Talk:Batman

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:FARCfailed Template:Mainpage date

Comics Unassessed

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

speaking of things potentially unnecessary...

The remark about "While it remains possible, through deconstruction and re-interpretation, to view these actions as a means by which Batman is deluding himself about his own homosexuality," seems a touch ridiculous, as, with that sort of prefacing, we could add such a rationale, not to mention awkward and possibly original research, to nearly any article that may include some ambiguous relationship between two males. That this occurs on a featured article without any [insofar as I can see] justification is somewhat strange. russ. 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the remark is pretty much explaining what the entire book, Seduction of the Innocent, did. It took the normal Batlife and said went 'ergo he's gay!'. The first sentance of that paragraph says 'Bruce/Batman likes the chicks.' Second says 'But someone could read it as self-delusional actions of a closet homosexual.' and also 'And if you do read it that way, remember the authors say they didn't intend for Bats to be a fairy.' I agree it's not the greatest closing statement, but it sums up the entire hootinanny. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Batman?

I've got some concerns about the recently added "Timeline of Batman".

I'm not sure whether such a "timeline" of a fictional character (especially one whose history has been subject to as many revisions as Batman's) is encyclopedic.
I'm also worried that it might be original research. It reads like something out of one of the Secret Files and Origins issues, but updated post-OYL.
It applies only to the current comics version of the character, while the rest of the entry refers to past versions and versions in other media. We all know that comics continuity is subject to constant revision according to editoral whim, and if DC is sticking to the interpretation that Batman began his career "10 years ago" it will also be subject to compression of more and more events in that ten years.

While my fanboy side always likes these fictional chronologies, I don't think they really belong at Wikipedia — but I'd like to hear other opinions before I remove somebody's hard work. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a section or an article? --Chris Griswold 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a section, but you removed it when you reverted other unsourced statements here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Right. Yeah, that edit had a ton of Team Kane content, trying to lessen Finger's work. But that timeline thing was completely unnecessary. --Chris Griswold 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is unsourced, but then again, it might be true, right? Batman began at 24 (in Year One), then the remainder of that first year and Year Two follows into the Long Halloween. Batman Begins confirms this by showing him leaving at 17 or 18 and training for seven years, ending the film as 25 year old Batman becomes the guardian of Gotham. By the time Alberto Falcone is revealed to be Holiday, Batman must be around 26. Dark Victory is between year two and the early parts of Year Three. Dick Grayson was 12 when Batman took him in and trained him as Robin. By that point, Batman was 25 or 26 and into his third year of crime-fighting. Flash foward five years later in time, Dick leaves the role of Robin and becomes Nightwing, Jason Todd comes in as Robin and dies within the year. Shortly afterwards, enter 13-year old Tim Drake, and Knightfall begins with Batman nearly dying. A year later, No Man's Land takes place, when Tim is 14 going on 15. Batman: Hush takes place, with Jack Drake's death, the return of Jason Todd, and Tim turns 16 shortly before the Infinite Crisis. After the Battle of Metropolis, jump ahead one year later in time, Batman is 34/35, Tim is 17, and Dick is around 21/22. Besides, Batman is only early to mid thirties, so Batman began around ten years ago.

I think all this happened over a course of ten years, since they don't want Batman to age anywhere closer to 40. Plus, you want proof of Batman's age, check the website [1]. In the FAQS section, it confirms that he is around 34, giving he studied martial arts at 14 for six years, then returned to Gotham in his early twenties as Batman. Let's review now: Batman is NOT nearing 40, and the Ra's Al Ghul eternal youth story arc is coming up. Believe me, Bat-fans won't be worrying about him aging after this upcoming story. --Jonathan.Bruce 12:34 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In current DC Comics, it has been 13 years since Superman and Batman emerged. --Chris Griswold 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the "facts" of any continuously published comic book character's chronology are, of necessity, going to be malleable and selectively followed, according to the editorial needs of the moment. If DC Comics pronounces tomorrow that Batman is 30, or 35, or 40, then everything else will be adjusted to accomodate the current editorial position. While it's fun for fans to come up with this sort of timeline, by its very nature and the fact that the comic is continuously advancing in time, such a timeline can never be definitive or encyclopedic.

Furthermore, the "proof" you're providing is questionable at best: I think the site you're linking to is just a fan site, with a fan's suppositions. Reasonable they may be, but they're still suppositions. And it's also odd to try to consolidate comics continuity with film continuity: the two are simply different narrative strands. (Were Thomas and Martha Wayne killed leaving The Mark of Zorro or Die Fledermaus? Was Joe Chill killed on Carmine Falcone's orders, or by his own henchmen, or by the Reaper? And so forth.)

Finally, this is a pretty insignificant matter to get so upset about as to write in ALL CAPS (which gives the impression that you're yelling at your fellow editors). Please remain civil. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proof comes from a Happy Meal box I just made. --Chris Griswold 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Batman Begins had the Infinite Crisis (in a way) changed continuity to have Joe Chill arrested after the Waynes' murder and (supposedly) killed later. I mean, now the movie franchise is closer to the comics than ever before. The Joker as the one who killed Bruce's parents? Yes, that was a nice plot twist in Burton's film, but the fact that Batman never really confronted his parents' murder is something for which he can never get over. In Begins, all the immature, conflicted 18-year old Wayne wants at first is revenge, but after Chill dies, he realizes he wasted ten years of his life plotting of how to get Chill in vengeance. Then he goes to Europe for seven years and comes back as Batman. By the way, I wasn't spazzing out at you back there earlier. I apologize for any inconvience.

In addition, several writers and editors of Batman have agreed in the past that they will not try to age the character in any way (Frank Miller broke this rule, but Dark Knight Returns and Dark Knight Strikes Again are Elseworlds canon and not mainstream continuity). Look at Spider-Man, he's married to MJ and he's only early to mid twenties. He was 16 when he got his powers and not much has passed since then. The One Year Later storyline is the furthest Batman will be aging to 40. He's only 34-36 as of now, and if they feel he's getting old, the writers will just retcon any little detail. Come on, they've always done this, such as the Spoiler from dying thanks to Leslie Thompkins witholding treatment to "torture and pain from Black Mask," according to sources after Infinite Crisis. By the way, they should clear up this little dangling plot thread. Should they bring Dr. Thompkins back and have Batman forgive her? Will she expose who he is if he threatens to have her arrested? What was the real cause of death? Hopefully, this will be explained later on.

Anyways, look at Superman in Dark Knight Returns. He doesn't even look older, he looks like a thirty-something year old man in his prime. Supes will always be in his thirties, and same with Batman. So Chris Griswold, if you say that Batman has been around for 13 years, he must have been started around in his early twenties like 22 or 23, he must be 36, according to you. However, the whole team at DC Comics interprets Batman in his thirties, so that's about the jist of it.

Wait, Chris, how did you get your answers off a home-made Happy Meal box? --Jonathan.Bruce 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You should try it. It's really rewarding when you find out what the toy surprise is. I'm being silly. Anyway, you may enjoy Timeline of the DC Universe --Chris Griswold 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, ugly "The Batman" template

Should this really replace the "See Also" section? Should it be so large and unplesant-looking? Should it be located at {{The Batman}} instead of {{Batman}}? Find out next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel. --Chris Griswold 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at levity is as feeble as your attempt as self-sacrifice. However, I agree that it could use some corrections. (Cancelled projects? Poor POV attempt to list all the "notible" villains?) Still, all and all it's good. Obviously someone approved it and made it, so if you have a serious problem, it'd probably be better discussed at Wikipedia:templates for deletion. Just be careful not to let the green-eyed monster cloud your judgment. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your support. Unfortunately, the current edits are making it a bigger mess.ThuranX 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you could reply to me once without coming off as rude? You've already been warned about your incivility. It's been taken care of. --Chris Griswold 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote, Chris. "Self-Sacrifice"? C'mon, man, lighten up. If I wanted to insult you, I'd do it in person.

Hmm. Well, it could always be worse, X. Good luck with it to both of you. I'm kinda busy at the moment. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! --Chris Griswold 00:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox Guidelines

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

In Film - The 60s Batman movie

Adam West appears as Batman in all manner of things, especially voice work in animation.

The 1966 movie was a direct spin-off of the on-going series.

As such the relationship between the show is significant.

The connection between West and the role (in this case) isn't.

Duggy 1138 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping it as 20th Century Fox? Other than not being super-descriptive, I'll grant you, it's accurate. Maybe 20th Century Fox/TV Series Spin-Off? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A some stage I had "TV Spin-Off"(20th Century Fox), which I liked & felt was descriptive (initially, I admit, I removed Fox entirely, but in the spirit of co-operation I made a change to my view when it was reverted.

However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is that another party changed it to "Adam West as Batman" as part of a series of additions that fell apart, which, as stated previously is, I feel incorrect.

Duggy 1138 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change I had previously made again. Not to start a fight. Just to show the point from which this little battle started. I don't expect this to be the final answer, just a stepping stone.

Duggy 1138 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero / not a superhero Edits

Whoever started the "Batman is not a superhero as a result of his lack of super-powers. His resourcefulness, insight, and years of rigorous training hardly make up for the absence of any special abilities" changes, please knock it off. Thank you.--Cnjartist 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be 66.67.123.190. I put mention on his talk page. Anotehr round of it and I say treat as a vandal. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was also reverted back to that version by Mhking earlier today as well.--Cnjartist 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with it, there are many who believe that no-powers means not a superhero. Batman is the character that both camps fight over. I think the superhero page needs to note that not all superheroes have powers, and some wording here alluding to it would be nice, but would choke up the introduction.

Duggy 1138 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Superhero article itself says that it doesn't have to mean superpowers. Also, try not to delete other people's comments. I put Cnjartists's back in. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure what happened with the other comment. Clearly, I'm still not watching things clear enough.

The superhero article implies it. I've added a line making it explicit, and will let the normal editing process fix/remove/replace it as sees fit.

Duggy 1138 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Film/Television (see also...)

After all that fuss yesterday, looking at the "See Also" section I think it need a major re-edit. We the two subsections combined to make it more workable.

I'm going to make the changes just to see how it looks, hoping not to be called a vandal in the process, and perfectly happy to see it be reverted back imediately.

Duggy 1138 05:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the see also section is getting a little too extensive, particularly since editors are wroking to fix the {{Batman}} template, which will not doubt be re-added to the article.:-- Chris Griswold | talk | contribs 11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's all TV & film it may as well be in the other media article.

Duggy 1138 11:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'which article?' bit hits that weird zone, though. A Batman article should cover everything related to Batman (not in great detail, but that's why God invented daughter articles, eh? ;) ). A consise and solid summary of both Batman's comic history and film history would be appropriate, and as for the See Also, well, that template ChrisGriswold talks about would cover that. One hopes. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One does hope. :-- Chris Griswold | talk | contribs

Batman Beyond

How come their no talk of it? i think it should be meantion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 22:39, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

Present tense in "crossovers" section

I didn't mean to suggest that "in-universe" meant "DC Universe". What I was referring to was odd sentences like "Batman's first intercompany crossover is with Marvel's Hulk." This sentence is really about the publishing history of the character, not his fictional history, and so should be in the past tense. Fiction exists in the "eternal present", but the publication of a specific comic book is an event at a fixed point in history, and so should be in the past tense: Batman's first intercompany crossover was with Marvel's Hulk, and in that story the two fight the Joker and the Shaper of Worlds. It's a bit difficult, since the paragraph shifts back and forth between speaking about the character as a property (real-world, past tense) and within a fictional context ("in-universe", present tense). Perhaps the "crossovers" section should be rewritten more thoroughly to put it all in an out-of-universe perspective? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I just cheanged the first sentence and it was fine. --Chris Griswold (☏) 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the first sentence needs to say "was"; fiction exists in the eternal present, but a comic published in 1981 exists in the past. Insofar as we're discussing the encounters between the characters, present tense is correct, but if we're discussing a publishing event, it's in the past. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence is s not a point worth to arguing about. I feel that the work still is the comics still is the first Batman crossover ever published because it still exists now. If, however, you feel that it should be past tense, I concede to you. --Chris Griswold (☏) 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the Character

"Unsurprisingly, the body count eventually published Batman stories is quite high"

Grammar seems a bit odd here - any suggestions?

I'm removing it entirely -- not only is there a grammar problem, I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean, it doesn't fit in the section it has been put under and (perhaps incidentally) the conjunction is POV. ~CS 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batwoman/JLA 'proof'

I think my point was mis-understood. I'm not saying that Kate/Batwoman isn't alive and well OYL, and I'm not saying she's not in the JLA. I'm saying that until she shows up in the comic pages, not the cover, her 'status' is speculative. That cover also has Supergirl and Green Arrow, neither of whom are likely to be in the new JLA at this moment in time. She has the potential to be in the new JLA, but until it's confirmed in the pages of the comic, it's speculation. Probable speculation. Likely speculation. Speculation I happen to agree with. But that doesn't make it not speculation. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Also: as an encyclopedia, it is important that this entry maintain critical distance and only contain complete, verifiable information. Extrapolating from the cover of an yet-to-be-published book is not encyclopedic. Additionally, the appropriateness of the page needs to be considered. This is not the Batwoman page, nor the Batman Supporting Characters page. It's the Batman page, and fan speculation about JLA or Batwoman aren't topical here.

The issue has nothing to do with whether Batwoman will be in the JLA or whatever other post-52 plans are for her -- it's about what is appropriate for this encyclopedia page. ~CS 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wayne

There is not a single photo of Bruce Wayne in the entire article. Shouldn't one be included?