ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Template talk:Batman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template talk:Batman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Batman page.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Film Portal
This non-article page is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template
This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Template width

Superman/Batman templates:

Template:Batman
Template:Batman in popular media
Template:Batman fan films
Template:Superman
Template:Superman in popular media

Related template:

Template:dc-animation

How wide should this template be? I set the width at 100% for greater standardization when multiple templates wind up on the same page. If we pick any other value, two templates on the same page (e.g., "Batman" and "Batman in popular media", for the rare occasions when it is appropriate to include both) will look weird with one narrow one sitting on top of the other or a wider one balanced on top of a narrow one. The wider the template is, the less tall it will be. A more narrow template scrunches upward. I've looked for an existing guideline to follow but cannot find one. If it's out there, please let me know. I don't really care if it's 100%. I like how 95% looks, but standardization is good. Doczilla 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

95 or 100 is fine with me. I don't really have a preference, except that the goal, as I understood it, was to reduce length not width. - jc37 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Width affects length -- physical length (and therefore the position of everything else on the page, reducing how much other text appears on the screen with the box), not content length. A wider box will reduce physical length (i.e., height, however you label that direction in two-dimensional space), leaving more room for other text to appear on the visible screen. Doczilla 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a standard, although it would be nice if one developed down the line. I think for this template 95% looks good, although if anyone has reasons they think it would work better another way, I'm sure we're happy to listen.D1Puck1T 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm back to preferring 100%. I was just looking at how the template sits right over the category box. Doczilla 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What I don't like is the vast amounts of white space. I understand the multiple template alignment issue, and almost agree with it. Maybe if we could somehow find out the minimum sizes of the templates seperately, possibly using line breaks for some of the very long film lines, we can reach some universal standard for the width without any/much white space. --Jamdav86 09:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) The minimum sizes: {{Batman))

v • d • e
Batman in popular media
Actors
Live-action television
Batman film series
Animation
Related animated TV series
v • d • e
Batman fan films
Live action
Animation
v • d • e
Superman
Creators
Characters
Villains and enemies
Locations
History and themes
Publications
Miscellany
v • d • e
Superman in popular media
Actors
Film
Television
Animation
Video games
Other media
DVD
v • d • e
The Bruce Timm DC animated universe
Television series
Feature-length films
Comic books
Other media

--Jamdav86 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:CVG is standardizing on an 80% width for bottom-of-the-page navboxes, but that's just a spitballed number that ends up looking nice on the page. Occasionally there will be some overlap between CVG and CMC pages; 80% isn't bad as arbitrary numbers go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the goal was/is to reduce the "height" of the box as much as possible? Is there a reason that whitespace (as opposed to the page's whitespace/bluespace) is a "bad thing"? (Or am I misunderstanding?) I like how the WikiProject templates at the top of this page resize as I resize the window. Shouldn't these navboxes work the same way? - jc37 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Re:Jamdav above. I tried using line breaks. Someone recently pointed out the problem with those. Browser windows vary in size. Doczilla 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You pretty much have to pick an arbitrary number and stick with it. Case-by-case sizes look ugly when you have multiple boxes, and no single number is going to look perfect in every case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's go with 80%, like the Video games project. --Jamdav86 10:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed all the boxes above to 80%, so that we could see how they look. Is there a reason why the CVG project chose 80%? or was that an "out of the blue" number? - jc37 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who pitched the current as-of-yet-stalled proposal, and I picked 80% because it looked decent on anything from really narrow screens (PDAs, PSPs, etc.) all the way up to monster resolutions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I like 100% because it reduces height the most and fits neatly on top of the category box. If we do change to another number, include {{Timm DCAU}} in the changes. Doczilla 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
100% creates problems on very large resolutions or with smaller lines. Also, 80% matches the size used by WP:CVG, for the occasional article with boxes from both projects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Problems? Really? What kind of problems would 100% create for those things? Doczilla 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I would also very much prefer 100%. I tested it with several resolutions without problems. 100% would be the best way the reduce height and it looks also better for me than 80%. --Lasttan 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And 100% would be more consistent with other templates throughout the comics project, which tend to go for 95% or 100% (Justice League, Spider-Man, Avengers, Flight Program). Doczilla 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Aren't those all new templates? As we were discussing above, widths seem to be arbitrarily chosen. I think at this point we should note this discussion again on the WikiProject talk page, so that everyone can come comment, and we should just finish developing consensus for a standard width. - jc37 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(restarting indent)

Sounds like the three main values under discussion are: 80%; 95%; and 100%.

What are the pros and cons of each? (and are there other values that should be discussed? - jc37 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The wider it is, the shorter it is, therefore allowing more other text to fit onto the screen. At 95% or 100%, these templates will be more consistent with most other comics-related templates I have seen. When sharing a page with another template, they'll look better together. Even when not sharing with other templates, greater consistency looks more professional. I see no advantage to 80%. Doczilla 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank line

v • d • e
Batman
Creators
Batman Family
Supporting characters
Villains
Locations
Equipment
Vehicles
Publications
Miscellanea
v • d • e
Batman in popular media
Actors
Live-action television
Batman film series
Animation
Related animated TV series
v • d • e
Batman fan films
Live action
Animation

As you can see, there is a blank line between template 1 and 2 but no blank line between template 2 and 3.

I thought it would be better for consistency that there is a blank between all of them or no blank line at all. I would prefer that there is no blank line.

I didn’t thought that a discussion is necessary for such a minor change but my edit was reverted without explanation so perhaps it is necessary. --Lasttan 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No other comment, so I've changed it again so you can't see a blank line any longer.

I did it because this template was the only one with a blank line. (see also all other templates of Superman and DC) --Lasttan 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...Batutsi

I must agree that the Batutsi does not seem best suited to the main Batman box. Would it be possible to put it in some for of "Miscelania" section of the "Batman in popular media" template? Reading the article, a case could be made for its pop-culture relevance.D1Puck1T 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need Batusi in any navbox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Batusi certainly doesn't belong on this navbox. The article for it is well referenced and gives a good argument for it's own notability based on several cultural references, but it is intrinsically an expanded article on a piece of trivia from one specific Batman show. For those interested in reading an article on the Batusi, I imagine they can follow a link from the main Batman (TV series) article, which can be found in the popular media link of this navbox. Let's try to keep this box focused on a broad overview of the Batman character, not a collection of links to minor subjects -Markeer 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- the Batusi is a very minor part of only the 60's television program, and is not notible enough for this template, nor the Batman main-article. It's place is to be linked from the Batman (TV series) article, or other dance-related articles, not the top-level Batman articles. ~CS 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
i disagree completely. one of the lasting contributions of the batttman series is this innovative dance which some people may not prefer, but cannot be denied as one the more sensual and expressive aspects of batmann. so, i'm WP:BB and adding it in. --Ghetteaux 13:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the key phrase there was "of the batttman series" (sic). This dance only relates to the series, not to the entirety of the character's history (which has spanned decades of comics, animated series and several movies). In addition adding this item creates an unattractive extra line at the bottom of the template box, which adds unnecessary length to a great many articles it's attached to. -Markeer 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Font size

How about changing the font size a bit? On my screen (1280x960 res on 19" CRT) I can hardly read the various items. What I can read rather clearly are the links to pages outside of wikipedia which are set in a different font style. I think increasing the fontsize by one or two would benefit readability. Opinions anyone? Madcynic 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checked: Increasing the font size to 82% does the trick for me, but if no one else has that issue I wouldn't wanna be so bold as to change it... Madcynic 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Changing the font size would make it inconsistent with all our other DC templates, several of which often appear on the same pages. Doczilla 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay. However, that Superman template further up-site seems not to use 80%... Edit: Okay, just checked, in fact, the Superman template does use 80%, so how come it looks diferent? Madcynic 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Italics make text look slightly smaller. --Jamdav86 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Additions (Discuss Ongoing Changes)

I've reverted a few recent additions to the template, specifically Damien Wayne, Azrael and Renee Montoya. No prejudice against the editors who added these (or the characters themselves) but previous consensus regarding this template was to try to keep it as simple as possible, stressing characters (whether supporting, allies or villains) that have had either an extremely long and notable impact on the Batman character/universe, or which have had crossover mass appeal by being featured both in comics and the large hollywood movies (i.e. characters extremely familiar to thousands or millions of people who will never read a comic book).

In my opinion, none of the three characters I've reverted match either of those criteria, as all three are relative to the 75+ years of Batman's history, extremely recent characters, not even taking into account that they have no crossover mass market appearances that I'm aware of.

However this is my opinion, so I'm starting a new conversation thread here to see how other editors feel about the scope of this template, what characters (if any) should be added or removed going forward, and what is the best criteria to use in judging any such thing on a case by case basis. -Markeer 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur on two counts. Montoya would fit a gotham characters template (and I'm am NOT proposing one, there are ENOUGH bat-utility-templates on these belts pages. Damien's back in a new story arc, one that implies that Ra's may use the body to return, no doubt because of shared genetics, which will probably burn off any wayne genetics during the resurrection, blah blah blah, or whatever. He might not last long. Azrael is a bit more significant, as her represents, along with te four supermen, DC's major push towards both 90's era grim'n'gritty, and the editorial push towards second generation characters for their falgship characters, not unlike barry to wally, hal to kyle, Katar to carter to carter to ..., Ollie to Connor, and so on. because of his position editorially and so on, I'd say his effects relative to market forces, publication history, and so on, matter more. THe 'son' theing's FAR less likely to last than Helena Kyle being Helena Kyle-wayne, given that whole fullpager in Catwoman. So let's drop all three, but if other convincing arguments for Azrael arise, then I can be counted supporting his inclusion. ThuranX 06:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Damian Wayne is the son of Batman noted for his significance in multiple continuiteis of Batman. He is also an important player in recent events. He is a member of the continuities belonging to Son of the Demon, Kingdom Come, the modern main continuity (which includes him becoming Batman) and numerous other Elseworlds. The argument that only charcters that are part of most of the 75 year history is rediculous as that would only allow for Batman, Alfred, Oracle, Nightwing, and a few villains like Catwoman and the Joker. If this mandate were followed through then there would be an incomplete template. Sognofocance should be determined by who has been involved in the major events of Batman's 75 year history, not simply by the amount of time they are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.136.207 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you've joined the discussion (brief though it is so far). Criteria for a template like this is obviously tricky as there are differing opinions on the relative significance of characters. Recently you (referring to User:24.164.136.207) have insisted on the inclusion of Damian Wayne, and thank you for moving to the talk page with your argument. My counter argument is similar to ThuranX's above, that it is currently unclear what lasting impact the character of Damien Wayne will have to the overall history of Batman, and beyond that I would argue that his inclusion teeters on the "in-universe" problem when writing about fiction. To those reading the current storyline, the character is significant. To those familiar with Batman as a movie character, nostalgic TV character or widely-known cultural icon though, the character of Damian Wayne is currently a blip (or less). There have been many characters added over the decades that were intended by their writers to be extraordinarily important in the long run, but have since been left by the wayside. Hindsight will undoubtedly tell us if Damien Wayne is important or not. Until it does though, he's still just a character used sporadically in Elseworlds stories (as Jc37 mentioned when he reverted) and in less than 20 issues of currently being published comics. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the character could be killed in the next issue and forgotten about, Grant Morrison could announce he's leaving the title and the next writer won't care, etc. My last comment is this: I'm reverting again. User:24.164.136.207 mentions in his last edit something about "2 to 1" for inclusion and I'd like to see that count. Myself, ThuranX and Jc37 seem to all have a problem with the character's inclusion, and I only see one person who continues to add it. -Markeer 16:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll concerning inclusion of Damian

  • Delete Damian from the template. We cannot know what Damian's lasting impact will be and we are not supposed to guess about such things (see WP:CRYSTAL). He is, at best, a recurring character. He is not a supporting character. Too many other characters who appear far more often than he has are excluded from the template. Doczilla 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Damian. - as above. 66.109.248.114 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • keep him He is important now. If he loses importance later he can be removed then 24.164.136.207 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
comment- Wiki, as an encylopedia, can't be just about the now, but should point to the greater history of the characters. Damien has existed about a year, and appeared in only a handful of issues. Important now, would make a characters like Harold or Stephanie's Brown's argument valid a few years ago, and they have no business on the navbox at any point. Damien is an unestablished character, whose future is uncertain. 66.109.248.114 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Damian per my comments in the previous subsection of this talk page -Markeer 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave off - There is already a link to Batman supporting characters, where he and a myriad of other characters are. I see no need for him to be directly in the navbox. At this time, simply not comparable to the Joker, for example. - jc37 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep him - as above.--César (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Group Placement for Characters

Hello.

I recently changed the groups that both Catwoman and The Riddler are listed under from villains to supporting cast, as neither Catwoman nor The Riddler act as villains anymore. The way I see it, if Man-Bat and Red Robin can be included in this group, then so should Catwoman and The Riddler.

Now, the change I made for The Riddler I suppose could be contentious, but I really think Catwoman should not be listed as a villain. She hasn't acted in that capacity in years.

Just thought I'd ask if these changes are okay. (Droorogers (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

A second person just moved the Riddler from villain to supporting character (presumably based on the recent storyline in Det. Comics) and I'm about to revert it to hear more opinions. Not trying to be a jerk, just resetting it to pre-change to hear more opinions.
Here's are my arguments for keeping him in the villain section:
a) Over the scope of many decades of the 70 year history of the Batman, the Riddler has been one of the most iconic and recognizable villains. His notability, both in image and persona, are well known beyond the scope of comic book fans, unlike (for instance) Black Mask or The Mad Hatter. 40-50 years as a well-known villain trumps less than one year of "reformed" in my opinion.
b) Beyond that, this is a navbox not just of the comic book character of Batman (and related characters), it's a navbox of the cross-media character of Batman (and related characters). The Riddler has not reformed in the 60s TV show, in Batman: The Animated Adventures, in the Joel Schumacher version. And he never will, he will remain forever as a villain in all of those depictions, available for rental or purchase wherever fine DVDs are found. There's a permanence to aspects of this character as a villain in stories about the Batman, in depictions that are extremely well known by millions of people who will never in their life pick up a comic book.
Yeah, I'm probably over-thinking this, but I really don't want to see this navbox constantly tweaked by each temporary change to a character that happens in a comic story arc. I'm certain in 1 year, or 5, or 10, the Riddler will be a villain again when a new writer takes over Detective Comics, and even if this doesn't happen, it will be a long long time before this icon changes in popular understanding. -Markeer 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks to literary present tense, he's both. And while on one hand we probably only need him listed once on a nav template, on the other hand, if we stay neutral, he should probably be listed in both sections. (I was wondering how this is handled by The Flash's Rogue's gallery, but it looks like Template:Flash sidesteps the issue.) - jc37 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics titles

Since Batman is a comics character, why isn't there a section on the MAIN titles he appears in? A tiny link buried at the bottom isn't good enough, because it's quite an integral thing to the character. Surely. ntnon (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this when I saw the addition and reverion.
If we added them, it would likely be Batman and Detective comics at most, though.
Definitely not a set or subset of the "current" publications. (Per a current discussion at WT:CMC.)
I think the best solution is probably just to have "publications" as the first item under Misc. - jc37 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You could be right - it ("maybe") should just be those two titles, but they DEFINITELY should be main-linked, not just through-linked from "Publications" - they're much more important and relevant than that! Likewise, I think the newspaper strip is as relevant as, say, "Utility belt".
I like the current compromise, but I still think the publications should be second only to creators. The most important information about BATMAN goes: BATMAN, BOB KANE (and Bill Finger).... Detective Comics, the Batman comic and then everything else, starting with Robin. (In my opinion, of course! ;o)) ntnon (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current "look"

My major concern with the current look is the large amount of whitespace on the right side, which adds to the overall size without corresponding content (a major issue with a box at the bottom of so many pages). That said, I have no problem with "Batman" and "Detective Comics" being in the navbox, although I also have no problem with the general link to the List of Batman Titles either. No more than two overall links though please, as this is a cross-media character, not just a comics character. -Markeer 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To address the whitespace, I would suggest removing BLOCKBUSTER, ZUCCO, HARLEY and KING SNAKE from the Villains list, and replacing them with "LIST OF BATMAN VILLAINS".
JEAN PAUL VALLEY shouldn't be listed as a Batman, he should be there as "AZRAEL" (Dick has also worn the cowl; Alfred has moonlighted on occasion; Jean-Paul was in it for a very short space of time, and it is not useful or relevant to have him there alongside BRUCE WAYNE - it gives undue reference to him). Then the ROBINs can be moved up alongside BATMAN (BRUCE), and another line saved.
Since they're already on two lines, why isn't VEHICLES a separate field to EQUIPMENT...?
Plus, yes, he's cross-media. But there's already an infobox dealing with the films (at least), and Batman IS a comics character first and foremost. That said, BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS will suffice, but should be higher - LIST OF BATMAN COMICS/"Publications" should be a left-hand field link like "Villains" and "Equipment". ntnon (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Markeer. We should keep this as concise as possible. I think "Misc." now looks like a "history" section, which looks fine to me. I doubt people are going to not see the publications at the bottom. Honestly, the best place in a navbox is either the top or the bottom.
We already have a link to the list, click on Villains.
Vehicles are equipment. No need to build a whole new section (which would be an "extra line" anyway). Though I suppose I wouldn't oppose that.
As for characters:
Jean-Paul, unlike the others, was the star of Batman for a time.
And Harley's just too popular, and has really become identifiable with the franchise.
I just recently deleted the Robin navbox, as mostly redundant to this one. That said, I think we could argue for the retension of those characters on their own basis.
For example: King Snake is as significant/intrinsic to Tim's orgin as Robin, as Killer Moth to Barbara as Batgirl, or "Boss" Zucco to Dick as Robin.
Blockbuster as much as Killer Croc and as much (or even moreso) as Black Mask. Note that all three have been a local "crime boss" at one time or other.
That said, I'll greatly agree with Markeer's comment below: "I'd prefer it be a top level introduction to the topic leading to the most commonly desired subjects and articles only."
I think I'll go over the big list, and see about some pruning and possible additions. - jc37 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough on the comics, then. I noticed that the Villains linked through, just as I noticed that Catwoman was under Bat Family rather than villains - I think both should be linked to twice, for ease.
Vehicles are another line, so it just seems easier.
Dick was the star of Batman for a while, too (Prodigal), so I don't think that's automatically relevant. JPV was a large part of Knightfall, and was mildly important since they wanted to make Batman harsher but decided not to do it to Bruce, hence Azbat. But JPV is AZRAEL, who is currently un-linked. The "ALTERNATE VERSIONS" mentions that JPV took the cowl on for a while, and I think that's enough.
Maybe that's justification enough for Harley, I suppose..!
Snake, Moth and Zucco may be mildly important for those reasons (although I don't necessarily agree!) but that would be why they're worthy of high-ish mention on the full VILLAINS page, not really in the BATMAN box.
As per my earlier comments on the VILLAINS page, there are 7-9 "Major" villains. Those (plus Bane) should be here, but I don't think anyone else needs to be. VILLAINS should be structured to list them, then "Important" ones (so CHILL, SNAKE, MOTH and ZUCCO for the reasons given, plus other not-quite-major and the local crime bosses would fit in that subsection). I noticed there'd been some restructuring there, so I'll pop over and stick my oar in! ;o)
Meanwhile, this is my take on how it should look - Batman and Robin on one line; (Major) Villains pared down to one line, but with a very-visible "Other," Vehicles separate and "Alternate Versions" relegated to "See also." ntnon (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your paring down the villains, but I think you went a little too far..! So I took the liberty of re-insterting Freeze and Ivy (easily on a par with Ra's), as well as making sure that Catwoman wasn't missed. She's clearly switched about a lot, but should be under Villains before Family. But should also be under family, hence the tautological addition. Likewise, I think it utterly crucial to include a "more" after the Supporting cast and Villains, because that's the way the eye is drawn, and not everyone will think that the left-link will be a page, rather than a category. That's my experience and logic, anyway. ;o)

Still think JPV has no business being listed as, ostensibly, equal to Wayne and NOT as Azrael, and that "Alternate versions" should be appended with the See also after "other media," but since those may be more controversial, I've left them be. ntnon (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to more fully respond to this and the above. Else we'll end up reverting each other in confusion : ) - jc37 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, decided that I'd better grab some food, as I hadn't eaten yet : )
As for the villain pruning, Poison Ivy is the real borderline case. She's about a step below Scarecrow, and could probably be added.
Harley Quinn: All light and no heat (except for the Joker maybe : )
Seriously though, she's used these days, mostly becase she's "another female character", and because she become so surprisingly popular from the 'toon series.
That said, as much as you or I may think she's a "flash in the pan", she's probably "here to stay", and is already more famous than many long standing villains. I'd leave her off, as she still doesn't rate compared to even the Mad Hatter, except that I guearantee we'd be constantly seeing her re-added by the 'toon fanboys/girls : )
One thing I liked after pruning was that, alphabetically, Joker was first : )
Dunno about Catwoman. (or Riddler for that matter.) I seem to recall some discussions, but I think that that's something that will need to be discussed at the WikiProject talk page, since the villain/anti-hero/hero/ambivilent money-maker characters can be problematic in placing. For now, it's probably best to place them where they've long been. Hence why Riddler is listed as a villain, though he's seemed to reform (see Penguin, and several members of Flash's Rogues for other examples of the back-n-forth of villain, "no I'm not".)
Compare that to Man-Bat. Though he's opposed Batman occaisionally due to his feral nature/brainwashed/coerced, he's no villain, and Dr. KL is clearly an ally.
I'd list Catwoman part of the Bat-family. She may be a foe, but she stopped being a "villain" a long time ago.
I doubt you'll convince me about Mr Freeze. Except for the appearance in a Bat-flop by Ahnold, he doesn't come close to even Mad Hatter. From what I can tell, he's about equal to Firefly.
And I dunno about the "more" links. I like 'em and I don't like 'em. Worth discussing.
And AzBat is just simply controversial. Where he is now is a compromise that has stopped a plethora of reversion.
Alternate versions is not equal to "in other media", though they may have such sections appended. I think a line break should be enough.
Did I get everything? If not, feel free to clarify. : ) - jc37 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No food-worries, I got caught up in late-night movings, so...
I don't see Ivy as that borderline. She's lower, of course. Of those now on the list, probably the lowest, but she's still well above the line. And she's in the cartoon, too. ;o) She's the second female, head-and-shoulders above her more recent challenger. (N.B. Just occured to me that there's not a "Romantic interest" section with Vicki Vale and Silver St Cloud... are they relevant, or rightly kept to the "Supporters" page..? Vicki, for example, is probably better known than many of those listed (Certainly more so than Lucius, Renee, Harvey and Talia), almost solely because of Ms Basinger.) Frankly, Ivy is of a higher rank than Ra's, much as I like him. Easily so..
I think the primacy of the Joker (or Catwoman, if I "win" that side-argument!) should count double for keeping Harley off the list. She's popular, she'll probably last a good while, and she is another female character, which is always good. But she's no Ivy.
Unequivocably, though, Catwoman needs to be on the Villains list. And so does the Riddler. No contest - Villains in the TV series both. Villains on film, both. Villains for decades. "Adverseries" always. The Riddler belongs nowhere else, whether he flip-flops or not. HOWEVER Selina is also rightly on the Bat Family list. She's the (other) major love interest. She's currently on the side of the good. She helped out in NML, and went on a road trip with Tim and Jean Paul during the KnightQuest (I think). She variously knows who's under the cowl and weaves through the upper echelons of society and Wayne's inner circle. So she ought to be on both lists. But she should absolutely be on the Villains one first and foremost.
Man-Bat is a tortured semi-anti-hero, yes. He's not "evil," certainly. However, he's probably another one who could fit in either category, but should certainly be (and is) on the Long List Page. Moreovver, he is also way down the list of Bat-related characters, and I'm not entirely sure why he's on this page at all, frankly. Can he really stand shoulder-to-shoulder as part of the Bat-family with the Batgirls, Batwoman and Huntress? Even against Ace..?! I wouldn't have thought so, not really. An ally, yes. But a main one...?
I think you do Fries a disservice...! Ahnold aside, he was in the TV series. He's hardly been a major force in the comics - but neither has the Hatter, be honest! Freeze ranks higher than the Hatter any day. (And he could take him.) Garfield Lynns is a waste of space, though, I agree...
I think (and not just because I suggested them - honest! :o)) that the "more" links are really quite important. This is meant to be (as far as I understand) a kind of "idiot proof" quick-link box to facilitate easy navigation. So a non-exhaustive list needs an "also" "etc." or "more" - even if the link winds up being tautological.
I didn't realise there'd been a fight over AzBat, but still. I cannot believe Jean Paul deserves to (effectively) share credit as "a" Batman. There is ONE Batman........................................ and JPV guested briefly. He's AZRAEL, a semi-important member of the extended Bat-Family in his own right. It would be a kindness to the character to gloss over his AzBat stage (even though I liked the story, the idea and SOME OF the logic behind it) and give him credit for being Azrael.
(Plus I think it saves space and doesn't compromise anything to have Batman (Bruce) and Robin (Dick, Jason, Tim, Stephanie) on the same line. Batman box: "Batman and Robin". That makes sense, surely? Is there a reason for the line break..?)
I quite agree - Alternate Versions isn't equal to Other Media. However, they also aren't equal to Batman and Detective Comics...! Those are important pages (well, the Batman one is - because it mentions AzBat, allowing this page not to! :o)) but should be relegated somehow, I feel. Not sure how, though, really...
I think that covers most things - I see Ivy is back, so that's a step in the right direction..! :oD ntnon (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
With regards to some of the layout questions, please note that at this moment I'm using an ancient monitor (to be using my normal one soon, hopefully). So it's possible I'm not seeing what you're seeing in terms of what "line" a link is on. Though I'll note that we shouldn't get "hung-up" on such things for that very reason. We can't be sure of how a reader may be viewing this template.
As for what character where, I still don't think Mr. Freeze comes even close to the 7 currently listed. But then, I'd also rank Man-Bat as higher than Freeze. 'tec 400, and a consistantly recurring memorable character both as KL and as M-B? The rather rarely appearing Mr. Zero (I mean Freeze) doesn't even come close. (Here's a challenge, list the number of issues that Mr Z/F has appeared in, which is not a group shot. (Like not Batman 400, for example.) Mad Hatter wins, hands down, and I don't even have to count the "other" Hatter. Heck, I think the Calendar Man wins hands down. : )
This isn't a list page, it's a NavBox, so we should avoid listing characters twice. AzBat and Catwoman (and possibly the Riddler) are obviously question marks (no pun intended : ) - So let's start a new thread below to discuss them. (Note that we still haven't finished with Lady Shiva and the League of Assassins, which are a whole other set of questions.)
I don't see a big problem with adding Vicki Vale to supporting characters, except that we may be opening floodgates. I think the character was a major character at one time, and there are those who may wish to find the character. However, who but a die-hard fan would have a clue who Silver St. Cloud is? So if we limit it to Vicky (I'm rather hesitant even with Julie), then that should hopefully be enough.
"more" - If we go that route, then I suggest that we de-link the section headings. It should be one or the other, not both. But again, I can see potential problems with that as the layout. So I suppose I'm not quite sold on the idea.
And just because 'tec and bm may be important, doesn't mean that they need to have the misc section all to themselves :p
Once again, if I've missed something, feel free to let me know : ) - jc37 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and avoid layout-comments, if possible, then! But with Batman and Robin, they're <br>ed onto a different line, which is one thing I think a bit unnecessary. But you're right: layout should be subservient to content (and placing... of Azrael and Catwoman. ;o)).
I think Freeze is, as you say, clearly not quite on par with the Top Seven, BUT he's in the films (albeit, clearly, B&R...) and the West-TV series, as well as the cartoons. Man-Bat's not been realised live, and neither has the Hatter. ;o) As I said, I'm trying (for amusement value as much as anything) to come up with a complex formula for calculating positions, and one criteria is appearances. Which are VERY difficult to total up, but breezing through the ComicBookDb puts Freeze ahead of Hatter - even if it is likely incomplete and so forth! Calendar Man, indeed...! (But we may be best taking this further on the Villains List Page - I think those listed now are probably the best-of-the-best. Basically, SIX - inc. Catwoman - then Ivy. . . . . . Then Ra's (probably). That's how I'd see it, anyway. Freeze I'd still say could compete with Ra's for "known-ness" and exposure, and probably beat him, but I'll leave it be for the moment. ;o))
I agree that it's a NavBox not a list, but that's why I think it MORE important to double up Catwoman and shift Azrael! It's to ease and speed navigation, and Catwoman is first and foremost a Villain - but very closely a Family member; JPV IS Azrael, but guested as AzBatman. He's Family first, foremost and almost-entirely ONLY. He's an "Alternate Batman" - and listed on that linked page.
Yes, for hardcore comics navigation, Julie Madison and Silver St. Cloud (and Sasha and Shondra) should be in a list of their own, but this is not that page. Vicki Vale is iconic beyond the comics, though (and arguably only beyond the comics, longevity-wise), but she's FAR, FAR more important and noteable to non-comics people than Harvey Bullock and Renee Montoya. I mean really...! (Not that I think they should be removed, however, and not to disparage them. But... come on!)
"more"/delinking... don't see that it's necessary to do the latter to do the former, but I think the "more" is more useful and obvious than the section-link. Not sure it would cause layout difficulties per se, though. Surely if it would extend the list onto two lines, the last character already on those lines would have already done that..?
I say the comics should be standing alone, proudly, head-and-shoulders above all but the creators. But I realise I'm all-but alone on that..! ;o) And that honestly wasn't my intention on wanting to downgrade the "Alternate" lists. I just don't think they are on equal footing, which might be inferred by such placement. (See also: Azr- )
Nothing missed, I don't think - I just need to convince you/everyone on a couple of minor points..! :oP ntnon (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably trod on a few toes by reinserting Mr.Freeze but COME ON. He was a lead villain in one of the films, and the fact that everyone and their uncle considers it the worst film ever made doesn't alter the fact that from a subjective viewpoint it's just as valid as the others. He was in the 60s TV series and the 90s cartoon and has been in the comic for nearly 50 years (admittedly as a fairly minor villain in the early years but then so was the Penguin). And I'd like to point out that Mad Hatter was in the live action series as well.Skteosk (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur..! ntnon (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] League of Assassins

These are clearly Batman-related articles.

The LoA is so obvious that it could honestly be added without a need for discussion.

Lady Shiva is now known to be the mother of Cassanrda Cain, was one of those interrogated as to whether she was Jason's mother, and has been mostly appearing in bat-boks almost exclusively.

Bronze Tiger killed the first Batwoman. (While not so certain in the current chronology, they've been hinting at another previous Batwoman, lately).

Richard Dragon to a lesser extent only through his interaction with the other two characters, and because he's now noted to have been one of those who trained Bruce Wayne.

Thoughts? - jc37 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As always my hesitation is about relative importance for many of these entries. The essay on Recentism probably explains my point better than I would myself. While I realize Lady Shiva and the League of Assassins have existed in one form or another since the late 60s to 70s, their prominence has been largely in the last 10 years (arguably 3 years). Furthermore, if you ask someone who has dedicatedly watched all 6 Batman movies since 1989's Batman about these characters, they would look at you blankly (although I realize there is a separate navbox just for those movies).
Generally my input to this template has been to try to minimize the number of links to those with the largest possible appeal, on the theory that those interested in lesser characters or storylines can find them in the broader articles and linked Lists. Basically as this is the broadest navbox, I'd prefer it be a top level introduction to the topic leading to the most commonly desired subjects and articles only.
All of that said, I'm of course more than happy to follow consensus on the form this box takes - Markeer 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
LADY SHIVA is certainly much more relevant than BLACKBUSTER, ZUCCO, HARLEY, SNAKE, probably BLACK MASK and CLAYFACE and maybe MOTH, CROC and HATTER, but see my comments above for how I feel that should be addressed. Even with the "Villains" category being a link to the "LIST" page, I think the list page should precede BANE for ease of navigation as well.
Shiva and the League of Assassins are on the LIST OF BATMAN FAMILY ENEMIES page (although the League should be better represented and linked); RICHARD DRAGON is on the LIST OF SUPPORTING CHARACTERS page, and lowly at that - rightly. Henri Ducard should be there if a "Trained Wayne" list is required, but I don't think it is - even though that would pass the film-watcher test mentioned by Markeer.
I disagree that Shiva is "too recent" though - a (small, but crucial) part of DEATH IN THE FAMILY, she was absolutely integral to KNIGHTFALL, too. But I actually think in this case it should be remove extraneous "Villains," not add new ones.
Incidentally, even though the link would be the same ORACLE should be on this list in addition to BATGIRL (Barbara) ntnon (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supporters

What's the order logic being used for "Supporting characters"...? A-lfred, F-ox, G-ordon, H-arvey...? Or some semblance of notability? Neither works, since P-ennyworth, B-ullock and al G-hul would be inserted elsewhere alphbetically; while (as I think I mentioned elsewhen) Lucius is far, far less notable than Gordon, Talia and Vicki; Renee and Bullock even less so - they may or may not even warrant inclusion, but if so they'd be distant last and second-to-last:

  • Alfred, Gordon. Vicki, Talia. Fox, Montoya and Bullock. (Notability)
  • Alfred (Pennyworth in parentheses), Bullock (...), Fox, [Talia al-Ghul], Gordon, Montoya, [Talia (al Ghul in parentheses)], Vicki. (Alphabetical)

I notice that Azrael now has a link, so we're halfway towards putting him in his rightful place.. ;o) ntnon (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Home, work, the GCPD (other work), and women in his life.
Seemed fairly straight-forward? - jc37 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No wonder he can never keep a woman. Hiding T 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite..!
Now that jc37 explains it, yes, that makes a certain amount of sense. Although I'd argue for work, GCPD, home and women as the better order, starting Alfred, Gordon.. but I'm not overly fussed. Just couldn't easily figure it out, for the reasons given above. :o) ntnon (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I have some issues with the size of (and particularly the amount of whitespace in) the current version and would love to see it significantly tightened up. To avoid the overall look bouncing back and forth with edits and re-edits on 50 linked pages, please give comments or approval to This Sandbox version before I apply it to the main namespace. No content or entries have been altered from today's version, only formatting and appearance. -Markeer 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If we go that route, I think we should at least put a nobreak after each parenthsis. (It looks odd to see a Parenthesis at the end of a line.)
Also, of everything, I think the linebreak was most useful to give vehicles their own section, and the "alternate versions" a "new line". Further discussion welcome, of course. - jc37 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks very awkward with the Batgirls now being spread over two lines like that. I have a solution however.... if Azrael were downgraded to his proper place...! :o) ntnon (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember that it shouldn't be formatted based on one's current screen resolution. More than just you or I will be viewing this.
As for Azrael, as I've mentioned previously, you're going to have a tough sell to suggest that he wasn't Batman.
Bruce named him Batman, and then "retired". He was legitimately the "star" of Batman for some time. "Stand-ins" just aren't the same. Aditionally, if we weren't to include the fact that he was Batman, "Azrael" rates lower than KGBeast for inclusion.
This actually leads to a question I'd like to discuss in another section, so see below : ) - jc37 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this is tending to be circular, but still... ;o) JPV was not Batman on the same level that Tim, Dick and Jason (and Stephanie) were Robin. He was not THE Batman (even Gordon realised that), and he was not ultimately not even "A" Batman - he was a stand-in - as, for example, has been Alfred.
From the other perspective, if he was named and cowled by Bruce - so was Dick. If he was the star of Batman - so was Dick. The name "Robin" refers to Dick Grayson. And Jason Todd and Tim Drake. <Pause> And Stephanie Brown. The name "Batman" refers to Bruce Wayne. Full Stop. Page break. Page break. Others who have temporarily worn the cowl would include JPV. And Dick. <Pause> And Alfred.
He's rightly mentioned on the "Alternate Batmen" page. It's rightly (indeed, quite largely) mentioned on the "Azrael" page (whereas in Robert Greenberger's Essential Batman Encyclopedia it's 1 paragraph in eight under Azrael).
Speaking of this new updated Encyclopedia - Azrael is mentioned as a "Gotham Ally" under Batman. He's mentioned (as is Dick) in the summary of Knightfall under "The Man Himself (as Batman)". But tellingly, AzBat's #2 in "The Batman Counterparts" after the Batmen of All Nations. In addition, under the heading "Azrael," the first paragraph is about Brane Taylor, Alfred, Robin and Superman all having filled in for Bruce... And the second paragraph closes "Wayne realized he needed to regroup in mind and body and asked Dick Grayson to give up being Nightwing for a time and be THE NEXT BATMAN." (Emphasis added.) The sections 3 and 4 are "Potential Future" and "Imaginary/Elseworld" Batmen.
i.e. In the (official) Essential Batman Encyclopedia, Azrael as Batman is not deemed important. Indeed, I wonder whether post-Zero Hour AND Infinite Crisis, JPV even took up the cowl...?!
He filled in as Batman, of course he did. But he should be given parity with Bruce! He should be - and IS - mentioned as an alternate in the list of various Batmen; mentioned on his page - probably mentioned on Batman, too. But not in the infobox as JPV/Azrael AKA Batman. He's Azrael, ally.
(N.B. KGBeast gets four paragraphs to Azrael's 8. So there!) And now.... ntnon (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character inclusion

As Batman (and Superman for that matter) are cornerstones of the DCU, and as the character has been around for decades, a lot of characters have interacted with him over the years.

So we, I presume, have restricted this page to just the "most iconic" characters which are directly related to Batman.

Now is this navbox restricted to only characters in the comics, and their usage in the comics, or are we talking about every appearance in the Batman franchise?

Further, if we restrict this only to comics, are we only talking about appearances in the mainstream DCU? There have been a myriad of uses of characters and locations in "alternate use" storylines/publications.

If it's everything, then we open the door to Terry McGinnis being added as Batman.

If we don't, do we then create navboxes for these other uses?

It would seem to me that such would be duplicative of what's here already.

So are we creating a double standard of subjectivity in this navbox?

Let's use the example of Mr. Freeze/Zero.

In the DCU he's not much of a Batman villain. Indeed, he's one of the "super-powered" Bat-villains (either himself or through the use of a super-technological instrument). Such characters have typically been the "lesser"-used villains in the comics (for various reasons), though more used in animation (mostly for the same reasons that they aren't used as much in comics). Doctor Phosphorus would be another example, and one who would probably be more notable in the comics than Mr. Freeze. (The second Clayface being the "most notable" of these.)

The character appeared in one form or another on the Batman series of the 60s, and has appeared more often in animation than in the comics.

However, Mr. Freeze was protrayed on film by Arnold Schwarzenegger. And though the film itself "flopped", the fame of the actor has lent "fame" to Mr. Freeze.

Looking over Batman:_The_Animated_Series, it's interesting to note that the "new" Mr Freeze is a result of that series. As were Harlequin and Renee Montoya. (And the "new" Mad Hatter, and the "new"... well you get the idea.)

So if Mr. Freeze is added, so too should be Clayface. So too should be the Mad Hatter. So too should be Terry McGinnis as Batman. So too should Harlequin. And so too should a myriad of other characters.

And so too should probably be the "teams" Batman and Robin have been directly associated with. JSA/JLA, the titans, and Batman solely founded "Batman and the Outsiders". (A title which replaced the old Brave and Bold series, which, DC Comics presents-like had become a "Batman and -" team-up book.)

Up to this point in organising the template listings, I've given more weight to Batman-related characters in comics, and directly in the "Bat-books", and not as much to the "alternate uses", or the greater DCU.

So it's a question of criteria. What do we decide to include, and what criteria do we base it on?

I think we're better served to include only the most core, the most famous, the most integral to the Batman story, while looking at the character based on the character's entire history, rather than just one era of it.

There's already 2 rather lengthy lists. This shouldn't duplicate those.

And adding in characters due to fame in "alternate uses", probably not. Indeed, if some "alternate use" becomes "notable" enough, DC will utilise the character more in the Bat-books. They did so with Batgirl, after all : )

(And I'll note that they have started a new arc with Mr Freeze searching for his apparently now-living wife. But WP:CRYSTAL suggests that we should wait on that count as well.)

As such, no Terry, no Harequin, and no Mr Freeze.

Differing perspective? Feel free to share : ) - jc37 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, we've got multiple Batman related navboxes at the moment:
And of those, the Catwoman and Batmobile ones could follow the Robin...
There's an option or two for compacting the other four, either into one larger 'box or into one using collapsable groups.
That may be neither here nor there though for this discussion.
I agree with the idea of trying to keep the lists to the "major"s and "core" characters, but I'm a little wider of view for the villains. Mostly looking to the characters from here and the ones that have had multiple uses in the comics and the adaptations. Roughly I'd be looking at:
  • Bane
  • Black Mask
  • Clayface
  • Firefly
  • Harley Quinn
  • Killer Croc
  • Mad Hatter
  • Mister Freeze
  • Prof Strange
  • Ventriloquist
The core 'box should at the least acknowledge the notables that have had legs across media.
(As a side note, there is a slightly broader discusion here.)
- J Greb (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
At first impulse, I'd want to ask why Firefly, and Black Mask, and why not Killer Moth. (And what about Lady Shiva, arguably more "notable" than most of the suggested additions.)
However, this is exactly the trouble. It's all subjective.
What's the criteria? Or better, where do we draw the line?
And note that the list of "rogues" as opposed to "minor villains" was something I oganised. (A work in progress atm.) Though it, at least, lists all the "significant" villains who've had at least semi-distinctive appearances in comics (both visually and contextually).
So I dunno. I think keeping the list as short as possible, while providing a link to the lengthier list seems like the best plan.
That said, I really would like to discuss criteria for inclusion in navboxes, and the balance of having a list vs. a navbox. Both presentations may be useful per WP:CLN, But it would be nice if inclusion wasn't so subjective. - jc37 04:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
My philosophy about character and item inclusion on this particular navbox has been to restrict it to characters with the largest possible reader awareness, regardless of medium. This navbox is intended to be the "Batman Page 1" wikipedia source. As such it can't assume an awareness of comics, it can't restrict based on timeliness, and it suffers from excess.
There are millions of people who have seen the 80s/90s Batman movies but will never read a comic book, there is a new generation of people who grew up on the Animated Series and will watch the Christopher Nolan movies who will never read a comic book, there were tens of thousands of people who fondly remember the campy 70s Batman TV series who will never read a comic book. However, the longest history of the character and the greatest amount of creative work over the greatest amount of time is of course in the comics.
The compromise (to my mind) is to use this navbox as much as possible to link to
a) the main characters as recognizable by the largest number of people, which will largely mean people with at best a cursory familiarity with the subject,
b) links to other navboxes, categories, lists and broadest articles on the various subjects so both casual and involved readers can get to a specific article of interest with only two clicks (one on this box, one on the linked sub-category)
c) links to characters and individuals who are absolutely unique regarding this subject so are not part of a special subset (e.g. there have been many creative individuals who have worked on the subject, but only one person actually created the Batman, so he is a "unique" link).
My last comment is to re-link a wikipedia essay I've linked above, on Recentism. This is a character with an extremely long history, and there are readers of wikipedia of all ages who have some memory or experience (or casual interest) in that history. Giving undue weight to characters of importance in the last 10 years in only one medium (and in the case of comics, the medium that reaches the smallest number of potential readers given that an extremely popular comic book issue is read by less than 100,000 people).
Short form of the above: Keep it small, keep it focused, keep its attention on only those things recognizable to any interested party of the last 50 years. This is the not a complete overview, this is the Table of Contents to the 15 chapters in a beginner's book about The Batman. If someone wants to know something very specific, they flip to the glossary in the back (i.e. linked sub-categories) -Markeer 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, just want to throw my 2 cents into this discussion. For the most part I agree with most of the proposed additions to the list that J Greb suggest. Considering that the "Batman Family" list includes Bat Mite and Ace the Bat Dog, I think the inclusion of a few major villains really wont be hurting the box.
On that note, I really think it is an oversight to not include Bane, Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Black Mask and Mad Hatter on a list of Batman's main villains considering their cross-media appearances and relative popularity amongst comic/movie/tv fans, and significance to the Batman mythos.

Blindambition2387 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My main request is that some semi-concrete, non-subjective criteria for inclusion be determined. Else this template (and others) will never stay "stable". - jc37 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Here we go again...!
SIDE ISSUES
Firstly, I concur with J Greb that the {{Batmobile}} template seems remarkably pointless - BUT! before it goes away, someone needs to edit Furst, Short, Welch and Giger into Batmobile. That they're in the box and not (as far as I can see) on the page is a gross oversight.
Similarly, BATMAN IN POPULAR CULTURE should right be the overarcing box with "1989-1997" and "Fan" being sub-categories. Good call.
Terry McGinnis is NOT Batman. He is "Batman of the Future". A legacy-Batman. A "new" Batman. Clearly not the same Batman. The Robins are all sidekicks to THE Batman, so they can all be "Robin". Azrael and Dick filled-in for "THE" Batman, attempting to portray themselves as the same character. But not Terry. So that's a non-starter. Maybe (very, very, very 'maybe') he should be in a Bat-box, but not alongside Bruce. There's no Batman Beyond infobox, but BB is mentioned in {{Timm_DCAU}} - perhaps some characters specific to the animated series-es should also be in that infobox, along with key/main/multi-programme voice artists - and clearly Paul Dini ought also to in the box.
Mr Freeze
It seems overly harsh to say "he's not much of a Batman villain," since name-recognition, ease-of-identification and general "known"-ness are as much a part of being a Batman villain as carrying out heinous crimes. Dr Phosphorus fails on both counts (widely unknown; looks like Ghost Rider).
The infobox is a collection of handy links. The "most likely to be used links", even. As such, it needs to reflect viewer demand as much as possible. Assuming that the majority of users will be after information on comics (which is likely a safe bet - if searching for the films or multiple cartoons, while "Batman" may link them through to comics-Batman, it's easy enough to re-navigate to BTAS or one of the live action films and glean the "right" information. So this books should be 99% comics) BUT that should not downplay the fact that recognizability and fame and being known is an accumulation of media bombardment as well as comics-reading. So having been a part of the TV serieses or films factors into the relative fame of the characters in some way.
Clayface is on a similar tier comics-wise - but not films. Mad Hatter, likewise. Neither have wider name-recognition status. (Although both are higher than Terry McGinnis - who should not be here - AND Renee Montoya; who SHOULD.)
Tangent-time... I'm looking at an issue of GamePro magazine, with an article on Lego Batman. The Joker's on the cover. Quite right. Figures of the following are shown clearly: Scarecrow, Riddler, Catwoman, Harley, Penguin, Mr Freeze, Killer Croc and Two-Face. Intriguing...! All (assuming they're not the only characters) are deemed noteworthy enough to include. No Clayface, no Hatter. No Ivy. But Harley, Croc and Freeze...
Teams
Yes to JLA (if teams are added), that's obvious. No to JSA: wrong Earth, needlessly complicated - is Helena Wayne to be included...? Bruce wasn't on the Titans team, so that's unnecessary - this is the BATMAN box, not Bat-Family. (Hmmm....) Yes to BATMAN AND THE Outsiders. Maybe even yes to Brave & Bold being on the list as a comic title... but probably not.
Villains list
jc37 says "I think keeping the list as short as possible, while providing a link to the lengthier list seems like the best plan." That point is precisely why I suggested that there should be an obvious "ETC." "AND OTHERS" "MORE VILLAINS" link at the end of the villains list as well as/instead of just the linked heading. It needs to be obvious and easy, and that means at the end. A logical Progression: Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler. Two-Face. Scarecrow. Ivy, Freeze, Ra's.... AND SOME OTHERS. In notability order.
Markeer says "characters with the largest possible reader awareness, regardless of medium." I think that's overstated. Comics should and must be primary. That said, I largely agree. However, while that holds great importance as this is THE BATMAN LINK PAGE, it can assume awareness of comics - what it can't do is assume great, deep and broad knowledge of deep continuity issues. Hence, of course, Azrael being an ally, not a Batman. It's confusing, misleading and only of interest to those deeply into continuity - and they'll know, or find it elsewhere. AzBat is the epitome of fleeting, quickly-papered over change. Introduced because they wanted Bruce to go off the deep end, but then thought they ought not to let BRUCE go off the deep end... hence, an alternate Batman. An unpopular alternate Batman. A "mistake" as Bruce, Dick and Tim agree IN-comic and fans and staff broadly agre outside of them. He is, was and could be again an ally, and that's where he ought to be. Similarly, Catwoman is a MAJOR VILLAIN, and sometime-ally. Both the least-villainous AND the second most iconic villain, but a villain nonetheless. I vote she be BOTH ally and villain, but Villain trumps ally.
Markeer also says that "recognizab[ility] by the largest number of people" is important - YES.
"links to... various subjects so both casual and involved readers can get to a specific article of interest" quickly - YES
"links to characters and individuals who are absolutely unique" - YES, BUT also some who are not totally unique
"(e.g. there have been many creative individuals who have worked on the subject, but only one person actually created the Batman, so he is a "unique" link)." - NO!
Bill Finger NEEDS to be here. Jerry Robinson probably ought to be, too. The key rest are rightly on a separate list page, but Bob Kane is not the sole creator of Batman, and it is the duty of an Encyclopedia - and much, much, much shame on Mr Greenberger for this omission - to make sure that is widely known.
Blindambition2387 offers: "Bane, Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Black Mask and Mad Hatter" as MAIN Villains; J Greb offers: Bane; Black Mask; Clayface; Firefly; Harley Quinn; Killer Croc; Mad Hatter; Mister Freeze; Prof Strange; Ventriloquist
I wrote here my take on how a MAJOR VILLAINS list should read, and I largely stick by it:
THE JOKER... CATWOMAN..... PENGUIN..... RIDDLER... Two-Face.. Scarecrow..... Ivy.... Freeze.. Ra's.
Strange, Clayface, Hatter, Zsasz, Croc, Black Mask, Ventriloquist, Bane & (maybe) Hush.
There are two tiers of major-ity - there are the KNOWN BY EVERYONE, even those who may well not have seen any of the comics, cartoons, films or TV series. Those are Joker and Catwoman, and likely Penguin. Many will have heard of the Riddler (and at the moment Scarecrow and Two-Face are probably riding high, but that's transient), and then so on down the line until Ra's. Ra's is the cut-off point for me, and, I would suggest for most non-comics-Bat fans, and casual-comics Batman fans. Ra's, Freeze and Ivy may fall in the transition zone below Scarecrow; Clayface, Croc and Hatter may rise above the second tier to meet them, but otherwise people I've talked to about this agree with that general formulation.
To pick apart the - similar - lists of additionals is largely to simply argue that they are still lesser than Joker/Catwoman/Penguin/Riddler/Two-Face/Scarecrow/Ivy/Freeze/Ra's, which I hope most might agree on. Clayface and the Hatter come close, maybe at times closer than Ra's, Freeze and Ivy on separate criterions, but not collectively. The nine have all been in live-action FILMS. The first four, Freeze (and Hatter) have been in the TV series; the first four in the TV's film. They've all been in multiple incarnations of cartoons - on voice-notability, you've got Hammil as Joker, Warner as Ra's (and Barbeau as Catwoman) lending those three some minor brownie points on being potentially more widely known. Black Mask is moving up, but far too recent - purportedly around/involved during Knightfall and No Man's Land, he's barely (not?) mentioned in the TPBs of the former, and similarly in the latter (if memory serves). His notoriety is in the very recent past, and in particular Stephanie's (alleged) death. Bane has been around since he broke Bruce and was himself snapped by AzBat, but only barely. He lurked towards the end of No Man's Land, and was Ubu for Ra's, but he's famous for that one - albeit enormous - moment. Harley, Hatter, Croc, Clayface, Firefly, Strange and the Ventriloquist... Only the first four have any kind of widespread recognition - and Firefly is rubbish, anyway; Strange is one-note and the Ventriloquist, well, he's not on a par with the higher-ups, is he? He claimed the earthquake as his work, and has turned up a fair bit. He's notable, but not AS notable. Harley's a sidekick. The Hatter was in the 1960s TV show, true, so maybe he should be a candidate. Croc is a great villain, and the Clayfaces have longevity, but not the innovative Bat-villain streak, nor particularly widespread recognition: Which Clayface is notable..? (Karlo, clearly, but it's still a question.) Clayface was there at the end of NML but absent during Knightfall. Where was he/it during War Games..? He's on a lower level, surely.
Notability Guidelines
It's not going to be possible to produce a non-complex inclusion guidelines, because it's going to have to rely on subjectivity somewhere along the line. I have produced a VERY complicated pseudo-mathematical calculation index, but I don't know whether that wouldn't just make things MORE complicated..! ntnon (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop inserting characters while this is under discussion.

Please stop inserting and removing characters while this discussion is in progress. Doczilla STOMP! 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As per above, is the discussion over, then?
I'm obviously slightly pleased that Azrael is now in his "proper" place(!), but at what cost? I see Stephanie, Bat-Mite and Ace the Bat Hound have now gone, but Man-Bat has been kept...? That's odd logic. Dick and Barbara are Robin and Batgirl first, but Nightwing and Oracle just as notably, so those need to come back as notes.
Catwoman is a Villain first, and "family" a long way second, so she's still in the wrong place.
I was criticised for putting that many comics titles on before (although I think they should be there - minus, maybe, Batman Strikes!), so that's also odd. The Newspaper strips are crucial, though - I read yesterday that Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot might not have been given that name until the news strips... ntnon (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think we've reall gotten to far...
As for Stephanie... the editor that re-worked the "family" added in a piping for "Spoiler", so only the dog and the imp were removed.
A few other points:
  • I'm a little more holistic in looking at subject matter for the 'box, that does put me at odds with some of the points you brought up.
    • Catwoman - Given an overview of the character, she is not "just" or "first and foremost" one thing. Throughout the comics the character has moved from crook to love interest to confidant many times. Part of that is that the character has taken on aspects of a reluctant hero, or an anti-hero, which don't hit lumping her into the villains.
    • The above also goes for Talia.
    • Villains — Again, in general I'm in favor of including most that have been mass marketed inside and outside of the comics. That includes the seven currently in the 'box plus the list I posted up page. The intent of the 'box, IIUC, is to hit the major articles of the topic. The elements here are the major elements of the Batman mythos, that extends beyond "Batman in comics" just as it extends beyond "post-InfC Batman" or "Batman of Earth-1".
    • Teams — I've voiced this else where, I'm not a fan of adding them to the character 'boxes, mostly given that characters pass in and out of teams. But if we were to add a group for them here, based on my understanding that the character had been used as part of the JSA in the 1940s (real world context here), then the JSA would be included.
  • Publications — Given the breadth of runs, I'm not a fan of this becoming a separate group. Leave the list linked into the "Miscellanea" along with the massive storylines list. (This logic can and should also be applied to Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, and the like.)
- J Greb (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed Spoiler, but like Oracle and Nightwing it's not enough to have them there - it needs to be in addition to Robin, Batgirl, Robin. How can a Robin list not include Dick, for goodness' sake...? That needs to come back. Hence, as I've said before, some characters need to be linked in TWICE: Robin/Nightwing and Batgirl/Oracle are the main ones. Catwoman (..maybe..) in both sections. And possibly Stephanie/Spoiler. Although I will say that personally having her JUST as Spoiler does not bother me, but Project: Girl Wonder may not be happy (for example)...
I would have to disagree with you over Catwoman (not entirely surprisingly! ;o)) not least on several technical grounds:
  • FIRST and foremost - She debuted as a villain. So on that (albeit slightly spurious) logical line of reasoning, she is indisputedly "First" a Villain.
  • First and foremost - It's only in the last 10-15 years in comics that she's been anti-heroine rather than criminal/villain. She's less "villain" than adversary, it's true. But that's hair-splitting over the name of the section: she is on the "other" side - the side of criminals. 1993, her series starts with her as an international cat burglar.
  • First and foremost - "In universe" it's even more recent - she was (variously) prostitute, petty thief, burglar and murderer for several years before the more recent - still hazily grey - move towards the side of the good.
  • First and foremost - 1966: Julie Newmar, Eartha Kitt and Lee Merriwether - adversaries. 1992: Michelle Pfeiffer - adversary. Etc.
Now, fair enough, she's always broadly been an anti-hero, and rarely played the role of "super-villainess" (as per, say, Poison Ivy) - she's a thief and rarely more. She's often marginally amoral, but does follow her own code. So it's a little harsh to put her in with the Joker and the Scarecrow, but she IS an adversary. If "Villains" needs to changed to a 'softer' term, then that's perhaps preferrable. Otherwise, she ought to be in BOTH categories.
Talia can safely remain where she is, if for no other reason than that SHE is primarily a love-interest. Ra's is the villain; Talia initially merely family. She's criminalised/become more prominent over time, but her Bat-relationship is as love interest.
Extending the included - the sticking point is always going to be that word: "major." There has to be a cut off, but for that to stick, there needs to be a ranked list. (Should I try to plug numbers into my pseudo-mathemaniacal formula and produce a suggestion..?! ;o)) And that will be controversial and contestable.
As far as teams go, it's generally not too hard to realise which people are "Properly" on which teams. In any case, having a link to the team from the character isn't as bad as the reverse - i.e. If a JLA infobox were to try and include Vixen and Max Lord, there might be a concern to raise over that logic. But linking back to JLA/JLI from them is reasonably fair enough. As far as the JSA goes, though, Batman is a very minor member of a brief incarnation of the JSA - the Earth-2 Batman is dead or absent for most key Earth-2 JSA shenanigans, and clearly not on the Post-CoIE JSA. Indeed - "Although a charter member, Batman's participation in JSA cases was minimal; he served only in a reserve capacity.." It's not on the level of JLA or Batman-and-the-Outsiders. But, maybe it could be included, IF 'Teams' was a worthwhile addition to this box.
I reluctantly concur about publications being part of miscellany, but that rankles with me quite a bit considering that Detective Comics and Batman (maybe B&B and World's Finest, Shadow, etc.) are so much MORE than just throwaway "misc." items. (Ultimately this is just a sideshoot of my/your?/others' wider concerns about "distorting" the various categories by including 'minor' with 'major'. Batman and Detective should be up there with Kane and Finger (and Robinson). And arguably Sprang, etc... They're too important to BATMAN to be relegated in this way. Just as Azrael is not, and Catwoman is - as adversary.) ntnon (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Riddler to supporting characters

Shouldn't the Riddler be moved to supporting characters since he is no longer a villain?--Darknus823 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now? Based on the current what, 2 years worth of appearances? No. That is a very recent addition to the character.
And yes, it is different from the situation with Catwoman. That character has decades worth of history "not-quite-a-villain/outlaw-hero". - J Greb (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expand number of villains

Batman has one of the richest rogue's gallery of any superhero. There should denfinately be more villains added to the template. Here are the ones I suggest: Bane · Black Mask  · Doctor Phosphorus · Clayface · Harley Quinn  · Hugo Strange  · Hush  · KGBeast · Killer Croc · Killer Moth · Mad Hatter · Mr. Freeze · Rupert Thorne · Ventriloquist · Zsasz.--Darknus823 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -