Talk:King Tut (Batman)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

Comics: DC Comics / Batman

This redirect 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

Related work groups:
/
	This redirect is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This redirect is supported by Batman work group.

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Batman to Comics[edit]

Should this article be changed from King Tut (Batman) to King Tut (comics), because of his appearances in future books, and in other media?JoeLoeb (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and yes. I just did the move.

Given that the article admits at several points that the character was created for the television series, I most vigorously dispute the change (I only just now stumbled on the article, came here to dispute the title, and found this minimal discussion about changing it from what I intended to recommend!). The parenthetical qualifier should definitely be "Batman." The reason given in the edit summary for the move is, "...it is in line with all the others this way." However, that demands the question: What others? Has any other villain created expressly for the TV show by its staff made its way, however changed, into the comics? Judging from the show's article and template, apparently not. Do any of the original-for-TV villains have their own articles? Again according to those two, just Egghead (Batman) (whose article indicates no comic book usage) and note the parenthetical qualifier there: "Batman"! So there are no genuinely analogous "others" that this is "in line with." Before you say it, the potential (and that's all it currently is) for future comic book appearances does not offset any of the above. Indeed, I deny that the comic book character himself deserves an article. This should be about the TV show character, who set the record among TV originals for appearances, while the so far limited comic book version (apparently just one instance) be in the "Other media" section. In fact, the edit history reveals that this article did indeed begin so focused, and I do not see that one and so far only one appearance of a comic book variation on the character justifies the refocusing rewrite and retitling. Once the character has made multiple print appearances, and thereby demonstrates it to have a significant existence in that medium, then "comics" as the parenthetical qualifier and the refocusing of the article could be justified. But until such actually occurs, it can't. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam West Series[edit]

This article should have, if at all possible, a photograph of the villain as portrayed in the Adam West television series. Lots42 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

headline^1coreponds here cause we need to riot in the country[edit]

speacial pprrogreess must be worn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.12.236 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]