Talk:Batman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Batman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2004.


WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
P:C This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Comics Portal.
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Batman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


[edit] Article contrents

I've noticed a debate on this page about whether the batman article ought to include information about the portrayel of the batman character as found in media other than the comic book in this article. There is at least one person who was arguing that this page was solely about the Bataman charcter in comics. if that is the case then this article does NOT belong at Batman' but at Batman (comicbook character). Understand that a VERY large number of people are familair with batman ONLY because of the movies and/or animated series. If the characters of Batman in those media are so different that having a shared base information article with links to medium-specific information pages is not possible, then the page Batman should be a disabmib page linking to complete independent articles fulling describing batman in each medium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.241.199 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree to some extent. The headings and subheadings do not make it clear that this page refers mainly to the comic book version. If it's going to be about him, it should be clearer. Ccm043 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most material about the character has come from comic books.A gx7 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Movies and TV shows come and go. Their internal canon is temporary. The Batman character's ongoing history is in comics. Even when retcons get introduced, they have an ongoing history that remains tied together. Beyond the changes exists some form of ongoing continuity. Doczilla 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the very first line on the article is This article is about the comic book character. For other uses, see Batman (disambiguation). Literacy. Not just for kids! :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise Page?

There is no page for the franchise as a whole. There is a page for the character Batman, there is a page for the Batman comic series, there is a page for the animated series and movie series, but I can't find a page for the franchise as a whole.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.107.160 (talk • contribs).

This article is that. The rest are sub-articles. I don't know what else you might mean by franchise. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

[edit] BatmanYTB

Ok, I'd like to know what is considered Spam links. The Website Batmanytb.com is used as refrences for several articles including the Batplane and Batboat, however it is condered a spam link on the main Batman feature. The site is an archive full of history. The link is in no way promoting the site. It is there for the same purpose of the following site.

Don Markstein's Toonopedia: Batman - This site is one page about the Golden Age Batman

Aaron Severson's The Golden Age Batman Chronology

The Earth-One Index: Batman - This site is a few of the Golden Age comics summerized.

Netage.org: "Batman: The Masks of the Gods" by Michael A. Rizzotti

Batmantrades.com Chronological list of Batman comic book compilations - This site is nothing more than a site full of Amazon links.

Just wanted to say that I've been using this website as a personal reference for a while now and while it does contain amazon links, it's also the most accurate and complete (and easy to use) reference of its kind that I've found. I've found it via several batman-related discussion boards so I've definitely seen lots of other people that use it and find it valuable as well. 68.48.82.132 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The site has details on everything from Action Figures to Comics. So, before removing the link, please let us know why it is considered Spam. In fact, on the main Superman Supermanhomepage.com, is listed, it's a fan site site. Please look over the sites before you delete them. - Chris 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Beyond

Hi Chris. The primary issue here is that you, as the proprietor of Batmanytb, are adding your own webpage to this encyclopedia article. No matter how topical your website, this is spam, which is verboten here as a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that only the most high-quality, encyclopedic and most worthy of note links should be in the external links section of Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a driectory or an indiscriminate collection of information. I myself would not include several of the links you listed.
Being a fansite is only one problem regarding promoting your site here. As you know, there are fansites, then there are fansites, and then there are fansites. There's the scummy ones no one wants to look at, there are the high-quality ones (such as yours) which are great contributions to the internet, and there are ones (such as Aaron Severson's) that are very informative and professional -- these are not only relevant to the topic of the article, but are also relevant to the tone and purpose of an encyclopedia. I am of the opinion that only the last kind of fansite should be included on Wikipedia. ~CS 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say thank you for replying. I was unaware that site owners could not add links to their own site, and for that I am sorry. I'm problem is that, while yes, we are a fan site, our History section goes far beyond what any of the other sites have. Our Comics archive is one of the largest, and to be honest, we have one of the most detailed sites out there. No, if it's just a problem of being a "fan site" then that falls into another problem altogether. But, like I said above, we are used has a refrence for several articles. And I didn't do that. In fact, I haven't added hardly any of the links, except for the main Batman feature. My complaint is mostly, that if my site is going to be removed, then others on this feature and on other features, (not just Batman related) need to be removed. Or maybe a link to the history page would be more informative? I am not trying to "promote" the website, (I usally get about 5 to 10 hits a day from Wikipedia, so I'm not in it for the hits) I just want it to be there as a resource. Anyway, I'm rambled on. Thanks again. Chris 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post, I removed my site because I do not want to be blocked for spam. Chris 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you guys agree that the high quality fansites should remain linked, why was Batman: YTB deleted again? With all due respect, Aaron Severson's site is very cluttered, primitively designed, and, in my opinion, no better than BYTB. So what's the decision? 205.221.67.193 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This really ticks me off. Non BYTB are adding the link, then Ace ETP deletes it, calls it link spam, then Dwanyewest adds it, and Ace deletes it again. And can't even comment on on it here. Personally, I thknk he has something again my site. Chris 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely that it's a personal vendetta. After a link has been hotly debated, or reverted, there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to it for a while. Also remember, since ANYONE can make an account and ANYONE can edit this page, we have no way of knowing if that 'non BYTB' person is actually a non or not :) Also, take a look at what CS2 said. Your site falls into the middle realm of high-quality, but just shy of professional. My suggestion is to let someone else raise the topic in a little while, but to take a break and step out for now. I'll mention to Ace that we're chatting about it here, but he's under no obligation to talk. If he ends up going against what's decided here, then it'd be something to stink about. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea I'm done, I mean, the only PROFESSIONAL site out there is the official. I love BOF, It's a great site, and the best out there for new regarding Batman films, however it's not a professional site. It's a little nerve racking when other articles have sites listed that suck, and Batman can't have any sites because they aren't "professional" But, thats it. Thanks for the insight!Chris 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's your site, though, right? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- I used the word "professional" as a descriptor to indicate a grade of sophistication, learnedness, and informativeness above and beyond the average. It was not my intention that the word be used to infer the webmasters need be career professionals involved in maintaining their pages for financial reasons. ~CS 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Beyond, let me apologise if my edits have given you the impression that I had some sort of vendetta against your site. I had no idea that a discussion regarding its inclusion in the External Links section was ongoing until recently, when User:Ipstenu contacted me. That being said, I kept removing the link to your fansite because I felt it was inappropiate that it was listed in the same section as DC's official Batman website, and Batman-On-Film (which is probably the only Batman fan site that has ever been mentioned in a Time Warner press release). I removed links to other sites (of admittedly lesser quality) for the same reason. --Ace ETP 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I can understand, and I can apperacate you keeping the links page clean from poor fan sites. I don't for my site, but, I can't do anything about that. Your only doing what your supose to do. I do wish the otehr DC characters pages were taken care of like this. Everyone except for Batman has all kinds of links to Fan sites and poorly done sites. Maybe they can learn from you guys! Chris 08:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. I said I was done, but this as kinda for lack of better words, ticked me off. Dark Knight is the premire FAN site. It is no more different than BatmanYTB. His site was mentioned on a few TV Series, ok, my site was mentioned in the NY Times, Wizard, and a few others. I am considered Media to Warner Brothers, yet my site is on the edge? I mean, BYTB actually goes into great deatil about the history of Batman, Bios, Comics, Toys. I am REALLY confused. Acording to this: Links normally To Be Advoided My site matches maybe #1, otherwise NONE of those. I understand, it's a conflict of intrest, so thats why I won't add my site, but I do think it shuold be listed as a resource. I'm only bringing this up again because there are only a couple of quialty Batman sites out there, and when you have a resource, it should be used. Chris 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I say on this last night. Beyond (or Chris, whatever you prefer), the issue we had with your link was that you added it. And then we said it would be best to step back, and let someone else bring it up. This is a little opposite of what happened with Pbfurlong. Someone else added it, he didn't know the rules, readded it, found out the rules, deleted it and then asked here what was up. I know it looks really similar, but it is different. And in the shades of grey, insanity lies. Anyway. Is your site quality? I think it's good. Is it notable? It's on page 3 of a google search of 'batman', which isn't the be-all and end-all, but my gut feeling is that a page 1 google link is best. I'm biased, I admit this, and if another editor wants to argue it, I tend not to hold by it as Moses' law :) Now. I'm more than willing to add your link if we can prove some notability :) Can you share links of those articles, or copies if they're offline? I was unable to find any. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darknight.ca

So a long time ago, someone put in a link to my website (The Dark Knight) in the links section. I have no idea who did it, or when (I haven't bothered to go through the immense edit history to find out). The someone took it out, then someone put it back, and so on and so forth. One day I was here, noticed it was gone, and added it myself. Is this a problem? My site is not a commercial site, it is quite encyclopedic, and has been in the top three to six links returned by Google on a search for "Batman" for years. My site has appeared on television a few times, has been reviewed by over 20 magazines (back in those days), and so on. Should my site not be allowed to have a link here? It's not just a directory or an attempt to get referrals from Amazon? And, should it matter whether I add or delete the link to the page myself? And why is someone constantly removing it without noting in the edit summary why they are removing it? I'd appreciate any feedback that more experienced Wikipedians could provide. --Pbfurlong 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that someone took my newest link off today with the edit summary of "Google Ads site." So I'm not allowed to help pay for my Internet connection with small text ads, be one of the top Batman sites on the web, and be linked to be Wikipedia? Please reference the rule about this for me --Pbfurlong 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're not supposed to add links to your own site. That's a conflict of interest. You can read more detail here. Anyway, give it more than a day for people to weigh in, please :) A quick google shows me that your site is the first hit on the second page ... which makes adding it in a little hazy. I'm fine with it being there. Does any other editor want to weigh in? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being there, too. If your site has been covered so much, provide me with some references, and I will look at creating an article for it.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ipstenu's right. You shouldn't add links to your own site. Mentioning here, as Pbfurlong has, is appropriate. I'm adding the link. So far, the only people to weight in are "fine" with it. We'll see what happens. Doczilla 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I wasn't the person who originally added it to the page - I just found out about it when my web log analyzer showed me that there was a link and that hundreds of people were using it a month. I don't think I'm quite vain enough to want an article about my site though! --Pbfurlong 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this in?

Must you mar Batman with this needless part about Gays? He is obviously NOT a gay character since he wasn't created to be. There for it is pathetic speculation you don't need. Does anyone agree or disagree with me on this? Legolad3451 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Legolad3451

FAs need to be comprehensive and neutral in nature. Wiki-newbie 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It also stops being 'speculation' when it's published outside Wikipedia. The fact that a book makes a hoopla about it means that it deserves mentioned. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated over and over again. This is an unavoidable part of the history of Batman. Please look through the talk archives for extensive debate about why this needs to be here. Nobody's claiming Batman is gay. Simnel 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody except Frederick Wertham, and possibly Joel Schumacher. And George Clooney, with tongue in cheek. ;)—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Now, Mr. Rowe, I'm afraid that is just misleading. There are many editors of this Wikipedia article who are saying Batman is gay. here here and here, for starters. ~CS 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And true. I stand corrected. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Legolad is of course right that we shouldn't be speculating. But we're not. The point, which we've addressed many times and will have to address again, is that historically the speculation by people like Wertham influenced history itself. No, the character's not not not not gay. Wertham's speculation, however, altered the way DC Comics and others did business. (Admittedly, the Clooney quote did not shape the history of anything.) Doczilla 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If we know that Batman's not gay (which anyone with half a brain does), and that Werham's idiotic claims are the sole reason for this controversey, why does the Homosexual Interpretations section need to be so extensive? It's as if people tried to find any information or speculation they possibly could on this which gives a much bigger effect than the reality of it. I imagine people have come across this article and started seriously considering whether or not Batman is truly gay due to how unnecessarily lengthy it is. 205.221.67.193 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish it weren't here because it made me question myself, and I'm not sure I like what I found. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Refraining from gay jokes ... as a serious answer however, if reading the section on homosexuality makes you re-consider your own interpretations of various superheros, then we have done the correct thing as an encyclopedia. In order to not give precedence one view over another, and thus color everyone's thoughts on a matter, we must, as responsible writers, take all possible truths into consideration. We done good :)
All that said, just as Batman's Love Interests have taken off into their own page, it may be appropriate to move the brunt of the homosexuality section to it's own article, name it 'Homosexual Interpretations in Comics', and include some of the discussion about Robin (which I think is on the Robin page), as well as any that has been done on Wonder Woman and Superman, just to name a few. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that whoever did the Homosexual part is quite intrested in the matter of Homosexuality, he of course wants to speculate on batman, so why not put it in wiki? It needs to be taken out.Legolad3451 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Legolad

What specific parts of this section to you regard as speculation? ~CS 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance

There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] PHOTO

I am just bringing this up. I love the Jim Lee photo of Batman. But it has been up for ages. I notice it sits juxtaposed in reverse to Jim Lee's artwork of Superman on the Superman page. Would it be too much to ask for a vote on whether the artwork should be changed? Jim Lee is a fantastic artist, but he does'nt have artistic license on Batman does he?? I think there are other representations of the character by other artists that are just as good. --Hokgwai 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any photographs by Jim Lee on this page. However, I like the drawing by him that's in the infobox. It doesn't get much more basic-portrait-of-the-character than this. If you feel like there should be a change, perhaps it would be better to raise examples of what images would be more appropriate? ~CS 23:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBatman_1fd0.html"