The Dark Knight is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 14, 2023.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 12, 2008 Good topic candidate Not promoted January 1, 2023 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Film: British / Comic book / Core / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comics: DC Comics / Batman / Films High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by DC Comics work group. This article is supported by Batman work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Library of Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

Christopher Nolan is called Christopher throughout this article whereas everyone else is called by their last names. Last name usage is, I believe, WP style. Did someone get confused (Christopher can also be a last name), or is there some rule by which Nolan always gets identified by his first name? If not, I believe it should be changed. I'm willing to make the 77 (!) changes, but it seemed so weird I wanted to get the opinions of others before I did. ubiquity (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Jonathan Nolan also exists in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also used quite frequently. If it was a one time use, then using his last name would be better, but Jonathan is just as intregal to this film as Christopher. — Masem (t) 01:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Jonathan Nolan is basically only mentioned in the Writing section; I think it's the only part of the article where it makes sense to use "Christopher" and "Jonathan". In the rest I find it very clunky and counterintuitive. I don't think anyone would be confused if we use "Nolan" to refer to the film's director. WikiFouf (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwarriorblake, calling people by their first names is confusing and contrary to standard practice on practically every article on Wikipedia. One solution is to refer to the individuals by their full names. But the reality is that Christopher Nolan is mentioned far more in the article than Jonathan Nolan, and I would therefore probably support referring to Christopher Nolan simply as "Nolan" and Jonathan Nolan by his full name whenever he is mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Nolan is mentioned seven times. Christopher Nolan is mentioned 53 times. The current system in the article does not make sense in dealing with people who, contrary to Masem's comment above, are clearly not of equal importance. Jonathan Nolan should, in my view, be referred to by his full name, and Christopher Nolan simply as "Nolan." Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SAMESURNAME Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with DN99 here. Yes, both Christopher and Jonathan are here, but, as others have stated, if I read "Nolan" I'm assuming Christopher. And DN99 said, Jonathan Nolan is mentioned seven times. Christopher Nolan is mentioned 53 times. It's easy to assume in this case that Nolan is referring to Christopher. To satisfy SAMESURNAME, we could simply refer to them by their full name when mentioned, but return to "Nolan" regularly. That is what I did on articles like Black Tie White Noise (here is what I wrote: Black Tie also features trumpet playing by Lester Bowie, whom David Bowie had wanted to work with throughout the 1980s. Lester, who played to tracks before he heard them, appears on six tracks; Pegg considers his contributions the album's "essential musical identity". A foil to Lester's trumpet was David's saxophone, which appears more prominently on Black Tie than any other David Bowie album.) I agree that reading "Christopher" so often is a little odd. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo that seeing "Christopher" throughout the page is a bit jarring and slightly confusing at first. I suggest we try an approach similar to what zmbro has offered. Do we have consensus to move in this direction? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object to me making changes based on zmbro's suggestions? If I don't hear from anyone after a few days, I will follow WP:SILENCE and make the edits. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the legacy section, there are several comparisons between The Dark Knight and other superhero films at that time; can we add a section that discusses the reception to The Dark Knight vs. reception to other Christopher Nolan films, especially of that time (The Prestige was released just two years before and Inception two years after). (I am new to Wikipedia; sorry if this suggestion seems irrelevant). Charlesrinehart (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite a reliable source that does that. DonQuixote (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound silly, but while reading this article I was curious why the cast section of the article and the part talking about the casting were separated by unrelated content. I Feel like if we were to move around sections in the article to have casting and cast either be the same category, or next to one another. I think that this would make more sense for how the information is organized, but please correct me if there is a reason as to why the content is split up the way it is. GoodUsername1423 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One is a list of cast. The other is about casting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles put the casting information in with the cast list, but IMHO it creates a very messy section that is hard to navigate. If you like, I can send you some examples. Once the decision is made to split the Cast and Casting sections, it usually makes the most sense to put the Casting section in the proper chronological placement in the film's development, i.e. after Writing but before Filming. I hope this is clarifying for you. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence to paragraph 4 under "Plot" is incorrect. Coleman Reese is not an accountant for Wayne Enterprises. He is a Mergers and Acquisitions lawyer employed by an outside consultancy group hired by Wayne Enterprises to perform due diligence on the Merger between Wayne Enterprises and Lau's company. Change "Wayne Enterprises accountant Coleman Reese deduces...", to: "A consultant for Wayne Enterprises, Coleman Reese, deduces..." Shaunjfoley (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Themes and analysis" section, under the subheading "Terrorism and escalation," this sentence appears to misquote an article from IGN:

"Critic Siddhant Adlakha considered the Joker an analog for countries such as Iraq, Somalia, and Lebanon, which were targeted by U.S. military campaigns and responded with escalation using terrorism"

The original article however states the following:

"Of course, the factual truth is that terrorism is, more often than not, quantifiable. Its perpetrators tend to lay out their political reasons after the fact. Their motives are known, and their atrocities are often in response to some military aggression elsewhere; Bin Laden claimed 9/11 was a response to American aggression in countries like Somalia and Lebanon, while ISIS grew out of America’s occupation of Iraq"

The author makes no such claims about Iraq, Somalia and Lebanon, or that the Joker is an analog for them.

Perhaps a direct quotation or total rephrasing might be suitable? Sa57797n (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at and rewrote it. Thanks for pointing this out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a minor addition to the opening of the Plot section to better reflect the film's narrative connection to Batman Begins. Currently, the summary starts with the bank heist but lacks the context of the 'escalation' arc that is central to the trilogy's structure. While specific calendar years are often debated in fan circles, the internal narrative timing is explicitly stated in the film's script. During the meeting with the mob, the Joker states, 'Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you.' This dialogue, combined with the 'Joker card' reveal at the end of the first film, establishes a clear one-year interval. I suggest adding a phrase such as 'Set approximately one year after the events of Batman Begins...' to the start of the summary. This provides readers with necessary pacing and aligns with the explicit dialogue in the film, rather than relying on external supposition. Furthermore, this provides a consistent bridge to The Dark Knight Rises, which explicitly states it takes place 'eight years' later. I would appreciate the community's thoughts on including this to improve the article's narrative clarity. Niudento6983 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That could mean the previous film was set a year ago or five. A mood isn’t a point in time. The nature of the progress isn’t established. Interpreting that year as starting specifically at the end of Batman Begins is supposition. Swordofneutrality (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on this concern about supposition. My only intention was just to connect the Joker's “one year” comment to the ending of the first movie, since I thought that made the escalation arc clearer. If this consensus here is that it’s too much interpretation for a plot summary, I’m fine with leaving it alone. Just wanted to provide some context for the timeline. Niudento6983 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more appropriate for an existing article discussing the trilogy as a whole as this section only pertains to one film. Swordofneutrality (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That could make sense. I see your point about this section only pertaining to the one film. I'll take a look into adding the chronological context to the main trilogy article instead, as that seems like a better place for discussing this overall timeline. Niudento6983 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, it would look better if the Maggie Gyllenhaal photo was on the right side of the page, so she is looking inwards towards the text. I tried putting it there and I think it looks good, but I wanted to get a second opinion before making the edit. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The change has been implemented. Thanks, Darkwarriorblake! OrdinaryOtter^(talk) 19:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]