Talk:Batwoman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Batwoman article.
Article policies
Good article Batwoman has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents


[edit] Earth 2

Wikipedia isn't the forum for an Earth 2 debate, but I wanted to at least touch on this issue because it's relevant to the Batwoman page.

In his check-in comment, Timrollpickering wrote:

I don't think it was explicitly stated whether there was a Bat-Girl on Earth 2 - there is deep ambiguity about which world the early 1960s stories took place on....

This ambiguity is due to the fact that 1961-64 was the era of silly sci-fi Batman stories, and it's weird to think that these were the earliest adventures of the Earth 1 Batman. But they certainly weren't adventures of the retired Earth 2 Batman. The easiest solution is that with respect to "official" DC Continuity in the pre-Crisis era, most of these stories simply didn't happen.

But it is not possible to simply take the pre-May 1964 Batman and remove him from Earth 1 entirely. The early Justice League stories are certainly on Earth 1, and Batman was in his old costume during these stories. In fact, Kathy Kane even appears in JLA # 7 (11/61).

Bat-Girl's first appearance was Batman # 139 (4/61), and her revival in the 1970's clearly presumes the old stories are on Earth 1. If there had been an Earth 2 Bat-Girl in 1961, she would have had to flirt with an adult Robin after Batman had already retired. This makes no sense. Lawrence King 12 Mar 2005

This is actually quite a common problem for a lot of DC reboots. In particular the point at which the changeover comes wanders all over the place - for example the Superman of Earth 2 had the Kryptonian name "Kal-L", worked under George Taylor (I think) for the Daily Star and fought a Lew Luthor who had a full head of hair. Yet "Kal-El", Perry Wright, the Daily Planet and bald Luthor were all introduced in the 1940s or early 1950s. Similarly in the post Crisis years numerous problems emerged as pre Crisis heroes wandered around - try explaining Hawkman or Legion of Superheroes Continuity for instance!
I think we would be getting into the problem of retroactive continuity on this one. It's true that the Batman in the early JLA stories does resemble the one who is later identified as Earth 2, but equally quite a few other Bat characters get major revisions from 1964 onwards, with the earlier versions clearly delineated as Earth 2. So really it comes down to what point of thinking we come to. Does anyone know what the early Who's Whos say on this? Timrollpickering 10:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When the Flash launched the E1/E2 crossovers in 1961, it was easy: Flash-2 ran from 1940 to 1949, and Flash-1 began in 1956, and thus anything since 1956 was new-Flash. But once this got going, the writers decided to go back to any traits that distinguished Earth 2 heroes from their counterparts. So you got "Kal-L" and such, but you also got Hawkman wearing the flat mask, which actually only began in the late 1940's, because even though it wasn't his first mask it made him look different than the E1 Hawkman.
The early Who's Whos (and DC Answer Man, etc.) eventually ended up making inconsistent claims. On the one hand, in the 1970's All-Star Comics we saw that the E2 Superman actually couldn't fly, which would mean every story past 1941 was not on E2. On the other hand, in his DC Answer Man column for May 1979 (e.g., Batman # 311), Bob Rozakis answers as follows:
Q. Could you tell me when the Earth-1 Superman, Batman and Flash took over from their Earth-2 counterparts in SUPERMAN, ACTION, BATMAN, DETECTIVE, and FLASH?
A. FLASH is easiest, since it was FLASH # 105 when the new Scarlet Speedster got his own magazine. For Batman it is generally assumed to be BATMAN # 164 and DETECTIVE # 327, the issues Julie Schwartz took over. As for the Man of Steel, I don't think it's ever been officially decided (though I seem to remember somebody saying once that SUPERMAN # 127 was the last Earth-2 adventure). In ACTION, it would have to be before # 252, when Supergirl first appeared.
This was well before the first "Who's Who"s were published. If Rozakis is right, this means E1 Flash began in 10/1956, and E1 Superman began after 2/1959 and no later than 5/1959, and of course the JLA began in 3/1960. But the E1 Batman began 5/1964, after he had been in the JLA for four years? I think this is implausible.
A much better theory would be that the Batman stories from the late 1950's until 1964 simply never happened. That would have been defensible until the late 1970's, when suddenly all the characters that Julie Schwartz had dropped -- Kathy Kane, Betty Kane, Vicki Vale, Bat-Mite -- were revived and Batman clearly remembered knowing them long ago (on Earth 1, of course). Lawrence King 12:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm - we truly have a Hawkman style situation on us! I think it wasn't until later that it was established the Earth 2 Batman retired in the 1950s (and of course time is rather flexible in a comics universe). There is clearly quite a bit of rewriting of the history of the Earth 2 characters to undo changes that were carried forward to Earth 1 - could the late 1950s/early 1960s stories not be seen as part of this? The real problem is that in the early 1960s no-one was bothering to think all this through. We also have the problem that if 1964 isn't the start of the Earth 1 Batman then just when is? (And this has major ramifications for the continuity of a lot of Bat characters.) I can accept the "there were versions of the supporting characters on both worlds" line easily - and in the case of Batwoman this is clearly established in the "Interlude on Earth 2" story. There are quite a number of inconsistencies, with changes being rather ignored in places, but I guess we'd have to do a Hawkman and just fudge the point about who was in the JLA in those early years - maybe Batman in a different costume?
Hope that makes some sense! Timrollpickering 21:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding mention of her post-Crisis: there's a panel in the Planet Krypton issue of The Kingdom that has Batman seeing her "ghost" in the restaurant and saying "Kathy ...?" I'm not sure if this story is considered in-continuity, though.

To make things even more fun, Batwoman appears in an early post-Crisis story (Batman: Killing Joke). She apears in a photograph, along with Bat-Girl (Betty rather than Barbara), Bat-Mite, Batman and Robin. Those appearances most likely don't stand in current continuity, or they may have been washed away by Hypertime, but they are worth mentioning.
That's not that unusual - a lot of comics contain the odd wink to the audience with a panel or two showing someone who couldn't possibly be there. A number of Marvel comics feature their own writers, artists and editors interacting with the characters at time and there are a number of odd panels hat drop blatent hints a DC character is there.
On the costume point I've also just been reminded that there are a few times when both the Silver Age and Post Crisis Batmans were shown with plain black symbols on their chest. In "Earth - Without a Justice League!" (Justice League of America #37) Johnny Thunder's Thunderbolt goes back in time to prevent the superheroes from emerging and encounters Batman on his first case - drawn exactly as he was in Detective #27, even though the present day Batman is shown with the yellow oval (and this story features a team-up between the Earth 1 and Earth 2 characters). Similarly in Batman: Year One he has no oval. So I'd guess that we chalk the early JLA appearances down to Batman not having yet changed the costume, rather than any complicated inter-Earth stuff. Indeed in the very first JLA/JSA team-up the Earth 1 Batman wore what became identified as the Earth 2 costume. Timrollpickering 11:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I see there is an assumption that because, let's say, Earth 1 Batman starts with the issue with the yellow oval, then the issue before that describe the Earth 2 character. It was never that simple. The assumption was that the Earth 1 and 2 Batman and Superman characters shared the same history (since they were continuously published characters unlike Flash) and the above issue were the one where their history diverged.

I was just wondering if there should be a mention of the Earth-Two Batwoman as a distinct and separate character, who was confirmed to exist in Brave and the Bold #182, perhaps in the Alternate Versions section? There's even a website with a scanned page/excerpt from the issue here:

The Golden Age Robin Adventures

Thanks Starmiter (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loving the edit before mine.

Yes, what I added to keep the article neutral, actually makes the whole point kinda moot. --T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post IC costume

There seems to be a lot of disagreement on what belongs in the article regarding the new Batwoman's costume. See Wikipedia:No original research for the reasons why POSSIBLE influences are not appropriate. If you can cite a reference that indicates the creators modelled it after one thing or another, then by all means include it. Otherwise, it's just speculation. CovenantD 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So you can't note similarites in costumes? This is news to me, since may superhero articles say that a character is modeled after their cartoon counterpart, or a hero's costume is very similar to another hero and I never saw any citations or any arguments against them. I do agree about the Batman Beyond and other stuff. I am just a little confused about the thrillkiller reference being speculation. The suits are virtually identical (except TK Batgirl had a bare midriff and no cape). So if you could explain this to me, I would appreciate this, so I can try to better follow the Wiki-rules. Coronis 14:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know what influenced the creators of the version seen in Infinite Crisis #7. I'd love to know what they based it on, but until they speak up it's mere fan speculation. I'd settle for noting similarities without trying to say what influenced it, although because of the basic "Bat" design there's inherent similarities to a LOT of different costumes and they all should be included. That makes it very large. CovenantD 14:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Alternate reality Helena Wayne A Batwoman, apparently a female version of Batman from an alternate Earth, appeared in Superman/Batman #24 (November 2005). Batman recognises her as "Helena", implying that she is her reality's version of the Huntress from the main DC continuity. Although she recognises Batman as "Bruce", it can be assumed that in her reality, Bruce Wayne never became Batman, but circumstances led to Helena taking on the role instead. In her reality, her closest ally is Superwoman.


while Batman identifies her as helena it is stated they have the same dna which would make her the Female equivilant of Bruce wayne.

It's a ridiculous story, which won't affect continuity otherwise, so it doesn't merit a lot of detail. And the DNA thing is utter nonsense. Wryspy 08:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


As I mentioned in my edit at the beginning of the article, Alex Ross based her costume directly off Barbara Gordon's original Batgirl costume. Paul Dini wanted to restore Bab's mobility via Lazarus Pit which in turn would have turned her into a much "darker" character. The color change from gold (cheerful) accents to red (anger) would have symbolized this change in attitude. To date, neither Ross nor Dini have mentioned any connection to the Batman Beyond costume. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batwoman - Wrestler

The only ref I could find was for a stunt wrestler in the B-movie 'Slammed', so I removed the following:

A Batwoman of no relation exists in Spanish media. This Batwoman is a wrestler and government agent whose duty is to stop a mad scientist who has created a sea-creature to terrorize the seas.

If someone can find a reliable source, please add it back and cite it -- Ipstenu 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

check out this link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0235608/. if you type in "mujer murcielago" in google, the promo posters for the movie will show up.

[edit] Too many images

Either too many, or they're badly laid out. Article looks rather a mess as a result, in my opinion. --Oscarthecat 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this version?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batwoman&oldid=55947080 --DrBat 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't switch to that yet, cause the main image with Kate Kane is considered a spoiler. We could take out the dupe of the Kathy Kane (for now) ... or split the page into two more, one for Kate and one for Kathy, though that feels premature. I think the images need a better flow, rather than a removal. Right now we pretty much have one per Batwoman. Except Kathy, but the Kingdom image is pretty important IMO -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Flamebird/Batwoman image? I think the notability of that one is rapidly fading with time (and Superboy's death, thus invalidating the entire future for now). CovenantD 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some theory that the Superman in that arc is the new Superboy Drake is trying to clone, but I wouldn't mind it being taken out, since it's already on the Flamebird page. --DrBat 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty speedy response. Yes, the proposed version look a lot better, images look less randomly-placed. --Oscarthecat 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Flamebird/Batwoman is also on the Flamebird page, so we wouldn't loose it if we removed it from Batwoman. I think it's okay to go away. (Hey, I'm just avoiding work right now ;) ) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. We care about these things! CovenantD 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WHY is the image of Kate considered a spoiler? Regardless of the fact that it has been in the news all over the place, her costumed appearance was already revealed in Infinite Crisis #7. Wryspy 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because she, as Kate Kane/Batwoman, hasn't officially appeared. Until the comic with her named is published, it's a spoiler. She'll show up next week, so just hang in 4 more days :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 06:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SHB box

When the new Batwoman does appear, should she be get her own SHB box, or be in the same one as the original? --DrBat 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoof. If she gets her own title, she should get her own box, but looking at others, the Shining Knight has two and the Blue Beetle used to, before Ted and Jaime moved to their own pages. Lets see how she pans out with 52 first? I mean, if she dies at the end of 52, it'd be overkill. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a bit early to see how notable she's going to be. CovenantD 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Wryspy 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Changed the DCU' with Kate 2.0

I removed that line since right now we don't know if the DCU was changed to cause her existance yet. SHe could be the original Batwoman's daughter. Eeep! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We know Infinite Crisis changed DCU history. We don't know what that has to do with Kate. She could be the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths daughter of Kathy Kane who just hasn't been mentioned before. For that matter, she could be the pre-Crisis daughter of Kathy Kane who just wasn't mentioned. Do we know for certain that Batwoman of Earth-1 AND Batwoman of Earth-2 remained single and without a daughter or granddaughter named Kate? Heck, no. Until we learn more about Katherine the elder, Ipstenu is right: We don't know that Infinite Crisis caused this (although for historical reference, it is worthy of mention that Kate appears right after IC). Wryspy 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it stated in a press release that Kate is new earth's post-crises Kathy Kane. Like the post-crisis Kara Zor-El. ACS (Wikipedian) 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

She's the new Kate Kane, but since they mention 'Katherine the younger', it's giving us too many options. She could be the daughter of Kathy Kane. Kathy may have been the first Batwoman. It's endless :P (I'm not saying it's not likely correct spec, just that it's spec, you know?) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a Black Canary situation. Maybe mom and daughter are alternate-Earth versions of each other! That makes so much sense! I will add it to the entry!--Chris Griswold 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's also total Ipstenu-fanwank spec 0:) (hey, I'm not above it!) It's just as possible that Kate was 'redone' and instead of wanting to get into Bruce's pants she wants into Renee's. We ought to hold off until we get some mention of 'My mom used to be Batwoman' or not ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The Super-Skrull said she was Kathy Kane's daughter, though. --Chris Griswold 13:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redressed the Box

The hero box has been modified due to the modern character's first appearance in continuity. My info was rather sparse, feel free to add to it or reword possibly badly formatted info. CmdrClow 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though the covers say Week, the issues are published as numbered. Look at the indicia. The work "week" does not appear there. Wryspy 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take that information to Talk:52 (comics). It would be very helpful. --Chris Griswold 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] character order

in most articles, the characters are put in chronological order despite significance. examples: Nightwing, Green Lantern, Supergirl, Flash (comics) Exvicious 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It was done this way for Huntress (comics) as well ... It's not a hard and firm convention, and we're still not sure if Kathy = Kate, or if she's Kathy's daughter. You know? It's really a messy thing right now. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kate turns out not to be Kathy, this article should be organized like the Flash article. Wryspy 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What she fought

Hey. I'm going to make this quick, but I'm practically on probation and don't want to get offensive. Ahem. I'd just like to state that the beings which Batwoman fought in week eleven were, in fact, Lycans. "A Lycan is a person who has the ability to undergo transformation into a wolf (Lycanthropy), or in more modern uses of the word into any animal form." That last part is bold-italic for your viewing pleasure. Point is, "Lycan" acts as a general term for a human who becomes an animal. (literally.) Now, of course, we don't much else, but the terminology is correct. Way better than "Mutant animals', at any rate. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The proper term is and always has been werewolf, “Lycan” has been used as slang for werewolves by some and as a name for factions of werewolves by others, but the word lycan simply means wolf and is a misnomer when applied to werewolves. I know it’s nick-picking and all but since this is an encyclopedia then least we all could do is get it right. Anyways its: “A Werewolf is a person who has the ability to undergo transformation into a wolf (Lycanthropy), Werebeast is a collective term for people with the ability to shape-shift into creatures other then a wolf; examples: werecat, wererat, werebat . . . etc etc.” Therefore the correct terminology (and general term for that matter) is werewolf not, not lycan. --The Matrix Prime 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What page in the issue does it call them Lycans though? They were big ass creatures, I agree, but I don't rightly see where it says they're lycanthropes or, to be to the point, anything other than 'big ass things'. Yes, you're using the word correctly, that was never my question ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I must I've better worked it in the Whisper A'Daire page. Whisper, Kyle Abbott, and all her employers are addicted to a drug (or were? With Ra's Al Ghul death is unclear how they can have their regular doses) that gives them everlasting life mixing their genetic code with animal one. So, they can shapeshift into animal forms of themselves. In the Detective Comics issues Whisper employed bird-men and other beast-men, but currently she could afford only the creation of lycans like Kyle. DrTofu83 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
*grumble* This is a case of DC being idiots and not explaining. I hadn't read the Whisper A'Daire stories in long enough that it didn't stick in my brain. There's nothing in 52 #11 that explains what they are, though, hence my confusion. Change 'monsters' to 'drug induced lycanthopes, such as Kyle Abbott'? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. Real point: I never misused the word. You guys complained that the article I linked to didn't have enough sources, but I used the correct term. Everyone but Whisper—and maybe Abbot with all that fur—looked human. Then bam!1 Transformed—Why does that remind me of a movie coming out on 747?—into semi-anthros. I didn't want to bog the thing done with spec or poor terminology. Look what happens. "Mutant Animals", people. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The point (from my end) was never if you used the word correctly, but what it was they fought. Look at it this way, if you only used 52 as your source for the fight, a big as monster thing attacked them. Never in 52 do you see the transformation (or if you do, point to me where, cause I re-read it and we see the B&E and then 'Oh look, there's a wolfy thing bearing down on Renee and Question'). As I've repeatedly said, the comic book issue, #11 does not state clearly, if at all, that they're shifters, so how were we to know unless we've known about Whisper, which I didn't since I blocked her out of my memory. ;) Re-reading the page history, however, I agree with CovenantD. The word Lycan is correct, but the link should go to lycanthropy, since 'lycan' is pretty much about a movie. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are two links. One in the character history and another in the "Skils, etc." So uh...remember that. Also, doesn't "There's a sound as the begin to transform, like wood snapping apart...." give a good indictation? >.> Again, "Lycan" isn't really a selecive word. Whatever they were, the choice of word(s) apply, no matter the source. "See also" sections, anyone? Link to the transformation article right off the bat? BTW, you might want to change the word to "Therianthropy" as that's not limited to Wolves like Lycantropy. "Mutant animals" Geez. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not 'shape shifter'? All evidence I can find, except the lycan artical says that lycanthrope means wolf, and the base word 'lykos' means ... wolf. And mutant animal is awkard but correct - They are mutated. ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And from that article: "The most commonly known form is lycanthropy (from the Greek words lycos ("wolf") and anthropos ("man")), the technical term for the transformation from man to animal form. Although the precise definition of lycanthropy specifically refers only to the change into wolf form (as with a werewolf), the term is often used to refer to shape changing to any non-human animal form."
Therianthrope would be the precise term then, not lycan, as there were multiple types of creatures (and yeah, that term includes Whisper, who is a SnakeShifter). Lycan = wolf, and while it can be used, it implies werewolf. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I already figured out everything you just said. That's my point. "Mutant animals" was never even close. No offense, but It seems like I was the only one trying to use the right term, not just prove someone else wrong. Then the ignorance—as in, being ignored—and so on. Hmm. And people wonder why I'm so...different. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear, however, I must protest. "Mutant Animals" is far more..."Generic" a term than Lycan. Knowldge should not be garnered exclusively from films. Let's not get into the facts that the two "Species" were horribly different (origin - Chemical (IIRC) instead of Viral; forms taken - Apes, hyena, etc; The lack of weakness to silver, etc.). It's like saying Buffyverse magic and Harry Potter magic are one and the same since they are both Magic. If you're going to get snippy about accuracy, best do so only when you have firm ground to stand on. -- Majin Gojira 15:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit, "Lycan" might not have been the best term, but I mentioned a better one, then had to mention it again and deal with a reply which, frankly, stated the obvious. "Mutant animals" is unusable for the following reasons:
  • Refers to animals rather than Humans. We're all animals, but you know what I mean. The focus is on the animal aspect, ignoring that they are humans who transform.
  • "Mutant" implies mutation and blatent abnormality. It's too judgemental, especially in DC and reaks of POV. Come on. Further, who's to say they aren't metahumans or that these powers are so unnatural?
  • Less encyclopedic and worse at expressing the facts, as scarce as the are.

Anyway, as easily as I could go on, why are we even debating this? Bottomline: I came up with two proper terms. One was rejected based on exclusivity. The other was overlooked. Mainwhile...people have to read "mutant animals". It's beyond me, It really is. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently reads 'Monsters'. Vague, yes, but frankly in-comic context shows them to be shape/form shifters, which no in-issue explanation. Like I said before, unless you were previously aware as to what they were, you're confused by 52. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Humans to animals=Therianthropy. Not a...common term, I'll admit, but can we *ahem* cut the [expletive] as to whether or not someone will understand? There's a term for it. The term is pretty much perfect. Why it's this being held up a discussion about semantics? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with an accurate-but-obscure name being used. I wish the Therianthropy article had the references linked to the text, but at least it has some, and relies on more than movie references. CovenantD 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Year Later

I swear I remember it being mentioned that the new Batwoman once had a relationship with Bruce Wayne (remember, she's still closeted). How do we know Alfred wasn't referring to her and not the pre-Crisis Batwoman? --DrBat 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Kane vs Katherine 'Kate' Kane. I know it's semantics and hair splitting, but it's far more likely that Katherine the Younger is not the woman with whom Bruce had a fling. She's quite a bit younger as well. Maybe mid-20s. And while they have said the Kanes have a 'relationship' with the Waynes, that's pretty vague and doesn't have to mean sex. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. What, someone thinks the Kanes and Waynes got together for a regular group grope? Relationship doesn't mean sex. Wryspy 05:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall questioning if the two families has group orgies. I was asking if Alfred was referring to the new Batwoman, currently appearing in comics, and not the old one, who has yet to appear Post-Crisis except for the odd cameo or reference. --DrBat 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's in the latest Batman comic where Alfred mentions Kathy Kane, and as I said before, it may be hair splitting, but I think there's a diff between Kathy and Kate. Especially since Kate is 'Katherine the Younger' and is rather younger than Bruce. We don't know that Alfred meant older Kathy, but it's most likely at this point. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Alfred was referring to Kate. Bruce Wayne having a fling with a Kate Kane in her mid-20s (she seems more like late-20s to me) is much more likely than his having one with a woman who hasn't definitely been shown to exist yet. Bruce is basically perpetually in his mid-30s anyway. That kind of age difference is not exactly uncommon. And if "Katherine the Younger" has indeed been named after someone (probably her mother, or some other adult relative), that someone would have to be in their mid-to-late 40s, at the very least, and probably quite a bit older. It's not out of the question for Bruce to have been connected with someone of that age, but it gets increasingly unlikely. I'll assume that "Katherine the Elder" is her mother, and the other woman in the newspaper photo that Renee is looking at in 52 #7. She's blonde and doesn't even resemble Pre-Crisis Kathy. --SHODAN 11:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see that, but we're both making gross assumptions and I shouldn't have put it in the article the way I did :) Hindsight? 20-20. (Kathy Pre-Crisis was a brunette too, so maybe it's ... her aunt? Who the heck knows. Super-Skrull! Sorry, bad joke there). We'll wait and see I guess. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JLA

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

The fact that she is even referred to (yes, even on the COVER) in an OYL story by the DC editors themselves is proof that she will exist in the mainstream DCU following the conclusion of 52. That is not speculation. If she were to die or be incapacitated in 52, she would not be on the cover. She is there, so she will be active. --CmdrClow 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This exact issue is mentioned on the WikiProject Comics page for editorial guidlines. No one's gonna die if we leave it out until the issue is released with her inside the pages. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dan DiDio has said that no principal character of 52 will appear in the pages, but we have gotten mentions of them. In the OYL Batman story, Ralph Dibny is mentioned as "unavailable". The Question has just been referred to in the JLA book. You're missing the bottom line: since she is on the cover, she will live and be active in some way, shape, or form, following 52. 52 has already been fully scripted, so when Benes drew her onto the cover, he knew that she wouldn't be dead. Thousands of continuity nuts would go back to the cover if she did die in 52 and blast DC for putting her on the JLA cover in the first place. Quit dancing around it, if you know it's true, then why argue? "To preserve the encyclopedia." For a second, forget the encyclopedia. You know it's right whether it's on here or not. --CmdrClow 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of JLA covers has inconsistantly gone from high to low to ambiguous or even non-existent. Booster Gold died, but appeared on a cover. You can assume whatever you want, but don't try applying your theories to the article. This isn't a forum, fan site or brain-pool for new ideas. "Forget the encyclopedia"? Forget your assumptions. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, Booster Gold DID NOT appear on the final version of the cover. Do some real research. He appeared in the TEASER for the real cover, but is NOT on the final version. It's not a theory. It's a fact. --CmdrClow 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh give it a rest. Her appearance on a cover doesn't prove the factual accuracy of your claim. Like Wryspy said, covers aren't cause for assumption. Look at the Justice League article. The team has been "revealed", but no members are listed. Honestly...I'd say something about maturity, or lack thereof, but I fear you just won't listen (or read, in this case). ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
What I thought was just confirmed in the latest issue of Detective Comics. The Penguin, who'd been away longer than Batman, is aware of Batwoman's presence in Gotham. She IS alive and active after 52. I'm being completely mature with my comments, I hear what you're saying. But when observations are confirmed, as they recently have been, then they are factual. If you're too dim to see that, then you might want to seek some professional help. That's not an insult, merely an observation. You can't deny that Penguin talking about her is proof of her existence. If she'd died before 52 was over, he wouldn't know a thing about her. I'll give it a rest when you finally see the truth. --CmdrClow 06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh. You're trying to do a "'told ya so" on us? Real mature. First off, note that the section does not try to argue your little point. The only facts are the timing and the statement. At no time is it stated here or in the issue that Batwoman is active. Penguin heard about Batwoman. He didn't see her, meet her, or anything like that. Someone, who was likely in Gotham throughout 52, told him about her. It could be another new Batwoman altogether, like the new Batgirl(s) OYL. Now, I think we're all tired of your faulty claims and shoddy excuses for proof. So, why don't you run along and go assume that you're right. Like you said, this issue is done with either way. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hypocrisy is apparent since your feeble attmpts at belittling me dominate your post. You should know that those possibilities are far too outlandish to be true. You had to take the low road with me, that shows a true lack of integrity. It's proof. Whatever you say, you know it. They wouldn't change Batwomans within a year. You speak for everyone now? I seriously doubt that. Take your bullying and belittling to a different forum and not Wikipedia. Insult me on the board again and I'll report you, I don't need your lame excuses for what you might call putdowns. Go buy some integrity and some speaking skills. --CmdrClow 08:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to turn this talk page into a venomous argument solely between us over this. I can't get through to you and now you're making idle threats. Peachy. I'm done. As long as you don't try to argue a point in the article, I couldn't care less. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't blame me for your lack of understanding as it pertains to common sense. If you can't take it then don't dish it out. End of story. --CmdrClow 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake! I'm trying to be the bigger man about this and let it go. You wanna be "right"? You wanna "report me"? Fine. Think what you want, but don't say I'm a afraid to fight. I won't let you bait me. We're done. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you're done. Sad part is, you have to try to be the bigger man. Try again and just shut up. For good, this time. --CmdrClow 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia comic guidelines stress that we must not extrapolate from solicitations and upcoming covers, citing specific examples involving Green Lantern and the Sentry that would have created incorrect entries. Until it happens, it hasn't happened. Duh. Wryspy 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines under solicitation and promotion materials. Wryspy 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Check the direct reference to Batwoman in Detective Comics #824. --CmdrClow 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We put this in: After the events in 52, the Penguin suggests Batman bring a date to the opening of his club, telling him to "Bring that Batwoman, I hear she's hot!" (note he says 'I hear she's hot - Penguin hasn't met her yet, still no direct proof she's alive, but it's getting there - We'll have to wait till 52s over at this rate - bah) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You...agree with him? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if she's hot, even if the Penguin is right, there's no no no confirmation that it's the same Batwoman. No matter how obvious this may seem, the editorial guidelines are clear: Don't say it until it is confirmed. Ace is right. Too many "obvious" things have turned out to be wrong. What's the dang hurry anyway? Wait until overt in-story confirmaton. Period. Wryspy 07:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is a mention of Batwoman in the post 52-universe. I don't know if it's Kate but I said Penguin hasn't met her yet, still no direct proof she's alive - I see this as progress to proof, and it deserves a mention, which is why I worded the sentence in the article the way I did. it's up to interpretation, but what's stated there is fact. Penguin suggested Bats bring Bats as a date. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh-huh. And "bah"? No. Nevermind. Forget it. Thanks for saying something, Wryspy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The 'bah' was to 'We'll have to wait till 52 is over at this rate' which was meant to mean 'Damn you DC! We're not gonna have solid, unarguable proof that Kate 'Batwoman' Kate is alive and well post 52 until we're post 52 and you're mucking up our Wiki!' I'm annoyed at DC for dragging it out. Good for sales, annoying for readers ;) Yeah, coulda worded it better, my bad. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Batwoman will appear in DC's Infinite Christmas special, if anyone cares. Also, I think DC only meant the MAIN characters won't appear OYL until 52 is finished, not minor characters like Batwoman. For example, the Great Ten were also introduced in 52, and yet they have appeared in OYL titles like Checkmate as well. --DrBat 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We know the latter part of your point, DrObvious. We're not debating the possibility, just whether she's actually appeared anywhere else. Feh. A possibly non-canon one-shot set for Dec seems a little week, but thanks. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
And we're being rude now why?--DrBat 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I thanked you, didn't I? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
After insulting me. --DrBat 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, not really, but it was kind of obvious. I mean, surely you can agree. Still, don't worry, Doc. ::Sloppy kiss:: You know I love ya. ;) ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't know when the Infinite Christmas stories take place, so that really doesn't answer the question yet. Wryspy 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we do. (It might help to check the link.) A former CM—either Billy Batson or Freddy Freeman—is appearing as "Shazam". The status changes aren't supposed to happen until TOS, set OYL. Aergo, it's set after TOS. The canonisity is the issue, as far as I can see. "Specials" like this can fall into an iffy "irrelavent whether it happened or not" area and be left like that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If the issue has multiple stories, they can be set at different times. Doczilla 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separation from all other sections

I was thinking, the hold "withholding info" thing just rubs me the wrong way. What if we made a new, completely seperate "One Year Later" section with the Kathy Kane reference from Alfred and the Batwoman one from Penguin. Wry and I have proven that which Batwoman is disputable, so we're already assuming by placing the mention in "Kate Kane". As things currently are, we're already assuming. With a seperate section, however confusing, the conclusions can be made solely by the reader. Thoughts? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Wryspy 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea. I like letting readers make their own conclusions. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. How's it look? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

Could you guys put up a different pic? The you got has too much going on. 172.192.10.135 01:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance

It states that the modern version started in 52. Wasn't she the Renee Montoya's love interest that we saw in Gotham Central? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.100.17.36 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Renee was dating Darla (Daria? Brain broken... D something) in Gotham Central up until 52. What issue are you referencing? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bat-Woman

She was ALWAYS referred to as "Bat-Woman", with hyphen pre-Crisis. ALWAYS. JAF1970 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Originally, yes. But always? No. See [1] for one example among many. Wryspy 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable citation for Alfred mentioning Kathy Kane

The article had the text "Alfred Pennyworth mentions Kathy Kane to Bruce Wayne, when listing the various women Bruce dated in his playboy days" and then proceeds to cite Batman #652. Unless I somehow overlooked a panel, Alfred doesn't even appear in Batman #652, so I'm having a hard time seeing how Alfred could possibly mention Ms. Kane in that issue. I have removed that text from the article until a proper citation can be found. —Lowellian (reply) 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kane's Role in The Fifties and Beyond

No one knows precisely what Kane's role was in Batman production, whether or not he had an official title or anything. From the many interviews I have read about Kane from other Silver Age creators (writers, artists etc.) his involvement sounds very similar to the one held by C.C. Beck over at Fawcett. C.C. didn't have a title either, other than maybe "head artist" but that was it. His duties involved reviewing the Captain Marvel work done by the "ghosts" or contracted artists\studios assigned to the various stories. Many of these artists would do the large bulk of the pencilling while Mr. Beck would draw the close-ups or the heads in order to maintain continuity. Beck would also make changes to the art, whenever he felt it was necessary. According to Kane's direct ghost\assistant, Lew Schwartz, this mimics his relationship with Kane, so I would assume Kane had a similar relationship with DC regarding the DC ghosts. We also know that Mr.Kane never had to work in the DC Bullpen full-time and had frequent meetings with Jack Schiff to discuss the direction of the Batman books and the creation of new characters. Whether or not Kane sat down and created the characters (like Batwoman) himself alone, "jammed" with Moldoff or even merely approved a concept drawing done by someone else from Kane's idea, it's still considered "Kane's" creation. That's just the reality of working in an assembly line system where you're not the boss. Kind of like why the writers who worked on "The Honeymooners" don't own any of the characters. Or why Carrie Fisher doesn't own "the likeness" of Princess Leia even though it was her face! The Batmaniac —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]

  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, weren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bookkeeperoftheoccult 08:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I went though the list and I believe I've corrected all applicable mistakes. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly well-written and in compliance with the Manual of Style. There are a few problems however. One persistant one is the use of the {{cquote}} template for block-quoting. According to WP:MOSQUOTE, this is not desirable. Decorative cquotes should only be used for pull quotes. Please change the present cquotes to either <blockquote> or {{blockquote}} format. I also personally did some MOS work on the use of quotes and such.
2. Factually accurate?: This is an area where some substantial work is needed. To begin with the Footnotes section, some of the refs do not have all the desired information. Though using citation templates is not required, news sources (i.e. refs 6-8 for Out and CNN news articles) need author and publication date information. In the References section, are the latter three refs all the same source? This is unclear to someone not familiar with comic book secondary source material. In terms of inline citations, there is currently a {{fact}} tag present, and some sections lack cites entirely. The only sections not requiring inline cites are leads and synopsis. In this vein, Appearances in other media, Alternative versions, Bronze Age, the last sentence of One Year Later subsection (could be especially controversial) and the second paragraph after the first cquote (you assert the opinion of an individual) all need further inline citations. The section on 52 also has three quotations that need direct refs: "Katherine the younger", the second usage of "twice-named daughter of Cain" (to my understanding, you should directly cite it every time you quote someone, if there is a guideline that contradicts this then please provide it), and "Are you ready"?
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major aspects concisely. In my view, the alternative versions and her powers/abilities section could use some expansion if you're looking to move to FA next.
4. Neutral point of view?: Fair representation of all significant views.
5. Article stability? Not the subject of any edit wars.
6. Images?: Accounted for with proper license tags and rationales where necessary.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky Talk 23:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

Though some have been completed, there are still important issues brought up in the review (such as the citation problems including a {{fact}} tag) that have not been addressed. As the seven days of the hold period has expired, I am unfortunately required by the protocol of GA reviewing to fail the article. Please address the requests in the present review before choosing to renominate. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second GA nomination

After a heavy rewrite and based on the previous GA review, I am nominating the article for GA class. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the issues of the previous uncompleted review have been dealt with, and I see no new ones. This article definitely meets the GA criteria in my evaluation. Congratulations! VanTucky 06:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note During writing up my review, there was an edit conflict with VanTucky. As you can see form my review below, I don't believe the article to be up to spec just yet, and to avoid such edit conflicts I placed the {{GAReview}} template on the GAN page. VanTucky must not have noticed it, but I stand by the below review. If anyone has any problem with this, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking through the article, I've decided to place its nomination on hold. I see alot of issues with the article, but it's certainly not beyond help. Hopefully my exhaustive list doesn't seem too daunting, and hopefully it can be taken care of in the 7 days alotted an article on hold.

  • Surely there's a better image available? Who's the guy with the gun? What is the werewolf in the background? Batwoman is not very prominent/visible in the picture.
Reply: To be honest- No. There isn't. The modern Batwoman (main picture) has made exactly 12 appearances in DC comics publications since her debut in 2006. This is her clearest image taken from her (costumed) debut issue (52 #11 "Batwoman Begins") which is described in the Modern Age section of the article. The person holding the gun is Renee Montoya.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. Drewcifer (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead goes into way too much detail concerning her publication history. That's basically all the lead is, and per WP:Lead, the article should summarize all of the article. Therefore, I recommend trimming down the publication history considerably, and talking a bit some of the other sections. (On a related note, I'll avoid combing through that section for now, since hopefully alot of it gets taken out anyways).
Reply: I fundamentally disagree with this. Over use of in-universe perspective (the fictional character history) is discouraged by WP:WAB and some current featured articles on fictional characters (Captain Marvel) do not include a fictional character history at all. The publication history deals with the real world uses/reactions of the character which is the goal of the overall article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I explained myself correctly. Publication history is great, but I'm just saying there's too much of it in the lead. But I'm only suggesting removin a few sentences and/or unneccessary facts here and there. Such as the Dennis O'neal mention, the whole sentence of Alex Ross, Paul Dini, and the red accents on her costume, Gordon's disability, etc. Most of that stuff is relevant, its just not necessary information in the lead.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Appearances in other media" also goes into far too much detail, especially considering that it only discusses one movie, and that there is a Main article link to that movie's page. Do we really care who voiced the characters? Or that she invented some cool alloy? That whole last paragraph in particular seems like fanfair to me, and has almost no encyclopedic value. The possible exception being the description of her costume.
Reply: agreed. This section was considerably longer before my edits.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "she has become a skilled martial artist and is able to defeat three monsters" huh? Very strange fact to mention don't you think?
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the heiress storyline apply to both versions of Kane? It's not clear in the "Skills, resources, and abilities" section.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The discussion of Betty Kane and various romantic interests is awkwardly written.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
  • "World's Finest, which was edited by Mort Weisinger." why do we care who edited it? Does this somehow apply to Batwoman?
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I'll address this soon.
werent both of these already wikilinked? they appear to be now.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I was looking at the second time they were mentioned, which obviously weren't wikilinked. Drewcifer (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "During her retirement, she" Who is she? Although I assume it's Kane, Gordan was mentioned in the previous sentence. The pronoun makes it unclear.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Batmite is unnecessarily wikilinked twice.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Batman stares at a photograph that portrays Bat-Girl, Batwoman, Ace the Bat-hound, and Batmite- characters that did not exist in continuity at the time,[4] while in the Beast Boy miniseries, Flamebird tries to post bail for Beast Boy, with money "borrowed from Aunt Kathy", which would suggest the original Kathy Kane is still alive." very long, awkward sentence.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "sequal" misspelled
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done fixed by another editor.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 52 should always be italicized when referring to the comic.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
  • Renee Montoya is brought up for the first time without any context: who is this person and why is she significant?
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Batwoman's modern age debut" image should have the comic number in the caption, like the others.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Which issue was she introduced in should be in the caption too. Drewcifer (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The 52 #28 storyline doesn't seem very significant. In general, I would say that storylines restricted to only an issue or two without deep, long-lasting consequences aren't terribly notable. In fact, that entire paragraph doesn't seem very notable at all. Sure she almost died, but superheros almost die every other issue. Same with the following paragraph.
Reply: I have to disagree here as well. As stated above, the character has only made 12 appearances since 2006. At this point, every appearance is notable until she becomes a recurring character.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I see your point. I guess it could stay, but it definitely goes into way too much detail. For example, take a look at the size of the modern section in comparison to the silver and bronze age sections. It seems like an exercise in recentism.
Reply: While I realize the section is longer than the silver and bronze age, it can't be helped- since most of the history on comics (including the actual comics themselves) are lost to history. The only excepts to this are global pop culture icons like Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, who have a wealth of literature about them published on a regualar basis. Batwoman barely had any appearances in the Bronze age and was then killed, while there is little information available on her silver age appearances. As the modern batwoman continues to be published in new stories, the Morden Age section will arguable always be larger then the two previous sections. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your word for it. Actually, I think part of the undue weight is that the section discusses the public's reaction to the character being homosexual. This partly goes with another comment I made below, but I think this stuff might be better placed somewhere else, in another section/subsection. That would help shrink the section a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The "Moden Age" section doesn't deal with public reaction at all. I've edited the article so that only the publication history deals with that, which I just expanded.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I wasn't being clear again: I meant the public reaction talk in the publication history. The extra info is great. Drewcifer (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The general references need be formatted better. They should give propoer attribution of date, author, publisher, etc. I'd recommend using citation templates there too.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't done. The first general source gives full attribution, but not the last three. Again (and this applies to the first as well), I recommened using citation templates, though I suppose you could write it all out like the first reference if you really want to. Drewcifer (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I can understand full referencing for the book but for the last three...actually, now that I think about it, these aren't books- they are websites and would probably do better under external links. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done}Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the citations, I would avoid linking to author names if the authors don't have an article or aren't likely to get one soon (to avoid redlinks in the citations).
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done
  • Also, the publisher values need a bit of work. Whenever possible, avoid putting the url as the publisher value, and whenever possible wikilink publishers with articles (though only the first instance of that publisher). For example www.imdb.com should be IMDB, www2.warnerbros.com should be Warner Bros., etc.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done
  • A few more external links would be good.
Reply: I'll address this soon.
Y Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also (added after the original review), I think this article largely skips one of the most interesting parts of the character: the praise/backlash of the whole lesbian thing. This seems like a huge ommission, no?Drewcifer (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Y DoneBookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the article is on hold, so you've got 7 days to address my suggestions above. Feel free to drop my a line when/if you feel the article is ready for me to look at it again, and/or if you have any questions or comments. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed Everything looks great! Thanks for taking all of my suggestions into consideration. This is definitely GA quality, good work! Drewcifer (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really comprehensive? I'd like more detail about her creation in relation to the allegations of homosexuality of Robin and Batman. I just Ctrl-F'd "homo" and only found a reference at the beginning. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the allegations were written specifically about Batman and Robin and the dynamics of their relationship as it appeared in comic books. The full comprehensive details about homosexual interpretations are found in the Batman and Robin articles. Batwoman was created as a love interest for Batman- that is pretty much as comprehensive as her connection to the scandal gets. Batman: The Complete History is the only literary text on the original Batwoman which only mentions that everyone wanted a love interest for batman and that they were trying to reassure readers that he was heterosexual.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK, that makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying that. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Unmentioned Batwoman Story

In the Legends of the dark knight series back in the Nineties there was a story in which Batman solves the murder of a circus proformer by the name of Kathy Kane who proformed under the name of Batwoman. Strictly speaking, I'm not sure if this is canonical. Unfortunately, I don't remember either the issue number or the story name, so someone will have to either find out for themselves or just take my word for it.