Talk:Batman: Battle for the Cowl

Plot

A bunch of losers duke it out to see who will wear the cowl for a few months, until DC brings Bruce Wayne back in their nex magnum opus (i.e. fiasco) crossover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.231.90 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also state how similar it is to Reign of the Supermen back in 94. Am I the only person to see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Revenge (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd need sourcing or its just opinion and original research. (Emperor (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

How? The signs are all there. Look, you have a kid Batman who is obviously Robin, a Batman similar to the one we know, Two Face who is split down the middle like the Cyborg and an Armored Batman like Steel. You have Batman die, and then you have 4 people trying to take his place like Superman. It's so effing obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Revenge (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not about what we know it is about what we can prove. If it is so obvious I'm sure it has come up in interviews or reviews. (Emperor (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Bah, you have me there. But I would remark that it is being discussed on various message boards. Would that count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Revenge (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope... that's "fan speculation", something that isn't considered a reliable source. - J Greb (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

News of a collection?

Does anyone know if this is all gonna be collected into a collection/graphic novel yet? Or will people who wanna follow this just have to collect all of the individual issues? Just wanna know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.85.84 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I've updated it with the available details. It isn't clear what is in what but there are clearly some secondary titles in the main trade with others in the Companion volume (although from the page count it seems that there isn't enough space for the other mini-series). I'll update closer to the time when the details are clarified. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Can anyone add the list of issues and tie-inns in one list because its kinda confusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvel-Boy117 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Editng

I know this page was once a part of the "Batman R.I.P." article and it still reads like it. Whoever made this page must've just copied and pasted what was in the R.I.P. article about its "aftermath" without editing.

We either need to return this to being an anchor on the R.I.P. page (which I think is advisable) or re-edit this page. 68.80.249.160 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend re-editing it. (Emperor (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

That is probably exactly what happened. It's how new pages are made. If you don't like how it looks, help edit! :) -moritheil^Talk 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Parts of this entry are so poorly written my 13 year old niece could've done better. Edited a few particularly heinous bits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA6:210:9EA:F133:FEEF:C05 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Blackest Night tie-in

It has nothing to do with the aftermath or Batman Reborn, therefore, it shouldn't be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.228.129 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion, I'd ask for an end to the reverting until we can sort this out - we can always put it to the preferred version once there is a consensus.

My opinion: We kicked this around a while back - I think this is a grey area, the series definitely needs to be added into Batman: RIP (which is where I've put a mention) but does continue parts of the story here, even if the link is loose, so it doesn't do any harm mentioning it here.

Anyway lay out your cases and I'll see if I can get a few more eyes on this so we can thrash out a consensus. (Emperor (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

Here is the best place to start catching up on previous discussion. (Emperor (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC))

(ec)

(sorry... missed the talk page discussion... copying from Emperor's talk page)

¢-ish

The references provided - the 2 IGN re-posts of DC's solicits - do not contain any reference to the BftC material. Nor do the support or justify the inclusion of the 3 issue mini in the BftC article.

Can you find anything that shows DC, Didio, or Tomasi explicitly stating that the Blackest Night mini follows directly from BftC? This is something else the section claimed but was not supported by the refs.

Including the section here, and in RIP, does imply that the BL material is a direct continuation. That's a very hard sell since comics are a serial medium - today's stories are generally dependant in someway on yesterdays. In that way, everything featuring Grayson as Batman from this point on is ultimately a continuation of Battle for the Cowl, as well as a continuation of Final Crisis and "Batman: R.I.P." It is unreasonable to have every following storyline and title listed, at some point it has to stop.

I would have to say that point is the comics released immediately following the end of the story. In this case that would be:

• "A Battle Within: An Epilogue to Battle for the Cowl" (Batman #687)
• "Batman Reborn" (the first story arc in Batman and Robin)
• "The Grail" (the first story arc in Red Robin)
• "Elegy" (Detective Comics #854-857)
• Batman: Streets of Gotham (commenting on the series coming out of this since there does not seem to be an arc title present in the stories as of yet)
• Gotham City Sirens (same situation as Streets)

And possibly

• "Long Shadows" (Batman #688-691)

That's it. Anything else we'd need to see the story to see if it's stated "The happens right after BftC or early on during one of the above listed story arcs." And we don't have that yet for Blackest Night: Batman.

- J Greb (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If any of you really want to know how long Batman: Reborn is going to go for. It's going to go for one year. so everything in continuity about Dick being Batman for that one year will be part of Batman: Reborn. Batman: Reborn is not just the first three issues Batman and Robin it's the first twelwe issues of all the new and old titles, and all the in universe titles starring Dick as Batman. --Schmeater (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record, but can you provide a verifiable source for that? - J Greb (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to?--Schmeater (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is we can't dig out all the clues to try and piece things together, as that falls well into the realms of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS (with a dash of WP:CRYSTAL). As J Greb has said, we need decent sources for this - Wikipedia isn't about what we know it is about what we can prove. (Emperor (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Additionally, I've all but reached the point of making a not-so-polite suggestion: If it is so important for you, as an editor on Wikipedia, to "fill in the blanks" and draw conclusions, rethink where you are adding the material to. Both DC Wikia and Batman Wikia may be more open to it since both seem to sjew to both in-universe and interpretation. And it is becoming more and more apparent that's what this is - inserting a personal interpretation in lieu of anything concrete. - J Greb (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw about an account called J Greb is a Jerk. --Schmeater (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe "skew" was typoed to produce "sjew" in the comments above. I'll leave it up to the original commenter to edit it if he or she so desires. -moritheil^Talk 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think its going to be helpful is we all take a step back here, as the friction of bumping into each other here and via reverting the article is getting a little bit heated. Focus on the edits, and not the editor.

I've said before that "no one editing in Wikipedia is the smartest person in the room", and it remains true here. Each one of you posting above possess an impressive amount of knowledge regarding the Batman, so interpretational differences are inevitably going to arise.

In order to avoid these sorts of conflicts, Wikipedia specifically champions citable references over reasoned deductions by the editors. We furthermore give preference to reliable sources over those that aren't as well-supported; it offers less opportunity to be refuted, giving us a stable article.

DC, unsurprisingly, is in the business of selling comics. Any scheme, up to an including comic book death sells comics. We need to maintain some distance from the fray, so as to not get accidentally pulled into the marketing machine. There is absolutely no reason to rush here. There should be a significant reticence to make changes to active comic book articles and subject until we have solid, reliable references. This keeps the article stable and helps fulfill our task to provide reliable content to the reader.

'Course, that's just my opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this relating to Blackest Night: Batman the arguement going on above this one? --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It was indicated by the title sub-heading (3 '=' as opposed to the normal 2, the latter used to initiate a new section). I guess it could be applied to most Wiki conversations/discussions, but I was referring to the "Blackest Night" discussion, immediately above the arb break. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's part of the problem Arcayne: I'm asking for those sources and all I'm getting is "It's in an interview, somewhere" or "All you have to do is read the issues". I'm honestly at the breaking point here. If there is a statement in an interview that prompted an editor to add something, they should provide that as a reference in the section added, either as a link if was an interview on a web site or as a normal footnote if it isn't on the web. And those references should support the information in the section and why it's in the article.

In this case, the only references provided are links to IGN articles "Batman's Black Lantern Encounter" and "Blackest Night's Future: August 2009". Both are regurgitation of DC solicitation copy. And neither support Blackest Night: Batman as a direct follow up/continuation of Batman: Battle for the Cowl. There's also "Tomasi returns to writing the character Dick Grayson after the last fourteen issues of Nightwing." which sounds like preening since it also is not, in any way, in the two references.

- J Greb (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, J. I understand that you are feeling some stress about this, and are at your breaking point. Maybe you should take a little break for a bit, so you don't snap. Cooler heads will prevail if we just let them. I will encourage the same for everyone else, as well.

Has anyone considered bringing up the matter at the Reliable Sources noticeboard? It might be helpful to have some neutral folk weigh in on IGN's paraphrasing of the DC press release. I am presuming the JGreb is contesting the validity and weight of the statements from IGN, right?

Lastly, I think it deserves restating that knowing that a citation exists is not equivalent of actually providing the citation. If information is disputed, it must be cited. We aren't in a hurry. If it takes time to find the citation, the article ends up better finally having found it, rather than going back and forth in a kerfuffle that becomes more about egos and wishes than reliable citations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite: I'm looking at what the IGN articles and DC's solicit say in comparison to the section in this article. The material from IGN and DC don't mention BftC, "Batman: Reborn", the relaunched Batman titles, the new Batman titles, or this being Tomasi's return to the character. It isn't that I have a problem with the IGN and DC sources being used to support "the series has been solicited", "it's part of 'Blackest Night'", and the creative people involved - they support that. It's the "extra" stuff. - J Greb (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, (and this is for the other editors) what contrasting views do other editors hold?

J Greb you really think you are having a hard time. --Schmeater (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you should not direct your comments at the edits and not the editor, Schmeater. Those types of comments aren't going to help us find a solution. Allow me to ask you rather bluntly: if you understand what JGrebs' concerns are, could you take the time to address them and only them? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about J Greb. --Schmeater (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That will not help us, Schmeater. Unless you are a reporter who is a proven reliable source, you aren't going to be able to cite anything that Tomasi may reveal to you, via email or ComiCon. I totally understand your thoughts on this, as I started out thinking this way as well. With very, very few notable exceptions, most wiki editors should not confuse themselves with reporters. You are here to document what other people write. That is the job of an editor. Anything else is pretense. Tomasi, Didio or the Great Satan Quesada himself could give you the scoop on how Adam is the Adam to the Mitochondrial Eve, and we could not print it here.

That is the major difference between Wikipedia and, say, anything else. If it has a citation, it goes in - and it must say precisely what is being said, with no interpretive spin on it. If the citation doesn't say it, or the source is unreliable, or we don't have a source at all, it does not go in.

And please, be a little nicer to your fellow editors, like JGreb. You'd want someone to be nice to you, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I wan't to know is about Blackest Night Batman's connection to R.I.P. --Schmeater (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen I wan't a vote for where the Blackest Night: Batman plot should go. That is where we should put Blackest Night: Batman in the aftermath. I think we should put the plot and aftermath in one of these two articles:

• Battle for the Cowl

(Batman R.I.P

Well I think J Greb meant that the plot really doesn't belong here but a mention does, also I think Emperor means that Batman R.I.P has more relation. What do you think --Schmeater (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if folks will be a little bit patient with me, I'd like to see if I understand the sticking points here - please correct me if I am wrong, and understand that any such errors are not intentional.

JGreb's opinion is that the Blackest Night info shouldn't be listed here, that there is no more connection to this mini-series and a DC-universe-wide event than there is between the aforementioned event and any other series. Furthermore, JGreb feels that we shouldn't put anything about Blackest Night in this article until we have specific and citable reasons for doing so.

Schmeater's opinion is that they are obviously connected, and that we should see the 'writing on the wall' (so to speak) about how events are connected. He thinks we are remiss in not mentioning this important information. He points to the articles and interview with DiDio in IGN as proof of the connectedness of it all.

Emperor's position is that noting this is information is all well and good, but without explicit citation, any such statements are synthesized at best and original research and fancruft at worst.

Without commenting on the merits of the others' positions, could folk verify that I am understanding their positions accurately? I think its going to be extremely helpful here to cut through the interpersonal issues and get to the core issues at odds here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been able to get to two core issues. Number One, this is the aftermath of the deletion of Blackest Night: Batman so we are fighting to see where the say belongs. Number Two we wan't to know where the plot should go to avoid any other edit wars like this.--Schmeater (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This last post was actually what I was looking for. Now, JGreb and Emperor, did I correctly note your positions? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair summary (although I do try and avoid the "cruft" words ;) ). Those reference say what Blackest Night: Batman is, they don't say it links into Battle for the Cowl (in fact all the titles launched following Battle for the Cowl have had a distinctive "Batman Reborn" banner on their cover). It may do but no one has said so (as far as anyone has been able to demonstrate anyway - and it is in DC's interest to let people know about these links as it could boost sales). It wasn't unreasonable to add it (as it is possibly connected) but it did need sourcing and it was also not unreasonable for an editor to remove it (and it should have stayed removed until it could be sourced). The important thing here is that there is no deadline and we can afford to wait until we get the confirmation through a reliable source. I don't think there is much difference between mine and J Greb's take on this, and it is in line with guidelines.

To answer the other question - information on Blackest Night: Batman should go in a brief paragraph in the Blackest Night article along with other spin-offs/tie-ins. (Emperor (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Cool. Thanks for weighing in, Emperor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And I think you've got a fair handle on where I'm coming from. - J Greb (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey-doke, now that we have all three points of view, succinctly-stated, the answer seems pretty clear (to me at least). We cannot add information without a citation. While it is true that there are many articles with uncited information, it is usually because someone has not challenged those assumptions - which is really what uncited information is (in Wikipedia).
There are lots of policies that speak to the need for citations and the avoidance of editorial interpretation. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:OR. Now I could toss the alphabet soup of polices out there, but frnakly, that feels counter-productive. The key to all of this is that we are not citable. If you do not have a reliable citation for information you think should be in the article, the information should not be added to the article. If someone removes it after you have added it, it stays out until a citation can be found for it. There is a guidelines article that talks about how this process of consensus works.
Schmeater, you have the makings of a good editor. When you don't let your emotions rule you, you have darn good instincts, and you need to foster that. When people disagree with your edits, they aren't attacking you. You need to remember that. JGreb and Emperor are correct in requesting citations and expecting to discuss issues as they occur politely. You would wish to be treated the same way. Both editors have a lot of knowledge and experience they can share with you, if you but ask. While it absolutely true that there are unpleasant editors in Wikipedia, these two are not in that category. They will help you get a handle on how Wikipedia works if you simply ask them.
So, until new information comes up that specifically and explicitly ties BftC to Blackest Night we cannot assume any connections. At least, that's my take on the matter. Ask an admin or file an RfC if you want another opinion, and I won't be offended if anyone feels the need to do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about the Emperor not treating me fairly. It was J Greb he was the one who didn't treat me fairly. But that's not the problem. --Schmeater (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the perfect link we could stop all of this right here. Go to it IGN doesn't officaly confirm it but they reveal enough to tell you it is in the aftermath. [1]--Schmeater (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. While the events of Blackest Night do in fact occur after Battle for the Cowl, an "aftermath" would indicate that the events of BN came about because of the events of 'Cowl. They in fact did not. If we are to use that reasoning, then BN is a direct outgrowth of the Sinestro Corps War and Final Crisis. When - and only when - mention is made of Wayne being a Black Lantern would there be the possibility if entering such in the Batman article. I do not see any current connection to the 'Cowl storyline at this time. Do the other editors concur? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not understanding it is enough information to show that most of the events of Blackest Night: Batman are happening because of Batman R.I.P, Final Crisis, and Battle for the Cowl. You see Batman's death= Batman R.I.P. Batman Corpse= Final Crisis. New Batman=Battle for the Cowl. Also Blackest Night: Batman 2 features Red Robin. Red Robin comes from Battle for the Cowl.--Schmeater (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see that progression as accurate. However, if you feel as strongly about it as you do, go ahead and ask for other opinions both here and in WikiProject Comics. The consensus here appears to be that inclusion of Darkest Night material isn't warranted here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you still don't understand. Most of the events happening in Blackest Night: Batman are happening because of Battle for the Cowl. Number One: dead Bruce Wayne. Numer Two: New Batman. Number Three: New Robin. Number Four: Red Robin. If you would understand I could explain in more detail. --Schmeater (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe me when I say I do understand, Schmeater. Bruce Wayne's death did not make Blackest Night happen. Is Wayne's "death" being capitalized upon? Sure. But it didn't cause BN to happen. As I noted before, all of the seeds of Blackest Night were sown at the end of "Sinestro Corps War". The crossover event is a Green Lantern centered series, not a Batman-related one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You think we are talking about all of Blackest Night. We are just focusing on Blackest Night: Batman. A three issue miniseries, that I claim spins off from Batman R.I.P and Battle for the Cowl, and it ties into the major thing. --Schmeater (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is another link you should be seeing. It tells you that Blackest Night is also a Superman and Batman story. That's why they have this miniseries. It's in hail of a new Batman. So that proves that Blackest Night: Batman is in the aftermath of Battle for the Cowl. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) I think we have gone over this enough times, Schmeater. To use a line from the source you just cited: "Blackest Night isn't just a Green Lantern story, it's a DC story." Note that they didn't say it was a Batman: Battle for the Cowl story. Blackest Night is going to touch a lot of titles in the DC line, and you have not provided citable, explicit - let me repeat: explicit - verification that Blackest Night had as its birth the Battle for the Cowl, or that BN is a continuation of the latter. I appreciate that you are looking down the road, but that is not what Wikipedia does.

I feel as if we are covering the same ground here, and you need to understand that there is a point where you have to realize that - every once in a while - an argument is not going to go your way. You can always re-approach this topic at a later date, and seek a new consensus. However, I hope that if you are inclined to do so, you have better citations that explicitly state that DN is a spin off from a Batman title. Until then, I think we have exhausted the discussion possibilities of this particular topic at this time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand you think we are talking about the whole eight issue miniseries. If you do you should know we are not. We are talking about a three issue miniseries, that goes on through August and October. This three issue miniseries is called Blackest Night: Batman. It is written by Peter Tomasi and drawn by Adrien Saef. All the events except the dead rising and Deadman's inclusion in this miniseries happen because of Battle for the Cowl. If you still don't understand here's the link to the miniseries.[3]--Schmeater (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you are right; I was presuming that you were speaking of the larger series. That said, Batman: Blackest Night doesn't appear to have any connection to BftC as an aftermath, and seems to be involving Grayson's Batman instead. If you mean connected as in using events that occurred in the previous series, then yes they are connected - in the same way that the death of Warlock led to the Death of Superman, the death of the Silver Surfer, the Death of Captain America (and an argument could be made for most of the Ultimate Marvel universe, as well), etc/ There is too much hyperbole and semantic involved in connecting them that the matter becomes a snare of original research and synthesis. We cannot include it at this time. You need a citation that says: "yes, B:BN is absolutely the aftermath of BftC". Without it, you aren't going to be able to advance an argument that it is.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well could have a say in Battle for the Cowl. Something like,"An aftermath of some (not the whole thing) of the event's play out in Blackest Night: Batman." It's only a suggestion since the same thing is in Batman R.I.P where the Emperor believes the plot and the other stuff of Blackest Night: Batman should go. --Schmeater (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my evaluation of the arguments provided. I don't think such should be mentioned here. Ask someone else; maybe you'll be offered something different. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing Green Lantern: Rebirth is not in the aftermath of Day of Judgement yet this say is still there: Certain aspects of this story were later dealt with in Green Lantern: Rebirth (involving Hal Jordan being released from the Spectre). Hal just became Spectre in Day of Judgement and all this is saying is Hal is released from Spectre. Blackest Night: Batman, Dick becomes Batman in Battle for the Cowl, Blackest Night: Batman Dick is operating as Batman during his first major fight against evil. So the way I see it is that it makes sense that if Blackest Night: Batman is not part of Battle for the Cowl's aftermath, and Green Lantern: Rebirth is not a part of Day of Judgement's aftermath, logically there shouldn't be a say of Green Lantern: Rebirth in Day of Judgement. Because Day of Judgement is a Spectre story, and Green Lantern: Rebirth is a Green Lantern story. There's just too much of a hyperbole. When you find a link that says yes Green Lantern: Rebirth is in the aftermath of Day of Judgement. Without one I don't think that say deserves to be in there. Same situation right.--Schmeater (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are in the wrong article discussion page for that particular argument. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but see the similarities, between this article and that one. --Schmeater (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne I know you said that we are not reporters, but in a way I am, you see I was able to contact JH Williams and I confirmed that Batman: Reborn is not a storyline. Also I have become a key member in GothamKnightsOnline. Guess who follows it Geoff Johns, I was able to contact Peter Tomasi through JH Williams, but he has not replied. This means that I will be able to ask Geoff John's about Blackest Night: Batman. I should be called "Wikipedia's reporting editor" because I have contacted some Batman writers and artists.--Schmeater (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No.

Sorry, I appreciate that you want to be a reporter, but this isn't the place for it. If you want to write as a reporter, then the pieces should wind up on GothamKnightsOnline. But bringing the information here, you have to ask yourself:

• "Am I drawing a conclusion?"
• "Am I quoting my work from GothamKnightsOnline?"
• "Can I provide a different source for information I got from interviewing Whomever?"

If you are doing any of the three, or anything similar, the information would need to be re-worked or left out. And frankly, if GothamKnightsOnline and your work there turn out to be what is considered reliable, then other editors might be using it to add thing into the articles. For you to do it though would be a conflict of interests.

- J Greb (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

J Greb don't you know what wikipedia needs reporters, who have links. Now I don't post on the site but somebody else does. Now I've sent Grant Morrison questions. So when he replies I'll give you the link. On twitter there are a couple of comic writers. Paul Dini, Grant Morrison, and Geoff John's. If I can ask Geoff this question, then get the poster to post it we will have an answer you will have your interview. Arcayne will understand.--Schmeater (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point: The articles here are supposed to be:

• Built on verifiable, reliable, secondary and tertiary sources
• Have a neutral point of view
• Avoid original research, especially a synthesis or drawn conclusion from multiple cited sources

In general, works of fiction dance around the first point if the editors only stick with what is presented in the work. Even then, the article is likely to be challenged.

The last point though is where you get into trouble if you want to be a reporter instead of an editor. The minute you go to a professional or person involved in the topic of the article and ask "What about...?" and get an answer that only you have, you are doing original research. Even if you can point to a blog entry or Twitter post, you run into "Does Wikipedia consider that reliable?". Most blogs? No. Tweets? Unlikely. Personal emails? Unverifiable.

- J Greb (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your only option would be to write as part of WikiNews, and hope a more reliable media outlet picks up the story and - expanding on it - runs with it. Then they can be sourced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just an interviewer for the site these are the people I'm going to interview: Grant Morrison, Geoff John's, Paul Dini, Jim Lee. I know it's likely to be changed but if you see that post I made in the Batman: Reborn site, it kind of takes this arguement back to the drawing board. What I mean is we started argueing this was part of the Batman: Reborn story arc. Then I found out it was just a banner. So that takes us back to the part of how does it belong in the Batman Universe.--Schmeater (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Websites

If I get the information and then it gets posted on a website and then it gets posted there it will count as an area of information, won't it. --Schmeater (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wan't this question answered but first we are taking Blackest Night: Batman's say out of R.I.P, I got this say from IGN: Fan is curious about RIP and whether it's connected to Blackest Night. When Joker is talking about the "real joke" - dying and coming to life. Batman talking to the Monk about darkness in Batman's heart. The very end of RIP, Bruce says he's seen pure evil. Johns says he loves Grant, RIP, but those items don't connect to Blackest Night.

Now that say from IGN relates to this. You see the reporter who put that down may have a wikipedia account, he just doesn't say that he's a reporter. I do so I have nothing to hide. I have proved one out of five points. --Schmeater (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you but that is a big assumption what I think is you should get the comic and tell the story to us or buy it then post it on a website and tell the world if it is in the aftermath or not.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things...

• Off the top - If the editor/reporter whose article is posted on a site that is considered a reliable source is the same one that adds the information to a Wikipedia article, they're breaching WP:COI. You don't get to bootstrap - "I had this released through a reliable site so I can add it here" doesn't fly.
• Just because an editor/reported does get something published elsewhere that they want here does not mean that a third party will use their story as a source. Further, depending on the editors involved and actions taken, there is a possibility of it being seen as meatpupetry or "gaming the system".
• If the "article" occurs as a series of posts in a forum, it doesn't matter who is involved, it is likely to be treated as unreliable and unusable.
• Floating hypotheticals about what the news sites "might" run is counter productive. If a news story or review comes up that puts forth the idea or confirms what the writers intended, planed, and executed, then add the information to the article as "ComicsNewsFoo reports..." or "Respected Reviewer Foo put forth the idea...". That latter should get treated lightly since it would still be a theory or opinion of what the story means or how multiple stories interrelate.

That last little item is something that is very important: as editors here we have to be very, very careful about putting theories into articles on fiction. The article needs to maintain a neutral POV and we don't get to insert our own theories just references to others putting forward are pet ones. - J Greb (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank's J Greb but what I think Schmeater means is if you put it in a reliable source and the person who publishes it tells you if it's right or not, I think that's what he wan'ts to know if not then I think you're right.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, we are neither detectives nor reporters. Full stop. We are Wikipedia editors, and it is not within our purview to write, create or develop story plots until after they have played out. I am unsure how it can be made any clear than that - except to say that unless someone specifically says such and such is connected, they aren't. That is exactly the way it must be looked at. If you disagree with this viewpoint, perhaps you will find that fan forums might present a better fit for what you are seeking to do.

Is it just me, or did I just have this conversation here a few weeks ago? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Arcayne I'm not Schmeater I'm Stinkysoxmon, I understand that wikipedian's are not reporters and I wan't to know Schmeaters reason's he did not completely state them above, all we know is he think's it fit's into Batman: Reborn therefore should be put into the aftermath and he is connecting the two series. We need to merge those articles and have a better viewpoint of his reason's.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you do merge the articles we will have a better understanding yet I did state my reasons. Merging Batman: Reborn into this will mean that we can include everything including Dick Grayson. That however is way off. --Schmeater (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing something: The proposal is not to merge the entirety of "Reborn" here. Just to include a mention that DC added a trad dress banner to the return Bat-book and the new ones started just after BftC ended. Period. The bulk of the "Reborn" article belong elsewhere - not in that article nor in this one. - J Greb (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman: Reborn

I know how Batman: Reborn is suggested to get deleted but what about Batman and Robin. That first story arc talks about the relation between the new Dynamic Duo. Blackest Night: Batman focus's on the same thing. --Schmeater (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not the place to discus the AfD for Batman: Reborn.
2. This is not the place to discuss the merits of Batman and Robin (comic book) existing.
3. This is not the place to discuss, or try to get reversed, the deletion of the article on Blackest Night: Batman.

A bare minimum "After effects" section is "After the limited series ended, DC brought Batman and Detective Comics out of hiatus and launched a number of new Batman related titles. For the first few months, the issues included a banner in there trade dress that stated 'Batman: Reborn'. This was also the title of the first story arc published in Batman and Robin."

- J Greb (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

J Greb I think what Schmeater means is that the first three issue's in Batman and Robin focus on the relationship of a new Dynamic Duo, I think he's trying to say Blackest Night: Batman focus's on the same thing.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much got that, but that has nil bearing on this article. It's a topic for the articles on Grayson, Damian, and Batman and Robin. It might, as a long stretch, be a topic for the articles on Batman and Robin (comics). - J Greb (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Listen Blackest Night: Batman focus's on three major things Black Lantern effect on Gotham City, some aspects of Batman's death, and the relationship between the new Dynamic Duo. Now which of those three things do you think happen because of Batman R.I.P and Battle for the Cowl. --Schmeater (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, has anyone we can cite commented on that? That's the focal point that seems to be the key component here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That really is a biggie... though the question also encompasses "Have they said it some where that will be considered a reliable, verifiable source?"

I'm also still not convinced that every story featuring Grayson, Damian, them as a team, Gotham, mentions of Wayne's death, Gordon, Bat-villains, Bat-characters, etc, alone or in some combination, published between now and whenever DC brings Wayne back needs to be shoe horned into this article or RIP. Briefly mention the series and/or arc(s) that immediately followed and point to the article(s) and/or section(s) that covers them. And a series that starts 3 or 6 months after an arc ends doesn't "immediately follow". - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok so we are back at links I'll give you a few, [4](Tim Drakes Journey to find Bruce Wayne),[5](a bit about relation ship), [6](Death). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent)

Let's see...

• Torres' review doesn't really touch on what Tim is up to. And even if it did, it might be fodder for Tim Drake and/or Red Robin (comic book) (at a stretch).
• Gilbert's review grazes how Dick and Damian interact, but there isn't much there. If it isn't redundant, it fits into Dick Grayson and/or Damian Wayne.
• Esposito's doesn't do anything with death really, either in general or specifically with Bruce's.

None of the three would add anything relevant to this article. The three may have something to add to a section in Blackest Night. - J Greb (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine with that let me rexlain

• In Torres' review Dick brings Tim Drake back from his search for Bruce Wayne which is currently in Paris, this may tie into that book.
• In Gilbert's review Dick and Damian's interaction is part of their relationship with eachother.
• Esposito's review specificaly mention something like: When I heard Blackest Night: Batman would be dealing with some of the unanswered questions of Batman's death I balkedd who else whould be better than to answer those question's than Grant Morrison I'm pretty sure I didn't get that right but you can check on your talk page for the correct phrase. --Schmeater (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Torres
  1. ...may... is the operative word. The reviewer does not make that observation. He just restates the page from the comic - Dick calls Tim who is in Paris.
  2. If the reviewer had gone on about that scene linking the time line of Blackest Night: Batman and Red Robin, then it is something for the article on Red Robin and a section on Blackest Night: Batman in the article for the "Blackest Night" story arc. And even there it is a minor thing, something that really does not need to be in a general encyclopedia. In something like DC Wiki, where there is an effort to provide an in story continuity/time line, it would be a good thing... But then the DC Wiki might just be OK with an editor stating "It's blatantly obvious based on the comics".
• Gilbert
  1. Character interactions are most relevant to articles on the characters and/or the story/series the interaction occurs in. That would be the articles on Dick Grayson and Damian and the aforementioned possible section on Blackest Night: Batman in the article for the "Blackest Night" story arc.
  2. Character interactions from something after a story arc has ended means very, very little unles it's part of a retcon of the story. There is nothing here to point to that.
  3. This reviewer's piece may be a good counter point to Torres' for showing uneven handling of Damion by multiple writers. But that is something for the article on Damian and even then it's part of the general issue of "character by committee" all comic book character have.
• Esposito
  1. Where did the reviewer hear that tidbit from? He isn't a good source for it, and the original source of it may good for a line at "RIP".
  2. Even then, it isn't relevant to this article.

- J Greb (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey J.Greb the line from Esposito's review will not fit in R.I.P, Geoff John's mentioned that element's from R.I.P don't tie into BN. He never said anything about Battle for the Cowl though. --Stinkysoxmon (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Now I before I post my review if I'm aloud I will ask a couple of question's.

1) Now in question one I never got clear with J Greb. What I wan't to know is why did you put up an AfandD for Blackest Night: Batman. My question's will generate from your answer's please be reasonable. --Schmeater (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2 parter:

1. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackest Night: Batman
2. The has a bearing here how?

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember it all started there. Okay buddy question 2

2)Since the article was deleted and when I added the say in this article what was your typical reaction.

3)Now that the series has been published would you recomend splitting it off from Blackest Night. --Schmeater (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

With "2" - "Wait and see" specifically if:

1. Other editors working on/watching this article would let it float,
2. It would not be an exercise in "gotta get all the plot in", and
3. If anything, either secondary source information or intrinsic to the issues, directly ties the two limited series.

Right now it seems the standing consensus by what's in the article is that BL:B doesn't belong here. And nothing has popped up to provide that link mentioned in my 3.

As for your 3, see my comments at Talk:Blackest Night. Not now, almost certainly not in November when BL:B is done, and most likely not in February when BL is done.

As for posting your review:

• If it is a traditional review - you as the writer offering opinions and critiques - don't bother. That is bluntly crossing WP:OR and WP:SYNTH
• If it is a summary of the plot, keep in mind Cameron Scott's comments to you here. Keep it very, very bare bones.

- J Greb (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank's for telling me I can't give a review, and when exactly should I see these comments and how will I find them. Anyhow on we go.

4) Now with Blackest Night: Batman's first issue published where do you think the issue has more relation with Batman or Green Lantern.--Schmeater (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Schmeater, your ongoing pushing of this shows you have to be reminded about what is and isn't acceptable to be posted on this site. If you are commenting on what you intend to do on another site, please stop. If you want to post a review somewhere other than Wiki, go for it. But don't harangue it here, these talk pages are to deal with improving the Wikipedia article that they are attached to.

And pointing out Scott's comments to you is 1) to let you know others have seen it and 2) allow other who haven't to see it.

As for your point 4... The round robin is getting tiresome.

• Blackest Night: Batman is irrelevant to this article
• Blackest Night is irrelevant to this article
• Green Lantern is irrelevant to this article
• Hammering this point over and over is irrelevant to this article.

Is that clear enough for you? - J Greb (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh what do you mean I stopped talking about the review when you told me it wasn't aloud I'm just going to find review's now and um, I only was going to do 7 question's before I stopped and started to look for other reviews, so if you'll let me finish.

5) Would you let me make the plot of Blackest Night: Batman on the Blackest Night page.

6) What would your reaction be if I found a review that would put this whole arguement to my side.

7) What would happen if I found a source good enough to tell you that Blackest Night: Batman is a Batman story. If you understand getting mad at me, mean's you are becoming my best Wikipedian friend. --Schmeater (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I didn't make this review I found it, I don't own the site, I don't have Blackest Night: Batman I only have Batman: Street's of Gotham 1-3, I got an invite to the site that didn't work. So I hope this link works.[7]--Schmeater (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a reliable source but, as a summary of events, (if I've understood correctly, and it is poorly written) it makes some relevant points about the connection to BftC, like Damian's try to become Batman. However, it does also say "To Battle for the Cowl I wouldn't state it being in the aftermath but dealing with the aspect's of the aftermath such as reaction to a new Batman (Deadman had a reaction to Dick being Batman and what happend to Bruce)."

What I'd be looking for is a continuation of the "who should be Batman?" storyline, with other people (and perhaps Dick himself) having doubts about Dick Grayson's worthiness to adopt the cowl, perhaps with a jostling for the role. It seems an obvious theme that would add depth to all the new Batman's stories (What Would Bruce Do?), the question is whether they bother truly developing all this. It might be something that could be developed in the Dick Grayson article and if it seems like a theme then it could be worth a mention here. As I said above, there is no deadline, so we don't need to rush in before we've got a clear picture of what is going on. That said it is certainly moving in that direction. (Emperor (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Outsiders and Batgirl?

Both Outsiders 19 and 20 (but not 21) and the new Batgirl series have the "Batman Reborn" trade dress which DC are using to denote the post Battle for the Cowl titles. Thoughts on adding them to the list? (Emperor (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

I know that is not how you wanted it to be but look at it Outsiders have the Batman: Reborn Banner the story leads up into Blackest Night, and Batgirl also has the Banner connecting the two and connecting them to Blackest Night, it's a thought that you might consider. --Schmeater (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Outsiders

These are the solicits for the Outsiders

The Outsiders 20

"The Deep" part 6! Against their will, the Outsiders help the Insiders find the last pieces of the meteorite which will restore the immortality of the Insiders once and for all. But a fateful choice has to be made by Geo-Force that will lead to a life-changing moment for him and Katana. Plus, more on the mysterious origins of Metamorpho and his connection to the Insiders.

The Outsiders 21

"The Hunting" begins here! With Arkham Asylum's most dangerous inmates running free, The Outsiders are charged with returning them to Gotham City – by whatever means necessary. Batman and Alfred split up the team in order to track down Killer Croc, Mr. Freeze and Clayface before the rogues kill again!

The Outsiders 22

"The Hunting" continues as Metamorpho, Black Lightning and Geo-force scour the globe to track down Clayface. But when tensions rise, Lighting and Geoforce will find themselves at odds over the control of the team. Plus, the Creeper and Man-Bat head down to the bayou to catch themselves a Killer Croc!

The Outsiders 23

"The Hunting" continues as Halo, Katana and The Creeper attempt to capture Killer Croc and return him to Gotham City before more dead bodies surface in the Louisiana swamps. But when Man-Bat joins the fight, will he side with the monster or the monster-hunters?

Now Hunting has concluded and focuses on The Outsiders taking down some villains that were rampant during the time of Battle for the Cowl so even though it does not have a Batman: Reborn banner it is still in the aftermath. Now this is the prelude for the next two issues which are Blackest Night tie-ins. Technically I have read "Hunting" at a friends house and it has a big impact on Geo Force.

The Outsiders 24

Prepare for another mind-blowing BLACKEST NIGHT tie-in. Spinning out of BLACKEST NIGHT: TITANS, the dead rise to dine on the flesh of the living! It's brother vs. undead sister when Black Lantern Terra comes to claim the still-beating hearts of Geo-Force and the rest of the Outsiders!

The Outsiders 25

The Outsiders' loved ones are returning from the grave in this BLACKEST NIGHT tie-in, and the stirring turn of events forces the team to make some difficult choices as they struggle to survive the night and stop the Black Lanterns. But the battle will be a dangerous one, and the repercussions of this issue will be felt throughout the next year!

Those issues were written by Peter J. Tomasi and they connect to eachother through Geo-Force who is hit hard through both issues even though 24 and 25 have not been released yet you can read it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmeater (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batman: Battle for the Cowl. 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/20120305225820/http://comics.ign.com/articles/961/961488p1.html to http://comics.ign.com/articles/961/961488p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)