Talk:List of Batman family enemies

Were the villains written tongue in cheek ?

I'm not familiar with the Batman Universe, so looking at the list of names and brief bios of the Batman villains I can't help that notice that they seem to be either the single most motley bunch of badly written cliches in the history of comic books, or ironically written ? Which is it ? I can't believe a writing team would create villains of such utter crapness without irony ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.196.158 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Batman is a derivative of pulp magazine heroes (no superpowers, a masked vigilante), which commonly appeared in stories featuring an array of motley gangster-type villains. These types of villains could also be found in the comic strips of Dick Tracy. In regards to it being cliche, you can say that the cliches are taken from Batman and the villains of pulps, not the other way around, as they actually started the trend. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested additions

Furth Villains suggested for addition: Metalhead (Batman 486), Dagger 1 & 2, Zebra-Man, Zodiac Master, Frederick Rhino, Joe Rabbit, Galvan, Czonka, Cypher, Lynx, Bird, Zombie and Trogg, Mekros, Sleeper, Narcosis, Faceless, Ugly American, Chancer, Allergent, Banner, Crimesmith, Getaway Genius, Bouncer, Mr baffle, Tweedle Dee and Dum, Mortimer Kadaver, Corossive Man, Mahakala, Mirage, Deathstroke, Night-Thief, Nocturna, Doctor Fang, Snowman, Savage Skull, Obeah Man, Quiz and Query (Echo), Echo (Russiand assassin), Dragoncat, Gunhawk, Steeljacket, Cassidy, Wilis Danko, Feedback, Dynamiteer, Tumultor, Harpy, Monarch of Menaces, Shin Tzu.--134.34.13.172 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Rattle and Ventriloquist II both need to be added as well.

What about Ragdoll, who appears twice on THE BATMAN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.239.78 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clock King? Esjs (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As of 27 March 2015, all of those characters have been added with the exception of:

• Joe Rabbit
• Galvan
• Trogg
• Mekros
• Sleeper
• Faceless
• Ugly American
• Chancer
• Allergent
• Banner
• Mr baffle
• Mortimer Kadaver
• Mahakala
• Night-Thief
• Obeah Man
• Echo
• Dragoncat
• Cassidy
• Wilis Danko
• Feedback
• Dynamiteer
• Tumultor
• Death Rattle

I will begin looking into these characters. Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Move

Uhm, why was this page moved fro List of Batman villains to List of Batman enemies? That possessive form is really grating. It replaces a vaugly POV-word with a very unprofessional descriptor. If the title needs to be made more objective, surely List of Batman adversaries or List of Batman antagonists would be better selections than this uber-personalization. ~CS 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, though to Batman Family. - jc37 15:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Count

I've noticed that Dracula isn't mentioned at all here. He was by a landslide one of Batman's most dangerous foes, and I believe he should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.111.244.211 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Clayface

Why isn't Clayface listed among the major villians? Is there a specific criteria that qualifies on villian a major and another as minor? 66.109.248.114 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Basil Karlo, the first and most frequently used Clayface, is listed in the major villains: fifth one down. The other Clayfaces are listed below. Other than Matt Hagan, who has not appeared in twenty years, the others have not been used as extensively as Karlo. ~CS 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the frequency of uses as a character make that character any more or less signfiicant. How often have Joe Chill, Thomas or Martha Wayne appeared in comics, but are there influence any less significant? Preston Payne had great appearances throughout the 80's (particularly the Alan Moore piece). Listing some villians as major and other's as minor serve's to limit there character's and their roles in greater comics context, and is to a certain degree subjective. My best suggestion is either an alphabetical listiing or a continued list of those in order of appearance, both with the absence of major/minor. 66.109.248.114 21:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, at least to a large extent. The "major/minor" segregation is an exercise in POV judgement. Of the two listing options, alphabetic or by first appearance, I'd suggest alpha since that is the more intuitive of the two.

I can though see splitting the "signature" villains to the lead section. This list though would be different from the current "major" to a minor degree.

— J Greb 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Basil Karlo was rarely used in the late 80's early 90's period, instead they used Preston Payne, doesn't he at least get a major enemies mention, he is one of the more notable. Besides, it would probably be best to include all of the Clayfaces in the Major enemies bit. 86.142.216.62 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cain

The picture of David Cain is actually a picture of Lex Luthor. Does anyone have a picture of Cain or should we just not have a picture?

Criteria

What Determines if someone is a major or minor enemy?

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moxon

It should be stated that he was Killed during the War Games Storyline

Qualifications for additions

All animated villians, unless they have been introduced into continuity, do not belong on the main villains list, major or minor. In addition, make sure your entry is complete, meaning issue number and date, as well as factual.

NPOV

At this point, the list of characters appearing as major and/or minor which seems to be the most regular complaint of the page. There is no reason why Prometheus, Nyssa Raatko, David Cain and the Great White Shark should be placed in the same league as Catwoman, the Joker and Penguin, particullarly in the greater context of Batman's nearly 70 year publication history. Additions are completely subjective. I suggest that either firm guidelines for major inclusion be estabished and commented in the test (i.e. featured in multiple mediums, several decades as Batman villian, and major villian in muliple arcs) or the list of enemies be combined into one master list (my preference). -66.109.248.114 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the list structure, the last 6 "major" seem to be "And in recent stories..." That being said, 4 of them, David Cain, Hush, Raatko, and the Red Hood were the focus of either long arcs or plot elements and would fit the context of "major". The other two... and maybe Zsasz should just be moved down with a clear edit summary as to why.

There's also the question of the non-Batman enemies on the list:

• Crazy Quilt (Robin (Grayson) foe for the first, the second AFAIK never met a member of the Bat-Family)
• Dodge (Robin (Drake))
• Film Freak (Second is a Catwoman antagonist only)
• Johnny Warlock (Robin (Drake))
• King Snake (Robin (Drake))
• Lady Vic (Nightwing)
• Lynx (Robin (Drake))
• Nite-Wing (Nightwing)
• Shrike (Nightwing)
• Torque (Nightwing)

- J Greb (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Batman protege enemies have been involved with the main kahuna. That being said, even if they haven't, Batman is an umbrella for a series of heroes and therefore their villains are his villains24.164.136.207 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no really definitive way to include "major" and "minor" characters: they're both completely subjective, unless we can come up with an absolutive rule that makes a villain a major character, rather than a minor one. Say, major characters are featured x times, while everything else is minor. Or, perhaps, a major character is used in more than one publication/series, while minor characters are not. Octane ^{[improve me?]} 11.03.08 0504 (UTC)

Perhaps the DC Encyclopedia/Batman Guide could help arbitrate - weight of coverage implying "major" status? Subjective it may be, but it's patently obvious to me that there are SEVEN-NINE "major" Villains, then a dozen or so "notable" villains, and then the higher number of "Minor" ones.

"Major"' is 'even non-comics people have heard of them'; is 'have been featured in numerous stories, including most (or 'a larger number') of the major storylines'; is 'have appeared in a number of different mediums'.

The "Major" Villains are:

1. THE JOKER. Clearly. Romero, Nicholson, Ledger & Hamill. Oldest, most-appearing. Crippled Barbara, killed Sarah. Notable storylines solely about him, and has featured in the major storylines. Has separate volumes of "Greatest Stories," etc.
2. Catwoman. Again, clearly. She'll be the second most known Bat-villain among normal people.
3. Penguin. Long pedigree, integral in many storylines, the third villain in the 1980-90s film series, as well as one of the four villains in the 1966 film.
4. Riddler. Likewise, long-standing, 'known' villain, a staple of the '60s TV series, and one of the top four for cross-medium appearances.
5. Two-Face. #5, Tommy Lee Jones, important and notable friend-turned-villain, crucial to No Man's Land and the comics based on the TV cartoon, among others.
6. Scarecrow. Overlooked because of the above five, the Scarecrow has probably been deeply involved in more major storylines than the Penguin, Riddler or Two-Face, but only turned up on film recently.
7. Ivy. Perhaps debateable in such company, but Ivy is also a live action film villain, as well as an NML gang leader, and important to a number of other storylines down the years she's been about.
8. Mr Freeze & Ra's. Broadly round out the list of villains who have appeared in live action Batman films, and are the least of the "Major" villains, bridging the gap between "Major" and "Notable."

Of the currently listed "Major" villains, the rest need to be downgraded, for the following reasons:

• Joe Chill. Isn't "Major," just important. He's neither recurring nor a real threat to BATMAN, he's simply the bogeyman to young Bruce Wayne and the root creator of Batman. Vital to the myth, but not a major villain.
• Deadshot. Isn't a Batman villain, but a Titans villain who happens to be the antithesis of Batman. Noteworthy as a DCU character, but not a major villain.
• Strange, Clayface, Hatter, Zsasz, Croc, Black Mask, Ventriloquist, Bane & Hush. The "next tier" - while Freeze and Ra's are on the bottom of "Major," this lot are at the top of "Notable," but don't quite have the have the recurrance of the Major villains, they don't have the name recognition nor the longevity. Bane is clearly important but mostly for just one reason, Strange is important but similarly not known for much, Hush is only recently notable (and mentioned elsewhere under his 'real' name), the Hatter is also memorable but a weak villain: none of these pose a major, recurring threat, nor repeat in as many storylines as the 7/9 "Major" villains. They are important, but on a lesser level to the 7/9, while standing slightly apart from the rest of the crowd.
• Harley. Isn't really even a villain; she's a side-kick. Notable in her own right, of course (and even more so because of her origin), but certainly not a "Major" villain on a par with her Boss.
• Moth, Firefly, Prometheus and Red Hood. Another more-than-minor, but considerably-less-than-major tier of their own. The first two have neither the weight of recognition on their side, nor do they really pose a major in-story threat; the latter two are recent and therefore not recurrant enough to have much standing.
• Raatko & the Shark. Far too recent to be considered Major - and it's debatable that they'll ever make it.
• Man-Bat, Talia, Shiva & Cain. Are only really borderline-"Villains" at all - Langstrom is misunderstood and rarely considered wholly bad, while Talia skips between hero and villain as much as Catwoman (who is nevertheless a VERY important Bat-villain). As for the latter two - Wayne trained with Cain and Shiva, so they cannot be considered 'Major' Enemies any more than Azrael should be featured heavily.

Just one comment on the above-Every source I've found shows Deadshot to be a Batman Villain, first appearing as listed in the article.

I therefore advocate a seven/nine-strong MAJOR VILLAIN list based on longevity, appearances and wider-recognisability with a 'normal' audience. NOTABLE would then be the next gradation down for less-frequent-appearances of nonetheless known and important Bat-villains (including Chill, Strange-Hush, Moth-Hood and Man-Bat-Cain and maybe Harley Quinn). Then Deadshot, Raatko and the Shark should really (in my opinion) be shifted down to "Minor" for at least the time being, while ANARKY and RATCATCHER moving up to "Notable" alongside the CLAYFACES.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum are inexplicably missing.

And to reiterate an old question - why is this "ENEMIES" rather than "Villains"...? ntnon (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually completely agree with this proposal by Ntnon. The villains who have appeared in the films are clearly at a higher level than any others. These are obviously the top Batman bad guys. I suggest a Major Villains section for them, a Notable Villains section for recurring characters like Harley Quinn, and a Minor Villains section for the ones with limited appearances. Now that I think about it this way, it isn't all that ambiguous. Also, the League of Assassins section breaks the consistency of the characters' order by listing them according to their affiliation, whereas the others are listed by notability. The League of Assassins list is preserved in this form in the LoA article under Members, so that's enough reason to list each individual character according to these three proposed sections. If no one objects I'm willing to carry this out. 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A few observations:

• Any scheme we impose on this end will wind up skirting WP:OR. It's us dictating the importance of particular characters not us sourcing back to a secondary reference.
• Ignoring the above point, the benchmark should "Is the character an important foe of Batman?" There is a number of criteria that can be used for that:
  1. Has the character had a significant impact on the development of Batman's character and the over all story? Yes, this makes Chill a major foe.
  2. Has the character been been a staple of the strip? This brings in another layer of OR - determining the threshold for "staple".
  3. Has the character been part of the marketing of the Batman mythos outside of comics? And that's not just "films" but it also includes TV shows, toys, games, everything. Yes, this can wind up moving Harley up to "Major" given her roles in the animated series and the BoP TV show.
• And point 3 does bring in another problem... The list is designed as "Batman Family" not just "Batman". If the criteria is going to be focused on Batman and only Batman to determine "major" there are comes characters that should be reduced to "non-important" since they have only faced the sidekicks.

- J Greb (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, using our own criteria is unavoidable in anything other than one big list. Having said that, here are the criteria I'm suggesting, which I feel are as non POV as possible here:

• Major villains: Only those who have been a key villain in a live action film (this wouldn't include Joe Chill because he's a plainclothes criminal anyway). Bane and Ra's al Ghul are debatable ones, for debatable reasons.
• Consistently recurring villains: Harley Quinn, Black Mask, etc. Common in the comics. Whether they've appeared in media besides comics might be a good criterion (except characters like Hush and Lady Shiva who haven't been Batman villains for long but make recurring appearances).
• Lesser known villains: Here are the real losers, the obscure ones who have only made limited appearances in comics and none in other media. A gx7 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but "Major villains: Only those who have been a key villain in a live action film" verges on elitist bullshit since the primary concern for the list is the comics. It also pushes a POV that "The movies are more important than TV or the source material."

Yes, it would cull the "top" list down to 8, but at the expense of characters that had a significant impact on the overall stories. - J Greb (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"the primary concern for the list is the comics." Isn't that a POV? I thought this was about Batman villains in general. The characters who have appeared in the movies (Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Bane, Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow) are the biggest characters in the comics. All the movies have done is make them even more well-known. I don't think this would be at the expense of other significant characters either, as long as the article is clear on the ordering. Eg:

==Key villains==

These characters are the most prominent, being the major villains in comics and having achieved widespread notoriety through appearances in feature films.

==Other recurring villains==

Appearances of these characters in comics is common. Most of them have been adapted into other media.

==Lesser known villains==

These characters have made only rare appearances and have not appeared in media other than comics.

-A gx7 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is. Your idea ois more POV if anything, because there are several mediuns other than movies. Cartoon series, video games, etc. Batman tha Animated Series was much bigger then the last 2 movies in the 90's series. So Why wouldn't Tweedledum and Tweedledee who made one appearance be considered major? Your over analyzing this situation, and I say we just leave it. If you set up regulations like they must have been in a movie or they must have significant impact on the story, MAny characters can be argued into this. The obvious ones being Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, Poison Ivy, Bane, Killer Croc, Mad Hatter, Clayface, Man-Bat, Ventriloquist and Black Mask. But then plenty of others could be argued as well such as Mr. Zsasz, Hush, Maxie Zeus, Firefly, Batzarro and really all the ones in the current list. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I think my idea is just as good. I suppose it doesn't matter. I still think the League of Assassins characters need to fit into the article though. A gx7 (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We could erase all the information from under the Ra's al Ghul and league of assassin's section, and just leave the re-direct to the main article. And then we could move Ra's al Ghul into the central supervillion section.--EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ok that sounds good. A gx7 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Stromwell

Since Arnie apparently has his own article now, should he have an entry in the Mobster section? Czar Baldy Bald IV (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Baby Doll's Helper

You all remember her from BTAS, right? I forget what the woman's name was, but I believe she has brunette hair with glasses and wore a business-type outfit. She was there to help Baby Doll in the first one.

I just remember laughing alot because of her lines. Like, Baby Doll would yell, "Cynthiaaaa!" or something and this chick would just come in kicking. And I remember when Robin asked her something like, "Why are you working with her (Baby Doll?" The woman responded something like, "Eh, it's a living" and then proceeded to beat the mess out of Robin.

For those of you with the DVDs, you will probably be able to easily found out who I am talking about.

I'm not saying this person should be a major villain, but for goodness sakes Punch and Judy are listed along with the atrocity that is "The Batman." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaunceyishere1987 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deceased?

I would suggest that it is of some import to include a little mention - (Currently deceased<ref>Killed by XXXXX in ''Detective Comics'' #XXX</ref>) - of who is "dead," for the sake of reference. ntnon (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Wikipedia articles generally use literary present tense, for one thing. For another, the nature of comic books is that characters rather often do not stay dead, and so such information would just be listing "current events" which we should probably avoid in this list. See also: List of dead comic book characters. - jc37 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about the transient nature of death in comics, but at the same time I would suggest that most (if not all) those here who are presently deceased are minor enough that they are unlikely to be resurrected. Moreover, I'm not sure how "current event"y it would be, since it would arguably be the next evolutionary step(!) in a character's "development"...

(Not to mention that - at least - the first Blockbuster and Matt "Clayface" Hagen are listed here as dead. ;o)) ntnon (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's also the problem of the recent "crises" (or the amazing Neron resurrections) arbitrarily bringing previously dead characters back who were thought to have died (some without any explanation).

I left Matt on there as (until very recently) most CoIE deaths were mostly "premanent", and his death figured into the various subsequent storylines of the Clayfaces. I suppose the same could be said about Blockbuster, but honestly, that was actually an oversight on my part : ) - jc37 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Peyton Reilly

Someone needs to add her under the Ventriloquist and split the box. I would but i do not know how 24.164.136.207 (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Glove

Someone needs to add the black glove and simon hurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.136.207 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Batman Revenge Squad

I've got a reprint of Worlds Finet #175 in which a group known as the Batman Revenge Squad (who team up with the Superman Revenge Squad) have Superman and Batman in a contest. Should they be mentioned considering they are one of the few villain teams to appear in the Batman comics? 86.129.43.82 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete

I just removed a notice that was just added proposing this article can be deleted if it is not cited. First off it is referenced, not every minor detail has a citation, but the page has its references, plus much of it is built on good faith. This is where this can be discussed and feel free to view my edit, but that was seriously the most rediculous thing I have ever seen in my years here at Wikipedia. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that. Anyway, this article has such big issues that I don't think it's good enough to be kept in its current form.

There are no apparent criteria for the distinction between major characters and minor. It seems totally capricious; we've got Tweedledum and Tweedledee are in the main villains list, whereas Superman is in the lesser known section. It's inherently subjective. It should be one big list.

The section "Early Days" is vaguely defined and superfluous and there's no apparent reason for having a Batman #1 section (why not Detective Comics #33? etc).

These preceding sections are superfluous to their characters' articles and the bigger list. There's already a League of Assassins article as well.

The lists themselves are ok but on the whole the article is very strangely structured. I proposed the deletion the draw attention to these issues that I thought were pretty glaring. It needs significant alteration.

A gx7 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First off when you label your edits as "minor" thats usually only held for extremely minor edits such as fixing a spelling error, fixing a grammar error and fixing the spaces between words. You are using it far too liberally and is not the purpose of the tool. You are supposed to mark things as minor to alert other editors who view the history page. But for now that is irrelevent and I'll get to the topic at hand. Virtually things in these types of articles are difficult to site directly. Theres no online version of every comic to source and other encyclopedia's are not viable in all instances. Because of that many pages such as this are built on good faith. Now yes I understand sourcing needs to be done, but thats construction that needs to take place. You need to alert a Wikiproject and if there is none closely related to the topic you should make one. Yes sources are always good and are necesary I agree, but deleting this entire page because of a lack there of is absolutely rediculous. One needs to take place is hard work to fix the problem, deletion is simply not an answer. And to answer your question, Batman #1 is the first official installment of the superhero, Detective comics had Batman yes, but the superheroes official series began with Batman #1. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the Batman #1 section because those two paragraphs were literally identical to those found in the list. There's no reason to have repetitions of blocks of text like that. The interface says the article was getting too long as well. The "Early Days" villains can now be found in the large list. Also I thought the League of Assassins section would be more useful in the League of Assassins article so I've moved it to a new section there called Members (the individual characters from the LoS still need to be absorbed into the big list). I acknowledge that some villains are much more prominent than others but there's too much grey area for any kind of call to be made on which ones are the biggest, so there should just be one alphabetical list, at least for the supervillains.A gx7 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let everything slide without any resistance except for 2 things. We will discuss the league of assassins deletion here, and see if it can be on both pages. And There should absolutely not be an alphabetical list including all the villains. This page is not only a "page" but also a re-direct or template of sorts, which means it really isn't as formal. Thats why they are listed in seperate lists. Because people who are reading up on it won't have to search for the more well-known enemies. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Superman as enemy

We should get rid of Superman as a enemy because it's supposed to be villains not allies on the thing. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Superman is an enemy of Batman on more occasions then any other DC superero by far. Catwoman is an ally of Batman now too, but she stil makes the list, do the research before you just assume he is not an enemy. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And Superman is an ally on much more occasions than any other character on the list, especially within the "Foes of lesser renown" section.

There may be a level of justification for having Superman mentioned/listed here. But it is misleading to lump him in with Black Spider, Copperhead, Wraith and the like. Perhaps moving Supes to a separate section - "Allies in conflict" maybe - where it con be pointed out that Batman, Nightwing, and/or Robin have had stories where they have worked at cross purposes with other "good guys". - J Greb (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that could work. This idea is the best out of both of ours I think. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with everydayjoe, hey I just joined Wikipedia, nice to meet everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendevous46 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and welcome. This topic is still up for discussion though because it a legitimate point, I just don't think its in the best interest for the page. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is why

Okay I just reverted the most recent section for this reason. There are far too many instinces of enemies being allies as well as enemies. Far too many to have its own section. Therefore I Think when J Greb proposed this section, I think he meant characters who are more commonly thought of as allies, I.e. Superman and Green Arrow. So placing Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face, etc. in this section is not a good idea. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there are that many. Maybe there are a lot of characters who have changed sides temporarily within an issue, but I only know of a few who have had story arcs based on them turning. The Riddler for example seems to be a full-fledged good guy now. If there's going to be an "allies in conflict" section, why shouldn't there be "enemies in allegience" information too?A gx7 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Catwoman is also a full fledged ally now. but still there are a lot, and when I say a lot, I mean a lot. I understand your concept of story arcs being based around allegiance, but I just don't see it as being worth it. I say we stick to the allies, being turned enemy. The only exception I can think of is maybe Red Hood, I don't know what to do with him. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok how about we have that Allies in Conflict section for superheroes who Batman has fought, and restrict information about villains helping Batman to their existing entries in the villain lists? --A gx7 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Onomatopoeia count?

I know he wasn't originally a Batman villain but with Kevin Smith and Walt Flanagan's series Batman Cacophony shouldn't he be added to the list of Foes of Minor Renown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.3 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know who that is. Was he ever in a comic book? If so, yes. if not, no. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes hes was in Batman Cacophony a comic book published by DC

Ok, well if thats the case then sure you can add him. I would do it, but I know absolutely nothing about him. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Central rogues gallery?

While such a distinction is, by default, rather arbitrary (which I have no problem with per se), there are a few names on the list that I can't make out to be "central" no matter what criteria I use. Batzarro only had one real appearance, and KGBeast had a handful of appearances more often than not played as a minor villain. While I wouldn't call Cluemaster or Tweedledee & Tweedledum "central rogues" either, I can buy those more easily since Cluemaster was a central foe of Robin and the Tweeds have been around since the 1940s. But what's the defense for Batzarro and KGBeast? I propose moving them to the "lesser renown" list. 80.217.101.213 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Special connection and story arc... look at the requirements when you try to edit. It says what qualifies to make the list. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these are minor characters at best. 4.20.98.115 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Real Name of Gorilla Boss

I have been reviewing this page from time to time when I have a few minutes. Today (May 17, 2009) marks the second time that I have corrected the entry for the Gorilla Boss to show his correct real name. It is George "Boss" Dyke, as given in the comics themselves and all Batman reference books that discuss the story. It has *never*, to my knowledge, been given as Alex "Boss" Bossie. Whoever keeps inserting that information needs to stop. It is incorrect. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.11.126 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

other clayfaces

There are like 7 clayfaces but only 4 are listed. Shouldn't more be added?24.168.38.78 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Professor Pyg

Should Professor Pyg and the Circus of Strange be added to the villian's list?24.168.38.78 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistScientist (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't they mereley be in the foes of lesser reknown section and not thir own seperate part. theyve only been in like 8 issues maybe so they don't really warrant the signifigance to be their own sections.. also what about Scarlet, Red Hood's Side Kick? 24.168.27.158 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ACE

i'm sorry I have too ask I've seen an enemy called "ace" (i think) and shes about 12, and she can change reality, and shes a "leader" of these card people but I cant find her existance anywhere

Oh and I saw it on some batman episode thing.

Benjabby 21:47 12 august 2009 (UCT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjabby (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

also, sorry to add to this question, where is the ink lady, who mutated a man into an ink man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjabby (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That Ace is from Justice League Unlimited. Inque is from Batman Beyond. This article is only about the comic book villains. ArtistScientist (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Circus of Strange and new era supervillains

I don't think this should be it's own section. They should probably be moved to Foes of Lesser Renown. None of these characters have appeared in more than a few issues, and many of the foes of lesser renown are arguably more important and have had a bigger impact.ZODtheReaper (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Louie the Lilac

From the TV Series - lame, but a legit adversary! 74.120.152.118 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Catwoman as complete villain?

Having a bit of issue with placing Catwoman, who has a lot of the "anti-hero" trademarks and whose alliance has been in question for years, can be placed with the main villains like The Joker. Perhaps a section dealing with just her (especially since her stance as anti-hero is never even mentioned in this article (EDIT: Until now, when I added that into the table so it at least gets SOME mention)), or putting her with those that have had conflicts with Batman, or something of the sort, would be more appropriate for her character. Darkpower (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The antihero thing has only been a development in relatively recent years. The majority of her comic career has been as a villain. In any case, she's way more anti than hero. MasterHedgehog76 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Calender Man

He is not on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.88.13 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. MikeLynch (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Batman Family adversaries → List of Batman enemies – I'm not sure why this title should be so different from List of Superman enemies or List of Spider-Man enemies. I suppose "Batman Family" was chosen to indicate that Batman's allies battle these enemies too, but the same could be said about the other superhero enemy lists. "Adversaries" seems like an unnecessary flourish. The proposed title is more concise and also unambiguous—this article covers much more than enemies that appear in Batman Family. --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 03:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment don't some enemies only appear in the subsidiary comics, and not in the Batman titles themselves? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Very much. I'm not sure, but IIRC, the page was move to the current title because of this. - J Greb (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we sure Spider-Man and Superman have personally faced everyone on those lists? You're interpreting "List of Batman enemies" as "List of enemies Batman has faced" when it could also mean "List of enemies in Batman comics." Normally ambiguity in titles is something to be avoided, but unless we were to maintain two separate articles on each of those, I don't think it will be a problem. --BDD (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting it that way, I'm interpreting it as, enemies appear in Batman or Detective Comics, instead of also including those only appearing in subsidiary titles, but not the main titles. (such as Catwoman comics or Batgirl comics) where the ambiguity with "Batman Family" can be interpreted as the Batman family of comics, instead of just the Batman comics (Batman and Detective Comics) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was "List of enemies Batman has faced", we would need a possessive like "List of Batman's adversaries". "List of Batman adversaries" implies the entire franchise. Powers ^T 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: is it possible that "adversaries" was chosen because some figures like Catwoman are not strictly "enemies"? Powers ^T 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably. See vote below. Andrewa (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's far more complicated than just bringing the title into line with List of Superman enemies or List of Spider-Man enemies. For example, Superman is validly listed here as an adversary, but Batman is not listed as an enemy of Superman, again correctly. Andrewa (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - As andrewa notes, there's a difference between adversary and enemy. And not every adversary here is directly a Batman adversary - King Snake comes immediately to mind. - jc37 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Would anyone be amenable to List of Batman adversaries? The current title still suggests a list related to the Batman Family series. --BDD (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  The phrase "The Batman family of titles" also comes to mind. This phrase is not limited merely to the Batman Family series. There in no confusion in the naming here. Would the average person look at the name of this page and understand immediately what will be found on the page? Yes. Incidentally, references also refer to the group of characters and the group of titles as the Batman Family. So I think going with the references would be the way to go here. - jc37 07:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Weasand

Hoaxes related to the name "Weasand" have been added to several articles. Can it be verified whether this character exists? Peter James (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Great White Shark moved

I believe that Great White Shark is known well enough to be moved up to the Classic Rogues Gallery section. PentyClaws (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Only Batman villains should go on this list

One thing I have noticed that users are doing is that they are putting characters who are not Batman villains on this list and justifying it by bringing up a minor encounter the villain may have had with Batman. However, only villains who are primarily enemies of Batman or Bat-family members should be in the article. There is no reason why characters such as the Cheetah, Captain Boomerang, and Captain Cold sould be listed in the article. They may have had a minor conflict with members of the Bat-family but they are not Batman villains. In order to be on this list, I think the villain or character should follow at least one of these criteria:

1. They are primarily an enemy of Batman or a member of the Bat-family.

2. They have had at least one MAJOR encounter with a member of the Bat-family or Batman himself (Justice League titles, Elseworlds, appearances in non-Batman related books, ETC shouldn't count). This is why characters such Lex Luthor (who once went up against Batman when he became president of the fictional United States of America), Deathstroke, Tobias Whale (who played a large role in Gotham Underground) and Bronze Tiger were left on the list.

3. They have gone up against Batman or a member of the Bat-family enough times to warrant a spot in the article . This is why such characters as Count Vertigo, Solomon Grundy, Onomatopoeia, Merlyn and the Gentleman Ghost were left on the list.

If you disagree with any of this, please respond and state your case before editing certain characters back into the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)User:Darkknight2149

Superman In "Allies in conflict"

What is the consensus on having Superman in the "Allies in conflict" section? I want to make sure no editors oppose it before deciding if I should add him or not. While he is primarily Batman's ally, Superman and Batman have fought many, many times due to various reasons. Darkknight2149 (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image

The current image from Gotham Underground #2 has a rather cartoony look to it, as Jim Califiore's work tends to be that way (especially his work in Aquaman). There's an image by Alex Ross on Wikipedia that shows the Rogue's Gallery surrounding Batman. It has a mature look, as it's a painting. I would like to know if other editors believe this image by Alex Ross should replace the current image. The image can be seen directly below. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@JosephSpiral Thank you for providing an explanation for why you switched the photos (at first, it seemed random and pointless; your explanation makes sense). I'd say to wait for a day or two in order to see if any editors object or respond to this. If not, then I think it should be safe to switch the photos without someone reverting it. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Darkknight2149. By the way, great work on the article. I noticed how much you contributed to it. JosephSpiral (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@JosephSpiral I didn't realise that the image was uploaded for the article, Batman. Because of Wikipedia's copyright rules, we aren't allowed to use it after all. I found some other art work that may work as a suitable replacement. Thoughts?

1. Artwork from the Arkham Asylum game

2. Art from the comics

3. Art from the comics

4. Art from the comics

5. Art from the comics

6. Art from the comics

7. Art from the comics

8. Art from the comics

9. Art from the comics

10. Art from the comics

Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not bad, Darkknight2149; I thought #4 was good. I liked the image that's now in the Batman article because it was a very well-made painting. I did find something similar, though. How about this one? Cover of Batman: Shadow of the Bat #82 JosephSpiral (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I updated the main image with the painted cover of Batman: Shadow of the Bat #82. It gives the article a classic look. What do you think? JosephSpiral (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I like the image. Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Classic Rogues Gallery

I don't believe that Blockbuster is notable enough to be listed in the Classic Rogues Gallery, but I think Copperhead and Count Vertigo are. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Fictional biography/Descriptions

I have come to the realisation that, in order for this article to meet Wikipedia standards, either the Fictional biographies will have to be straight up character bios (I.E. no real world information or listings as to who portrayed the character in other media) OR the Fictional biographies will have to once again become "Descriptions" and every character's description will have to be re-written to include real world information. Thoughts, anyone? Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More lesser known Villians

I added The Interrogator to the lesser known villians list. I think H.A.R.D.A.C. would make a great addition too. Germanator 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germmanator (talk • contribs)

Future of the article

I am in the process of removing all real world information out of the fictional character biographies, including their appearances in other media, what actor plays them, ETC, with the exception of vital real world information. Don't panic! All of the information I have removed is easily retrievable through the article edit history and all of the information that doesn't go in a fictional biography can be given its own section. I plan on making this article reach Wikipedia standards and plan on adding citations, fixing the sloppiness of the article, and more.

I am also taking the time to remove unnecessary, trivial and random information that doesn't belong. Edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding another table

I'm thinking of splitting the Classic Rogues Gallery table into two smaller sections. One section would continue to be the Classic Rogues Gallery, while the other would be Other Major Adversaries. The reason I wish to do this is because there are a number of villains that I don't think can really be called "classic" Batman villains that aren't obscure enough to go in Foes of Lesser renown.

The Classic Rogues Gallery would continue to include characters like Bane, Black Mask, the Joker, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Two Face, Riddler, ETC. Other Major Adversaries would include characters like Anarky, Rag Doll, Great White Shark, Catman, Copperhead, ETC.

Are there any objections? Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Every Batman villain ever

This may be useful in expanding this article with more villains. Just make sure any characters you add are verifiable. DarkKnight2149 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Overhauled to be by Debut

This article should be overhauled and rearranged to be by date of debut and not by alphabetical order. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Might I ask why? I'm sure you have a solid reason for such a suggestion, but I'm not sure what it is. DarkKnight2149 23:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of Batman Family adversaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725183550/http://comicsalliance.com/rocksteady-hints-that-hush-is-the-main-villain-of-the-next-batman-arkham-game/ to http://comicsalliance.com/rocksteady-hints-that-hush-is-the-main-villain-of-the-next-batman-arkham-game/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724072324/http://whatculture.com/comics/7-reasons-batman-hush-completely-overrated.php to http://whatculture.com/comics/7-reasons-batman-hush-completely-overrated.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723135528/http://whatculture.com/comics/10-things-dc-comics-want-forget-joker%E2%80%8F.php to http://whatculture.com/comics/10-things-dc-comics-want-forget-joker%E2%80%8F.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225115758/http://comicsalliance.com/gerry-conway-dc-royalty-system-caitlin-snow/ to http://comicsalliance.com/gerry-conway-dc-royalty-system-caitlin-snow/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712023950/http://whatculture.com/gaming/batman-arkham-knight-dlc-leak-mr-freeze-ras-al-ghul-red-hood-to-return.php to http://whatculture.com/gaming/batman-arkham-knight-dlc-leak-mr-freeze-ras-al-ghul-red-hood-to-return.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712183400/http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-248-mister-freeze-villain-reinvention/ to http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-248-mister-freeze-villain-reinvention/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413112931/http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-170-the-penguin-batman-dc/ to http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-170-the-penguin-batman-dc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725063141/http://whatculture.com/comics/10-things-dc-comics-want-forget-two-face.php to http://whatculture.com/comics/10-things-dc-comics-want-forget-two-face.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723131328/http://whatculture.com/film/new-batman-movie-10-villains-well-never-see-on-screen.php to http://whatculture.com/film/new-batman-movie-10-villains-well-never-see-on-screen.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150917075552/http://comicsalliance.com/the-arkham-sessions-the-psychology-of-o-c-d-in-batman-the-clock-king/ to http://comicsalliance.com/the-arkham-sessions-the-psychology-of-o-c-d-in-batman-the-clock-king/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713145234/http://comicsalliance.com/kgbeast-to-appear-in-batman-v-superman-maybe-be-the-best-thing-in-it/ to http://comicsalliance.com/kgbeast-to-appear-in-batman-v-superman-maybe-be-the-best-thing-in-it/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gamesradar.com/the-28-hidden-characters-in-batman-arkham-asylum/?page=3y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706070526/http://whatculture.com/comics/10-strangest-batman-villains-of-all-time.php to http://whatculture.com/comics/10-strangest-batman-villains-of-all-time.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912075708/http://comicsalliance.com/batman-700-annotations/ to http://comicsalliance.com/batman-700-annotations/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126052458/http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-sequel-3-actors-who-could-play-hugo-strange.php to http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-sequel-3-actors-who-could-play-hugo-strange.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054657/http://whatculture.com/comics/batman-detective-comics-17-review.php to http://whatculture.com/comics/batman-detective-comics-17-review.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923023913/http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-villains/ to http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-villains/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929135335/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=89148 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=89148
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516142852/http://batman.ugo.com/roguesgallery/default.asp to http://batman.ugo.com/roguesgallery/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Batman Family adversaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211183237/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=144154 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=144154

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Abattoir (comics) be merged into List of Batman Family adversaries . I think that the content in the Abattoir (comics) article can easily be explained in the context of List of Batman Family adversaries, and the List of Batman Family adversaries article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Abattoir (comics) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Plus, the character Abattoir is not as well-known as other Batman villains like The Joker, Two-Face, or Ra's al Ghul.NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak: "Abattoir" is already listed, and the Abattoir (comics) article relies almost exclusively on plot summary. If notability is the issue, you should propose the article for deletion and expand Abbatoir's fictional biography section on this article. DarkKnight2149 03:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion and redirect it is then.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak: I went ahead with the merge. Apparently, there was already a consensus to merge the article back when Abattoir (comics) was proposed for deletion. However, for whatever reason, nobody got around to doing it. A year later, a user who didn't agree with the merge removed the template, and then added this to the article's Talk Page. Given that no formal discussions took place to have the article reinstated, this merger should have happened several years ago but simply slipped by without anyone noticing. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. DarkKnight2149 23:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs a complete reworking

This page is a joke and needs a complete reworking.

The "Classic Rogues Gallery" is said to be the "most enduring and iconic" of Batman's foes. How can anyone place such characters as Black Mask, Calendar Man, Cluemaster, Firefly, or Killer Moth in that group? Yes, there have been some good stories about them, even very important stories, but they aren't in the same league as Joker, Two-Face, etc. Deadshot is a great character but he was unused for decades as a Bat-villain and only gained prominence as a member of the Suicide Squad, a team which generally did not face off against heroes. Deathstroke is a Titans villain, which makes him secondarily a Nightwing villain, but he's not high profile enough as a Bat-villain for that spot. Solomon Grundy falls under the same idea as he is primarily a (Golden Age) Green Lantern villain and secondarily a Justice Society villain.

I have no clue why "Morrison era" and "New 52" are considered important enough to have their own sections. The distinction between "Recurring" and "Lesser Renown" is not explained. There's no reason for these four sections not to be combined into one.

There is a separate listing for mobsters and such, yet various crime families (such as the Falcones) are mixed into the "Teams" section. Either ditch the "Mobsters" section or move any crime family types from Teams to Mobsters.

The "Allies in conflict" section should be dismantled. Aside from Superman there is no reason the rest couldn't just be mixed in with the rest of the adversaries. The fact that Jason Todd was Robin for a while should not preclude him from being in the general list, just as the fact that Harvey Dent's working with Batman during his time as a DA doesn't keep Two-Face out of the villain list. As for Superman himself, there is no reason for him to be listed here at all. Lots of heroes have come into conflict with each other in comics over the years. Lots of them specifically with Batman. Why is Superman included here but not the JLA (see Identity Crisis) or Guy Gardner (see the "one-punch" fight from the old JLI)?--Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The characters you named in the first paragraph have always been central members of Batman's rogues gallery, with the possible exception of Cluemaster. "Morrison era" and "New 52 and Beyond" represent characters that are too recent to be categorised as obscure or as central villains. Specific mobsters are mentioned in the mobsters section (just as specific villains go in the other sections), and entire crime families go in the teams. I don't know what's difficult to understand about that. Deathstroke isn't simply a Titans villain. He's a DC Universe villain that also happens to go against Batman and the Batman Family on a regular enough basis. "Lesser renown" is obvious enough - It refers to completely obscure, or one-off characters.

As for all of the other "problems" you mentioned, I should probably mention that the article has been in the process of being reworked for quite a while. I'd say the article has come pretty far, and you didn't give enough reason to start everything over from scratch. You should have seen the article BEFORE it was reworked. Now that was a mess. DarkKnight2149 22:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

1) Again, how are you defining "central members of Batman's rogues gallery"? Considering that the section describes its contents as Batman's "most enduring and iconic foes", I have to ask how Killer Moth can be considered "iconic".

2) If the Morrison era and New 52 villains haven't appeared enough, then they are "obscure" by definition.

3) An organized crime family as different from a supervillain team and I would never have expected them to be listed there. Especially since there is an organized crime section. I would expect each mob family to be listed there with all of its members and operatives.

4) Okay, so Deathstroke's a "DC Universe villain", that makes him even less of a Batman-specific villain and should definitely exclude him from the "Classic rogues gallery"

5) Looking over the recurring and lesser renown sections there are several that I would switch from one to the other. It just seems too subjective to keep them separate. Unless you rigidly define it in terms of number of issues appeared in. And then it becomes necessary to keep it up to date. --Khajidha (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

1) Batman's main recurring foes, though I can see how an argument can be made to move Moth to "Other recurring foes". As for Black Mask, Calendar Man, and Firefly, those are undoubtedly key members of Batman's rogues gallery. Don't confuse a lack of movie adaptations for "lesser known".

2) It's not a matter of appearances, it's a matter of how recently they were created. And, at this point, characters like Professor Pyg or The Dollmaker are hardly obscure given the amount of attention they have received. We're not going to jump the gun, nor should we add new characters to "Foes of Lesser Renown" by default, only to either shuffle them around later or for them to still be there years later when they are no longer obscure. There's no longevity in that.

3) No, specific characters go in the plainclothes criminals section, just as with every other section. The "Teams" section is for villainous teams in general, and crime families most certainly fit the bill.

4) Deathstroke has fought the Batman family on a fairly regular basis throughout the decades, including Batman himself. I'd say that perfectly justifies a spot in this article. It's not like this only happens every once in a blue moon.

5) That can easily be discussed. It's not just about the number of appearances, but also rather their status as a character. For instance, Zebra Man has made many appearances and is still a pretty obscure character that isn't recurring enough to appear in the "Other recurring foes" section or notable enough to be in any other section. DarkKnight2149 20:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

1) The criteria still seem vague. I can see those 3 as important, but not iconic.

2) Sounds like crystal balling to me. And they wouldn't be left in lesser renown or moved around, they'd just be mixed in with all the costumed villains other than those that truly have a high profile (maybe 10 or so major villains)

3) I see the mob families as being more like the League of Assassins, who aren't in the teams section.

4) Not saying he doesn't belong in the article, just not as a central rogues gallery villain.

5) Seems too open to interpretation. Aside from major villains with super high profiles that even non-fans recognize, I can't see how to make the classifications objective. And I could even be persuaded to nix that "central rogues" section. Maybe just "super/costmed villains", "mobsters and common criminals", and "corrupt cops/politicians". --Khajidha (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

2) It's the exact opposite of crystal balling. "Crystal balling" would be immediately categorising newly created characters. And many of the newly created characters are already getting plenty of media and comic book attention, such as the Court of Owls, Dollmaker, Professor Pyg, ETC, so there would be shuffling.

3) If you want to create a separate teams section for mob families, go ahead. Seems unnecessary.

4) Wasn't Deathstroke a member of the League of Assassins at one point? Perhaps we can move him there.

5) The most obscure characters that don't fit any of the other categories go there. Simple. And there's no 100% clear cut objective way to do this. Putting all of the villains into a single a list and then listing them alphabetically would be long and messy. It should be noted that, when I was citing everything, the characters in the first two categories were the easiest to cite. The majority of the lesser renown are virtually uncovered by third party sources (albeit not all). DarkKnight2149 01:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2) I'm not categorizing them (beyond the purely obvious supervillain vs mobster vs corrupt cop), I'm putting them with other supervillains. All other supervillains.

3) I'm working on that in my sandbox. Along with all the other changes I'm advocating.

4) Sounds okay.

5) Categories that are very POV to start with. The "clear cut objective way" is either ALL villains together or possibly supervillains vs mobsters vs corrupt cops. Clear, easily definable criteria. The current way is long, too. And these POV groupings are far messier than alphabetical would be. Especially since the list could be broken into subtables by letter (see International recognition of Kosovo#Entities that do not recognise Kosovo as an independent state for an example of such an alphabetically separated list. --Khajidha (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Right now, you are the only one in support of this. If you can gather a consensus among the WikiProject, then have at it. DarkKnight2149 19:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Regarding the "classic rogues gallery", per Wikipedia policy, the only criteria that should matter is that reliable sources describe these criminals as such (e.g. describing them as one of the most "classic"/"iconic"/"enduring" etc). Right now the list does seem arbitrary because a lot of the citations seem arbitrary. E.g. Calendar Man is listed in the classic rogues gallery, yet the cited source for his inclusion says nothing about him being classic/iconic etc. All the source says is that he is "one of Batman’s more ridiculous villains", which shouldn't automatically qualify him for the classic rogues gallery. None of the other sources in his entry also claim him to be classic/iconic/enduring. In fact one of the sources even calls him the worse Batman villain, noting that "How sad that Holiday gained far more notoriety than the Calendar Man ever could." So I agree that the classic rogues gallery needs an major overhaul, in the sense that it needs to be properly SOURCED to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Darkknight2149: as well. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: A very reasonable stance. Certain characters, like Calendar Man, can be moved to Other recurring adversaries per that reasoning. As previously noted, the characters in the first two sections are the ones that are most covered by third party sources (with the exception of a few recent characters listed in New 52 and Beyond, that are too recent to be categorised). DarkKnight2149 04:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I don't want to jump the gun and move anybody yet. I'm just looking to properly source the list first. And if no proper sources can be found for some of the entries, then the argument could certainly be made to move them to other list. But that's for another time.... Bennv3771 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into all the cited sources in the "Classic Rogues Gallery" list and removed all the sources that made no claim that said entry is one of "the Batman Family's most enduring and iconic adversaries" (which was most of the sources). I tried to find reliable sources to replace the removed ones where I could, and added "citation needed" tags where I could not. Please help to find reliable sources that support the unsourced entries' inclusions as "the Batman Family's most enduring and iconic adversaries", otherwise as per Wikipedia policy, the unsourced entries can be removed by anyone. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the sources there were to cite the character's existence in general. DarkKnight2149 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems like overkill. In this case, inline sources are only required for content that is likely to be challenged. The existence of these villains isn't going to be challenged by any reasonable person, moreover they all have their own standalone Wikipedia articles that are full of citations to verify their existence. Also, the "first appearance" and "fictional biography" columns already have sources that verify their existence. What is likely to be challenged in this case (and has already been challenged in this talk page), is whether or not a villain qualifies as a "classic" Batfamily villain and hence that is what needs to be verified by reliable sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hence why certain characters will be cited or moved to the other section in a reasonable timeframe. DarkKnight2149 17:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Batman Family adversaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701155947/https://www.readdcentertainment.com/Batman-Vengeance-of-Bane-1-of-2/digital-comic/0035400015001 to https://www.readdcentertainment.com/Batman-Vengeance-of-Bane-1-of-2/digital-comic/0035400015001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150718061433/http://screenrant.com/batman-movie-villains-list-discussion-scott-176844/8/ to http://screenrant.com/batman-movie-villains-list-discussion-scott-176844/8/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210953/http://www.craveonline.com/art/153984-detective-comics-841 to http://www.craveonline.com/art/153984-detective-comics-841

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Image

This image, [8], is a better fit for the infobox in my opinion. It shows a wider spectrum of Batman villains, instead of the main rogues gallery - especially since this is an article for "Batman Family adversaries." Also, the characters from the current image are mostly obscured in blackness. Finally, the proposed image is a higher quality piece of art. As pointed out in an earlier discussion, the current image looks cartoonish and not a well depicted representation. DrRC (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the current image is better since it shows the typical Batman adversaries and does not specifically need a wider spectrum. The characters are not obscured in blackness, but are shown in bright colors so readers can easily distinguish them from each other. The new image drowns the characters out in hues of reds to purples, instead of their normal color characteristics, making it hard for readers to distinguish characters from each other. If I felt this image was on par with the current image or better, I would have not reverted, but I feel this image is well below in quality for illustrating the adversaries. If a consensus is found here that the new image is better or a brand new image is the best, I will happily abide by it. Aspects (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I truly hate to disagree with my colleague DrRC. I find the proposed image to be so highly stylized that the characters don't exhibit their traditional "on-model" look, and its so tinted as to make it hard to differentiate among them. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, your input is always insightful and well-thought-out. It would be great to find a photo with a larger number of characters in full view, perhaps one without Batman in the image. Consensus favors the current image, and I appreciate and respect the views of both you and Aspects regarding this issue. DrRC (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Batman Family adversaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723100500/http://heroclix.com/heroclix/dc-heroclix-justice-league-trinity-war/dc-heroclix-justice-league-trinity-war-suicide-squad-strategy-article/ to http://heroclix.com/heroclix/dc-heroclix-justice-league-trinity-war/dc-heroclix-justice-league-trinity-war-suicide-squad-strategy-article/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712185119/http://heroclix.com/heroclix/preview/dc-heroclix-batman-kgbeast/ to http://heroclix.com/heroclix/preview/dc-heroclix-batman-kgbeast/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150909120712/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/12/11/arrow-who-is-merlyn/ to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/12/11/arrow-who-is-merlyn/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131233505/http://heroclix.com/heroclix/preview/dc-heroclix-streets-of-gotham-assassins-team-pack/ to http://heroclix.com/heroclix/preview/dc-heroclix-streets-of-gotham-assassins-team-pack/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Batman Family adversaries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712070620/http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/177687-top-10-villains-we-want-to-see-in-the-next-batman-game to http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/177687-top-10-villains-we-want-to-see-in-the-next-batman-game
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927215632/http://www.craveonline.com/art/172615-review-batman-and-robin-26 to http://www.craveonline.com/art/172615-review-batman-and-robin-26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210954/http://www.craveonline.com/art/180211-review-batman-inc-leviathan-strikes to http://www.craveonline.com/art/180211-review-batman-inc-leviathan-strikes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Victor Zsasz

While I know exactly who Mr. Zsasz is, I find heavy fault with his description as a "Classic Rogue". Most regular people will instantly recognize the majority of the other villains, but I doubt Mr. Zsasz will generate even close to the same reaction as Joker, Bane, Penguin, or even Killer Moth. Not to mention that after several hours of research I have not found a single source even insinuating that he is one of the longest running and most notorious villains in the Batman mythos; in fact, I have found the opposite: many sources claim that he is not very well known at all. I propose that he be moved to "Recurring Adversaries". MasterHedgehog76 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@MasterHedgehog76: Late reply ... but anyway since Victor Zsasz's inclusion in the Classic Rogues section is unsourced, you can be bold and moved it to another section on your own. If anyone disagrees they can always provide a reliable source and revert/discuss. FWIW, I previously tried and failed to find a reliable source to verify Zsasz's inclusion as well. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll probably do it when I have the chance (right now I'm secretly editing at school). MasterHedgehog76 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Made some edits.

Two rogues lacked citations on why they should be in the central rogues gallery. Those were Firefly and Victor Zsasz. These rogues were transferred to recurring enemies list. If anyone provides the citation for those two. I will immediately revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.92.194 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Huntress (Paula Brooks)

I removed a reference to Who's Who Update '87 #1 stating that Paula Brooks was the daughter of the Zatara foe The Huntress, as this was retracted by a note in the Appendix in issue #5 of the same series. Just leaving this here in hopes that it will prevent anyone from readding the note. --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul

Looking at this page, I see that it has been said before, but I agree that it is badly in need of an overhaul. We are 10 years out from the Morrison era, and it is still given a special prominence. Characters who have made one appearance are listed amongst 'classic rogues gallery' because they happen to use the same name as another character (How many Clayfaces are actually classic?). The alphabetical listing within the arbitrary categories makes it appear that Anarky is on the same level as the Joker, and much more important than Joe Chill.

A listing in order of first appearance, broken down by decade, and with potentially a minimum number of appearances (5? with exceptions for truly notable characters that pass WP:GNG) would remove all subjective elements from the list. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think such a chronological listing would make it harder to find particular enemies. Alphabetical by codename would be better. Maybe a table sortable by either name or date of introduction. If a character has changed codenames, a full listing at their initial codename with a "See:OTHERNAME" link would be appropriate.--Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this idea. A good example of this would be the List of DC Comics characters. Thinking back on it, that's probably how this list should've been handled from the beginning.

(161.29.246.205 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC))

I think a good place to start is simply cutting the "allies in conflict" section. Aside from Bat-Mite (who was created as an atagonist, albeit a more sympathetic one), the others are just fellow heroes who have sometimes fought Batman. One of the most common tropes in comics is heroes fighting each other, you could list most other heroes from DC (and quite a few from beyond) in this section. There is nothing special here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Another obvious trim is the reformed section. A note in each character's write up would seem sufficient. Even after these characters reform in the mainstream DC comics, they are often still presented as villains in alternative timelines and other media. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, first, this page's name should be changed from "enemies" to "adversaries", because not all of them qualify for the definition of wikt:enemy.

Second, I think we should have the clearly notable (per Verifiable Reliable Sources) adversaries in a section at the top.

And then there are a few clear time line benchmarks for splitting the rest: a.) Initial (Golden age and early Silver age - 1940s, 50s, 60s); b.) pre-crisis (Bronze age, Neal Adams et al, era - 1970s, early 80s); b.) post-crisis (New earth - late 80s, 90s, early 2000s); c.) post infinite-crisis (the return of the multiverse - and other-earth versions might need to be noted - 2005, late 2000s); Flashpoint/New 52 (2011); Convergence (2015 and onward)

Why these splits? Because the characters (and the world around them) were fundamentally changed. And - it could be argued - in each case, it was a different Batman Family they were adversaries to. So, for example, while an overview of the Joker might be in the top section, an entry showing the character might be appropriate in each section. Because for each, the Joker was quite different. And this is true for many other adversaries. And it's not surprising. Often the editors and writing staff used the opportunity of universe-change to be able to write the characters in a different direction, without the baggage of past character history/motivations.

Or in other words, we would be providing much-needed context. - jc37 19:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That much detail doesn't belong here, it belongs in the article for the Joker. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say go into detail. This is an overview page. So context is important. see also WP:SS. - jc37 20:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not context, it's excessive detail. The Joker write up should be something like: "The Joker is Batman's most well known adversary. Debuting in Batman #1 (March 1940), he has the appearance of a clown. Over the years he has been presented in varying ways, from a basically harmless prankster to a sadistic serial killer. He is often presented as considering Batman his only worthy adversary." This isn't the DC wiki (where I also edit) and need not get bogged down in the weeds of the continuity so much. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a parody but a serious Wikipedia article?

Seriously? With WAY longer talk section than e.g. Nuclear power plant?

I see. Soulman (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)