Talk:Batman/Archive 1

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 2005 and November 2005.
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/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Hiding  talk 11:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Was he ever legally adopted by Bruce?
Apostrophe 05:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jason Todd as a relative

message: There was also pre-Adam West tv series, in black and white.
: You might be talking about a film serial that was played around 1949(?) I think. I have the whole block of episodes on VHS, so I might just have to drag out my VCR to get some info --Alan D
: Quite possibly. It was 30 minute episodes which a Channel 4 showed every morning one summer years ago. The batmobile was an ordinary police car, and the exit from the batcave was a large unconvincing rock on the side of a dirt road, as far as I remember. -- Tarquin
Was the feature film "The Wild World of Batwoman" from 1966 too stupid to be listed here? The Catwoman movie is listed.  Arctic.gnome
"Batwoman" is unrelated and I think I even read DC sued the makers. --Talison 04:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pre-Adam West tv series

message: Speaking as a gay man (and I know on behalf of others), could I say that Robin's legs, particularly when so ably portrayed by Chris O'Donnell, do indeed enourage homosexuality? Adam 04:24, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Robin encourages Homosexuality

message: I removed the following from the article because I really don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 02:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RPG stats

message: is there really no page on Azrael??
--Yak 17:58, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
:It would appear not. Would you like to start one? --Paul A 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Azrael's page

message: i do not think the picture is in the public domain.
: It isn't; however, it's fair use. -- user:zanimum
::I removed  because fair use claims need more than the words fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair_use -Wikibob | Talk 11:11, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
:::If the cartoon image of Batman isn't permissible, then neither are the other images in the article.  All of them are covered by current copyrights, after all.  But rather than just say "fair use" or "not fair use", let's actually do what you suggest and apply the tests:
:::1) Purpose of the usage: educational and not-for-profit
:::2) Nature of the work: creative fiction
:::3) Proportion of original used: trivial (either a partial frame of a complete episode, or the cover of a complete magazine)
:::4) Affect on marketability of original: none
:::Test #2 works against it, but none of these tests are black/white deal breakers; they're factors that are taken into consideration in weighing cases.  And the other three tests weigh pretty heavily in favor, as they do any time a scholar of art or literature writes about ___ and includes an example of ___ to illustrate what he's writing about. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I'd put my money on a ruling of "fair use" for all of them. Tverbeek 13:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain image

message: I was noticing -- the Superman article lists several pastiche-type characters, including Hyperion, Underdog, and so on, based on Superman. It would be nice to see something here, but I don't know of enough to warrant it. However, I know there are several Batman clones out there, including but not limited to: The Blue Falcon, Night Owl (Watchmen), Owlman (DC's Earth 3 villain), Nighthawk (Squadron Supreme), and I'm sure Image had to have one, but I never read their stuff because the chance of seeing Leifeld's terrible artwork was too high. -- user:Dodger
This is a good idea - Batman is one of the most frequently ripped-off characters in comics.  Although Nite-Owl was actually intended as a Blue Beetle pastiche, IIRC.  Lokicarbis 03:50, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Night Owl is a Blue Beetle takeoff. Rorschach is based on Bats, & has been called "Batman without the excuses.  Trekphiler 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pastiche-type characters

message: The article states that [Gotham] is [New York].  I believe that [Metropolis] is [New York]; while however, [Gotham] is [Boston].
?alabio 07:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm... believe what you want, but Gotham ain't Boston. :)
You're welcome to provide actual evidence from the comics for your supposition, of course. Back up your belief with facts/data. Kaijan 08:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: DC has been careful to never draw connections between any of their fictional cities and real ones.  In fact, New York has been specifically used as Wally West's home for a few years as Flash.  I think the confusion about Gotham/New York comes from the fact that it's a not-uncommon nickname for that city, dating all the way back to when it was New Amsterdam. - Plutor 13:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  DC's longtime Batman Group Editor Dennis O'Neil at one point said something to the effect of Metropolis being New York by day, and Gotham being New York at night. In any case, New York is accurate. Snowspinner 14:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Dennis O'Neil's statement could realistically be taken as anything other than metaphor.  On countless occasions, Metropolis and Gotham City are treated as distinct cities, sometimes as much as hundreds of miles apart.  I would be loathe to make a claim that Gotham City was based on anything other than the stereotypical "dark and gritty city".  - Plutor 15:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always taken it to mean that Gotham City and Metropolis are both based on New York - just on different aspects of New York. The fact that Gotham is one of the nicknames for New York does lend credence to this as well. Snowspinner 16:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me throw my two cents in here.  Though I don't have an article to cite, I'm certain that since 'Crisis' that Gotham City is Located in the New Jersey/South Jersey area, possibly on the coast near Atlantic City (and its sister city Bludhaven [how do you add umlats?]) and that Metropolis is in the state of Maryland, not too far from Boston/Philaddlphia/Washington D.C.  I believe this information is in the Atlas of the DC UniverseRunciblerabbit 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK... I give up... what IS the second of the first two gadgets??  Tom S.
*Batman apparently carries an automatic pistol (p. 75, p. 92) but avoids using it on people.
*Robin's weapon is a slingshot! See p. 152. Frank Miller did his homework; Robin aka Carrie Kelley in The Dark Knight Returns also uses a slingshot.
-- ?jmalin7 5:39, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gotham as city in reality

message: What about the several Batman video games?
--217.232.1.229 18:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about them? (That is to say, go ahead and add them.) Snowspinner 21:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Games

message: Contains the word "camp" or a derivative at least three times. Takes away from the flow and poetry. I'd edit it, but I'm not yet sure how to go about it. Just a personal reminder.
YES! I just came here to say that. The original author must have just learnt the meaning of that word, as he used it 9 times. Please fix it, somebody.
Also in the movies section Batman & Robin doesn't have a director. Consistency in the list needed.
----
Removed from article:
:In contraposition to Superman, whose superhero identity is a front over Clark Kent, who is the real character, Bruce Wayne is entirely a shallow front over the real personality, which is Batman.
For one thing, the relative realities of "Clark Kent" and "Superman" have varied over the years (when the character was created, for instance, "Clark Kent" was entirely a shallow front over Superman). For another, the relative realities of "Bruce Wayne" and "Batman" have likewise varied. For yet another, I would argue that in the cases of both Superman and Batman, the truth as it currently stands is that both the public superhero persona and the public less-heroic persona are situation-dependant fronts for the real person. --Paul A 06:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Variety 

message: This whole section was a whole lot of opinion and "original research" (i.e. an essay exploring the topic), not encyclopedic information. Tverbeek 15:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology of Batman

message: From the article:
:Most accounts suggest that he was co-created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, but only Kane receives official credit for the character.
This is a serious allegation which I've never seen before, and it's both lazy and irresponsible to brush it off with, "Most accounts suggest..." Every comic, movie, novel, and TV show I've seen credits Bob Kane. If you have reason to believe someone named Bill Finger was involved, you have to back that up with specific, sourced information. Otherwise this is exactly the sort of anonymous, unfounded allegation that impeaches the credibility of Wikipedia.
:I find it dubious that anyone who's read about the creation of the character doesn't know who Finger is or have some idea of why he's not given any credit by DC.  At any rate, I hope the recent edits have sufficiently clarified that area.  -Sean Curtin 03:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Finger's not credited because Kane struck a deal to be credited as the sole creator of Batman in perpetuity - SoM 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Kane clearly credits Bill Finger with his contributions in his autobiography "Batman & Me." He does state that only the creaters were ussually credited on the book and he had a mandatory bi-line. You must also remember that in those days they did not list the penciler, inker, leterer, colorist, or writer as seperate credits. They typically just credited the creater of the stip. Kane even mentions he was the only one credited on stories that he had no part in producing (For example, Bill Finger wrote and Jerry Robinson did the art.) Really just a difference in the buisness from then to now.--Talison 04:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Finger? 

message: ....and I was just about to nominate this as a featured article, too, before I clicked here and realized it already was one. Good work to all involved. --FuriousFreddy 17:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ha ha ha... 

message: I think much of the "this is gay stuff/no it isn't/he's bonkin' Robin/no he isn't" thing is of historical significance and not an insignificant part of popular culture, and frankly, to not address the issue at all stinks of intellectual dishonesty at its best and historical revisionism or homophobia at its worst. I want to stress that I'm not making any accusations here, I'm just making a point that it should be addressed and not addressing it is going to look like someone's embarrassed to talk about it, because it's a pretty well-known issue precisely because Wertham and others have made such a big deal out of it, and because it had consequences that altered the character and how the character was perceived. I should stress that this is not just some small fringe thing; it's something a lot of people who're not necessarily comics readers might be interested in.
That said, I think the article's getting to be too damn huge as it is and could really use some chopping up into smaller sections. It strikes me that this particular thing could well be turned into an article of its own; it could be dealt with more depth there without worrying about how it would impact on the main Batman article's readability. Another section that could well benefit from a similar treatment is "Batman in Popular Culture". 
Thus, the main Batman article would just include the information about Batman and his history in the context of the comics, but the other articles (or perhaps one larger article that could incorporate both of the sections I mention above) would include more information about how Batman has been represented and perceived outside the traditional format.
Comments? Ideas? Suggestions? Hit me. -- Captain Disdain 13:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, idea, and suggestion: put the header back. It makes no sense without the header. I know that some Batman fans don't want their hero depicted as having "the ghey", but it is a fact that an author wrote a (admitedly scandalous) book which made such a claim, and that the book had a significant effect on the comic itself (adding Bat-Girl). Also, I don't know about a seperate article for it. Seems like the kind of thing Wikipedia:VFD would eat alive. --FuriousFreddy 14:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it'd get through VfD just fine, trust me. Fact is, right now this article is getting to be really huge (see Wikipedia: Article size) -- at 42K, it's a lot bigger than it should be. More importantly, a lot of it isn't really so much about Batman himself as it is about how Batman has been portrayed and perceived in various circles. Batman is tremendously popular character -- hell, everyone knows who he is regardless of whether they know the details or if they're fans, but he's really recognizable. (If he wasn't, this whole discussion about homosexuality in the Batman context wouldn't be such a big thing.) -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this same sort of issue, though, with Adult themes in Scooby-Doo, which went through VfD with a merge consensus, but yet is constantly yanked back in and out of the main Scooby-Doo article. --FuriousFreddy 17:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Scooby-Doo and Batman are kind of different. Also, Scooby-Doo is not hugely oversized -- this article is. And also note that this would not be another article about Batman as such, but rather a presentation of the cultural impact and significance of Batman. That's very different from basically listing a bunch of details from the source material, which is pretty much all that "Adult themes in Scooby-Doo" is. (I'm not debating the merits of that particular article; just pointing out the vital difference.) -- Captain Disdain 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I don't have a problem with it. It should be a fine idea (and a very reasonable compromise).--FuriousFreddy 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, tell you what, I'll work the stuff here into that new article soonish; once I've got the basics down, we can work on it and see how it comes out -- if it seems workable, we can do the switcheroo. It's not like there's any hurry here. -- Captain Disdain 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I for one like this idea, but not "Batman in Popular Culture" maybe Heroes in Popular Culture. it's obvious from what's been posted in 'Batman' that there isn't enough information to justify a sub-section, but adding a few more heroes into the mix and talking about everything in one article would be great, then we can write a bit about it and post a link over there. --CaptainCrash 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me. "Batman in Popular Culture" was not the proposed title of the new article; it's an already existing section in the current Batman article that I propose could very well be moved to the new article -- again, the point would be that this main article would deal with Batman in the comic book context, and the other article could deal with Batman's status in popular culture and how he is perceived (and was perceived in the past) by various groups outside the people who actually read the comic books. Batman alone can easily support such an article, no problem -- hell, the whole TV series/movie/video game whatever thing we have on the main article now alone could would be enough in itself. Again, the article really is getting to be too big, and it's not going to get any shorter without some kind of a operation. Also, again, while I think that dealing with Wertham and the (perceived) homosexual imagery and all that should be done, since they're notable topics, it's really bogging down the main article and hurting its readability. That's why I think creating a separate article that would help. -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I understood. It was just the first thing I posted when I woke up. So it's probably a bit off the mark. Anyway I do understand and I still agree with your suggestion. --CaptainCrash 16:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization/That Whole Gay Thing

message: i think it might be a significant edit to add in some of batman's other appearances. for instance, i think it would be an excellent idea to include mention of the multiple batman cameo appearences on Scooby Doo (or was it "scooby doo and friends?"), and the show Batman Beyond (which unfortunately is how most children today know batman). I feel that this artical focuses too heavily on the comic books, and doesnt offer a fair share of information for the predominantly TV/Movie fans of batman. --Whiteknight 03:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: other references and appearences

message: the relationship between batman and superman is mentioned several times in this artical, but is never truely explained. i worry that the topic of their relationship is too narrow a topic to warrant another page, but perhaps a short blurb on this artical to describe why in some media they are perfectly friendly, and in other media, they have more of an uneasy truce. i also think it might be worth disscussing in more depth how batman's lack of "super powers" works to his advantage and disadvantage in super hero groups such as Justice League. --Whiteknight 04:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like both you're ideas but we are kind of stressed on space, we have to cut back on some of the topics we already have. If you really want to go ahead with some of those ideas make new articles and we can link to them from this one. --CaptainCrash 04:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Relationship between Batman and Superman?  Like Batman and Robin it appears that these two were quite gay.
Is there any doubt?  This should go into the main article immediately. Dyslexic agnostic 19:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Batman and superman

message: User DrachenFyre restored the following text, which I had deleted:
"Initially, the "Bat-Man" was a violent avenger who carried a pistol and left his foes dead more often than not (similar to The Punisher)."
This statement is false or misleading as given.  I looked at the earliest 11 stories (the ones preceding the debut of Robin) in my copy of Batman Archives #1.
In these stories, Batman did not carry or use a pistol except for one time when he was fighting vampires and needed a silver bullet.
It may be literally true that he left his foes more often dead than not (an exact count is hard--how do you count him fighting the same guy twice?), but when stated that way it's misleading.  When Batman killed his foes it was in such ways as him hitting someone and the guy falling out a window, or into a tank of acid, or onto a sword, or such.  Except for the vampires, who are monsters and not human beings, Batman notably does *not* shoot villains, say "I'm going to kill you" (except one time, when he left the guy alive!), choke people to death, chop their heads off, or otherwise show any evidence that he directly intends to kill anyone.  He is certainly not like the Punisher, who does intentionally kill people.
There is an urban legend that Batman commonly carried a gun and intentionally killed people.  It arose in the decades following the Golden Age, when it was impossible for most fans to get the original stories and prove the urban legend false.  Now that those early stories have been reprinted, there is no reason for this falsehood to persist.
I'm deleting the text again.  Please don't restore it unless you can support your claim.
Ken Arromdee 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman the violent avenger 

message: *The Untold legend of the Batman, three part mini-series. To be add to the list. Batman's origins and history pre Frank Miller.--Brown Shoes22 14:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional reading 

message: I know why my edit was reverted the first time (some of the bottom text was cut off), but I made sure that didnt happen the second time. What's so wrong with switching the Lee images, as the other one has a better focus on him (as opposed to the 608 cover, which shows him from the side)? --DrBat 12:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Does anyone else feel it is important to diclose that Terry McGuinness, Batman of the Future, is, genetically speaking, Bruce's son as revealed in the Justice League League Unlimited 3rd (or 5th depending how you count) season finale "Epilouge"?RandallFlagg 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be appropriate in the "other media" section under "television". Certainly worth mentioning for its high plot significance. Ereinion 03:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Media: Batman Beyond

message: I don't really see a reason to have a link to a diffrent page almost every other word. So I'm going to edit them out unless they have something to do with the Batman mythos in someway. Whispering 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous links