Talk:Batman/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

The Shadow

It is generally acknowledged that The Shadow had some influence in the origin of Batman. A number of times in the pulp "The Shadow Laughs" (Oct 1, 1931), The Shadow was said to have a "bat-like shadow".(88.22.194.66 (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC))

There is an entire section in The Shadow that talks about the character's influence on Batman. It seems well-sourced, so if you wanted to check them for validity and import them into this article, it seems like that could be a great way to improve the article. However, using references to a "bat-like shadow" as an argument to support that claim may violate Wikipedia's ban on original research. TI. Gracchus (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On commas

Just noticed the most recent edit in which a user went through and placed all of the commas on the outside of the quotation marks. In order to forestall a revert by a newer editor (such as myself), I thought I would take a moment to point out that this is indeed consistant with Wikipedia's manual of style. As an American, seeing punctuation outside of quotation marks is like fingernails down a chalkboard, but for whatever reason it is apparently the official policy here, and so should be left in place. TI. Gracchus (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

he is not a fictional character he is a public icon


commissioner omvig Bruce Wayne Selina kyle Dick Grayson Thomas Wayne Martha Wayne he is a jackass Jason todd

203.100.223.113 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Batman is a chemist

If there aren't enough references to fictional chemicals in the Batman article that's rather sad; really most Dc and Marvel Super Hero's have 4 PhD's on average even if they don't officially have them. Batman has at least 8 under that utility belt. There are easily references to prove Batman is a genius in multiple fields of science based off his impossible and nearly impossible scientific accomplishments which continue to inspire children and scientists after over 70 years. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it a defining characteristic of Batman? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any versions of Batman without the Batmobile?

I was wondering if any versions of Batman do not have the Batmobile. Also, does he not drive the Batmobile more than he flies the Batplane? Should category fictional aviators be removed? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington post says The Batman is an outlaw

What is the community consensus on whether Batman corsses the line from vigilante into outlaw territory? Would this apply to the Dark Knight Batman but not regular Batman, both or neither? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the version. In Dark Knight Return he's actively hunted by the police, but in the TV show he and Robin are both fully deputised. I'd say that in most version he's tolerated, but not endorsed or even fully acknowledged by the police. I don't have a source for that, though. It's difficult to include information on a topic which varies so much between depictions. Euchrid (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've never noticed a license plate or NY state inspection stickers on the Batmobile. Every time he drives (whether speeding, flames shooting out, rockets being launched or not), he's breaking the law. That said, I doubt we have reliable sources discussing this. Thus, we are in the realm of original research. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Batman's fighting style

Any idea what fighting styles Batman is practising? Clegg Holdfast (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the writer, artist, actor, fight choreographer, animator...it's safe to say that he's been depicted using every style that's ever existed at one time or another. Certainly too many to list in the article. Euchrid (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, Batman's fighting style has a strong similarity to Taekwondo and Ninjutsu. Can I add that to the main article or will it be reverted? Clegg Holdfast (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source? If it's just your opinion then it's original research, and it will almost certainly be reverted. Euchrid (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Beside Ninjutsu I also think that Kickboxing may refer to Batman's fighting style. It's a bit strange that his real fighting style is hard to find on Google. Clegg Holdfast (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That's because he's a fictional character who has been depicted many different ways by many different people. Many of the comics wouldn't be based on any particular fighting style - the artist just draws what they think looks good. Even the live action versions fight very differently from one form to another. You're asking a question without an answer. Euchrid (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I played Batman Arkham Asylum and Arkham City again and Batman's fighting style could be described with nothing else than Kickboxing. There are also maybe self defences from Ju Jutsu but Kickboxing is his main fighting style. Why is it such a big problem to mention his fighting style in the main article? 188.22.154.170 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source, you could maybe include that in the articles for those particular game. It's too minor a point to be included in this article, though, as this one is a broad overview of every version of Batman, 1939 to now. Things like his fighting style in different medium would be considered Fancruft. Euchrid (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. I take verything back. Now true is that Batman's fighting style is strongly similar to Ninjutsu. Ninjutsu is one of the oldest martial art and maybe that could be mentioned in the main article that he practised Ninjutsu. 178.191.91.154 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
And here is the source. Maybe you could add that to the main article. Remember Batman Begins when he was holding a Sword when fighting against opponents. 178.191.91.154 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Spring Heeled Jack

Can we add a note to the Creation section which points out the remarkable similarity of the batman character design to this much earlier Spring Heeled Jack artwork (circa 1904) from a series of English 'penny dreadfuls'.

The decription of the earlier wings, before Finger made the cloak change, makes the design even more similar to the eariler spring heeled jack image.

It seems very likely that the batman character design was influenced by these earlier images of spring heeled jack.

See the wikipedia article Spring Heeled Jack

I am not the first to notice this similarity earlier spring heeled jack image looks remarkably like batman (fark.com thread) 

21:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The similarity of Spring Heeled Jack to Batman comes strictly from his bat-like scalloped cape, which is one of the costume suggestions Finger made to Kane, among others he admitted were influenced by The Phantom. The question I have relates to Kane's early concept of The Bat-Man as a Superman like character with bat wings; the only direct connection to The Shadow via Kane is a black and red costume, which can be dismissed when you notice that all he did was reverse the colors in Superman's own color scheme and replaced blue with black. In regard to the scalloped cape idea coming from Spring Heeled Jack, I don't see how Wiki could mention it without a quote from Finger admitting that he saw the character, otherwise it could be dismissed as "coincidental".MARK VENTURE (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

References

--Yupviolagobe (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources citing this? The Fark thread certainly doesn't count. If there's some third-party sources that significantly point this out, then you can add it. But if it's just speculation, it's against WP:OR. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Batman Begins and crediting Batman's creators

At Batman Begins, the infobox has said the film was based on Batman as created by both Bob Kane and Bill Finger, like this article mentions both of them. However, the film only credits Kane officially, and an editor wants to take out Finger because Finger is not officially credited with Kane. There is a discussion on the film article's talk page about who to identify: Talk:Batman Begins#Batman Based on. Editors who watchlist this article are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason why Finger isn't "officially acknowledged" by DC Comics is the same reason why Harry Peter (who designed her costume) isn't acknowledged as Wonder Woman's Co-Creator: Kane and Marston made the deals with DC while Finger and Peter made their deals with the Creators, Kane and Marston. At DC's sister company All-American, Peter was allowed to sign his artwork but if he received anything else, it was through a deal with Marston. By the way, Finger received bylines for the writing he did on Green Lantern and Wildcat but I don't know if these included Co-Creator acknowledgement or even partial ownership.MARK VENTURE (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Where's Frank Robbins?

Why is there no mention of Frank Robbins? Mr.Robbins was very instrumental in returning The Batman series to its gothic roots. Before Denny O'Neil entered the picture, artists such as Neal Adams, Irv Novick and Bob Brown had already begun drawing Batman in a more mysterious fashion akin to his early days. In an interview in either Outre or Filmfax (I can't remember which) Adams said that he was inspired by Christopher Lee's "cape-work" in the Hammer series of Dracula films. He said something like "I thought to myself, that's how Batman's cape should be!" In a story reprinted in Showcase Batman vol.4 Frank Robbins did a story where the Scarecrow used a gas to make Gotham's criminals afraid of Batman, often referring to him once again as "The Batman". And finally, two months before "Secret of The Waiting Graves" was published, Frank Robbins and Irv Novick produced "One Bullet,Too Many" which sent Robin off to college while Batman closed Wayne Manor and moved into the city. Even before O'Neil got the assignment, the way was being paved for the return of a grittier Batman and it was led primarily by the artists and one very important artist\writer. I am not suggesting Denny O'Neil didn't have a role but he has too often been characterized as the only one who had the idea to go back to the basics and this article is no exception.MARK VENTURE (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too active on this page, but it seems the answer here is likely the standard for any "why isn't x mentioned on Wikipedia" questions; for this information to be included, what's needed in the first instance are reasonable sources that show Frank's contributions, and to demonstrate they are notable enough for inclusion. Your first stop should be to track down those sources, and work from there. Aawood (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How about these? The first two came from the Frank Robbins Wikipedia site. The third is that Scarecrow story which came out several months before "The Secret Of The Waiting Graves" and may have been plotted at least as many as two months or more before that. This may be close to "original research" because as far as I know, DC has never acknowledged it or even reader response to it as influential in the decision to go back to a more mysterious tone for the series but "One Bullet Too Many" has been cited in books such as Batman: From The 30s To The 70s and elsewhere, such as by McAvennie.

McAvennie, Michael; Dolan, Hannah, ed. (2010). "1960s". DC Comics Year By Year A Visual Chronicle. Dorling Kindersley. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-7566-6742-9. "When Dick Grayson moved out of Wayne Manor to begin college, writer Frank Robbins and artist Irv Novick orchestrated a chain reaction of events that forever altered Batman's personality."

Robbins, Frank (w), Novick, Irv (p), Giordano, Dick (i). "One Bullet Too Many!" Batman 217 (December 1969)

Robbins, Frank (w), Brown, Bob (p), Giella, Joe (i). "Batman's Evil Eye" Detective Comics 389 (July 1969)MARK VENTURE (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Intimidation

Shouldn't Batman's master level of intimidation be mentioned in his abilities? It may not be a conventional form of combat, but it still is important for such a shadowy hero like Batman. EmmanuelSandersIsNotDead (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

The newest story arc is "Batman: Endgame", which redefines Batman's origin in The New 52.

Batman titles however often ignored that a distinction had been made between the pre-revamp and post-revamp Batmen (since unlike The Flash or Green Lantern, Batman comics had been published without interruption through the 1950s) and would occasionally make reference to stories from the Golden Age.[1] Nevertheless, details of Batman's history were altered or expanded upon through the decades.

References

  1. ^ One example is the Englehart/Rogers run of the late 1970s, which has editorial notes directing readers to issues such as Batman #1

Under New 52, the newest story arc is listed as "Batman: Zero Year," but it should be replaced with the newest arc "Batman: Endgame."

Under Silver Age, there is a minor mistake. "on occasionally" should be changed to "occasionally."

Morales.andres98 (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Trademark dispute

Greetings Batman fans, I didn't add this to the article myself because I can't gauge the relevant place to put it (if anywhere), but DC Comics are taking up a legal battle with a leading soccer club in Spain over the bat image. Is this, at this stage, too trivial for this article?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30143924

'''tAD''' (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this would be more relevant for the club's or DC's article than herr.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article Review? Yes, of course it's time

This is a very old article—it was promoted to Featured Article status in 2004 when the process was very new and standards were still being developed. It was reviewed again in 2006, when standards were still very low. There have since been over 8000 edits made to the article (here's the article on 10 June 2006)—18k more readable prose, ignoring all the prose that has been replaced, and much of the added material is still uncited. The article is unbalanced and unfocused, the quotes are too numerous and too long, and an article missing so many citations couldn't possibly pass muster as an FA today. I think it's time for a Featured Article Review—and, if nobody's dedicated enough to fix the article's considerable flaws (which will be, yes, a lot of work), I think it should be delisted. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way to start would be to tag some of those problems, to see and discuss them more easily.

Gay Interpretations

The "Gay Interpretations" should not be in the main Batman article. Other interpretations of Batman would also go here, and since the character is so scrutinized by cultural historians and other scholars, this particular interpretation does not warrant its own section. The idea of a superhero being gay has shock value to it, which is why it was put into the article in the first place. There is already a Wikipedia article on the subject, and a link to that section would do just fine. If we have a "Gay Interpretations" section, then other analogies would also go here, but that would certainly make the article too long and irrelevant. JosephSpiral (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the section. The topic is well-sourced, so there is no reason to suggest it is simply there for "shock value." Per WP:SUMMARY, a spun-off article should have a section in the parent article summarizing it. If overall length of this article becomes a problem, there are several very lengthy sections that could be similarly spun-off and summarized, like the 1,800 word "Modern Batman" section.--Trystan (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—and while we're at it WP:PAGESIZE, which says we should start thinking of splitting the article once it hits 50k of readable prose. Batman is now at 69k of readable prose. Three long paragraphs on queer interpretations of Batman is, I think, way overboard on an article that is already way too long. Someone who knows their stuff should seriously overhaul this page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Is Batman gay or not? I thought that he has been in love-relationships with Catwoman very often. Opo Chano (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

77.126.195.159 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request specified. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

95.186.174.166 (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 14:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"New Look" bit of extra information

"... Batman's costume was modified to incorporate a yellow ellipse behind the bat-insignia"

It was stated at the time that the ellipse was added behind the insignia to represent the Bat-Signal.

96.224.212.159 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

i its me the one above all the god of life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.47 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning Up the "Modern Age" Subsection - March 2015

The "Modern Age" subsection is extremely lengthy and overly detailed. It is the longest subsection in the entire page. I implore someone to please take the time and edit it to make it concise. A thank you, from all of us, to whichever brave soul can do this task. JosephSpiral (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A big thanks to Brandmeister for cleaning up this section. JosephSpiral (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Recognition versus Entitlement

The phrase "Finger didn't receive the same recognition..." leaves the impression that he was entitled to it. And Jerry Robinson's comment comparing Kane and Finger to Siegel and Shuster isn't quite accurate: Siegel and Shuster were partners in all things, business and production but Kane and Finger were not. Since Mr.Robinson was once president of the National Cartoonists Society, he must have known that in an art or comic book studio, two people may work on a given project but the boss is still the boss and if he or she only wants her name on her comic strip, that's the be all and end all; as long as they have their assistants sign work-for-hire agreements, copyrights are also not an issue. As far as Batman is concerned, it was Kane who had the deal with DC and Finger was never Kane's business partner. That's American Business 101. This is also the case with Wonder Woman Co-Creators William Marston and H.G.Peter but let's just stick with The Batman.

I realize this is not a forum but I say this as a stopgap: whether or not we "believe" Kane "should have" given Finger "credit" for his contributions, or he was "wise" not to, based on Finger's track record for how he managed his own career after he left Kane, it's irrelevant to the subject of the article: The Batman as a character, and the who, what, when and why of his creation; a statement like "Finger wasn't given the same recognition..." is too close to bias. It should either be removed or qualified by mentioning that Kane never made Finger a full partner nor was he given a share in the "business" of Batman. On a side note, Bill Finger is acknowledged whenever his stories are reprinted or the origins of Batman's creation are discussed in DC Comics literature. What he doesn't receive is part of the "Batman Created By..." notation for the above-mentioned reasons; not merely because of the size of anyone's ego, real or perceived.

Also, as it does now, the article shouldn't confuse inner studio "credit" with whatever policies DC or All American may have had as they are separate matters. At the time of Batman's creation, DC didn't have a "bullpen" of work for hire freelancers; they had agreements or "accounts" with independent cartoonists who submitted their work to National (DC Comics) to be published. According to Jerry Robinson in his 2003 (?)Comics Journal interview, there wasn't a fully formed Bullpen of freelancers until about late 41 or in 1942. And after the merger with All American in the mid to late 40s, DC was no longer willing to accept product from outside sources. (As related in Mark Evanier's Kirby: The King OF Comics vol. one.)

Finally, I repeat my suggestion that the Kane and Finger articles be locked, in addition to the Batman article. There's just too much misinformation out there, especially on some of these Bat-Fan blogs.MARK VENTURE (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary link

The word "playboy" in the second paragraph describing Bruce Wayne links to the Wikipedia entry for Playboy magazine. This not a correct use of the term in this context and can potentially lead minors to objectionable material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.9.70 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential for cultural impact of Batman

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Captain Disdain/drafty bit regarding an 2005-2008 old draft at User:Captain Disdain/drafty bit which looks like it could be a potential for spin-off from Batman#Cultural_impact but if anyone here has an opinion on whether there's anything that's not already here, please comment at the MFD if you could. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

I'm requesting for someone to make an edit to Batman's abilities. This is my favorite character, and I'd hate to see that the majority of his abilities are missing. He is very, very skilled in what he does and it needs to be updated. I will list his abilities here:

Genius Level Intellect, Peak Physical and Mental Conditioning, Master of 127 Martial Arts, Master in Interrogation, Master Acrobat, Master Escapologist, Master Strategist, Master Swordsman, Master Tactician, Master Marksman, Master of Archery, Use of High-Tech Equipment, Weapons, Armor, & Gadgets, Master of Stealth & Disguise, Advance Scientific and Technological Proficiency, Master Observation Skills, Access to Vast Wealth and Criminal Records, Trained Computer Hacker, and Photographic Memory

If this could get corrected I'd greatly appreciate it, thank you.

63.133.243.1 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha!! I love this character too but, if you can give me some citations... where can we find a reference where these abilities are specified?
I think I can help you but I need that information.
Arussom (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Trivial powers and abilities are not listed. Only the few abilities the character is known for across mediums are listed. JosephSpiral (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel like it's very odd that Batman has any "super powers" listed. Batman is known for having no super powers, listing his intellect and strength (although they are natural human-level talents) seems, to me, to be an insult to the character. I realize that Wikipedia lists "genius-level intellect" for about half the superheroes it has pages for, but isn't that... terrible? Some of the heroes actually have that as a superpower, and others don't. Just because a character is smart doesn't mean he has a super power; where the hell do we draw the line? If a character has a high, non-genius IQ, is that an ability? If a character is pretty strong, or pretty fast, compared to the average human? This is just weird. I think the section should honestly be changed to just say "none." Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Matches Malone

Matches Malone redirects here. In the comics, Malone was a small time criminal who was killed early in Batman's career. Batman adopted Malone's identity as a disguise, and still uses the identity when undercover in comic books to this day. Considering that Malone is a redirect to this article, shouldn't we create a small section explaining who Malone was and why Batman uses that alias? DarkKnight2149 05:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a brief mention of Matches Malone in the "Skills and abilities" section and the infobox lists Matches Malone as an alias with a reference. I think that's a decent enough explanation as to who Matches Malone is but I agree it could probably go into a little more detail as to how exactly Matches Malone fits into Batman. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Live-action adaptations

David Mazouz was listed as playing "Batman" in the last sentence of the last lead paragraph, because he plays a young Bruce Wayne on the TV show Gotham. As I see it, this actor is not playing the costumed-persona that is Batman. Rather, he is playing a young Bruce Wayne, and we have never seen him in the Batman costume. Therefore, we should list him as someone who has played Batman onscreen. If we're to list child actors playing Bruce, then we should list all the child actors who played him in all the Joe Chill murder scene adaptations on film. I don't think we should be listing any of these child actors who have only played a young Bruce Wayne and never the costumed superhero that is Batman. Furthermore, until the actor actually appears in costume, which he may or may not, it is inappropriate to list him as playing Batman. What are editors thoughts on this? DrRNC (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. To list David Mazouz as an actor who has played Batman is misleading. David Mazouz may be Bruce Wayne, but he has not yet been Batman. Fortdj33 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I would include him in the list, as it is the same character being portrayed. The scope of this article covers both Batman and Bruce Wayne. We could list him separately as portraying only Bruce Wayne, but I don't think that is necessary. We wouldn't include children appearing in flashbacks, not because they aren't playing the same character, but because they have very brief screen time.--Trystan (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Trystan, it's a double standard if we list him and not the other actors to play a Bruce Wayne in live-action adaptations. To make it an issue of screen time is subjective. As Fortdj33 mentioned, it is misleading, because he does not play Batman, the costumed superhero this article is about. If the article was entitled "Bruce Wayne", then it would be a different issue — by the way, there is a Clark Kent article completely separate from the Superman article. If we are to include Mazouz, it should be in a separate section, not in the lead, stating that he plays Bruce Wayne only before he becomes Batman. In that lead paragraph, we have a list of actors who have suited up as Batman, complete with the costume and their own take on Batman's body language and voice, and then we have David Mazouz in that same list? An actor who never played Batman the superhero and only plays a young Bruce Wayne? That doesn't fit at all. DrRNC (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
For reasons heavily detailed in the same discussion at User talk:Darkknight2149#Batman, I do believe we should include him. DarkKnight2149 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
As for the other child actors who play child Bruce Wayne, we shouldn't include them because they are not the primary actors who portray Batman in those films. For example, kid Bruce in Batman Begins only portrays a younger version of Christian Bale's character in that film for brief flashbacks. Christian Bale is the Batman of that film. In Gotham, David Mazouz is the Bruce Wayne for the show. Not to mention that the character is already developing his Batman traits and is confirmed to put on that suit in the final episode of the series, if the series makes it that far (citations for this are listed at my Talk Page). The entire premise of Gotham is to be an origin story for Batman. Batman and Bruce Wayne are one in the same, and Bruce Wayne redirects here. DarkKnight2149 02:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning him in the article, but not in the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Argento Surfer. It can be stated elsewhere in the article, but does not belong in the lead, as he is not playing Batman the costumed superhero but rather a young Bruce Wayne. DrRNC (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur. The character is not yet Batman. And unless the series lasts another eight or so years, he never is going to become Batman. Mentioning that he plays Bruce Wayne is fine, but it's misleading to suggest, by virtue of placement in the lead, that he is one of the actors who has played Batman. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is quite clear. I'll remove his name from the lead, while still mentioning his role as a young Bruce Wayne in the body of the article. DrRNC (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we not have the actor playing Bruce Wayne in Joker on that list, then. Or add David Mazouz. We can't have just one, because they are both playing young versions of Batman.

Wrong way round?

It says in the introduction that "Batman's secret identity is Bruce Wayne", but surely it should be "Batman is the secret identity of Bruce Wayne", shouldn't it? 86.152.162.152 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it doesn't matter. They're both the secret identity of each other. Batman's secret identity is Bruce Wayne and Bruce Wayne's secret identity is Batman. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(OP) Looking at this once more, I still believe it is more logical for Batman to be the "secret identity". 109.152.147.116 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You can go ahead and change it if you want; both are correct. I think the way it is now is fine because the article is titled "Batman", not "Bruce Wayne". As I said though, it doesn't matter. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither identity is a secret. People know that Bruce Wayne exists, and people know that Batman exists. The secret is the fact that one is the identity of the other, and that secret applies both ways. Each identity, therefore, has equal claim to the "secret" title. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the article is titled "Batman", I think it's logical that the article should state that the secret identity of Batman is Bruce Wayne. Not the other way around. DrRNC (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Batman's superpowers

DC lists Batman's "powers" as "exceptional martial artist, combat strategy, inexhaustible wealth, brilliant deductive skill, advanced technology" http://www.dccomics.com/characters/batman 71.233.28.85 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

None of those are superpowers. I still say the section here should say "none." Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed exhaustively in WikiProjects Comics and consensus was met. It doesn't say "powers" in the infobox. It specifically says "abilities". To say Batman doesn't have any notable abilities is obviously not true. Most of the abilities that are notable are, in fact, listed. We don't listed "wealth" as an ability. DrRNC (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex Ross art

I noticed that Superman has had his infobox image changed to one of Alex Ross' pieces of work, now the previous was done by Jim Lee and of course that images serves as a companion piece to the current image used on Batman's page, and the new Superman image also has it's own Batman counterpart [1], so may I suggest that the Ross image become Batman's next infobox picture. If it helps any, the same has also been done to Wonder Woman's page as well. Teridax122 (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose this change. I think the image being used now is superior to the one you're suggesting it be changed to. For the Superman change, I think those two pictures (the current one and the one that was used before) are both fine. With these two Batman pictures, in my opinion, one is dreadful, and one is fine. I don't recall the Wonder Woman image that was used before the current one. As for the current Wonder Woman image, it's fine. When you compare the current Wonder Woman, current Superman, and proposed new Batman images, I think the Batman one is nowhere near as good as the others. As I said, I think it's just awful. Everyone has their own preferences. Also, don't worry about other stuff. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind changing it for the sake of consistency. However, the current picture is also fine, so either way works for me. I think that @DrRNC may have something to say on this matter. DarkKnight2149 14:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I, too, oppose this change. The Wonder Woman image was changed because the previous image didn't show her full costume, as her body was positioned at an angle. The previous Superman image was changed for a similar reason. It showed Superman's profile, and the outfit itself was largely draped in shadows. The costume and its colors were obscured, with the "S" logo barely identifiable. Using Lee's Superman image to simply match his Batman image didn't have much logic to it, especially with the Ross image being of such superior quality. The current Wonder Woman and Superman images by Ross reveal their full costumes and represent their iconic forms. The current Batman image by Lee represents his costume quite well. The bat logo is identifiable, the costume is visible, and the colors are accurate. The other issue is Ross' Batman image itself. The Ross Wonder Woman and Superman images not only relate to the classic look they have in the comics, especially the Golden Age, but are also reminiscent of the serials, TV shows, and movies. This is mainly because the look of these two characters haven't varied too much across mediums. Ross' take on these two characters accurately sums up their looks throughout the years and showcases their costumes in exceptionally high quality images. But Batman's costume in the Ross image doesn't evoke the Batman image we see in the comics. The colors are off and Ross is using artistic license to take a very realistic approach to Batman. Also, his physicality is not well represented in that image. The Superman image by Ross shows him to be very muscular. However, from the few glimpses of his body that we do see, Ross' Batman appears to be lacking in muscularity. Furthermore, the image itself does not reveal the costume the way the Wonder Woman and Superman images do. His cape is concealing too much of the costume and the bat logo is not identifiable. Therefore, the current Jim Lee image of Batman is a better representation of the character. DrRNC (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You crushed the nail on the head. This might very well be the greatest comment I have ever seen. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Since we all seem to be in agreement, I'll just cap this off by reiterating that I'm fine with either image. Jim Lee captures the mood and feel of the Batman mythos while Alex Ross' image captures the realism. If there are no objections, then Jim Lee it is. DarkKnight2149 14:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright then. Teridax122 (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just an aside, the Jim Lee image obscures the Batman logo too. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

Category:Corporate mascots 76.88.107.122 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Genius intellect"

OK, this is a minor issue, but...

"Genius" is a noun, not an adjective, and by definition means intellect. So writing "genius intellect" is like writing "car vehicle" or "banana fruit". We could write "genius", or "intellect", but having both is a tautology. Popcornduff (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The key here is that it does not say "Genius intellect". It says "Genius-level intellect". Completely different. "Genius intellect" would be stupid as you point out but again it doesn't quite say that. It's saying the character's intelligence level is of the genius variety. Makes sense. —DangerousJXD (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, "genius" is commonly used as an adjective in casual conversations to indicate something/someone is clever, whereas "intellect" is primarily used to refer to logical capacity of an individual. There is a slight difference between the two. For example, "high intelligence" individuals maybe called "geniuses", while "low intelligence" individuals are labeled as "stupid". Similarly, someone with extraordinary or exceptional intellectual ability can be called a "genius" (some call this "genius level intellect"). I don't know whether this distinction is negligible in this case; however, we could write "high intellect" as an alternative to "genius intellect". -- ChamithN (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@DangerousJXD: It does say "genius intellect" in the lead. EDIT: As we all agree on using "genius-level intellect", I've made the change. -- ChamithN (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Um, I'm not keen on "genius-level intellect either". It's at least not tautological, but it's clunky. Simpler to write "described as a genius" rather than "described as having genius-level intellect". In either case I highly doubt that omitting the word "intellect" would misrepresent the source text.
BTW, there's really no need to write "high intellect", either, when "intellect" suffices. It's like writing "high speed" - "high" is redundant because "she drove at speed" implies high speed. Let's just be simple and pick one: genius or intellect. Popcornduff ( talk) 12:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"Genius-level intellect" doesn't need to be changed to anything else. It's consistent across comics character articles. —DangerousJXD (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"It's poorly written in other places too" is not an argument. Popcornduff (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And on that note I will no longer be participating in this pointless conversation. —DangerousJXD (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Just in case it helps: you should be explaining why the phrasing is superior, not just pointing out that we use it in other places. 'Cause, like, from my perspective, it should be fixed everywhere. Right? Popcornduff (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Popcornduff: Yeah, yeah, I know, I was just saying. That's why I suggested "high intellect" instead. -- ChamithN (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Intellect needs an adjective, it does not imply any specific level. Every living thing has some level of intellect. It's more like "I have money", you may assume I have lots of money but the statement is so vague without proper context or adjective it could mean many different things. It could mean I have a fortune or it could mean I found a penny on the ground. "Intelligent" may imply a higher level of cognitive thought. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Not the case. If the wording was "he relies on his intellect", the meaning would be clear: his intellect is, you know, high. (Again, consider equivalent constructions like "She is known for her speed".) But this entire matter could be sidestepped by just writing "intelligence" or some other thing we agree on. Just make it simple, please! Popcornduff (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DC Comics themselves list his powers as "exceptional martial artist, combat strategy, inexhaustible wealth, brilliant deductive skill, advanced technology". How about we just stick to that?--Atlan (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one way to end this. We could simply replace both "genius-level intellect" and "master detective" with "brilliant deductive skill", which accounts for both. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I fear that, in trying to simplify the prose here, the end result has been to make it more verbose. "Genius-level intellect" just doesn't read well. Would editors really object if we simply changed it to "genius" or "intellect"? Failing that I guess we could use "brilliant deductive skill". (Though I would argue here that "brilliant" is also unnecessary, and that his deductive skill is presumed to be impressive without it... ho hum...) Popcornduff (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe the lead must reflect verbatim the infobox, and as such, I believe "genius intellect" should be used in the lead while "genius-level intellect" should be written in the infobox. I agree with Popcornduff in that "genius intellect" reads better in that particular sentence. DrRNC (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with "genius intellect". "Genius intellect" means that the character has the intellect of a genius. "Genius-level intellect" means that his intellect is on par with that of a genius. They mean close to the same thing. I'd say they are practically interchangeable. DarkKnight2149 05:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Genius means intellect so it's unnecessary to write both. What is the objection to merely writing "genius" or "intellect"? Popcornduff (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Google, "genius" is both a noun and an adjective, and "intellect" by itself does not always imply intelligence. Note that two of the three examples given include an adjective. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
"He is renowned for his intellect." "His genius made him rich." "She was drawn to his genius." None of these examples require modifiers or additional words to be intelligible. Their meaning is perfectly clear. 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Popcornduff Argento Surfer is correct. They aren't the same thing. "Genius" is word used to describe a person of high intelligence or used to refer to a genius's intellect. Everyone has intelligence, not everyone is a genius.
And simply writing that he has "genius" doesn't read well at all and is practically a magnet for future editors to add a noun after "genius". Simply calling him a genius as a noun sounds almost like puffery. Saying "he has intelligence" does not imply high intellect. It is just stating something that is incredibly obvious. The reason the examples you just used work is because you implied that the intellect is what made him rich and renowned. Stating that "he relies on his intellect" does not imply high intellect, just adequate intelligence. DarkKnight2149 13:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to try pitching this one last time, in context. "Batman relies on his genius, physical prowess, martial arts abilities, detective skills, science and technology, vast wealth, intimidation, and indomitable will." No one in their right mind could believe there is anything at all strange or obscure about the meaning of "genius" here. Genius implies intellect; it cannot be referring to anything else in this situation. If the rest of you disagree, fine, let that be the last I say on the matter - but I'm astonished this has been a cause of such controversy. Popcornduff (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Your meaning in that sentence is certainly clear, though I'm still not certain that the current sentence needs to be changed. DarkKnight2149 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson Popcornduff (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Popcornduff, while that's a nice quote, there's still the reality that genius does not always imply intellect, as Argento Surfer pointed out. Also, as Darkknight2149 mentioned, it's a magnet for the addition of a noun since it is also used as an adjective. DrRNC (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe Argento Surfer actually only pointed out that intellect does not imply high intelligence, not "genius". I maintain that in this context writing either "genius" or "intellect" would be sufficiently clear. Do you really disagree? If so, I frankly think you're a little nuts, but fine, nothing I can do about it. (I also suspect, as far as the "magnet" argument goes, that if the phrasing had been simply "genius" in the first place, no one would ever have questioned it.) Popcornduff (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I like the hypocrisy of that quote. "The most valuable talent is never using two words when one will do" says the same thing with 4 fewer words. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
A couple of things:
  • "intellect" does not mean "genius"—one can have an "abnormally low intellect", but what is "abnormally low genius" supposed to mean? "Intellect" does not tell us the quality of one's mental skills; "genius" does.
    • the above assumes "genius" refers to "intellectual genius", which is not a given: a painter could be a "genius" in their given medium and still live up to the ol' French "stupid as a painter".
  • "genius" is both a noun and adjective
    • the above is irrelevant, because a feature of English is the noun adjunct, where nouns are commonly used as adjectives, as in "geography teacher" or "dog lover"
Thus "genius intellect" is absolutely unremarkable plain English. Whether it's the best option for the Infobox is something I'll leave to the rest of you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
To add, while someone familiar with the subject would easily grasp that "Batman relies on his intellect" implies his intellect is high, someone unacquainted with the subject might not. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to say that the adjective plays a key role here (as Curly Turkey pointed out, "intellect" does not always mean "genius"). Yes, I do know that Batman is considered a legend. However, when writing Wikipedia articles, we are supposed to consider that "the general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is before reading". -- ChamithN (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
"Intellect" does not mean "genius", but "to rely on one's intellect" implies the owner of the intellect is no dummy. If there's an elegant wording that makes it clear that "genius-level of intelligence" was intended, that would be better, of course. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Errors

This article states that batman debuted in 1939 when he debuted in 1937. 

Splooshamus (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Section About Batman's Plagiarized Origin

I, for one, feel the allegation that Batman is plagiarized from The Shadow, recently strengthened by the discovery of Bob Kane's art swipes from Dick Tracy, Tarzan, and The Shadow pulps, is noteworthy and should be included in this article. Notably, Batman's entire first appearance is plagiarized from The Shadow pulp entitled "Partners of Peril", and many of the accompanying illustrations are similarly copied therein. His dual identity of Bruce Wayne / Batman has always been eerily familiar to wealthy industrialist Lamont Cranston, and his 'Knight of Darkness' vigilante alter-ego, The Shadow, to say nothing of their obvious cosmetic similarities. None of this is mentioned, let alone highlighted, in this article at all. Outside of an offhanded mention that Bill Finger was inspired by pulp heroes, it is never mentioned at all. DC have been vigilant in suppressing any discussion of this topic over the years, and Wikipedia, by failing to acknowledge or include it, make themselves complicit.

Someone took pains to mention comic artist Greg Land's art-swiping and alleged tracing in his article... yet Wikipedia willfully ignores that Bob Kane and Bill Finger did the exact same thing, while stealing the story to go along with it, no less? These allegations absolutely merit a mention in this article. Indeed, any article on the history of Batman would be incomplete without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptnSpandex (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


Double post. My Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptnSpandex (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

1. Leonard B. Robinson's name has been spelled incorrectly under the Batman Impersonators section. Please change Lenord to Leonard.

2. Also, Leonard now has his own wiki page. Once the edit above is done, link 'Leonard B. Robinson' to the link 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_B._Robinson'.


Samrakesh (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured article

I have become very concerned, given that this is a featured article and, for the past several months, it has been heavily edited. Aside from adding new information, I really don't think this should be necessary given that it's, again, a featured article. Perhaps I'm missing something, but should it's status be reassessed? All of these edits and relatively massive changes seem a bit odd for an article of featured status. DarkKnight2149 21:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Since no one is responding, am I correct to assume that no one has a stake in this? DarkKnight2149 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And on that note, I will be requesting a Featured Article review. Thank you all for your insightful responses. DarkKnight2149 01:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are having problems getting responses here trying WP:COMICS might help in getting more input. I am not knowledgable enough with comics to be of much help though.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, but the reason I didn't go there is because they primarily WikiProject Comics in general, whereas this only applies to this specific article. DarkKnight2149 23:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Image

There was a previous discussion a few months ago regarding the infobox picture. A potential candidate was an Alex Ross image but not deemed optimal. The current Jim Lee image was believed to be better, although not ideal since it does not show the full costume. As part of a recent campaign, DC Comics has released some promotional art of its characters with their costumes in full frontal view. This image (Image #1) of Batman was released in June 2016. It's also drawn by Jim Lee with inks by Scott Williams and Lex Sinclair. What are editors' thoughts of this image for the infobox? DrRC (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the original discussion was at Talk:Batman/Archive 11#Alex Ross art. I'm partial to the current image, but honestly that's because I prefer the older costume. I can't deny that DrRC's proposed image is a better angle and pose.
On a related note, why is the picture from the Adam West show in black and white? The show was in color. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
My thoughts here. All proposed images are suitable fits for an infobox, would lean towards one of the new images. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Argento Surfer, in retrospect, I don't think Image #1 is as good as Image #2 for the infobox. DrRC (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some others. The artwork in Image #2 by Tony Daniel is of considerably higher quality, and I think it's the best candidate for the infobox. Also, it shows Batman in action doing what he does in the comics. Here are two Jim Lee images: Image #3 and Image #4. The latter, however, obscures the bat symbol in shadows. DrRC (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

An advantage the proposed image has over the current one is that it shows the full front of the costume and it's the one he wears in the current comic books (though that doesn't mean a lot considering it changes on a regular basis). However, I think the current image suits the article better aesthetically because it has a background that isn't plain white. So my position rests on this question: What do we (as a community) think is best for the article - aesthetics or showing more of the costume? I think there may be some discussion to be had there regarding what we want more from an infobox image. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking this also, and I believe aesthetics must also be considered but not at the cost of hindering the costume. Image #2 has the best of both aspects: it shows the costume and also has a good background aesthetic to it. While the overall image is important (like a background to put the character in context), I don't believe a proper view of the character and his costume should be hindered for the sake of background aesthetics. I think that's what we're seeing in the current infobox image: Batman is relatively small in the image, we see a shadowy profile, and the bat symbol is not fully visible. DrRC (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that Image #2 is an improvement over the current one and the Rebirth one, as it addresses both concerns (aesthetics and giving a full view of the costume). I'm also fine with Image #4. I don't think we should use Image #3 because the symbol and costume represent the Dark Knight Returns version of the character rather than the mainstream Batman (it's from All Star Batman & Robin, a prequel series to TDKR). DarkKnight2149 04:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, with Image #2 being the best for the infobox. And yes, Image #4 is from a Frank Miller storyline, hence Jim Lee went with that style, and so it's probably best to steer away from that one. DrRC (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed the infobox image using #2 per our discussion. DrRC (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

All right. If anyone reverts it, I guess we can direct them to this discussion. There doesn't seem to be any objections at the moment. DarkKnight2149 05:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Batman reboot film

I've noticed that, for months now, users have been trying to jump the gun on the Batman reboot and it's rumoured title "The Batman". So naturally, as soon as Affleck acknowledged the title, it made its way onto Wikipedia. Well, Affleck just clarified his statements. It turns out, not only is "The Batman" still not the official title, but the film is still in early development. I should probably remind everyone that we are not in a hurry. It's not official until it's official. I admit that, after Affleck made the initial statement, it looked like a confirmation. However, people have been trying to add this long before even that. Wikipedia will still be here when an actual announcement arises. Don't worry. DarkKnight2149 13:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

The last part under Robin is outdated as Damian was resurrected by Batman, and is the current Robin starring in both Teen Titans and Supersons. Harper Row never partnered with Batman, and is quickly fading to obscurity. Duke should be mentioned, even if he is not Robin and apparently going to function independently from Batman (?).

What about something like this (below) after the phrase 'After Stephanie Brown's apparent death, Drake resumed the role of Robin for a time.'

"When Dick Grayson temporarily became Batman in the late 2000s, he chose Damian Wayne, the ten-year-old son of Bruce Wayne and Talia al Ghul as his Robin in order to save the boy from himself [Batman and Robin (2009) #1, Secret Origins (2014) #4]. Damian eventually became his father's current Robin, and despite their similarities and Damian's violent upbringing, father and son were able to build a relationship [Batman and Robin (2011)]. Batman's newest partner is Duke Thomas, who previously fought crime in a group of teenagers who took on the identity of Robin [Batman Rebirth #1, We are Robin (2015)]."

89.27.102.175 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 talk 23:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman/Archive_11&oldid=1136551660"