Template talk:Batman in popular media
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Comics / DC Comics / Batman||(Rated Template-class)|
Birds of Prey
Batman barely appeared in flashback in Birds of Prey. Even so, the series is a Bat-show. Set in Gotham City (called New Gotham for no good reason), it stars his daughter, Alfred, Batgirl, and (recurring) Harley Quinn, all of whom are Bat-characters, with appearances by Catwoman (also in flashback), Clayface, and the Joker. However, it does not fit the theme of the template because it did not star Batman. The Live-action television list is short enough that there's plenty of room for Birds of Prey. I'm just wary of adding it because then the issue will come up about various cartoons Batman appeared in without being the central character. Doczilla 09:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Aren't comic books a form of popular media? ike9898 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Mask of the Phantasm
Mask was a feature length film released in theaters. Shouldn't it be in the "films" table rather than simply "animation"? It seems less accurate to group it with the animated series just because it was a cartoon. Perhaps things should be changed to "film" and "television". 184.108.40.206 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Also, the TV shows were shot on film. "Live-action movies" is more accurate for the "films" section and would address both points. Doczilla 07:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Zeta Project and Static Shock
Previously, I'd made an edit to the template subcategorizing the Batman films and live serials to include two subcategories of Tim Burton's Batman series and Christopher Nolan's series. This change would, I believe, aid readers because it clearly demonstrates the connection between a given set of Batman franchise media. Other users agree, as we can see by templates such as Template:DC Comics films, which serves as a current testament to the usefulness of this style of organization. KFan II (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- First, you may want to look very closely at that other template, its structure, and its content.
- Second, frankly the splitting shouldn't have been done there either. It's a level of fine graining that isn't warranted within the navbox.
- Third, Burton's essentially series ended with Batman Returns with the reaming two being Shomaker's. Way too much fin graining. By year range isn't much better but it avoids that arguments.
- Lastly, linking to the director in the 'box isn't going to work. This template isn't going to wind up on those articles and it should not include one-way links.
- - J Greb (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I disagree with this assessment. With regards to the other template, it was changed by you after I pointed it out. Second, I don't believe this to be true. Of course templates do not need to be over-specific, but I think that with regards to something so inherently specific as Batman in non-comic media, a distinction is not adding excessive complexity, and moreover, is helpful to those persons who are not intimately familiar with Batman film adaptations. Third, that is true -- but there should be some way of distinguishing between film series. Nolan's films and Burton's/Shomaker's are different qualitatively, and therefore ought to be distinguished in some way. If one-way linking is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy (which has not been demonstrated), then there are obviously ways that a solution could be discussed. In conclusion, however, I think more opinions are needed on this issue; a back-and-forth will not reach substantive conclusions. KFan II (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:NAV which is used as the general guideline for what Navboxes are, what they are used for, and what they should contain.
- By NAV, links that navigate out of the 'box or 'boxes placed on non-included articles are contrary to navigating among the related articles.
- Current consensus at WP:ACTOR is that listing directors, actors, etc in the body of the 'box is inappropriate as it leads to bloat in the number of 'boxes at the foot of the bio articles.
- Splitting the sections should be considered to ease navigation not just to impart content information. The sectioning by media eliminates the congestion of having all of the articles listed in one mass. The same for splitting "live action" and "animation". Beyond that it's content driven.
- Yes, thank you for pointing out that change.
- And I agree, lets wait for others to chip in.
- - J Greb (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Batman: Year One
The animated straight to video film that is about to come out Batman: Year One needs to be added to the template, all the other original straight to video DC animated films are included. Jyenor86 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|It's a template. 'Nuff said. Doczilla (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)|
Last edited at 12:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Team up clutter
Why was this added back despite the fact that Justice League and other team ups have their own templates and pretty much no other comic book characters are allowed it in their "other media" navboxes"? Why was it reverted back without any reason given?★Trekker (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for any inconvenience. More than happy to engage in a discussion; however, I will be away from the internet for a period of time due to work duties. Would you at least be willing to compromise and keep it the way these were – including the Wonder Woman and Superman templates – until a consensus is found? By all means contact other users, though. If consensus is reached, please change to your edits. Thanks. Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is an incredibly poor reply. You're not remotely motivating your reasoning after adding back the cruft for over and over and have violated the three revert rule, and now you're saying you won't actually be able to discuss this subject at all? You're just expecting me too be ok with the fact that you added back the crust with zero reasoning?★Trekker (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I am truly sorry, I genuinely will not be available for a few days due to insane work schedule. I have given a great deal of thought about it overnight and this morning... and, you are absolutely right. Rather than this getting completely ugly, let's start fresh. Apologies for any inconvenience and I hope we can put this behind us. Tell you what, I'll message you from now on if I'm unsure of any major change, and work together with you. Cartoon Boy (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)