Template talk:Batman/Archive 4

Enemies/Villains referenced

Well, since the discussions above seem to have slowed, let's start a new thread.

I'd like some valid links or references to lists of Batman enemies/villains.

I'll start with one from television:

• [1] - This seems to now be a dead link, but this is the channel which broadcast it.
• [2] - tvguide.com reference to the show
• [3] - imdb
• [4] - The lists, listed. (Though the top 5 villains, at least, were not in the listed order.)

The above listed Penguin and Riddler together in the top 20 list, and Joker was a few ranks higher (who lost out to Darth Vader). Incidentally, Lex Luthor; and Marvel's Bullseye, Magneto, Doc Oc, Doctor Doom, and Green Goblin; also made the list. Catwoman made the "vixens" list.

I should also clarify that this was rather clearly a "film-based" list (including television), though comics were also mentioned, and creators from the various media (comics/film/television) were apparently among those polled.

So we potentially have 3 or 4. Do we have more? : ) - jc37 07:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wizard produces lists of villains with some regularity... ntnon (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile... the sourceless but otherwise quite useful "Seekler" list; IGN's "Bottom Five" and "Top Ten" (spot the 'mistakes'); and then THE most helpful I can see: A Test. And once you've taken it and either passed gloriously or missed one or two, what follows is arguably the most helpful link on this subject going. :o)

(While, on the other hand, the comparable Superman Test doesn't not include Metallo or Mr. Mxyzptlk, and includes at least one decided oddity...)

There are also a couple of fan polls which aren't of desperate use, but still tend to reflect the "real" world more than the theory. ntnon (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The IGN link had a popup which prevented me from seeing it, the rest appear to be fan polls of this type or other. So while they may be worth taking into consideration, they wouldn't be "references" per se. - jc37 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But there aren't going to be footnotes in the template, so the importance of "Sporcle" test cannot be understated - it demonstrates very ably which villains are widely known. Whether this is "by the GENERAL public," "the COMICS READING public" or even "fanboys" makes its usefulness range between "very" and "exceptionally." Take the test and then look at the percentages of who answered which names correctly - it gives a VERY clear cutoff point for notability, recognisability and the rest. :o) ntnon (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're going by common sense, then the villains which should be listed (i.e. the major ones) are The Joker, The Penguin, Catwoman, The Riddler, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, Scarecrow, and Ra's al Ghul. Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Clayface, Black Mask, and especially Mad Hatter are also considered major villains, but they are not as well known. But the others are the most prominent of Batman's rogue's gallery (especially considering they were all portrayed across the six major feature films, from 1989's Batman to the upcoming Dark Knight), so those ten villains, at least, should be listed in the template. Again, this is going by common sense, which I'm sure is not enough for Wikipedia. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for listing your opinion of what should be on this page. The issue here is that what you , me, ntnon, or anyone else might consider to be "major" is simply subjective.

It doesn't matter whether this navbox allows for references or not. We do not determine this ourselves, we merely are to indicate what others (verifiable relaiable sources) have determined.

And so far, other than personal opinions of editors, and of blogs, and such, we currently have 2 sources. The one I listed (reputable, with many reputable people in the various industries contributing to it), and possibly the IGN one. ("Possibly", as you didn't list the "source" of their list - is this the work of one or more writers of a reputable journal, or just an uploaded posting by some games player?)

So, think we could find a few more? - jc37 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I kind of figured that would be the response. ;) Anyway, sources: Black Mask, Clayface, Penguin, Killer Croc, Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow, and Man-Bat were among the villains covered in the book Batman Villains: Secret Files & Origins 2005[5]; the origins of Joker, Bane, Scarecrow, Two-Face, Clayface, Poison Ivy, Ra's al Ghul, Mr. Freeze, Black Mask, and Catwoman were covered in this book. Associated Content has a list of "the ten greatest Batman villains" (which I can't link here due to a spam filter, but they are Two-Face, Joker, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Bane, Riddler, Clayface, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc, and Penguin). Then there are the villains which are considered major in that sporcle trivia game linked above (in order of appearance: Joe Chill, Joker, Catwoman, Clayface, Scarecrow, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, Mad Hatter, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Man-Bat, Ra's al Ghul, Killer Croc, Harley Quinn, and Bane). There's also a Best Batman Villains list here. There's this page which rates The Joker, Two-Face, Penguin, Clayface, Catwoman, and The Riddler. Eleven different villains are listed here for users to rate. Fans chose their favorite Batman villains here and here and here. If that's not enough, there's the characters' portrayals on film and television, starting with the 1960s show: Joker (19 episodes), Riddler (12 episodes), Catwoman (16 episodes), and Penguin (20 episodes) were the most frequent villains on the 1960s Batman series and they also appeared in the 1966 film. The Joker, Catwoman, The Penguin, Two-Face, The Riddler, Bane, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow, and Ra's al Ghul were all portrayed in the major motion pictures from Warner Bros. (Joker was played by two different actors in two different films; Two-Face/Harvey Dent has been portrayed in three films, each time by a different actor.) In addition, all of these characters – especially The Joker and The Riddler – have appeared on the many animated TV shows over the years (SuperFriends, Batman, Superman, The New Batman Adventures, The Batman, Justice League, even Scooby-Doo). I can get more sources if you want. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There we go : )

Note: often "secret origins" or "secret files" comics include those who are "new", or which the publisher wants to "push". So we should take that under consideration as well. - jc37 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the first two links I started to compile a referenced list based on your links. However, after looking them all over, most are more "fan/blogger favourites/wishlists" lists.

As I said above, these are ok, but with a grain of salt, as most can't be considered WP:RS.

That said, the information from "in house" (such as the secret origins/files books, and inclusions in the films and the 60s television series) could be useful, and that list you have of someone who wrote a book of lists would seem to be great. Let's see if we can find more of those. - jc37 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: jc27 -- According to IGN, the five "worst" Batman villains are 1.) Calendar Man, 2.) Maxie Zeus, 3.) Ventriloquist & Scarface, 4.) Mad Hatter, and 5.) The Penguin. The ten "best" villains are 1.) The Joker, 2.) Ra's al Ghul, 3.) Catwoman, 4.) Two-Face, 5.) Bane, 6.) Poison Ivy, 7.) Scarecrow, 8.) Mr. Freeze, 9.) Black Face Mask, and 10.) Harley Quinn. Interestingly, no Riddler. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is "Black Face" "Black Mask"? - jc37 05:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Er... yeah, it is, sorry. Apparently was thinking "Two-Face" while writing the name. :/ --From Andoria with Love (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Commissioner Loeb??

{{editprotected}}

Someone seems to have added Commissioner Loeb to the box, when he's hardly a notable character in the Batman mythos. He appears in comic one storyline and his name is used in the films. For all the fussing people have done about Renee Montoya (a character who is extremely notable in the current DCU) being in the box or out of the box, it seems bizarre that Loeb would merit inclusion. I'd edit him out but the box is protected. Proserpine (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

HARLEY QUINN

She should be added to the villain list. Only because of her being well-known. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no rush to add anymore to the villain list except Harley Quinn. Add her to the list. Yeldarb68 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

She even attained her own comic book. Does that not prove that she has become one of the most significant antagonists of the Batman universe and therefore should be on the template with the other major villains? Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying again

• [6] - The lists, listed. (Though the top 5 villains, at least, were not in the listed order.)
• Book list

Based on the above 2, we have (besides Catwoman, which is another discussion):

• Joker
• Penguin
• Riddler

and

• Joker
• Two-Face
• Penguin
• Clayface
• Catwoman
• Riddler

Do we have anything further? - jc37 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the above as they have references.

Again: More references would be most welcome! - jc37 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(Obviously) The Joker in head-and-shoulders out in front, also making it to #45 on the AFI list of 50 Villains. (Batman is merely at #46 on the Heroes list.) More helpful is the list of 400 nominations - and bear in mind that this is FILM villains, so you have Atticus Finch and Clarice Starling as heroes; Nurse Ratched and HAL 9000 as villains, etc. - where three Bat-villains were nominated. They are:

• Catwoman (..a villain..)
• Joker
• Penguin

The Joker and Ra's turn up on the comic book "Top 10 Super Villains Of All Time" at About.com.

Ra's, Catwoman and the Joker fill three places on IGN's Top Ten list of "Comic Book Movie Villains."

A frankly un-substantiated blog listing places the Riddler at #9, Catwoman at #8, Joker at #4 and Penguin(!) at #3, concurring - in odd order - with the Miscellaneous Lists section of The-Top-Tens.com has a list of comic book super villains, which (it appears) is also then weighted by viewer votes, should there be any. Joker is #1, Catwoman is #3, Riddler at #5, Penguin at #9.

An independent report of Wizard's "100 Greatest Villains of All Time" puts the Bat-villains in the following places (and also includes, say, Emperor Palpatine (#3), the Borg (#7) and Hannibal Lector (#6), with approx. 16-18 comics villains).

• Joker - #1
• Catwoman - #51

Quizilla's choices for voting on Batman Villains, and thus the top ten, are:

• Joker, Scarecrow, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, Clayface, Harley and Mr Freeze.

Now, the BEST sources: Premiere's Best On-Screen Bat Villains:

• Joker, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Penguin, Riddler, Scarecrow and Ra's.

(Premiere's Worst On-Screen Bat Villains are:

• Mr. Freeze, [Dr. Daka], Bane (caveated that "In the comics, Bane is a highly literate vigilante/villain..."), Two-Face ("arguably Batman's most complex villain" ill-portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones, but "Aaron Eckhart's performance in The Dark Knight gives the monstrous baddie the complex treatment he so deserves"), Poison Ivy (allegedly in B&R as the result of "digging deep" into the Rogue's gallery...) and... an exploding shark.)

And, again, the absolutely BEST source (in my opinion!) for who is actually known by a wide range of people is the Sporcle "Major Batman Villains" quiz. There are 16 options, which effectively gives the 16 top villains from the last 70 years. Most importantly, the results are then tabulated and ranked. As of today, the quiz had been taken 20,378 times (and some of those could be people taking the quiz multiple times).

This Major Batman Villains Quiz has been taken 20,380 times (and some of those could be people taking it multiple times). In addition to the choices ("major villains") themselves, the percentages tell everything. Approximately fifty percent of takers guess 6-9 villains correctly.

The Joker was guessed by 99.3% of test-takers; Penguin by 92.4% and the Riddler by 88.2%.

Catwoman was recalled by 84.3% of people, Mr. Freeze by 80.7% and Two-Face by 79.6%.

Dipping (just) under the three-quarters mark, Poison Ivy is the seventh most-recalled, at 74.9%.

The ranks then drop considerably for the Scarecrow (56.9%), and then more for Bane (39.7%). Clayface comes in just over a quarter (25.7%), not too far ahead of Harley (23.8%) and Ra's (21.8%). Mad Hatter, Man-Bat and Killer Croc are much-of-a-muchness, currently at 20.6%, 20.2% and 19.6% respectively. Joe Chill is necessarily last with a 14.4% response rate.

So clearly the most-known, memorable and major villains are, in order:

• 1. THE JOKER
• =2. Penguin, Riddler and Catwoman
• =5. Mr. Freeze, Two-Face and Poison Ivy
• 8. Scarecrow
• 9. Bane
• =10. Clayface, Harley and Ra's
• =13. Mad Hatter, Man-Bat and Killer Croc

I would put the cut-off ABOVE Clayface, and preferably above Bane, leaving just the top 8/"guessed right" by more than half the quiz-takers. If you include Ra's, Clayface and Harley need to be included, and they are all only barely better known than the Hatter, Kirk Langstrom and Waylon Jones. Which would be a full fifteen demanding inclusion. ntnon (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with your interpretation, I have to say: Excellent work on finding references : )

Taking the refs in reverse order:

Sporcle isn't a good reference. For one thing, they prejudiced the quiz by selecting which villains that the quiz takers could select from.

Second, quizzes themselves aren't much better than blogs, if that. (For one thing, consider that a single person with an non-static IP could "vote" an infinite number of times - as you noted above.)

Premire's list looks like a decent source.

Quizilla has the same "quiz" problems, though at least "other" in the results suggests that it's possible that the quiz was "open" and not just a preselected few. (Though I'm not positive of that.)

Presuming that the blog got the list correct, the Wizard list would be a very good source. I wonder if anyone knows the actual issue to cite.

Top tens is another quiz...

Ignoring the blogs (we have lots and lots of those lists : )

Taking the IGN movie villain list under due consideration.

I'm not sure about about.com. Isn't it another free to edit site like Wikipedia? Or am I missing something?

The AFI list is presumably also a good reference.

So let's see. We had established (and have reconfirmed):

• Catwoman · Clayface · Joker · Penguin · Riddler · Two-Face

And now it looks like we could add:

• Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, and Harley Quinn (due to Premier and other such TV/Film lists)

Now to take the various blogs and so on that you've listed:

The "other" adversaries that seem to be consistantly noted (mostly due to TV/Film - and ususally on "worst" lists - as you noted) are Bane, Mr Freeze, and Poison Ivy.

And Mad Hatter and Killer Croc for the same reasons, though to a lesser extent.

And of course quite a few others. (Everyone has a favourite.)

And btw: This when considering the above, is interesting. It's a link from 2 years ago, waaay before any of this began.

• Bane • Catwoman • Clayface • Harley Quinn • Joker • Killer Croc • Mr. Freeze • Penguin • Poison Ivy • Ra's al Ghul • Riddler • Scarecrow • Two-Face

Looks rather similar to the above.

So based on the references above, among other things, I'll update the template, (I note we already have things like the Wrath to be reverted...)

And even though it will be updated, I'd like to know concretely if we agree that we have consensus on this. - jc37 07:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

UNDENT Thanks. :o)

I'm going to politely disagree about Sporcle, since the sheer numbers demonstrate very well who the general public/quiz takers can name, which in turn reflects on notability. And that holds irregardless of whether the quiz is compromised by selection - it still says that x% guessed certain characters, denoting their notability relative to each other. And the selection is clearly reasonable, anyway. All the other official and unofficial lists are just as compromised (the film & TV ones particularly), but are not treated as dubious even as they are (often) one individuals arbitrary choices - Sporcle has polled a number of people. Even if it's just two people taking the quiz thousands of times each (rather unlikely), it gives a better picture of general notability than one critics list. ;o)

I was under the impression that the core of About.com was created on a higher level than peer-editors, but I could be wrong on that. I'll certainly support with no reservations: THE JOKER. Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, Mr Freeze and Bane. I would personally agree with Ra's (particularly after Batman Begins), and maybe Harley, but don't see much logic for Clayface, even though the iterations have a collective longevity.

Much as I like them, not Killer Croc. Not Mad Hatter. Not Ventriloquist. Not Zsasz. They don't have the weight or the recognisability. ntnon (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Limit on villians=Bizzare

Why can't we just add villians that are known batman villians? This whole restriction is weird. Who cares how many villians are listed..batman villians are batman villians. Aspensti (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The nutshell?

1. Length
2. Arguing of inclusion of "minor" characters by edits (perennial with the Marvel character navboxes)
3. Arguing the sort order by edits

It's moot though. The protection's expired so let the reworks begin.

- J Greb (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Batman

Renee Montoya and Crispus Allen are both individuals from Gotham City, and (former) members of the Gotham City Police Department.

However, as one is now the Question and the other is the Spectre, should they be included here as "major" supporting characters? If so, do we open the door to all supporting characters? Even if we limit this to more than just The Brave and the Bold team-up stores, we'd still have names such as Nemesis, and Bronze Tiger. And then, of course, there's Alan Scott, written by Bill Finger, and also HQ-ed in Gotham City. Are we basing inclusion only upon "current" storylines? - jc37 12:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts/concerns:

Were Montoya and Allen only in the GCPD comics? Or were they like Bullock part of the GCPD that appeared in Detective and Batman? If the former, I'd argue to leave them out, if the later, they're "name" cast.

And, yes, that means I believe that we shouldn't include Nightwing and Robin characters/villains unless they were strongly integrated into the title and strips (remember there was a time when Detective ran stories that didn't focus on Batman) where Bats was the primary.

Nemesis is his own character with a very, very lose intersect with Batman.

Same with Bronze Tiger.

And as for Alan Scott... Think of it this way, would it be argued to include Batman in {{Green Lantern}} because he and Scott "shared" Gotham?

- J Greb (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Renee Montoya is an enormously important supporting character of (fairly) long standing and critical importance to major storylines (including No Man's Land). She should absolutely be included alongside Bullock. Crispus Allen... not so much. Clearly 'Nemesis', 'Bronze Tiger' and 'Alan Scott' shouldn't even be considered. ntnon (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The GCPD was missing, which is odd, so now it's there. I wondered whether to move Wayne Enterprises into a parenthetical mention after "Lucius Fox," since it is not a 'location'. But, since the 'location' link includes 'businesses' (oddly), I left it. Arguably the GCPD belongs there, too, but adding it after Gordon allows the alphabetizing of the "supporting characters" to be accurate while keeping the important three first. Clearly the sensible order would be Alfred/Gordon/other, but it's fine with Fox second. Montoya is easily as important and notable as Bullock.

The villains were in a vaguelly alphabetical order (since the Joker wasn't first), so I fixed that. I restrained myself from moving Catwoman into villains since that's nominally under discussion (why? Surely the whole point of this list is not to skew it to reflect current trends, but to make things accurate on an historical level. Naturally there's no room for "supporting characters," "villains" and 'gray area hero-villains', so Langstrom and Catwoman are VILLAINS, not supporting characters.) and I also left Jean Paul where he is.

• Catwoman needs to be in the villains list.
• "Azrael (Jean Paul Valley)" is a supporting character, he is not a Batman. I notice that 'Damian' isn't included here; AzBat is as minor a happening, while Azrael is a notable supporting character. As is Harold, incidentally, from the same timeframe.... N.B. As mentioned previously, moving Azrael to the correct place should also make the Robins and Batgirls fit on the same line, rather than being broken across two.
• Oracle should really be double-linked, mentioned as now after Barbara Gordon, but also separately as a member of the Family.
• Kirk Langstrom is also a 'villain' - a casual read of the page here confirms that skew in all media, including toys. As a villain he is a very minor one, and may not even deserve inclusion. N.B. Manbat isn't mentioned in the 'Batman Family' sections of the characters page, either.

NOTE: Moving Catwoman to 'villains' and Langstrom either to the same place of off the template then makes the label "Batman Family" accurate...

(I also wonder whether Gardner Fox should be in the 'creators,' having written six of the first eight stories, including the origin of the Batarang and (proto-)Batplane, but that's not really necessary. Likewise, Jerry Robinson is a VERY key individual, creator of the Joker, early ghost, etc.)

I also removed the 'al Ghul' from "Talia." This is because, after trying to locate her in Greenberger's revised Batman Encyclopedia without success, she turned up under 'Talia HEAD.' Never would have occurred to me, so rather than give both alternates - "Talia (al Ghul/Head)" - it seemed much simpler to just have her as "Talia." Likewise, "Alfred" is only first without his - barely mentioned - surname. But, as it's his only surname, parentheses made sense in that case. ntnon (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

More

Glad to see Catwoman finally in the correct place, but was it even worth my writing the explanations above...?

• "(Pennyworth)" and "GCPD" allow the list to be alphabetised - otherwise it remains in an odd order. If it's ranked by notability, it's Alfred/Gordon/Vicki/Talia/Fox. Since it's in some semblance of alphabetical, then you need those parentheses/interpolations.
• "Talia" is both 'al Ghul' AND 'Head'. Yes, she's clearly "al Ghul," but the most recent authoritative encyclopedic source lists her under "H" for "Head." Hence, Talia alone.
• "Betty Kane" AKA Batgirl is NOT "Flamebird"..! Betty was on Titans West as "Bat-Girl"; post-Crisis a TITANS-ONLY iteration (Bette) became Flamebird. Different character (albiet clearly linked). No relation to Batman. No need to be mentioned here.

Now.... Azrael. :o) ntnon (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Catwoman is listed in that section, because it was supported by several references, as noted above.

This isn't about my or your "opinion". The sooner that we get out of that frame of mind, the better. To quote WP:V:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

And further, there are two things you are continually bringing up: a.) template formatting - in what order should a link be placed in order for it to "look nice" for you to view. If that's your oncern, then test that for many screen layouts, not just yours. That's something I've learned from being in several main page layout discussions. b.) where a certain link should be placed based on personal criteria of belief. - These are links, this is a navigational template. This has nothing to do with "prestige". As I've said before, if consensus isn't found for this, I'm going to suggest the removal of all the individual names, and merley link to a list page for use as navigation. Why? Because, once again, our job is not to create, our job is to report. We can be creative in the reporting, but it still should be reporting, nonetheless. And responsible reporting at that.

Why do I think this is important? (After all, this has been several months of on-and-off discussion.) Because I think we need to (re-)set a guideline, and I think that this is a good place to start.

Most of your concerns have been addressed and discussed above. To clarify one, though: We should not get so focused on "current". Just because the "current" Elizabeth Kane may spell her name a certain way, and may or may not have been Bat-Girl in the current continuity, doesn't mean that we shouldn't reference that and allow for navigation. This isn't a navbox for "current history" (indeed, there have been, and are right now, discussions suggesting that we shouldn't focus on "current" status in a publisher's universe continuity). This is a navbox for navigation. This isn't a "box of names", it's a set of links to aid in navigation.

Anyway, let's see if we can determine a consensus on what we have now, before trying for more, especially when it could be a matter of "opinion". - jc37 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Catwoman has finally been moved based on references that have been there all along... the TV series, Batman Returns, any number of lists and guides, etc.

It's entirely because it's not meant to be any individuals' opinion that I raise these concerns. Not alphabetising the names implies a weighting based on subjective reasoning. I would personally prefer to list them subjectively - Alfred/Gordon/Vicki/Talia; Joker/Catwoman/Penguin/Two-Face/Riddler/Ivy, etc. But since, as you say, it's important to both take the long view and not arbitrarily decided on personal criteria, either alphabetising or ordering by debut seems logical. And of those, alphabetising is least controversial or complicated. (The Riddler and Scarecrow were barely in existence until the 1960s, for example.)

Admittedly, screen layouts can vary. There is of course a 'standard,' but yes, that's an important point to remember. That said, having a parenthetical collection of names split over two lines is just awkward, particularly when it can be sorted by fixing Azrael. Your "not getting focused on the current" is the whole point - the issue is to take a long term view. In the long term view, Catwoman is a villain. In the long term view, AzBat is a blip. "Robin" is Dick. Plus Jason and Tim (and Stephanie) time-wise, prestige-wise, memorably, etc. In any reasonable estimation, Batman is Bruce Wayne. Full stop. Period. Azrael is a minor - but mentionable - supporting character. AzBat is a minor mention for that minor character, but doesn't register in the wider picture any more than Dick taking up the cowl in Prodigal. Since common sense has yet to prevail over this, I thought I'd try a different tack and point out that moving Azrael would also help address potential layout issues as well. :o)

The Betty/Bette Kane issue, though. Are you familiar with the two characters..? Because BATGIRL is Betty Kane. Flamebird is Bette Kane. Bette and Betty are not the same character. So it is not accurate to imply that Batgirl is equable with Flamebird. It's an inaccurate synthesis. It's not unlike miscrediting Bruce Wayne as Azrael by mislinking Batman.

Absolutely this shouldn't deal in "current" lists (Damian rightly has no place in this box. Yet.) it's long-standing and important characters. Hence Tweedledee and Tweedledum aren't in the villains box. Hence Robin's companions on the Titans teams aren't in the box as allies. And hence, while Betty Kane was the first Batgirl, Bette Kane/Flamebird has no place in the BATMAN infobox. It's not an issue of spelling names differently, the pre- and post-crisis characters are not the same. Helena Kyle and Helena Bertinelli are not the same character, even as both are Huntress. So a Huntress link is fine, but if Helena were named, she'd need to be named twice. Since Batgirl IS named, she needs to be named rightly, and Bette was never Batgirl. Batwoman probably doesn't even exist anymore, even though she's still notable for her pre-crisis role. But the post-Crisis socialite-only Kathy Kane should not be included; the post-Infinite Crisis 'new' Batwoman is covered by Batwoman, even though again the characters are different.

I realise that's trying to convey complex information, and may be hard to follow, and I apologise! But, really. Verifiability is the issue - if anyone things Flamebird is an alternate alter ego of BATGIRL, let that link stand. Otherwise, remove it. If anyone can prove Bette operated at any point as Batgirl, fine. Otherwise, it's "Batgirl (Betty Kane)." Proveable, verifiable and accurate.

If providing links are the issue, the piped Betty Kane link still goes to "Bette," and Bette can be followed to Flamebird. Simple, and accurate. ntnon (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First, "common sense" is subjective, which I think you'd agree : )

"I thought I'd try a different tack and point out that moving Azrael would also help address potential layout issues as well. :o)" - Fair enough, apparently, I somewhat misread your intent.

As for whether I know the characters, yes, yes I do - quite well, actually : )

You may (or may not) be surprised to know that Kane as Flamebird debuted in the Titans Secret Origins annual (#3) which was a re-writing of the history of several Titans characters, including Mal Duncan and Betty/Bette Kane. So yes, this was merely a post-crisis "new earth" update of the character.

As for Azrael, it's been quite some time, and it hasn't been retconned, even with all the various recent Crises (note the "e"). So apparently it's part of the history. (The past is the past, whether we like it or not : )

Do you have some reference showing that Jean-Paul was not given the Batman identity by Bruce Wayne? And let's be clear: given. This doesn't compare to the many times that others have "stood in for" Batman. (Which would include everyone from Superman and Martian Manhunter, to the various Robins, and even Alfred : )

And as for: "having a parenthetical collection of names split over two lines is just awkward" - That's on your screen. That's not necessarily every screen. People may be using (800 x 600), (1024 x 768), something larger, something smaller, or even a portable phone, so the "line break" reasoning carries little water. - jc37 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadly. :o) Certainly some things seem more debateable than I would have thought...

You may not have read Robert Greenberger's new Batman Encyclopedia where it is made QUITE clear that, while the characters are clearly similar, BETTE (Flamebird) was NEVER Batgirl. Betty Kane, Batgirl also joined the Titans. Later, she was updated, and was primarily a Titan. Post-Crisis, a similarly named and origin-ed character - Mary/Bette - was NOT Batgirl, but joined the Titans, as Flamebird. Betty is Batgirl. Bette is Flamebird. It is - if you'll excuse the harshness of the suggestion - WP:OR to then say "Betty = Bette," even though on some level that is not entirely inaccurate. The batgirl character IS NOT "'AKA' Flamebird." 'n 'update'..? On some levels, yes. Primarily - if not wholly Titans levels, and in no way related to Batman or Batgirl. Therefore: Different. (Ah, continuity...!)

Has it actually been referred to post Infinite Crisis (the only Crisis to have occurred fully after AzBat, so far), though...? The past is the past is the past... except in comics, where a future-past might become the "past"! ;o)

Jean-Paul was asked to stand-in by a delirious Bruce Wayne. (Just as Stephanie was ultimately acknowledged as a Robin a while after she declared herself to be one.) It was a mistake, and acknowledged as one. (And only done because the writers/editors wanted a more violent/dangerous/bold/similar Batman, but baulked from using Bruce. (Rightly.) After Bruce regained his cape & cowl, he then also gave the identity to Dick (Prodigal). There are also the various future-Batmen (among then Tim, Damian and Terry McGinnis), who all use the "Batman" name. Nevertheless, the point is that "BATMAN IS BRUCE WAYNE." The Flash is Jay, Barry and Wally (maybe Bart). Superman is Clark/Kal. Wonder Woman is Diana & Hippolyta - but not Artemis and Donna, who have nevertheless been "official" Wonder Women - on a lesser level than AzBat, since they adhered to the same codes and practices.

It is, you're correct, technically accurate (in the same way that Flamebird is not!), but it is not Infobox/Template/Character/In-Universe accurate, since it can only imply an equality between Bruce and Jean-Paul that is insulting and inaccurate. As I wrote before, Azrael deserves to be included AS Azrael, a somewhat-minor but nonetheless important, comrade and Bat-family member. Not as "a" Batman, which was a minor blip in HIS tenure as a character, let alone that of the Batman. AzBat rightly takes second-spot on Alternate versions of Batman, which is as it should be. He should not be in the infobox. Matches Malone is a more important character than AzBat, and arguably a candidate for a Batman pseudonym "him"self...

I realise that there are different screen sizes, even as you presumably recognise that there is still a standard (maybe two) for most computers. But, fair enough. :o) I would still think it more sensible to put a <br> between the Robins and the Batgirls - for most "normal" screen sizes this will have little effect other than tidying things up; for those that are smaller, the layout will already be highly bizarre, and thus also see little change. But I'm not fussed about that, really. ntnon (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job with the reference, though I would note that the point the author was making is that in the current continuity the bat-girl was not a titan. What I said above, has been said by the creators of the annual, and by others (though some were repeating what the creator's said) Looks like I'll have to go dig up some references : )

As for Jean-Paul, check out Batman: Knightfall, especially the sections on "KnightQuest:The Search" and "KnightQuest:The End". Under Prodigal, it's clear that Dick is just "standing in" for Batman. Not so when Jean-Paul took over the mantle. At the time he was listed as: "The new Batman", and Bruce had "retired". There is a distinct difference. (And is over a year of comics - several titles (and around 40 issues?) - to be considered a "blip"? Who says?)

And yes, Artemis was indeed Wonder Woman. She earned it, and died as Wonder Woman (and came back, but that's another story). (Donna Troy, on the other hand, I believe from what I've read, was a stand-in, though I'll be happy to stand corrected on that.) This isn't about "lesser" or "greater", it's simply about who was. Else (for example) Stephanie wouldn't be listed as Robin.

By the way (and this is waaay off-topic), but Nightwing: Alfred's Return was enjoyable : ) - jc37 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I can answer that one, too! Yes, in current continuity Bette wasn't Batgirl; and in non-current continuity, Betty wasn't Flamebird! QED. The current Encyclopedia is obviously skewed towards the current status quo, but it also covers in some (even brief) detail what was as well as what is. (I think "currently" Barbara was the first Batgirl, but that's a side-issue.)

Well. That's splitting hairs - when Bruce gave the cowl and name to Dick, he was thinking straight and physically able to move - and yet probably did ask Dick to take up the cowl temporarily (although I think it was an indefinite "temporary"). When he deferred to Jean-Paul, not only was he flat on his back and pumped full of drugs, he was paralysed and unlikely to walk again. Dick was Nightwing; his own man, and thus was passed over. Bruce hadn't really "retired" in any real sense of the term, so at the very least it's not that clear cut. Dick, Alfred, J'Onn and Superman (among others) "stood in" as Batman; Jean-Paul and DICK took the role over for a length of time. Fair enough, yes it looks to me (comics-less for the moment) to be 35-50 issues that AzBat played some part in; 12 or so for Dick. But since my "blip" is "vs. Wayne," since you're up against (currently) 70-ish years vs. - at most - a year, and... oh, let's say a 'mere' 2000 appearances (and it's clearly more than that) vs. 40-50...! And yet they seem equable on this template.

Moreover, the costume is part of who Batman is. Dick wore it; AzBat changed (and then perverted) it. The mindset is part of the Batman; Dick had it, Jean-Paul had the system. (Interestingly, reading through the page here on Knightfall - that you lined to - "stand in" is mentioned only under "Knightfall," not "Prodigal"! It's apparent that J-P stands in when Bruce is paralysed; Dick stands-in when Bruce is regaining his control. Even under that logic, the two are similar enough that Dick needs to be an alternate Batman... or neither! ;o))

On the other tack, Azrael the comic went ONE HUNDRED issues, plus 3 Annuals, 1,000,000, Plus, Ash and a four-issue miniseries. 110 issues. Well over twice the time he was AzBat.

My point is that Artemis isn't listed as a Wonder Woman (although the infobox is clearly differently arranged), indeed she's not mentioned as such on the Wonder Woman page...! To be bloody-minded, this is on some level about lesser and greater, or all the villains would be in the box.. but, yes, Stephanie was acknowledged as a Robin, even if she probably also shouldn't be on the same level as Dick and Tim (and Jason), time-wise. But "Robin" is a changeable position; Batman isn't. Batman is Bruce. Robin is Dick... and others. If it's about who "was" a certain character, then a) Dick is also Batman, but b) you walk a fine line over Terry McGinnis, Tim, One Million, Damian.. McGinnis is arguably more Batman than Jean-Paul, even if that's a whole separate issue. Moreover, Batman (Earth-Two) is MUCH more Batman than Jean-Paul...

Again, Alternate versions of Batman lists AzBat. Azrael (comics) talks about AzBat. The infobox is major characters only - the major characters include Batman (Bruce Wayne) and Azrael.

(Yes, the return of Alfred was a good one. Batman isn't Batman without Alfred, so he had to come back. :o) (In-comic, that whole subplot underlines the non-Batman-ness of AzBat, as if it needed to be stressed..! ;o)) ntnon (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All of your "reasoning" above concerning Jean-Paul as Batman, is WP:OR. A good example is your use of "... and yet probably did ask...". If it wasn't in the primary source, and/or wasn't noted in a secondary source, then it's not to be stated here. And it thus can't be used as a criterion for inclusion/de-inclusion.

Jean-Paul was Batman's replacement. It was stated in the comics, and was also discussed in the mainstream press. (Remember that the hoopla about the death of Superman had caused the mainstream press to take note, and comment on comics during that time.)

We may not like it, and Bruse Wayne may have returned to being Batman, but that doesn't mean that Jean-Paul didn't replace him for that time.

Dick Grayson (and Alfred, and any number of other heroes), have "stood-in" for Bruse, but none actually replaced him. (Though Hugo Strange tried several times : )

Anyway, I'm going to go back to my comic-book-search for those issues. I seem to recall a specific set of quotes, both before and after Jean-Paul's tenure as Batman, that would likely lay this debate to rest. - jc37 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

UNDENT I wonder if maybe you're misreading "probably" to imply secondary (rather than primary) information/OR, when it's just me hedging myself because I can't refer to the book itself at the moment..! ;o) "Probably" isn't "doesn't".

In any case, my major point is about notability - Jean-Paul as AzBat is NOT notable on par with Bruce, and Dick was a replacement. Bruce is Batman, the others not so much. And as for Hugo Strange..! Incidentally - primary and secondary sources both are all in perfect agreement that Batgirl Betty Kane wasn't ever known as Flamebird, so can I please at least remove that..?

On a more helpful note, I've been putting in a lot of proper research on all this for you, the template and the world in general. Here we are:

• TED WHITE "The Spawn of MC Gaines" in All in Color for a Dime (Arlington House, 1970) gives us:
  • JOKER (astonishing)
  • the "second most memorable figure would undoubtedly be" Penguin
  • No. 3 is Catwoman. (Clearly.)
  • Those are the top three, all else are merely "recent repeat villains" of which "the best" is Two-Face
  • Lastly, the Riddler. (Of whom White is not fond.
• MICHAEL EURY (compiler) "Batman" in The Superhero Book (Visible Ink, 2004)
• (Firstly, there are six pages of the history of Batman. This is the only mention in this long history of a particular moment: "In the comics, a brutish crime lord called Bane deposed Gotham's guardian by snapping Batman's spine and triumphantly pitching him off a roof top. During his convalescence, Wayne was replaced by a psychotically violent surrogate named Jean Paul Valley (a.k.a. Azrael). Once healed the true Batman overcame Valler and resumed "the mantle of the Bat." Note "true" and "Azrael." JPV is Azrael, and once acted as a false Batman. He ought to be listed as Azrale first, foremost and only.
• In further support, after his half-a-line under "Batman," Azrael's separate entry is four paragraphs. Admittedly one is on Az-Bat, but most of the rest are Azrael, a (misguided?) hero in his own right, who later makes peace with Bruce and it BAT-FAMILY fodder.
  • After "Media" there are three pages on "Villains":
  • We have (1940s-ish): Catwoman who was 'soon to become one of Batman's greatest foes'. Joker. Clayface (intriguing, but see below), Scarecrow, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler and Hatter. Tweedledee and Tweedledum and Tiger Shark "vanished from view."
  • Then we go to the sanitized Comics Code iterations: Joker, Penguin (Catwoman and Two-Face "inactive"). Mr Freeze "proved chilling enough to develop staying power," while Killer Moth, Firefly and Calendar Man (given parity with each other) were "uninspired."
  • In the 1960s, among the aliens and mysteries in space: Clayface II, Joker, Riddler, Catwoman and Scarecrow were prominent. Blockbuster, Spellbinder and Dr Tzin-Tzin were not (and equate with each other, lowering Blockbuster's standing), although Poison Ivy stood out as "captivating."
  • From the TV series, prominence came to: Joker, Riddler and Penguin.
  • In the 1970s, the Joker and Two-Face were complimented by Man-Bat (VILLAIN!) and Ra's al Ghul.
  • In the 1980s: Night-Slayer, Nocturna, a female Clayface and Anarky "lacked [the] longevity" of Killer Croc and Ventriloquist. (So 'if Killer Croc; then Ventriloquist', the two are on a level.) Oh, and the Joker was around in the 1980s, too..!
  • During the 1990s/2000s - and on a level with each other - are: Bane, Nicholas Scratch (?!), Orca, Brutale and David Cain. Retreads of Killer Moth (Charaxes), Spellbinder and Clayface were somewhat tired, but Harley Quinn was a "Breakthrough." Her aside, the cartoon's major villain was... the Joker.
  • And the 1989-1997 films drew attention to the usual suspects: Catwoman, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy.
• RON GOULART "Rogues Gallery" in Comics Files Magazine Spotlight on: Batman (Heroes Publishing, 1986)
  • Under "The Star Villains" we have... the Joker who gets four of the ten paragraphs. Catwoman gets three of the remaining six, then Penguin, Two-Face and the Scarecrow round out the "star" list.
  • "The Minor League Bag Guys" notes the sheer volume of comics printed could see 40 new/different villains turn up every year even in the early years. Among them, "crime bosses" and "crooks" including: Bugs Norton, Rocky Grimes, the Thumb, Big Costello and Zucco - "lesser gangsters" all. The CAVALIER gets a paragraph as a minor villain; Clayface is lumped in with the Conjuror, the Robber Baron, Granda the Mystic, Mr Baffle and "Dmitri the diabolic puppet master"... poor Clayface.
  • Lastly, the minor villains include "crazed medics and flawed intellectuals": Dr Thorne, Dr Deker (the "Brain Burglar") and the mildly noteworthy Professor Radium.
  • Goulart - a comics authority, although here writing for editor Hal Shuster, which could hamper him list/space-wise - finishes: "Quite obviously part of the success of the team [Batman and Robin] was due to the quality of evildoers they busied themselves with during their first years.. [although] even their lesser foes were, for the most part, a fascinating bunch."

How's that? :o) Incidentally - since we seem to be weeding down the Bat-villains, the greatest rogues gallery in comics - the Superman Template seems overly crammed with far less notable villains than here. ntnon (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Great work, no question.

However, I don't see anything in the above sources which proves (or disproves, for that matter) your belief about Jean-Paul or Miss Kane. "true Batman"? The simplest answer to that would be: Was the Cyborg Superman Superman? And if so, wouldn't someone refer to Kal-el as the "true Superman"? So your interpretation of the rhetoric doesn't seem appropriate. But please keep trying. We get quite a bit of otherwise useful information out of it : )

And yes, once we've (finally) finshed developing a consensus regarding this template, the goal is to write up a guideline to discuss at WT:CMC, and then eventually clean up all the templates.

The next step, in my opinion, should be the creation of the /doc sub-page (see below). - jc37 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

League of Assassins revisited

Someone just attempted to add Onyx (comics). I undid the addition, but I do think it should be discussed, though in the broader terms of whether the membership of the League of Assassins should be included here (or at least a link to that page). Ra's and Talia are already here. Shouldn't Lady Shiva too? Or is she considered a "tangental" character similar to Bronze Tiger? (Both being sourced from Richard Dragon... - jc37 03:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But then again - where does it stop? The League of Assassins is not notable on its own. It is notable on a very minor sub-level under "Ra's." Talia is here for Talia, not Talia Head (businesswoman/LexCorp) nor (entirely) Talia al Ghul (daughter of the Demon). She is here as the 'beloved of the detective,' probable mother of his possible child, etc., etc. She's not here because of her connection to the League of Assassins. (And hence, since she has many roles, she should be "TALIA" not "TALIA al Ghul/Head."

The LoA is listed as one of Ra's 'teams,' and in his origin. That should suffice. Lady Shiva has, and has taken on, a somewhat prominent role in the Batman mythos - villain, trainer, re-trainer (after Knightfall). She - and not Oxyz or Bronze Tiger - is of a level to possibly be included here. But as friend? Foe? Both? Could be complex. ntnon (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Us dodge the complex issues? Why start now? : ) - jc37 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

...fair point! ntnon (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Document

Due to something in the software, a template can have a /doc sub-page, which will not be transcluded to pages the template is, but will display on the template page. (See Template:For, for an example.)

I think we could probably use one, explaining the criteria for inclusion, and even listing references. This might help with the enthusiastic bold editors who are unaware of the consensus (and references) above.

Any objections/concerns to this being added? - jc37 22:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Batcomputer?

Batcomputer? Really? And the article on 'it' doesn't even mention the Crays... ntnon (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Expand away : ) - jc37 03:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

...eventually! But in the meantime, I was curious about whether/why it was widely considered template-worthy... ntnon (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, unlike the fictional character articles, it's not like there's currently a "huge amount" of fictional object articles. - jc37 08:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ventriloquist

I'm adding him back to the template, he is the only villain that is considered major on the official website from BTAS that isnt on the list. And he is an important and well-known villain. More so than Black Mask. Not having him on is rediculous. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the Ventriloquist (along with many many other Batman characters and villains) is that most of them have less than a 20 year total life and largely exist in only one medium. Yes, certainly the Ventriloquist was a regular character in Batman: The Animated Series, but that's only one show among many. I would be outright shocked to see this character appear in a motion picture (for instance) simply because so many people would have no idea who he is. There's a link for "other" villains, let's keep those on the template to those with the largest possible appeal. Your argument about Black Mask tells me more that Black Mask should be removed than that someone else of equal or lesser notability should be added.

For your other changes I reverted with no malice and I at least am glad to see someone new interested in working on the template. I should mention that at times in the past this template has been slightly contentious (though not for some time) and beyond that it's linked to dozens (possibly hundreds) of articles so any change made here ripples out a bit. I mention both those things to encourage you to bring up any changes here on the talk page before enacting them whenever possible. There's certainly no rule against making an edit here, but probably good form to get a bit of consensus first given the nature of multi-linked navboxes. -Markeer 16:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ventriloquist was created the same time as Killer Croc in the 70's. They are probably the only two created in that decade that are still active in the batman franchise today. I would see it as very undjust to include Killer Croc and not Ventriloquist, and you know nobody is taking out Killer Croc. Thats why this template needs Ventriloquist. The comics and the most popular batman cartoon of all time are enough mediums to include such a villain. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats actually not true. A character like ventriloquist was in the series in the 70s but he did not receive the real name of whesker and crime name of ventriloquist and scar face until the late 80's. I definitely think ventriloquist should be included, I'm just saying the ventriloquist was not official until the late 80's. and when was killer croc created, I never heard they were created together before... But whatever i do agree that Ventriloquist is like a must on the template. --River dance smile (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking you perhaps meant to say "80's"...--River dance smile (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked it up and it was even further up the discussion. Killer Croc and Ventriloquist were created duing the same era along with many others and they were the only two to truly survive. but still I doubt any enemy from the 70's led to ventriloquist addition. But again Ventriloquist is a must on the template. Hush and Mr. Zsasz can sit out, but Ventriloquist is seriously too major to not be included in my opinion. --River dance smile (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up the history. The Ventriloquist didn't really make that many solo-villain appearances and has directly had lasting impact on no high profile character's bio. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'd suggest that anyone interested in adding another villain find verifiable Reliable sources which indicates their fame/infamy. See further up this talk page for quite a few references, and discussions of those references. - jc37 09:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ventriloquist (continued)

I really am not trying to star an edit war, but there is one thing that has been othering me. I can't stnad the fact that you refuse to allow the Ventriloquist on the batman template under enemies. First off there is not nearly enough enemies on the temopl,ate to start with, I would also like to see Mr. Zsasz, Hush, and possibly even Maxie Zeus and Batzarro on there, but that is not as important as getting Ventriloquist on there. As an avid Batman comic book fan, I am actually offended by you and a few others dishonor of one of the most famous batman villains of all time. If hes not on the only charactres that truly deserve to be on the tempolat I think are the Joker, Catwoman, the Penguin, the Riddler, Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, Mr. Freeze, and the Scarecrow. You see I see Ventriloquist as equal or more important then Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Bane, Killer Croc, the Mad Hatter, Clayface, Man-Bat, and Black Mask. Several other superhero templates have 2-3 lines of villains such as Superman, spider-man, and wonder woman; and batman doesn't even have a full one. I'm not saying he needs a lot more, I'm just asking that you put on this one character and allow him to stay. He was invented long before some of the characters on there (mainly Harley Quinn). He was one of the two invented in the 80's that has seen a lasting longevity. He has been used as a major villain in popular culture such as Batman: The Animated Series. And He is a lasting villain in the comic book series which i love. I seriously cannot stand the fact that the template seems to only take from popular culture (the only acception being Black Mask). I mean Harley Quinn was invented by a cartoon, Poison Ivy was made popular by a cartoon, and nobody who didnt read the comics had no idea who Clayface was before BTAS. You can view the post in the discussion where it explains the history of batman villains and see the ventriloquist mentioned with Killer Croc. So if you really need it I can give more info, but can you please just do me this one favor and add ventriloquist, I mean the villain list doen't even exceed one line, and I think that is unfair for the most well-known rogue gallery in comics. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that my initial reaction was to ask whether I (and others) should be offended that you disdain consensus so much that you are (clearly from your comments above) disinclined to bother to read the many discussions on the talk page which concern this, as several people have mentioned.

But let's let that aside for a moment. The simple answer is this:

Do you have any verifiable reliable sources which support your belief? Again, if you'd like some examples and some discussion regarding this, check the template's talk page.

Further, this is merely a navigation template, so there is no requirement that any link appear on it. If you're looking for a list of Batman's adversaries, see here. (Which is already linked on the template.)

Finally, I think you could do with just a bit of helping of good faith.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. - jc37 09:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will find some sources:

• Ventriloquist's major comic book appearances. [7]
• Official Batman The Animated Series list the major characters and villains. [8]
• Unsourced, but IGN ranked the best and worst villains, and they only used the major villains. Sure he is on the wprst list, but hes still on and so is Penguin and Mad Hatter. [9]
• Ventriloquist has his own "stars" page on IGN. [10]

I can find more, but a lot of work would have to be done through the comics, not websites. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting some reasearch.

Going through the references:

• That's more than just "major" appearances", that appears to be a (fairly complete) list of appearances.

• I'm not positive, but as I recall, the current consensus seemed to suggest that we're not "considering" DCAU information, since this template (mostly) concerns the comics. (Which is apparently why Terry McGinnis isn't on the template.) However, as consensus can change, feel free to start a new discussion concerning it.

• We discussed IGN above. While there seem to be articles on the site, there are also "user comments" articles and blogs as well. (The "stars" page has similar issues.) So it's not necessarily easy to distill the reliable source from the unreliable source there. That said, this soulrce is the best one you have so far, and lists the villain as a "worst"...

So based on the references above, I don't think he "passes the bar". (Calendar Man would seem to "pass" better than the ventriloquist, based on some other sources on this page.)

That said, please continue to find information/sources. Good research should trump personal opinion.

And looking at "primary sources" presumably isn't going to help establish this for the character, since any determination of "major" based on primary sources would be WP:OR, which is obviously inadmissable as evidence.

I hope this helps. - jc37 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What about The Essential Batman Encyclopedia. Thats probably the best source I can think of, but its not online... --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly decent source, a well-researched and footnoted secondary source. There's a slight POV issue with it since the author was a former DC Editor, but then it's hard to find secondary sources on comics characters that's aren't written by people in the industry. Keep in mind that sourcing for template inclusion shouldn't simply be about the facts and details of a character, but address unique notability and historical importance. We all know the Ventriloquist exists, we all know he has appeared X number of times, etc. The question of how significant the character is to an understanding of The Batman's history and development is what's relevant here.

I tend toward being an exclusionist on this template as I believe it works best as an extremely streamlined first glance at Batman-related topics, but as jc37 says above, good research trumps personal opinion. -Markeer 12:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought he should have been on since the beginning, but apparentally he couldn't. But now whatr do we do? we have this apparent source, so do we add him, vote, leave him off? --River dance smile (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A straw poll is generally the way out of a dispute, but before that I'd say the burden of proof is the person who wants to include (presuming that keeping the template streamlined continues to be a goal). I just did a very un-scientific google search of "Top 10 Batman Villains" (obviously most of the hits were popularity contests rather than articles) but I did find it striking that this character appears on none of the lists from the first 5 pages of results, although he does appear on a couple of "worst" lists.

So it comes back to finding a reliable secondary source that argues that the Ventriloquist is one of the most important villains in Batman's history (remembering that blogs are not reliable sources). I think you're in for a tough sell on that, although I have nothing particularly against the character. If you feel you have a strong argument for his inclusion, go ahead and start a straw poll. -Markeer 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright we can vote I suppose... I personally think he should be on!--River dance smile (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

well i obviously want him in. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, the real point is lost in the midst of the argument for someone-or-other:

"I see Ventriloquist as equal or more important then Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Bane, Killer Croc, the Mad Hatter, Clayface, Man-Bat, and Black Mask."

Almost. But the point is not that Ventriloquist ought to be on the template, rather that "(Harley Quinn), Bane, Killer Croc, the Mad Hatter, Clayface, Man-Bat, and Black Mask" have little-to-no business being on the list! There is clearly, a massive gulf of notability and recognisability between Ivy/Freeze and the 'next-best' (probably Croc/Hatter/Bane) villains, with the sole exception being Harley Quinn, who is a phenomenon all to herself.

It's a reasonably straight-forward progression from Ultimate villain down to "very major/key" which, if done properly, should have very little variation person-to-person. It's simply a question of where the cut-off point comes, and since the film incarnations are easily the best known (sadly, in many cases) with the wider public, that should probably be it, unless there's something utterly vital missing under that logic. And there's not, really. (And, yes, Bane was also in the film, so maybe...)

The Ventriloquist passes some tests of notability - e.g. major storylines (key in Cataclysm and No Man's Land, in particular), but also fails several (well-known - sorry, but he's not well-known; recognisability - by dint of his role, Arnold is not particularly notable visually; in-comic status - he's a joke, frankly. Scarface does command some respect, but even 'he' it is not particularly feared).

The Essential Batman Encyclopedia is a good book - for, for example, pointing out that Betty "Batgirl" Kane is not "Bette" Kane, nor is she Flamebird - but encyclopedias cover everything - that's their purpose. Some provide tables and rankings, this does not ('I think', at least). Neither is space given necessarily a hard-and-fast arbiter of notability - although it definitely factors in. But it's not a good source for proving this issue of high profile-ness (on its own). ntnon (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So is your vote "no"? Or are you saying the vote and opionions don't count? --River dance smile (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All of you perhaps may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Consensus.

But in the meantime, let me note something:

Your personal opinion on whether something should be included in Wikipedia has absolutely zero value on whether something is actually included in Wikipedia.

Inclusion is based upon verifiable reliable sources.

So every instance where an editor (one of you, for instance), makes a comparison, draws a conclusion, offers an analysis, offers an interpretation, etc., is very clearly original research. It is simply disallowed on Wikipedia.

Now we often allow editors to be bold, but if anyone opposes that boldness, then WP:BRD comes into play, and sources are then required for inclusion.

I hope that clarifies. - jc37 04:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion: Logical omissions, additions and sources

There is, as jc37 skirts round/notes a mild contradiction between "consensus" and "personal opinions don't count," since consensus is effectively a conglomeration of like opinions. Personal opinions. :o) So, yes, obviously opinions count. In some - perhaps more often than not; perhaps not - a vote is very useful. But all-too-often a simple yes/no vote clouds the issue, since there are very few cases where a question can reasonably be answered "yes" or "no" without "because...".

I was trying to do the "because" part, and stimulate discussion, rather than participate in an ultimately unhelpful "Should character X be included: Yes or no?" question. The question is 'how many is too many' overall. The question is about how sources and commentators and adaptations and popular perception would rank ALL the villains, and then where the line is drawn as to who makes the cut. The question is utterly and completely critically tied into the whole purpose of the templates: "What purpose do templates serve?"/"Who uses a template as a navigationary tool, and why?" This leads to the only logical requirement that a template aid navigation rather than confusing it: that a template contain the most-traversed links; that a template groups things together accurately and sensibly; that a template links to the core of pages from which total navigation can be carried out.

So 1. Don't be confusing/over-bearing. 2. Filter out the "important" and "key" pages. 3. Group them well. 4. Link to everything within a couple of steps.

1. says that you can't pile in every villain.

2. implies sources/logic rather than pure opinion.

3. requires common sense, long-term views and accuracy. (Which is why Catwoman needs to be in friends AND villains; why Flamebird needs to be removed - under #1, too - and why I opposed JPV being listed as to-all-extents-and-purposes equal to Bruce.)

4. merely requires a link to the main "List of Batman villains" page, which is clearly already there. (Although, again, I think it should - under #3, too - be double-linked as an "etc." coda to the list of major villains.)

The arguments for keeping the TEMPLATE list - not the full page, wherein villains can be added with impunity, although common sense and agreement/consensus will dictate where - short and to the point are many, various and sensible. So it's simply the ranking and order that are up for debate. This is covered in massive, minute (if at times hard to follow, confused or ill-sourced) tedious detail above. But it's not hard to summarise that, broadly speaking, the MAJOR/MAIN/VITAL villains are those best-known, most-appeared, oldest and most recognisable. The first and last roughly equate to film appearances, so the list should be set in stone based on that criteria alone. It's palpably clear that the villains chosen to appear on film are those that filmmakers/suits/DC/Warner/Burton/Schumacher/Nolan/etc. thought best-represented Batman. That they all though were best-suited to the big screen treatment. That they all thought the public would respond to, know and care about. And that's before the "best villain" lists come into play as sources. And most of those only feature the Joker, sometimes Catwoman, rarely anyone else.

But there are sources above that rank Penguin, Two-Face and Riddler as rounding out the top five; all-bar-one of which were also on TV in the 1960s and are ingrained in the public mind because of that as well as the films. Michael Eury, noted writer, critic and Bat-fan and Ron Goulart, noted pop-culturalist and comics historian, writer and critic would seem to be in perfect accord that the top six are those five plus the Scarecrow. It seems clear, if perhaps less-sourced, that the next two can only be Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy... Clayface has changed too much to be a discrete identity/character, although the group-name may work its way up the list because of the addition of individual notability, and age. Ra's may now be up with Freeze and Ivy thanks to Begins. Bane is famous for one act, but it’s such a big one that he lingers at #9 or #10 on that alone, and in some thinking might go higher. Harley is, again, a phenomenon all to herself, and is thus on a sliding-scale of visibility and notability from very high indeed to very low. She might make it into a top ten; she might not; she might be at the top of the ten. Whether she should be included on an effectively-equal footing with the 68-year-old Joker and Catwoman is wide open for heated debate.

All the others are clearly lower; wind up lower on top ten lists and top hundred villains lists, etc. Notable for their absence on most of the above, indeed.

Currently, albeit for alphabetical reasons, both Bane and Black Mask edge out and obfuscate Catwoman, and that's patently ludicrous. The Joker is stuck in the middle of the list, when he should BE the list, head the list, destroy the list and generally stand out head, shoulders and torso above everyone else. It's rare that more than two Bat-villains make any listing, and fairly infrequent that it's more than one. And that one is always the Joker. To have him sandwiched between Harley and Croc; Clayface and the Hatter is an utter aberration, insult and perversion of the basic history of Batman. The firm implication to anyone who isn't well-versed in Batmania is that these others are on an equal-footing with the Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin. And that's not the case. ntnon (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First off lets get something straight. Removing any number of villains would be rediculous. The list doesn't even exceed one line. Almost every other superheros template's villain list is on 3 lines. Now I'm not saying this one needs to follow, but I think it should Be a full line. And on the second note, moving villains around to put Joker and Catwoman at the top of the list is a bad idea. Alphabetical order is the only proper way to do this (except for maybe date of appearance but that may get to confusing on a template and look like it could possibly be ranking). And if you were being sarcastic, okay whatever, moving on to the main point of discussion: Ventriloquist. Okay heres my thoughts; there is room for one more name before the list goes onto two lines. I think we should at least fill one line, and that can mark a stopping point. And in my mind Ventriloquist is the best pick. Sure there is Hush, Zsasz, Holiday, Calendar Man, Maxie Zeus, Batzarro, and others that are important, but hear my side. This template is clearly by recognition through media outside comics. And before you say that isn't true, just stop. All of you just said recognition from the movies is a way of public knowing the names, and a main reason they should be on the list (including Ra's who definitely was not well know by the general public before BB). So that being said Ventriloquist was a major villain in BTAS, the most successful and recognized batman cartoon of all time. And when i say he is "major" i really mean MAJOR. The official BTAS website lists the main characters and villains, and every main villain who is listed is on the template except for Ventriloquist. The main villains listed are Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, Poison Ivy, Bane, Killer Croc, Mad Hatter, Clayface, Man-Bat, and one more; guess who... Thats right Ventriloquist. He is the only villain listed that does not appear on the template. This is just one, but one very major reason Ventriloquist should be added immediately to this template. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ntnon - I have to say, though I'm rather tempted to say tl;dr : ) - I did read it : )

And there are some policy points where I think you may be misunderstanding some things. For example, though there may be polls to help gauge consensus, the closest thing to "voting" that you'll find on Wikipedia involves individuals receiving more responsibilities (adminship, arbcom, the board, etc.) In nearly every other situations, "voting" is irrelevant to consensus.

And further, while personal opinion may be polled for "style", inclusion of content requires sources, not Wikipedia editor opinion.

(And I think I'm going to decline re-argue the past with you again. You're welcome to your opinion, but without evidence of sources, it remains your opinion, and honestly, valueless in a discussion of content.)

And that leads to EDJ45's comments above.

First, since that's an online source, would you please link to it for verifiablity reasons (and pretty much to save me (and anyone else) the effort of searching for it : )

And second, I would not oppose a discussion of whether we should include information sourced from DCAU-related sources. Please feel free to start one below.

So besides that (and your opinion of how "major" the character is), so you have anything establishing this? - jc37 09:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is simply the official website, it wouldn't be that hard to find, but here... http://www.batmantas.com/. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost me with "tl;dr", I'm afraid... although I now understand. And.. thanks, (kind of). ;o)

WP:CON talks about counter-editing, talk page usage and community discussions. You mention polls to gauge consensus. Discussion and polls are opinions, surely? And sources are required for things likely to be challenged - there are some things unlikely to be challenged. Typically, the unchallengable here are also the sourced, so it's probably unhelpful to belabor that point, but still. Not everything must be sourced - the controversial is the most necessary, and it branches back from contentious towards completely known.

My opinion is from the sources. My counsel is that, if sources are the be-all and end-all (and policies quoted suggest so), then the list must be scaled back to only the rigorously sourced.

Sources #1-6: Batman (and related interviews, etc.); Batman Returns; Batman Forever; Batman and Robin; Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Source 7: Batman (TV).

Source 8 (above): White AICFD - Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Two-Face, Riddler.

Sources 9 & 10 (above): Eury & Goulart. From Goulart - Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Two-Face, Scarecrow. From Eury, either you consider it a longer rather than specific list and discount it; or you use editorial judgement to whittle it down to the 'major' mentions, or you pile in everyone mentioned. Which would include the Ventriloquist. And is a slippery slope.

Ra's is on IGN's comic book movie villains list.

That's two-three ultimate villains, confirmed over and over in print and other sources. Four who are confirmed again, again and again. Six confirmed again and again. Seven that are fairly safe from a grouping of disparate sources. [Joker/Catwoman/Penguin. Two-Face. Riddler/Scarecrow. Ra's.] To go further is to use the - eminently sound - source of the films: Add Mr Freeze and Ivy. Ta-da.

Where are the - proper - sources for Bane, Black Mask, Clayface, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Mad Hatter and Man-Bat? Are they not in the template largely on personal opinion/preference alone...? They could all - except Black Mask - be sourced from the BatmanTAS website listed above. But that would be with the Ventriloquist in Mask's place. And having appeared in the cartoon - even if they're granted their own navigationary sections on the official(?) website - doesn't automatically grant primacy.

Flamebird is sourced to the Essential Encyclopedia. And, even if you or anyone continue to disagree the truth or otherwise behind Batgirl-Betty ever being Flamebird (and the Greenberger book would surely be most likely to know/arbitrate), it's not a notable enough "fact" to be included on its own merits anyway.

Any help..?! :o) ntnon (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The "essential encyclopedia" (from what I can tell) mostly concerns only the current continuity. (And even that reference appears vague on the subject?)

And, just as I asked EDJ above, please add the actual links in your comment above. I know we have them further up the page, but I would guess that most people won't bother to go find them.

And speaking of the sources, I thought that the rest of the characters you note (except ventriloquist) were noted in sources that we agreed upon further up the page. Someone here is confused (And it's likely me : ) - jc37 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously think we shoud just add Ventriloquist and end it. Like this discussion is starting to get rediculius. Sources have been found, and even if its a tad unfit for Wikipedia, I think this would all end a lot easier if Ventriloquist was added so this non-stop debate can finally end. Nobody is going to completely agree, so I say we just add Ventriloquist, and no more villains will be added. Who else is with me? Like this conversation is seriously starting to get real long and off-topic. I'm not trying to mess with poicy, I'm just saying its one little detail, and I seriously think its time hes just added so this whole ordeal can finally end. Who agrees? --River dance smile (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted previously, this is not about what's "easier". It's about what can be verifiably reliably sourced. We discern from the sources, not from our own Original research. Personal opinion should simply have no bearing on this determination. - jc37 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer we just include a "List of Batman villains" instead of listing every major antagonist. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem: General practice is to not include a navbox on an article that isn't listed in the template. Remove the villain articles, and the 'box should not exist on those pages, reducing it's usefulness.

And on the flip side, if you argue "Well, if the article links through the list..." then the 'box is valid for adding to article linking to any list using the 'box. - J Greb (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I too am really confused on how this is going to end... Theres been sources given, a lot of info poured in, how much longer does this need to go? There is definitely enough sources to inlude Ventriloquist at this time (BTAS official site and Batman encyclopedia), so shouldn't we just vote at this point? I don't know how much we can really get out of discussing this anymore. I'm pretty sure everyone in this discussion has gone full circle and for another round. We have been repeating the same stuff, its sort of rediculous over one character on a TEMPLATE. A template does not have to be as official as a wiki page, its purely a navigation tool. So pretty much, how are we going to move on from here? Thats all I want to know. And If we continue the discussion, I'll keep the strong defense I have kept throughout this entire thing. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How is the BTAS site a usuable source? It's not an objective secondary overview of Batman villains. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To jc37: I suspect it's me doing the confusing, so all due apologies for that.

• The Encyclopedia not being in front of me, I can't speak definitively, but me memory is that it is clearly skewed currently, but does cover everything in some level of detail. It was touted as a Fleisher-update, but Greenberger said it was actually a rewrite. Nevertheless, it does mention Betty, Bette, both Barbaras, both Helenas and so forth. (If your 'vague' query is on Flamebird, I didn't find it vague, although since we're retreading much-trodden ground, I might - might! - grant that it's a confusing continuity mire. Hence my suggesting a pseudo-compromise that "whether she is or not" that sobriquet is not Template-worthy. Whether it's accurate or not then becomes a pointless side-issue. And if the 'vagueness' referred to something else, then apologies again. It's certainly not, as EveryDayJoe45 appears to be suggesting, a viable source for notability. It's paragraphical coverage can help as a guide, but it obviously can't be considered an arbitrating source since it by definition attempts to cover everything, not merely the most worthy.)
• Links? I could link into the IMDb for the film cast-lists, which I consider very telling sources, while interviews surrounding those films/choices are many and various, and sparsely online. TED WHITE's "The Spawn of MC Gaines" in All in Color for a Dime (Arlington House, 1970), MICHAEL EURY's "Batman" in The Superhero Book (Visible Ink, 2004) [NOTE: While The Superhero Book is also an encyclopedia, since Batman is only one small constituent part of it, rather than the whole scope, the proportionate space dedicated to villains is small, necessitating that Mr Eury pick-and-choose discriminately. Unlike Mr Greenberger, who had the space to devote to most villains, not merely the top flight.] and RON GOULART's "Rogues Gallery" in Comics Files Magazine Spotlight on: Batman (Heroes Publishing, 1986) are all print sources.
• Technically speaking, the sources (above) agree, as I re-summarised, only on the Joker/Catwoman/Penguin (utterly, beyond any shadow). Two-Face (conclusively). Riddler/Scarecrow (very highly). Ra's, Freeze and Ivy (fairly soundly). "Agree" meaning concurrance, rather than simply "a source mentions briefly". Now, Eury does single out a handful more, but among those is the Ventriloquist, placed on a par with Killer Croc... Black Mask is not, I don't think, mentioned in any reasonable source so far offered. Arguably important due to recent work, but (maybe) not well sourced. And, again, stressing "well sourced," it seems clear that the list should be six, seven or nine strong ONLY.

To EveryDayJoe45: There are not "definitely enough sources" for the Ventiloquist - and if you're pinning that statement on the BTAS website and Encyclopedia alone, then its arguable that there are ANY (usable) sources. WesleyDodds questions the BTAS website's use as a source; jc37 questions the use of solely-DCAU sources, since this is primarily a list of comics characters based on comics-notability. [NOTE: My blathering on about using which characters have appeared on TV and in film is not intended to suggest that their notability-on-screen is being considered, merely that their-having-been-chosen for expensive and high-profile representation of the "Batman Villain" brand back-implies notability in the source materials: the comics. So, for Nolan and Keaton (et al.) to have selected the villains they did implies a level of notability that mere cartoons do not. It costs little to adapt a dozen villains into a cartoon. And the cartoons are primarily aimed at fans. To pay for and cast an actor; to hopefully encourage 'normal' people to watch a film implies a level of gravitas, of noteworthiness, of stand-out qualities, of status.] And, again, Greenberger's Encyclopedia can help support other sources, but is not a basis for suggesting notability in-and-of-itself. You can't say, for example, that Cheyenne is as important-a-place as California because they're both in an Atlas' index... You could back-up a claim with a comment on coverage - so I used the Encyclopedia to argue my case for moving Azrael around, based on proportionate-coverage. Perhaps you could quickly compare the coverage devoted to Wesker and, say, Ra's, Bane and Tetch. That might be a worthwhile exercise - although it will still prove nothing. The Ventriloquist is distinctly lacking in sources that agree with his placement on this template. Sadly. ntnon (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't quest DCAU sources, I'm saying that we need to have a discussion about applicability. AFAICT atm, we don't include characters solely from the DCAU.

And As for Black Mask, I apparently missed his addition post this edit to this talk page. That was a list of sourced villains based on the sources that everyone had found thus far.

So I'm removing Black Mask from the template until such time as someone finds sources comparable to the above. - jc37 07:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Essetial Batrman Encyclopedia lists Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, Riddler, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Clayface, Scarecrow, Mad Hatter, Bane, Killer Croc, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat, Ventriloquist, and Black Mask as the major villains in the franchise. I am positive that if this isn't a good enough source, nothing is. This is straight from a DC writer telling the public who is considered Major, what more proof is needed. If these two are not added, it is a matter of you not wanting them and disagreeing, so really you are the ones disobeying the sources not the other way around. --WOnderwall121 (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while that source can and should be taken "under consideration", it has a few problems. The first being that an "encyclopedia" is a tertiary source, and is treated as such.

Also, "straight from a DC writer" may just possibly be a bit biased. "Major" isn't necessarily what DC would like. That said, if someone would confirm the information, I think that it should be noted, at the very least. - jc37 10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

this was the whole basis of why I wanted the ventriloquist in so bad...--EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So when will they be added, shouldn't we vote, to just ignore this is a big deal. This is solid undoubted proof of significance. --WOnderwall121 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok this is getting rediculous. Everyone is ignoring this topic me included, and I was one of the main driving forces behind it in the beginning. I agree with WOnderwall121, its time to come to a conclusion. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

<blink> I hadn't realized this was considered a problem. The discussion is about providing secondary sources demonstrating that the Ventriloquist is/was considered a major and essential character in the Batman omniverse. Robert Greenberger's book ("Essential Batman Encyclopedia") is proposed to be one such source, but as of last point in this discussion that I can see, it was requested that this source be confirmed. I'll try to glance at a copy of it at some point if I see it. -Markeer 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank god. The discussion now includes Black Mask as well as Ventriloquist. I have seen a copy before and it included the two, thats why I was so admament about ventriloquist's addition when Black Mask was still on the template. I don't own a copy however, so I can't confirm it officially, so thank god someone is finally gonna confirm this. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, starting from the left again as I'm hoping to nail down the disputed part of this discussion. I've obtained a copy of The Essential Batman Encyclopedia looking to find the source of WOnderwall121's assertion that Ventriloquist and Black Mask (et al) are listed in a published secondary source as "Major" villains. Discussion of whether this source is actually secondary or tertiary can be taken up separately.

Based on a focused look through the book, short version of the outcome is that I can find no reference to these two characters being listed as "major". The word does not appear under their individual entries (Black Mask pp. 53-55, Ventriloquist pp. 361-362), there are no separate entries in the book for "Villains", "Super-Villain", or "Major", no villains subsection of the Batman character entry (pp. 26-41). There are no top ten lists or the link in this volume. In the back there are several pages of artwork with captions, several of which are pieces of artwork about villains. Black Mask does not appear in any, Ventriloquist does not appear either, although Scarface (his dummy) is in the corner of one of the group scenes, although with no adjective in that caption (e.g. "major") about any of the people in it, simply a list of names.

In fact, if one were looking for some kind of quality assessment from this source (which, as an encyclopedia, seems to be trying to avoid quality assessments), the best I can glean is the first line of the Black Mask entry on page 53: "Black Mask was one of Gotham City's many bizarre criminals". One of many.

I have clearly not read the entirety of this volume, but it has a simple alphabetical layout for browsing, and I can find no references to support what WOnderwall121 asserts above. In fact this could be used as a source for an argument (not a strong one) for the non-special nature of Black Mask.

I've now put an inordinate amount of time into looking into this, with cited page numbers from the volume itself. If Wonderwall121 or someone else can offer up a specific page or citation to support the assertion, we can discuss the nature and validity of the sourcebook itself. Otherwise, I consider this question closed (in my own mind at least). If there is no dispute within a couple of weeks or so, I would recommend archiving this entire section of the talk page. Obviously that should not be my unilateral call, just a personal suggestion. -Markeer 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well its not the outcome I would have preferred, but I guess this discussion if finally closed. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion

Because additions to the template would also need to update the /doc page, I've split that adversaries to a sub-page for transclusion to both.

Since it's split from the main template, it's also protected for similar reasons. (I wanted to avoid cascading protection the main template, since the /doc subpage still needs work.) - jc37 09:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Variation suggestion

I've cobbled together an alternate version of the navbox here and there are examples of how it would look when placed on the associated talk page.

It's designed to work with 3 toggles: cast (general supporting character), fam (the "costumed "Batman Family") and foe (the villains). These would be set by the page the 'box is placed on, so Alfred would be "cast=y", Dick "fam=y" and the Joker "foe=y".

Yes, some choices have been made about default listing and "minimal lists", but right now it's a "work in progress". Would this help to alleviate some of the issues currently running around?

- J Greb (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this could be a great idea for use to merge the various "Batman in other media" templates.

But not for the characters.

For one thing, I only split the supporting cast and the superheroes for readability reasons (seemed an obvious split point), though technically they're all supporting cast (including Bruce Wayne, btw). And that includes the adversaries as well.

And other than a few continuity questions (like ntnon's about Azrael and Ms. Kane), the only place we tend to have an issue of non-stability are the adversaries. (Minorly due to issues of "anti-hero", and mostly due to IWANTMYFAVE.)

Though I will say that we still have the option of not listing any adversaries, and just link to the list page. Perhaps that's the best option. - jc37 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Last first... As I commented to WesleyDodds above, reducing a section to just the list article is a bit counterproductive. The 'box is supposed to facilitate navigation between contextually linked articles. Yes, the lists should be included, but since the convention has been to not include the 'box in article which are not in the 'box, doing so removes the tool from those articles. So in an extreme example, you could use a "list only" 'box to get from Batman to the Joker in 3 steps (Batman > list > Joker) but you couldn't use it to get from the Joker to Mister Freeze.

What I've set up in the sandbox is an attempt to add a level of flexibility to add more context driven linkage. The end result is more inclusive, but only in specific ways on specific articles. The "IWANTMYFAVE" gets slated since the villain context opens up a broader link range from other Bat-villain articles.

And yes, I was also looking at this as a way to address the "In other media" 'boxes. It would take a little more tweaking, and I'd really like some more information on how the Bio project, their A&E workgroup, Films, and Television set out handling actors, directors, voice actors, writers, film crew and the like for 'boxes. - J Greb (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced I understand what's being suggested... is the implication that each page will have a subtlely different template on it...? And if so, will JOKER only link to other villains, or to everything but villains, or...?

I still think the only workable solution long- and short-term is to strip back to the incontrovertible core, which may be what J Greb is doing, but may not be with this foe=y toggle things.

(Incidentally: Talia, Huntress and Arkham gone, but Bane, Clayface and Harley stay...? Batwoman out; Betty-girl in? I think I'm confused about the criteria, too! :o)) ntnon (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The long and the short of it that the version I'm playing with has a pared down "default" state that deals with minimal core concepts (And yes, it is arguable the Arkham should be kept on that list) for the non-specific articles (Gotham City, Batmobile, Batarang, etc).

Additionally, there are "minimal reads" in fields for the targeted uses — losing two villains for the "cast" and "family" uses and losing the "Robin" and "Batgirl" parentheticals for "cast" and "foes". The idea being to reduce the clutter to look at when looking for a related article.

As a specific example Joker would be present on any version of the template. But characters like Azrael and Firefly wouldn't. - J Greb (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK... clearer, but..! Humour me. :o) So Azrael and Firefly would be on some versions, then, you imply? So, for examples: ARKHAM ASYLUM has the template - what's on it? JOKER also has the template - how does it differ? Does AZRAEL have the template, etc.? Plus/Instead - for which articles WOULD Azrael and Firefly be on the template; and which not?

I'm thinking you may be suggesting that "a" villain will have an expanded-villain-version of the template, but a pared down places list; JAMES GORDON will have an amped-up friends-version, but fewer foes. Am I hot/cold/tepid..?!

I do think that I would criticise in some way adopting that understanding of this, because it would be headache-inducing to implement for some characters who span categories, or who ought to have addtional links (i.e. GORDON should link to many villains and Barbara as well the GCPD and Montoya; CATWOMAN should link to Huntress and Oracle as well as to Joker and Penguin.) But I may well be criticising non-existent hypotheticals (not to mention the possibility that I'm writing drivel anyway...), so please correct me as need be. ntnon (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plus, is the pared-down version essentially an editorial choice over "main"/"major"/"most important"..? And if so, that's a little awkward. Plus, if the minimal version is the "core" version... why not make that "core" the standard, blanket ONLY template, and not fuss about variants? (Stick? Wrong End? Probably. Sorry.) ntnon (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As per the versions showing here:

• The top one of the "hub" version. This is the one that would appear on article like Bob Kane, Batmobile, Batcave, Detective Comics, etc.
  It is designed to be limited to the cast, "Family", and villain characters that immediately come to mind with Batman. And even there 2 bones are thrown in: the "Robins" and "Batgirls" lists and the slightly expanded foes since only 7 of those are the constant "immediate" list.
• The second one would be up on the character shown in the 16 article listed in the "Supporting characters" group and the GCPD. The "bones" from the hub are removed from the "Family" and foes to reduce the bulk of information and potential size of the 'box. I limited what I put in to - blue links in the supporting character lists, and characters that didn't immediately fall into "Family" (costumed) or foes.
• The third one is the "Family" version and would be on the article in "Batman Family" group, Bludhaven, and Redbird. Same criteria for what went in and was removed as the 2nd version.
• The bottom one is the "foes" version. Again, all of the article in "Batman Family enemies" group as well as Blackgate.
• I'm also toying with an "initial" version that would be on the Batman article and list everything - core article: full list sort of thing.

The reason for going this route is to try and offer a compromise, at least with the Bat-centric characters. To my eyes, the primary problems have been how many character articles create a mess that is hard to read through. the answer has been "keep it minimal, keep it to the notable". And part of that has become "prove your fave is notable enough". That has become a never ending arguments with the possible results of "all" (resulting in a hard to use 'box), "none" (List articles only, removing the template from the character articles), or continuing the "add, remove, argue" cycle.

This at least offers a way to partially satisfy both ends: The template on all but the core article would be not too large to be usable and the bulk of the non-Stub character articles would be included. It isn't perfect — you won't be able to immediately jump from Joe Chill to Silver St. Cloud and some one's fave is going to invariable not be in the core group lists — but no compromise ever is.

- J Greb (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Publications" shouldn't be in Miscellanea. They are the core of the character's notability. Make a row for them right below the creators, and list all the ongoing series. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason I suggested just linking to a list of villains is because on musician/band template we link to the discographies, but not necessary every release. If there are, say, a lot of singles released by an artist, we often make separate singles templates. This template needs to focus on Batman, and we shouldn't be cramming it with supporting characters. If necessary, create a separate villains template (but of course not one for each character, like what happened before). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(Wesley: Yes, I couldn't believe that any of the comics titles weren't in the template until fairly recently.) I partially agree with WesleyDodds that the massive-villain list is totally unnecessary. Since this is for navigation purposes, I think it fairly reasonable that very few people will navigate villain-to-villain blindly. They'll look through the main villains page, with its dates, names and brief overview to select who they want to look at. So the main 5-9 are enough. This is also why I will advocate again the double-linking of the list at an "(More)" link at the end of the list.

I'd somehow managed to miss the several variant templates on your page, J Greb, so sorry about that. :o) I'm also still not convinced of the need for this. Now, extrapolating/borrowing from jc37's earliest comment, the best use of variant templates would be have a HUB template (only slightly merged/different from J Greb's and the current version), which might also be wisely linked to the films, but then spinning into variants for the cartoons, the films and the comics (which would double as the Hub).

I realise that the examples are essentially in flux, but that number of villains is absurb - particularly when it's set against (on the face of it) "a" Robin and "a" Batgirl... and nothing else on the friend side! That's skewed in the same way having Catwoman and Riddler as supporters or Valley as equal to Wayne. It's misleading.

Aunt Harriet is irrelevant; Ducard is deeply misleading these days (thanks, Mr Nolan); Jason Bard?!; Damian..? Odd links, all. And again, appearing as equable to Huntress, Talia, Gordon, Bullock - which is awkward.

Plus, surely the foes-template would be just as riven with discord as the main one now is... why X and Y? Why isn't Z there? (Hmm.. why isn't Zsasz there?!)

Also: "Alternate Batmen" and "Alt Robins" should be in See also at the foot of the template. (Actually, why isn't "BATMAN IN OTHER MEDIA" just a part of "ALTERNATE VERSIONS OF BATMAN"..? Length alone?) Hm. ntnon (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, I don't see what's wrong with a little pruning, combining and overview-ing. The main, widely-used template should surely go like this:

CREATORS & COMICS: Bob/Bill/Other; DC/Batman/Other (Storylines)

FAMILY: Robin (Dick [Nightwing], Jason [?*], Tim, Stephanie [Spoiler]), Batgirl (Betty, Barbara [Oracle], Cassandra)/Azrael, Batwoman, Catwoman, Huntress ([(Onyx?? Orpheus??)])/Bat-Mite, Ace

SUPPORT: Alfred**, Gordon, (Bullock & Montoya), Lucius, Leslie/([(Julie?)]), Talia, Vicki

VILLAINS: Joker, Catwoman***/Penguin, Riddler, Scarecrow, Two-Face/Freeze, Ivy, Ra's, (more)

PLACES and THINGS: Arkham, Gotham (<landmarks of Gotham>), Batcave****/Batsuit (Utility belt, batarang)/Batmobile, Batplane, (other)*^

ADAPTATIONS=franchise: ([(Serials?)]), TV [template], Batman, Returns, Forever, and Robin [template]/Begins, TDK [template]/BTAS, Beyond, The Batman [template**^]

See also: Other Batmen, Other Robins

*"Red Hood" (Jason) links straight back to Jason. Unnecessary link, but perhaps needs mentioning. "Red Robin" is a) too recent, and b) already seeming transient. Irrelevent.

**Isn't Alfred ''family''..?

***These two have to be first, alphabet be damned!

****There's a need to have Arkham and Blackgate mentioned at VILLAINS; Bludhaven is just Dick, not Batman (and recent); the Manor is irrelevant; Wayne Enterprises is Lucius, the GCPD is Gordon, and both should maybe be put in with them, parenthetically, in SUPPORT.

*^The others are very, very minor and linkes from Vehicles.

**^...am I right that there's no "Batman Cartoon template"? Ridiculous. There's DCAU, but there should be an all-Batman, all-Cartoon template for the many and various 60s-now cartoons.

...obviously, the links and things will change if the mass of templates become variants of the main one, but 'as is', I think the above covers everything vital coherently. ntnon (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I'm going to try and keep this short, mainly because I get very, very lost trying to work through some of that.

Wess: I'm familiar with a variation of what you're referencing, the Dr Who project uses a similar format with episode navboxes. I'm not convinced though that it's the best format for characters. Simply, that format would have Batman, Batman supporting cast, and Batman villains navboxes and would place multiple 'boxes on common articles. What I'm suggesting would do the same, but limit it to one template.

Ntnon:

1. Almost any listing of character must not force an ranking system or pecking order for the contents. There are exemptions, but they are every few and far between. For the characters potentially listed in the version I'm suggesting those exceptions are A) Robin and Batgirl — the "sidekicks" and B) the character, in publication order to file those roles. All of the rest of the character get listed in a neutral format — alphabetic by article title.
2. The split between "cast" and "Family" is, at best, artificial since Jc noted it was done to facilitate ease of use. It is very reasonable that it should collapse down into 1 grouping if the targeted format is used. In that case, the sidekicks, aid d'camp (sp), and inside-man would be alphabetized and separated from "everyone else".
3. In all honesty, 4 (lead pipe cinch set) or 7 of the villains can also be separated from the rest as the "short list". The reason I didn't is that going for the 7 starts the "why not?" again since the added 3 invite "Well X is as well known/used as Y." Also, the 4 or 7 can be put in publication order, but it has to be consistent for that set.
4. Inclusion criteria as far as this goes is A) on either List of Batman supporting characters or List of Batman Family enemies, B) actually have a Start or better class article to link to, and C) appeared in the main-line comic (clarity point "main-line" is "Not an Elseworlds, not a movie adaptation, not a television show spin-off/tie-in"). It's also, lord help us, an "all-or-nothing" exercise: If the article for a character fits the criteria, it gets put in or we cut it down to the 8 ubiquitous ones (4 support, 4 villain).
5. Alt versions and In other media were separated because of focus. AVs have always been "alternate comic book versions of the character. Links to both, for both Batman and Robin are already on the template. And IOM has it's own template with its own bloat issues.

- J Greb (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the thinking of putting the villains in appearance date order. That'll put Joker/Catwoman at the start, which is as it should be for notability and most-accessed reasons, too. Go with that. ntnon (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alfred

I think that Alfred Pennyworth should be moved from supporting characters to the Bat Family, because he is undoubtebly considered by them all family and in the Bat Family article it states that Alfred is a current member, excluding Batman (who is not listed) Alfred is listed first on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enflamedsilhouette (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

( Spaces after parentheses )

The template places unnecessary and incorrect use of spaces after parentheses, e.g. Dick Grayson ( Nightwing ) instead of Dick Grayson (Nightwing). I have attempted to fix this but have had my corrections reverted, so I would appreciate support for fixing this eyesore.--Marcus Brute (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given enough time to respond. If no objection is raised in a week from today, I'm making the changes.--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When did you make these edits, because I looked back as far as September and I did not see you anywhere. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Ventriloquist to enemies

The Ventriloquist should be added to the list of enemies. He has been a popular villain and plays a key part in several important storylines (especially Cataclysm). The character has also appeared in all recent Batman cartoons and several video games.--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Batman Family enemies →Enemies

Batman Family enemies should be shortened to just Enemies (or Villains as is seen in most other templates) the group describes the enemies of Batman himself (though many of his villains do fight other members of the "Batman Family") with no characters on the list which are not primarily enemies of Batman. I'm sure Lex Luthor has had a few run-ins with Supergirl or Jimmy Olsen but Template:Superman doesn't call it "Superman Family enemies"--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The long and the short of it? The Superman list/article is limited to just Superman's antagonists. The Batman list lumps in Robin's and Nightwings's (at the least). The full term is more accurate for the article linked to. - J Greb (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Solomon Grundy be included?-Wexquif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wexquif (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats a definite no. Solomon Grundy is indeed a recurring villain, but there are so many more who should be added before him, most notably Ventriloquist and Black Mask. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Solomon Grundy has over a 60-year history and multiple cross-media appearances dating back 30 years (to the 70s in Super Friends), but I would say that he's never specifically been a Batman villain until a few very recent stories. He was originally a JSA villain, particularly focused on the Earth-2 Green Lantern, so it would be awkward and inaccurate to pigeon-hole him on the Batman template. That said, this Batman navbox (among several others) is already on Grundy's wikipedia page for association. -Markeer 15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Axis Chemicals

Bringing this to the talk page before I revert again, and I'll ask that discussion commence before any re-inclusion. There are certainly no laws against someone wanting to improve the template, but as has been discussed on this page before it's best if the burden of proof be upon inclusion in the first place, not on removal. After I reverted the first time, it's customary to follow WP:BRD and bring it up here before adding an edit again. That said, no malice to the adding editor, I just dislike reverting something more than once although I'll be doing so after I finish this.

As I mentioned in the edit note of my first reversion I have two separate objections to adding Axis Chemicals to this template under Locations. I'll re-state them here in reverse order: On the one hand this is a location that has an extremely small presence across all media and time, making me strongly question it's value on the core template. I would suspect that even many extremely strong fans of The Batman would be hard-pressed to name this location if asked in a trivia contest, much less the general population who would therefore be extremely unlikely to require a link to this location in a first-look overview of the Batman character.

Beyond this though, I would argue the extremely low importance level of this location by looking at the main Wikipedia article on the Joker (comics). Doing a search of this extensively worked-on article, Axis Chemicals is never mentioned. Jumping back to a version from 2 months before, again no mention. Or three months before that. In that time approximately 1000 edits have taken place on that article, and yet consensus has not included this location that is, theoretically, involved with that character's origin. Quite possibly this is because of the first line used in the Joker's original section: "Though many have been related, a definitive back-story has never been established for the Joker in the comics".

And now I'll add a third issue: I'd argue that IF this location were definitely considered crucial to an understanding of the Joker's origin, it would still be questionable to include it on this Batman template. Anyone seeking to find out information about the origin of the Joker is free to follow the one-click link to his main article. If editors on that article don't feel it's important enough to link to, it certainly isn't from here.

Low usage + unclear narrative importance + no direct relationship with this template's topic = reverting again. -Markeer 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Villain addition

I know it's probably been suggested before but I think Black Mask should be included in the villains section as he is an important villain and has had many notable appearances. Also the villain Hush, possibly included. What does everyone think about Black Mask and Hush? ^The Scarecrow... 08:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll never get support for Hush being as hes way too recent, but you could try. Your best bets are Black Mask and Ventriloquist. Try finding some good sources that clarify how famous they are as villains. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well in both No Man's Land and War Games Black Mask plays a big role and as I recall Black Mask killed Spoiler. Black Mask is also listed as the 9th best Batman villain on IGN. I couldn't find a whole lot on Hush but your probably right, he hasn't had enough history yet. As for The Ventriloquist I personally don't really care whether or not he's listed, he has been a dangerous opponent for Batman on occasions but again it's up to someone else to decide, I'm not fussed.

References:

^The Scarecrow... 08:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources that acknowledge The Ventriloqist and/or Black Mask as noteworthy Batman villains

Use this section to provide any sources that acknowledge these two characters as noteworthy Batman villains.

I'll go first.

Both Black Mask and The Ventriloquist were acknowledged by the Los Angeles Times along with other Batman villains such as Catwoman, the Riddler, the Joker and so forth.

Blackmask is acknowledged here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-batmanvillains-2008-pg,0,252101.photogallery?index=4

The Ventriloquist is acknowledged here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-batmanvillains-2008-pg,0,252101.photogallery?index=6

Clearly, these villains must be noteworthy and memorable for the author of this LA Times article to acknowledge them.

This coupled with the fact that so many creative artists, writers and so forth have been inspired enough by these characters of the Batman comic book world to adapt them (especially Ventriloquist) to major villains in their works in other media. I must insist that whereever a writer/director and so forth adapted these characters in other media, they were implicitly acknowledging their importance in the fictional world of Batman. Adaptation is the sincerest form of flattery. With that being said, The Ventriloquist has been far and wide acknowledged as a note-worthy and significant Batman villain.

Yeldarb68 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Villain addition (Black Mask and Ventriloquist) straw poll

Support Black Mask and Ventriloquist.--Marcus Brute (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please expand. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons I've mentioned before on this talk page. Reiterated: No verifiable source has been offered as evidence that these two are any more important than, say, Calendar Man or Hugo Strange (who are both fairly minor, but created decades before these two). While I understand that finding secondary sources about a pop-culure fictional character like the Batman is difficult, in the past people have been able to at least point to mulitple websites and blogs listing "the best/most important Batman villains". Hardly the best sources, but for most of the currently included villains there's a pragmatic argument that they've had cross-media exposure in the large live action hollywood movies (the media that has reached the largest number of people). For these two characters, the only cross-media appearances have been animated television, and to the best of my knowledge there are no websites listing their importance (although I recall at least one or two sites that list Ventriloqist among "worst" Batman villains). This template is intended as a first stop overview of the subject of the Batman, I've always voted to limit links to the broadest and most defensible articles and then stop there. Sneaking in editors' personal favorites, in my opinion, tends to be the wikipedia version of Mission creep. That said, as always consensus in the final word. -Markeer 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FTR Black Mask is usually on the top batman villains, 1 example being the highly referenced IGN article. Second if your saying movies make them template-worthy, then be prepared to remove Harley Quinn, Mad Hatter, Clayface, Killer Croc and Man-Bat --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing most of those (probably all) although I didn't oversimplify to state the movies were the sole criteria, please don't imply as such. But this poll is about these two specific characters, let's try to leave it with them for now. -Markeer 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What your saying makes no sense. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you said it yourself. And if movies aren't the only thing that gives them enough push to make it onto the template, then what is to keep Black Mask, Ventriloquist, or any of the others off. All this is, is a debate of preference and thats it. There is no right or wrong, it seems to be what you think. I understand this is your opinion, but I personally feel this needs to be expanded with legit criteria, like multiple mediums, media attention (movies), main enemy of a story arc, significant role in Batman's development, special connection, etc. Because what it is now is nothing but opinion vs. opinion. As much as I don't want to see it expanded that much either, it seems as if thats the only way possible to have a clear cut in/out. That or delete all the enemies who havn't been in movies (everyone but Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Two-Face, Riddler, Ra's al Ghul, Mr. Freeze, Scarecrow, Poison Ivy, Bane).--EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been addressed before, above.

But ok, to revisit: The current consensus is to not include every adversary which Batman (and "family") have faced. Since there is to be a dividing line on which are (and are not) included, then that dividing line should be due to verifiable reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy. (And not blog lists, fan lists, fan polls, sites which anyone can upload an opinion, etc.)

And so far (as far as I have seen), Black Mask and Ventriloquist do not meet that criteria. When they do, they get added, fairly simple, I think. - jc37 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead and provide sources for every enemy on the template. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Already on this page and in this page's archives... - jc37 00:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well go ahead and direct to every single enemy. I want every one accounted for too. (Note: I'm not trying to be a jackass, I just am starting to get fed up with the opinions being turned into law.) --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually asking someone who helped compile them to do just that... Help compile them into a single list (and perhaps add them to the doc page of the template).

But that aside, the references are here. So at this point, if you want them, all you need do is merely look... Demanding that others do the work for you is not likely to get the response that you might be expecting. - jc37 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Demanding? no, not demanding. Challenging. You see I have been here too during old debates, and many of these characters have harbored weak, if any references. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Wikipedia operates by Wikipedia:Consensus and not by "voting", so anyone "vote counting" will likely be disappointed. - jc37 09:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. I think the ventriloquist should be on the list. He is always expected to be seen in every contemporary crowd of enemies of Batman, including comics, B:TAS, The Batman and even JL. In recent articles he has been said to be a lame villain (I think the first time was in a Wizard article) however, the character didn't even last a year dead in the comics. I think he really is part of the Batman folklore... Is there any criteria making him/her not qualified to be on the template, anyway??

If you count his appearances I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be more recurent than the Mad Hatter, Clayface, Man-bat, Mr. Freeze, and even Bane and the Riddler (not that this is a matter of fact). I think we shoulf find out. 20-dude (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for reasons stated above. ^The Jay ^Experience 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support There is no verifiable sources that state any (except for maybe Joker, Penguin, Catwoman and Riddler) are any more important than Black Mask or Ventriloquist. I agree Hush is too recent. But there is absolutely no reason why BM and Ventriloquist should be kept off. Of course "reliable" spurces can't be found becuase there are none supporting Man-Bat or Clayface either. This is simply the opposite opinion's way of keeping them off the template, when clearly there is a higher percentage of people who think they should be on. They are in other media (especially ventriloquist), and they are important in many story arcs of the comics. You want us to give reasons why they should be on, how about you give us reasons why they shouldn't but all the others on the template should. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia should not be about making fan pages on popular topics. It should not be about presenting things in an overly in-universe style when it comes to works of fiction. Therefore, when it comes to judging in this case, whether or not the fictional characters of Black Mask and The Ventriloquist are appropriate enough to be on a Batman template, it needs to be assessed as to whether or not their characters have had a major enough impact and impression on the real world. The template itself - a 'Batman' template, doesn't specficially or exclusively refer to the comic books. As such, other media of Batman is just as significant, and is not at all a side consideration. So, really, if anything, the leaking out of some characters out of the comic book world into other media could be considered as a sign of these characters' impact and significance from an objective point of view. They were deemed important enough to be represented in a wider range of media, and that in itself signifies their affect on people in the real world, that they were inspired to adopt and adapt these character in other medium. Both Black Mask and even more so The Ventriloquist have made such an impact, and this makes them significant enough from an out-of-universe objective point of view to be noteworthy on the template. This issue should not be from a fandom in-universe analysis. Nor should it even be a popularity contest (the results of this vote to me is irrelevant actually). Regardless of the results of this vote, objectively, and this is important and needs to be made very explicit in any encyclopedic context, these two characters have a wide influence from a real world persepective on the Batman phenomena from the broader perspective. In short, these two characters in the Batman fictional world, started in comic books and have since impacted further, as indicated by the adaptations in television shows and video games. The real world point of view is what matters for wikipedia. It is not imagining about stepping into that fictional world and from such a view thinking about what is 'important'. Wikipedia's frame of reference is objective, and thus when it comes to fictional works, the analysis is not to be in-universe. From this real-world perspective, these two characters are clearly prominent, inspiring varying adaptation in various creative artists and thus spreading across several media. I personally don't even like the two characters very much. But that is completely beside the point. My subjective opinion of the characters themselves is irrelevant. This should purely be about objectivity. And objectively, yes, they should be on this template. Yeldarb68 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? "Objectively"? Everything in your comments is your opinion. It's therefore original research. You may not like the fact that on Wikipedia we have WP:V and WP:NOR, but that's how it is. - jc37 09:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: It is not original research to state that the Ventriloquist is by far and wide acknowledged in other media, such as tv series and games. It is not subjective to state that representations of the Batman fictional world in other media are noteworthy from an encyclopedic point of view of the subject. It is indeed objective to state that the writer's of Batman the animated series and other creative minds behind other such representations in other media, such people were citing the Ventriloquist as significant from THEIR POINT OF VIEW. In their adaptations of the Batman universe, the character was made significant, thus through their work, they expressed their personal view that The Ventriloquist is significant. I am officialy citing THEIR work as my sources. Their work expresses THEIR view as they placed the character in such a significant recurring position. So this is about THEIR VIEW. Their view is in their works, and their works are what I am citing as my sources. The only subjectivity in what I am saying is that I am objectively stating that the likes of the writers of BTAS and so forth subjectively acknowledged the Ventriloquist in their works as significant by placing him in the recurring role as they had.

To add to this, I have provided a source from The LA Times that ackowledges both The Ventriloquist and Black Mask.

As for MY OPINION? I personally don't like either character. But the writer's of BTAS and writer's of other sources (of Batman in other media) have expressed THEIR VIEW that The Ventriloquist is noteworthy as a Batman antagonist through their works. As has the LA Times evidently. Plus, there are sources I can cite that claim The Ventriloquist as a memorably bad quality villain. That does actually also count as a source of support. Because this template is about encyclopedic noteworthiness and not subjective notions of 'best' and 'worst'. Objectively both the acclaimed 'best' and 'worst'characters are being acknowledged as noteworthy and memorable. Kind regards Yeldarb68 (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"It is not original research to state that the Ventriloquist is by far and wide acknowledged in other media, such as tv series and games." - Actually, it is. Whether I agree with the statement or not is irrelevant. And further, we're looking for references in relation to other characters, not just blanket statements of "greatness". Oh and I just saw Crazy Quilt on Batman:The Brave and Bold. Mere usage of a character doesn't define "noteworthyness" : )

That aside, where is your LA Times reference? I'd like to check it out. - jc37 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, found the link in a thread above.

Did you read it all? This is a "guess list" of possible next villains for a Batman film. And not seeing where any of those listed are noted as "better" than other villains. (And this isn't even dealing with the question of how should we weight "other media" uses of characters.) - jc37 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it all. Let us not be passive-aggressive, as we all remember WP:Civil. Now, with all due respect, in regards to that LA Times article, I believe it is more than merely a guess list. More than that it is a 'deserving' list. The author is stating who they think is 'deserving' of a Batman villain to be acknowledged in film. If it were a mere guess list, then the author would not have asserted that Man-Bat would be good in film and then add that Nolan wouldn't do it though. That displays that the author of the article was not 'guessing' on villains, but rather expressing a view of being deserving.

Now, on to my next source... In response to Hasbro's release of the Toys R Us figure of The Ventriloquist, it was cited at http://www.mwctoys.com/REVIEW_092302.htm that the four pack that was being sold of Batman, Nightwing, The Ventriloquist and Killer Croc had and I quote "proven very popular". It seems to me that if sales for Ventriloquist merchandise has proven to be popular that from an encyclopedic perspective that marks that said character as noteworthy in that corresponding fictional world. To add to this, the author of the review added that in his assessment of the toys that: "If this was just the Ventriloquist and Scarface, the [his] score would be higher". This is a further acknowedgement of the character.

Also, The Ventriloquist was noted by IGN (http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/622/622304p1.html) as being one of the worst villains in the batman fictional world. I have to say, this in itself is an acknowledgement of the character. The template is not about 'greatness' of the characters, that would be a subjective mess for an encyclopedia. It should be about placing characters that are prominent, as they are known and acknowledged. The IGN list acknowledges The Ventriloquist. That it is on the "worst" section is an acknowledgement nonetheless. After all, The Penguin and The Madhatter are also acknowledged as being "worst" at this source- and they are on the template we are discussing. Does that mean I am implying that Maxie Zeus and Calendar Man should also be on the template (as IGN acknowledged them too)? No. You cannot take my sources individually, but collectively. And so far collectively, I have: one source by IGN acknowledging The Ventriloquist as a Worst villain (memorable), another source claiming that sales of a piece of Ventriloquist merchandise has been popular (social impact) and another source claiming that The Ventriloquist is deserving of a character to be adapted in a film (worthiness). You will note that the LA Times author thought that the Ventriloquist is a brilliant character, while IGN thought it is an awful one. But they share in common that they both thought he was memorable. A polarizing figure perhaps perhaps, but still memorable either way. Being polarizing does not make something insignificant, does it? Plus the "popular" sales of Ventriloquist toys seem to indicate that some in society also think he is a noteworthy and memorable Batman villain, indicating the character's impact. Bringing all this together, it seems that The Ventriloquist should be on the template on the grounds of being noteworthy and memorable. Yeldarb68 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Some very good answers, and well thought-out.

(Some of your thoughts remind me of some things I've said here myself : )

As for the sources, IGN is typically this side of useless, since anyone can upload their opinion.

But the other link is interesting. At first I was going to dismiss it as someone's personal website, but it looks like this person has articles on more prestigious sites? If so, then I think we can say that this is at least weakly a reliable source. (Though noting again that this involves "other media" This time it's twice removed from the comics. These are toys depicting characters from an animated series.)

That said, if we take this as a reference, then Killer Croc should be added along side the Ventriloquist and Scarface.

But before we do that, I'd really like Doczilla's opinion on the reference. - jc37 02:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But Killer Croc is already on the template. I have to insist that the LA Times piece does more than guess about the Ventriloquist's chances of being adapted by Nolan into film, it tries to argue why the character 'should' be and is deserving of it. The following USA Today article (which also features the Ventriloquist and Black Mask as possible Nolan characters) is a better example of a guess list: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-08-14-batman-villains_N.htm While the USAToday piece is a guess list, the LA Times one goes beyond mere guessing and argues in favor of the Ventriloquist (and Black Mask). Yeldarb68 (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wondering which character might not appear in a film is not an assertion of overall importance. Any article can mention minor characters that are less notable than others. Mentioning a character is not stating that the character is as important as others.

I find the argument that inclusion in a "Worst" list to very smart. I don't agree that it denotes sufficient notability though. I got a chuckle because it reminded me of Wizard Magazine's occasional features on lamest characters ever. Would a list of least notable characters inherently and ironically create notability? I don't think so. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you (Doczilla) think of the toy article reference. (See also my comments directly above.) - jc37 15:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When the author says, ""If this was just the Ventriloquist and Scarface, the [his] score would be higher," the author gives no reason. For all we know, it's a reference to toy quality which the article clearly covered. Probably not, but we can't insert our inferences. Otherwise, the article just says that the toy exists and rates its quality without making any assertion about the character. So I'm not sold on that source. Doczilla _STOMP! 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on Ventriloquist (while hypocritically objecting to straw polls). I think people arguing for the Ventriloquist's inclusion are overestimating how often the character has actually appeared in Ventriloquist-centered stories, and he has made no notable contribution to Batman's character history. For Black Mask, I feel neutral. He killed a Robin. Even though she came back, that was notable. Still, if that event is truly notable, then people should have no trouble coming up with external sources that talk about Black Mask's Robin-slaying achievement. Doczilla _STOMP! 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  And you should have no problem finding source for every enemy currently on the list...--EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  As I already mentioned, that's already been done. And posted to this talk page (some of the posts may now be archived). - jc37 03:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  And you still havn't provided links for every character currently on the template... so whats your point? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  No, it has already been done. The characters currently on the template have been sourced. Besides which, disputing other characters is not going to get two more on the list. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If anything, it would just get those said characters removed from the template instead of adding the ones you want. If your intention is to remove some characters from the template because you do not think they are deserving due to what you believe is poor citation that is fine (but look at the sources before criticising them though). But if you are just doing so to 'prove a point' about Black Mask and Ventriloquist, that is actually a violation of wikipedia's guidelines (WP: Point, I believe). Yeldarb68 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New Villains

I'm a bit...concerned about this villains list. I know it's been protected, but I feel like whoever is in charge of it has made some poor choices in the villains to include. Mad Hatter, Killer Croc, Harley Quinn, Clayface and Man-Bat have made a greater contribution to the comics than others? I don't think so.

Just because a villain is old, or adapted into other mediums, doesn't mean that they're the "top" Batman villains. I'm not saying that these villains should be removed, but that other villains should be included. Black Mask is one villain who has recently had a massive effect on the comics (Particularly in his dealings with Catwoman and War Games), as has Hush (who has been repeated in publication many times). Also, Hugo Strange is the oldest Batman villain and has recently made a resurgance in the comics (such as in Batman and the Monster Men). You ask us to post sources to prove the value that these characters have added to the comics - but shouldn't that source be the comics themselves? Looking to websites and other sources is only going to show the most popular villains, which is what seems to be happening with this list.

Black Mask, Hush and Hugo Strange have all been the centre of some prominent, recent stories - something that most villains on the current list can't claim fame to. Hugo Strange is the first and oldest villain. Black Mask has been in publication for nearly 25 years and has even been the head of the Gotham Underworld.

As far as Hush - this isn't a list where a select group of people can have control and only put on villains that they like. Whether Hush is liked or not, he's been in existence since 2003 and has been one of the most prominent villains since. I think the people at DC have made it quite clear that they intend to make Hush a very prominent member of Batman's rogue gallery.

If Ace the Bat-Hound can have a link, surely these prominent - classic - characters can...

--TheScarecrowAA (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved your comment here, since there is more discussion on this topic here.

And speaking of which, I think I'll just point up to the several discussions above. - jc37 08:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is the silliest thing possible. You recognise the contribution characters have made to the comics, but need a source to tell you that they're noteworthy? This isn't like someone's coming on here fighting to have Crazy Quilt or Kite-Man put on the list. The only villains which make it into the "credible" sources you're talking about are the 'popular' villains. These are done by people who have no idea about the actual content of comic books and I'm starting to wonder if the people in charge of this wiki thing to either - otherwise they'd be including several villains that aren't on this list. As far as sources go, the comics themselves ARE the sources. In a wikipedia article about books, do you need to reference an article saying WHY the character is important to include them on a list? No. They're important because they're in the book.

  The entire navagation thing is a sham. Ace the Bat-Hound, Bat-Mite and Vicki-Vale warrant a mention? None of these character have ever contributed to the overall Batman history - let alone since the Golden Age finished. But popular, noteworthy villains aren't included because there's no 'sources' to say that they're important? It's the saddest power trip I've seen in a long time and I have a feeling it's because the people in charge of it don't really have an idea about comics and think that because a villain is in a TV show or movie it means they're more important than others. Never mind what happens in the actual comics (which is what this is supposed to be about). --123.243.244.22 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with your assertion is "according to who?". - jc37 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  Anyone who's picked up a comic book in their life. What's Killer Croc ever done of note in the comics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.244.22 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Nope. Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. Welcome to Wikipedia : ) - jc37 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article from MSNBC discussing both Black Mask and the Ventriloquist. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25681350/

The Los Angeles Times recognising Black Mask: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-batmanvillains-2008-pg,0,1485774.photogallery?index=4 And then Ventriloquist: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-batmanvillains-2008-pg,0,1485774.photogallery?index=6 And then Hush: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-batmanvillains-2008-pg,0,1485774.photogallery?index=5 Here's an article from MTV where numerous comic book writers recognise Hugo Strange, and recognises him as a "counterpart to Batman's psychosis and fears": http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/05/who-should-be-next-villain-for-nolans-batman-comic-writers-weigh-in

A further article from IGN, recognising key storylines of Black Mask and The Ventriloquist http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/891/891521p2.html IGN further recognising Black Mask as the 9th greatest Batman villain: http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/622/622304p2.html --123.243.244.22 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.244.22 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IGN isn't a reliable source, as anyone can upload their opinion.

And we've already discussed the LA Times presentation (I hesitate to call it an article), above. It's a "guess list" (with a pictoral layout) of who might be in the next film. So it doesn't define "greatness" or even "well-known", but just who might be "interesting to see" in the next film. And if we list all of those noted in the presentation, that becomes even clearer. The same goes for the other links you posted.

That said, attempting to find references is a good start. Have you found any others? - jc37 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• How about this one?

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=5309

Comic book writer Anderson Gabrych recognises Black Mask's part in the 'War Games' storyline, and his killing of Stephanie Brown as "crucial to the story".

Also Paul Dini here recognises Hush as being "one of the seminal modern Batman stories"

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=16873&page=article —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScarecrowAA (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You could perhaps add each reference to each article. They would seem to at least establish notability for each character. Hence they determine that an article on each may be appropriate.

However, neither establishes that these characters are "more better" than other villains.

Just that they were intrisic to the arcs described in the articles.

If that's all that was required, we'd have nearly everyone who's ever opposed Batman, and that includes Superman and quite a few others. - jc37 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Actually, the IGN source is a completely valid source under Wikipedia guidelines. I might remind you that what you're asking for is a reliable source to provide what is essentionally an opinions (by what is are the "best villains" measured in but opinion?). So the highest you can ask for is an informed opinion from a reliable source. Then again, how can the source be reliable? How can someone reference their article stating that their opinion that someone is one of the greatest Batman villains is accurate, reliable and valid? They can't. The very best they can do is provide references to the primary source, the comic books, which validates their opinion. The Wikipedia guidelines also call for an "expert" opinion. What exactly is an expert opinion on Batman? Is it a writer? Well, half of the time writers don't read any work other than their own interpretations of the characters (and I stress interpretations). There is no such thing as a comic book major, nor comic book college and therefore there is no educational restraint on who can be considered an expert and who cannot. Is a comic book reader an expert? No, because they would not have read EVERY Batman-related comic book and ranked the performance of all his villains. So what is a comic book expert? A figment of the imagination.

Therefore, the best that you can hope for is a moderately referenced secondary source done by someone with a demonstrated level of knowledge and some professional accountability for their opinion - assuming it goes along with the general consensus by other experts in the field (which, as I've demonstrated, there's no such thing so at best an 'expert' on comic books can be considered someone who has a demonstrated knowledge whether or not they're a writer, reader or artist. Now, the article at IGN is an opinion peice, but what you're asking for is an opinion. Regardless of whether or not anyone can upload something onto IGN, the peice in question is by an employee of IGN - Hilary Goldstein who is recognised on the staff page as being an editor in chief and has done numerous articles and editorials on comic book related subjects. His only reference is the comic books (the primary source), making this a secondary source which is the most desirable per wikipedia standards. In his list he gives a, albeit breif, description of WHY Black Mask should be considered the best which demonstrates not only reasoning for the opinion, but knowledge of the source material which, as I've demonstrated, is the most expertise that can be demonstrated when it comes to comic books.

All that's left now is to show that his opinion goes well with the general consensus of other "experts" and, as I've said three times now, there's no such thing when it comes to comic books and basically anyone who knows a decent amount of fact about comic books can best be considered an "expert" and this page in itself demonstrates a consensus that Black Mask should be on the list of the greatest, most notable Batman villains ever. I refuse to believe that any source provided for ANYTHING on that list fulfills the requirements for wikipedia sources because, by the very nature of the list, it's impossible. This is therefore as good as any source which was used to do that list and if you refute this without providing an example of a good enough source for at least one of the names on that list, we'll all know that you're just a select group of people on the world's lamest power trip.

Hilary Goldstein's staff page on IGN (he's been a writer for them for 8 years): http://au.stars.ign.com/objects/964/964246.html IGN corporate site (to show that this isn't a little blog site which doesn't care about what is publishes - it's actually part of an extensive entertainment media network): http://corp.ign.com/ A link to the original article: http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/622/622304p2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScarecrowAA (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

--TheScarecrowAA (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several editors who have contributed to Wikipedia for more than 8 years. Should we consider them reliable sources? Probably not. And I doubt anyone would suggest that Wikipedia isn't part of an extensive "network".

The whole point is to avoid this being based upon our personal opinions.

Our options are essentially to include them all (prohibitive), include none (almost no one would be happy), or to come up with a criteria based upon "expert opinion" from verifiable reliable sources. (And not based upon the opinion of Wikipedian editors.)

Thus far, we've taken the third route. - jc37 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's just completely disregarding my point. The guy isn't someone who has been writing stuff freelance for eight years, he's a paid journalist for the site. The article is entirely his and hasn't been edited by anyone else. The source is as reliable as an article in...say, Wizard or any other comics-related magazine. --TheScarecrowAA (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Villain Selection Criteria Is Completely Inadequate

What's truly ridiculous about this whole set up is that if Black Mask is the next villain in the next Batman FILM- then - he would all of a sudden be on the template. That is because at the moment the template acknowledges villains based on recognisablity from the general public. The general public react mostly to the films. Therefore, this entire template is not reflective of the actual content - the comics. So the most significant villains in the comics is determined by how recognisable the characters are to the general public who most of which, do not follow the comics. This seems like an attempt at analysing which characters have made the most social/cultural impact - which obviously, is irrelevant to determining which characters belong in the category of Batman family villains as stated on the template. So the very basis of who is on the template is flawed. One must prove that Black Mask and the Ventriloquist are Batman Family Enemeies by displaying that these characters have made an impact on general audience outside of the comic book world? That makes sense how? Should it not be about impact on the fictional world that the fictional antagonist appears in? Yes. The entire rules of this should be re-evaluated. Am I demanding or commanding this? No, I am requesting discussion of it. I understand that those on the templateshould be verifiable, however, the current manner of determining so is flawed. It is like doing a template for Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' and then claiming that the three witches are the most important because they are the most famous amoung the general public who are widely adapted outside the play, even though in reality, they are much more minor even though famous and making a cultural impact outside the fictional story. Such a hypothetical for that circumstance is the reality of how thistemplate currently is. As it is, it is about recognisability from the general public (which isn't necessarily reflective of the fictional works of the ource material - the comics - themselves, as most general public rely on other media adaptations), rather than an encyclopedic list of what could truly be deemed as "Batman Family Enemies". Change is in order. That is in regard to the entire way this template is managed. 123.3.138.47 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Damian

Damian wayne should be added to the template as he is now the new Robin as of Battle for the Cowl 3 24.168.38.78 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion seems reasonable as the template to date has included most versions of the Robin character. I would however suggest that we remove (or at least reduce) the number of follow up tags on each sub-entry (e.g. Jason Todd is good enough, we shouldn't need to also link both Red Hood and Red Robin, and links from the Jason Todd article should clearly lead to those). My main concern is avoiding moving that section onto a third line with Damian's inclusion. -Markeer 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are any of the extra aliases really necessary? (even Nightwing or Spoiler ) Their names should suffice and then damian could be included no problem24.168.38.78 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the alias 'Red Hood' is important. Having 'Robin' and 'Jason Todd' as a link, but not 'Red Hood' would be completely inaccurate. I think Jason Todd is more known for being Red Hood. Speaking of which, if Catwoman is to be considered as an 'enemy' then so too should Red Hood also be considered an 'enemy'. 123.3.180.241 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's give this a few more days for people to comment as consensus on this template has over time erred on the side of heavy conservatism. To the previous editor I would mention that links and information about Jason Todd as the Red Hood would be found in the article on Jason Todd. This is a navigation box, so if it accomplishes the purpose of leading people to relevant information in one or two clicks, that's sufficient (at least in my opinion). Regardless, I won't make this alteration for another week or so to give people the opportunity to comment. There's been some disagreement about the character of Damien in the past, and I was one of those who argued against his inclusion then, but I believe the original editor's argument was reasonable that obtaining the title of "Robin" elevates notability for the topic of Batman. -Markeer 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything 'Red Hood' is more well-known than 'Jason Todd'. Having 'Jason Todd' but not 'Red Hood' is like having 'Bruce Wayne' without referencing 'Batman'. It doesn't make it easier to navigate, it makes it less so as the mere name 'Jason Todd' alone is not recognisable enough. The presumption that wikipedia users should know that Jason Todd is Red Hood is too fan-centric and not encyclopedic. And forcing people to find a link within an article is not an effective navigation box in my opinion. Yeldarb68 (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm largely unfamiliar with Jason Todd's tenure as the Red Hood, so I've done a small amount of research. As far as I can see, Todd-as-Hood appeared in Batman #635-641, Dec. 2004-June 2005 and has never again appeared in that role. Is it your contention that these few months are crucial to an understanding of the major elements of the Batman universe such that the template would be incorrect by failing to include it? Because beyond any obvious point about the extremely few number of appearances, as I look at the article for Red Hood what I'm seeing is the editors there decided this storyline was only worth one short paragraph and a link to the article on Jason Todd. Which just tells me that following a link to Red Hood is a less efficient navigation method to this short storyline appearance than linking to the Jason Todd article.

All of which is neither here nor there. Jason Todd is not on the template as himself or Red Hood, he's on it as Robin. This is made very clear on the template because he's in a parenthetical subsection after the name "Robin".-Markeer 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please visit this sandbox version for a visual of this conversation. I've included Damian Wayne, and removed sub-links from the Robin and Batgirl entries. This places those two character-titles on a line of their own above the rest of the Batman Family. -Markeer 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks good but i noticed something that has nothing to do with this particular section. There is no link to Alternate versions of Barbara Gordon but there is one for batman and robin. There is reason for this inclusion as the barbara Gordon in other media is included, like Batman and Robin again 24.168.38.78 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no objection after about a week, I've applied the discussed changes to the mainspace. Regarding the above editor's other question, I have no personal objection to a link to alternative versions of batgirl, with the codicil that if this leads to article creep discussion of admitting X other alternative article, simplicity would suggest paring back to Batman and Robin -Markeer 00:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of a few villians there are no articles related to batman that have alternate version and in other media articles, like barbara gordon does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.38.78 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Crispus Allen and Ragman

Why is Allen not a supporting character? He was heavily involved in Gotham Central and appeared in other media as well

Why is Ragman not included? A recent interview on IGN with Batman editor Mike Marts has a picture that the DC Editors of Batman use to keep track of characters in their domain and Ragman is included so should he not be in the template?24.168.38.78 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ragman is fairly easy - The character got tagged in as a "Gothmite", nothing more. The lack of inclusion here is for the same reason that Alan Scott isn't included. - J Greb (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And Crispus Allen? Also Ragman is in the "Network" 24.168.38.78 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Battle for the Cowl: The Network - So did Black Canary, the current Manhunter, Wildcat, Lady Blackhawk, and Grace. Doesn't make any of them Batman characters either.

As for Crispus... it really may come down to two things:

1. Was he used out side of the Gotham Central books? and
2. Does being a lead/support in that book make for a Batman supporting character?

- J Greb (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Renee Montoya has the same qualifications as Allen far as the batman world is concerned... she appeared in BTAS and in Gotham Central and Batman was heavily involved in Allen's miniseries as the Spectre 24.168.38.78 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You should have a lot more characters like Spider-Man, Wolverine, etc. Allen, and Montoya deserve because of their status as cops, as well as Allen being Spectre and Montoya being Question. (JoeLoeb (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Batman Family Enemies Article

I just have a question really. Why is it that the wikipedia article 'Batman Family enemies' lists the likes of Black Mask, the Ventriloquist and Firefly as central enemies, yet this template does not? Shouldn't there at least be some consistency between the template and the article (especially since a link to the article is on the template)? Shouldn't the 'Batman Family enemies' article be edited to be consistent with the template? Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know for certain, but I would suggest you visit the Batman Family Enemies article and question why they've broken down the enemies to 'central' and 'of less reknown' without citation or (as far as I can see) internal explanation. If I understand the mandate of "List" articles, they are generally intended to provide comprehensive data on a subject without value assessment or undue editorializing. Still, I've never edited or been involved in discussion on that article so I'm not familiar with their decisions. Just giving my best opinion after a short look over there. -Markeer 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Huntress

Shouldn't both Helena Wayne and Helena Bertinelli be listed under the Huntress, like the way the names are for Robin and Batgirl 24.168.38.78 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the template has made a point of giving a specialized undue attention to Robin and Batgirl and tried to hold there. With the many retcons, reboots, elseworlds, resurrections and legacies of the DC universe, it's difficult to find ANY character that only have one form, and the articles for each character template reflect those varieties. There have been at least 4 Clayface's, the new Batwoman isn't the same person as the old (60s) Batwoman, there have even been other Catwomans and Jokers (of sorts), etc. But this is a template about Batman, let's focus on him. Consensus agrees that the characters of Robin and Batgirl be given a significant and notable weight on the template, and only those characters.

That said, I agree with your comment above under the Damien section about adding the Alternative Versions for Batgirl, I'm adding that now. "Barbara Gordon in other media" is part of the bottom line of the template for a reason, just as Robin and Batgirl are highlighted in the Batman Family section. Good suggestion on balancing the alt version section for her. -Markeer 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Killer Moth

"Please do not add any additional Batman-related villains without adding verifiable reliable sources to the talk page which note the fame (or infamy) of the character."

Eurogamer referred to Killer Moth as a "famous" Batman villain. Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/lego-batman-demo-now-on-xbox-live

203.54.191.28 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're looking for new sources, but I think that particular news blurb would run into the wall of the significant/non-trivial coverage concept for notability and references. Sourcing looks for strong secondary sources that directly address the subject matter. In this case, Killer Moth's name is just lumped in with a few other Batman villains as someone used in a demo of a game. -Markeer 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am mistaken, but as I understand it, the source in question refers to Killer Moth (along with other named villains) as being "one of the famous Batman villains". It seems to me that this fits the criteria set out regarding "fame" and/or "infamy". As for notability, the source is a review of a Batman game, however, a comment of Batman's villains in a wider sense was being expressed. Or so it seemed to me.

203.54.191.137 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)