Talk:Joker (character)/Archive 1

message: Although it is never stated in the movie, the series from which this movie was spun off from has stated on numerous occasions that, in its continuity, The Joker's real name is also Jack Napier.''
:As for instance? To the best of my recollection, the series mentions the name "Jack Napier" exactly once, and on that occasion it's explicitly described as an alias. --Paul A 06:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work that way, GIPU. Look at Deadpool and Rogue (comics). The movie has no baring on comics continuity and, in fact, any of-hand references were likely just that. Look at Ultimate Wolverine Vs. Hulk#Trivia. At best, it can be argued that his name might be Jack, but honestly, that's Jack. Until DC's ready to give the bastard a solid original and past, the name's out. Futhermore, it's not an offucial alias, either. Lastly, sign your freaking comments. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently read Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth and it seems heavily alluded to that The Joker is Amadeus Arkham. Eluchil 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's not significant in the Comics continuity. That one author used it as his alias in a nod to the movie is not significant. Creative teams on comics often seek to insert simple nods and jokes, but if we included every one, we'd haveto go through every time Joker's used any sort of culturally related alias. As I recall he's used the real names of some of the Marx Bros., and buster keaton. That would all be trivial at best. Until the editors give us a name, indexing his aliases is probably a bad idea.ThuranX 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Name 

message: While he has certainly murdered countless people, he has never been portrayed as committing murder to satisfy a violent and/or sexual compulsion, which is required to qualify him as a serial killer. 
Treybien, 23:08 15 April (UTC)
First off, your definition is wrong. Second, "The Joker doesn't have a violent compulsion"? is that what you're saying? If so, I gotta ask, what next? Lex Luther doesn't want to bone the same women as Supes? Sinestro wasn't corrupted by power? Black Manta isn't Black?! Ace Class Shadow 06:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more of a compulsion towards morbid humor than actual violence.  I probably haven't read as many of the comics as you guys, but I always got the impression that he enjoyed the jokes more than the violence.--Vercalos 07:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Further research into the definition of serial killer makes me agree though..  Joker more closely fits into the category of a 'spree killer' rather than a serial killer(as the Joker is always the Joker, with one exception).--Vercalos 07:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's not a serial killer 

message: In Elseworlds: Distant Fires, after a nuclear holocost all the superheroes who had powers survived but lost their powers, and all who had no powers were dead.  The Joker was alive but sane.
In Amalgam: Marvel vs. DC, the Joker recognized Spider Man, and even criticized him changing his costume even thogh Spider Man had never (in this plot line) been in the DC universe - he had been plucked from one universe to another.
This suggests that the Joker's insanity is a super power.  I'm going to try to write it up.Harvestdancer 22:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-crazy 

message: "Most recently, a very different version of the character appeared in the new animated series The Batman. No explanation for this Joker's origin has yet been given, "
I just watched an episode of The Batman in which Joker has a flashback of himself falling into a vat of chemicals, while ranting about an over-controlling "Boss" "Pushing him over the edge".  
I have such a poor memory that I can't remember the name of the episode, or all the relevant details, but suffice it to say, the origin has at least been hinted at. -This episode was the first part of what is I presume a two parter showing the origin of clayface. Luckily I have it Tivo'd so I will be able to have all those details available shortly.
* It's episode 12 of the first season, called "The Rubberface of Comedy". It's the one were he uses his a slight variation of his "infamous" line, saying "All it takes is one rotten day..." and so on. However, I don't recall him saying anything about a over-controling boss "pushing him over the edge". Even if he did, I would think he would be refering to Ethan's issues with his boss, and not to himself. Hecko 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Batman: Joker origins 

message: There also is a Porn star by the name Jack Napier (porn star). --Abdull 10:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn star 

message: I don't think the inspiration should be credited to Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine alone. Jerry Robinson and Bill Finger cited sources like a Coney Island statue and a specific Joker Card.
:Yeah I know what you mean, I read in the Les Daniels book the Complete History of Batman these sources have been cited but I don't have the book with me. I remembered the Coney Island head looked a lot like this caricture found in an abandoned building: [].
::In looking up pictures of Cesar Romero, I came across a site  that reports that there is a dispute as to who created the Joker. Bob Kane apparently denies that Jerry Robinson had anything to do with it. I'm not sure if this needs to be mentioned in the article or not. --GentlemanGhost 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the creation

message: An awful lot of this Character Analysis section of this article smacks of original research, particularly the material about the symbolic significance of the character and speculation about Friedrich Nietzsche.  If these are other than the pet theories of the editor, they need to be sourced.  Otherwise, I'd like to start moving the questionable sections off the main page and onto this one. --Misterwindupbird 05:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a valid point to make, i may raise the thesis on Everything 2 another date. --Raddicks 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: We need to include information about the Joker's cartoon appearances before Batman: the Animated Series (most notably in Superfriends).  I would do it, but my knowledge is lacking in that area. WesleyDodds 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances in animation 

message: Okay, with all the crap hitting the fan as far as the Joker goes, his origin is becoming more defined while becoming more muddied. Is Leslie Thompkins still his mother? I see that The Further Adventures of the Joker was published in 1990, which puts it squarely in the post-Crisis, pre-Zero Hour malaise of Batman. Now that Joker is confirmed as being the Red Hood, does this mean his name is Jack Napier? Mostly, I'm concerned about his relationship to Leslie Thompkins. Her article is a stub, but both her article and the Joker's article reference her as being his mother. I need either a confirmation of this, or a denial, otherwise I'm chalking it up as lost to Zero Hour.
And don't give me any bullshit about Hypertime, it's no longer an editorial option. 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Zero Hour, Recent Status 

message: I think that applying Neitzsche's 'Ubermensch' philosophy to the character of The Joker is an apt one. I'd be willing to do this but I feel that someone with a greater degree of philosophical knowledge would do better.
: It would be interesting to connect Nietzsche's view of the Overman, being able to laugh at everything including himself (or even one's own death), with the obvious quality of the Joker's "personality". --Brandon Tiongison 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubermensch 

message: I've done all I could with gathering up information from the internet; so, now, I pass the torch to all of those who can add to the comic book and graphic novel bibliography (please keep in mind that they are sorted by date). Please help me on this one.
Also, if anyone has anything to add to the "Bibliography" section - such as a list of all of the animated series episodes the character appeared on - please do. Thanks.--Kelly Chartier 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: The list is getting rather long. I'm not too sure how much of an eye-sore this will be to people - is there any way I can organize this list better? I still want it listed by date, but perhaps this list can be linked to rather than be visible on the info page. Or, maybe there's another way that I'm not familliar with. Thanks.--Kelly Chartier 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it seems that Apostrophe doesn't like my edit. That's fine, I think it looks a bit ugly too - though, I don't know what those abreviations Apostrophe made meant. But, I want to keep the list somehow for collectors. So, to make both of us happy, I'll try to find a way to link to the list, rather than have it on the article.--Kelly Chartier 07:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those abbreviations refer to other parts of the article. Don't worry about those. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for details. Again, don't bother to worry about those. ' 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I understand now - thank you.--Kelly Chartier 02:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not. But someone will be happy depending on the results of the current AfD for the bibliography page. Vote on this if you care. GentlemanGhost 04:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Help... 

message: This is a viable theory, I am thinking.  I have heard firsthand accounts of people who had superhuman strength when in an altered state of mind.  For example, when my father was younger, he knew a guy who believed he was a werewolf(not a large fellow, in fact rather small), and by the light of the moon, picked up a fencepost from a chain link fence, with cement still attached, and threw it at him and two of his friends.  When they returned later, it took all three of them just to lift it..  Also drugs that alter one's mental state make one able to ignore injuries that would normally leave a man unable to move.--Vercalos 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insanity-induced strength

message: Okay, who's really in the running to be the Joker in this movie? Perhaps a greater standard should be appled...like...From now on, I'd like at least one credible source for every name. Ace Class Shadow 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman Continues 

message: Personally, I would like to see Robin Williams in the role. He was already cast as the Joker once, but cheated by Warner and Jack.  His cool exterior and subtle neurosis in Insomnia makes him a perfect fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.248.114 (talk • contribs) 
No. The Anti-Gnome 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who would you like to see?

message: "(Although this doesn't necessarily imply that his name is Jack, it's possible he would have said Jason, Jacob, or any other myriad of names.)" 
Is that really necessary? It's pretty obvious to most fans that the writer was hinting at his name being Jack as opposed to suggesting his name as being Jacob or Jay. I'm deleting it but if anyone proposes a good argument for its placement (other than it simply being a possibilty) than I won't argue if you put it back up.
--Jack of Blades 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cousin Jack 

message: I deleted the image romero.jpg  
That image was replaced by some publicity still.  I attempted to recover the original but I'm not a savvy enough wikipedian.  wasserperson 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar Romero Image 

message: Did I miss something here?  The local bookstore isn't carrying all of the One Year Later titles, did the Joker die in one of those?
Supposing he did die in an issue I missed, I'm pretty sure it was a "no body, no death" deal so his status could be changed to Unknown.
Simon Beavis
It's because of the explosion thing at the end of Batman 650 that apparently got him. Jason Todd's already been shown to have survived in Nightwing, so I suppose Joker could have survived as well. Anyway, you know what he's like - practically unkillable anyway. SMegatron 09:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He survived that ordeal, because he killed Alexander Luthor at the end of Infinite Crisis #7. 71.112.65.153 08:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we don't know that he doesn't die in that fight because it takes place before the creation of New Earth.--Chris Griswold 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased? 

message: I added a file (11 KB) of a proposed poster, showing the Joker based on Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the 1928 (1927 ?) film The Man who Laughs.
I do not know who created the picture. Feel free to use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Veidtasjoker.jpg
--Haris 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fan made picture of Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine as the Joker 

message: Everyone -- please remember that this isn't the place for rumors about who will play this character in an upcoming film.  Unless contracts are signed, official announcements are made and production on the film has started, these are nothing but speculation, and don't belong in an encyclopedia article. 
Also: I removed Infinite Crisis spoilers from the opening paragraphs.  Perhaps these could go elsewhere in the article, but in addition to being in a spot where a reader would not expect to find Infinite Crisis spoilers, I'm not sure they are notible enough to warrent such a prominant place. ~CS 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elsewhere in the article would be perfectly appropriate.  I appreciate that for continuity fans of the DCU this is a major event, but I think it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and the focus should be on clear information in the context of a reader who wants to know more about the character.  Complicated continuity stories like Crisis are incidental to the Joker's use inthe Bat-Titles, IMHO.  Those first paragraphs above the table of contents are supposed to explain who the Joker is in a nutshell -- and I think the Crisis information, when placed there, complicates and confuses instead of clarifying.  ~CS 01:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casting Rumors & Crisis

message: Subsections were restored in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Headings policy. I put them there in the first place because I wanted anchors on the subsections to link to, so please don't break my links! If you think they're ugly, fix with Help:User style. Vagary 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found my way here via WP:3O. I can see some basis for using bolded text as a heading, where doing so avoids cluttering up the page with too many sections. We're nearing (or past) the point where that might become a problem, but given that the rest of the page uses traditional headings, and doing so here would only add four more, I'm inclined to do that. If nothing else, I'd prefer discussion to a revert war. Though I have a feeling this is already more or less resolved, let's see. :) Luna Santin 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a mixture of both.  There's no need to have the titles of the movies in the film section show up in the contents for example, its clutter and it looks visually ugly, at least in part because the headings are just so damn big for the most part.Darkwarriorblake 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: This page is listed in WP:POLLS. The question is: Should subsections be semantically marked up (with equals syntax), or only implied by formatting (with bold subsection titles)? Examples of the latter include Joker (comics)#Powers and abilities, Venom (comics)#Character history, Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Forms and transformations, Vegeta#Forms and transformations, and Carnage (comics)#Appearances in other media.
::It should be a mixture of both.  There's no need to have the titles of the movies in the film section show up in the contents for example, its clutter and it looks visually ugly, at least in part because the headings are just so damn big for the most part.Darkwarriorblake 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This is demonstratably untrue, so I'm taking it out. Despite that, I think there might be some merit to this claim if it could be phrased better. Most of the big killers I can think of from comics (Ozymandias, Saint of Killers, whoever caused the plague in Y: The Last Man) did it either in one fell swoop or had supernatural powers. The Joker may be the most prolific long-term killer who does it by his own hand, or something like that. If someone can think of a good way to phrase it, please do so. Stilgar135 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "making him perhaps the most prolific killer in comic book history" 

message: Now, you only hace to write The Joker (The Joker) and it links here... How ever same problem with The Penguin, because "The Joker" and "The Penguin" are actually redirects, the article titles are "Penguin (comics)" and "The Joker (comics)". But if we request the moving (we cannot just copy-paste) we can have "The Joker" and "The Penguin" as the titles of the articles (there isn't any other articles using those titles).
My main argument, besides the redirect thing and that it'd be very comfortable just typing The Joker to link here, is that the characters are not that often just called Joker or Penguin; and in comics context, they are not "a joker" or "a penguin" they are "The yaddayadda..." (you get the point, I say it one more time and I'll blow up).--The Judge 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot change the status quo or make exceptions. "The" is not put in comic book character titles, not matter what; it just isn't. Now, you've got the biased redirect you wanted,—"The Joker" to this article—why don't you let it rest? Besides, your comment is technically incorrect—well, besides being written poorly—in that "The Joker" was the title of the redirect page. I've corrected the article title and the resulting double redirect. If you'd like to help, I suggest correcting all links from the title "The Joker (comics)". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As Ace says, there is a naming convention in place here on Wikipedia. You need to observe it. If you feel the naming convention is not reasonable, take it there. The Wikiproject Comics people can help you out. ThuranX 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: ===A Death in the Family and The Killing Joke===
I am pretty certain that ADitF comes after TKJ (the first even references Barbara's disability).  Yet the current version of the article implies otherwise. Luis Dantas 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology order

message: I am pretty certain that ADitF comes after TKJ (the first even references Barbara's disability).  Yet the current version of the article implies otherwise. Luis Dantas 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Death in the Family and The Killing Joke

message: One of the best cartoons ever, but where is the picture from the Joker voiced by Mark Hamil? This is the best known and true joker. Someone add the picutre and maybe even change the first pic into this one.
-G—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs) 
Hamill's is not the best known Joker according to everyone. And it's not the DC Comics canonical Joker. Doczilla 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that there really is no such thing as a canonical Joker?  The Batman comic has been written by at least a half-dozen individuals, all with different visions of Gotham and its residents.  It would be impossible to choose one "real" Joker because in the comics alone, there have been so many distinct versions of the character. --M.Neko 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Joker as drawn for the early B:TAS isn't here for two reasons. One, no one has added such a pic in the past, and the article doesn't need so many images as is. Adding more is not going to help the article, because it will mean more clutter and cruftishness, instead of more refinement nad focus on the encyclopedic. ThuranX 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm uncertain what the debate here is about?  There is a picture of the Joker from B:tAS in the section on B:tAS, and it has been there for some time.  I agree that putting this version in the top image is probably not appropriate, but the original poster primarily seemed concerned that there was a lack of B:tAS images, which is incorrect. ~CS 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joker from the WB Batman cartoon series

message: How would people feel if the Alex Ross picture  was replaced with something like this? ?
JoeDestructive
:I prefer the Ross painting to the suggested image. THe Ross image is simple, straightforward, and clear. It's one of the most 'fine-art- representations of the joker, and I find it to be very encyclopaedic, whereas the other image is far more likely to prompt a long set of image shuffles (see Poison Ivy's page for more on that sort of thing.) There's a move on a lot of the pages to ensure Out-of-Universe perspectives and trend toward the encyclopedic. I think that image gets far closer to the 'fanboyish'. I'd actually prefer it if we could use far more of Ross' or Ross-like works, or more of the creating artist's works. For example, I'd love to have a Jack Cole image for plastic man, kirby works for the fantastic four, and so on. ThuranX 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace the Ross picture with something. Right now, the article has two Ross pics, which is not indicative of how the character normally appears. Doczilla 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that we're playing round robin with the display image. I'm not getting into that edit scuffle except to say again that the article shouldn't have two Ross images. Doczilla 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Total agreement with Doczilla - one Ross is enough. CovenantD 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there have been a couple suggestions so far. I'm personally not going to get into this either, I already tried once (and that's all I'll try), and it apparently wasn't in favor (See above pic suggestion). Some people want the Ross DP, but as said above, there already 2. Some want the Bolland one of Joker throwing the ball, but then there'd be 3 Bolland pics. I'm personally happy with the picture I suggested (of Joker with his BANG gun, after "killing" Thomas Elliot) being down in the article somewhere, not necessarily as the DP. JoeDestructive 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I prefer Ross' work, I didn't mind the new image at all, and haven't been involved in this reversion debacle. I would like to see it stay there for a while. It does embody some significant aspects of the character. ThuranX 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Jim Lee one is indeed dire.  I agree that still more Ross or Bolland images might not be the way to go (although I do think the prior Ross image was the best thing we've ever had in that infobox) but there's got to be something better than what we've got now.  Doug Mahnke?  http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/data/media/91/batman-manwholaughs.jpg D1Puck1T 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the Jim Lee image, but I don't like it as a lead-in image. Apart from its width annoying me, I think Lee has taken the character too far in his own direction. That's not a "definitive" Joker there. I like the idea of finding a Mahnke image to be the lead-in. --Switch 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the one here? (Scroll down to the very bottom): http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/faces.html (The one of him with his evil Jack-In-The-Box) It's... different (considering it came from a crossover). Maybe if you cropped it a bit, to focus on Joker, and not his arm sticking up... JackOfHearts 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mahnke image is good too. Perhaps a quick straw poll, with the losing image being relocated elsewhere in the article, and the Ross joker image staying elsewhere in the article? All three have their positives, but we should find a consensus nad stick to it for a while (i.e., a year or more, it's an image, not underwear, it doesn't need daily changing.) ThuranX 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I don't care for the Lee picture either and would prefer it to be replaced, it at least gives a view of the Joker's full-body appearance. The display image needs to, well, put him on display. Doczilla 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am happy with the Mahnke image at the moment, though I would be happier with a Bolland image. On the other hand, though I think the style is appropriate, I can't think of an individual Bolland image I'd prefer to the current Mahnke one. --Switch 07:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm good with the Mahnke image. I'm also sort of dismayed by a certain amount of 'artist preference here'. Although I liked the Ross image, I liked it for it's evocation of certain parts of Joker's character, specifically  his sinister and sadistic nature. However, I've seen a number of pages where Bolland is the preferred artist. I'd instead like to see a directed effort to vary the artists. There are literally hundreds of top two pencillers and inkers, and I think it's more visually interesting and encyclopedic to use a variety of talent to showcase the breadth of the industry. If there's a Bolland here, maybe a Jimenez at Penguin, a Harris at Solomon Grundy, an Infantino at Riddler, and so on. ThuranX 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps an image from "The Killing Joke" would be adaquent desplay image, as it seemed to capture a rather generic variant of the Joker image wise. Where certain artists display him in a way that outwardly appears quite manic and disturbed, such as Jim Lee and whoever it was that illustrated Arkham Asylum, others depict him as a rather comical, cartoonish figure, such as Bruce Timm or Tim Sale. Where I personally prefer the darker tone Jim Lee gives the character, it seems as though a rather plainly drawn variant would be ideal for the display image, and to have the article dipict varying interpretations of him later on. 66.24.236.62 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I hope that I've put some real motion into some sort of agreement. Though I must point out that one of the links doesn't seem to work; you can find the last image (http://www.imagenetion.net/matrix/ahorley/pages/al_060_ofn_QMan_AH_BM_1891_The_Joker.htm) in Alex Horley's gallary: http://www.imagenetion.net/matrix/ahorley2.htm. Also, I noticed when I clicked on the Joker's Circus link that the image (http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/joker.gif) doesn't come out right; my mistake, the image can be seen more clearly on its home page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/. But, I don't know if the image can be used because of it's error. There, hopefully that fixes everything.--Kelly Chartier 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, all of these appear to be copyrighted fan art, which puts two strikes against its' use. The Bolland you cited is visually too busy to make a good encyclopedic image. The Mahnke image meets fair use and is already up. ThuranX 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Horley piece isn't fan art -- it's from the Batman: Masterpieces card series, and can be found on page 195 of the book that collects them. I don't care for it, but if there were overwhelming interest in it for the top image, I'd be happy to scan a low-rez version with proper copyright attributes.  I believe the "Shake" image is also from a book cover -- but I'm having trouble placing it at the moment.  Kelly's Boland link is fantastic -- but as you say, the image is too "busy" due to the magazine cover images.  If another source can be found for it, I think it's the best image we've seen so far.  Other than that -- I do like the Bruce Timm image Rabid Panda suggested.  I don't think the animated series is the "definitive" representation of the Joker -- but I do think the image works visually as a top-page image.  ~CS 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also -- for what it's worth: 1 2 ~CS 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an above topic, ACS suggested a gallary of images. I know it doesn't solve the debate of what to do with the articles main image, but I thought I'd throw in that idea in anyways. And, I'm afraid I cant find a better Back Issue #3 image than that. Damn.--Kelly Chartier 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is there no need for a gallery of images, our Wikipedia guidelines discourage them. A gallery of images of the same character exceeds fair use. (See previous debates regarding articles like Iron Fist.) Doczilla 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, it seems as though a fairly generic picture, one depicting the Joker as he is most well known, is ideal. Personally, I liked the second picture posted by CS, although I also think the images here (http://cobweb.scarymonsters.net/~corleyj/images/mush/crazy4it.jpg) and here (http://robertmonroe.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/tegneserie2.JPG) might work, although the latter most likely isn't generic enough for the top of the page, however it may look good later on in the article. 66.24.236.62 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of these seem far too stylized for a picture meant to sum up the character.  Although it's not perfect, so far the Mahnke image being used as a placeholder seems a good indication of what should be aimed for - a piece that's not too stylized (like Sale's or some of the others), and has him posed without excessive props, word balloons, etc.D1Puck1T 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. A lot of the pictures people love grab people's attention because of the creative ways they deviate from standard Joker depictions, and the article can certainly use some of those. The display image, however, needs to represent a more typical Joker depiction. Doczilla 05:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We already have a Ross image. One of the things we've kind of agreed on is that the article shouldn't have two Rosses. The one that's on there is a really good choice for capturing the Joker's connection to Harley. Doczilla 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Duck and Doczilla's recent comments. No duplicate Ross paintings, much as I admire his skill. I'd like to go one further, and say NO duplicate artists AT ALL. Given the 65+ year history of the character, we all know there are probably 100 different Sequential Artists who've rendered him in just the various batman books, to say nothign of his goes against the JLA, Superman, and Archie and the riverdale gang. Let's go for variety, not 'favorites'.ThuranX 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but think exceptions can be made to the "no duplicate artists" where a good argument can be made.  Right now we have one Brian Bolland Joker, and one Brian Bolland "the man who may have become Joker".  I think that's within reason.  Using an artist's work in the article and in the box though, does not seem within reason.D1Puck1T 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How would this image work? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/The_Joker.JPG
66.24.236.62 05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely too small, at just over 100 pixels in each dimension, and in my opinion, both far too closely cropped, and not indicative of his 'evil' nature. ThuranX 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about this one? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Jokerkillingjoke.png)
Although it is used later on in the article, it does seem to reflect the madness his character is generally portrayed with. Further, it seems much less 'cartoonish' than the current image. However, it could be argued that it relates far too much to a single interpretation of the character's past66.24.236.62 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Display Image? 

message: I don't know if we're actually getting anywhere in deciding what image we really want to have up on the article. Would it be possible to find a web site where we can vote on what image we want (and decide from all of the images everyone has suggested)?--Kelly Chartier 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking abou a 'Straw Poll'. YOu can start one right here. Unfortunately, I don't think it will solve much. New editors will keep arriving, as seen when we went from Ross to Lee. We had it settled for about 3 days, and new editors pushed for other images. My vote's for the Mahnke until something truly 'better' comes along. ThuranX 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of not having the image constantly changed then? If no conclusion comes out of this discussion then there's really no point in the Mahnke image remain on the article until our discussion is over. Why are we even discussing this if there is no conclusion? My vote's for the Mahnke until something truly 'better' comes along. That's one vote for Mahnke.--Kelly Chartier 06:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the art quality on Mahnke, but my vote also is for Mahnke until something better comes along. As we've discussed, the character has been drawn by so many artists, there's no reason for the display image to be by someone who has another picture on the page. I love the Ross picture with Harley right where it is. The Ross that was used for the display image does not capture the normal appearance of the character. We have enough Bolland. The Jim Lee picture didn't capture the character's essence as well as the Mahnke. Doczilla 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't like the art quality on Mahnke, but my vote also is for Mahnke until something better comes along." Agree. Three votes for Mahnke, until a better image is found. --Switch 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Make it four, just to solidify the way things are going. CovenantD 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure when Straw Polls are supposed to end. But I gather everyone's happy with the image remaining as it is, seeing as though no one can find "a better picture to come along" (which may never happen). That's cool. I like the Mahnke piece. =)--Kelly Chartier 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: The article dates his 1st app as 1940; what was the cover date?  Trekphiler 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Batman #1 is from 1940, the only "date" on the cover is "Spring Issue."  It does not appear at first glance that The Dark Knight Archives, The Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told, Batman #1 Milenium Edition, or Batman: A Complete History give a more precise date. Someone with more specific sources than I might be able to provide more information.  ~CS 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears it was published in April, going by this advert. 172.143.75.115 06:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia article on Batman (comic book) already gave the date. I think, though, the conention is to utilise the cover date and the year of publication in the boxes, and the cover date is just "Spring". 172.143.75.115 06:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks y'all! Tradition is to use cover date, which in this case is Spring '40 (which I knew). It looks like the ad gives a date which can't be "official" from the traditional POV, but looks authentic. I'm adding the month on that basis. (It's usual to judge "1st app" by newstand date only when there are 2 or more apps the same month, such as "1st SA Airboy", in both Scout & Swords of Texas {I think}.) Trekphiler 06:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I See Crazy People 

message: I believe that the Infinite Crisis section is misleading, if not inaccurate -- Joker first used his acid on, then shot, Alexander Luthor, for the snub Alex gave in making him the only villian excluded from the Society of Villians Alex created.  Virtually every villian EVER was included, but in an earlier confrontation, the Joker learned he was considered too unstable and wasn't wanted.  
Alex was NOT Luthor's son -- not this one -- and Luthor and Alex were bitter enemies.
Furthermore, Jason Todd and the Joker had a very character-developing dialogue when Jason kidnapped him and confronted Batman with his 'failure' to avenge him.  This may not be an article about Jason Todd, but the incident was very interesting, and Joker/Batman/Jason Todd are very intertwined emotionally.  So would it be possible to include Todd's theory about the Joker's sanity -- the one that made the Joker stop laughing...
JDudeman 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite Crisis 

message: I think we should have a list of Joker nicknames.  I have several, but I wanted to check with the rest of you first.  First off, I've heard him refered to as "The Crown Prince of Crime" and "The Ace of Knaves". Batman: The Doomsday Prophecy, a DC Superpowers Which Way book by Richard Wenk, also refers to him as "the Contempible Clown", the "Crafty Contriver of Crimes", "the Terrible Trickster", "the Barnum of Buffoonery", "the Merry Master of Mayhem", "the Machiavelli of Mischief", and "the Monarch of Mirth."  I also read in a Batman book (I'd have to look up which one it was) that The Joker has something like 40 different nicknames, so maybe that could be part of the article rather than part of the infobox.  In any case, I'm adding "The Clown Prince of Crime" because I've heard him called that so much. Evernut 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the "Harlequin of Hate." My personal favorite. --CmdrClow 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On first blush I don't think this would really fly on Original Research grounds. On second blush it may create an ugly precedent with the nicknames for other characters. — J Greb 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of these things are "original research" -- they are simply reports of what is contained in primary sources. Although, I too have the Superpowers "Which Way Book" -- but I don't think it's exactly a canonical source.  That said, none of these things are aliases.  They're nicknames, and we have not been including such things in infoboxes -- just legitimate aliases. ~CS 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should pass on this. It's an UGLY precedent, and sets up for a HUGE amount of Listcruft on the comics pages. Let's avoid this, and the inevitable fannish arguing about priorities thereon. ThuranX 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it would probably be appropriate to mention Clown Prince of Crime, I wouldn't want to on precedent grounds... Pass. ~Switch t c g 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't set this precedent. Also, it does involve some POV & OR in judging which names to include. How many times does a character have to be called something to list it as a nickname? Should we put "Vulchie" on the Vulture's page just because Spider-Man has mocked him with that before? No. Doczilla 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. "Fannish arguing." As if that's something to try and avoid, that's all that happens between us nerds, especially on Wikipedia. Ha. --CmdrClow 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker nicknames 

message: In the newly-canon BATMAN: CONFIDENTIAL# 7 (published today,) the Joker's original name is revealed to be "Jack!"
So now, the Jack Napier-haters are partially wrong, according to DC Comics (his last name has yet to be revealed.)
It is true that he is refered to as Jack. However, many criminal types do not use their real names.
Batman Confidential is not exactly in continuity. This is not an official origin for the Joker.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.130 (talk • contribs) 
*Plus, a person can be called "Jack" like being called "bub", "buddy", or "dumbo" without it being his name. Doczilla 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the series not yet finished, there is NO guarantee that this origin will become canon. Other possible origins stories have ended with an "out", that is, a means to evade continuity/canon. I'd suggest holding off till the story is over. Further, we've seen that other recent 'canon' changes, like Issue 663, seem unlikely to hold, and will be excised rapidly. ThuranX 07:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, and see. If this really is his origin, I'm sure we'll find iterviews about it, because that would amount to a significant editorial decision. Further, it may come to pass that this is his origin in one of the OTHER Earths of the multiverse, one that gets destroyed during Countdown. it may turn out that this story is built on batman's case notes, and in the end, there's some event which leaves batman unsure about the Jack/Joker thing. Wait, see, then report. We aern't a scooper site, and we aren't required to be the first to report things. ThuranX 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it's put as "...a mob killer named Napier...", no first name. And it's still put forth in a way that it cannot be taken as definitive — the Joker is narrating is and gives 3 different starts to the story. - J Greb 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really tired of this stuff. Given that the 'confidential' series' are stories set in the characters' pasts, and that countdown makes it vague delierately, there's no reason to even bother with the 'Jack', I think. DC is unlikely to ever really explain who Joker is in an absolute, official canon way. ThuranX 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's just proof that this origin is no more official than any other promised reveal of his origin. Concurrent releases with different information ... ThuranX 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Jack' is now OFFICIALLY the Joker's real name!!!!!!