Wikipedia

Talk:Joker (character)/Archive 7

< Talk:Joker (character)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Darkwarriorblake in topic There's no point in having a redirect for Punchline
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Requested move 25 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago90 comments19 people in discussion
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: not moved. There is not a consensus to move at this time, and no firm consensus in this discussion as to whether or not this article is about the character as a whole or the comics character, and many opposing did not give specific reasons beyond exasperation. That being said, on the oppose side arguments from concision are relatively strong (they are part of the naming criteria), and as Amakuru pointed out, there is not a consensus as to whether or not the primary topic can have an incomplete disambiguator. As it stands, there is enough opposition to a move that has basis in policy for this to close as not moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Post close comments: since two issues were raised on my talk, I'll address them in more detail here. First re: the question on whether this article is about the character: I mentioned it in my close because there was enough discussion about it from my reading that it warranted a mention, but not clear answer in this particular discussion about the title of the page. If there is a pre-existing consensus on it that addresses what should be the content of this page, this RM does not change that, and should not be interpreted as such.
    Second on what not moved means. In RMs, this is the close when the consensus is against the title. No consensus to move is another close that is sometimes used, even if not mentioned in RMCI, and I typically us it when the discussion could go either no consensus or not moved as a way to split the baby.
    In this case I'll expand a bit and point out that there is a consensus against moving the article at this time and that while consensus can change, it would be inadvisable to start a new RM anytime soon. I would recommend at least 3 months cooling off rather than moving into a new title discussion.
    Hopefully this addresses all of the concerns raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Joker (character) → Joker (DC Comics character) – The current page title is ambiguous due to a large roster of other characters named "(The) Joker" listed at Joker#Fictional characters. WP:NCCOMICS#Between characters of different publishers directs us to use the publisher as the disambiguation when there are multiple characters that use the same name. Adding "character" should address concerns from the last RM that (DC Comics) could refer to publications. After fixing links, Joker (character) and The Joker (character) should redirect to the disambig page section. -- Netoholic @ 19:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Previous close, before the above move review and relisting

The result of the move request was: RESULT: Not Moved. There was a discussion some days ago, all users opposed it and it was closed. The user that started that discussion started this other one, the very same day that one was closed, and with the exact same rationale. All opposes here as well. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Is there not a rule against just repeatedly opening move discussions? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • If nothing else, it would be decent to notify everyone who participated in the other two move discussions this month, since this is effectively the same discussion in search of a different outcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For the reasons stated by other users and myself in the first two proposals. And even if there were articles on the other Jokers, those are minor characters who are nowhere near as pertinent as this character (hence why they don't have articles to begin with). This would still be the primary topic, as anyone searching for Joker (character) is almost definitely looking for the Batman villain. DarkKnight2149 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Also: Can we knock it off with the persistent move proposals? When you reach the third in a row, it's pretty damn clear where the consensus stands. DarkKnight2149 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • comment the April 5 move is unrelated (a "The" issue, instead of a disambiguator name), so it isn't relevant. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment - as I mentioned in the move review at WP:MRV, I've relisted this because it was not a good contender for a snow close. The proposal was different, it hadn't run for long enough, and then the move review itself became confused by people apparently voting "oppose" to the RM itself. This will go for seven more days, after which a close and possible moratorium can be applied. @Zxcvbnm: @Dekimasu: @Erik: @Argento Surfer: @Curly Turkey: @Old Naval Rooftops: @Darkwarriorblake: @Rreagan007: @Tenebrae: @IagoQnsi: @TheJoebro64: @Katolophyromai: @Cuchullain: @Paine Ellsworth: @SmokeyJoe: you were all pinged or participated in the move review, so please comment and !vote support or oppose on this RM and we can lay this to rest once and for all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    This is absurd—the rationale itself was copypasted from the previous MR: "The current page title is ambiguous due to a large roster of other characters named '(The) Joker' ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, but the rationale also includes Adding "character" should address concerns from the last RM that (DC Comics) could refer to publications. as well, and the majority of opposes in the last RM were precisely about that concern, so although it may seem tedious to keep opening new discussions, the assertion that it's identical to the last one is not the case. Absurd or not, let's just see this one out and put the matter to bed once and for all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, just awesome—let's teach editors that if they make the same request just enough times, they can get the results they want. They need only one consensus for to overturn any number of consensuses against ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this has been discussed before, and the consensus is to keep the article here. As for the article about an adaptation of the Joker in other media, it's still the same character. See Wikipedia:Content forking. The second article exists only because it was too long to be included here, not because it is a different and unrelated character (the way the Joker is a different character than, for example, Luke Skywalker) Cambalachero (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FFS Oppose, thanks for wasting more time @Amakuru:. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • sigh... Oppose. JOEBRO64 22:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move (again), and support some form of moratorium for move proposals of this page. These discussions are getting out of hand, and the only way to stop them is to put a moratorium in place. ONR (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. It is incorrect to say that Joker (The Dark Knight) is a "subarticle" of Joker (character). It certainly is an offshoot and whatnot, but in terms of organizing topics on Wikipedia, both topics are characters. Therefore "Joker (character)" is ambiguous as to whether or not it refers to the character as a whole or to the one film's character. We are not dealing with any primary topics here, so all secondary topics should be disambiguated from each other. But I know that we're all tired of discussing this, and that the disambiguation page defines all the topics well enough anyway. Perhaps it would help to have standalone articles for the 1966 TV series character as well as the 1989 film character (if enough coverage exists for either), to make the ambiguity more obvious (and further justify addressing it) and at the same time have new article scopes that open new spaces distinct from the very heavy comic book history. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's self evident that an article on a particular manifestion of a character is a subarticle of the character's base article. Regardless, most people would assume there weren't even an article on that version of the character, and editors have questioned whether such a gratuitous article should even exist. Anyone looking for such an article would not be looking for it at Joker (character), as the base fictional character very obviosuly takes precedence or any incarnation of said character. Let's not make a joke of Wikipedia with this nonsense. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    It is only obvious to those who are familiar with the Batman comics and films. The point is, when we strip away any foreknowledge and any add-on descriptions, we have two article titles, "Joker (character)" and "Joker (The Dark Knight)". Both articles are character articles. It is irrelevant whether or not these are connected because we cannot presume knowledge of that connection. Therefore we should get more specific than just "character" in the former. I get that it is obvious and derivative for those who are familiar, but that should not be assumed for all readers. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    "It is only obvious to those who are familiar with the Batman comics and film." - Perhaps if we only go by the names of the disambiguations alone. But given that the second sentence to the lead of Joker (The Dark Knight) makes it clear that it's an adaptation of the comics character, I respectfully stand by my point that it's a subarticle of Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, that is the point, to go by the disambiguation terms alone. Here is a more general example of what I mean. We have a notable TV show and a notable episode of the same name from that show, and neither are primary topics. Ignoring the TV naming conventions we do have, if one of these articles is under "Foo (TV)", then it is not clear whether or not the article is for the TV show or the episode, even if the episode is a "subarticle" of the TV show. I do get the Joker connection, but it is a big world with not everyone present (and future) being familiar with any of these topics. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Erik: That makes no sense—(a) a reader not looking for the Dark Knight-specific version of the character will of course default to the (character) article (no specific knowledge is needed to do what is so obvious); and (b) the Dark Knight-specific version of the character remains a DC Comics licenced property, so the proposed DAB fails by your own "Both articles are character articles" argument, as both articles are "DC Comics character" articles. If Joker (The Dark Knight) is causing any sort of problem, why not move that article instead? This one's the unproblematic one. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    See the "nonsense" that makes "no sense" that I said to Darkknight2149 above. AGF. 11:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Your response to DK addresses none of what I just wrote. Did you just ignore it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, for my own part, per my comments in the last request. However, I also oppose opening new discussions when it's apparent they won't gain consensus. If it's clear that the community disagrees, move on and do something else for a while. Dekimasuよ! 00:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Present title has "incomplete disambiguation" and should be so categorized as a redirect to the dab page in accord with the disambiguation guideline. The proposed title addresses the concerns of much of the opposition in previous RMs, so it is hoped that the closer will ignore the opposers in this debate who think it's tedious to continue to garner consensus for the highest and best title and qualifier for this article, and who have no policy- nor guideline-based rationale.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Seriously, the entire comment. I cannot make heads or tails of what you're trying to express. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The first part of my comment is my rationale, the reason I give for my support of this proposal. The present page title sports a qualifier that is clearly "incomplete" as qualifiers go, and the editing guideline I cited shows us what to do about incomplete qualifiers. The second part of my comment is just a hopeful note to the admin who closes this debate. Hope this helps!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(a) How is it incomplete? Joker is a character, and there is no other article on a character named "Joker" that is not a subarticle of this one. (b) This doesn't help—you muttered something about guidelines and policies, and seem to be saying that opposers are opposing against policy (when we've been citing policy), and you made some comment "tedious to continue to garner consensus for the highest and best title and qualifier for this article" that I still find impossible to untangle. On the policy/guidline front, the guidelines are clear that DABs are to be kept maximally abstract, and we are not to DAB from non-existent articles. (character) is exactly what the guidelines call for; (DC Comics character) doesn't appear to solve any problem, especially given that the only other "Joker" article is also a DC Comics character, as I've already explicated. The proposed move neither solves no concrete problem, and solves it exceptionally poorly.
The supporters themselves don't seem to provide any evidence that there's actually a problem this MR would solve. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Disagree that Joker (The Dark Knight) is about a DC Comics character. It is about a film character that is based upon the DC Comics character. Apples and oranges. The rest is just something you'll have to figure out or ignore. I've explained as much as I can. Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Then you're misunderstanding a few very fundamental things: (a) all incarnations of the character are DC (b) the "DC Comics" DAB was not to DAB the comics incarnation from a non-comics incarnation; "DC Comics" is the name of a company, and the base article is about the fictional character in general, including its film/TV/cartoon/novel/cosplay versions. To reiterate: "Joker" is a property of DC Entertainment (a subsidiary of Warner Bros.), and the Joker (character) article is about that property. That Joker (The Dark Knight) is a subarticle of that is not even up for debate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no trouble understanding what you've explained, and yet the fact remains that to simply use "(character)" as a qualifier for this article results in incomplete disambiguation. The proposed title solves that problem. We seem to agree that this article needs to have a disambiguator; however, the present disambiguator is not enough, that is, it is "incomplete" and therefore too ambiguous to warrant being part of the title of this article. There is a reader need here, and editors are obligated to fill that need per the editing guideline!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it's an "incomplete disambiguation". Joker (character) is the hub article for the character in general, not just the original comics character. Other versions of the character even received coverage in the lead. Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker are extensions of that article's sections that exist only because there is too much information to fit in the character article. The Dark Knight character is also covered in both Joker (character) and Joker in other media, but that is one of the few specific iterations that is notable enough to have its own article. And all versions of the character, adaptation or otherwise, are the same DC character. As for Joker (comic book) and Joker (graphic novel), those are about publications named after the character, not the character. I think Joker (character) is perfectly complete and precise enough as it is. DarkKnight2149 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: "the fact remains ... "(character)" ... results in incomplete disambiguation": You keep telling us it's "incomplete disambiguation", and you keep declining to tell us how it is in any way incomplete, even after being asked. What is supposed to be ambiguous about it? What is the "reader need" you're talking about? Please be concrete. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Unbelievable that it even needs an explanation; however, I shall try not to be obtuse. This article is titled Joker (character), which on Wikipedia is unacceptable because Joker (The Dark Knight) is also about the fictional character named "Joker". This means that "character" as a qualifier in the title of this article is in dire need of more disambiguation. I consider your opinion and that of other opposers to be WP:IAR because opposition to this page move goes against the editing guideline for fixing incomplete disambiguations. I'm more than a big fan of breaking the rules; however, that's only when there is very good reason to do so. Nobody in this debate has given a very good reason to ignore the editing guideline. Anytime an article must be qualified by a disambiguating word or phrase, it is because the name of the article by itself is ambiguous enough to confuse readers. It does our readers no good to use a disambiguator that is not complete enough to dispel confusion and reader astonishment. The title of this article is disambiguated only by the word "character", so that disambiguation is not complete. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You keep restating things that have already been refuted. Should I keep restating our refutations? As you are in the minority insisting (character) is "incomplete" and that the subarticle is not a subarticle, the onus is on you to demonstrate these things—not to merely assert them. It's obnoxious to insist we're WP:IARing when we've already demonstrated that this article follows the titling and DABbing guidelines. As to "ambiguous"—without some demonstration that some reader at sometime was credibly misled, that's worthy of no more than a facepalm, especially given that Joker (character) appears first in the search hints. If a reader is familiar with Joker, they will know whether (The Dark Knight) is the appropriate DAB; if they don't, the likelihood of them choosing (The Dark Knight) over (character) when the character is what they're looking for (and what appears first) is nil. Suggesting otherwise suggests one has had little experience interacting with humans.
Besides all this, you keep ignoring the fact that the character in The Dark Knight is also a DC Comics character, and thus the proposed DAB is hopelessly broken (aside from being completely pointless). Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this? You can't ignore this problem away. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has refuted my argument to my satisfaction or I would have changed my !vote. Your endless redundancies and repetitions don't do your argument any good, so you would be well-advised to cease and desist. And the character in The Dark Knight is definitely and decidedly NOT a DC Comics character. Instead it is a fictional film character that is based upon the DC Comics character. Again, apples and oranges, which clearly shows the need for more complete disambiguation of this article title!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: In other words, you'll simply ignore the concrete arguments you've been presented with. Not a convincing way to debate, and doesn't seem to be moving this discussion any closer to a consensus to move.
"decidedly NOT a DC Comics character"—not a "DC comics" character, but yes, a "DC Comics" character, and you can't wish that away. Regardless, as you've been told but will inevitably ignore again, this article is not about the character's comic-book appearances. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If you can't even accept the facts, you're simply wasting everyone's time here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Right back atcha! The "fact" is that both this article and The Dark Knight article are about the Joker, which in this article is a notable DC Comics character, and which in the DK article is a notable film character. They are both "characters" and they are both notable enough to have their own articles here on Wikipedia. So the "fact" is that they must be completely disambiguated from each other. The fact is that you have asserted PTOPIC, but you have not said why this article should be accepted as the PTOPIC. Therefore, the fact is that you have given absolutely no good reason why editors should ignore the editing guideline. The reasons you do give are not good enough, it's really as simple as that. I can see that you are heavily invested in this subject of comics, all aspects of the subject. I suggest you apply that same self-investment to this project and its guidelines!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCCOMICS outright says "Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character)" (going into more detail). That's not WP:IAR. And they are all the exact same character, not separate characters with the same inspiration. I second that the only thing that separates the comics character from the Dark Knight character is continuity and portrayal, which is purely WP:INUNIVERSE. DarkKnight2149 09:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems you're suggesting to redisambiguate Joker (The Dark Knight) and make it instead Joker (The Dark Knight character). I guess that must be done if we are to strictly follow the NCCOMICS guideline, correct? The main separation as I see it is that the Joker in this article is primarily about the DC Comics character, and the Joker in The Dark Knight is, as you say, a separate and distinct portrayal of a fictional film character that is only based upon the comics character. Again, apples and oranges – they're both fruit, but they taste different. This article clearly needs more disambiguation than just the word "character". To add more disambiguation to the word "character" would still be in line with the NCCOMICS guideline, wouldn't it?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: "The main separation as I see it is that the Joker in this article is primarily about the DC Comics character, and the Joker in The Dark Knight is, as you say, a separate and distinct portrayal of a fictional film character that is only based upon the comics character." - You keep saying that, often with no additional argument to support it besides a moot "apples and oranges" idiom. But multiple users have already explained to you with different explanations that they are all the DC Comics character. And now you are suggesting that the movie Jokers (such as Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger) are the same character, but they are somehow separate from all the other Jokers? I'm sorry, but WHAT??? The only thing separating the Mark Hamill Joker from the Heath Ledger Joker from the hundreds of comic Jokers is continuity and writer interpretation. The difference is WP:INUNIVERSE at best. You may insist otherwise, but the consensus does not appear to be in your favour in this regard. DarkKnight2149 00:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You are saying it as if being based upon was just a minor and trivial thing that we could dismiss so casually. It is not, it is a very important and defining aspect of the character. Apples and oranges? No, apples and apples. Cambalachero (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
All I am saying is that we have two articles about the same character. While one article is about one type of the character, the other article is about a different type of the character. Both types of the character are notable enough to have their own article here on Wikipedia, therefore both articles must be completely disambiguated from each other. They are not completely disambiguated from each other at present, and this requested move solves that problem. That's all I'm saying, so please refrain from the repetitious posts about things that are not good enough reasons for editors to ignore the WP:INCDAB guideline. Thank you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
That's wrong. We do not have two articles about the same character. We have an article about the character in general, and another about a specific version of the character. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You say I'm wrong, then you write about how correct I've been.
We have an article about the character in general, and another about a specific version of the character. (my bold)
Two character articles. The DK Joker article is already sufficiently disambiguated from this one; however, this article is by no means completely disambiguated from the DK Joker article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You're really not giving the impression that you're arguing in good faith when you play with people's words like this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and on a point of order, the assertion here that there is a guideline saying primary topic may not be established on an incomplete disambiguator is incorrect. Some users feel it should be, but the rule has never establishsed a consensus. Thriller (album) is the most notable example where the rule could be applied and hasn't, since that is a primary redirect to the M. Jackson album. See WP:PDAB for the history of the debate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Half hearted support - There have been issues in the past about this article being weighted toward the comic version of the character as opposed to all his incarnations. In those, I said I'd be fine with (comics character). This proposal is close enough. I don't think it's necessary, but it's not wrong. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    Argento Surfer: a comics-focused article would be a sub-article of the base Joker (character) article regardless. You're proposing a new article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again. This is, what, the third time for essentially the same move request? There is no other widely known character called the Joker. Yes, there's a playing-card symbol, the Joker, but that's not a character any more than the kings, queens and jacks are characters. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To editor Tenebrae: this RM actually addresses concerns brought out by opposers in the previous RM, so it a) is not essentially the same request, and b) as long as it's not the same request, editors can make new requests like this one to try and garner consensus for the proposed new and different page title. There is nothing that says they cannot do that, and some here have tread on WP:AGF issues in regard to their responses to other !votes and rationales.
Other editors who oppose have made this a PTOPIC issue, and I'll admit that the counters to that (in the previous RM) were weak, especially considering what Amakuru said above about the ongoing debate. What I noticed about those editors is that while they cited and asserted that PTOPIC applies, they seem to have forgotten to show why PTOPIC is an appropriate guideline citation. In other words, they have not shown that Joker (character) meets the following criteria:
  1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
If opposers could show that this article meets those criteria, then I would seriously consider changing my support to an oppose !vote. Supporters on the other hand have repeatedly cited that same guideline in a different section, WP:INCDAB, which applies to the qualifier of this title, "character". Are you certain that this is not an incomplete disambiguation that needs further qualification to be clearly distinct from the film character at Joker (The Dark Knight)? The film character is essentially the same character as the DC Comics character because it is based upon the character from DC; however, aren't they separate and distinct articles about different subjects? and aren't they both fictional "characters"?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't understand why I have been singled out when other editors have expressed the same concern about the multiple move requests.
I believe the Joker movie characters are all based on the DC Comics character. We don't seems to have multiple Spider-Man articles devoted to Spider-Man (Sam Raimi trilogy), Spider-Man (Marc Webb films), Spider-Man (MCU), Spider-Man (1970s TV series), etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "aren't they separate and distinct articles about different subjects?". Short answer: No, they are not. They are only different in-universe, as the comics and the films have their own continuities. As an intellectual property and narrative device, it is the same character, licenced and used in several media, but it's still the same one. Same goes for Batman, and that's why the films and animated series always have that line "Batman created by Bob Kane": even if adapted and with some narrative changes, it's still the same character. We do not have two articles because they are two different characters, it's just because one is a content fork of the other. This one is not the article about the Joker in comic books, it's the article about the whole Joker "franchise", and there is a high focus on comics because that's the original media. Note as well that we have The Lord of the Rings (the book) with no DAB and The Lord of the Rings (film series), not "(book)" and "(film series)", even if the film series got worldwide recognition of its own and many people know just the films. Written in policy or not, a work and adaptations of the same name are not considered different topics for a DAB. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • it's the article about the whole Joker "franchise", and there is a high focus on comics - Sure, but even within comic continuities, there are articles about individual incarnations (Iron Man vs Iron Man (Ultimate Marvel character)). The only difficulties in this case are that this Joker is not a primary topic for "joker", and its also not the only character named that. No one is saying the content of this article should change (as an overview of the character that originated in DC Comics), just that the name needs to be clear about the topic. -- Netoholic @ 05:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It is DABbed because it's not the only "Joker" article, but it is the only "Joker (character)" article. The other "Joker (character)"s do not (and probably will not) have articles to DAB from. This is a solution in search of a problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
To netoholic: yes, comic books have many continuities, and sometimes a specific version of a character has standalone notability for a fork article. Nothing of that counters my argument: in-universe information aside, it is always the same character. That's why this article, which has an overview of the character in its full, has a section with a summary of Alternative versions of Joker, as well as a Joker in other media. Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To editor Tenebrae: If I have "singled" you out, it is because of our past encounters and my respect for your opinion. In this case I think you're wrong; however, that's just my own absurd opinion. Your taking the opposing viewpoint in this did make me step back and reexamine the details. Didn't mean to give you the idea that you were being in any way placed under the magnifying glass. Thank you, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds already extensively discussed in previous RMs, (character) is concise and the primary topic for characters called "Joker". I will add that I personally think that the "incomplete disambiguation" guideline is over-strictly applied by some editors and there should be a number of commonsense exceptions anyway, so even to the extent the current disambig is arguably incomplete, it is not some kind of drastic rule violation and should not override the many valid reasons to keep the article where it is. Tricky RMs routinely have to balance guidelines which give inconsistent / competing advice. SnowFire (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Character" is more concise than just "Joker"; however, Wikipedia has two articles about the Joker character. There are two notable renditions of the Joker character. Both of these articles, this one and the Dark Knight article, should be completely disambiguated from each other, and presently they are not. You also invoke PTOPIC for this article; however, you don't show why this article is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, and why this article is significant over the long term because it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the Joker. Those two criteria are used to determine whether a subject is primary. Please show how this article meets those criteria.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Jesus Christ, Paine Ellsworth, this has gotten beyond obnoxious. The Joker (character) article is not about a "notobale rendition" of the character—it is the base article for the character in general, covering its representations in all media. The lead itself links to six actors who have portrayed or voiced the character! Worse—you've been told this all already. Repeatedly. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's very clear that your WP:BADGERING has gone beyond what even I will tolerate. Please cease and desist, and pick up a copy of the guideline that explains how to disambiguate two distinct "character" articles. Thank you in advance for never again calling me by my "real" name. My father prefers that I remain anonymous.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • How does a person respond to gibberish? Why are you even here, if not to exasperate? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You seem to be responding well enough. You have tried very hard to dominate this debate with your frequent badgering. You've been asked to stop, just as much for your own sake as for that of others, because such anti-AGF on your part does absolutely nothing for either your argument or your credibility. For your own sake at least, please stop trying to lord it over others as if you knew everything there is to know.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Read: "Stop calling me out, already." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose or move to The Joker, that fictional white-faced goon who's the primary antagonist in the Batman franchise who might hate Bats but might also be secretly sexually attracted to him, or so Frank Miller thought, per WP:CONCISE and lack of need to DAB. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Not WP:PRECISE enough. Should be The Joker (fictional character, anarchist, nihilist, serial killer, mass murderer, occasional harmless prankster, and supervillain clown who's the primary antagonist in the Batman franchise, originating in comic books but also appearing in every other form of media, who might hate Bats but might also be secretly sexually attracted to him, or so Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder, and Rocksteady thought, but also hates all of his sidekicks out of jealousy; Who knows what's going on with that, right?) Only then will the readers know which "Joker" the article is about. Otherwise, they'll just confuse him with various sub-articles, one article about a film adaptation of the exact same character that has a DAB clearly indicating that it's not about the character in general, or any of the very minor niche characters that don't have articles but are briefly mentioned on the disambiguation page. Also, if this proposal fails, those in opposition of Joker (character) are strongly advised to keep opening move proposals. One of them will eventually succeed. DarkKnight2149 19:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Mocking of this process is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • They've kinda got a point, though... JOEBRO64 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pile on oppose. Enough time has been wasted, without anyone ever describing how the proposed move would benefit the readers, and how could anyone be genuinely confused about the current setup. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR beat the WP:INCOMPLETEDAB (whose applicability has not even been conclusively proven) any time of the day. No such user (talk)
  • The applicability of WP:INCOMPLETEDAB happens to be based upon the existence of a second "character" article. Your rationale seems to deny the existence of the Joker (The Dark Knight) notable film-character article. That article title, "Joker", is the same as the title of this article, and yet is completely disambiguated from this article. Can you say the same for this article? Is this article disambiguated completely enough from The Dark Knight film-character article? Is the qualifier, "character" complete enough to disambiguate this article from the article on the film character?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It has been reasonably disputed that The Dark Knight character is a distinct from the one described in this article, and therefore it's just a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinoff. Even putting that aside, WP:INCOMPLETEDAB is a pretty obscure and lame guideline (does it really matter whether we have a "primary topic" among disambiguated ones?), whose application or non-application does not bring much added value to the reader either way, and hardly worth bickering about. Bickering about it through three RMs and at least one MR certainly deserves an entry in WP:LAME. No such user (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and I don't think we should bicker; however, when an editor makes their responses so full of LAME referrals, especially about WP guidelines that constitute the consensus of the community, the hair on my neck begins to rise. No the DK character is basically the same character as the Joker in this article, it just appears in a different medium. And you don't think that needs further disambiguation? To just qualify this Joker as a character, is that complete enough disambiguation from the other notable rendition of the Joker? the one in the DK article? Not likely.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
"just appears in a different medium"—gibberish. This article covers every medium, as it is about the character in general, as a number of editors have repeatedly repeated over and over again, repeatedly. WP:IDHT is a blockable offense. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop with the threats, Curley. Continually editing against community consensus in article space may sometimes be blockable, but good faith talk page comments certainly are not. On the issue itself, I think it's fairly clear that the Joker described here and the one in the Dark Knight article are the same dude, as evidenced by coverage of Ledger et al here. That makes that one a child article of this one, and hence arguably not a contender for the "(character)" disambiguator in its own right.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Amakuru: stonewalling a discussion with relentless WP:IDHT is most definitely behaviour that has resulted in blocks—I do not bring it up lightly. It's one thing to have different opinions—we all do—but Paine Ellsworth's behaviour is not the mere expression of a differing opinion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Then it looks like we'll all have to be blocked! gobble gobble!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In this case we're stuck with non-optimal disambiguation choices, and I don't see this proposed one as an improvement. As before, I think the fact that no other character named "Joker" has an article mitigates the WP:INCDAB concerns. Given that Joker (The Dark Knight) is a variant of this character and covered here, I don't see it as an obstacle to the current disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/c 14:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Arby break

  • Comment. So far, no opposer has been able to explain why the title of this article, which is only qualified by "character", should be the title of any article. "Joker (character)" shouldn't even redirect to this article, because it could just as easily redirect to Joker (The Dark Knight). The title of this article should redirect to the disambiguation page. That's the long-term community consensus on the subject, and I hope the closer will give that fact deliberate consideration.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No, we've explained in exhaustive detail, and your dismissal of everything every opposer has said up to this point—and bizarre and uncited claim about "long-term community consensus on the subject"—borders on trolling. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Redirecting (character) to a DAB is a terrible idea. Titles should get readers to what they want as quickly as possible. Do you really think the number of readers looking for the Dark Knight character article or any of the minor miscellaneous Joker characters dug up by Netoholic is significant compared to the ones looking for this comic villain? This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

his real name is jack napiear 2405:204:3227:CE03:BD3C:953F:73CE:F0C1 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the Joker has multiple and conflicting origin stories (even in-universe), so he does not really have a "name", besides simply "Joker". See 15 Wildly Different Origin Stories For The Joker. Cambalachero (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Joker (The Dark Knight)

Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion
Closed by Mikeblas below without merge. Related tags removed. DarkKnight2149 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The only major difference that could possibly be worth noting between TDK edition and the main page is film plotline, and even that plot could easily be discussed within a paragraph in the main page without losing anything of encyclopedic value. Having multiple pages for what otherwise is basically the same character quite frankly is thinly veiled fancruft no matter how detailed a page gets (which was probably made by some overzealous fan of The Dark Knight) and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Wikipedia is supposed to be a professional encyclopedia, not something as lenient as a Batman/DC Comics fansite, where having multiple Joker pages would be more appropriate. Sorry to the DC Comics fans, but there's honestly no good reason not to merge these pages as per WP:Content forking#Redundant content forks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Joker in other media or The Dark Knight (film) from where the info is largely duplicated should be your first options, not here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also be fine with merging to either of those if people are more comfortable with that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Dark Knight's version of the Joker has been covered extensively by reliable sources to the point where he is notable enough for his own article, although the page definitely could use some improvements (I actually have plans to work on it). Furthermore, we have pages for several TV/film versions of comic book characters, such as the MCU's version of Iron Man and Smallville's versions of several different DC characters (some of which are GAs). JOEBRO64 12:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's being too lenient. First of all, it doesn't matter how many references discuss the character; that does nothing to hide the fact that it's overall the same person as this Joker. Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant here and honestly not a convincing point, though MCU Iron Man shouldn't have his own page either and was likely made by an overly eager fan. Same probably goes for Smallvile. Did you not read my point on how Wikipedia isn't supposed to be like a Batman/DC fansite? Having multiple Joker pages is completely unnecessary when there's so much overlap between them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My point is that notability isn't determined by similarities between topics so we don't just merge articles because they're similar (and if we did, then Wikipedia would be a lot smaller...). There's too much information about The Dark Knight's Joker (portrayal, characterization, inspiration, etc.) to fit here, even if both are based on the same basic character. I've also looked over the Joker (The Dark Knight) page and virtually the only similarity with Joker (character) it holds is the description of his appearance. JOEBRO64 14:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I said major difference and worth noting for film plots. Everything other difference is negligible. Other details added to try to make them look different was probably inserted by TDK fans attempting to hide similarities and fancruft. One cannot reasonably assert it isn't largely a duplicate at its core plus WP:REDUNDANTFORK (which I linked above) states we shouldn't have multiple pages for what's basically the same subject. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Support merge to Joker in other media. Let's face it. People want this article to be around because it was an awesome and iconic media portrayal role. But it was an one time role. The article focuses on execution and that's about it. It got positive media reception and reaction but so did Jack Nicholson' Joker and DCAU Joker. (Also Leto's role when it comes to mixed reviews). Its got good info but it still would be better in improving Joker in other media IMO. Jhenderson 777 16:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That would also be perfectly viable, and you do bring up good points on one-time-only roles as well as other portrayals of the character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This has actually been discussed more than once in the past. Unlike the majority of specific incarnations of comic characters, the Dark Knight portrayal of Joker has actually received enough third party coverage, is different enough from the previous incarnations, and has had a big enough impact on cinema to be independentally notable. Aside from the surface level observation that Joker (The Dark Knight) is an adaptation of the comics character, this doesn't come close to qualifying as "redundant". The notability hardly comes from plotline or WP:FANCRUFT, and Jhenderson777's unsubstantiated assumptions of other editors almost borders on WP:BADFAITH. If this was about articles of lesser notability, such as Clark Kent (Smallville) or James Gordon (Gotham), perhaps SNUGGUMS would have a point. And as pointed out above, Joker in other media should have been the primary target of the ill-justified suggested move. DarkKnight2149 00:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I assume no bad edits on anyone. Especially you. You are a fine editor! Reliable third party sources are on every comic book film character to come out. But most of the topic can either be placed on the film article or in other media with improvement on there. The only reason why he could have his own article is that he's the most critically praised villain. Although one could argue with that very reason that Thanos film version and Loki film version could have their own article or better yet Jack's Joker and Chris Reeve's Superman (both noted by the American Film Institute with that reason among others) can be compared as important or more important. Also these characters you mentioned are not "less notable". That's very subjective. @Bignole: already explained why the Clark Kent of Smallville is indeed notable to have its own article. Same goes for Arrowverse's Flash and maybe even Gotham's James Gordon. Also at least Tony Stark has appeared in multiple film adaptions. The thing is we are not losing anything my merging the character info. He is still an adaption of the Joker. Just like Jack, Hamill etc. etc. which are all notable by third party sources but would still be content forks on the in other media page.Jhenderson 777 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Not "ill-justified" in the slightest. As an obvious fan of the movie as well as DC in general, that's probably skewing your judgement here and making you view this through the eyes of a fan rather than an unbiased perspective, especially with the blatant double standards of asserting this incarnation warrants an article unlike other famous portrayals when in reality we only need one page for the basic character. Multiple pages for one character is very needlessly repetitive and I'm not going to pretend otherwise even if you do. The sheer number of good sources that cover this version of him or their depth is entirely moot when they're by extension general Joker coverage. We aren't supposed to be Batman/DC Comics Wikia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, I should probably clarify that when I said "ill-justified", I meant in terms of the explanation given. I do think that we need more of a reason to merge, especially when most editors here (at the moment) see it as a legitimate content fork rather than redundant fan service, though it could use some rewrites. And no, I always try to maintain NPOV. Even when I am providing content for articles on sequels I despise (such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation), my first area of concern is reflecting the sources in a non-slanted manner. Lastly, as friendly advice, I want to point out that replying to every comment can be interpreted by some users as WP:BLUDGEON, though that probably wasn't your intention since there are only six votes as I am typing this. DarkKnight2149 21:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No there most certainly wasn't any intention to bludgeon but I will say sorry if it ever comes off as such to anyone. Regardless, my point wasn't that you were inserting bias into articles, but that clearly being a huge fan of TDK makes you more naturally inclined to defend the page's existence and evidently prevents you from seeing the overlap when only looking at the core features. Don't get me wrong as I thought it was a fantastic watch myself, but I'm not so invested that it keeps me from viewing it through an unbiased and professional perspective rather than what fansites like Wikia would opt for when maintaining separate pages. It sadly doesn't look like one can say the same for you when you're being too lenient in asserting it should be kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's nothing in that article that could reasonably be merged with this one and maintain balance. If the article can't stand on its own, it should be merged into The Dark Knight (film). Regardless, this is the wrong forum for such a discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You must've overlooked how I said plot was the only major difference that could be worth noting and how it could be contained here within a paragraph. However, I'd have no objections with merging into the movie page or Joker in other media as previously suggested. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS: You must've overlooked where I said this talk page is the wrong forum for a merge discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I definitely noticed that, but don't see any how this could be the wrong page unless it gets changed to solely focusing on a merge to the film page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS: (a) the merge isn't about this article (b) there's no way it'll be merged into this article (at least two other articles are far, far better candidates). There's no justification for the discussion to be here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This a clear case of a legitimate Wikipedia:Content forking. Not all alternative versions of characters deserve articles of their own, but Dark Knight's Joker is one of those who does. The article already establishes the specific notability. Cambalachero (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No it most certainly doesn't (especially when stripped of excess detail) given how alike the page is at its core other than movie plot. It's too lenient to let more than one character page exist when a singular page is all a professional site needs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read that article? The movie plot is minimal, just the basic needed. Most of the article is about out-of-universe information: performance, development, reception, etc. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course I have, and only reception out of those things could possibly be needed in here or any other potential merge target now that I think further about it, and even that isn't such a major character difference compared to plotline. Everything else was probably added to try disguising the fact that having multiple articles is fancruft. No prose or sheer number of sources can change that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • And none of that has anything to do with this article. Can we move the discussion elsewhere? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You seem to have contradicted yourself when I outright say it should be merged to here, the movie, or other media page while Curly Turkey opted to merge into movie page if anywhere and Cambalachero opposes any merging. I'm not sure what you were going for here but personally can't see any convincing reason why it shouldn't be merged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I apologize; I read "One cannot reasonably assert it isn't largely a duplicate at its core plus WP:REDUNDANTFORK (which I linked above) states we shouldn't have multiple pages for what's basically the same subject" and I interpreted that to mean we shouldn't fork from Joker (character). I've crossed you out in my post and I apologize. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To clarify: I have not supported merging with anything. I've stated only that a merge with this article would be inappropriate, thus a merge discussion should happen elsewhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Closing. I don't see much support for a merger, so I've removed the related tags. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2018 (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.

Character template

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Most of the characters you removed on the template do have history with Joker such as Catwoman, Robin, Suicide Squad, and Superman. Is there a reason why those are excluded and Batgirl, Birds of Prey, and Justice League aren’t? He has had a lot of history with those characters as much as those. Pinky Rhino (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Templates are intended to link related items together easily where necessary. Most of the templates you are adding belong to characters who are already linked in the article, and the rest have only a loose relationship at best to this character. At one point you were adding a Green Goblin template. You're adding templates for DC characters, when many of them are already linked in the Joker template. In fact as far as I can see, every separate template you are adding is for a character/group already existing in the Joker template that is already there at the bottom of the page, which are heavily duplicated in the Batman template directly beneath it. So adding these further templates is just duplicating several times over the appropriate links, while adding a bunch of links unrelated to the Joker. In short, they are adding nothing of value. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Let’s compromise: how about we just add Robin and Catwoman. He has has a major impacts on those two. They’ve had just as much of an impact as the Birds of Prey. Pinky Rhino (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You can remove Birds of Prey as far as I'm concerned, he's only relevant there when it involves Batgirl. I think Robin and Catwoman are still redundant but fine it's an acceptable compromise. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Joker movie

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It's a bit early now, but closer to release, the Joker film should have more than just a single bare-bones sentence in the Media section. It's the first major motion picture to specifically revolve around the Joker as the main character, so obviously it's undue weight to give more information on a lot of his lesser appearances (respectively) than his own movie. I think about 2–3 informative sentences would be a good length, when more info gets revealed (or when the film comes out). DarkKnight2149 02:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I also rewrote the Gotham (TV series) section at Joker in other media a couple of weeks ago, to get it to Wikipedia standards. Does anyone think it might be worth rewriting the other sections to get it to GA status? It is a derivative of this article, after all. DarkKnight2149 02:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The film isn't out yet and might have as much impact as Leto's Joker, which is to say none, there's no rush to try and inflate it's importance. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Jared Leto was only in Suicide Squad for about 10 minutes, and his performance was poorly received at that. The Joker film is the first major motion picture specifically revolving around The Joker. It's literally devoted to and about him, so of course it's more important. That being said, I definitely agree that there isn't a rush. DarkKnight2149 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Gallery, pictures

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is there even chance to include historic live action Jokers from Cesar Romero to Joaquin Phoenix or copyright prevents it all? Also would it be possible to add more comic book representations since there are only two?Sourcerery (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a separate article for other comic versions of the Joker and since he generally looks the same it's not going to pass WP:NFC to include more images than there already are, and it's not possible or necessary to include images of every actor behind the Joker, there are again separate articles for that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Well you wouldn't know from looking at this article, it's good idea then to add some links for easy navigation to various versions.Sourcerery (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Doing such a gallery would definitely conflict with WP:NFCC. Hell, Joker in other media arguably has too many non-free images that serve no commentary purpose (and people tend to add more every time a new version shows up in major media). DarkKnight2149 04:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jack Napier

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it something important to notice that in the 1989 movie the Joker's full name is finally mentioned, "Jack Napier"? I read somewhere that they have just added a random name for the character (it is mentioned only once in the whole movie I think, and just in this movie), but it is also mentioned in this article that his first name was Jack, perhaps it's not just that random. Marcusbacus (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The full name "Jack Napier" has been thrown around enough that it ought to be included in the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Origins subsection

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wouldn't it make more sense to integrate the "Origins" subsection into the main part of the "Character biography" section? It would eliminate a lot of repetition. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

No, because they're covering different info, and short of mentioning the Killing Joke again, they cover different facets of the stories. His lack of an origin and conversely MULTIPLE origins is an important part of the character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Cameron Monaghan

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gothams-next-joker-evolution-is-actually-a-nightma/1100-6465237/ https://www.instagram.com/p/ByDv-oyJ6Wv/ https://mobile.twitter.com/thetzechun/status/1076711476365328384 For those who insist that he isn't the Joker Kingofsting87 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if he is, it still ignores my edit summary that the opening cannot be an exhaustive list. If people abuse it then the only conceivable step is to remove all mentions. I disagree with Jared Leto and Joaquin Phoenix' jokers being mentioned as well, because neither is yet as iconic as Jack Nicholson's interpretation or Ledger's oscar winning one. Leto's is in fact derided. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
But it would only be one more actor.

Kingofsting87 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And the next time it's just one as well. And the time after that, and the time after that. There are literally 4 iconic Joker actors, Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Mark Hamill. Anything else shouldn't be there.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
True, but Mark Hamil is animated + Monaghan was the first live action Joker after ledger

Kingofsting87 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"The most recognizable and iconic ficitional character in popular culture"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Even as a longstanding comic-book fan someone who loves the Joker, I find this line ("is one, if not the most-recognizable and iconic fictional characters in popular culture") more than a bit exaggerated and eyebrow-raising -- mainly the "the" in "most recognizable". I mean, he's most certainly a cultural icon and one of the most recognizable villains in comics, but the most recognizable in popular culture at large and involving all fiction?

I would suggest dialing back to a more sober "is considered one of the most recognizable and iconic (comic-book) characters/ villains, etc". What would you think?

--87.124.137.236 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Actors mention in the lead

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Can we get some consensus here for the future about what can go in the lead because people clearly cannot read. Anytime someone voices and/or plays the Joker is not in itself notable, and it is not possible, in the lead, to list all of these people. The people mentioned there are FAMOUS for their portrayals of the character. Jack Nicholson was a phenomenon as the Joker and they were comparing Ledger to him 20 years later, Ledger again was a phenomenon and got an oscar nom, Cesar Romero is infamous for his portrayal of the Joker and so is Hamill who defines the animated character for generations of people. Jared Leto is derided for his portrayal and noone cares, Joaquin Phoenix's film is not even out yet and thus is it not possible to see if he will be notable for the role. I'm not even sure Troy Baker, and Cartoon Boy, no Richard Epcar shouldn't be there, he's been snuck in. As much as the Joker likes his chaos, this article needs some damn order, because if we just list whoever plays the character then the list will be endless and the next step will just be removing all the mentions altogether, and it seems ridiculous not to mention Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Mark Hamill in an article talking about the Joker. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should only list the notable actors in the lede. Hamill and Baker are really the only notable VAs, while Leto was only in Suicide Squad for like 10 minutes (and reception to his performance was mixed at best). However, IMO Phoenix is worth mentioning. Joker is the first (and probably going to be the only) film entirely devoted to the character, not to mention that Phoenix is arguably one of the most acclaimed actors of our times. His performance is also already generating Oscar buzz too ([1][2][3]). JOEBRO64 15:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on the other media section of the article, I think current sources only support listing Nicholson, Ledger, and Hamill in the lead. Nicholson gave a "defining performance", "Hamill's Joker is considered a defining portrayal", and Ledger won an Academy Award. Phoenix might do something special with the role, but I think it's too early to include him. I do think the upcoming film should be named in the lead though, as it doesn't fall under the "The Joker has been adapted to serve as Batman's adversary" description that captures everything else. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair points so far Joe and Argento. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that not everyone can be listed, but it does seem kind of arbitrary to make Leto the only one left off the film actor list even if it isn't as big of a part. Given the mixed reception to his version, it kind of comes off as though editors here are just not considering his to be a valid version of the character or something, and especially so given the excessive repetition of "don't add anyone else here" or whatever in the source of the page. Alphius (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I don;t particularly like Phoenix's Joker either. It was a good film but the similarities between it and the Joker stop and start with makeup. So it might seem arbitrary but it isn't, and it also omits Monaghan.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The hidden note is repeated because editors were either not seeing it or ignoring it. By placing it between each entry, it eliminates the first possibility. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
One thing I have learned in my years on Wikipedia is that if certain users (especially non-regulars) want to make an edit badly enough, they'll ignore a note even if it's in plain sight. Take a look at the edit history of Professor Pyg for a blatant example. It used to happen quite a lot at Suicide Squad (film) as well, which was semi-protected over and over again because people tried to add rumours on a constant basis. Most of it turned out to be false, such as supposed appearances from Hugo Strange and Lex Luthor.
I would go ahead and mention Juaquin Phoenix in the lead and add a couple of sentences about him in the media section. I understand where you are coming from about it being 'early', but the first film about the Joker is definitely more notable than your average media appearance. The film also won top prize at a prestigious film festival, and critics have calling it an "evolution" of comic book cinema. DarkKnight2149 19:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


(Original reply) Oh believe me, Joker in other media has the same damn problems. I recently had to remove several unnecessary non-free images, because every time the Joker makes a major media appearance, some inexperienced user thinks it requires them to upload an image (even though the most notable versions are already represented in a collage on the infobox). Virtually none of them passed WP:NFCC and all were used for decorative purposes. DarkKnight2149 17:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Politicial influences based on film versions

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Per above, this is for continuing discussion. The details mentioned in the original and then altered section re: political impact are all based on film versions of the character not the comic one, and this article does deal exclusively with the comic version. There is a separate article Joker in other media that covers alternate media portrayals in larger detail. I believe this section suffers both from WP:RECENTISM regarding the fairly new film, and also has no boundaries, since any time a protest happens it'll now be added to that section similar to how at Project X (2012 film) any party that throws Project X in it's name and gets some news coverage is added there. Diego argues that it is within the scope of the article, I argue that it is not. At best, it could feature as a single sentence line following the mentions of the film interpretations, but it does not warrant a subsection or significant coverage here unless it relates to the political impact of the comic character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe that this section is relevant to the character, as it is a major part of the character's impact; the use of the Joker's image has even been compared to the Guy Fawkes mask, a world-famous symbol of political defiance. Furthermore, the film versions of the Joker are still the Joker, and as such are not out of the scope of this article; the title of this article is "Joker (character)", not "Joker (comic book character)", and the first line of this article says "The Joker is a supervillain", not "The Joker is a comic book supervillain". As such, this article recognizes non-comic versions of the character. If the Joker is becoming a major political symbol, it would be silly not to include that information in the article on the grounds that the version is an adaptation of a comic book rather than a comic book itself. DiegoAma (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's too soon to declare the impact of the recent film on equal footing with the character in general. There's a reason the cultural impact section of V for Vendetta is shorter than the impact section of V for Vendetta (film), for example. Despite being older, it was the film version that inspired people, not the comic. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Academy Awards

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It might be pertinent to mention (maybe even in the lead) that the Joker's movie was nominated for 11 academy awards. DarkKnight2149 06:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I added some more info, including to the lede. JOEBRO64 23:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I've culled this back a bit. It's ten years ago so the astounding success maybe isn't as present, but TDK broke tonnes of records too, it was like the 2nd or 3rd billion dollar movie, and Ledger won the Bafta, Golden Globe, and Oscar for the role. There was too much weight being given to Joker because it is recent, when the article is not about that film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In this instance, I disagree and believe that TheJoebro64's edit should be reinstated. The Joker's first feature movie getting nominated for 11 academy awards and breaking office records is definitely a milestone in the character's history. I don't see any WP:RECENTISM here, and the Heath Ledger comparison is a false equivalency (although the lead could revised to mention that two actors were nominated for playing the same role as the Joker, which is a rarity for any character).
Comparing the Oscars to the Golden Globes is also a bit like comparing the Venice Film Festival to Toronto. There really isn't much of a comparison there as the Academy Awards are widely considered to be more prestigious and are given more weight by reliable third party news coverage than the Golden Globes. There's a reason why so many filmmakers have "For Your Consideration" campaigns for the Oscars, but you don't see nearly as many for the Golden Globes. DarkKnight2149 07:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
But why is the TDK's accomplishment any lower? I think there is a misplaced emphasis on this being the 'first' Joker movie, given that people consider Joker the star of Batman 1989 and Nicholson got top billing and it was the highest grossing film of 1989, TDK saw a massive boost over Batman Begins because of the emphasis on the Joker and the viral marketing relating to him that saw it earn over a billion and get the first oscar win for the character and a superhero film, and now Joker, which is mostly Joker in name only, but got the same marketing emphasis, earned a billion as well, and has earned an oscar nomination. It's fairly equivalent to both previous films IMO, in fact if you adjust for inflation on Batman 1989, that earned $850 million too. There's just a general correlation between Batman films featuring the Joker and success (Suicide Squad not withstanding). So I do think that Ledger and Phoenix's performances are pretty equivalent and the circumstances of the film. Given that the other Oscar nominations are not relevant to the character, only Best Actor is relevant here. Once the results are revealed (and remember that's only on Feb 10), then I don't see an issue with a brief mention of nominations and wins, but an entire paragraph dedicated to it in an article not on the film, particularly mentioning like announcement dates and such, is not relevant to this article. There's an entire article to go into detail with that on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"Punchline (character)" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Punchline (character). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no point in having a redirect for Punchline

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

if you're not going to mention her in the article. Serendipodous 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. RoySmith, can you delete the redirects Punchline (comics) and Punchline (DC Comics) like you deleted Punchline (character)? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Erik, Hmmm. I'm not really up on WP:CSD#Redirects but my reading of it makes me think this would be outside the bounds of CSD. So, could I request that you open a discussion at WP:RFD? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Serendipodous, it's up to you. I'm not invested enough to follow up. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like the simplest thing to do would be to add a line about Punchline. Serendipodous 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
WP: RECENTISM, the character is like 80 years old, Punchline has been around for what? I don't even know, I've only heard of her in the last few weeks. Can't add every goon the Joker uses. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joker_(character)/Archive_7&oldid=1017868469"