Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character)

Joker (character)

Joker (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Joker (character) is a redundant duplicate of Joker (comics) that does nothing beyond rehashing information already on the latter and listing links to other articles. The reason it was apparently created was due to a "lack of a base page" and because (according to a user on this discussion) it "can't ever be the one-stop upper article, because of its comics focus." However, Joker (comics) isn't different from any other character article, as it includes information regarding the general characterisation, other media interpretations, and alternative versions on that page. The only reason it branched off into Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker is because there was to much information to include in those sections alone. Joker (comics) even goes into detail about the various actors who have played the Joker and the other media appearances in the lead. Joker (comics) is the base page. The reason it is called "(comics)" is the same as numerous other comics character articles: WP:NCC regulations. However, there is cause for renaming Joker (comics), especially given the existence of articles like Joker (comic book). What there isn't cause for, however, is the existence of the current Joker (character) article.

The primary opponent of the deletion seems to be Curly Turkey. Turkey's arguments (seen here) state that Joker (comics) can't be the base article because of its focus on the comics. However, that's because the Joker is a comic book character. He was created by writers hired by DC Comics for DC Comics publications and all subsequent media, which are covered in the article, are adaptations. If you find any movie with the Joker in it, it will say some variation of "Based on the characters from DC Comics". This isn't different from how any other comic character article is written. It's standard to include all various other media (such as film or television adaptations) in their own respective sections in these types of articles.

Curly Turkey went on to claim that WikiProject Comics are just WP:OWNy fanboys and that apparently all other non-comic fictional character articles are written differently, pushing his P.O.V. that the vast majority of comic book character articles are wrong and that all character articles should be written in a specific way. First of all, his WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? Count Dracula and Francis Dolarhyde are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. Darth Vader is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. Hal-9000 is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, Garfield (character), Batman, Wolverine (character), Kick-Ass (character), Superman, ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. Joker (comics) is no different. Having Joker (character) exist is like saying that an article about a novel can't be the base article because of a film adaptation, and then creating a third article about the story itself. Of course, Curly Turkey continues to insist that he has the consensus, even though he admits that an entire WikiProject is apparently against him. DarkKnight2149 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE 1: Darkknight2149 has WP:CANVASSed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have reported it. The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note 2: Darkknight2149's original plan was to wait until Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joker (comics)/archive2‎ closed, and then move the article to Joker (character) after the wider community's eyes were off it, despite the fact that Joker (character) was created specifically to avoid having the base article be specifically about the character's appearances in comics (which is why the first FAC was archived). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I just mentioned this disruptive behaviour at WP:ANI. Got any more false accusations you want to shove in front of the discussion? DarkKnight2149 03:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I think there's a major COI here if The Dark Knight is trying to delete an article about the Joker. HAHA. Anyways, looking at both articles and reviewing the arguments I think the character page is redundant and not needed. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong delete Utterly superfluous and redundant. It's literally just a second article for the same character, it's not an alternative universe or a media adaptation, the "in other media" article exists for the stuff that is here.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete it is needless repetition to have more than one article on the same character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I was neutrally invited to comment. I need to mention that not too long ago I was involved in what turned out to be highly contentious RfC with Curly Turkey, an editor I respect very much regardless of that one issue. I also know DarkKnight and Snuggums are similarly top-notch editors. (I'm unfamilar with Comatmebro and I'm sure he's a fine editor, too.) While I do have a thought on this, which I'll share depending on how this RfC progresses, I'd like to abstain for now to avoid any possibilities of hard feelings among my very good colleagues. I know...I'm a wimp! But I didn't want anyone to think I was simply ignoring the invitation.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll assume you really believe you were "nuetrally invited", Tenebrae, but you weren't. You were WP:CANVASSed, and the selection of those invited was highly biased. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I assumed good faith. I didn't check to see who else was invited and the invitation itself was worded neutrally. I think my response indicates I took it neutrally. If it helps, whenever I've invited other editors to participate in an RfC, I always use some objective criteria that I disclose: "the last 10 registered editors on the page"; "every editor for the last 30 days" (or 60 if editing has been sparse, etc.) I know I've included editors whom I knew would be against whatever position I was espousing, but that's the only fair way to do it. In any event, out of respect for you and the other initial editors, I refrained from offering an opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note that if the consensus is to delete, this parge should be redirected to Joker (comics) as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The most famous fictional Joker is the one from the comic books, and this is a plausible search term for readers. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete No need for the redundancy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Joker (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Completely agree with statements made by Darkknight2149. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per Darkknight2149 and others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep, and there should be repercussions for Darkknight2149's WP:CANVASSing of so many sympathetic editors. I've reported it.
  The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics. Semantically, a character cannot be a subset of that characters appearances in medium X. A character's appearances are a subset of the character.
  When a character appears primarily in one medium, a "XXX (character)" article will inevitably be primarily about the character's appearances in that medium, per WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:WEIGHT, Joker has appeared prominently in numerous media (film, TV, animation) and is best known to the general public through these appearances—a film such as The Dark Knight grossed more than double the entire comic book industry for 2008.
  Chances are extremely high that anyone doing a search for "Joker (character)" will be doing so after watching, say, Sucicide Squad—most of these viewers have never read the comic books, which have been selling around 100000 copies per issue for years now.
  The solution is simple: the article that focuses on the appearances of the character in comics should be titled something like Joker in comics, while the base article about the character in general should be at Joker (character), so readers will find what they want without confusion.
  WP:COMICS has a long history of confusing characters with their comics appearances, and used to have this stuff baked into its MoS page, until the wider community overturned it here. This request is another attempt to overturn community consensus, and is highly disruptive. This has been an ongoing problem with WP:COMICS, and it needs to be put to an end. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to wonder why Darkknight2149 couldn't be bothered to inform any of the following, who have all taken part in these discussions before:

{{ping|AIRcorn|In ictu oculi|SMcCandlish|Nat Gertler|Diego Moya|Unreal7

Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: The false "canvassing" claim is being dealt with at WP:ANI. If you'd like, you could notify those people. I notified all of the Wiki projects, various people who edited the Joker articles or near them, some people who happened to be on my Watchlist, and some who were seen in other edit histories. In fact, it was Argento Surfer who left the link to the Wolverine discussion to begin with. You are free to notify people as well, as long as it doesn't violate WP:CANVASS (which I'm sure you haven't read).

"The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics." - Oh, here we go again. I addressed that in the multiple paragraphs above. I'd suggest reading them. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, more of your WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. We have a simple problem with a simple solution, but it's running face-first into the wall of your POV. The rest of the community is more concerned with serving the average reader than what your deep-seated feelings about this character are. This WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nonsense at WP:COMICS has to end sometime.

I screwed up the pings, so here we go again:

@Matticusmadness, Steel1943, Erachima, Nicknack009, BlisterD, and J Milburn:

@King of all fruit, NatGertler, Masem, Herostratu, Tahc, and Alpha Quadrant:

Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I screwed up again: @AIRcorn, In ictu oculi, SMcCandlish, Nat Gertler, Diego Moya, and Unreal7:@Herostratus: Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Argh—@Aircorn:. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how WP:IDONTHEARTHAT works. I addressed each one of your points at Talk:Joker (comics). It was you who ignored mine. You not liking what I have to say, and other editors disagreeing with you, is not WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm pretty sure I've pointed that out before. And on your "Strong keep" comment, nothing you said wasn't already addressed and explained away in the deletion proposal above. Do you see the hypocrisy in accusing me of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT yet? DarkKnight2149 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You most definitely didn't address my points—just endless variations on the irrelevant "where exactly do you think the character came from?" You never addressed how titling the Joker (comics) article as Joker (character) will misdirect all those who come after watching one of the endless stream of movies the character appears in (just one of the many points I keep bringing up that you ignore). You also keep bringing up WP:NCC even after I showed you where it was overturned. You simply can't be reasoned with. This is a general encyclopaedia—we serve the needs of the general reader. WP:COMICS doesn't get to override that through a raise of hands. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

All I said was that WP:NCC was the reason that Joker (comics) was called "Joker (comics)" to begin with. The movies are covered in Joker (comics), briefly in the lead and then in the "In other media" section (as I pointed out above); I also addressed your point regarding the films at Talk:Joker (comics), and Joker (comics) can be renamed Joker (character) for the reasons mentioned above (which I know you still clearly haven't read). DarkKnight2149 02:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You "addressed" it by dismissing it. That's not what adults mean by "addressing" an issue. If the article is to be titled "character", it must cover the character—to which your absurd response is that the comics character is the character. Seriously, what rational objection do you have to an article about Joker'S appearances in comics being titled Joker in comics? That's as straightforward and unambiguous as it gets. What do you have against unambiguity? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"your absurd response is that the comics character is the character." - No, that's simply why the page was called "Joker (comics)" and why it primarily takes the perspective of the comic character. Same as Wolverine (character), Garfield (character) and literally every other fictional character article. And as I have stated numerous times, the page does cover other media as well (read the last paragraph of the lead, for Christ sakes!). The only reason Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker are separate articles is because there was too much information to include it all in the sections at Joker (comics), which I have once again stated more than once. Did somebody say WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? In regards to that last question, your mistake is assuming that you must be right and everyone who disagrees with you is an immature idiot, is WP:NOTHERE, or any of the other things you said at Talk:Joker (comics). DarkKnight2149 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As long as you continue to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, it'll keep being brought up. Now answer my question that I keep asking but you keep ignoring: what, concretely, is wrong with Joker in comics for an article about Joker's appearances in comics? No red herrings about an irrelevant, three-paragraph "in other media" subsection of a subsection, please. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That is not how we title character articles, comics or otherwise. You should already know this. DarkKnight2149 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Batman in film, Punisher in film, James Bond in film, Spider-Man in film, Fantastic Four in film, Middle-earth in film, Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film, The Beatles in film, Barack Obama in comics ... but of course, this isn't a "character" article we're talking about (that would be a general one called Joker (character), which already exists). We're talking about Joker's appearances in comics, which you want to move to Joker (character), confounding readers' expectations. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are all about a character's appearances in the medium, not about a character themselves. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just as Joker (comics) is about the character's appearance in comics, not about the character itself. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you take a closer look at that article, because it is about the character, not appearances of the character. DarkKnight2149 04:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Joker (comics), Redundant. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SPLIT (which, ironically, should probably be merged). The Joker (comics) article, which is already sprawling, is entirely about the comic book version(s) of the character with passing mentions of the others, while the article under discussion here is about the character in general, and branches out with {{Main}} to the comic book character article where needed, then presents a whole lot more information, about the TV series and film versions, among others (some of which are also potential stand-alone articles). This is standard operating procedure when a multi-genre/multi-medium/multi-continuity fictional character article becomes long and unwieldy; we break it up into narrower presentations and connect them with a summary-style article. We do the same thing with franchises and works in them, TV series and their seasons and notable episodes, bands and their albums and singles, etc., etc.

  A similar approach should be taken with Batman and other such characters. It seems that in many cases we have what should be, e.g., Batman (comics) at Batman, covering nothing but the comics in any detail, but not written in WP:SUMMARY style and making it hard for people to find the articles on the TV, film, etc., versions of the character, which are often what they're looking for (especially with regard to subjects of major motion picture franchises – the average WP readers probably knows more about and wants to know more about the filmic Batman and Joker than the comics ones). The title Batman (with a redir from Batman (character) should go to a summary-style article on the character as a whole, split into concise sections that summarize and link with hatnotes to the main articles on the rather different Batman characters in various media/continuities. The approach taken at Joker (character) is a good model and much better serves our reader needs than WikiProject Comics's controlling behavior toward treating the comics version of a character as somehow automatically the WP:PRIMARY topic, then minimizing navigability to related non-comics articles. (I say that as someone with a collection of 15,000+ comics; I have nothing against the medium, only against WP:OWN/WP:VESTED tendencies of wikiprojects. I've started plenty of wikiprojects, too, and have nothing against them, just against wiki-territorialism.)
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Joker (character) doesn't cover anything that isn't already in Joker (comics). Joker (character) is a rehash. It doesn't add anything new, and Joker (comics) is already the base article. Perhaps your arguments would work better if Joker (character) added something, but it doesn't. And if it seems that Joker (comics) takes the perspective of comics more than the other media, that's because Joker is from the comics, just as Darth Vader is primarily a film character. Furthermore, if it seems like Joker (comics) only passively discusses the other media (which is a bit of an exagerration when you look at the size of Joker (comics)#In other media), that's because there's too much information to include in that article. I'm pretty sure there used to be more, but they had to split it into Joker in other media for a reason. The only job of Joker (comics)#In other media is to summarise the character's history in other media, as Joker in other media is what goes into further detail. Joker (comics) does accomplish this task and the lead mentions it as well. Joker (comics) is already the base article, and really isn't different from any other fictional character article. And this isn't just about the comics character articles, either. Count Dracula is primarily about the novel character, but also covers the films and everything in respective sections. I listed a number of other examples above. The WikiProjects aren't "owning" anything here. DarkKnight2149 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not asying anything more than that we have a poor article that needs to be improved. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we have a duplicate article that needs to be removed. DarkKnight2149 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The editors were explicit that they did not want to turn the Joker (comics) article into a general article on the character, which would be another solution. As the editors wish to limit the article to Joker's comics appearances, the title must reflect that, and the Joker (character) article was created to fill in the gap. The problems were solved, and now you want to unsolve them. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. What editors? And don't bring up that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT rubbish, as if you've ever mentioned this before. I know this probably isn't going to lead anywhere, so I don't even know why I'm asking. DarkKnight2149 05:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. What an absolute mess. Curly and SMcCandlish have offered a good explanation with the problem with this discussion and, dare I say, possibly the problem with our coverage of comics characters in general. To those who are complaining about redundancy: Why would you suggest merging the article on the character into the article about the character's appearance in the comics? If there's a worry about redundancy, surely the merger should be going the other way. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"possibly the problem with our coverage of comics characters in general" - If you have a problem with how comics character articles are treated in general, you'll have to open up a much larger discussion rather than focusing on this one particular article.

I'm not sure if you read the many paragraphs I wrote above, but nothing in Joker (character) isn't already covered in Joker (comics). And as has been brought up, Joker (comics) is not only about his appearances in comics. The reason it takes the point of view of the comics is because the Joker is primarily a comics character and his subsequent appearances in other media are adaptations. Joker (comics) does go into detail about the other media, as well as the cultural impact, characterisation, and alternative versions. The only reason that Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker exist is because there's too much information to fit in those sections at Joker (comics) alone. Joker (character) just re-hashes Joker (comics) and doesn't offer anything new to the table, which is why it's redundant. And most fictional character articles already take the perspective of the source material/primary media version of the character to begin with, so there's nothing different about Joker (comics) being the base article (which it is). DarkKnight2149 03:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"you'll have to open up a much larger discussion"—you've already been shown these discussions. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and all that. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As you have been told before, nothing in those discussions supports the existence of the separate Joker (character) article. If anything, it supports having Joker (comics) renamed as "Joker (character)". It's not any different from having Wolverine (comics) renamed Wolverine (character). In fact, it's the exact same thing. DarkKnight2149 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we know YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. We got sick of this long ago. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: On an unrelated note, I think Joker (comics) should be retitled "The Joker" as that is how the character is commonly known, and keeping that title will help fulfill the purpose "Joker (character)" was created for. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: The articles should be all as one. As with other characters from comics it should be listed as Joker (comics) since that is where it originated. Then put a section for other media for instance. Reb1981 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As explained by Curly Turkey and SMcCandlish. Josh Milburn asked the obvious question (which was inexplicably ignored in the reply - and then followed by more delete votes. This is why I avoid these discussions.) zzz (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Signedzzz: It wasn't ignored. Joker (comics) is about the character and not his appearances in comics. DarkKnight2149 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• I Do Not Understand Why I Was Pinged Into This AfD. Apparently because I commented in opposition of a proposed move to a bad disambiguation in 2014?[1] --erachima talk 06:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)