Talk:Scarecrow (DC Comics)

Reference?

"As a young child he had a fear of death, after his stepfather raped and murdered his mother, in front of his stepson, however his fear was overcome when his stepfather died."

I'm deleting this unless someone can find a reference, i've never seen this anywhere else. 67.174.248.87 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are completely right, that is erroneous information. He was raised by his great-grandmother, and did not meet his father until he was an adult. In addition, his mother is still alive as seen in both his origins, and the recent Holiday Special. Komodo ninja (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Brave and the Bold

wouldn't the show merit it's own section? 96.236.219.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Recent Major Revision.

I think DCIncarnate has the right idea and intent by removing a LOT of cruft and fanplot, but I agree with JoeLoeb taht it may have gone too far. I'm not a fan of losing the publication history materials, so if we can review the edit and let DCI justify his work, and let JL reply in a calm manner, about what he'd like to see return, we can get somewhere. YEs? ThuranX (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is some give and take finally; I have thrown in an edit as well. Hopefully this style of working will fix things. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted JoeLoeb's edits today to return the article to it's previous structure. A publication history with very brief plot summaries of major changes in the character is far more effective for a minor character like this. The publication history notes the silver age and modern age transitions, obviating the need for subsectioning. ThuranX (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to add in ideas in the history section. All I want is to improve it and give some background to the film and TV stuff instead of just voiced by ... That's it.(JoeLoeb (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

So propose some changes to those sections back here, and leave publication history alone for now. I'd recommend finding sources which discuss the cartoon and movie versions, either in regard to how the actors portrayed the character, how the writers approached the character, or how the character matched/differed from the comics version. Real World content instead of lots of plot. ThuranX (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I give up. Screw it up as much as you want. (JoeLoeb (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

How much is to much info?

You guys decide, I like things to be informative, but others prefer the latter. I have problems with 2 people (DCI and ThuRex) who keep reverting the article back to crap after it was doing nothing for years. (JoeLoeb (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

I think that what happened is the DCI decided to clean it up, which both you and I noticed in our watchlists. I think that while DCI was right, his pruning was excessive; you seem to think the article was fine. I am trying to find a medium, which isn't an issue list, but focuses on the real world content, while you'd prefer it to be a long, detailed plot/character history. I really think we can all work on this together - note that DCI isn't blanket reverting your changes OR mine back to his version, he IS working with you. But the fact that you both are ignoring the talk page after I left you both notes about it, repeated notes, in fact, doesn't make things easier, nor does a 20K page explosion, a blanking the na revert to your own favorite version. ThuranX (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am more than willing to cooperate, but JoeLoeb apparently doesn't know how we do things around here; and either doesn't understand or is ignorning my reasons for editing - he sure doesn't respond to them. And I trimmed down the history section because it was written "in-universe" and described Scarecrow's appearances in excessive detail. DCincarnate (talk)

You're not making it any easier, you know. I keep trying to get you two to talk, but you're both far more interested in taking cheap shots at each other when you communicate at all, and both of you are just edit warring now, each pushing it back to what they want. At this point, if you can't talk back here, don't edit out there, because my next step is taking you both to the edit warring noticeboard. Either discuss or step away from the page. ThuranX (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Have you read his talk page? I have tried to discuss with him but its impossible. He believes the Scarecrow article should not be edited, and thinks I'm destroying it - and now he is saying you're a problem for reverting the article "back to crap". Really, I don't know how to deal with this guy. DCincarnate (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the article was fine, this a major character and its about as long as Hoelun, the mother of Ghenghis Khan. You have deleted over half of the page and nearly ever image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.174.248 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Artiicle title

Before this gets moved again... and the alternate page that was created has been moved to Scarecrow (comics)/Suggested SI for the time being...

Yes, Wikipedia naming conventions hold that a dab phrase be used when more than one article would use the same title. And yes, the same conventions hold that the phrases be such that the specific subject is easily IDed.

However, the convention also takes into account that dab phrases are also assigned based on how likely a particular unique subject is going to be searched for and how many topics exist for an article title, or a tighter subset of it.

In the case of characters named "Scarecrow" in comics we are already talking about a very limited subset of the articles that would use the title "Scarecrow". As the suggested set index shows we've got 3 articles and an "umbrella" note about the adaptations of a single character in literature, so 4 items. Of the four, 1 (the adaptation) is more likely to be searched for under Scarecrow (Oz). And another is more likely to be looked for under the name the publisher is using to differentiate it from their "other Scarecrow" - Straw Man (comics). Of the two that are left, the DC character, is the more likely to be looked for under Scarecrow (comics). All that requires is for a hatnote to the other article primarily focused on a comic book topic that shares the base title.

Since that is what we currently have, there isn't a need to move things around.

- J Greb (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the character now called "Straw Man" made his three most significant, cover logo appearances with the name "Scarecrow," I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I won't change it back if this is the consensus. The only other time I ended up in a dab argument like this was for Tom Jones, which I see has now been fixed rather than going automatically to the singer. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)