Legacy

• What happened to Clooney's three-film contract?

References

• The first link isn't formatted correctly?
• Should it been done in two columns rather than three?

General

• There seems to be a lot of repeated wikilinks.
• Are there any more appropriate images?

A bit to do, so I'll put it on hold for now. Peanut4 (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. There aren't any appropriate images, beyond perhaps free photos of the actors, but they aren't really appropriate for this film article. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The plot says McGregor's Syndrome, the cast says MacGregor's Syndrome. Which is correct? Secondly is this a real or fictional disease? Everything else looks alright. If there any images which might be in the slightest bit appropriate, it might be worth considering adding them because it's a lot of text to work through. Peanut4 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter spelling is correct; the former has been fixed. It is a fictional disease. I've added an image of Clooney as he plays an important role in this film, and I have added the image to the paragraph that discusses when he was hired. Gary King (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

All looks good now. I've added a note to clarify the disease is a fictional one, in the cast section. Obviously it would be nice to find some more appropriate images. But all round, good work. Peanut4 (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Batman & Robin (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hello there, I'm Wildroot. I have brought over 20 articles to GA-status. This also includes Batman, Batman Returns and Batman Forever. A while ago, I planned to get Batman & Robin to GA status, but stopped. A lot of my work still remains in this article.

My concerns include

• The Plot section is too long.
• The Lead does not summarize the entire article, not to mention the Citation Needed nags.
• Original research: For example the film made "$238,207,122, making it technically a success but not on the scale the studio had hoped." That's not listed anywhere in the Box Office Mojo article where it claims to be sourced from.
• This article from Batman-on-Film does not meet the Reliable source quota.

Wildroot (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how it has been nine days, and nobody really cares about this issue, I have decided to delist the article. Do not worry because within two weeks I will have this this article to GA-status. I am a great editor, and have brought over 20 film articles to GA status. Do not worry because Batman & Robin is in good hands. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

George Clooney's refunds

Is there any actual basis to the claims that George Clooney offers refunds for tickets? Because searching for it, I couldn't find any single reputable source about this and as far as I can tell, it's just an apocryphal story that managed to live on. 140.146.210.59 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Robin/Nightwing

"Batman's sidekick is shown as an apparent amalgamation between the characters of Robin and Nightwing." Not exactly--in the comics, Dick Grayson starts out as the first Robin, but adopts the identity of Nightwing when he grows up. It would be better and more factual to say that Grayson seems to be transitioning toward his eventual Nightwing identity, complete with a costumes that split the difference between the two personae. Editing accordingly. Boomshadow (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Batman & Robin (film)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. My initial impression is positive, but I'll need to read the whole article before passing or failing it. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started reviewing it and have noticed a few issues with the plot summary:

1. The sentence, "That night, a charity event is held by Wayne Enterprises with special guests, Batman and Robin and she decides to use her abilities to seduce Batman and Robin." really needs some work.
   
2. Although the first paragraph of description is fine, paragraphs 2 and 3 sound really choppy; there's a lot of short sentences that sound kind of stilted. Rewriting those paragraphs, or just finding places were sentences could be combined, would be great.
   

-Drilnoth (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The following quotation in the "Cast" section has a reference, but the quotation itself is not actually located at the referenced website article: "Schumacher cast Clooney in the role because he felt the actor "could step away from a more brooding, self-centered Batman, like Michael Keaton or Val Kilmer, and be more more, accessible and fun."". After reading through the cited source, the quotation looks like it might actually be paraphrasing, so it should be rewritten a bit. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've finished my review and have put the article on hold for the improvement discussed above. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The plot summary could still use a little work in this regard.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   A few more images would be nice, but they aren't needed for GA.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good work!

-Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

added info

I added info on the Minicells that Doritos had in their bags of chips. Yami (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BatGirl

How can BatGirl be Alfred's niece ? She is Commissioner Gordon's daughter, right ? So....?Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They changed it for the movie. Wildroot (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual interpretation

This part of the article is very offensive. Quote: Many observers accused the homosexual Schumacher of adding possible homosexual innuendos in the storyline. I find it offensive, very offensive, I don't like shumacher but I think this should be changed. Besides the citation redirects to another wikipedia article that doen't have anything to do with the aforementioned quote.Saturn orfeo (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The citation actually refers to the DVD commentary, where one of the crew members apparently said this about how observers perceived the film. Erik (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it offensive? Siameseare ||| Ventriloquist: My lips didn't move! Scarface: So what?! You're a ventriloquist! 05:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This movie HAD to have been the inspiration for the Ambiguously Gay Duo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ambiguously Gay Duo debuted in 1996, a year before Batman & Robin. GoingBatty (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Scarface cameo

When Bane brakes into Arkham Asylum ans steals Mr. Freeze's suit, the Scarface puppet can be seen behind the Riddler's costume. Should this be added? Siameseare ||| Ventriloquist: My lips didn't move! Scarface: So what?! You're a ventriloquist! 05:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific websites

Back then the filmmakers had several domains related to the film:

• Batman.com
• Androbin.com
• Batgirl.com
• Mrfreeze.com
• Poisonivy.com

Lemme see how they differ WhisperToMe (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

protagonist

a doubt... the film's title is Batman and Robin, the titular characters are therefore the heroes. but howcome arnold (mr. freeze, the antagonist) is at the top? pls reply on my talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Arnold got top billing on the movie - see the credits on the bottom of the movie poster. GoingBatty (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Average vs. Negative

All right. There has been some issues regarding the use of "average to negative" as opposed to "negative" in the lead section. On Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews rank the film as 13%, and Metacritic ranked the film 28/100, which is negative or "generally unfavorable" according to Metacritic. Given the fact that I don't want to get into an edit war (which is forbidden), I have been thinking about posting here. With that said, I think we should gain a consensus on whether we should use "average", "average to negative" or just "negative".Please include your reasoning if you wish, but let's try to keep it to one post per without this turning into an argument or a battleground. I will go first. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

13% and 28/100 seem to be negative. Any references for "average"? GoingBatty (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe there's none that I can find. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to find a reference to say something that is so blatantly obvious. At this point, you are unable to do the right thing because you can't find a reference that you can directly quote. Although this is based on good intentions, it ends up being harmful to the article. Please see WP:BLUE. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

critical reaction

I suggest you change the reactions to universally panned as it is listed as one films considered the worst on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk • contribs) 20:14, June 3, 2014

"Universally" would mean by everyone everywhere. A 12% on Rotten Tomatoes means that 12% of tracked critics liked it. 88% of tracked critics is not 100% of everybody. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why not say "near universally panned" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because we don't have a source saying that nearly everyone everywhere "panned" it. We have a reliable source that says that 12% of the critics tracked by Rotten Tomatoes gave it a positive review, so that is what we say. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's one, heavily panned, as only 12% gave it a positive review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't get it. We use neutral language (i.e. no "panned" when referring to a film that has negative reviews, that's considered WP:OR and WP:NPOV. So, I think we don't need "panned" in this particular case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Superman IV has a 12% rating on rotten tomatoes, and on Wikipedia it says universally panned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the last guy, let's at at least changes it to panned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk • contribs) 04:08, June 29, 2014

Yes, you agree with yourself. I guess that's a consensus of some sort... - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If Superman IV says that 12% positive reviews from the reviewers on RT is "universally panned" then that article needs to be corrected (I stop by there next). The word "universal" has a meaning that does not encompass 88%. "Universally panned by critics" means every critic panned it. 12% on RT means at least 12% of the critics on RT liked it.

So why not "nearly universally"? Is 88% of a selected group (those critics on RT) "nearly" 100% of ALL critics (i.e., including those not tracked by RT)? Clearly not.

How about some other wording about how many critics "panned" it? "Pan" means to criticize severely. 88% of critics on RT gave it a negative review. Were all of those "pan" reviews? I've seen films that I'd not give a positive review to but wouldn't "criticize severely". If you believe all of the negative reviews were "pannings", realize that your determination of that is your opinion, not a fact. Please review WP:NOR.

Instead, the article should state the facts: The film has a 12% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

For your information, the rotten tomatoes rating is now 11%, so I say change it to panned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.193 (talk • contribs) 14:32, June 29, 2014

If the RT score went to zero my reasoning would still stand. Please read it again and ask about anything you don't understand. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

listen, the film should say panned because it is on Wikipedia's list of films considered the worst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.95.188 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's how I think movies on Wikipedia should be judged based on rotten tomatoes ratings; 0-4%: universally panned, 5-14%: panned, 15-24%: extremely negative reception, 25-34%: negative reviews, 35-44%: mixed to negative reviews, 45-54%: mixed reviews, 55-64%: mixed to positive reviews, 65-74%: positive reviews, 75-84%: extremely positive reception, 85-94%: acclaimed, 95-100%: universally acclaimed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.233.197 (talk • contribs) 17:18, July 27, 2014

Three problems:

1) It is your opinion. There is nothing verifiable about it.

2) The Rotten Tomatoes percentage does not indicate how strongly critics felt about a movies. 20% ("panned", in your opinion) does not mean that most critics hated it. It means that 20% of reviews were, in RT's opinion, positive. Maybe 20% gave it 5 stars and 80% gave it 2.5 stars (an average of 3 stars overall). Maybe 20% gave it 2.6 stars and 80% gave it zero stars (an average of 0.5 stars). Heck, 34% could reflect an average score of up to 3.35 stars; significantly above average, but "extremely negative reception" in your opinion.

3) You still don't seem to understand that the word "universal" means "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". Saying anything was "universally panned" is saying that everyone, without exception, panned it. Even a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't support this as RT does not include every review. The only way to include "universal" or "universally" is in a direct quote from a reliable source with a cite. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Then let's just say "batman and robin was panned by most critics and is considered one of the worst movies to be released in 1997" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.95.188 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

How about:

Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 11% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 85 reviews, certifying it "Rotten", with an average rating of 3.4/10, the consensus: "Joel Schumacher's tongue-in-cheek attitude hits an unbearable limit in Batman & Robin, resulting in a frantic and mindless movie that's too jokey to care much for." Metacritic collected an average score of 28, based on 21 reviews which is regarded as "generally unfavorable".

which is what the reliable sources actually say. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why can't we just say "batman and robin was panned by critics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.97.34 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. We'll stick with what the sources say. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You give me a legitimate reason why we can not just say it was panned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.152.251 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered. WP:V. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, I agree that we should NOT use the word panned as it implies an opinion and neither should we use other opinion-filled words to describe positive reception in other movies. This is just my opinion, but whatever we choose, it should be consistent for positive and negative reactions. However, we should accurately represent the quantitative negative reaction from the vast majority of reviewers. I have changed the sentence reading "Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 11% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 85 reviews, certifying it "Rotten"" to "Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 89% of critics have given the film a negative review based on 85 reviews, certifying it "Rotten"". This at least removed the unnecessary positive spin on the obvious negative feelings of the majority. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, while I agree that we should not use the word "panned", since it is NNPOV, we have to stick with what the sources say per SummerPhD's reasonings. I think that the proposed wording should be "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported an 11% approval rating with an average rating of 3.7/10 based on 85 reviews," because I think it logically represents the approval rating per WP:V and WP:RS (this is what Rotten Tomatoes says, after all). I have informed WT:FILM of this matter and am planning to ask Erik, an uninvolved editor, for his thoughts on the matter. Meanwhile, are there any thoughts or objections to my proposed wording? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to retain the original wording. While I fully appreciate Hamsterlopithecus's rationale for placing the emphasis on the negative reviews my problem is that the Rotten Tomato score does carry considerable public awareness and is used across many film articles. By flipping it in this way we could potentially confuse readers. The RT score is 11% so I think it is best if we stick with the number as given on the actual site. Betty Logan (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Like Betty says, flipping the rating around is very confusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Flipping it does make it more confusing if we are citing directly from rotten tomatoes. But is there any way we can say something like "the film received mostly negative reviews" as the first sentence? I think this is impossible to argue against and gets to the point quickly. We can then follow that sentence with the data as it currently reads from rotten tomatoes and metacritic. It just seems like a reader can't quickly get a feel for the reception without getting into the weeds and requiring an understanding of how rotten tomatoes does things. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose the addition of a summary sentence saying the reviews were mostly negative, but such a claim still needs to be directly sourced (as opposed to interpreted by Wikipedia editors from aggregator data). Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I've been thinking about this. I think that we can put the summary sentence saying the movie received mostly negative reviews and just cite metacritic and rotten tomatoes directly. The argument is that both of those sources in fact show that the movie indeed received mostly negative reviews. The only difference is that we will be summarizing their results instead of quoting them which requires an explanation of their website terminology, etc. What do you guys think? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments - No "panned". We don't need the non-neutral commentary. No "universal" anything. It's hyperbolic fluff and the universe is a big place. No "certified rotten" as it represents undue weight of one aggregator's opinion. The equivalent in Indian cinema articles: "the film was declared all-time blockbuster status". Just because one site describes something as a blockbuster, or super-hit or rotten doesn't make it a fact worth repeating. Non-neutral. If we need the summary (and I'm not saying that we do) something along the lines of "the film received generally negative critical response" is the way to go, followed by the aggregator scores. (Why does RT always go first, by the way?) If the film made various "Worst films" lists, that could also be presented neutrally, but would further sell the point that the movie sucked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  I added one sentence at the beginning of the section saying "The film received mostly negative reviews". I think this statement is well sourced based on the discussion that follows about specific ratings/reviews in specific websites. It just helps to have a straightforward summary without the website-specific terminology. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  I had added the following sentence, "The film received mostly negative reviews.", to the beginning of the Critical Reaction section. I think this is a very objective choice of words that summarizes the section and is supported by the following statistics and citations given in the section. User:Sjones23 reverted my edit citing "POV/SYN, let the reviews speak for themselves". I don't think the user has been following the recent discussion here. I asked him (on his talk page [1]) to come and talk here but he hasn't shown up. I will revert his edit in a few days if he still hasn't appeared. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry for the late reply, but I've been a bit busy. The "negative reviews" part may need to have a reliable source (not counting the review aggregators, as we should not interpret what the aggregators say). For example, Thor: The Dark World, a GA, includes the "mixed reviews" part in the lead, but it doesn't mention that in the reception section itself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  Synthesis is only original research if our summary implies a conclusion that is not implied by the sources. A source simply needs to objectively support the conclusion that is being made in the article/section. We don't build articles as collections of direct quotes from sources. However, in this case, I think it is fair to say that the sources objectively support the conclusion that this movie "received mostly negative reviews". That is not a controversial statement in the least. I think any reader going through the sources would reach the conclusion that the movie indeed received mostly negative reviews. Would you disagree with that? On the other hand, I am against using words like "the movie was universally panned" as this does sound like an opinion and does not follow directly from the currently available sources. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  Given your logic, while I have no objections of including the information that the critical reception (which is negative, or lackluster) should be mentioned in the article, I think we can find some other sources that explicitly support that information per WP:V and WP:OR. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  I don't understand how the cited sources don't validate that sentence. For example, you say you have no objection about including the statement that the film received mostly negative reviews. Are you sure that that is true? If so, how are you sure? It is because you are basing your information on the sources from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and reaching a completely logical conclusion based on the information in those sources. That is not original research (WP:SYN). There is something very wrong with the process if you are finding yourself unable to shorten something that you know is true just because you don't have a so-called reliable source that states it in that way verbatim, i.e. WP:BLUE. In your case, are you confident about your conclusion but are unsure about the sources that got you there? So we can't write the correct (based on the sources) conclusion in the article, but it's ok because the readers will reach that conclusion after going through all the statistics? Why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Please see WP:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary. I believe you are missing the spirit of the WP:OR guideline. There is no need for this fear of mentioning what we know is true. This seems like an excessive interpretation of that policy that is not allowing us to improve the article. Could we get some other people to chime in on this? Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  I know, but per Cyphoidbomb's comments above and [discussion] at WT:FILM I think we should either go with a lead-in summary or have no lead-in summary for the Critical reception section. I think we should explain what criticisms were involved in the film, using the critical reception of Transformers: Dark of the Moon as an ideal reference. Meanwhile, I'll go ask around at WT:FILM and see what can be done about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  Lord Sjones23, there doesn't seem to be a consensus in your cited discussion. Also, some users suggest to reach a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS instead of putting arbitrary blanket rules for all situations. Maybe we should think about this issue ourselves and form our own opinion. Now, back to our discussion: I am still a bit confused about your position. At first you were ok with incorporating the "received mostly negative reviews" sentence in (I assume because you are aware that this is overwhelmingly likely to be true), but if and only if we found a source that we could cite verbatim. My claim is that that statement is supported by the actual quantifiable reviews cited from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (it isn't an opinion, and it is definitely not phrased like one). You seem to agree with this now, but are hesitant because other articles decided to go in another direction. May I suggest that we just go ahead and come up with our own solution as best as we can and go with it (i.e. WP:BEBOLD) until we find a real reason why we shouldn't. At that point, we can revisit this problem and find the best solution considering the new circumstances. What do you think? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Section break

All right. While I agree with Hamsterlopithecus' concerns about the reception (which is lackluster), my position on this is that we should not add a consensus based on RT and MC scores, but that opinions on the matter should be sourced based on the actual content of reviews. Unless someone objects, I think we should come up with a solution as best as we can in the next couple of days per Hamsterlopithecus while I plan to expand the reception section using other GAs of superhero film articles like Iron Man and Thor as references. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If we are going to say the film received "mostly negative reviews" then we need a reputable source that explicitly says something to that effect. The aggregators are not suitable sources for such a claim: the aggregator stats only reflect the reviews the aggregators have aggregated, which may or may not be representative, and as Sjones23 points out the stats themselves precisely summarise the findings of the aggregtor. It is original research to extrapolate those findings to the whole of the critical reception the film received. Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Could we say "The film received mostly negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, two of the most popular review aggregator websites.", and then go on to cite the detailed stats? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batman & Robin (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/vstory/VR1117343043.html?categoryid=38&cs=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/vstory/VR1117343049.html?categoryid=38&cs=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bill Finger Creator Credit

I've added Bill Finger to the infobox under the "based on" section along with Bob Kane. As I've stated on the other Batman film pages Finger is now an acknowledged co-creator of Batman. I think it's important to add this to each page since it keeps the pages as factual as possible - without this note in the infobox there is little or no reference to Finger as the co-creator, while some mention of Kane's contribution is still present. I've noted that Finger's contribution was uncredited in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly Lobotomy (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Panned?

An editor recently changed the article to claim the film was panned. The film only received "generally unfavorable reviews" from Metacritic, it didn't fall into the lower category of "overwhelming dislike". The sources currently in the article are not enough to support that claim that the film was panned, it violates NPOV to say otherwise without adding more sources. (Claims of audience response, or that the audience panned the film aren't supported by sources either.) -- 109.79.68.139 (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It is almost funny to see previous discussions above, that editors had to even argue that reviews were negative and not average: Talk:Batman_&_Robin_(film)#Average_vs._Negative. Then also another discussion where editors had to argue that it wasn't objectively fair to say the film was not panned, even though the reviews were negative: Talk:Batman_&_Robin_(film)#critical_reaction

My edit reverted a recent unsourced claim that the film was panned.[2] That seems to be in keeping WP:STATUSQUO that was achieved after consensus discussions. -- 109.79.68.139 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There are sources out there that describe it as being "panned", but unless these sources are worked into the article body, there is no basis for us to include such phrasing in the lead. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I had no idea we had apologists of Batman & Robin on Wiki.

Claiming that the film wasn't panned or didn't receive overwhelmingly negative reviews is straight up delusional. I find it amusing that in the same opening paragraphs describing Batman and Robin, is that it's listed as one of the worst films ever made yet saying the film was panned by critics is a step too far.

Metacritic's standard of grading only labels films as universal acclaim, mostly favorable reviews, mixed or average reviews, and generally unfavorable reviews. A film can have a zero on Metacritic and will still be labeled as "generally unfavorable."

Any film that's in the red zone on Metacritic (generally unfavorable reviews) means the film has received very scathing reviews. Lotsofsalt (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

On Metacritic the film received one positive review, 9 average reviews and 11 negative reviews. That's a pretty mixed bag, so "generally unfavorable" seems like an apt description. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing their subjective opinion on the subject, and neither should any Wikipedia editor on any talk page ever. To reiterate my point above, Metacritic is the only source currently used in the article to make a summary statement about the general critical response. Unless you provide better sources (and incorporate those into the article body first per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), we have no choice but to stick with that one. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Batman IV" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"Batman 4" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Reception in the lead

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

I haven't looked into this specific situation, but yes I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. Unless a source or group of sources summarizes the critical reception for us (similar to what RT does for most feature films), then we cannot include a summary statement that we have created ourselves. Creating one would be a form of SYNTH. This guidance was also added recently to MOS:FILM. See the 3rd paragraph of WP:FILMLEAD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

GoneIn60, great to hear that MOS finally addresses this. Synthesis of reviews in lead sections has become commonplace, and any attempts to remove are often immediately challenged in my experience because editors are so used to it. It's kind of incredible how many GAs (and I believe even FAs) are out there that contain this sort of phrasing without any proper sourcing to back it up. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fight it all the time as well (and a lot more recently). Even some veteran editors that participate at WT:FILM have defended summary statements in the past. That's what led to the recent discussion 7-8 months ago to get it inserted into a guideline. But much like we have with genre edit warriors, I imagine it will continue to be a problem with drive-by IPs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The IP edits are disruptive, and infringe on multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL and MOS:LEAD. If it happens again then semi-protection will have to be sought. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Betty Logan, my request for page protection yesterday was declined, and I was advised to to start a discussion here. Let's see what happens. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is par for the course. Admins are usually reluctant to grant page protection if there has been no attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page. Often, an IP editor may be unaware of the various policies and guidelines that regulate article content. If it happens again I would suggest reverting (and including a link to this discussion in the edit summary) and leaving a note at the editor's talk page directing them to this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I had previously left messages on two IP talk pages (I believe there are two editors behind all of these IPs) without any response so far. I doubt we'll get though to them, but I understand now that it's best practice to also start a thread at the article talk before seeking page protection. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the recent page protection denial, and here is all the disruption from the past 3 weeks. Seems like a slam dunk case to me.

• 14:01, April 5, 2023 by 205.155.79.200 (talk)
• 12:59, April 5, 2023 by 64.39.114.83 (talk) – same exact edit as 205.155.79.200 but from a different IP
• 10:44, April 4, 2023 by 24.1.85.35 (talk) – Different kind of disruption, but same area
• 18:03, March 21, 2023 by 205.155.82.48 (talk)
• 11:59, March 21, 2023 by 64.39.124.228 (talk)
• 16:26, March 20, 2023 by multiple IPs including 205.155.77.3 (talk)
• 16:29, March 16, 2023 by 64.39.124.50 (talk)

Not sure if Ritchie333 is willing to revisit and take another look, but we either need to block the two main IP range culprits, or we need to simply protect the page. If more time is needed, then at least we can link back to this on the next PP request. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

...and the Cal State IP is back at it again. The persistence is kind of impressive. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thoughts? Didn't get a response from Ritchie so figured we'd bring out the big guns! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, one of them is an IP sock of a blocked editor, so I re-blocked it for a while. I also range blocked the other IPs because they've been warned constantly over the past few months, and I'd already range blocked one of their IP ranges. If more show up, I could do page protection or further range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I almost forgot about this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

...NinjaRobotPirate, looking at these recent edits (diff, diff, diff), I think it's safe to say that IP disruption is persistent enough to warrant semi-protection. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the new IP, which should be enough. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of constructive editing, but the disruption is also pretty intermittent. I think policy leans toward just blocking the IPs as they pop up in that circumstance. We've got a bunch of them who, individually, go through dozens of articles, changing random things without sources. One of them might change the runtime, another might change the distributor, and another might change "mixed reviews" to "positive reviews". It's a constant thing. Most of them have been blocked several times in the past and simply need someone to alert an admin about them so they can be blocked again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just hope you won't get annoyed by me pinging you every time I encounter a new IP. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind cleaning stuff up once a week or something like that. That's pretty low key. The problem is that there isn't really a good place to report disruptive IP editors who aren't vandals. It would probably get declined at WP:AIV because it's not vandalism and ignored at WP:ANI because it's not urgent. Some day, maybe I'll see if there's any interest in creating one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is too centralised in some respects. Perhaps what the film project needs is an "admin attention" page where perhaps these types of issues can be picked up by admins who belong the project (provided they don't infringe WP:INVOLVED). Admins who belong a particular project generally have a better understanding of the various issues that arise (genre wars anybody?) and are more familiar with the MOS (i.e. FILMPLOT etc). Provided it doesn't descend into content protectionism for established editors that would be infinitely superior to the current system. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly support a forum like this. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Redirect Pamela_Isley_(Batman_&_Robin)

I have retargeted Pamela_Isley_(Batman_&_Robin) to redirect here instead of Poison Ivy. I don't believe that the old version [3] would survive at WP:AFD as an independent article, and I haven't moved the merge tag over but it is possible that some content may be worth integrating here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Batman & Robin (film) → Batman & Robin – The only articles listed at Batman and Robin bearing the title "Batman & Robin" are the film, the soundtrack for the film, and a video game based on the film, among which the film is obviously the primary topic. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, an ampersand is sufficiently distinct from the word "and" for the title "Batman & Robin" to be unambiguous, and a hatnote linking to the Batman and Robin DAB page will suffice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. The typographical distinction between "&" and "and" is applied inconsistently and is not clearly intended to distinguish between different topics, as is clear from articles on closely related topics that refer to the same characters and setting, including Batman and Robin (comic book) and Batman and Robin (serial). Note as well that searches for "Batman and Robin" in quotation marks often return hits referring to the film. If necessary, an argument that this is simply the primary topic for both formats might be easier to defend. Dekimasuよ! 11:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  If editors believe "and" vs. "&" is for whatever reason not comparable to uppercase vs. lowercase, singular vs. plural, numbers vs. words, or punctuation vs. no punctuation, then yes, I would argue that the film is the primary topic for both "Batman & Robin" and "Batman and Robin". InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close preferably. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  How is a speedy close appropriate if there is no obvious breach in PAGs? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, "and"/"&" is not sufficient disambiguation. 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Obviously the pair themselves is an equivalent primary topic, not even SMALLDETAILS is enough to make it worth removing the disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.