Get e-book Nobody Likes a Joker

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Nobody Likes a Joker file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Nobody Likes a Joker book. Happy reading Nobody Likes a Joker Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Nobody Likes a Joker at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Nobody Likes a Joker Pocket Guide.
Nobody Likes a Joker [Tash Huckstep] on leondumoulin.nl *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. “SAMUEL RUN NOW” I scream. The dark skinned man turns to me.
Table of contents

Ask questions, get answers. Be polite , and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution Article policies. Comics portal.

Here's What Joaquin Phoenix And Todd Phillips Think Of All Your 'Joker' Fan Theories

Film portal. Animation portal. The Daily Telegraph. August 17, The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The material currently at that location is largely a duplication of this article and was created to satisfy User:Curly Turkey at an FAC nomination. The need for both articles has been contested and is what originally prompted the MOS update.

Argento Surfer talk , 18 April UTC Conditional support depending on the focus issues that have been debated ad nauseam —if the article is to be DABbed character it must focus on the character as a character and give no more weight to any media incarnation than is WP:DUE. The success of a move here cannot be interpreted as being a consensus that whatever content happens to currently be in the article consititutes what the character is. Argento Surfer , could we please stop spinning this as if I were responsible for there being two articles, or that "duplication" were ever the point of having two articles?

Nobody's going to buy the idea that I have the social clout around here to merely "get my way" in these disputes—the issues raised are serious, site-wide, and as-yet unresolved. I name dropped you specifically because you've been so involved with the issue. I didn't want you to be left out of this discussion too. Argento Surfer talk , 19 April UTC It's all my choice, but you're making your support conditional on you getting your way.

You did demand two articles, you wanted one for the comic character and one for the character, and everyone has tried to delete the resulting character one because it was pointless and the comic character was the character. The comic character is the character, everything else is derivative and virtually identical and other versions are mentioned wher enecessary and other articles focus on other versions of the character.

You've been told this a thousand times and you blatantly ignore it each time then obstruct any progress. But no, it's not about getting your way or your view being the only correct view despite others disagreeing with you. You can't even just support a move here, you have to have to try and position it as resulting in you getting what you want.

It's a simple move request. I've changed from "conditional support" due to the requester's comment: "The comic character is the character", which makes it obvious that this will continue to be a problem.

A Brief Investigation Into Why Jared Leto's Joker Was So Terrible

This move cannot be allowed to set a bad precedent, which it now seems clear to be part of the intent. Yes, this article will have to be moved; no, this move will not be allowed to set a problematic precedent. Joker character is a different article, not a different title for this one. You have to get its editors involved in the discussion - maybe you want to merge them? Changed my vote. Joker character already exists!

And we cannot move an article over an existing article. So this is quite a dog's breakfast. We could merge the two articles, but dunno about that since that would make a kind of long article. Since there exists the article Joker in other media , which has sections "Live action" and "Animation" and "Video games", wouldn't it make sense to move the non-comics material to that article maybe some going to Joker character and then keep this article under its current name? Herostratus talk , 25 April UTC Struck my vote, apparently there are shenangins going on around here, and it's above my pay grade to deal with stuff like this.

Herostratus talk , 25 April UTC Herostratus , ignore Lois Lane V Mary Jane, Joker character was created after Joker comics and is essentially a list, the only pertinent information is already here and all the information has been backed up.

‘Joker’ Has a Todd Phillips Problem

It's still about the same character, it just needs moving there. Well in that case, I don't know what's going on, and I can't really help you guys. The Joker has a large populated category Herostratus talk , 25 April UTC That article was made by someone trying to force their vision and is honestly a giant waste of space. It should simply have been deleted. It will keep recurring until there is a resolution one way or the other. Personally, even if there was consensus for a move, I wouldn't be happy with moving this article over Joker character and deleting all the revisions there.

I think this should probably go back to AfD, hopefully without the canvassing this time. There is no major OWN issue among the majority of the project members, sure there are some but a lot simply disagreed with your opinion as well as decision to defend an utterly superfluous article.


  1. Bandsintown | Nele Needs A Holiday Tickets - Cafe The Joker, Dec 15, .
  2. 5 Reasons 'Joker' Is A Terrible Joker Movie | leondumoulin.nl;
  3. Account Options.
  4. Time for Night Night!
  5. Featured Video?
  6. Daisy in the Field;
  7. Sharp Sticks: Essays of Embarrassment and Reflections on Redemption!

It would be nice if you stopped blaming the project for issues with disambiguation and stopped playing the victim so much. You had a lot of people against you from the start because of your condescending attitude which you've clearly not loosened up on, maybe if you had acted in a more mature way more people would have been willing to engage in a discussion which led somewhere, but I'm sure that a lot were scared away becuse of the trainwreck which some editors made the disscussion into.

I see no evidence of this being true. You keep claiming this repeatedly but where is the wide acceptance among wikipedians that the project is that way, has there been a disscusion on this on a wider scale or is it just you? I left the earlier debate because of the toxic environment, which you were very much part of from what I saw, so maybe I missed out on the grand consensus among noncomics people that the project is that way.

I never agreed with that, but I understood the point and took the time to start the discussion to change the MOS. Reviewing that discussion, most editors agreed it needed to be changed although there was some tweaking in the "how". I don't see where anyone made comments that could be construed as ownership. Aside from DWB 's comment about "the comic character is the character", can you link to a diff from another editor showing this ownership viewpoint?

Otherwise, you're disparaging an entire project of good faith editors without cause and painting yourself as some lone underdog fighting the unreasonable masses. When you do that, it makes it hard for anyone to work with you. You've shown you're unable to drop the stick on this topic - This is a simple move request to bring the article in line with the new MOS guidelines that you participated in updating. At that time, you specifically requested that articles on characters from comics be dabbed as character over comics character , although you also suggested "Character X in comics".

Most Popular

Arguing against the move now AND bringing up the same old content concerns is disruptive and antagonizing. If you think the content gives undue weight to the comics version of the character, then support the move and slap an Undue weight template on it. If you can't do that, then at least be constructive here. Even you have to agree that comics is not the proper DAB for this article.

Make an alternate suggestion that doesn't involve anything but a page name. Argento Surfer talk , 26 April UTC Support For what it's worth I say delete the current Joker character "article" since it has nothing of value and move this one there. It becomes simpler disambiguation wise. The primary topic is The Joker in general and his most notable incarnations in whatever media.

Lois also says strong trainwreck because you can't delete articles without tagging them.


  • The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes Comic Series Book 2).
  • Additional site navigation.
  • Talk:Joker (character)?
  • Bug-Stompers of the 21st Century?

    • Herostratus : does this make sense to you? The article covers all incarnations of the joker it just breaks off to other articles to cover them in greater detail than can be accomplished in a single article, and on top of there being completely separate articles for the joker in other media, other versions of the comic joker, and the dark knight joker, there is Joker disambiguation which serves the same function as the current Joker character in being a list to joker articles.

    There is nothing to merge from Joker character because it's all already here. But actually the highest level should be a overview of the Joker's background and his most notable incarnations, not every. Nobody's allowed to believe that but me. Thought this was all dealt with as per the original discussion.