Talk:Batman/Archive 7

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2007 and December 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/Archive08. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Hiding T  09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've noticed a debate on this page about whether the batman article ought to include information about the portrayel of the batman character as found in media other than the comic book in this article. There is at least one person who was arguing that this page was solely about the Bataman charcter in comics. if that is the case then this article does NOT belong at Batman' but at Batman (comicbook character). Understand that a VERY large number of people are familair with batman ONLY because of the movies and/or animated series. If the characters of Batman in those media are so different that having a shared base information article with links to medium-specific information pages is not possible, then the page Batman should be a disabmib page linking to complete independent articles fulling describing batman in each medium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.241.199 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contents 

message: There is no page for the franchise as a whole. There is a page for the character Batman, there is a page for the Batman comic series, there is a page for the animated series and movie series, but I can't find a page for the franchise as a whole.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.107.160 (talk • contribs) 
:This article is that. The rest are sub-articles. I don't know what else you might mean by franchise. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise Page? 

message: apologies for the IP log ill go get a username after this :). just wanted to note some of the above reasons that made darknight.da link contraversial may apply to this 'dc database project' link? just wanted to highlight the issue in the above context without making a potentially alarmist new edit post. 202.59.16.106 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DCDP

message: There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First appearance 

message: I am just bringing this up.  I love the Jim Lee photo of Batman.  But it has been up for ages.  I notice it sits juxtaposed in reverse to Jim Lee's artwork of Superman on the Superman page.   Would it be too much to ask for a vote on whether the artwork should be changed?  Jim Lee is a fantastic artist, but he does'nt have artistic license on Batman does he??  I think there are other representations of the character by other artists that are just as good.  --Hokgwai 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any photographs by Jim Lee on this page.  However, I like the drawing by him that's in the infobox.  It doesn't get much more basic-portrait-of-the-character than this.  If you feel like there should be a change, perhaps it would be better to raise examples of what images would be more appropriate? ~CS 23:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never thought it was a fitting picture. Look at it next to the Superman picture. They're too similar. These characters' bodies should differ more than that. Batman shouldn't be standing in almost the same pose as Superman. Posing them so similarly fails to capture the differences in their personalities. Doczilla 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Batman and Robin get paired up too. That doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be built and positioned in ways that fail to distinguish them adequately. In fact, the pairings should stress where they differ physically. Doczilla 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the similar stances emphasise the differences in personality, just personally. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the EXACT reason on why they have similar poses in those comic covers. They were designed to create one image if you place them side by side.--Hndsmepete 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are piles of Batman depictions that probably illustrate him better as a creepy, intimidating, frightening creature of the night; however, it is part of a set with the Jim Lee drawing of Superman which leads off that article. We ought to discard them together if we discard either and try to find better art for both. It wouldn't be difficult. Argentarthropod 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHOTO 

message: Without it being requested, I've decided to semi-protect the article.  Scanning over the history, I see very few contributions from anonymous editors that were not quickly reverted.  I suspect that this page is a magnet for abuse, and unless the regular contributors to this page enjoy reverting bad edits, I don't see much point in unprotecting it.  However, if anyone has an objection to the semi-protection, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll remove it. -- Samuel Wantman 03:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo, and I applaud you! Half the Comics Project needs exactly this kind of semi-protection. Way to be pro-active! --Tenebrae 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about half... but I'd agree that we have several : ) - Superman, for example : ) - jc37 09:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a member of the Comics project (I've never been a fan of comics), so I don't know which articles need semi-protection.  If you leave a list on my talk page, I'll take a look at them. I'll look at Superman right now. -- Samuel Wantman 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This needs semi-protection. Out of all the articles on my watchlist, this one is the most frequently vandalized. Doczilla 05:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a couple of things wrong with the article that would be remedied by quick edits were the semiprotection removed. First, when mention is made that in 'Batman: The Killing Joke', the Joker shot and crippled Barbara Gordon, it doesn't say that she was Batgirl. Yes, if the reader clicks on her name, he'll be taken to the article on her, where he'll see that she was Batgirl, but everyone might not do that. Adding a few words to that effect if the semiprotection were lifted would be easy. Second, it is stated that at one point a yellow oval was added to the Batman's costume to emphasize the bat-shape on his chest, but no mention is made of the fact that the oval was removed sometime in the 1990s (since I'm not a Batfan I can't pin the date down). Again, this would be a quick fix without the semiprotection. Sam does state above that he'll remove the semiprotection on request, but he made the same offer on the 'Superman' article and has not honored it after I told him that I was unable to make one small grammar edit there even though I was signed in while attempting to do so. I can't edit here either even though I am signed in. He referred me to your technical-problems page. I don't insist on making the edits myself; I merely wish they'd get made. Argentarthropod 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Forget what I said above above; sorry for wasting your time. I figured out what to click on and fixed the problems I saw. Argentarthropod 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite semi-protection 

message: Does anyone have access to Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon by Will Brooker or Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology (Studies in Popular Culture) by Richard Reynolds? I've just heard about these and they would be good references, but my university library doesn't have either book. WesleyDodds 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first bat-themed vehicle was the Batgyro, which shows up in issue 31 and is referred to by name by Batman. The Batmobile (either red sedan or blue car with battering ram) came later. WesleyDodds 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Batgyro? Never heard of it. I will, tho, accept it as fitting the definition. Maybe a mention of the first Batmobile is appropriate (if I missed it...)?  Trekphiler 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Autogyros were big in 1930s fiction; the Batgryo was quickly replaced by the Batplane. Check out a Batman archives or Batman Chronicles Vol. 1 if you want to see Batman use bat-gadgets for the first time (as well as shoot vampires). WesleyDodds 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: The article says, "the first bat-themed vehicle in #31 (September 1939)". Now, I realize websites aren't the most reliable source, but this site says the first "official" Batmobile was a red convertible based on a 1936 Cord, & first appeared in Detective 48 (2/41). Who's right?  Trekphiler 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first bat-themed vehicle was the Batgyro, which shows up in issue 31 and is referred to by name by Batman. The Batmobile (either red sedan or blue car with battering ram) came later. WesleyDodds 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Batgyro? Never heard of it. I will, tho, accept it as fitting the definition. Maybe a mention of the first Batmobile is appropriate (if I missed it...)?  Trekphiler 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Autogyros were big in 1930s fiction; the Batgryo was quickly replaced by the Batplane. Check out a Batman archives or Batman Chronicles Vol. 1 if you want to see Batman use bat-gadgets for the first time (as well as shoot vampires). WesleyDodds 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battymobile

message: ttp://batmanytb.com/ has again become a contentious addition to the Batman page. My rational for removing it was two fold. First, User talk:Xphermg made a series of edits to pages from Wonder Woman to Huntress and to Justice Society of America, all adding links to batmanytb or dcuytb. While I feel that the edits were in good faith (that is 'hey look at this cool site!') the sheer number of additions, coupled with his constant reverting without discussion, made me feel this was falling under link-spam, and we maybe should take a step back. I reverted his edits, mentioned this on his talk page, and alerted Doczilla, who I'd noticed was also reverting him. Secondly, as was pointed out on his talk page, and supported by comments by Xphermg, the site is a store, and serves as an Amazon Store Front. This makes adding it a little weird to me. Since this has started to cross over into multiple pages, I've also copied this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible link-spam and/or bad-faith link additions 

message: Considering the substantial debate on Batman and Robin's homosexuality, I'm surprised that that section doesn't mention SNL's satire of the duo with The Ambiguously Gay Duo. It is mentioned in that article but not here. I think it should be noted.216.146.94.235 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles address Bat-spoofs and parodies. Doczilla 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNL Satire 

message: Batman #404? Really? Does DC consider that to be his first appearance? Why the post-CoIE re-introduction as opposed to any other? He's clearly the Batman who was in the Justice League in the 1960s. If it's because of an argument that the post-CoIE Batman doesn't have quite the same history, that doesn't explain why we pick Batman #404 rather than his first appearance after Zero Hour changed his history or after New Earth formed. The Superman article marks his debut in Action Comics #1 even though CoIE changed the Man of Steel's history far more drasticially than the Crisis affected Batman's. Doczilla 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Now it's gone. Doczilla 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First appearance modern Batman

message: Most of the fictional character articles provide the age or age range of the character. This seems to be a notable piece of information that is missing from the article. I suggest: "In mainstream stories, Batman is usually depicted as being in the prime of his adulthood, suggesting an age range of late twenties to early forties."A gx7 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. To say "suggesting" exerts POV, a subjective interpretation of what has been suggested. We are not supposed to make readers' inferences for them. Even that would be original research unless you can provide specific issues in which he is ever stated to be of any age group. I remember in the 70s when Superman and Batman were both specifically stated to be 29 (barely under 30), but even that can't be cited because that was too many readings ago for me to be able to direct anybody to an issue where that was stated. Superheroes aren't "most" fictional characters. Once they're adults, almost none of them have stated ages. Doczilla 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The only necessary thing to say about Batman's age is that he is an adult when he becomes Batman. The character's history has changed so much that it would be silly to stick to any age (plus the stories take place over a number of years). WesleyDodds 04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with Doc and Wesley on this one.--Tenebrae 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the character 

message: I feel that batmans fictional character history should be expanded and put in a seperate page much like the character history of Spiderman. Batmans history has been simplified too much and could do with this extra information.Scary monkey35 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did create a Fictional history of Batman article recently. I just found out WesleyDodds deleted it without any discussion. A gx7 07:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Be bold. I saw no reason for it to be a separate article, and what was there was insubstantial, so I redirected it. WesleyDodds 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was insubstantial because it was a stub. If you see no reason for it to be a separate article, why not go redirect the Fictional History of Spider-Man article. I'm sure the guys who worked on it will appreciate it. A gx7 09:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand it was nothing personal. But consider that stubs should be merged whenever possible. It's hard to rationalize a separate article for a topic that fits well enough in the main article. More importantly, the character history of Batman works differently than that of Spider-Man. Virtually everything you read in Amazing Spider-Man is still canon. However, Batman's history has been subject to revision on numerous occasions, to the poitn where only the broad strokes are notable. On top of all that real-world notability applies; we don't need to detail everything that ever happened in Batman comics, just those that are relevant to someone wanting to learn about and study the character. WesleyDodds 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about Spider-Man continuity, but haven't there been some revisions there too? If the continuity of Batman is that inconsistent relative to Spider-Man, I suppose it would make the article difficult to assemble. I just thought it would be useful to chronicle the major storylines in Batman canon to give an up-to-date account of what shapes the modern character's identity. A gx7 10:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional character history 

message: It's quite interesting to note that since the silver age Batman is one of the few 'super heroes' which it has been overtly suggested suffers from severe mental issues relating to his double life.
For example, in The Untold Legend of the Batman I seem to recall he started suffering from a split personality, and the Bruce Wayne side of his persona was actually trying to kill him(self).
Leading up to Knightfall, the post-crisis Batman has something of a mental breakdown, which leads him to contacting Shondra Kinsolving.
Following the 'Bruce Wayne: Murderer' story, Batman again seems to be suffering from some sort of breakdown - as he states himself (to Oracle); "I had been coming apart inside since your father was shot."
The word paranoia is used a lot in present DCU texts discussing Batman.
Not sure whether there's a case for a section on 'The Mental Condition of Bruce Wayne' - but if we do have to suffer the blooin' 'homosexual interpretations' on the main Batman page then why not? (please, can't this be piped away somewhere? Its nothing to do with Batman as a character, its got everything to do with the way a vocal minority of crackpots have chosen to interpret things.)
The idea that Batman/Bruce Wayne is anything less than perfect won't fly on this page.  The protectors of this page won't allow anything that suggests he is perfectly moral and making unquestionable decisions.  I feel that they don't understand the moral and philosophical complexities of comic book characters.  They wouldn't even let me mention that some of the villians in his universe are morally ambiguous -- Catwoman, for example, even became a "superhero".  Poison Ivy accuses Wayne Enterprises of being environmentally unsound.  When Lex Luthor controls the media and acts as an arms dealer he is a villain, when Wayne does it he is a hero.  The Joker is crazy, Batman is sane.  There is no gray area in any of this as far as the fans who police this page are concerned.  Batman is the best.  Their hero.  Good luck trying to add any sort of even the most basic balance.  --Nihilozero 08:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Batman is a fictional character who acts as the protagonist in his stories. Academic studies of the character have dealt with him in this regard. That's where we're coming from when editing this page, not from the perspective of "Batman is the best". WesleyDodds 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was not aware of these academic studies (perhaps we could get some citations?) but that doesn't change the fact that he is a flawed character whose flaws can't be mentioned on this page.  A true look at the character in academic literary terms would acknowledge his moral (and/or psychological)weaknesses.  --Nihilozero 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The academic studies are already cited in the article. WesleyDodds 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after following up on the one citation that claimed to have something to do with literary criticism, I found this telling comment: "And, in recent years, Batman has been, once again, re-interpreted by his fans..."  And that's the problem... re-interpreted by his FANS.  Everyone "knows" that Batman is supposed to be good, he fights bad guys and what not, but it doesn't seem to me that many are actually excercising critical thought and questioning what the character does in the comic books.  He is a weapons manufacturer and arms dealer, he owns toxic corporations such as petroleum refineries and chemical plants (which have been ethically challenged by his foes, namely Poison Ivy), he runs the biggest newspaper and other media to put a positive spin on his actions.  And when Lex Luthor does these things they are called into question.  He is a vigilante around whom others have died.  Many of the villains in Batman were created due to their connection with Wayne Enterprises.  Etc.  At least some of those items listed above should be seen as morally dubious (at best) if not outright villainous.  I mean, if you can mention that Tony Stark is an arms dealer and an alcoholic (and that he may have came down on the authoritarian side of Marvel's Civil War series), then why is Batman/BruceWayne beyond reproach?  I mean are you seriously suggesting that he is beyond reproach completely and doesn't have any personality flaws?  Hell, some editors (fans no doubt) have even taken out information about how some of the villains he has fought eventually became heroes.  It's like they don't even want people to know that people he fought later did good things.  Seriously... some fair and balanced critical thought would be nice sometimes. --70.226.131.28 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to your Iron Man example, there's nothing inherently villainous about being an alcoholic. And if Batman being an alcoholic was integral to his character, you bet it would be mentioned here. And I don't get these examples: "He is a weapons manufacturer and arms dealer, he owns toxic corporations such as petroleum refineries and chemical plants (which have been ethically challenged by his foes, namely Poison Ivy), he runs the biggest newspaper and other media to put a positive spin on his actions." Has Bruce Wayne been predominantly an arms manufacturer in over sixty years of stories? In how many versions of Batman's history is he taken to task by Poison Ivy for pollution (It certainly wasn't that way in the 1960s). Moreover, is Bruce Wayne intentionally polluting in the first place? Since when does he run "the biggest newspaper and other media to put a positive spin on his actions"? I don't remember ever reading that. Certainly Wayne Enterprises having any connection to Batman villains isn't a major point of consistency; I can only really think of two movies that have villains who have worked for the company. More importantly, have any of these points been addressed by reliable, reputable sources? You assert "At least some of those items listed above should be seen as morally dubious (at best) if not outright villainous." But they aren't because no one is really thinking about these rather superficial and inconsistent details. Basiclaly, being a jerk (which Batman has been on occasion, particularly since the late 1980s) doesn't make a character "dubious" or "villainous". Hell, Sherlock Holmes and James Bond can be a bunch of gits sometimes. WesleyDodds 04:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental Breakdowns 

message: Here is some information I got about the inspiration behind batman, and the book I got it from
According to DC comics by Les Daniels Batman mans creator was primarly inspired by the amounts of money the creators of Superman were making.
::As editor Vin Sullivan recalls . . . . . . When Kane, who says he was making "about forty dollars a week doing little fill-ins," heard about the soaring incomes of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, he decided at once to abandon humor and create a costumed hero. "For that kind of money," he told Sullivan, "you'll have one on monday."
DC Comics by Les Daniels Page 32
He recieved SOME help in his creation of Batman from Bill Finger.
Other inspirations included machanicle wings from a machine designed by Leonardo da Vinci. The Mark of Zorro provided "a masked man battling evil with extravagant displays of acrobatics" as well as the idea for the hero to be a playboy by day and avenger by night.
The bat costume came from the villain in The Bat Whispers. Further ispirations came from other horror films of the era.
Bill finger made some suggestions that were followed.
The machine winges were dropped in favor of a scalloped cape, leaving Batman's eyes white, and naming the alter ego Bruce Wayne. This was based on Bob Kane's name since he had based the characters appearance on his own.
Around six months latter they thought about making the origin story for him. Kane suggested an orphan to invoke sympathy for him, and it was agreed that there was nothing more traumatic for a kid then seeing you parents murdered right before you.
It also mentions that a favorite film of the batman staff was the movie Citizen Kane, which shares a similar plot with their comic book.
I hope someone put this information in thearticle much better then I have presented it. I have given you books name and auther as referance material. Have fun. Corrupt one 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of that is already cited in the article. Thanks anyway. WesleyDodds 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for Batman 

message: The correct colors of Batman's suit should be written as "black or blue, and grey".  In many stories, Batman's costume is black and grey, such as Year One.
:It's generally blue and grey, and was explicitly and consistently only blue and grey for over forty years. WesleyDodds 08:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costume colors 

message: I always thought that the Joker was the villain in Batman issue #1? Contrary to this however, I saw in this comic book collection called "The Greatest Batman Stories ever told, Vol 2" printed in the 1980s that the villain in Batman issue #1 was Hugo Strange and the monster men. Now I know that Hugo Strange is considered the first ever reoccuring Batman villain, but again, I thought it was the Joker and Catwoman who appeared in Batman issue #1? Is the book wrong or am I incorrect? Can someone explain? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind - explained on another page... Spawn Man 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: 

message: I removed this pursuant to Wikipedia disallowing links to other wikis, such as the Marvel Database Project and this, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples: "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Also, regarding this specific outside database, please see User talk:JamieHari#DC Database link at Batman --Tenebrae 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DC Database link

message: If there is no full article about Batman movies here, please change this into a section redirect. Nobody typing movies in plural would expect a full article or disambiguation pages with few titles while there are many more out there. (I mean if they were looking for a particular movie series, if they typed genre like action and horror movie, they would in fact expect an article about these genres in general) So please change the redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Batman movies]] redirects to the improper place. (Added to two talk pages) 

message: I hope you know what I mean, cause I have not idea how to call those "chapters"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.107.174 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, how many "chapters"  there are? 

message: it's a pity neither Mary Roberts Rinehart nor Roland West's The Bat are mentionned....... kernitou talk 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're mentioned at Bob Kane, where it's more appropriate. --Tenebrae 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In the bigger picture, the work of O'Neil and Adams defined the era. The sources acknowledge other people contributed during the decade (which is cited), but ultimately it is considered the "O'Neil/Adams" era in the public eye, and with good reason. WesleyDodds 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inspiration for batman (#2) - influence on kane 

message: Doesn't "superhero" imply "super" powers? Batman has none. He has a lot of skills, intelligence, and a catalogue full of useful gadgets, but even Apache Chief has more actual super powers than Batman. He's not a superhero, he's just a vigilante with powerful friends. ROG 19 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See definition of Superhero †Bloodpack† 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every source calls him a superhero. It's not for us to decide otherwise. If some definition doesn't fit Batman, of all characters, that definition has to get rewritten.Doczilla 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Batman actually a Superhero?

message: Why is it the name of List of Batman comics is named See also? How do we define the usage of this? (See also) †Bloodpack† 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there's no reason to create a subsection for it. Various Batman comics are discussed in the publication and character history sections; creating another subsection devoted to the titles themselves is unnecessary and redundant. But since there is no other appropriate place to insert the link, it is placed in a  "See also" section per guidelines. WesleyDodds 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's called redundancy for having a "Main article: List of Batman comics" under Bibliography, even if other Batman titles have already been discussed/mentioned in other parts of the Batman article, unless these titles youre saying that are mentioned in the publication and character history sections HAVE a complete/comprehensive coverage, meaning the complete title listings per se, the dates, classification, etc. And that is why it's called "main" which means for a reader to have a full reference/comprehension of these titles, they need to see this "Main article: List of Batman comics" article †Bloodpack† 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why? 

message: Any *comments* on the allegedly-soon-to-happen death of Bruce Wayne in the comics..?
:The qualifiers in the question are answer enough. It's rumor, period. Rumor doesn't go into the articles. - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum. This is the talk page to discuss ways to make the article better. If you want to discuss the latest comic book storylines, go to a comic book forum. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but it says right up at the top that this is not a forum, and I normally don't have patience for people that can't read the top of the page. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne's demise 

message: I was wondering why there's a separate section called "Sources" in addition to "References"? There's no "Sources" given as a section heading at WP:CITE#Section headings, and the guidelines there give only these: "Footnotes" (or "Notes"), "References" (a separate section according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Notes and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#References), and "External links/Further reading.
There's nothing called "Sources" in any of these guidelines/policy pages. And having both "Sources" and "References" -- I'm not sure what the difference is. They sound the same to me, but because they're in two different sections, that seems to suggest they're different somehow. But "Sources" isn't one of the guideline's subheads, so shouldn't they all go under "References"? --69.22.254.111 (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headings

message: Just to finish up on things. There is a good reason why "Third party testimony" is inadmissable in a court of law. Because it is subjective and definitely unverifiable, especially if one of the prominent parties may be dead. Otherwise, I could say that actually it was my great-grandfather who created Batman! I could say that my grandfather mowed the Kane family's lawn and he told Bob Kane "Birdman is good but how about a Batman?" To me that's just as absurd as the shenanigans and inferences Gerry Jones used. I'll bet all the critics who praised his book didn't know squat about comics and took his word for it.
As for Jerry Robinson, well, as I pointed out before, if you compare  interviews in Alter Ego, The Comics Journal and Comics Interview, his testimony changes in small ways in all three of them! However, he is consistent on the big stuff, most importantly, what he did while he worked with Kane and what he didn't do.In the Journal he said that it (the Batman comic strip) "should have been a co-creator thing" of words to that effect. I contrast this with his statement in the same article. "I thought I was part of a Batman team, but Kane didn't see it that way!" The unemployment lines are filled with people who forget who is the boss.
Finally, after 1965, Finger no longer worked in comics. If he had a gripe with Kane or anyone, he had ample space in his Steranko interview. Of course, Mr. Steranko could chime in and say he encouraged Bill to be positive but then here we would go again! To be honest, from what I've read in the Steranko article, Bill was very confident about his role in "The Batman"strip's development and didn't give a hint of bitterness.
Oh, Tenebrae, I will accept Bernard, The Batmaniac or Rex. "Bernie" is for Barney Fife! DOH!Bernard ferrell (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greetings, Fellow Bat-Fans

message: :"The trouble wiht being a "ghost" writer or artist is that you must remain rather anonymously without "credit". However, if one wants the "credit", then one has to cease being a "ghost" or follower and become a leader or innovator."
Bob Kane- "An open letter to Batmania" aka The Bob Kane Letter, reprinted in  ALTER EGO #3
:"In those days it was like, one artist and he had his name over it (the comic strip)--the policy of DC in the comic books was, if you can't write it, obtain other writers, but their names would never appear on the comic book in the finished version. So Bill never asked me for it (the byline) and I never volunteered--I guess my ego at that time. And I felt badly, really, when he(Finger) died."
Kane- "Citizen Kane", Comics Interview Super Special: Batman, Real Origins of The Dark Knight
To my mind, Robinson's "I'll never forgive Bob Kane..." statement, impassioned though it may be, is uninformative and wrong headed and cannot go unanswered. As proof of its misleading nature and as an answer to its context, particularly directed at the Wiki-editor who obviously agrees with it by including it, the statement is rebutted by Robinson himself: Finger was in "...Kane's employ." There was no "share-share-alike" agreement as with Siegel and Shuster. And in Kane's case in particular, we are not talking about a simple byline but there was money involved. Why? Because of Kane's negotiations not because DC was being nice. The idea that Kane was supposed to "share" anything with any staff member other than their fee; to "take care" of a former employee long after he or she has left their employ is simply unrealistic. Also, once Finger left Kane, he could have created and submitted his own proposal for a super-hero to DC Comics. He could have even asked Robinson to draw it for him. I am sure Robinson knows this which sometimes makes me wonder if Mr. Kane wasn't the only one who was suffering from "survivor's guilt".
While it does make for interesting copy, again, Robinson's statement cannot go unaddressed on the site. It should be removed or one of the above quotes should be placed in "rebuttal".Bernard ferrell (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This really is WP:SOAP that should not be here. You believe Kane was right to deny credit, others believe otherwise, including Kane himself in his later days. The article gives a balanced perspective with primary-source quotes and historian citations. With all respect to your bringing important topics and some resources to light, for which I've thanked you many times, you are treating this page as your personal blog. That's really not what it's for. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Tenebrae.  Brubaker's comment is worthy of note because it highlights the relevancy of Finger's situation today.  More and more people are getting credit for characters they create during their tenure on a comic book, in no part to the awareness of Bill Finger's situation. As Tenebrae points out, and I have pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research or for opining.  You are perfectly entitled to your views, however, trying to push those views in Wikipedia is against policy.  You now seem to be synthesising a vast number of sources in attempt to prove Kane was right.  This is not the right venue for such a project, please try and get your research published somewhere else, and then it can be considered for suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia.  As to your advice for Ed Brubaker, you may be best addressing it to him c/o Marvel Comics.  This is not a forum.  I suggest we turn our attention to the article rather than your view of Bob Kane. Hiding T  09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "KANE" answers Robinson

message: Recently had some editting dialogue w/ WikiProject James Bond and it occurred to be that the Dark Knight would be a good candidate for a project, due to his extensive publication history, and his appearances thru a plethora of media.  Would the be any interest by others in the wiki community? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a WikiProject Batman. I should know. I started it. It just never caught on, though, and died out, eventually to be merged into something else. Doczilla (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking myself about having a WikiProject Batman, and I've even made a brief list of what articles would be part of the project, and I've got 128 articles on my list so far. I'd definitely take part in it if there was one created. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the recent trend, perhaps a workgroup might be a better idea? Hiding T  09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone who wants to know how this went before should check the edit history at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Batman. Notice that after a year of not much of anything, WikiProject Batman only recently got turned into a redirect to a work group. Doczilla (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Batman

message: I think this sould be added to the external links, it's a how to web site that teach people how to be like people. It's neat, this one is about batman.
How to be like batman
::All criticism duly noted and accepted and the following relates strictly to the page and its development. I still feel Brubaker's snide remark has no place. Whatever jargon made by contemporary "insiders" has no place and is uninformative.To me, it shows a lack of respect these individuals have for their predecessors-- people who sweat blood to produce "work-for-hire" material. These new guys are producing "work-for-hire" material as well, so how can they say they are being "Fingered"? Because they are working on someone else's project? And getting paid far more than Finger probably did? We shouldn't lend legitimacy to Brubaker's or anyone else's "Fingered" or "Kirbyed" comments. Neither should Kane be attacked or villified by any Wiki contributers for realizing from day one that comics are a commercial art and a business nor held responsible for another man's life.The failure to accept this fact, probably speaks volumes as to why Brubaker's comment was retained.
Suggestion,To sum up the Kane\Finger relationship credit issue, one need only say
"Because Kane never gave Finger a full-partnership, Kane is the only one officially acknowledged by DC Comics as Batman's creator". That's it. No emotion,unbiased,simple and factual.
IF anyone doubts as to whether or not Kane was "right" not to give Finger a partnership, I refer them to back issues of the Jack Kirby Collector and Joe Simon's autobio in which he describes how Kirby unintentionally made it difficult for him to regain control over Captain America.
Finally, my research is precisely that--research and my "opinions" (and no, it's not my personal blog) are formed based on that research. But I will definitely restrict the pontificating.
Bernard ferrell
How to be like Batman? I like that! First ya need deductive reasoning, a really cool computer and the coolest set of wheels this side of an Astin Martin! And Tenebrae, don't you say anything about "obssession"!--The Batmaniac  —Preceding comment was added at 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links add 

message: Hello, from watching Batman episodes, I would consider the grappling hook as a weapon or equipment even though it doesn't have the word "bat" in it. So could the editors please add it in the article?
SuperVan (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman's Equipment 

message: I have a question about the statement "Sales reaching an all-time low in 1985." Is this statement based on actual sales numbers? Again, as "one who was there", I vividly recall that during that time period, Batman was under Denny O'neil's editorship and BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS were following a consistent storyline,essentially making Bats' adventures "Bi-weekly". (I know this because I never missed an issue.)  This model was used several years later with Superman and Spider-Man's books in the early 90s so the approach had to be successful on some level. Also, I remember that before Dark Knight came out, DC introduced the comic BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS. This points to the fact that somebody obviously thought he was "bankable"! Indeed, the Caped Crusader finished consistently in the Top 3 as "Favorite Character" in the Comic Buyer's Guide Fan Awards (always ranked with Wolverine,Spidey or the flavor of the year). With all this, I can't believe the sales on Bats' books were as horrible as the statement implies. The Batmaniac  —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "personal experience" I mentioned was the fact that I never missed an issue. However, it is a fact that BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS was introduced during this time period as well as that Batman appeared "bi-weekly". My question was the validity of the source.
This goes back to the origin of "The Bob Kane Letter". If one reads it in it's entirety as well as the follow-up article that was reprinted in a later issue of Alter Ego, Kane wasn't attacking Finger, per se, but what Jerry Bails had implied Finger was saying in his unresearched "Finger In Every Plot" article. As a devout "pseudo-professional" historian, I am interested in facts, not opinions. I clearly distinguished between what was my memory and what DC produced which includes Dick Giordano's "Meanwhile" columns.The Batmaniac  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.234 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter. The facts are sourced and speak for themselves. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've sourced most of the article, so if there are any questions about sources, ask me. The sources does say "all-time low", and it's been verified elsewhere that New Teen Titans aside, DC's sales around 1985 pre-"Crisis" were abysmal. Recently I saw a comics chart from 1984 posted on a blog here and many top tier DC character comics did not even make the top 100. This is pre-O'Neil, mind (in response to the first poster). Sales definitely improved by the time of O'Neil's editorship. Also keep in mind that sales overall for comics have been steadily decreasing since the Golden Age. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AHA! If the Amazing Heroes Top 100 chart is accurate, then BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS #13 was ranked No. 27 while BATMAN  #374 came in at No. 48. Although, DC's overall sales may have been down, our resident Caped Crusader cracked the Top 50 not once, but TWICE even before DARK KNIGHT hit the stands. I knew something ddn't sound right about Bats' sales being low--I was there! Many kudos to WesleyDodds! Hey, do they call ya "Sandy" for short?
I don't have the Batman Archives edition but between Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told,Steranko and DC's own Kane career notes, the first story in which Jerry Robinson flew solo (entirely Kane-less) was 1943's "Knaves Of Thievery",  the first team-up of The Joker and The Penguin (in Steranko it's mis-named "Brothers In Crime".) Now how's that for a non-sequitor?Bernard ferrell (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales at an all time low?