Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to

Put simply, the subject of this article is not itself called “Batman”; it’s a film series featuring that character. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives that came up in discussion:

• Batman (1989–1997 film series) (User:BD2412)
• Batman film series (1989–1997)

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• How about
  Batman (1989-1997 film series)? It avoids the implication that there were a series of films in a single year, and neatly ties up the beginning and ending dates. bd2412 T 03:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Support this alternative (with an
    en dash) over the current title, though it still reads as if the series itself is titled “Batman.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Not with a hyphen. Date ranges (and other ranges) should use an en dash, per
      MOS:DATERANGE. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yes, en-dash. My point is the parenthetical structure. bd2412 T 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we normally start with the first film in the series, but BD2412 suggestion is also acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose use of stand-alone year as a parenthetical qualifier, but support alternative qualifier proposed above by BD2412. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support bd2412's suggestion for being more accurate. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both proposed titles. Anon's because the series was not confined to a single year; BD2412's because plain Batman is not a proper title for the series; there is no real title. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ribbet32: How about Batman film series (1989–1997)? Should address both your concerns. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support
      WP:CONSISTENT, after reviewing Category:Film series. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support variants.
  Batman (1989-1997 film series) would improve clarity, but I might prefer even more avoiding an implication the series had a name; Batman film series, 1989-1997 might also be fine since it suggests a structural link rather than a name. (But, to be clear, I'd still take BD2412's variant over the current name.) SnowFire (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That should be “1989–1997,” with an
    en dash rather than a hyphen, per User:BarrelProof above. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Number 1, it doesn't matter. Number 2, if the closer moves it to the non-endashed version, I'm sure you or someone else will move it to the endashed version shortly afterward anyway. Number 3, see Number 1. Topic hijack: Honestly, I'd be in favor of changing the dash guidance around and mandating normal dashes in titles and never using weird unicode characters... whenever I *try* to use an endash, even copy-pasting it, someone always moves the article later claiming it wasn't an endash. It's too minor a change to be detectable in most fonts I found, and only typographical buffs seem to really care. (Em-dashes, sure, those are noticeably different. En-dashes vs. hyphens is invisible to the vast majority of users.) It is really not worth the amount of editor attention wasted on worrying about it. SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SnowFire: A hyphen has different semantic meanings than an en dash. It matters as much as a spelling error, misplaced comma or apostrophe, incorrect usage of a word, etc. in a project that aspires to be an authoritative reference work. Simple mistakes should be avoided or corrected, not defended against correction. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        Normally I'd take this to your talk page so as not to distract, but I guess I can't since you're an IP... a typographical change that isn't seen by definition isn't meaningful. Even if - especially if - the change inverted the meaning of everything, if the reader can't tell the difference, what use is it? Anyway, I'm not defending it against correction, merely noting that no one will complain if you "fix" such a move afterward without requesting a new RM or even a technical request if you really feel it matters, and as such, there's no need to talk about it in RMs that focus on issues more related to content policy than style. SnowFire (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        IP users have talk pages too. Use the “talk” link in my signature, if you want. But on the tangential topic: I’m not sure why you can’t see the difference, especially in larger text like titles, but I can, easily. Also, looking at the default font on a computer screen is not the only way to read Wikipedia; see for instance

        and that’s okay), but it does matter. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

        ]

Without the parenthetical disambiguation, the current title and the supported alternative both refer to the subject—a series of four films—as Batman. If it’s meant to reference the first of the series, shouldn’t we use the form Batman film series rather than Batman (film series)? Or am I missing some other way to interpret it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how do the opposing editors view the standalone name “Batman” in the title? @BD2412, In ictu oculi, Roman Spinner, and Argento Surfer: if this isn’t meant to say the series itself is called Batman (I don’t think any of us would say it is), what is it saying? Why have “film series” in parentheses if it’s not disambiguating? Please help me understand the intent. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the film series cannot preempt the

Batman (1989–1997 film series), while the form Batman film series (1989–1997) is less preferable, but also acceptable. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I prefer

Batman (1989–1997 film series). Based on these, the four movies are commonly known as "The Batman movies". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Argento Surfer: Based on those sources, they seem to be known as “the Batman Collection” (when commercially packaged together), not “the Batman movies.” And both labels rather seem descriptive, a bit like calling the Lord of the Rings films “the Frodo movies.” But to the best of my knowledge, no one anywhere has ever referred to this set of four movies as simply “Batman” (including your links). Why does our title? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you if the first LotR movie had been titled "Frodo". I assume you're not familiar with the packaging on the first link - there's a line of DVDs called the "Film Favorites Collection" that packages 3 or four films with a common theme (see this and this). So "Collection" doesn't go with "Batman" on that one. The other is the "Ultimate Batman Collection", which I guess we're just reading different. I don't think it's calling itself the ultimate edition of the "Batman Collection" movies. It's the ultimate collection of the Batman movies.

If you browse #Category:Film series, you'll see the ratio of Foo (film series) to Foo film series is overwhelmingly in favor of the former. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point, that those sources used descriptive titles and did not call the series by any proper name. As for the category,

ITALICTITLEs where Foo (the name of the first movie) is also the name of the title character who was a preexisting property in many forms, and where Foo is not a commonly used name for the series, in which sequels are not numbered (Foo 2, etc.)? I’d be shocked if we had a large enough sample size left to have a reasonable margin of error (which is pretty high to begin with). The only example that immediately comes to mind for the last point is the Matrix trilogy, which is in fact commonly called “the Matrix trilogy” or even just The Matrix—but that article is about the whole franchise rather than just the movies, so we can’t even directly compare that data point. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Despite my disagreement with 67.14.236.50 above on hyphen style, I do agree with them that since nobody uses just "Batman" unadorned to refer to the series, it'd be nice to not imply that was true here. "Batman film series" with no parens gets that across better than "Batman (disambiguator)", which sounds like "Batman" is a title rather than a descriptor. SnowFire (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to prove a negative, but what evidence to you have that "nobody uses just Batman"? It's not like we can compare hits on google searches for these terms. Anecdotally, I rarely hear people lump the four together at all - they're usually discussed as the Burton movies, the Schumacher movies, and the Nolan movies. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It’s trivial to disprove a negative, so we can safely assume it’s true if that can’t be done. Besides, we choose article titles based on what is used in reliable sources, not based on whatever we want until proven that it isn’t used. This title does not appear to have been chosen based on actual usage. We could call these the Burton/Schumacher Batman films, or the Batman films (1989), or we could rewrite the article to be about their version of the character and keep the current title without italics, and any of these would be perfectly justifiable. But as I understand it, we cannot call it “Batman, y’know, the movies, no not just the first one, that’s what people^[who?] call all four and you can’t prove otherwise.” Which is what any Batman ([disambiguator]) title does. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. While there is a guideline in this case that supports the move, several editors have pointed out valid reasons why that guideline might be better off ignored in this case. No consensus has developed one way or the other. Several editors have also suggested that this article may be a content fork and should be merged into Batman in film, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this RM and should take place as a separate discussion. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and incidentally, the film series is called "Batman" and thus should be italicised. We would generally use the title of the first film in a series to name the article;

talk) 10:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, this article should never have been created in the first place as it's a

talk) 15:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't have a strong view on the italicisation, although I concur with Rob that at the time the series was simply known as "Batman". "Batman" was included in all the film titles and sequels were often announced as Batman 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Retrospectively this has changed slightly because of the reboots but only because further clarification is generally required to distinguish it. Generally titles for "subject" articles are formulated as "XXXX in film", such as

Middle-earth in film rather than as "XXXX (film series)". Betty Logan (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This RM should be considered alongside the one just a few weeks ago, which found clear consensus against the proposed title. It may be a good idea to ping previous participants. There's also a good point above that the article is just a fork of the (far superior) article Batman in film.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, there was a clear consensus against using "Batman film series (1989)". While there was a clear preference for "Batman (1989–1997 film series)" I don't think that directly translates to a consensus against "Batman (1989 film series)" because some of the comments solely addressed the original proposal and not the revised version. WP:CONSISTENCY was incorrectly applied at the previous discussion too, since film series articles that require disambiguation currently use just a single year to disambiguate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There was indeed clear consensus against

  Batman (1989–1997 film series) on one level or another.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Tagging all previous participants from the previous discussion: @67.14.236.50, BarrelProof, BD2412, In ictu oculi, Roman Spinner, Argento Surfer, and SnowFire:.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly don't think comments such as "we normally start with the first film in the series, but BD2412 suggestion is also acceptable" really amount to a consensus against "Batman (1989 film series)". I am not criticising your close—there was a clear preference for "Batman (1989–1997 film series)" so I understand why it was closed that way—but I think the "opposes" are commenting more on the original proposal than the original title. Given that WP:CONSISTENCY was misapplied and NCF wasn't considered I think there are solid grounds for reviewing the move. If the discussion draws to the same conclusion we will porbbaly have to review NCF and other titles that adopted the "XXXX film series" format. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What I'm saying is that there was no support for the former title, and there was substantial support for the present title; even the people who opposed the original proposal were amenable to it. As for CONSISTENCY To be honest, I don't think it was misapplied, as there are very few examples of film series articles that use dates at all. Certainly not enough to base a convention on, regardless of what's been added to

  WP:NCF. In fact, the RMs here are easily the most substantive discussions of the topic, and that ought to be what drives the language at NCF.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Making it official that I oppose this move. (1989 film series) could easily be taken to mean all Batman films after that date, which isn't what the article discusses. There's only one similar article, and its title hasn't ever been discussed, so there's no practical reason to stick with the requirement on either

  WP:NCF should be updated per the decision here, the only substantive discussions ever to address the matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose and suggest that
  WP:NCFILM#Film series be updated to change the guideline for the extremely rare "film series requiring a date" case. Using start year is fine if the series is ongoing, but it's misleading and weird in this case. Per Cuchullain, it's not even clear that this "guideline" exists for anything other than two articles, and guidelines reflect editor discussions like the above RM, not the other way around. It seems like only this article and The Hills Have Eyes are in Category:Film series , and honestly, The Hills Have Eyes is ripe to move to "Franchise" or the like and have one unified article on the movies & comics. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  The Hills Have Eyes (franchise). Because that is already an article that exists. Incidentally, I agree. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose the nom’s rationale—little-discussed segments of guidelines ought to be determined by the consensus of cases like this one, not the other way around; and we have too few such titles to have any real established precedent. To the concern that we don’t know when an ongoing series will end: after it ends, we know when it ended. There is an argument to be made about
  WP:NATURALNESS
  is better served by a range than by just giving the start date, without making it clear that it is only the start date and doesn’t apply to the entire series. Also:
  • Strongly oppose any implication that the film series is called "Batman" and thus should be italicised, per
    WP:NATURALNESS, unless it can be found that reliable sources called the series by that standalone name (rather than using the [character or film] name as a modifier, such as “the Batman movies”). From past discussion, though various box sets and collections of course have their own names, the series itself appears to lack a proper name, so we shouldn’t attribute one to it in favor of a descriptive title. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    NATURALNESS does not apply to disambiguated titles. Readers aren't going to search for either title because it is a title invented by Wikipedia. A natural title would be somthing like Batman - The Motion Picture Anthology 1989-1997, but the main argument against that it is unique to just one home video release. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, there is no such exception; the natural name is what gets disambiguated. “Film series” here should not be considered disambiguation, because there is no film series called “Batman.” It’s called things like “the Batman film series” (which would be an example of a natural title). Your suggested title seems rather unnatural, unless referring to a particular DVD release. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you even read the guideline? This is what it says: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for...'. Readers cannot be expected to search for a disambigugated title because they are invented by Wikipedia. Unless you are familiar with the naming conventions you would not search for the title. Disambiguated titles are by definition not natural titles. Neither "Batman (1989 film series)" or "Batman (1989–1997 film series)" are natural titles. The guideline simply does not apply to this scenario because we are determining are disambiguator. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AT is a policy, not guideline. Probably not how you meant it, but the terminology might be misleading. Anyway.

    The non-disambiguated title you are talking about is Batman. If you believe this name to be in use, by itself, to refer to any series of films, please show me where. I believe it is not, so I’m simply saying it is not suitable for the non-disambiguating portion of the title, any more so than if we called it Batperson (1989 film series). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    This is a complete non-sequitur to the point I am making. You have opposed moving the article from "Batman (1989–1997 film series)" to "Batman (1989 film series)" on the grounds it fails the naturalness criterion. My point is that the naturalness criterion does not apply to disambiguators because they are invented by us, the editors. By definition disambiguators are not part of the natural title, otherwise they would not be disambiguators. Neither title under consideration is more "natural" than the other by virtue of the disambiguator. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Betty Logan: You indented your initial reply under my second bullet point, the one discussing the undisambiguated part of the title, so I assumed that was the point we were talking about. If you were reacting to my first point, but positioning it as a reply to the second, then no—the non sequitur was yours. Context is important, and indentation changes context.

    From my read, our naming criteria apply to all of our article titles in whole, no matter how novel they may be (in fact: When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in), and I don’t recall ever reading anything in P&Gs that indicates otherwise. It just seems common sense to me: the rest of the world, readers, search engines, etc. see our title disambiguators—even parenthetical ones—as part of the article title, because that’s what they are. Maybe you consider one criterion more important here than another, and that’s a valid view, but it seems fundamentally flawed to say it just doesn’t apply at all. Was this exception something you read on a project page, or a result of interpreting various discussions, or more a matter of preference?

    By the way, do you think we should move this thread out of the survey area? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean oppose. It is often the case that two different film series for a rebooted franchise are far apart in time, like the Hills Have Eyes films, the Planet of the Apes films (though we don't have articles for the distinct series for those), so that there is a distinct gap between the series. Here, the new series started eight years after the end of the previous series, so it would not be so obvious to the casual reader that the new films did in fact constitute a new creative direction. bd2412 T 23:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SnowFire, and too soon since the last nom (note, I participated in last discussion, though not pinged above) Ribbet32 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Another policy that the current title is also in breach of is
  talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Of course it helps identify the topic. To a casual viewer, it would be very easy to assume an article that only said "1989" was about Batman-in-film and include
    The Dark Knight Trilogy (but not the Adam West film). Or, perhaps, they might think it was the "Burton" batman series and only include the first two movies. For a somewhat arbitrary cutoff like this article has on a topic that does not have a well-known name or descriptor, it certainly does aid understanding to spell out exactly what is included. SnowFire (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I’ll note that conciceness is an ideal (
    the use of the word “balance” is a good hint), and ideals are not necessarily attainable. The present title is certainly more concise than (1989 film series spanning up to and not including The Dark Knight Trilogy); the simple inclusion of the end year (denoting the final Batman movie before Batman Begins) effectively communicates that same information. Leaving it open-ended lacks that information, tipping the conciseness balance. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support per nom. Please do not pretend to speak for the "casual viewer/reader" unless you can provide empirical evidence to support the statement. Without a substantive
  I like it. MarnetteD|Talk 14:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    WP:ILIKEIT and pointing out advantages and disadvantages, potential problems and misreadings. Or are there RSes that use the first year and omit the last when discussing the series?. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support per nom and WP:NCF. Would be the same to me as naming something like
  Wikipedical (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Mild Oppose. I realise that
  WP:PRECISION should take precedence. I think that if you asked an average reader (or me come to that), "Is Batman Begins part of a series of Batman films?" they would say yes it is. Which is to say, the Dark Knight Trilogy is a subset of the Batman film series. Which is why, if we have an article that groups this set of Batman films together, and it is called Batman films, in order to be precise enough to accurately define its scope, we need to have an end date too, because there are other films that could commonly considered to be part of the Batman film series that were made after 1997. (Personally I always think of 'the Tim Burton series', 'the Christopher Nolan series', 'the Adam West one' and try to forget everything else, but unfortunately I'm not an RS). However, I think that we'd probably be best off not having this article at all and just sticking with Batman in film. Scribolt (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, this article is a

  talk) 08:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• It has occurred to me that I didn't really back up my opinion with much evidence from sources to support my opinion that Precision is not met by the revised title. So, when googling 'Batman Film Series' (which didn't return much, and very little with that exact phrase):
  • Hollywood reporter includes Dark Knight trilogy and others
  • Rotten tomatoes includes Dark Knight trilogy& others
• I also googled 'Batman films', 'Batman movies', 'Batman series' which returned similar results. Looking in individual reviews and coverage of the Dark Knight Triology there are numerous references to them being 'a Batman film' 1, 2,3. The sources therefore seem to regard at least all of the mainstream batman films as part of the series of batman films. If this is the case, the revised title does not meet Precision because Batman Begins is commonly regarded as both a film in the Dark Knight Trilogy and also a film in the Batman series. This means the revised article title does not unambiguously define the topical scope because the scope is actually 'Films in the Batman series after 1989, but not films in the Batman series after 1997'. So the revised title is not PRECISE enough. Scribolt (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I guess. Either is OK really. Of the
  Five Virtues of article titles, the suggested move is certainly supported by Conciseness, and also I think by Consistency. However, the existing title has maybe just a tiny bit more Recognizability I think, since it contains a little bit more info. But Precision says titles "should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" (emphasis added). Naturalness is more a less a wash here I think. So three Virtues (Conciseness, Precision, and maybe Consistency) against maybe a bit of one, Recognizability. Q. E. D., support the move. Herostratus (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Batman in film. Besides the lack of a name for this series (and, per Scribolt, the question of whether sources even treat it as a distinct series), there’s little need for it to have its own article. Nearly all the information here is included in that article, and of course we have the individual film articles. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support the merge but that needs to be debated on its own merits; it's not a valid option in a rename discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. Retracted for the purposes of this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Un-retracted since at least two others are suggesting the same thing here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is too hard.
  Batman (film series) should lead to diambiguation. Batman in film is too heavy. Batman_(disambiguation)#Films_and_television seems neglected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't rename. Instead, redirect to Batman in film. Contentfork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.