Talk: Knightfall

"Knightfall" is ONE story. It was divided in two for the reprinting in trade paperback form. It makes no sense to have it split in two like the trade paperbacks, where in the comics there was no such division. Cirilomechas (talk) 03:59, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

The division isn't being made by TPB, it's being made by the storylines. Knightfall was the event, "The Broken Bat" was a storyline within that event. - Hatebunny (talk) 04:10, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It is the title of a chapter ("Batman" 497). Cirilomechas (talk) 04:13, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, because we aren't splitting or dividing it. We're not separating Knightfall into five different pages. We're making it into one page... that has five sub-articles to expand on details. This way we can have articles thoroughly explaining everything that happens in "The Crusade"... but the main Knightfall page will still be something a human being can reasonably read. Batman: Knightfall will summarize the entire event, but then each section will be like "do you want to read a more thorough synopsis of "Who Rules the Night?."" It's the best of both worlds.

- Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 06:46, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

And what would "Broken Bat" and "Who Rules the Night" (why the question mark?) cover, respectively? Cirilomechas (talk) 03:24, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have those sections created. Those are NOT the titles of anything more than issues within the event. Varese (talk) 23:35, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

By not replying you're implicitly saying that I'm right. Cirilomechas (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

By not replying, he's implicitly saying he's moving and has no internet for a few days. Kyletheobald (talk) 23:59, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, you should take our lack of a reply as a failure to care about your opinion, and a full intent to do whatever the opposite of what you'd like us to do is. Have a wonderful evening. - Hatebunny (talk) 00:02, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kyle. I'm using a computer at work right now. Broken Bat and Who Rules the Night? were the collections DC originally broke the story into. That makes it an official DC distinction. I really don't understand what the objection is... the larger Knightfall page will still cover both mini-arcs. We're just making sub-pages so we can expand that info into more thorough summaries. - Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 00:09, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

There are already sub-pages: the trade paperback articles! Varese (talk) 04:37, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

That "official DC distinction" was ignored last year in the new trade paperback, then? Cirilomechas (talk) 06:08, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion between a multi-part story collected in TPB format and an event which may cover more than a story and span more than one title. A TPB is a collection and may not necessarily cover all stories of a certain event - in fact, the stories may not be part of an event at all. An event is an overall story arc (first published in several installments); the collections will come later. So yes - TPB titles like Broken Bat or Who Will Rule the Night (with or without question mark) warrant a TPB entry and are part of the overall event, Knightfall. But they are not to be taken as distinctive events. Clear on that? --Lucien61 (talk) 11:36, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

We make a distinction between Events and storylines. We have the storyline template for a reason. We also, for the most part, don't have pages/have very crappy pages for the collected editions, because reprints have little or no encyclopedic value as their own pages. - Hatebunny (talk) 12:54, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Varese and Lucien61 are absolutely right. There's no need to create articles under those titles if the trade paperbacks, which bear those titles, already exist. Improve them, if they are "crappy". But that's it. Cirilomechas (talk) 04:26, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

No, storyline pages take precedent over trade pages. Always. - Hatebunny (talk) 04:31, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. IF such storylines exist... Varese (talk) 04:31, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I really really don't understand the problem here. We have an overview page, with a broad summary. I'm making sub-pages so we can provide more extensive details. This way the main page isn't so long it's impossible to read. Could somebody please explain to me what the problem is.

- Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 03:31, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

That the sub-pages are based on the names of trade paperbacks, of which there are already pages. Varese (talk) 04:31, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. By your logic, there should be a "Knightfall: KnightsEnd" page, then. Cirilomechas (talk) 06:04, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're trying to get rid of a helpful page, over what appears to be semantics. We have storyline pages based on all sorts of things all the time... yes, collected editions being one of them. For example, almost every debut arc in the New 52. We also have a page titled KnightsEnd.

- Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 06:37, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Because there are already articles about them! Geez! Varese (talk) 22:54, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Storyline pages and collected edition pages are not the same. I have been considering revamping collection pages to highlight that fact. - Hatebunny (talk) 23:29, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well, duh! But in this case, there are NO storylines with the names proposed! Varese (talk) 23:44, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that they don't exist over and over again. They clearly exist. Whether or not something is a "storyline" is almost totally arbitrary... it's all based on whether or not DC considers it to be a storyline. In this case they do, and they even gave both of these arcs their own title. You've suggested improving the collection page instead of making a storyline page... but that's just not how the site works. Otherwise we would have no storyline pages at all, only collected edition pages. We had an admin discussion, and decided that this was the best way to organize these pages. You do not seem to have a compelling counter-argument.

- Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 02:19, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Quit it. You have lost this discussion. Cirilomechas (talk) 16:47, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Two content editors (of which one has enough reputation that we're never going to agree with him, ever) versus two (or three, if you want my two cents, or four, if you count Kyle's silent approval) admins. --Tupka²¹⁷ 17:02, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

That's mature. He's proven wrong, so you discredit those who beat him (one a priori and forever after), and just throw in your support, with no reasons to back it other than blind loyalty, plus you count someone who hasn't even participated in the discussion's support. Cirilomechas (talk) 17:17, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

He's not proven wrong. It's complicated.

It's not blind loyalty. I trust his organizational skills. I can, and do, disagree with him on other things.

Your behavior in this debate is not winning you any favors. You change things, nominate things for deletion, decentralize discussion. Call it spite. Call it immature. But it's a serious issue that needs to be factored in.

Wiki discussion is not a tally of votes. This is not a democracy (very few things are). Every one of us earned the rank because we work with the community to expand the project. An admin's view or opinion on organization of pages weighs more than a user's. Admins outrank you.

As for counting in Kyle, first of all, I counted him in on proviso. Second, he did not side with Billy, but he did not side with you either. That's silent approval.

Call it pulling rank, but this discussion is over. --Tupka²¹⁷ 17:35, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. VERY complicated. Please, you explain it to me.

In THIS case, you haven't explained why you agree with him, so here it IS blind loyalty. I don't want or need any favors. I'm discussing this because your friend has no basis for what he's been doing. Yes, I admit them outrank me, but that does automatically not make them right and me wrong anytime I disagree with them. So anytime he doesn't speak he's against me? Don't insult my intellingence! And yes, it has been over for a while now, but you do not like the outcome. Cirilomechas (talk) 17:44, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the entire summary in detail on one page would mean a giant piece of text. Noone reads walls of words off a screen. So the main summary should be concise. The subpages allow for a bit more detail. The division is arbitrary, based on the tpb names. Like it or not, but that's a sensible way to split it up. The collected editions should still have pages, as they're comic books. If you ask me, they don't need summaries, but they should still exist.

I agree with Billy on this one. Large walls of text are not fun to read. Elaboration on subpages works better. That's a usual way to deal with long texts on any wiki.

Wiki editing is a community effort. Going against the flow will only frustrate things.

On factual things, no, an admin is not always right. This is not a factual right or wrong thing. It's an organizational decision, which is what admins do.

The outcome is clear. It's sensible. It's an administrative decision. --Tupka²¹⁷ 17:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem here either. Because its all one massive event, it can't be broken down into separate pages for ease of reading or because you don't think the names are DC canon? Either way, I'm with the other guys. Having one huge page for an event isn't always helpful. Making a broad page and sub-pages to break it down is really the best of both worlds. You just want the broad strokes of the story? Read the main page without getting bogged down. You want every detail? Check out these other pages and find the nitty-gritty. Kyletheobald (talk) 23:51, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Do I really need to repeat what has already been stated? This is an organization decision, one that is trusted to us for good reason. This seems like a whole lot of unnecessary conversation on something so minor. I'd love to see this kind of effort given to something with more meaning than page dictation. Midoki24 (talk) 00:01, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing

I'd hate to interject here but I'm still confused on what the problem is. Can anyone give me an un-biased straight-forward synopsis of what the conflict is? --- Harold "The Party" Rocks talk 17:27, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Pages are being duplicated just because of stubborness. See, "Knightfall" was divided in two parts in trade paperback form (of which there are already pages), and someone wants to make us think that that division means two sub-plots. By the way, last year, "Knightfall" war rereleased in ONE volume (without the two-part division). Cirilomechas (talk) 17:34, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly stubborness (he asked for unbiased...). It's to allow the full storyline to be told in detail, without creating a very long piece of literature at Knightfall. The division is arbitrary, but not based on thin air. --Tupka²¹⁷ 17:40, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Mind you, I don't mind the division as it is in the articles of the trade paperbacks. I'm against duplicating those. Cirilomechas (talk) 17:48, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I understand. If it's for greater detail, then the pages should be made. --- Harold "The Party" Rocks talk 17:54, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

They were made a long time ago. You mean redo them, then? Cirilomechas (talk) 17:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)