Talk:The Batman (film)

Poster

Is there a specific reason the article uses this pretty terrible poster instead of something like this which appears to be part of the same batch since they both say "out March 4"? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Talk:The Batman (film)/Archive 1#New poster, the fact that the poster says "Only in cinemas" instead of "Only in theaters" indicates it's an international poster, so that's why the current poster is in place instead. If you can find a version of that poster with the release date and saying "theaters" instead of "cinemas", I guess the discussion would be settled. —El Millo (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Found one. —El Millo (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that poster was originally kept because it also had a billing block, apart from the theaters/cinemas difference. But someone reverted it to the poster without a billing block ([1]), saying: looks like the official version doesn't include the billing block. A billing block is also not needed since the image is low res, both of which seem like invalid arguments, as the posters included in IMP Awards aren't the only official ones, and any poster is official if it was made by the film's distributor. Regarding the low-res argument, the billing block is still needed if it exists, and it could be viewed in the "Source" link to the high-res image. —El Millo (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, the choices are between the current poster, with release date, American English, and billing block, and the other poster, with release date, American English, but no billing block. —El Millo (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It was decided in that discussion to use this one from the film's website, but then shortly after the film came out a user (now blocked as a sock) changed it to the current version. I said back then that I wasn't convinced that it was the "main" poster, but no one else chimed in, so the poster remained. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that poster is that it doesn't have the release date, so it isn't a theatrical release poster. I've never seen the "Now playing" posters used. This one I'd found would be the better option, if we prefer that one without a billing block to the current one with billing block. —El Millo (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The main point of the infobox poster is to be identifiable, which the one with Batman, Catwoman, Penguin and Riddler on is, as its used in most of the marketing and on the home video covers. The Batman/Catwoman one is not. I would take using the one without the billing block over the one with in this scenario, again I don't know if it is mandated to use a release one but I'm sure the priority is identifiability. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Have we given up on the poster? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer the floating heads one, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the floating heads one is both the best one and is used on home media, so it is the best identifying material, but the caveat seems to be we have to have the billing block? I don't know if that is a style guideline. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a billing block is required per se, it's just that we usually use the one with the billing block because that is usually the "theatrical release poster". Though I have noticed a peculiar (and frustrating trend) in the past couple of years where studios are increasingly fond of releasing payoff posters without a billing block. It's infuriating, but it is what it is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

so I have spent a bit investigating today and I can't find any other instance of the current poster with billing block that is found at The Numbers, which leads me to believe it has been modified. It is not at Google Image Search, IMP Awards, or the Movie Poster Database. Also, per WP:FILMPOSTER we are not instructed to use a poster because it has a billing block but an image that is representative of the product and recognizable. To that end, I will be uploading a new poster, sans billing block because the current image is neither common or representative of the film.

• This appears to be the most common one.
• There is also this one, I can slightly recall it, I'm not sure how commonly known it is but it does have a billing block.
• Both images are better representations of the product and give us appearances of characters without using separate NFC images which is a benefit. Can we please decide between these so a new one can be uploaded asap. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The first one, I have seen the current one more than I've seen the second one. But the version of the first one that should be used is this one (which I had linked to above), that says "Only in theaters" instead of "Only in cinemas", since "cinemas" is wording for international posters and posters that are specific to the country of production of the film are always preferred. —El Millo (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen the second one before, so I believe that's fan-made. I agree with using El Millo's version (though do we have a better "source" than Reddit?). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the poster from Rotten Tomatoes, seen here within its page in lower resolution. —El Millo (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that works for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, finally I can be at peace Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Untitled Batman film" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Untitled Batman film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30 § Untitled Batman film until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling All "The Batman" Fans!

to all of "The Batman" fans, would anyone be willing to help with Draft:Edward Nashton (The Batman franchise). any help would be much appreciated! Jstewart2007 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I should note that it is highly unlikely that draft will make it to the mainspace anytime soon. Draft:Bruce Wayne (The Batman franchise) has a better chance, but the prospects are still quite slim. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated box office on May 8

I want to update the box office because on May 8, 2023, on the "2022 in film" page, the film's gross was updated through Box Office Mojo: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2022_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1153888051 181.67.203.170 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition, all mentions of box office earnings are already accurate with the diff given. I am confused about what change is needed. If you decide to reopen, please clarify what you need changed. Heart ^(talk) 22:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to update the box office number from $770.9 million to $771 million by checking the Box Office Mojo here: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tttt1877830/

The box office was updated as of May 8, 2023, as I posted above. 181.67.203.170 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The source said $770,962,583 but people are posted above what the source says, you shouldn't round up, I've removed the field as you're just abusing it. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO to before the dispute was raised. I encourage this to be resolved swiftly, and to follow the numbers as provided by the source. I am however not aware if there is any specific guideline on rounding that could be of use here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If a source says something, you should make sure wikipedia is equal to the source, you get a number from a source and start to round it up or down, then you're no longer following what the source says. Rounding up or down seems a breach of WP:OR in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with WP:OR. Reliable sources round large numbers (on the order of millions and greater) all the time. DonQuixote (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask, have you read MOS:UNCERTAINTY? Govvy (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I've taught undergraduate physics lab for decades. MOS:UNCERTAINTY doesn't apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, per the MOS:LARGENUM part of what you pointed to

• The speed of light is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s
• but Particle velocities eventually reached almost two-thirds the 300-million-metre-per-second speed of light.

which does apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've met a nuclear physicist who couldn't install a printer driver correctly in a school! If you have an exact number, why would you change that number? From accurate to inaccurate due to rounding a number? The source said one thing, so you feel it's right to change what the source says? From a legal prospective it could be said you're fiddling with the numbers??!! Govvy (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have an exact number, why would you change that number?

Context matters. The infobox is for quick-and-dirty information. Three significant digits in the infobox is adequate for an article of this type. A more accurate figure can be mentioned in the article proper. Seriously, as implied in the above example, using 299,792,458 m/s or 300 million m/s or 3.0×10⁸m/s depends on context. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It still counts as changing the number changing 770,962,583 to 770.9, that's reducing the actual figure by 62,583 instead of increasing it by 37,417. 771 is more accurate. Indagate (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, by the rules of arithmetic, that rounds up to 771.0 million anyways, so Govvy is incorrect even wrt that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Here's my issue with rounding up. Imagine a film that has made $999,962,583. A lot of benchmarks in the industry define the $1 billion mark as a milestone, and some technical observers would be apt to point out that the film in our imaginary example did not reach the $1 billion mark on technical grounds. While we aren't near a milestone in this example, it's still fair to want to be consistent across Wikipedia. In my opinion, you should either round down to $770.9 (despite the greater margin of inaccuracy) or simply stick with the full number. Just my opinion. I have to assume this has been thoroughly discussed many times at WT:FILM over the years if anyone cares to dig up past discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  To break the stalemate, I propose that whatever the consensus be, whether it be a floor or ceiling in regards to rounding up the matter, perhaps there could be a footnote detailed the actual amount? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: The number of significant digits isn't set in stone and can vary depending on context. In the context of this film, there isn't that much difference between 770.96 and 771 so it shouldn't matter as much. DonQuixote (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  That problem only arises with milestones or numbers that are considered "important", not in 770 to 771 and not in most cases. —El Millo (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Rounding up wouldn't be the end of the world in this situation, but I think the context matters. In the infobox, there's more leeway to sticking with 4 significant digits and retaining $770.9 million, but in running prose, I'd be more likely to state $771 million. Regardless of the outcome here, someone could report the full number in an {{efn}} footnote. Seems like a good compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Except rounding results in 771.0 million. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok I think I have an idea. I think that first, we can just snag a tilde to whatever quantity is chosen (ie ~771M or ~770.9M) and then have a footnote there to clarify if it's rounded up or down. Does this break the stalemate? In the prose, is it ok if we say that the film made "approximately $771/770.9M" or do we want to be precise? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  All of that is inherently implied in rounded figures and unnecessary if you use the 771 figure. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  In prose, I would not use the full number, and the use of "approximately" isn't generally needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  @DonQuixote @GoneIn60 I notice this thread hasn't been updated in a few days. With that being said, have we decided on any final consensus yet? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

With only a handful of participants, the consensus here would be rough, but I am fine with the rounded $771 million figure as long as an {{efn}} is used in the infobox next to the stated amount. The efn can simply say, "rounded from $770.96 million", or something along those lines. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind as long as you use proper arguments and precedents. (If you really want to use the 770 figure, the applicable convention is to use '+' or 'plus' or to outright state that the actual figure is more than that.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright folks, I'll dip my toes in the water here and go for @GoneIn60's approach if that's ok. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I still don't see a valid reason not to round up from 770.96 to 771. There's no particular significance to the 771 figure, it's not comparable to going from 999 to a billion or from 499 to 500. There's no need for any clarification either, as it's just common practice to round up, especially when the difference is so small. —El Millo (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

We also never do this when rounding up or down box office gross in film infoboxes, it's just a common practice and there's hardly ever been any confusion. Unless there's a specific reason for this film in particular, we shouldn't be doing it. —El Millo (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo So what do you think we should do then? Stick to 770 or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless the difference between the actual value and 771 is significant, it's rather unnecessary. As El Millo pointed out, it's not like a billion or 500.

Also, I'd like to add that exact figures are only important (over rounded figures) if your intention is to present data that others are going to use to perform some kind of calculation (this is actually where WP:UNCERTAINTY is applicable). Since this is a general encyclopaedia article about a film, and the actual figure is available when you follow the citations back to the source, rounded figures are adequate here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, per this edit, the actual rounding that you want is from 770.96 because otherwise it'll be 771.0 from proper rounding to four digits. DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep it rounded up to $771 million, as it currently is. There's no exceptional reason to treat this figure or this film differently than any other figure. The only exceptions would be milestones, such as 100 million, 500 million or 1 billion, depending on the scale of the film of course, as for some films 100 million doesn't count as a milestone and for some smaller films 50 million could count as one. —El Millo (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, and with that rationale, I think it's safe to say that there's also no need for a footnote. With that being said, is it safe to say that all agrees to resolving the dispute by sticking to the SQUO? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we'd be sticking to the status quo because we see no compelling reason to change our approach. We seem to have majority in favor of the status quo. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, no efn then. Not a world-ending concern. Worth keeping in mind in future situations where the rounding is more extreme or near an industry-accepted milestone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)