Talk:Batman/Archive 6

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 2006 and January 2007.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Batman/Archive07. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Do we really need it to be organized in this way, with everything in subcategories? --Chris Griswold 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean towards yes. I consider it 'organized' ;) Though I think the Supporting characters can be hacked down. It has it's own article, after all. A stubish section pointing to the main article would suffice. No? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the entire article? I am referring to the "see also" section, which has been changed in the way it is organized to give subheadings to individual links. --Chris Griswold 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox Guidelines

message: How come their no talk of it? i think it should be meantion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 22:39, August 19, 2006  (UTC)
I totally agree.  This is about the character who originated in comic books but has since appeared in various other mediums with the same name, abilities, and general world.  Unfortunately that would taint the pristine view of Batman that some of the fans who edit this page have.  As it is they will not allow events that occurred in other timelines to be mentioned or any criticism of Batman by characters in the movies (even if this is consistent with characters in the comic book).Nihilozero 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like kittens. They say "meow meow meow". Do you like kitten, Nihilozero? I love you.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressing your point: Batman is not a single entity. Batman the comic book character does not equal Batman the character from BTAS who does not equal the Batman from Super Friends. Each animated Batman is based on Batman the comic book character, but is not the same character. Differences can happen. The fact that Daredevil killed some bad guys in the Daredevil movie does not make the comic book character a killer. Denny O'Neil explicitly stated explicitly that the Ras al Ghul in Batman Begins was not the same character as the Ras he created in the comic book, although he thought the movie Ras was a great character too. A comic book depiction of George W. Bush saying nuke the Avengers does not mean that George W. Bush ever said to nuke the Avengers. The character basis does not equal the character, despite overwhelmingly obvious overlap. Doczilla 06:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Batman Beyond is already mentioned in the Other Media section, Nihilzero. Beyond a mention of the series and its relation to Batman there's no reason to go into detail about it (being one of many, many inerpretations of Batman in other media, and certainly not the only prominent depiction of the character's future *coughdarkknightreturnscough*).  That's for the Batman Beyond page itself. WesleyDodds 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Batman Beyond 

message: I didn't mean to suggest that "in-universe" meant "DC Universe".  What I was referring to was odd sentences like "Batman's first intercompany crossover is with Marvel's Hulk."  This sentence is really about the publishing history of the character, not his fictional history, and so should be in the past tense.  Fiction exists in the "eternal present", but the publication of a specific comic book is an event at a fixed point in history, and so should be in the past tense: Batman's first intercompany crossover was with Marvel's Hulk, and in that story the two fight the Joker and the Shaper of Worlds.  It's a bit difficult, since the paragraph shifts back and forth between speaking about the character as a property (real-world, past tense) and within a fictional context ("in-universe", present tense).  Perhaps the "crossovers" section should be rewritten more thoroughly to put it all in an out-of-universe perspective? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I just cheanged the first sentence and it was fine. --Chris Griswold  (☏) 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that the first sentence needs to say "was"; fiction exists in the eternal present, but a comic published in 1981 exists in the past.  Insofar as we're discussing the encounters between the characters, present tense is correct, but if we're discussing a publishing event, it's in the past. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That first sentence is s not a point worth to arguing about. I feel that the work still is the comics still is the first Batman crossover ever published because it still exists now. If, however, you feel that it should be past tense, I concede to you. --Chris Griswold  (☏) 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Present tense in "crossovers" section

message: "Unsurprisingly, the body count eventually published Batman stories is quite high"
Grammar seems a bit odd here - any suggestions?
: I'm removing it entirely -- not only is there a grammar problem, I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean, it doesn't fit in the section it has been put under and (perhaps incidentally) the conjunction is POV. ~CS 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of the Character 

message: There is not a single photo of Bruce Wayne in the entire article. Shouldn't one be included?
yes.there should be a photo of bruce-Demon laffy 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are correct --Energman 21:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Wayne 

message: I think that there should be a section covering the "family" like bat group.  How his sidekicks represent sons and/or daughters.  Or Alfred as his father.  Anyone agree?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.131.51 (talk • contribs) 
We already have that under supporting characters, which also points to Batman supporting characters. Please sign your posts in the future (with ~~~~) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bat Family 

message: PLEASE DON'T REVERT IT WITHOUT REASON.  I added a few sentences about the "Bat God" interpretation of Batmans character.  As the currently popular interpretation of the characters abilities I think it at least deserves a mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.244.93 (talk • contribs) .
:I have reverted it because it is original research. Please do not add it back unless you can cite a reliable source for this interpretation. Thanks, Gwernol 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bat God

message: While it remains possible to view these actions as a means by which Batman is deluding himself about his own homosexuality, any interpretation of Batman and Robin's sexual orientation as gay or straight is ultimately subjective.'
Huh?!? This is at the end of a section that includes nearly every creator denying it, and listing examples of relationships. How is this conclusion reached? -- Steven Fisher 17:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an NPOV attempt, after a lot of vandalism. The 'conclusion' is reached by accepting the fact that some people want to read into the HoYay! and allowing that they're welcome to so do.  Maybe Batman's sexuality is, as intended by most authors, predominantly heterosexual. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, as I recall it was a leftover from revert wars.  I agree that the original statement is inappropriate, but I do think a conclusion of some sort should remain.  Perhaps As intended by most authors, Batman's sexuality is predominantly heterosexual.  Homosexual readings of the texts are a product of non-canonical reader interpretations.?  Actually, I think that's pretty good for the time being.  I'm going to put it in in place of the (awful) text that was struck earlier, while we discuss it futher here. ~CS 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence is redundant and confuses the issue. You've already stated the authorial intent, so homosexuality in the characters is already indicated to be the result of reader response. Explicitly saying this sounds like the article is tring to say someting else - like, "this reading is obviously wrong", a POV and very contestable claim. "Canonical" is a fanboy phrase, and should be avoided wherever possible in encyclopaedic articles - what's worse, the Batwoman and Bat-Girl introduced to establish Batman and Robin as hterosexual characters an cited in the section, are not canon in the current DC universe (and the currently canon Batwoman is a lesbian)! It's especially bad when married with concepts of authorial intent is such a blanket way. The general consensus in academic circles is that reader response is more important than authorial intent; and also that all readings are biased (and it's no more biased to flatly ignore the authorial intent of Batman writers than it is to accept that intent). Few reader responses are unlikely to be based on every Batman story ever written, nor can we assume that the balance of authorial intent or textual evidence applies to every potrayal of a character which is written by so many different authors in different versions: Heterosexuality is not an archetypal facet of Batman's character, as it is in the case of, say, Superman because of the importance of his relationship with Lois Lane to any narrative of Superman, or James Bond because of the utilisation of women as his singular pleasure and weakness. (This could lead one to wonder why Batman's relationships, even his two marriages, have become an integral part of the Batman mythos.) Mentioning things like canon and reader interpretations opens up a whole can of worms. In an encyclopaedic article, I think no more needs to be said than the summation of the authorial intent as you've given it, and the second sentence should be ditched. 172.143.75.115 05:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Certainly better than what was there before. The only problem is it still smells vaguely like political correctness. The truth of the matter is that homosexual readings are likely the result of personal bias, not just unusual interpretations. Not sure how to say this in a reasonable way, though. CS's text is good, though. -- 14:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we're striving for a neutral POV, you're gonna end up with a little PC-ness in these situations.  We can't just say 'Stupid people who think they know better are sure that Batman and Robin are banging. The rest of us roll our eyes.' after all. And I'd say it's a politic answer. PC implies we're being vague for the sake of not offending peolpe, when we're more being understanted for the sake of making this read more like an encyclopedia than a blog. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I wonder, though, if it really is encyclopedic to put this much on such a stupid topic in the main article to begin with. Yes, I know stupid doesn't mean non-encyclopedic; I think I'm just rambling now. :) -- Steven Fisher 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is stupid people who don't actually know the characters. Bruce is a notorious ladies man, & Dick was banging Kory , who is the least boy-like character in the DC universe! (Yeh, I can just hear the homophiles--they're bisexual, they're in denial...) And Kirk & Spock, & Bert  & Ernie , are gay, too... Jeez... Maybe there is a gay agenda: convince all stupid people everybody's gay....  Trekphiler 06:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's just stupid. CovenantD 06:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, remember that episode in which Bert and Spock do it? Hot stuff. Pon farr and felt. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 08:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this conclusion reached? 

message: I added this:
:"(Credit, or blame, for the "bat" prefix goes to Bill Finger, though clearly the TV writers went overboard for effect.)"
Daniels credits Finger.  Trekphiler 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Batfinger

message: The article says:
:"Huntress' willingness to kill makes her alliance with Batman uneasy."
Now, maybe I don't get it amid all the retconning, but, given Bats' early history, I don't see the problem...& I'd add that fact, except for all the retconning... Trekphiler 10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I think about it, it's more likely the CCA that's the problem...  Trekphiler 10:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The heart is a lonely Huntress?

message: Does this warrant having its own article? -- Robocoder (t|c) 10:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. It's just a list. It's better than a category. 2. It was created as an alternative to listing eight different people under Creators in the Batman template. If anyone other than Kane and Finger get named on the template, editors will add and delete other names endlessly. Right now, obviously, the notable creators list is just stub. It will need to be fleshed out and properly cited to justify its existence in the long run. Doczilla 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of notable Batman creators]] 

message: Since Chris Griswold seems to have such a beef with my "style" in this
:"The decision was controversial at first but proved a major sales success (not surprisingly, since the audience was overwhelmingly young and male), but also led to a number of "boy wonders" in other superhero comics (most famously Bucky in Captain America and Rick Jones, who became entwined with Captain Mar-Vell, a redefined "sidekick")."
I invite him, or anyone else, to fix it, rather than changing what I said. (Chris Griswold will, I hope, notice, I do not abbreviate.)  Trekphiler 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited it down to what is potentially usable, but I've never had to insert five  tags into one sentence before. Was the decision controversial? Was it a major sales success? Do we know for certain that Robin's introduction led to other young male sidekicks? Is Bucky's intro specifically attributable to Robin? Was the word "sidekick" redefined? Answer those questions, and that information is fine. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not as forgiving as Chris - I've removed all of the uncited bits. If this is true, then find the citations to back it up. CovenantD 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have tried explaining to begin with. I didn't say it was controversial; that was in there to begin with. Daniels' DC Comics says it was a sales success (as I think I said, & as I believe the original says). I don't attribute Bucky to Robin, just an example, but I'd bet it was connected, since there were a plague of "boy sidekicks" (& the article originally said there were others). And Rick Jones was more than just a sidekick, unlike Robin (or when he was with Cap & the Hulk): without Rick, Mar-Vell couldn't function, which is what I meant. Still think it should be reverted? Trekphiler 03:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another revert?

message: The anonymous individual who keeps re-inserting this material about Batman as villain repeatedly does so, making the same errors again and again, including but not limited to these issues:
* Article is about the comic book, not the movies. (The only time the movies are named in this article is when they are part of the changing trend in how the character is depicted historically. Specific movie events are not mentioned.)
* Article is about the comic book, not the animated series.
* Errors in history stated as fact (e.g., mention of specific villains whose origins were, in fact, never shown to be connected to Wayne).
* Inserted material about one character "outing" him is unclear due to strong in-universe perspective that people who have not read that specific story are unlikely to follow.
* Inserted material about non-notable stories from the character's history.
* POV: Saying that the Batman tried to kill the Red Hood to save the Joker is inserting your own interpretation. Others will not see it that way.
* POV: "clear case of treason" Let the actions speak for themselves. Refrain from such interpretation.
* Spelling.
* Wikipedia style re: italicization.
* Wikipedia style re: how to insert a reference.
* Wikipedia style re: sentences.
Notice how many different editors have been reverting/fixing this. Doczilla 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to read Wikipedia policy and get to know it before taking on an edit war like this. You need to find out what it says about telling other people what their motives are. Doczilla 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Batman as villain . . . again and again

message: I'm thinking of taking a crack at revamping this.  It's arranged oddly; the creation of the character is the first thing mentioned, but then there's a "Character origins" section below "Evolution of the character".  Also, the "Evolution of the character" section seems somewhat redundant with the fictional biography.  I can take time out to work on this tomorrow (I've got my copy of Batman: The Complete History handy after letting it collect dust on my bookshelf for over a year), so if anyone has any issues or wants to help out, let's hear it.  WesleyDodds 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're meant to complement each other. The Pub. hist would give a piece of info detailing a creator's run on the title using real-world terms such as impact, sales, quality etc. The biography would say what happened to Batman in that run. Jamdav86
Good job on whoever's reorganised it! Wiki-newbie 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was Wesley. Good work man! --Jamdav86 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication History section 

message: The article is an older Featured Article and may not cut today's standards.  Needs work in inline referencing department, maybe suffers from recentism too. Solid article though, hits the bases. Hiding Talk 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Do we really need the bit about crossover appearances on this page?  WesleyDodds 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we not need it? It's part of Batman's popularity, the number of times he's been crossed over. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I should be more specific.  I meant do we need that section in this article, when a list of crossovers is provided in List of Batman comics.  WesleyDodds 14:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossovers 

message: I strongly think it should be noted in the article that he's known as the "Caped Crusader", and the "Dark Knight Detective". I don't care where, though I prefer the infobox. The trouble is that we should differentiate between these nom de plumes, and the true aliases of Matches Mallone, and Sir Hemmingford Gray. Btw, regarding the latter: I believe it's "Lord" (while it also may be "Sir"). This was the alias he used while recouperating in England (of an actual Lord who had been gone for some time in Africa) during Knightquest: the Search (which eventually resolved the Shondra Kinsolving sub-plots). - jc37 04:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SHB data ideally should only be pulled from the article, and conversely, everything in the SHB ought to be mentioned in the article. These can be added very simply to the history section.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't it used to be in the lead section a while back?  WesleyDodds 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: []
:I thought he is 6'3" and 240lbs.?
::I thought he was the width of a sheet of standard comics paper. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this useful? 

message: While I wouldn't doubt it, does anyone have verification that Batman has a photographic memory? I don't believe I've ever read that he does (in a canon comic, anyway), but he does certainly have a good memory for detail. -Switch t 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eidetic memory]] 

message: Excuse me, but there's a link to Kal-L at top of the Golden Age section of the Superman article. Why shouldn't there be a link to the analogous character in the same place in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the divergence of the mainstream Batman and what came to be known as the Earth-Two is so profound (retirement, marriage, daughter, Police Commissioner, death, America vs. The Justice Society), I can see the point in having a separate article. It's important to make the distinction as to when the E-2 version was officially deemed a separate individual and only document that distinct character's publication history. CovenantD 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that the E-2 version is a separate character.  Given that the E-2 versions of Superman and Wonder Woman are distinct and different characters, especially given that they met their modern incarnations in Infinite Crisis, then it follows that E-2's Batman is also a separate character.Windmillchaser 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright good, then I'll put a "See also" link to the Batman of Earth-Two article at the top of the Golden Age section.--A gx7 11:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and someone's removed it again, for some reason. Can I ask why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't removed -- it was moved down to the Silver Age where, AFAIC, it belongs.  "Earth-2" is a retroactive creation of the Silver Age and chonologically doesn't belong in the Golden Age.  It's important for encyclopedia articles such as this to be concerned with clear publication history. ~CS 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth-Two Batman link 

message: Speaking of un-needed pages, I changed Bruce Wayne to redirect here for a couple reasons. First, all the information is in this article.  There's no big psyche split between Bruce and Batman.  Bruce is Batman. Always has been, always will be (52 be damned!).  While almost everyone can agree that Clark and Superman are almost separate identities from each other, this can't be said of Bruce/Batman, and we should keep the information together. I don't feel it's a logical split, so I'm being bold and reverting :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this decision.  Any pertinent information about Bruce Wayne can be worked into this article -- the redirected article was merely a fictional character biography (not publication history or cultral impact) which I do not believe appropriate for an encyclopedia. ~CS 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce Wayne page

message: * Yes - Per nom -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this section? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well...  Yeah, I guess I was pretty unclear.  I'm just saying that the kool skillz article in question should not be tacked into the maturely written Batman article.  It's little more than a list, and an inane one at that.  ~CS 18:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Duggy 1138 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Skills and abilities of Batman]]