Talk:The Dark Knight Rises

"Greatest film of all-time" edits

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.

---

Over the last couple of days Jaszen has repeatedly added claims to the lead of the article that the film is regarded as "one of the best movies of all time". As far as I can tell these claims are sourced to a couple of critics and a magazine readers poll, which fall some way short of what is normally required for a claim of this nature to be added to the lead. At the very least I would expect to see the film feature prominently in an internationally recognized poll of film critics to have sufficient WP:WEIGHT for such a claim to be added to the lead. I note that Jaszen has been reverted by several editors now and I would advise them to stop edit-warring these claims into the article and seek a consensus either by gaining support from other editors or by meeting the necessary evidence threshold for such an extraordinary claim. Betty Logan (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. It was brought up on my talk page by Jaszen after I reverted his inserted claims of it being "one of the best film ever". We need more than magazine reader polls as sources, like @Betty Logan said. Mike Allen 16:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I’d agree with this if the dark knights page had its greatest films ever removed as well. It’s 2 sources are screenrant and one magazine. It’s other qualifications are one poll from Hollywood reporter which is not enough. So why can’t rises use the same qualifications from a notable critics and magazine and screenrant as well? Jaszen (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

He does have a point here. The Dark Knight article relies on only two sources to support the claim that it's "among the greatest films ever made" [1], [2]. The first has a nebulous claim that it "was hailed as one of the greatest movies ever made" without stating by whom. The second is admittedly more reliable as it's written by ten critics from Time Out. Should we also consider removing the claim from The Dark Knight article, or at least point out that further citations are required? Barry Wom (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement about this article. I have not looked at the other article in great detail, but as always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because articles often have different editors working on them. In the case of The Dark Knight personally I think 10 critics is a very small sample size to base such a grandiose claim on. I would be okay with an attributed claim in the appropriate section but I agree that it is not substantive enough to elevate the claim to the lead. That said, edits to that article should ideally be discussed at that article's talk page rather than initiated here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

So we are in agree that this page doesn’t have the sources for the claim got it. Should I start the talk on the dark knight page to remove until it has valid sources? I don’t want to overstep my bounds and begin edit warring but I think that other page should be edited for accuracy and transparency Jaszen (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, start a discussion at The Dark Knight page. The matter pertaining to this particular article has been resolved. I would also suggest adding a link to this discussion so the editors there can understand the context of your concern. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Can the three prior sources from screenrant , empire and telegraph be worded as many call it one of the best films of all time?. The wording is accurate with the sources that many have named it one of the best superhero and films of 2012 Jaszen (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the same Screenrant source and Empire's reader poll as before, then no. As already explained, these aren't sufficient to support the claim. Barry Wom (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

So I need critics like telegraph. Alright thank you for the quick response. I edited some other references on the page regarding different matter but I think they are all viable if you’d like to check Jaszen (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FILMCRITICLIST

@Jaszen: You are now edit-warring. Please discuss here. "Other articles do it" is not a valid reason to go against the current consensus as outlined at MOS:FILMCRITICLIST. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe these accolades are worthy to be sourced on this page or should be created another page. One that says awards and accolades for this movie Jaszen (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Still no reason to go against a WP guideline. WP:IJUSTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMCRITICLIST

The "Accolades" section can also mix prose and list. The section can list accolades and also use prose to provide context for some accolades, such as a general overview or a summary of controversy behind a given accolade. This sounds like these accolades are valid does it not ? This is from the page you quoted Jaszen (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Since we disagree how can we solve this dispute peacefully? Jaszen (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You seemed to have ignored the key part of MOS:FILMCRITICLIST, which is (emphasis added): While a concise summary of critics' top-ten lists can be added, do not list individual critics' lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. It is not possible for the dispute to end in your favor unless you start a new discussion at WT:FILM and somehow sway the consensus. Which isn't likely, this has been the consensus of the film project for a while now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

So if I use them to prove a consensus I can source them basically? It’s just the way they are on the site is the problem right? Jaszen (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If I create a section called retroactive assessments on this page and use these sources to form a consensus would that be alright? Jaszen (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If you could get it looking like The Dark Knight#Legacy (which is probably about to be promoted to FA status soon), then you may have an argument on including that section. Mike Allen 19:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi I’ve created a draft that looks closer to legacy but it keeps getting reversed by another user what can I do? Jaszen (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to better understand what consensus means on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry consensus was probably the wrong word. I suppose legacy would be a better one Jaszen (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What mike Allen posted below me is what I meant Jaszen (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

“If you could get it looking like The Dark Knight#Legacy (which is probably about to be promoted to FA status soon), then you may have an argument on including that section” is what a other user posted on this talk page. Jaszen (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I read what they wrote, but that doesn't have anything to do with consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant a consensus formed on the films legacy using those sources Jaszen (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If you can summarize the list into a concise summary of critics' top-ten lists as MOS:FILMCRITICLIST states, then yes, it can remain in the article. I assume this is what you're asking. But the text you restored, as it stands, does not comply with FILMCRITICLIST. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair. I’m sorry that I confused you a bit Jaszen (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Until the re-edited text is ready, I suggest you self-revert your revert. The list as it stands violates WP guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have done it Jaszen (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I added my new edit if you’d like to check to make sure it’s in line with the rules Jaszen (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a summary. It looks like you just took the list and removed the bullet points to turn it into a paragraph... InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So I should summarize it but find a way to keep all the details in? Jaszen (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A summary, by definition, summarizes the details into a brief description. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I created a summary but it was reverted by another user Jaszen (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that whatever you put in the article must be ready to be read by anyone. You can't just publish it with everything written in lowercase, without even capitalizing titles or the first word after a period. —El Millo (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m submitted the edit I think it’s correct Jaszen (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@InfinteNexus I’m trying to add similar page like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight retrospective assessments to this page. Jaszen (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jaszen: try doing it at your sandbox first. —El Millo (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll do that but what description am I providing. One user says summarize but another says detail description like in my link so which is it? I’d prefer the detailed Jaszen (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve filled out a draft if you’d like to look it over on my sandbox Jaszen (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jaszen: Okay, it's clear at this point that you do not have a clear understanding of how sandboxes and drafts work, in addition to there being a language barrier. Given these WP:CIR issues, I advise you stop making further edits until this matter is fully resolved. @Barry Wom was justified in reverting your edit, this has serious typographical and grammatical errors. You can stop nagging them on their talk page. Secondly, please do not try to submit User:Jaszen/sandbox to AfC again. The sandbox is a place for you to experiment and mock-up text, not submit edits to articles. Please also refrain from adding any text to The Dark Knight Rises until you have consensus from other editors to do so. As said before, your text is clearly unsuitable for being in the live article, and still does not satisfy the MOS:FILMCRITICLIST requirement of a concise summary of critics' top-ten lists. To be honest, I don't think the section on The Dark Knight fully complies with it either, but the article did just pass its FAC nom yesterday, so ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So then what do I do since I believe these should still tbe included. I’m trying to abide by the rules exactly like the other page. How do I get it submitted without errors for a FAC nom? Jaszen (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand how this isn’t concise

The film was voted by a poll of over 10,000 users on Ladbible as the best film of the decade. In 2019 Total Film and Den of Geek both ranked it as the 48th and 61st best film of the 2010s. It was ranked by both Empire and the The Daily Telegraph as among the greatest films of all time in 2014 and 2020 as well as the best superhero film ever in 2018.

what errors did I make? Jaszen (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Here I proofread it

The film was voted by a poll of over 10,000 users on LadBible as the best film of the decade. In 2019, Total Film and Den of Geek both ranked it as the 48th and 61st best film of the 2010s. It was ranked by both Empire and The Daily Telegraph as among the greatest films of all time in 2014 and 2020, as well as the best superhero film ever in 2018. Jaszen (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The film was voted by LadBible as the best film of the decade. In 2019, Total Film and Den of Geek both ranked it as the 48th and 61st best film of the 2010s. both Empire and The Daily Telegraph ranked it as among the greatest films of all time in 2014 and 2020, and the best superhero film ever in 2018

here I made it shorter so what do I do to submit this for an edit? Jaszen (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Even shorter

LadBible voted it the best film of the decade. Total Film and Den of Geek both ranked it as the 48th and 61st best film of the 2010s. Empire and The Daily Telegraph ranked it as among the greatest films of all time in 2014 and 2020, and the best superhero film ever in 2018.

I don’t see anything wrong with it. How do i form a consensus? Jaszen (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not about concision or shortening, this has nothing to do with FACs, and you still do not understand what I mean by WP:CONSENSUS. Your latest version has rectified most typographical errors, but it's still a list. A summary shouldn't even mention the names of the publications. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

But then why was the dark knights page approved when it just listed of critics lists? Jaszen (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

All I’m asking for is consistency between pages Jaszen (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So why is it? Jaszen (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is more important than consistency. You seem preoccupied with consistency, but badgering isn't going to build consensus.

The Dark Knight's featured article nomination had some concerns about the critical response being "summary-ish", but it was decided that it was warranted, given what the bulk of reliable sources were saying. It might be consistent to use similar sourced content here, but how will it read in the context of this article? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you build consensus? It just sounds so nebulous. These are specific articles they are not opinions I just don’t know what is against them. I think they are noteworthy to be in the article. All I’m simply doing is highlighting them. But yes badgering is probably not the way to do it I agree Jaszen (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Another issue I have have is these sources where on this page for months then just randomly removed. So they where considered ok at first Jaszen (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

retrospective assessment

On the dark knights page there is a retrospective assessment list with critics and polls. Why can’t this page also include similar lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There can be if there are enough reliable sourcess discussing it. DonQuixote (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have some sources available but how do i know if they are reliable enough? Jaszen (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If they have a reputation for being reliable (New York Times, Sight & Sound, etc.), then you wouldn't need to ask if they're reliable. The bottom line is that if you need to ask, then it's probably not notable per WP:DUE. DonQuixote (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a few reliable sources. There even on the page I just want to highlight them. So can I ?

For example this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-movies-all-time-greatest-films-2021/ is a critics I’d like to include. It’s been deemed reliable Jaszen (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing your edit, you should trim some and that and stick to the most well known and most reputable. Also, proper spelling/grammar/punctuation would help. DonQuixote (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

spelling/grammar/punctuation I got that but I should trim some of the source above ? Jaszen (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Throwing everything at the wall doesn't usually work. Per WP:DUE, you should use the best sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/301-greatest-movies/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-movies-all-time-greatest-films-2021/

https://www.gamesradar.com/decade-best-movies-2010-2019/2/

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/100-best-movies-of-the-decade/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-superhero-movies-time/dark-knight0/

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-batman-the-dark-knight-rises-voted-best-film-of-the-decade-20191227

These are the 6 and best sources I want to use. Jaszen (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Listicles don't hold much weight and Ladbible is talking about a user generated poll. If you have to bend over backwards to find a source discussing this film explicitly, then it's probably not that notable (per WP:DUE). DonQuixote (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

So the user poll is out but the other 4 are from critics . And they weren’t that hard to look up. It took a 1 minute google search searching the film alongside best of decades lists. I think they are viable since they are already on this page if you check Jaszen (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Right on the top of this page these sources are used to form a consensus where it’s regarded as one of the best films of the decade. I’m just specifically pointing them out to highlight on the page Jaszen (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

All of them put together might be enough to support a single sentence, but what makes them in-and-of-themselves noteworthy?--not the least of which for an entire section devoted to just them? Again, see WP:DUE. DonQuixote (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say they are noteworthy because it’s lists that aren’t just audience polls. They are actually proven critics and they are important to point out in the retrospective in the critical reception. It shows a legacy the same way its other 2 films in the trilogy both have. Batman begins and the dark knight both uses empire polls to show retrospective, so they should be used here as well since they are all the same trilogy. Jaszen (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You need secondary sources stating all that, otherwise it's just your pov. DonQuixote (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Secondary source as in articles that state this that are not from right? Jaszen (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

From me right? Jaszen (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You would need secondary sources stating that these lists are noteworthy, otherwise you would need a significant number of these lists. Checking The Dark Knight, that article has nearly a hundred (~70 at a rough estimate). DonQuixote (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

For the LadBible poll I have this source

https://www.therichest.com/movies/the-dark-knight-rises-top-movie-of-decade-by-ladbible-poll/

and For the telegraph I have this article

https://www.cbr.com/best-movie-trilogies-never-get-bad/ Jaszen (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I also have one for the TotalFilm list

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/best-movies-2010s-151451102.html Jaszen (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If that’s not enough I have about 30-40 other best of decade lists from smaller websites if that would be useful. Jaszen (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Examining the list of six sources you supplied above:

• LadBible is the result of an audience knockout poll on Twitter.
• The Empire poll is a reader poll. Your claim that "Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both use Empire polls to show retrospective" is disingenuous because the Empire polls cited in those articles also included critics' input.
• The two Daily Telegraph articles are by the same critic, who freely admits in one of them that it is the "unabashedly partial and self-serving result of one critic".

With none of the above being suitable, that leaves Total Film and Den of Geek with "48th/61st best film of the decade". I'd argue that's non-notable, trivial information and not valid for inclusion on their own. Barry Wom (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d argue that the daily telegraph and the 2 best of film decades lists should be used. An individual critics list can be noteworthy, especially since there is a secondary source stating it as noteworthy https://www.cbr.com/best-movie-trilogies-never-get-bad/. These 3 should be added, and that’s it. Jaszen (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've made my position clear. You clearly don't have consensus to include these assessments in the article and if you attempt to reinsert them it will likely lead to you being blocked, especially given the history of disruptive editing detailed at your talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does your position matter your just one user same as me. How do you know I don’t have consensus Jaszen (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Im talking to a user right now above me in User:DonQuixote arguing my position Jaszen (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m arguing for consistency. On the dark knights page there are separate critics lists cited. The same should be used here as well as the decades lists. I think this is a fair compromise Jaszen (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that not one editor thus far has endorsed adding your proposed text is an indicator that the consensus is overwhelmingly against it. Further attempts to push for your viewpoint will only prove futile, WP:DEADHORSE. Also, saying Why does your position matter is not okay. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

So what is the official count of editors vs me ? Jaszen (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a majority rules situation. But unless I'm mistaken, I don't see any editors who have voiced their support for including your text. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I just don’t see why a single sentence can’t be added to the reception column stating this:

"The daily telegraph named the film one of the 100 greatest films as well as regarded as one of the best films of the decade by Total film and Den of geek,"

these are three valuable sources and that’s it. Jaszen (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s a fair compromise. It’s not too disruptive just one sentence and is factual. I’d be happy with just that Jaszen (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a list of three critics' top 10 lists, which MOS:FILMCRITICLIST discourages, and because the consensus among editors here is to not include it. This has been explained to you multiple times by now, your comment sounds like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What about creating a summary. Jaszen (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How many critics lists would I need if 3 isn’t enough Jaszen (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Earlier you said I could summarize it. Is that not still doable? Jaszen (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

“Multiple critics have named it one of the best films of the decade, from Total film,and den of geek to the daily telegraph, ranking it on its list of 100 greatest films. “

how about this? Jaszen (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're the only person that thinks this is interesting (as opposed to secondary sources), then it's probably not notable. DonQuixote (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m confused. I have a secondary source stating that one of the lists is noteworthy. Doesn’t that count or is it just not enough? Jaszen (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DUE DonQuixote (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So I think it’s noteworthy and have a secondary source as well but it’s not enough against multiple editors is that basically it? Jaszen (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple editors are telling you that you don't have enough content--ie, undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I get a answer on what would it take to count as due? How many lists or references. Just ballpark it for me Jaszen (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ballpark?...everyone respects Sight & Sound, so there's that...or about five highly reputable sources actually discussing the film...or about a hundred listicles. DonQuixote (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being clear with me. Jaszen (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

best Batman films consensus

Are these sources Enough for a “ many have named it one of the best Batman films” in the critical reception? If it’s not you can remove until more sources are found

There's a total of 11 Batman films. How many of them are "one of the best"? Barry Wom (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d say the ranked by critics is viable. It’s in the top 2 that seems notable Jaszen (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also there’s some awards and nominations missing on The accolades page. Can I add them from IMDb ? Jaszen (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No, please use a different source for awards and nominations, both as the source of information and to establish due coverage. See WP:IMDB. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What if the source if viable but they source imdb? Most award sites evidently do use IMDb. Jaszen (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of the accolades already source imdb on this page if you check as well Jaszen (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Excessive praise in the opening paragraphs.

I believe the sentence "It is considered one of the greatest superhero films of all time, one of the best films of the 2010s, and one of the best sequels of all time" should be removed. I've gone through the links used to justify the claims, and aside from Rotten Tomatoes, I do not see how the claims are backed up. I would also argue that it seems excessive, biased, and that whoever wrote this sentence is clearly a great admirer of the film. The three claims are each very tall orders to justify and I don't see how an accurate quantification of opinions could even be reached to back up the claims. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would generally agree that claiming the film is the greatest of this and that is a high bar and requires highly reputable and authoritative sourcing. The internet is a big place, so if somebody is determined enough they can usually find some article or other to reinforce their pre-determined view. If you find a source calling a film the best film of all-time, is that sufficient for the claim? I would say no, because WP:WEIGHT is also a factor i.e. for us to present something as a fact, the claim should be advanced by a significant number of sources. When it comes to films, I think the list at They Shoot Pictures presents a good snap shot: it is amalgamated from lots of different surveys and polls. The Dark Knight Rises does not appear on it, despite 17 other films from the 2010s being present on the list. There are also half a dozen sequels on the list (including its predecessor The Dark Knight), and it does not appear among them. On this Rotten Tomatoes list of greatest sequels, it comes in at #63—a respectable placing but I would expect a much higher placing for such a claim to be valid. Rotten Tomatoes also has an equivalent superhero list and the film finishes at #30, again a respectable finish but hardly in the upper echelons. Personally I agree with you that the claims have over-stretched, and while I haven't studied the sources in detail they do appear to be bargain basement. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe those claims are not excessive. Those sources back it up. They have been on this wiki for almost a year Jaszen (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I can list around 30 to 40 listarticles saying the movie is one of the best films of the decade and superhero movies Jaszen (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve edited the rotten tomatoes out and added more sources. I think these are absolutely valid Jaszen (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Here for best of decade

https://www.showmetech.com.br/en/the-50-best-movies-of-the-decade/

https://globstart.com/article/top-30-movies-of-the-decade-2010-2020

https://scenebygreen.com/2022/01/20/the-best-films-of-the-2010s/

https://screenmayhem.com/top-100-movies-of-the-2010s/

https://www.mandatory.com/culture/1536078-top-20-movies-2010s#1

https://joshmatthews.org/the-midwesterners-guide-to-the-best-movies-of-the-2010s/

https://www.ageofthenerd.com/2019/12/ranker-presents-the-best-of-2019-and-the-2010s-according-to-the-masses/

https://wolfsports.com/entertainment/the-best-movies-of-the-decade-2010-2019/

https://www.davishighnews.com/15464/opinion/the-best-movies-of-the-decade/

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/100-best-movies-of-the-decade/

https://epiloguers.com/best-movies-of-the-decade/

https://www.knightcrier.org/top-stories/2019/12/22/the-best-films-of-the-2010s/

https://epiblogue.com/2020/01/20/my-top-51-movies-of-the-2010s/

https://www.dinnerandamovieblog.net/blog/2020/12/11/top-fifty-films-of-the-2010s-a-retrospective-nos-20-11

https://papiroandmint.wordpress.com/2019/01/31/a-decade-in-film-10-years-100-movies-part-2/

https://moviesplusmadness.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-20-11/

https://analysethemovie.blogspot.com/2020/01/Must-Watch-Movies-of-Decade.html

http://www.channeltim.com/2019/12/best-of-decade-top-ten-films-of-2010s.html

https://www.gamesradar.com/decade-best-movies-2010-2019/2/ Jaszen (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

At least some of these can't be considered reliable sources, but the one I did check was DenOfGeek, which placed it at #61. As Betty Logan points out, a placement like this is hardly sufficient to back up the claim.

Cinnamonrollsaregood: whoever wrote this sentence is clearly a great admirer of the film. I believe you've now met them. This user has been attempting to insert hyperbolic praise into this article for some time. See the previous discussions on this talk page. Barry Wom (talk)

Best of superhero movies

https://screenrant.com/greatest-superhero-films-ever-imdb/

https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/christian-bale-batman-4863675/

https://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/best-superhero-movies/

jhttps://www.gq.com.au/culture/entertainment/the-best-and-worst-superhero-films-of-all-time-ranked/image-gallery/83240b5555db7fadb456def651baee05

https://trove42.com/20-best-superhero-movies-all-time/

https://www.themanual.com/culture/best-superhero-movies/

https://www.screengeek.net/2021/03/20/10-best-superhero-movies-study/

https://thehollywoodtribune.com/10-best-christopher-nolan-movies-ranked/

https://screenrant.com/dc-comics-dctv-lowest-highest-ranked-films-tv-shows/

https://www.darkhorizons.com/what-re-the-most-acclaimed-comic-book-films/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/superman-christopher-reeve-best-superhero-film-poll-batman-spiderman-deadpool-a8381856.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-superhero-movies-time/dark-knight0/

https://collider.com/best-tom-hardy-movies/

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42651137 Jaszen (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Best threequel or sequels

https://screenrant.com/best-movie-threequels-ever-made-ranker/

https://411mania.com/movies/stews-top-10-threequels/

https://movieweb.com/threequel-movies/

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/1145211-top-10-best-threequels

https://www.awardscircuit.com/top-10-trilogies-finales/

https://lylesmoviefiles.com/2014/08/16/top10-bestworst-movie-threequels-2014-edition/2/

http://themnmreviews.blogspot.com/2013/05/top-5-movies-of-all-time-that-defied.html

https://www.indiewire.com/2013/05/25-blockbuster-threequels-did-they-sink-or-save-their-franchises-98628/

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2021/3/14l8t0zwm7i5t7p2antjclqrlsn04a

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2018/the-15-best-movie-threequels-of-all-time/ Jaszen (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think with this many articles a consensus can be formed . I see no hyperbole Jaszen (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

All this list needs to be assessed and cleaned-up first. Trove42, worldofreel, tasteofcinema, themnmreviews, 411mania, and lylesmoviefiles show no sign of editorial policy and many of them are self-published sources, these are all unreliable. Awardscircuit seems not to be available. I haven't yet taken a look at all of them, but once we remove the unreliable ones, we have to check what the reliable ones actually say. —El Millo (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

But aren’t these a listicle? Jaszen (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that, but unreliable sources cannot be used, exceptions to this rule are rare and this isn't one of them. —El Millo (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright that makes sense Jaszen (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Right now on the article these are the sources provided

https://screenrant.com/dc-comics-dctv-lowest-highest-ranked-films-tv-shows/

https://www.darkhorizons.com/what-re-the-most-acclaimed-comic-book-films/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-superhero-movies-time/dark-knight0/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/superman-christopher-reeve-best-superhero-film-poll-batman-spiderman-deadpool-a8381856.html

https://collider.com/best-tom-hardy-movies/

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-42651137

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/100-best-movies-of-the-decade/

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-batman-the-dark-knight-rises-voted-best-film-of-the-decade-20191227

https://www.gamesradar.com/decade-best-movies-2010-2019/2/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-movies-all-time-greatest-films-2021/

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/301-greatest-movies/

https://gizmodo.com/the-dark-knight-rises-10-year-retrospective-1849185673

https://www.looper.com/805812/every-gary-oldman-movie-ranked-worst-to-best/

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/1145211-top-10-best-threequels

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/06/17/25-sequels-that-are-much-better-than-the-original-movie/

https://movieweb.com/threequel-movies/

https://www.indiewire.com/2013/05/25-blockbuster-threequels-did-they-sink-or-save-their-franchises-98628/

I think they are the most reliable Jaszen (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This source https://www.darkhorizons.com/what-re-the-most-acclaimed-comic-book-films/ used both rotten tomatoes and metacritic added together for a critical consensus that’s it’s one of the best superhero films of all time. Those are 2 absolutely reliable metrics. For best of the decade these 2 sources https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/100-best-movies-of-the-decade/ and https://www.gamesradar.com/decade-best-movies-2010-2019/2/ both are multiple critics saying it’s one of the best. These are all sourced and reliable Jaszen (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also if you check this pages critical reception multiple sources named it one of the best superhero films all time

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12736276/2/the-10-greatest-superhero-movies-of-all-time.html

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/pictures/readers-poll-the-15-greatest-superhero-movies-20140409/

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/entertainment/article/3087410/dark-knight-film-trilogy-review-christopher-nolans-batman

there is no doubt the film is one of the best superhero films Jaszen (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many of those sources aren't worth the time of day (you literally have Wordpress and Blogspot sites in there), but it only places at #30 on the Rotten Tomatoes chart, that's below films like Doctor Strange and Ant-Man and the Wasp. I would accept this source for The Dark Knight (which places at #6, but The Dark Knight Rises is too low down the chart). Also, you can't expect us to sift through dozens of sources; if the claims lives up to scrutiny then you should be able to back it up with three or four sources, so please list here the most credible three sources for each claim. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Here most acclaimed https://www.darkhorizons.com/what-re-the-most-acclaimed-comic-book-films/

it uses both rotten tomatoes and metacritic

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/superman-christopher-reeve-best-superhero-film-poll-batman-spiderman-deadpool-a8381856.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-superhero-movies-time/dark-knight0/

Polls with both critics and fans Jaszen (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the Dark Horizons article is that the author has cherry-picked metrics from Rotten Tomatoes (such as the average rating as opposed to the weighted Tomatometer), metacritic and IMDB (a non-reliable source) and blended them to create a brand new list, that is not corroborated by either Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. The Telegraph link is dead, and the Independent article is simply relaying a Virgin Media poll of 1,000 Brits. None of these are sufficient for any of the claims above. Please provide an untampered aggregators chart or a poll/survey of critics that has this film in the top ten or so. This is easy to do for The Dark Knight, but if it can't be done for The Dark Knight Rises you have to ask yourself why. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The dark horizons article is absolutely credible. The average rating is what’s important not the tomatoes meter. The meter is just the number of critics who liked it not the real score.

here’s the telegraph again link that works https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/best-superhero-movies-time/

and another one https://superheroes.theringer.com/ Jaszen (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If it were credible for the kind of claim you want to use it for then presumably Rotten Tomatoes would have used it instead of the Tomatometer for their own list! Again, please provide just one aggregator article or a survey/poll of critics (without being reconstructed by a third party) that puts this film in the top ten for any of claims above. This is easy to do for a film such as The Dark Knight, so it shouldn't be that difficult to do for The Dark Knight Rises if the claim stands up to scrutiny. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes themselves say the average rating is what’s important not the tomato meter. He meter means bother to the actual.

heres metacritic https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/dc-comics-movies-ranked

there is yours critics list Jaszen (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If you add the dc listhttps://www.metacritic.com/pictures/dc-comics-movies-ranked and mcu listhttps://www.metacritic.com/pictures/marvel-films-ranked-worst-to-best and combine them the dark knight rises comes in the top 10 by critics Jaszen (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a list that’s used on the dark knights pages and referenced as reliable

https://superheroes.theringer.com/

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/best-superhero-movies-last-15-years/ Jaszen (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So I think it's safe to say aside from Jaszen, the consensus is to remove the sentence, yes? Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's explicitly establish that with a straw poll. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I provided a list by metacritic

like you asked why is that not enough ? Jaszen (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also why does a straw poll matter more than say a poll like this https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/superman-christopher-reeve-best-superhero-film-poll-batman-spiderman-deadpool-a8381856.html Jaszen (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't access the Metacritic list for some reason, but from the title it appears to rank just DC titles. That does not corroborate the claim that it is "one of the best superhero movies", because it is plausible that if all superhero movies were considered then it would be pushed out of the top ten or so. The Independent reports a poll carried out by Virgin Media, who polled 1,000 Brits (not critics), which does not constitute a consensus of critical opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you add the metacritic list from the dc and marvel together rises finishes in the top 10

https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/dc-comics-movies-ranked

https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/marvel-films-ranked-worst-to-best Jaszen (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

With metacritic of 78 only

dark knight 84

spiderman 2 83

black panther 88

supeman 81

into the spiderverse 87

iron man 79

are higher Jaszen (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it says a straw poll is non binding and not a consensus Jaszen (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Earlier today, Cinnamonrollsaregood removed the following claims on the basis that the sources did not stand up to scrutiny:

• The film is considered one of greatest superhero films ever
• The film is considered one of greatest sequels ever
• The film is considered one of the greatest films of the 2010s

Jaszen reverted the edit. As you can at #"Greatest_film_of_all-time"_edits and ##MOS:FILMCRITICLIST, Jaszen has been pushing this narrative for some time. I would like to get a snapshot of editorial opinion on this question. Should these claims be kept in the article, or should they be deleted, a question to be judged purely in terms of the soucring that has been provided. It will be simpler if the claims remain in the article for now on the basis of WP:STATUSQUO and the fact that it will make it easier for editors to review the sources.

• DELETE I agree with Cinnamonrollsaregood that the sources do not stand up to scrutiny. If the lead is going to make broad sweeping claims of this nature they should reflect broad, mainstream critical opinion. In view of that, I have requested just one survey/poll of critical opinion that ranks the film in the top ten for each of these claims. None of the sources above do that: they either i) reflect singular opinion (either that of a reviewer or a periodical); ii) are readers' polls (while some of them are reputable they are usually not in line with the critical consensus); iii) are contrived by questionable third-parties by selectively blending Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic/IMDB/box-office metrics into a ranked list that reflects their own publication sensibilities. I don't think my request for a single, undoctored, critical survey that ranks the film in the top 10 is unreasonable (it is relatively straightforward to produce such a poll for the film's predecessor, The Dark Knight), and until that request is met then I cannot support the inclusion of these claims in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• COMMENT This article combines both reviews from rotten tomatoes and metacritic https://www.darkhorizons.com/what-re-the-most-acclaimed-comic-book-films/

It should be viable and if that’s not this this list https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/dc-comics-movies-ranked by metacritic puts the movie in the top ten superhero movies with a rating of 78 Jaszen (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ive replied with a critical survey. On the Batman begins page that films is regarded as one of the best with no sources and the dark knight has only one critical survey. Jaszen (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• DELETE Agree with Betty Logan. I've argued against the inclusion of this kind of puffery before [3]. Barry Wom (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Betty asked for just one critics source and I provided with metacritic. That meets her standard does it not ? Jaszen (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  According to this for reference the dark knight which is regarded as one of the best has only a bunch of lists and one critical consensus from rotten tomatoes The Dark Knight#cite note-414 rises has metacritic and its own plethora of lists so what’s the difference ? Also btw batman begins article has it referred as one of the best without any sources. All three are part of the trilogy and all 3 are regarded as 3 of the best superhero movies. Jaszen (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  You need to get your head around the concept of due weight. As I have mentioned above, you need a handful of sources with high reputation or around a hundred low reputation sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  One user asked for one critics list and I provided it now you ask for several low reputation sources and again I provided I don’t see the problem. I’m following the exact guidelines the other movies in this trilogy use. Batman begins has literally no sources and if you check this movies page it says in critical reception many regard as one of the best with lists that were added before I even became a user Jaszen (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  On the reception it says many have named it one of the best superhero movies. Why not do that with 2010s and threequel. Jaszen (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right here “ Many have named it one of the best films of 2012, and one of the best superhero films of all time”. Jaszen (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

For the moment I've removed references from the "best superhero films of all time" line which were either dead or inappropriate readers' polls. If the result of the survey is to delete I suggest we also remove this line from the critical response section. Barry Wom (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Those 3 sources are valid isn’t that enough Jaszen (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Here another [SOURCES MOVED]

9 sources is that enough ? Jaszen (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Here different sites regarding it as one of the best [SOURCES MOVED] Jaszen (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved your list of links to the Sources section below. Please refrain from cluttering up the survey with these. Barry Wom (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What happens when the survey ends but no consensus has been made does it movie to dispute resolution or is a compromise made? Jaszen (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we waiting on more opinions/votes? It would seem the vote is 5 for deletion, and 1 for keeping it. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No consensus has been made. A survey is non binding and doesn’t form a consensus Jaszen (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

“Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed”. This is from the straw poll page Jaszen (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster, the definition of the word Consensus is "a general agreement". There is obviously a consensus here and at this point I think you're trolling. "Those people's objections need to be addressed"- in my opinion your objections have been addressed up and down the street. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And in my objection your trolling by ignoring my concerns and sources. Merriam-Webster doesn’t matter when I cited Wikipedias own rules Jaszen (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve produced site after site and you five have ignored it. I am ready to move this to dispute resolution Jaszen (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Method for consensus building

Consensus is reached[edit source]

See consensus message box below

A proposed resolution in which all the responses are at least "neutral" is deemed to have achieved consensus. Everyone has in effect said they can at least live with it. The definition of "all" is responses after 72 hours or by all the editors who have posted or responded to positions in the discussion Jaszen (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaszen, this section is to survey opinion. If you want to discuss the issue or post sources please use the section above. You are not helping your cause here. The discussion closer will review the discussion above and the surveyed opinion; they will not be interested in reading your disagreements with other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just had 1 editor accuse me of trolling which I’m pretty sure is name calling and the other editors ignore my sources even though there the same ones used the 2 other films in this trilogy so I don’t see my cause hurting more. Every source has been written off for no other reason then you guys don’t like it. I have multiple websites who regard the film as one of the best this isn’t a controversial statement even audience polls have it as one of the best I don’t understand. Please help me because all three Film in the dark knight trilogy are regarded as the best I really don’t think I’m trying to make a false statement honestly. Jaszen (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve even added a compromise down below I’m doing everything by the rules Jaszen (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cinnamonrollsaregood: It is customary to keep these things open for a few days. Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Roger that. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per Cinnamonrollsaregood and Betty Logan. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per Betty's comments. Alternately, if enough of those sources are considered reliable on their own merits, we could rephrase to something like "some critics considered it blah blah blah". But I only see a handful of sources in there that are known, solid sources. Millahnna (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  How many sources do you need in your opinion? Jaszen (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove – This list of sources is ridiculous. Rolling Stone and Den of Geek early in the list aren't even working. And then there are lot of entries like this one from BBC, which barely talk about the film and only mention it in passing. Passing mentions are no good; they're junk. Other sources in the list are a single person's opinion. Take a look at this one from MovieWeb that you provided, and then this other one from MovieWeb that I stumbled across. Notice a problem? Same publisher but two different authors with very different opinions. Rises doesn't even make the list in the latter, a more recent publication. This is why we can't form a summary based on some random compilation of sources. 5, 10, 20 or even 50 opinions does not make something so. Strong, reputable sources should be doing that kind of research for us, compiling the data, and drawing a conclusion that we can then cite on Wikipedia. We should not be citing our own personal research from Google in a case like this.
  Jaszen, please get the list whittled down to the most pertinent sources you think best represents your case, and until you have consensus for inclusion (which you do not currently), the disputed statement should be removed per WP:ONUS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  These are the most pertinent sources for best superhero I have these: [SOURCES MOVED to section below] --Jaszen (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be helpful to anyone else joining the discussion. I may circle back and re-review this at some point, but for now, I have yet to see anything that changes my mind. The sources I looked at so far in the new list (many of which appear to be repeated from the old list) all suffer from the same issues myself and others describe above. You need to move away from individual opinions and drift toward sources that cite a consensus. That Dark Horizons source is not a good example of what I mean. The author there came up with a random, unproven way to combine critics' scores across three sites, including unreliable user scores from IMDB. That is far from the solid research and analysis we actually need. Reviews from a film's release have nothing to do with long-term reception over time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What would prove reception over time? I have lists and user polls and now you say critic reviews can’t be used. It sounds like nothing can be used. The metacritic list and the two Batman lists both use critical reviews which should be valid right? Jaszen (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the example I posted above about two different lists from the same publisher, MovieWeb? This is one of the best ways to demonstrate why your approach is flawed; please take the time to understand why. Individual opinion (reviews during release, one author's "best of" list, etc) do not provide the necessary support for a claim that says "most industry experts feel this way today". Instead of asking more questions, please address some of the concerns that have already been raised. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What concerns exactly ? Jaszen (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m just confused. Going through my list are any of the sources valid. I’m trying to figure out in your mind what a valid source is Jaszen (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What about these sources

[SOURCES MOVED]

these are by multiple critics not just individuals. Are these valid ? Jaszen (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources again moved to section below. What part of "Please refrain from cluttering up the survey with these" do you not understand? Barry Wom (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Listicles and users polls are not valid right? Jaszen (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the 5 additional sources you added on March 2, and they all suffer from the same issues. Doesn't matter if it's a publication's entire editorial staff, you're still talking about a few grains of sand on a beach, which misses the point. Until you understand the MovieWeb comparison, which has now been brought to your attention twice (make this three) without a response, throwing more sources up on the board hoping something eventually sticks is not the answer. Understand the problem first. At some point, participants here are going to stop reviewing and even responding altogether. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

What if it’s critical reception like this

https://www.insider.com/every-batman-film-ranked-according-to-critics Jaszen (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand editorial staff is not enough but what about critical reception like the sources I added down this page Jaszen (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone compiling a list of the best reviewed films based on RT scores alone is misleading. As some of your sources demonstrated, one might choose to go by "average rating" instead when making their list. Either way, however, the scores represent how a film was received at the time of its release. The critics scoring a film were reviewing the film in a vacuum and not necessarily comparing it to other films (especially films that did not yet exist). For someone to then pit these reviews against one another years later in some kind of ranking showdown, while it may seem fun or interesting, is not an accurate depiction or reflection of what the same critic(s) may think today if they were asked to compare. As society evolves, opinions do too; they can change over time.

Does analysis like that belong on Wikipedia? Maybe, maybe not, but at the very least, you would need to show that such a ranking system has had widespread support and recognition. It can't be just one entity performing the comparison to generate clickbait for their readers. Did other major publications recognize this list? Why did others choose not to recognize the list and instead decided to take a different approach when making their own list? Important questions to ponder when evaluating due weight and whether it belongs in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

so what the hell In your opinon would show it’s one of the best? I gave you literal critical consensus and you basically say that doesn’t count.

these 3 sources together regard the film as one of the best in 2012

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Film_Institute_Awards_2012

https://www.metacritic.com/feature/top-ten-lists-best-movies-of-2012

https://criticstop10.com/the-dark-knight-rises/

is that conclusive enough? Jaszen (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Betty asked for one critical list is this not one?

https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/dc-comics-movies-ranked Jaszen (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Every individual editor has given me a different criteria. That’s not fair there should be a consensus criteria we all agree on that’s definitive Jaszen (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand this may be frustrating and confusing because the truth is that there's no established criteria. Instead of constantly throwing around sources, the criteria itself should be discussed first. However, you need to be clear on what you're trying to accomplish. You talk about "best superhero films", yet you bring up the AFI Awards 2012 and the Metacritic 2012 Top Ten, which only contain films from that year and aren't talking specifically about the superhero genre, so that clearly doesn't help. CriticsTop10 is clearly an unreliable source as an WP:SPS (as seen in its About page), so you shouldn't even bring it up. Focus on finding reliable sources that clearly talk about superhero films and that are not from 2012 or about 2012 alone. They should also talk about it as being something that is generally accepted and it should be more than a passing mention. —El Millo (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it to me in a concise manner. The Afi and metacritic where meant to prove other claims but I probably wasn’t clear so I cleared that up down below Jaszen (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

What if the article says it’s commonly regarded as one of the best. Is that enough or is that a passing mention? Jaszen (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.therichest.com/movies/the-dark-knight-rises-top-movie-of-decade-by-ladbible-poll/

This article for example Jaszen (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"...so what the hell In your opinon...

Keep this conversation civil please.

"Every individual editor has given me a different criteria"

What criteria? This has always been about the quality of your sources from the very beginning, many of which have been called "bargain basement", "self-published", and not "worth the time of day". We even asked you to whittle down the list of sources, but you keep adding more junk – walls of text in the form of links – in what seems like every 5 minutes.

The quality is going downhill too. TheRichest.com is a clickbait entertainment website and definitely not reliable (see this discussion). And criticstop10? Another self-published source after we've complained numerous times about those? Really? That could be the worst one yet. Should have been obvious. Either you are unable to identify reliable sources or simply not willing to. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to see a WP:CIR issue, you can't possibly think TheRichest.com is a reliable source (see their About page composed of two staff writers and nothing else) and what the source is referring to is a Twitter poll by LADbible voted by random people in some kind of championship for the best film of the 2010s. —El Millo (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's quite clearly not a reliable source and what's galling is that Jaszen has already been informed about this on multiple occasions.

On January 4 Jaszen supplied one of their ever-changing lists of "best sources" for the claim that it's one of the best films of the decade. This included the LadBible Twitter poll.[4] Two editors including myself pointed out this was unusable.[5][6] When informed that it would "need secondary sources stating that these lists are noteworthy"[7] Jaszen supplied the link from TheRichest.com mentioned above.[8]. They were informed that this too was unusable.[9]

Undeterred, on March 1 Jaszen attempted to reinsert into the article the claim that the film was "one of the best films of the 2010s" using the LadBible poll as a source.[10]. I reverted this with an edit summary pointing out yet again that this was not suitable as a reference.[11]

Maybe Jaszen simply forgot that they'd tried to use this source in the past or maybe they keep mentioning it in the forlorn hope that another editor will agree with them. In any case this is becoming a tad tiresome. Barry Wom (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've said before that this user has CIR issues, and in the face of overwhelming consensus against their edits, they really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. If this continues (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), we may have to escalate to ANI. TheStreet is considered unreliable as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow all of you are ganging up on a user and now accusing them of being basically illiterate. Did you ever think they might have a disability instead. But no you all resort to name calling and threats. You are the reason schools and the rest of the internet don’t take Wikipedia seriously. You exert the littlest amount of power in your life on here and act like tyrants. You have so little going on that you resort to debasing and accusing anyone who’s just a little bit different. I’m sorry I don’t know every rule on Wikipedia are that this one source isn’t reliable. I hope you are all proud of yourselves but I know instead you’ll just accuse me of being mentally ill or a troll or compare me to a anti vaxxer. Jaszen (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You brought up a source that had already been rejected given it was a Twitter poll voted by random people, which you had already been told was clearly not usable to verify the claim. If you can't find proper sources for these claims it might just mean that the sources aren't there. I looked for them too and they weren't quite there either. —El Millo (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Are the gamesradar and den of geek decades list proper sources ? Jaszen (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Out of my list there has to be a few valid sources Jaszen (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

They are. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

GamesRadar and DenOfGeek may be reliable, but as I've pointed out before The Dark Knight Rises only places at 48th and 61st respectively in their lists. Are these really high enough to justify the claim that it's "one of the best films of the decade"? I'd expect at least an upper quartile ranking for these to be usable. Barry Wom (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Your inability to identify reliable sources (which is crucial to Wikipedia editing) is not the only indicator of CIR issues. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No it’s more the hypocrisy of how some sources are used for one page but not the other Jaszen (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be time for WP:ANI, because this has gone on for too long. Mike Allen 18:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would love to. I have all the receipts of name calling and personal attacks I’d like to give to administrators Jaszen (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry and now understand how some of my sources weren’t reputable Jaszen (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources from survey

Please note this section is for the straw poll, the discussion about the relative merits of the sources is above.

"Many" have named it

On this pages critical reception it has this Many have named it one of the best films of 2012,[240] and one of the best superhero films of all time.[241][242][243][244][245][246][247]. I say many have named one of the best threequels and films of 2010s should be added. It’s a fair compromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, that is not an acceptable solution. Words like "many" and "some" are weasel words that dress-up claims as if "something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". Unless quoting a source, weasel words should generally be avoided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok what if the article claims it’s regarded as one of the best does that count ? Jaszen (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As in they say it is in these articles

https://collider.com/best-tom-hardy-movies/

https://www.looper.com/805812/every-gary-oldman-movie-ranked-worst-to-best/

https://gizmodo.com/the-dark-knight-rises-10-year-retrospective-1849185673 Jaszen (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaszen, I apologize for using the word “trolling” earlier in my frustration. I can tell this film and the other Nolan Batman films mean a great deal to you. If you think this is one of the best films ever made, that’s your right to feel that way. Not saying you’re wrong for thinking it’s one of the best films ever, or that you shouldn’t think it is. Just saying at present it’s difficult to say, with authority and objectivity, that the majority of people feel this way. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand and I agree the best ever might not be sufficiently proven right now. But best superhero films and decade and threequel are within the realm with these source. At the least best films of 2012 and best Batman films using these sources

https://www.insider.com/every-batman-film-ranked-according-to-critics

https://www.cbr.com/every-batman-live-action-film-ranked-according-critics/

https://www.metacritic.com/feature/top-ten-lists-best-movies-of-2012

would you say so? Jaszen (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

user polls and listicles

So I just want to make it clear no user polls even from empire shouldn’t be used as a source as well as listicles for any movie on Wikipedia right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This question actually has nothing to do with this survey. We are explicitly discussing the sourcing for generalised claims about the film's critical standing in the lead. An Empire readers poll is reliable for the views of its readers, but not for claims about critical standing. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

best of 2012 ,batman and dc films

https://www.insider.com/every-batman-film-ranked-according-to-critics https://www.cbr.com/every-batman-live-action-film-ranked-according-critics/ https://www.metacritic.com/feature/top-ten-lists-best-movies-of-2012 https://www.metacritic.com/pictures/dc-comics-movies-ranked https://criticstop10.com/the-dark-knight-rises/ Are these sources enough for these three claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is being "one of the best Batman films" even a thing? Virtually all Batman films are in the top 10! If it were considered the very best Batman film, I might consider it, but that's not the case here. I also think DC films are too small a grouping, although I would regard the Metacritic source as a reliable source for such a claim. If other editors feel differently about that then I am happy to leave it to the Wikipedia community to decide. As for being one of the "best of 2012", you will note that Cinnamonrolls did not challenge that claim because the claim is reliably backed up by citations to the AFI Awards (which has a substantial jury) and Criticstop10.com, which shows that 147 critics selected it for their end-of-year lists. For the record, I consider being voted one of the top of the year by the AFI jury (which includes a fairly substantial representation of critics and film historians) and appearing on 147 critics lists to be sufficient corroboration for the claim that is considered one of the best films of the year. Betty Logan (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe that the sentence "It was named one of the top 10 films of 2012 by the American Film Institute." speaks for itself and does not need a followup sentence saying "it is considered one of the best films of 2012" or something to that degree. At most I think a followup sentence in the lead or in the critical reception section saying "It appeared on 147 end-of-year lists" would be justified and would also speak for itself, given that it's objectively reporting on a piece of data. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would consider both of your alternatives to be superior because I have a personal preference for making claims as a specific as possible, but at the same time I would not conclude "one of the best films of 2012" to be inadequately sourced. I would prefer to leave the exact wording to the regular editors of the article to determine through the normal process of discussion and consensus, and just focus on the calibre of the sourcing in this survey. We'll let it run through the weekend as we may get a couple more comments, and on Monday I will request formal closure. Betty Logan (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

[Clarification] GoneIn60 points out above that Criticstop10 is self-published, and after taking a closer look he appears to be right. Therefore this particular source can't be used. The Metacritic version would be a reliable source though. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary

I am going to request formal closure, and in view of that I am going to try and summarise both sides of the argument briefly. This is an unusual step, but given the length of the discussion and the mountain of sources to work through, I think a brief summary would help.

In short, Jaszen would like the lead to proclaim the film as "one of the greatest superhero films", "one of the greatest films of the decade", "one of the best Batman films", and "one of the greatest threequels" (a threequel being the third entry in a series e.g. Star Trek 3/Goldfinger/Return of the Jedi etc). He has provided sourcing for each of these claims. If I were the discussion closer I would skip to the "most pertinent" list at #Sources from survey (essentially if the closer is not convinced by these sources then they won't be convinced by the others, and if they are then they would be sufficient and the others would not be needed anyway). He also argues that there is a double-standard at work, because some of the sources that he wants to use here are used at other articles.

The contentions from Cinnamonrollsaregood, myself, and those editors who oppose Jaszen's position boil down to various takes on WP:Reliable source, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:WEIGHT, and reflect the following concerns:

• That the groupings of Batman films and threequels are not sufficiently broad enough to warrant a broad, sweeping claim in the lead.
• The context is different for sources which they allow for similar claims at other articles. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are aggregator sites that aggregate reviews from several hundred film critics between them, therefore representing a wide body of critical opinion. For example, one source that is widely utilised on film articles is the Rotten Tomatoes list of superhero films, but The Dark Knight Rises only places at #30. In the case of the equivalent Metacritic list, inclusion is limited to just DC movies, which omits Marvel films and others, so is not necessarily representative of superhero films in general.
• Low-quality sources (such as The Ringer and Dark Horizons) synthesizing metrics (such as aggregator scores, box-office, IMDB ratings and self-invented metrics) into rankings. The objection here is that such synthesis is mainly aimed at the readership of website and are not regarded by other reliable sources as an indicator of critical standing.
• Periodical listings such as those found at The Street, The Telegraph, Den of Geek and Games Radar are reliable for how those particular publications regard the film, but they do not represent a body of critical opinion. Cherry-picking such sources and grouping together as a representation of critical opinion is WP:SYNTHESIS and goes against MOS:FILMCRITICS. To make claims of this nature we would expect the source to survey critical opinion in order to form a judgment in the way that Sight & Sound does for its Decennial poll, or this BBC poll.
• Audience polls such as Empire magazine's 100 greatest films as chosen by its readers usually only reflect the views of the readership, and not the wider cinematic audience. So while they may be regarded as reliable sources for the views of their readers, they are not reliable for making broad statements about the general critical standing of the film.

I think I have summarised both positions fairly and accurately, but if Jaszen feels that I have not reflected his position fairly then I would encourage him to briefly reiterate his central position here, preferably in under 500 words. Betty Logan (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a formal close? The consensus is overwhelmingly clear. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd say no when there is a clear consensus, but do you think Jaszen would abide by the decision if one of us closed it? I think this might be the most pain-free route for everyone, especially Jeszen. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If they choose to knowingly ignore the community's consensus, they will be reported and dealt with accordingly. But sure, we can do it this way too. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So has it been reached I’d like to edit the 2012 into the article Jaszen (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Is consensus reached? Jaszen (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is edit the article and end this debate but infinite nexus says it hasn’t Jaszen (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did user 98.144.170.55 edit the article if consensus hasn’t been reached yet? Jaszen (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If consensus has been reached I apologize Jaszen (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please wait until the discussion is closed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So if I find reliable sources later am I allowed to submit them and reopen this case ? Jaszen (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the current level of coverage (ie due weight) it'll probably be ten years before the level of coverage is sufficient enough if at all. See Vertigo (film)#Re-evaluation. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Or 100 listicles Jaszen (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have told you before, starting with a conclusion and googling any and all sources to support that conclusion is a tactic that seldom works. Come back in ten years to see if and how the critical landscape has changed because it won't happen overnight. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Assuming it's not a waste of community's time, you can always begin a new discussion; consensus can always change. However, I'd caution against doing that too soon. You should be well-prepared whenever you decide to take that step. If you are ill-prepared, the discussion will end quickly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Jaszen (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaszen, I recently reverted an edit of yours that restored disputed material. Since there was a proper challenge, it can be removed, even while the discussion is under way. We typically restore the status quo until the editor "seeking to include disputed content" is able to show that there is consensus to keep (per WP:ONUS). So far that has not happened, and judging from the discussion above, it is not anywhere close to happening. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Critically one of the best of 2012

Using sources from metacritic Afi and criticstop10 who respectfully each have it ranked 19,10 and 14 the claim should be enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaszen (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, criticstop10 is a self-published source and is not reliable. And a position of 19th out of 30 on the Metacritic list, with less than 15% of critics placing it in their top ten, is insufficient to support the claim. Barry Wom (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Afi should be enough as per Betty Logan and User:Cinnamonrollsaregood Jaszen (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

“ As for being one of the "best of 2012", you will note that Cinnamonrolls did not challenge that claim because the claim is reliably backed up by citations to the AFI Awards (which has a substantial jury) and Criticstop10.com, which shows that 147 critics selected it for their end-of-year lists. For the record, I consiJder being voted one of the top of the year by the AFI jury (which includes a fairly substantial representation of critics and film historians) and appearing on 147 critics lists to be sufficient corroboration for the claim that is considered one of the best films of the year“ Jaszen (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

AFI is already included as its own separate thing and criticstop10 cannot be used because it is an unreliable source. You are edit warring and showing an WP:IDHT attitude. —El Millo (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine if the lede is to much what about in critical reception many have named of the best of 2012. Would that be acceptable? Jaszen (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

AFI is included in the lead section and in the Accolades section. already. —El Millo (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time for us to take this to ANI, given this user's clear unwillingness to respect community consensus (WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc.). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The article is fine as is. Let's see what happens next. If Jaszen cannot keep their mitts off the article at this point (related to "best of" anything), it will be escalated and they will be blocked. Slam dunk case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jaszen: There is already a long 5 discussions here, where the conclusion was to clearly not add "any" such claims. Please stop suggesting things, even if they're a bit different. I do not think this claim (or any similar claim) will be added anytime soon. Maybe in a few years, but definitely not sooner. Please stop, or otherwise I expect someone to start blocking you from editing here. Soni (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaszen is once again trying to add these claims to the article/edit-warring. Not sure what the process is of getting ANI rolling but it might be a good idea. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we are all tired of it now. If it happens again then I agree that it should be handed over to ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, someone take this to ANI now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

^I agree with InfiniteNexus. I think it's safe to assume this story will continue and will inevitably arrive at ANI. Cinnamonrollsaregood (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A final warning has been left. Next step is ANI should it go unheeded. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

References

References

Critical consensus

Hi I’ve wanted to ask if both this film and batman begins should be considered some of the best superhero movies of all time? On the TSPDT list both films are in the top 20 of best superhero films based on 17000 critics. Then there are smaller lists by single critics from websites like rolling stone and the ringer who have one or both films listed. Fearthereaper3 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Many, many discussions immediately above this one have already taken place regarding this topic, with consensus against adding this, as the sources presented are not enough to warrant such a mention. —El Millo (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This source was not used in the previous arguments I checked. The prior arguments never used TSPDT or they shoot pictures don’t they. Fearthereaper3 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're a reliable source. Their about page divulges no insight into their editorial team, nor do they have a Wikipedia page. Nothing on WP:RSPS or WP:FILMRS either. Ringer and Rolling Stone were discussed in the previous discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Their editorial team is run by one person who updates the site every year with new critics to the ranking. They add everything from single list to AFI and sight and sounds. On previous discussions I read that the site was used as such hereWikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Core. If the source isn’t ruled out as unreliable then does that mean it is reliable ? Fearthereaper3 (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Should I start a discussion asking if it’s a reliable source on one of those discussion boards? Fearthereaper3 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The most recent discussion at the film project that I can find is here: WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources. This RfC followed on the heels of another discussion here: WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 62#On TSPDT. Both had somewhat limited participation, but there is some good analysis in there from Erik and Betty.

I honestly don't know much about the site, but some of the short descriptions and quotes could be useful as a general resource. However, I would caution against using it as some kind of widely-accepted ranking system that justifies calling a film "the best" or "one of the best" based on those lists alone. While the site's author has received some recognition from reputable sources, I think its usefulness and reliability comes down to the way you intend to use the source. I didn't find any history at WP:RSN. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:FILM/CORE, but Their editorial team is run by one person who updates the site every year with new critics to the ranking? Immediately fails WP:SPS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

On the surface, yes, but an argument could be made that the author is a subject matter expert whose work has been recognized by other reliable sources (see linked discussions for more details). I don't think it's a strong source by any means, but some information published on that site could be considered reliable to some degree. Again, it depends on what the source is being cited for. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A subject matter specialist can be considered reliable in a self-published format if it is an extension of the work in which they are typically published. This isn't the case here. For a start, I can't find any details about who is behind the site, and then you have the fact that—unlike Rotten Tomatoes or Sight & Sound for example—other media outlets don't pick up on the list. Even if we could come to an accommodation with the site, it does not have genre specific lists, so the rankings of superhero films are not actually verifiable; for example, The Dark Knight Rises appears at #4,889, so you'd basically have to count through 5,000 films to construct such a list. It's also not clear why The Dark Knight Rises is even on the list. It is so low it may only make the cut due to being on a couple of critics lists, which I'd argue from previous discussion is not enough to make such a strong claim. Finally, I would say that if you need to resort to self-published sources to corroborate such a claim, then it's probably not a claim that is widely borne out by the evidence. I view TheyShootPictures in a similar way to IMDB—a fantastic resource that can inform our editing, but not one we should be using to source our editing. Maybe it's something that will penetrate the mainstream media in the years to come, but it's not quite there yet. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The rankings are verifiable you just check each superhero movie on the list. Both Batman begins and dark knight rises fall within the top 20 of the list. This isn’t about greatest films of all time it’s about best superhero films of all times. Rotten tomatoes isn’t really valuable since there’s 2 different ratings the tomato meter and the average rating. And if you want to use average rating the dark knight rises falls within the top 10 superhero movies as well. Something I found when searching other batman films was batman returns which has weaker critical reception than any of the Nolan trilogy has regarded as one of the best superhero films ever in its article despite using just list like these Batman Returns#cite note-234 which just use lists from single websites instead of any critical consensus. If those lists are used then tspdt or those same lists that feature batman begins and TDKR should be enough for a mention as some of the best superhero movies ever. Fearthereaper3 (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The batman returns list uses lists from the Ringer, Rolling Stones, Esquire, Gamesradar and Paste. If these lists are enough to uses as resources for best of status then can the other 2 films in the dark knight trilogy use the same amount of lists that cite it from the same websites ? Fearthereaper3 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An editor could just as easily go over to that article and remove them under the provision that they are not considered reliable for the claim at this article. A local consensus does not extend beyond the article it was created at. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response much appreciated Fearthereaper3 (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

But shouldn’t the consensus for naming a film one of the best be consistent across Wikipedia as a whole? It seems someone already argued on the Batman returns article and was shutdown by one person guarding the page. Fearthereaper3 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

They fall within the top 5,000 of the list. You have to artificially create the top 20 superhero films by counting them yourself (unless I am missing something). But this is missing the forest for the trees, in that there is nothing to suggest that this website is a reputable source for the claim that this film is the greatest of whatever. The underlying source lists may be reliable for the claim, but they would need to individually examined. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s not artificial the list just uses a list upwards to 30000 films. The list doesn’t specify genre. It’s just reading through the list. There seems to be no huge critical consensus page for best superhero movies. Other movie articles on Wikipedia just use single lists which are for not big enough for the claims. This composites all the lists together for one giant consensus like rotten tomatoes does. Instead of a percent it uses rank Fearthereaper3 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH to take a list of 30,000 films and only count those that are superhero films to come out with a ranking of superhero films. The source didn't make a list of top superhero films and the source didn't place this film in a list of superhero films. —El Millo (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Fearthereaper3, you've glossed over an important point that has been made several times now. TSPDT is not yet a widely-recognized or widely-accepted ranking system. Until that changes, it should not be used to support any "best of" claims on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood. There doesn’t seem to be any widely accepted ranking of superhero movies. How can one prove one is considered one of the best? Fearthereaper3 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in reliable sources. Notable topics, along with significant information about them that has been published, belong on this encyclopedia. Using Wikipedia as a platform to prove something isn't the right approach, because personal research violates WP:NOR. You'll have to wait for reputable sources to publish a widely-accepted ranking of the film, either in the form of prose or a list. Even then, it is only for a brief period in time. Notable "Best of" lists are regularly updated. Sight and Sound, for example, had Citizen Kane ranked #1 for a very long time, but that was overtaken by Vertigo (1958) in 2012, which in turn was eclipsed by Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) in 2022. In order for a film to really be considered one of the best, it needs to consistently rank high among its peers. Not sure if you're ever going to get that with the films you are interested in, but good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean superhero movies in general? Fearthereaper3 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If that’s the case then it seems any superhero film on Wikipedia should not have regarded as best superhero in its page. From looking at other comic book movies most don’t have any reliable sources for there claims rather they use a couple lists From single entertainment websites and from what’s been decided here is not nearly enough. Honestly since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it shouldn’t regard any film as the best since every list is different and can be used to validate viewpoints. One can use sight and sound than another uses empire magazine. Fearthereaper3 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)