User:Techman224

Template width

Superman/Batman templates:

Template:Batman

Template:Batman in popular media

Template:Batman fan films

Template:Superman

Template:Superman in popular media

Related template:

Template:dc-animation

How wide should this template be? I set the width at 100% for greater standardization when multiple templates wind up on the same page. If we pick any other value, two templates on the same page (e.g., "Batman" and "Batman in popular media", for the rare occasions when it is appropriate to include both) will look weird with one narrow one sitting on top of the other or a wider one balanced on top of a narrow one. The wider the template is, the less tall it will be. A more narrow template scrunches upward. I've looked for an existing guideline to follow but cannot find one. If it's out there, please let me know. I don't really care if it's 100%. I like how 95% looks, but standardization is good. Doczilla 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

95 or 100 is fine with me. I don't really have a preference, except that the goal, as I understood it, was to reduce length not width. - jc37 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Width affects length -- physical length (and therefore the position of everything else on the page, reducing how much other text appears on the screen with the box), not content length. A wider box will reduce physical length (i.e., height, however you label that direction in two-dimensional space), leaving more room for other text to appear on the visible screen. Doczilla 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard, although it would be nice if one developed down the line. I think for this template 95% looks good, although if anyone has reasons they think it would work better another way, I'm sure we're happy to listen.D1Puck1T 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm back to preferring 100%. I was just looking at how the template sits right over the category box. Doczilla 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What I don't like is the vast amounts of white space. I understand the multiple template alignment issue, and almost agree with it. Maybe if we could somehow find out the minimum sizes of the templates seperately, possibly using line breaks for some of the very long film lines, we can reach some universal standard for the width without any/much white space. --Jamdav86 09:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) The minimum sizes: {{Batman))

--Jamdav86 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:CVG is standardizing on an 80% width for bottom-of-the-page navboxes, but that's just a spitballed number that ends up looking nice on the page. Occasionally there will be some overlap between CVG and CMC pages; 80% isn't bad as arbitrary numbers go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the goal was/is to reduce the "height" of the box as much as possible? Is there a reason that whitespace (as opposed to the page's whitespace/bluespace) is a "bad thing"? (Or am I misunderstanding?) I like how the WikiProject templates at the top of this page resize as I resize the window. Shouldn't these navboxes work the same way? - jc37 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jamdav above. I tried using line breaks. Someone recently pointed out the problem with those. Browser windows vary in size. Doczilla 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You pretty much have to pick an arbitrary number and stick with it. Case-by-case sizes look ugly when you have multiple boxes, and no single number is going to look perfect in every case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's go with 80%, like the Video games project. --Jamdav86 10:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed all the boxes above to 80%, so that we could see how they look. Is there a reason why the CVG project chose 80%? or was that an "out of the blue" number? - jc37 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who pitched the current as-of-yet-stalled proposal, and I picked 80% because it looked decent on anything from really narrow screens (PDAs, PSPs, etc.) all the way up to monster resolutions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I like 100% because it reduces height the most and fits neatly on top of the category box. If we do change to another number, include {{Timm DCAU}} in the changes. Doczilla 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

100% creates problems on very large resolutions or with smaller lines. Also, 80% matches the size used by WP:CVG, for the occasional article with boxes from both projects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems? Really? What kind of problems would 100% create for those things? Doczilla 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also very much prefer 100%. I tested it with several resolutions without problems. 100% would be the best way the reduce height and it looks also better for me than 80%. --Lasttan 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And 100% would be more consistent with other templates throughout the comics project, which tend to go for 95% or 100% (Justice League, Spider-Man, Avengers, Flight Program). Doczilla 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren't those all new templates? As we were discussing above, widths seem to be arbitrarily chosen. I think at this point we should note this discussion again on the WikiProject talk page, so that everyone can come comment, and we should just finish developing consensus for a standard width. - jc37 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(restarting indent)

Sounds like the three main values under discussion are: 80%; 95%; and 100%.

What are the pros and cons of each? (and are there other values that should be discussed? - jc37 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The wider it is, the shorter it is, therefore allowing more other text to fit onto the screen. At 95% or 100%, these templates will be more consistent with most other comics-related templates I have seen. When sharing a page with another template, they'll look better together. Even when not sharing with other templates, greater consistency looks more professional. I see no advantage to 80%. Doczilla 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blank line

As you can see, there is a blank line between template 1 and 2 but no blank line between template 2 and 3.

I thought it would be better for consistency that there is a blank between all of them or no blank line at all. I would prefer that there is no blank line.

I didn’t thought that a discussion is necessary for such a minor change but my edit was reverted without explanation so perhaps it is necessary. --Lasttan 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No other comment, so I've changed it again so you can't see a blank line any longer.

I did it because this template was the only one with a blank line. (see also all other templates of Superman and DC) --Lasttan 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

...Batutsi

I must agree that the Batutsi does not seem best suited to the main Batman box. Would it be possible to put it in some for of "Miscelania" section of the "Batman in popular media" template? Reading the article, a case could be made for its pop-culture relevance.D1Puck1T 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need Batusi in any navbox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Batusi certainly doesn't belong on this navbox. The article for it is well referenced and gives a good argument for it's own notability based on several cultural references, but it is intrinsically an expanded article on a piece of trivia from one specific Batman show. For those interested in reading an article on the Batusi, I imagine they can follow a link from the main Batman (TV series) article, which can be found in the popular media link of this navbox. Let's try to keep this box focused on a broad overview of the Batman character, not a collection of links to minor subjects -Markeer 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- the Batusi is a very minor part of only the 60's television program, and is not notible enough for this template, nor the Batman main-article. It's place is to be linked from the Batman (TV series) article, or other dance-related articles, not the top-level Batman articles. ~CS 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

i disagree completely. one of the lasting contributions of the batttman series is this innovative dance which some people may not prefer, but cannot be denied as one the more sensual and expressive aspects of batmann. so, i'm WP:BB and adding it in. --Ghetteaux 13:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the key phrase there was "of the batttman series" (sic). This dance only relates to the series, not to the entirety of the character's history (which has spanned decades of comics, animated series and several movies). In addition adding this item creates an unattractive extra line at the bottom of the template box, which adds unnecessary length to a great many articles it's attached to. -Markeer 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Font size

How about changing the font size a bit? On my screen (1280x960 res on 19" CRT) I can hardly read the various items. What I can read rather clearly are the links to pages outside of wikipedia which are set in a different font style. I think increasing the fontsize by one or two would benefit readability. Opinions anyone? Madcynic 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checked: Increasing the font size to 82% does the trick for me, but if no one else has that issue I wouldn't wanna be so bold as to change it... Madcynic 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Changing the font size would make it inconsistent with all our other DC templates, several of which often appear on the same pages. Doczilla 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay. However, that Superman template further up-site seems not to use 80%... Edit: Okay, just checked, in fact, the Superman template does use 80%, so how come it looks diferent? Madcynic 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Italics make text look slightly smaller. --Jamdav86 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Additions (Discuss Ongoing Changes)

I've reverted a few recent additions to the template, specifically Damien Wayne, Azrael and Renee Montoya. No prejudice against the editors who added these (or the characters themselves) but previous consensus regarding this template was to try to keep it as simple as possible, stressing characters (whether supporting, allies or villains) that have had either an extremely long and notable impact on the Batman character/universe, or which have had crossover mass appeal by being featured both in comics and the large hollywood movies (i.e. characters extremely familiar to thousands or millions of people who will never read a comic book).

In my opinion, none of the three characters I've reverted match either of those criteria, as all three are relative to the 75+ years of Batman's history, extremely recent characters, not even taking into account that they have no crossover mass market appearances that I'm aware of.

However this is my opinion, so I'm starting a new conversation thread here to see how other editors feel about the scope of this template, what characters (if any) should be added or removed going forward, and what is the best criteria to use in judging any such thing on a case by case basis. -Markeer 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur on two counts. Montoya would fit a gotham characters template (and I'm am NOT proposing one, there are ENOUGH bat-utility-templates on these belts pages. Damien's back in a new story arc, one that implies that Ra's may use the body to return, no doubt because of shared genetics, which will probably burn off any wayne genetics during the resurrection, blah blah blah, or whatever. He might not last long. Azrael is a bit more significant, as her represents, along with te four supermen, DC's major push towards both 90's era grim'n'gritty, and the editorial push towards second generation characters for their falgship characters, not unlike barry to wally, hal to kyle, Katar to carter to carter to ..., Ollie to Connor, and so on. because of his position editorially and so on, I'd say his effects relative to market forces, publication history, and so on, matter more. THe 'son' theing's FAR less likely to last than Helena Kyle being Helena Kyle-wayne, given that whole fullpager in Catwoman. So let's drop all three, but if other convincing arguments for Azrael arise, then I can be counted supporting his inclusion. ThuranX 06:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Damian Wayne is the son of Batman noted for his significance in multiple continuiteis of Batman. He is also an important player in recent events. He is a member of the continuities belonging to Son of the Demon, Kingdom Come, the modern main continuity (which includes him becoming Batman) and numerous other Elseworlds. The argument that only charcters that are part of most of the 75 year history is rediculous as that would only allow for Batman, Alfred, Oracle, Nightwing, and a few villains like Catwoman and the Joker. If this mandate were followed through then there would be an incomplete template. Sognofocance should be determined by who has been involved in the major events of Batman's 75 year history, not simply by the amount of time they are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.136.207 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you've joined the discussion (brief though it is so far). Criteria for a template like this is obviously tricky as there are differing opinions on the relative significance of characters. Recently you (referring to User:24.164.136.207) have insisted on the inclusion of Damian Wayne, and thank you for moving to the talk page with your argument. My counter argument is similar to ThuranX's above, that it is currently unclear what lasting impact the character of Damien Wayne will have to the overall history of Batman, and beyond that I would argue that his inclusion teeters on the "in-universe" problem when writing about fiction. To those reading the current storyline, the character is significant. To those familiar with Batman as a movie character, nostalgic TV character or widely-known cultural icon though, the character of Damian Wayne is currently a blip (or less). There have been many characters added over the decades that were intended by their writers to be extraordinarily important in the long run, but have since been left by the wayside. Hindsight will undoubtedly tell us if Damien Wayne is important or not. Until it does though, he's still just a character used sporadically in Elseworlds stories (as Jc37 mentioned when he reverted) and in less than 20 issues of currently being published comics. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the character could be killed in the next issue and forgotten about, Grant Morrison could announce he's leaving the title and the next writer won't care, etc. My last comment is this: I'm reverting again. User:24.164.136.207 mentions in his last edit something about "2 to 1" for inclusion and I'd like to see that count. Myself, ThuranX and Jc37 seem to all have a problem with the character's inclusion, and I only see one person who continues to add it. -Markeer 16:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're including Harvey Bullock... he's hardly got a larger role or greater significance in the Batman universe than Renee Montoya (who has now even become the second incarnation of The Question). Deerlike (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll concerning inclusion of Damian

• Delete Damian from the template. We cannot know what Damian's lasting impact will be and we are not supposed to guess about such things (see WP:CRYSTAL). He is, at best, a recurring character. He is not a supporting character. Too many other characters who appear far more often than he has are excluded from the template. Doczilla 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete Damian. - as above. 66.109.248.114 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep him He is important now. If he loses importance later he can be removed then 24.164.136.207 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

comment- Wiki, as an encylopedia, can't be just about the now, but should point to the greater history of the characters. Damien has existed about a year, and appeared in only a handful of issues. Important now, would make a characters like Harold or Stephanie's Brown's argument valid a few years ago, and they have no business on the navbox at any point. Damien is an unestablished character, whose future is uncertain. 66.109.248.114 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Damian per my comments in the previous subsection of this talk page -Markeer 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Leave off - There is already a link to Batman supporting characters, where he and a myriad of other characters are. I see no need for him to be directly in the navbox. At this time, simply not comparable to the Joker, for example. - jc37 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep him - as above.--César (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Group Placement for Characters

Hello.

I recently changed the groups that both Catwoman and The Riddler are listed under from villains to supporting cast, as neither Catwoman nor The Riddler act as villains anymore. The way I see it, if Man-Bat and Red Robin can be included in this group, then so should Catwoman and The Riddler.

Now, the change I made for The Riddler I suppose could be contentious, but I really think Catwoman should not be listed as a villain. She hasn't acted in that capacity in years.

Just thought I'd ask if these changes are okay. (Droorogers (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

A second person just moved the Riddler from villain to supporting character (presumably based on the recent storyline in Det. Comics) and I'm about to revert it to hear more opinions. Not trying to be a jerk, just resetting it to pre-change to hear more opinions.

Here's are my arguments for keeping him in the villain section:

a) Over the scope of many decades of the 70 year history of the Batman, the Riddler has been one of the most iconic and recognizable villains. His notability, both in image and persona, are well known beyond the scope of comic book fans, unlike (for instance) Black Mask or The Mad Hatter. 40-50 years as a well-known villain trumps less than one year of "reformed" in my opinion.

b) Beyond that, this is a navbox not just of the comic book character of Batman (and related characters), it's a navbox of the cross-media character of Batman (and related characters). The Riddler has not reformed in the 60s TV show, in Batman: The Animated Adventures, in the Joel Schumacher version. And he never will, he will remain forever as a villain in all of those depictions, available for rental or purchase wherever fine DVDs are found. There's a permanence to aspects of this character as a villain in stories about the Batman, in depictions that are extremely well known by millions of people who will never in their life pick up a comic book.

Yeah, I'm probably over-thinking this, but I really don't want to see this navbox constantly tweaked by each temporary change to a character that happens in a comic story arc. I'm certain in 1 year, or 5, or 10, the Riddler will be a villain again when a new writer takes over Detective Comics, and even if this doesn't happen, it will be a long long time before this icon changes in popular understanding. -Markeer 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to literary present tense, he's both. And while on one hand we probably only need him listed once on a nav template, on the other hand, if we stay neutral, he should probably be listed in both sections. (I was wondering how this is handled by The Flash's Rogue's gallery, but it looks like Template:Flash sidesteps the issue.) - jc37 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comics titles

Since Batman is a comics character, why isn't there a section on the MAIN titles he appears in? A tiny link buried at the bottom isn't good enough, because it's quite an integral thing to the character. Surely. ntnon (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this when I saw the addition and reverion.

If we added them, it would likely be Batman and Detective comics at most, though.

Definitely not a set or subset of the "current" publications. (Per a current discussion at WT:CMC.)

I think the best solution is probably just to have "publications" as the first item under Misc. - jc37 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You could be right - it ("maybe") should just be those two titles, but they DEFINITELY should be main-linked, not just through-linked from "Publications" - they're much more important and relevant than that! Likewise, I think the newspaper strip is as relevant as, say, "Utility belt".

I like the current compromise, but I still think the publications should be second only to creators. The most important information about BATMAN goes: BATMAN, BOB KANE (and Bill Finger).... Detective Comics, the Batman comic and then everything else, starting with Robin. (In my opinion, of course! ;o)) ntnon (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Current "look"

My major concern with the current look is the large amount of whitespace on the right side, which adds to the overall size without corresponding content (a major issue with a box at the bottom of so many pages). That said, I have no problem with "Batman" and "Detective Comics" being in the navbox, although I also have no problem with the general link to the List of Batman Titles either. No more than two overall links though please, as this is a cross-media character, not just a comics character. -Markeer 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To address the whitespace, I would suggest removing BLOCKBUSTER, ZUCCO, HARLEY and KING SNAKE from the Villains list, and replacing them with "LIST OF BATMAN VILLAINS".

JEAN PAUL VALLEY shouldn't be listed as a Batman, he should be there as "AZRAEL" (Dick has also worn the cowl; Alfred has moonlighted on occasion; Jean-Paul was in it for a very short space of time, and it is not useful or relevant to have him there alongside BRUCE WAYNE - it gives undue reference to him). Then the ROBINs can be moved up alongside BATMAN (BRUCE), and another line saved.

Since they're already on two lines, why isn't VEHICLES a separate field to EQUIPMENT...?

Plus, yes, he's cross-media. But there's already an infobox dealing with the films (at least), and Batman IS a comics character first and foremost. That said, BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS will suffice, but should be higher - LIST OF BATMAN COMICS/"Publications" should be a left-hand field link like "Villains" and "Equipment". ntnon (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Markeer. We should keep this as concise as possible. I think "Misc." now looks like a "history" section, which looks fine to me. I doubt people are going to not see the publications at the bottom. Honestly, the best place in a navbox is either the top or the bottom.

We already have a link to the list, click on Villains.

Vehicles are equipment. No need to build a whole new section (which would be an "extra line" anyway). Though I suppose I wouldn't oppose that.

As for characters:

Jean-Paul, unlike the others, was the star of Batman for a time.

And Harley's just too popular, and has really become identifiable with the franchise.

I just recently deleted the Robin navbox, as mostly redundant to this one. That said, I think we could argue for the retension of those characters on their own basis.

For example: King Snake is as significant/intrinsic to Tim's orgin as Robin, as Killer Moth to Barbara as Batgirl, or "Boss" Zucco to Dick as Robin.

Blockbuster as much as Killer Croc and as much (or even moreso) as Black Mask. Note that all three have been a local "crime boss" at one time or other.

That said, I'll greatly agree with Markeer's comment below: "I'd prefer it be a top level introduction to the topic leading to the most commonly desired subjects and articles only."

I think I'll go over the big list, and see about some pruning and possible additions. - jc37 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the comics, then. I noticed that the Villains linked through, just as I noticed that Catwoman was under Bat Family rather than villains - I think both should be linked to twice, for ease.

Vehicles are another line, so it just seems easier.

Dick was the star of Batman for a while, too (Prodigal), so I don't think that's automatically relevant. JPV was a large part of Knightfall, and was mildly important since they wanted to make Batman harsher but decided not to do it to Bruce, hence Azbat. But JPV is AZRAEL, who is currently un-linked. The "ALTERNATE VERSIONS" mentions that JPV took the cowl on for a while, and I think that's enough.

Maybe that's justification enough for Harley, I suppose..!

Snake, Moth and Zucco may be mildly important for those reasons (although I don't necessarily agree!) but that would be why they're worthy of high-ish mention on the full VILLAINS page, not really in the BATMAN box.

As per my earlier comments on the VILLAINS page, there are 7-9 "Major" villains. Those (plus Bane) should be here, but I don't think anyone else needs to be. VILLAINS should be structured to list them, then "Important" ones (so CHILL, SNAKE, MOTH and ZUCCO for the reasons given, plus other not-quite-major and the local crime bosses would fit in that subsection). I noticed there'd been some restructuring there, so I'll pop over and stick my oar in! ;o)

Meanwhile, this is my take on how it should look - Batman and Robin on one line; (Major) Villains pared down to one line, but with a very-visible "Other," Vehicles separate and "Alternate Versions" relegated to "See also." ntnon (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your paring down the villains, but I think you went a little too far..! So I took the liberty of re-insterting Freeze and Ivy (easily on a par with Ra's), as well as making sure that Catwoman wasn't missed. She's clearly switched about a lot, but should be under Villains before Family. But should also be under family, hence the tautological addition. Likewise, I think it utterly crucial to include a "more" after the Supporting cast and Villains, because that's the way the eye is drawn, and not everyone will think that the left-link will be a page, rather than a category. That's my experience and logic, anyway. ;o)

Still think JPV has no business being listed as, ostensibly, equal to Wayne and NOT as Azrael, and that "Alternate versions" should be appended with the See also after "other media," but since those may be more controversial, I've left them be. ntnon (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to more fully respond to this and the above. Else we'll end up reverting each other in confusion : ) - jc37 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, decided that I'd better grab some food, as I hadn't eaten yet : )

As for the villain pruning, Poison Ivy is the real borderline case. She's about a step below Scarecrow, and could probably be added.

Harley Quinn: All light and no heat (except for the Joker maybe : )

Seriously though, she's used these days, mostly becase she's "another female character", and because she become so surprisingly popular from the 'toon series.

That said, as much as you or I may think she's a "flash in the pan", she's probably "here to stay", and is already more famous than many long standing villains. I'd leave her off, as she still doesn't rate compared to even the Mad Hatter, except that I guearantee we'd be constantly seeing her re-added by the 'toon fanboys/girls : )

One thing I liked after pruning was that, alphabetically, Joker was first : )

Dunno about Catwoman. (or Riddler for that matter.) I seem to recall some discussions, but I think that that's something that will need to be discussed at the WikiProject talk page, since the villain/anti-hero/hero/ambivilent money-maker characters can be problematic in placing. For now, it's probably best to place them where they've long been. Hence why Riddler is listed as a villain, though he's seemed to reform (see Penguin, and several members of Flash's Rogues for other examples of the back-n-forth of villain, "no I'm not".)

Compare that to Man-Bat. Though he's opposed Batman occaisionally due to his feral nature/brainwashed/coerced, he's no villain, and Dr. KL is clearly an ally.

I'd list Catwoman part of the Bat-family. She may be a foe, but she stopped being a "villain" a long time ago.

I doubt you'll convince me about Mr Freeze. Except for the appearance in a Bat-flop by Ahnold, he doesn't come close to even Mad Hatter. From what I can tell, he's about equal to Firefly.

And I dunno about the "more" links. I like 'em and I don't like 'em. Worth discussing.

And AzBat is just simply controversial. Where he is now is a compromise that has stopped a plethora of reversion.

Alternate versions is not equal to "in other media", though they may have such sections appended. I think a line break should be enough.

Did I get everything? If not, feel free to clarify. : ) - jc37 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No food-worries, I got caught up in late-night movings, so...

I don't see Ivy as that borderline. She's lower, of course. Of those now on the list, probably the lowest, but she's still well above the line. And she's in the cartoon, too. ;o) She's the second female, head-and-shoulders above her more recent challenger. (N.B. Just occured to me that there's not a "Romantic interest" section with Vicki Vale and Silver St Cloud... are they relevant, or rightly kept to the "Supporters" page..? Vicki, for example, is probably better known than many of those listed (Certainly more so than Lucius, Renee, Harvey and Talia), almost solely because of Ms Basinger.) Frankly, Ivy is of a higher rank than Ra's, much as I like him. Easily so..

I think the primacy of the Joker (or Catwoman, if I "win" that side-argument!) should count double for keeping Harley off the list. She's popular, she'll probably last a good while, and she is another female character, which is always good. But she's no Ivy.

Unequivocably, though, Catwoman needs to be on the Villains list. And so does the Riddler. No contest - Villains in the TV series both. Villains on film, both. Villains for decades. "Adverseries" always. The Riddler belongs nowhere else, whether he flip-flops or not. HOWEVER Selina is also rightly on the Bat Family list. She's the (other) major love interest. She's currently on the side of the good. She helped out in NML, and went on a road trip with Tim and Jean Paul during the KnightQuest (I think). She variously knows who's under the cowl and weaves through the upper echelons of society and Wayne's inner circle. So she ought to be on both lists. But she should absolutely be on the Villains one first and foremost.

Man-Bat is a tortured semi-anti-hero, yes. He's not "evil," certainly. However, he's probably another one who could fit in either category, but should certainly be (and is) on the Long List Page. Moreovver, he is also way down the list of Bat-related characters, and I'm not entirely sure why he's on this page at all, frankly. Can he really stand shoulder-to-shoulder as part of the Bat-family with the Batgirls, Batwoman and Huntress? Even against Ace..?! I wouldn't have thought so, not really. An ally, yes. But a main one...?

I think you do Fries a disservice...! Ahnold aside, he was in the TV series. He's hardly been a major force in the comics - but neither has the Hatter, be honest! Freeze ranks higher than the Hatter any day. (And he could take him.) Garfield Lynns is a waste of space, though, I agree...

I think (and not just because I suggested them - honest! :o)) that the "more" links are really quite important. This is meant to be (as far as I understand) a kind of "idiot proof" quick-link box to facilitate easy navigation. So a non-exhaustive list needs an "also" "etc." or "more" - even if the link winds up being tautological.

I didn't realise there'd been a fight over AzBat, but still. I cannot believe Jean Paul deserves to (effectively) share credit as "a" Batman. There is ONE Batman........................................ and JPV guested briefly. He's AZRAEL, a semi-important member of the extended Bat-Family in his own right. It would be a kindness to the character to gloss over his AzBat stage (even though I liked the story, the idea and SOME OF the logic behind it) and give him credit for being Azrael.

(Plus I think it saves space and doesn't compromise anything to have Batman (Bruce) and Robin (Dick, Jason, Tim, Stephanie) on the same line. Batman box: "Batman and Robin". That makes sense, surely? Is there a reason for the line break..?)

I quite agree - Alternate Versions isn't equal to Other Media. However, they also aren't equal to Batman and Detective Comics...! Those are important pages (well, the Batman one is - because it mentions AzBat, allowing this page not to! :o)) but should be relegated somehow, I feel. Not sure how, though, really...

I think that covers most things - I see Ivy is back, so that's a step in the right direction..! :oD ntnon (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to some of the layout questions, please note that at this moment I'm using an ancient monitor (to be using my normal one soon, hopefully). So it's possible I'm not seeing what you're seeing in terms of what "line" a link is on. Though I'll note that we shouldn't get "hung-up" on such things for that very reason. We can't be sure of how a reader may be viewing this template.

As for what character where, I still don't think Mr. Freeze comes even close to the 7 currently listed. But then, I'd also rank Man-Bat as higher than Freeze. 'tec 400, and a consistantly recurring memorable character both as KL and as M-B? The rather rarely appearing Mr. Zero (I mean Freeze) doesn't even come close. (Here's a challenge, list the number of issues that Mr Z/F has appeared in, which is not a group shot. (Like not Batman 400, for example.) Mad Hatter wins, hands down, and I don't even have to count the "other" Hatter. Heck, I think the Calendar Man wins hands down. : )

This isn't a list page, it's a NavBox, so we should avoid listing characters twice. AzBat and Catwoman (and possibly the Riddler) are obviously question marks (no pun intended : ) - So let's start a new thread below to discuss them. (Note that we still haven't finished with Lady Shiva and the League of Assassins, which are a whole other set of questions.)

I don't see a big problem with adding Vicki Vale to supporting characters, except that we may be opening floodgates. I think the character was a major character at one time, and there are those who may wish to find the character. However, who but a die-hard fan would have a clue who Silver St. Cloud is? So if we limit it to Vicky (I'm rather hesitant even with Julie), then that should hopefully be enough.

"more" - If we go that route, then I suggest that we de-link the section headings. It should be one or the other, not both. But again, I can see potential problems with that as the layout. So I suppose I'm not quite sold on the idea.

And just because 'tec and bm may be important, doesn't mean that they need to have the misc section all to themselves :p

Once again, if I've missed something, feel free to let me know : ) - jc37 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and avoid layout-comments, if possible, then! But with Batman and Robin, they're <br>ed onto a different line, which is one thing I think a bit unnecessary. But you're right: layout should be subservient to content (and placing... of Azrael and Catwoman. ;o)).

I think Freeze is, as you say, clearly not quite on par with the Top Seven, BUT he's in the films (albeit, clearly, B&R...) and the West-TV series, as well as the cartoons. Man-Bat's not been realised live, and neither has the Hatter. ;o) As I said, I'm trying (for amusement value as much as anything) to come up with a complex formula for calculating positions, and one criteria is appearances. Which are VERY difficult to total up, but breezing through the ComicBookDb puts Freeze ahead of Hatter - even if it is likely incomplete and so forth! Calendar Man, indeed...! (But we may be best taking this further on the Villains List Page - I think those listed now are probably the best-of-the-best. Basically, SIX - inc. Catwoman - then Ivy. . . . . . Then Ra's (probably). That's how I'd see it, anyway. Freeze I'd still say could compete with Ra's for "known-ness" and exposure, and probably beat him, but I'll leave it be for the moment. ;o))

I agree that it's a NavBox not a list, but that's why I think it MORE important to double up Catwoman and shift Azrael! It's to ease and speed navigation, and Catwoman is first and foremost a Villain - but very closely a Family member; JPV IS Azrael, but guested as AzBatman. He's Family first, foremost and almost-entirely ONLY. He's an "Alternate Batman" - and listed on that linked page.

Yes, for hardcore comics navigation, Julie Madison and Silver St. Cloud (and Sasha and Shondra) should be in a list of their own, but this is not that page. Vicki Vale is iconic beyond the comics, though (and arguably only beyond the comics, longevity-wise), but she's FAR, FAR more important and noteable to non-comics people than Harvey Bullock and Renee Montoya. I mean really...! (Not that I think they should be removed, however, and not to disparage them. But... come on!)

"more"/delinking... don't see that it's necessary to do the latter to do the former, but I think the "more" is more useful and obvious than the section-link. Not sure it would cause layout difficulties per se, though. Surely if it would extend the list onto two lines, the last character already on those lines would have already done that..?

I say the comics should be standing alone, proudly, head-and-shoulders above all but the creators. But I realise I'm all-but alone on that..! ;o) And that honestly wasn't my intention on wanting to downgrade the "Alternate" lists. I just don't think they are on equal footing, which might be inferred by such placement. (See also: Azr- )

Nothing missed, I don't think - I just need to convince you/everyone on a couple of minor points..! :oP ntnon (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably trod on a few toes by reinserting Mr.Freeze but COME ON. He was a lead villain in one of the films, and the fact that everyone and their uncle considers it the worst film ever made doesn't alter the fact that from a subjective viewpoint it's just as valid as the others. He was in the 60s TV series and the 90s cartoon and has been in the comic for nearly 50 years (admittedly as a fairly minor villain in the early years but then so was the Penguin). And I'd like to point out that Mad Hatter was in the live action series as well.Skteosk (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur..! ntnon (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

League of Assassins

• League of Assassins
• Lady Shiva
• Bronze Tiger (and maybe even Richard Dragon)

These are clearly Batman-related articles.

The LoA is so obvious that it could honestly be added without a need for discussion.

Lady Shiva is now known to be the mother of Cassanrda Cain, was one of those interrogated as to whether she was Jason's mother, and has been mostly appearing in bat-boks almost exclusively.

Bronze Tiger killed the first Batwoman. (While not so certain in the current chronology, they've been hinting at another previous Batwoman, lately).

Richard Dragon to a lesser extent only through his interaction with the other two characters, and because he's now noted to have been one of those who trained Bruce Wayne.

Thoughts? - jc37 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As always my hesitation is about relative importance for many of these entries. The essay on Recentism probably explains my point better than I would myself. While I realize Lady Shiva and the League of Assassins have existed in one form or another since the late 60s to 70s, their prominence has been largely in the last 10 years (arguably 3 years). Furthermore, if you ask someone who has dedicatedly watched all 6 Batman movies since 1989's Batman about these characters, they would look at you blankly (although I realize there is a separate navbox just for those movies).

Generally my input to this template has been to try to minimize the number of links to those with the largest possible appeal, on the theory that those interested in lesser characters or storylines can find them in the broader articles and linked Lists. Basically as this is the broadest navbox, I'd prefer it be a top level introduction to the topic leading to the most commonly desired subjects and articles only.

All of that said, I'm of course more than happy to follow consensus on the form this box takes - Markeer 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

LADY SHIVA is certainly much more relevant than BLACKBUSTER, ZUCCO, HARLEY, SNAKE, probably BLACK MASK and CLAYFACE and maybe MOTH, CROC and HATTER, but see my comments above for how I feel that should be addressed. Even with the "Villains" category being a link to the "LIST" page, I think the list page should precede BANE for ease of navigation as well.

Shiva and the League of Assassins are on the LIST OF BATMAN FAMILY ENEMIES page (although the League should be better represented and linked); RICHARD DRAGON is on the LIST OF SUPPORTING CHARACTERS page, and lowly at that - rightly. Henri Ducard should be there if a "Trained Wayne" list is required, but I don't think it is - even though that would pass the film-watcher test mentioned by Markeer.

I disagree that Shiva is "too recent" though - a (small, but crucial) part of DEATH IN THE FAMILY, she was absolutely integral to KNIGHTFALL, too. But I actually think in this case it should be remove extraneous "Villains," not add new ones.

Incidentally, even though the link would be the same ORACLE should be on this list in addition to BATGIRL (Barbara) ntnon (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporters

What's the order logic being used for "Supporting characters"...? A-lfred, F-ox, G-ordon, H-arvey...? Or some semblance of notability? Neither works, since P-ennyworth, B-ullock and al G-hul would be inserted elsewhere alphbetically; while (as I think I mentioned elsewhen) Lucius is far, far less notable than Gordon, Talia and Vicki; Renee and Bullock even less so - they may or may not even warrant inclusion, but if so they'd be distant last and second-to-last:

• Alfred, Gordon. Vicki, Talia. Fox, Montoya and Bullock. (Notability)
• Alfred (Pennyworth in parentheses), Bullock (...), Fox, [Talia al-Ghul], Gordon, Montoya, [Talia (al Ghul in parentheses)], Vicki. (Alphabetical)

I notice that Azrael now has a link, so we're halfway towards putting him in his rightful place.. ;o) ntnon (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Home, work, the GCPD (other work), and women in his life.

Seemed fairly straight-forward? - jc37 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No wonder he can never keep a woman. Hiding T 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite..!

Now that jc37 explains it, yes, that makes a certain amount of sense. Although I'd argue for work, GCPD, home and women as the better order, starting Alfred, Gordon.. but I'm not overly fussed. Just couldn't easily figure it out, for the reasons given above. :o) ntnon (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

I have some issues with the size of (and particularly the amount of whitespace in) the current version and would love to see it significantly tightened up. To avoid the overall look bouncing back and forth with edits and re-edits on 50 linked pages, please give comments or approval to This Sandbox version before I apply it to the main namespace. No content or entries have been altered from today's version, only formatting and appearance. -Markeer 15:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If we go that route, I think we should at least put a nobreak after each parenthsis. (It looks odd to see a Parenthesis at the end of a line.)

Also, of everything, I think the linebreak was most useful to give vehicles their own section, and the "alternate versions" a "new line". Further discussion welcome, of course. - jc37 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks very awkward with the Batgirls now being spread over two lines like that. I have a solution however.... if Azrael were downgraded to his proper place...! :o) ntnon (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember that it shouldn't be formatted based on one's current screen resolution. More than just you or I will be viewing this.

As for Azrael, as I've mentioned previously, you're going to have a tough sell to suggest that he wasn't Batman.

Bruce named him Batman, and then "retired". He was legitimately the "star" of Batman for some time. "Stand-ins" just aren't the same. Aditionally, if we weren't to include the fact that he was Batman, "Azrael" rates lower than KGBeast for inclusion.

This actually leads to a question I'd like to discuss in another section, so see below : ) - jc37 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this is tending to be circular, but still... ;o) JPV was not Batman on the same level that Tim, Dick and Jason (and Stephanie) were Robin. He was not THE Batman (even Gordon realised that), and he was not ultimately not even "A" Batman - he was a stand-in - as, for example, has been Alfred.

From the other perspective, if he was named and cowled by Bruce - so was Dick. If he was the star of Batman - so was Dick. The name "Robin" refers to Dick Grayson. And Jason Todd and Tim Drake. <Pause> And Stephanie Brown. The name "Batman" refers to Bruce Wayne. Full Stop. Page break. Page break. Others who have temporarily worn the cowl would include JPV. And Dick. <Pause> And Alfred.

He's rightly mentioned on the "Alternate Batmen" page. It's rightly (indeed, quite largely) mentioned on the "Azrael" page (whereas in Robert Greenberger's Essential Batman Encyclopedia it's 1 paragraph in eight under Azrael).

Speaking of this new updated Encyclopedia - Azrael is mentioned as a "Gotham Ally" under Batman. He's mentioned (as is Dick) in the summary of Knightfall under "The Man Himself (as Batman)". But tellingly, AzBat's #2 in "The Batman Counterparts" after the Batmen of All Nations. In addition, under the heading "Azrael," the first paragraph is about Brane Taylor, Alfred, Robin and Superman all having filled in for Bruce... And the second paragraph closes "Wayne realized he needed to regroup in mind and body and asked Dick Grayson to give up being Nightwing for a time and be THE NEXT BATMAN." (Emphasis added.) The sections 3 and 4 are "Potential Future" and "Imaginary/Elseworld" Batmen.

i.e. In the (official) Essential Batman Encyclopedia, Azrael as Batman is not deemed important. Indeed, I wonder whether post-Zero Hour AND Infinite Crisis, JPV even took up the cowl...?!

He filled in as Batman, of course he did. But he should be given parity with Bruce! He should be - and IS - mentioned as an alternate in the list of various Batmen; mentioned on his page - probably mentioned on Batman, too. But not in the infobox as JPV/Azrael AKA Batman. He's Azrael, ally.

(N.B. KGBeast gets four paragraphs to Azrael's 8. So there!) And now.... ntnon (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Character inclusion

As Batman (and Superman for that matter) are cornerstones of the DCU, and as the character has been around for decades, a lot of characters have interacted with him over the years.

So we, I presume, have restricted this page to just the "most iconic" characters which are directly related to Batman.

Now is this navbox restricted to only characters in the comics, and their usage in the comics, or are we talking about every appearance in the Batman franchise?

Further, if we restrict this only to comics, are we only talking about appearances in the mainstream DCU? There have been a myriad of uses of characters and locations in "alternate use" storylines/publications.

If it's everything, then we open the door to Terry McGinnis being added as Batman.

If we don't, do we then create navboxes for these other uses?

It would seem to me that such would be duplicative of what's here already.

So are we creating a double standard of subjectivity in this navbox?

Let's use the example of Mr. Freeze/Zero.

In the DCU he's not much of a Batman villain. Indeed, he's one of the "super-powered" Bat-villains (either himself or through the use of a super-technological instrument). Such characters have typically been the "lesser"-used villains in the comics (for various reasons), though more used in animation (mostly for the same reasons that they aren't used as much in comics). Doctor Phosphorus would be another example, and one who would probably be more notable in the comics than Mr. Freeze. (The second Clayface being the "most notable" of these.)

The character appeared in one form or another on the Batman series of the 60s, and has appeared more often in animation than in the comics.

However, Mr. Freeze was protrayed on film by Arnold Schwarzenegger. And though the film itself "flopped", the fame of the actor has lent "fame" to Mr. Freeze.

Looking over Batman:_The_Animated_Series, it's interesting to note that the "new" Mr Freeze is a result of that series. As were Harlequin and Renee Montoya. (And the "new" Mad Hatter, and the "new"... well you get the idea.)

So if Mr. Freeze is added, so too should be Clayface. So too should be the Mad Hatter. So too should be Terry McGinnis as Batman. So too should Harlequin. And so too should a myriad of other characters.

And so too should probably be the "teams" Batman and Robin have been directly associated with. JSA/JLA, the titans, and Batman solely founded "Batman and the Outsiders". (A title which replaced the old Brave and Bold series, which, DC Comics presents-like had become a "Batman and -" team-up book.)

Up to this point in organising the template listings, I've given more weight to Batman-related characters in comics, and directly in the "Bat-books", and not as much to the "alternate uses", or the greater DCU.

So it's a question of criteria. What do we decide to include, and what criteria do we base it on?

I think we're better served to include only the most core, the most famous, the most integral to the Batman story, while looking at the character based on the character's entire history, rather than just one era of it.

There's already 2 rather lengthy lists. This shouldn't duplicate those.

And adding in characters due to fame in "alternate uses", probably not. Indeed, if some "alternate use" becomes "notable" enough, DC will utilise the character more in the Bat-books. They did so with Batgirl, after all : )

(And I'll note that they have started a new arc with Mr Freeze searching for his apparently now-living wife. But WP:CRYSTAL suggests that we should wait on that count as well.)

As such, no Terry, no Harequin, and no Mr Freeze.

Differing perspective? Feel free to share : ) - jc37 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, we've got multiple Batman related navboxes at the moment:

• {{Batman in popular media}}
• {{1989-1997 Batman film series}}
• {{Catwoman}}
• {{Batman fan films}}
• {{Batmobile}}
• {{Robin (comics}}} (relatively recently deleted)

And of those, the Catwoman and Batmobile ones could follow the Robin...

There's an option or two for compacting the other four, either into one larger 'box or into one using collapsable groups.

That may be neither here nor there though for this discussion.

I agree with the idea of trying to keep the lists to the "major"s and "core" characters, but I'm a little wider of view for the villains. Mostly looking to the characters from here and the ones that have had multiple uses in the comics and the adaptations. Roughly I'd be looking at:

• Bane
• Black Mask
• Clayface
• Firefly
• Harley Quinn
• Killer Croc
• Mad Hatter
• Mister Freeze
• Prof Strange
• Ventriloquist

The core 'box should at the least acknowledge the notables that have had legs across media.

(As a side note, there is a slightly broader discusion here.)

- J Greb (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At first impulse, I'd want to ask why Firefly, and Black Mask, and why not Killer Moth. (And what about Lady Shiva, arguably more "notable" than most of the suggested additions.)

However, this is exactly the trouble. It's all subjective.

What's the criteria? Or better, where do we draw the line?

And note that the list of "rogues" as opposed to "minor villains" was something I oganised. (A work in progress atm.) Though it, at least, lists all the "significant" villains who've had at least semi-distinctive appearances in comics (both visually and contextually).

So I dunno. I think keeping the list as short as possible, while providing a link to the lengthier list seems like the best plan.

That said, I really would like to discuss criteria for inclusion in navboxes, and the balance of having a list vs. a navbox. Both presentations may be useful per WP:CLN, But it would be nice if inclusion wasn't so subjective. - jc37 04:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy about character and item inclusion on this particular navbox has been to restrict it to characters with the largest possible reader awareness, regardless of medium. This navbox is intended to be the "Batman Page 1" wikipedia source. As such it can't assume an awareness of comics, it can't restrict based on timeliness, and it suffers from excess.

There are millions of people who have seen the 80s/90s Batman movies but will never read a comic book, there is a new generation of people who grew up on the Animated Series and will watch the Christopher Nolan movies who will never read a comic book, there were tens of thousands of people who fondly remember the campy 70s Batman TV series who will never read a comic book. However, the longest history of the character and the greatest amount of creative work over the greatest amount of time is of course in the comics.

The compromise (to my mind) is to use this navbox as much as possible to link to

a) the main characters as recognizable by the largest number of people, which will largely mean people with at best a cursory familiarity with the subject,

b) links to other navboxes, categories, lists and broadest articles on the various subjects so both casual and involved readers can get to a specific article of interest with only two clicks (one on this box, one on the linked sub-category)

c) links to characters and individuals who are absolutely unique regarding this subject so are not part of a special subset (e.g. there have been many creative individuals who have worked on the subject, but only one person actually created the Batman, so he is a "unique" link).

My last comment is to re-link a wikipedia essay I've linked above, on Recentism. This is a character with an extremely long history, and there are readers of wikipedia of all ages who have some memory or experience (or casual interest) in that history. Giving undue weight to characters of importance in the last 10 years in only one medium (and in the case of comics, the medium that reaches the smallest number of potential readers given that an extremely popular comic book issue is read by less than 100,000 people).

Short form of the above: Keep it small, keep it focused, keep its attention on only those things recognizable to any interested party of the last 50 years. This is the not a complete overview, this is the Table of Contents to the 15 chapters in a beginner's book about The Batman. If someone wants to know something very specific, they flip to the glossary in the back (i.e. linked sub-categories) -Markeer 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just want to throw my 2 cents into this discussion. For the most part I agree with most of the proposed additions to the list that J Greb suggest. Considering that the "Batman Family" list includes Bat Mite and Ace the Bat Dog, I think the inclusion of a few major villains really wont be hurting the box.

On that note, I really think it is an oversight to not include Bane, Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Black Mask and Mad Hatter on a list of Batman's main villains considering their cross-media appearances and relative popularity amongst comic/movie/tv fans, and significance to the Batman mythos.

Blindambition2387 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My main request is that some semi-concrete, non-subjective criteria for inclusion be determined. Else this template (and others) will never stay "stable". - jc37 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...!

SIDE ISSUES

Firstly, I concur with J Greb that the {{Batmobile}} template seems remarkably pointless - BUT! before it goes away, someone needs to edit Furst, Short, Welch and Giger into Batmobile. That they're in the box and not (as far as I can see) on the page is a gross oversight.

Similarly, BATMAN IN POPULAR CULTURE should right be the overarcing box with "1989-1997" and "Fan" being sub-categories. Good call.

Terry McGinnis is NOT Batman. He is "Batman of the Future". A legacy-Batman. A "new" Batman. Clearly not the same Batman. The Robins are all sidekicks to THE Batman, so they can all be "Robin". Azrael and Dick filled-in for "THE" Batman, attempting to portray themselves as the same character. But not Terry. So that's a non-starter. Maybe (very, very, very 'maybe') he should be in a Bat-box, but not alongside Bruce. There's no Batman Beyond infobox, but BB is mentioned in {{Timm_DCAU}} - perhaps some characters specific to the animated series-es should also be in that infobox, along with key/main/multi-programme voice artists - and clearly Paul Dini ought also to in the box.

Mr Freeze

It seems overly harsh to say "he's not much of a Batman villain," since name-recognition, ease-of-identification and general "known"-ness are as much a part of being a Batman villain as carrying out heinous crimes. Dr Phosphorus fails on both counts (widely unknown; looks like Ghost Rider).

The infobox is a collection of handy links. The "most likely to be used links", even. As such, it needs to reflect viewer demand as much as possible. Assuming that the majority of users will be after information on comics (which is likely a safe bet - if searching for the films or multiple cartoons, while "Batman" may link them through to comics-Batman, it's easy enough to re-navigate to BTAS or one of the live action films and glean the "right" information. So this books should be 99% comics) BUT that should not downplay the fact that recognizability and fame and being known is an accumulation of media bombardment as well as comics-reading. So having been a part of the TV serieses or films factors into the relative fame of the characters in some way.

Clayface is on a similar tier comics-wise - but not films. Mad Hatter, likewise. Neither have wider name-recognition status. (Although both are higher than Terry McGinnis - who should not be here - AND Renee Montoya; who SHOULD.)

Tangent-time... I'm looking at an issue of GamePro magazine, with an article on Lego Batman. The Joker's on the cover. Quite right. Figures of the following are shown clearly: Scarecrow, Riddler, Catwoman, Harley, Penguin, Mr Freeze, Killer Croc and Two-Face. Intriguing...! All (assuming they're not the only characters) are deemed noteworthy enough to include. No Clayface, no Hatter. No Ivy. But Harley, Croc and Freeze...

Teams

Yes to JLA (if teams are added), that's obvious. No to JSA: wrong Earth, needlessly complicated - is Helena Wayne to be included...? Bruce wasn't on the Titans team, so that's unnecessary - this is the BATMAN box, not Bat-Family. (Hmmm....) Yes to BATMAN AND THE Outsiders. Maybe even yes to Brave & Bold being on the list as a comic title... but probably not.

Villains list

jc37 says "I think keeping the list as short as possible, while providing a link to the lengthier list seems like the best plan." That point is precisely why I suggested that there should be an obvious "ETC." "AND OTHERS" "MORE VILLAINS" link at the end of the villains list as well as/instead of just the linked heading. It needs to be obvious and easy, and that means at the end. A logical Progression: Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler. Two-Face. Scarecrow. Ivy, Freeze, Ra's.... AND SOME OTHERS. In notability order.

Markeer says "characters with the largest possible reader awareness, regardless of medium." I think that's overstated. Comics should and must be primary. That said, I largely agree. However, while that holds great importance as this is THE BATMAN LINK PAGE, it can assume awareness of comics - what it can't do is assume great, deep and broad knowledge of deep continuity issues. Hence, of course, Azrael being an ally, not a Batman. It's confusing, misleading and only of interest to those deeply into continuity - and they'll know, or find it elsewhere. AzBat is the epitome of fleeting, quickly-papered over change. Introduced because they wanted Bruce to go off the deep end, but then thought they ought not to let BRUCE go off the deep end... hence, an alternate Batman. An unpopular alternate Batman. A "mistake" as Bruce, Dick and Tim agree IN-comic and fans and staff broadly agre outside of them. He is, was and could be again an ally, and that's where he ought to be. Similarly, Catwoman is a MAJOR VILLAIN, and sometime-ally. Both the least-villainous AND the second most iconic villain, but a villain nonetheless. I vote she be BOTH ally and villain, but Villain trumps ally.

Markeer also says that "recognizab[ility] by the largest number of people" is important - YES.

"links to... various subjects so both casual and involved readers can get to a specific article of interest" quickly - YES

"links to characters and individuals who are absolutely unique" - YES, BUT also some who are not totally unique

"(e.g. there have been many creative individuals who have worked on the subject, but only one person actually created the Batman, so he is a "unique" link)." - NO!

Bill Finger NEEDS to be here. Jerry Robinson probably ought to be, too. The key rest are rightly on a separate list page, but Bob Kane is not the sole creator of Batman, and it is the duty of an Encyclopedia - and much, much, much shame on Mr Greenberger for this omission - to make sure that is widely known.

Blindambition2387 offers: "Bane, Mr. Freeze, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Black Mask and Mad Hatter" as MAIN Villains; J Greb offers: Bane; Black Mask; Clayface; Firefly; Harley Quinn; Killer Croc; Mad Hatter; Mister Freeze; Prof Strange; Ventriloquist

I wrote here my take on how a MAJOR VILLAINS list should read, and I largely stick by it:

THE JOKER... CATWOMAN..... PENGUIN..... RIDDLER... Two-Face.. Scarecrow..... Ivy.... Freeze.. Ra's.

Strange, Clayface, Hatter, Zsasz, Croc, Black Mask, Ventriloquist, Bane & (maybe) Hush.

There are two tiers of major-ity - there are the KNOWN BY EVERYONE, even those who may well not have seen any of the comics, cartoons, films or TV series. Those are Joker and Catwoman, and likely Penguin. Many will have heard of the Riddler (and at the moment Scarecrow and Two-Face are probably riding high, but that's transient), and then so on down the line until Ra's. Ra's is the cut-off point for me, and, I would suggest for most non-comics-Bat fans, and casual-comics Batman fans. Ra's, Freeze and Ivy may fall in the transition zone below Scarecrow; Clayface, Croc and Hatter may rise above the second tier to meet them, but otherwise people I've talked to about this agree with that general formulation.

To pick apart the - similar - lists of additionals is largely to simply argue that they are still lesser than Joker/Catwoman/Penguin/Riddler/Two-Face/Scarecrow/Ivy/Freeze/Ra's, which I hope most might agree on. Clayface and the Hatter come close, maybe at times closer than Ra's, Freeze and Ivy on separate criterions, but not collectively. The nine have all been in live-action FILMS. The first four, Freeze (and Hatter) have been in the TV series; the first four in the TV's film. They've all been in multiple incarnations of cartoons - on voice-notability, you've got Hammil as Joker, Warner as Ra's (and Barbeau as Catwoman) lending those three some minor brownie points on being potentially more widely known. Black Mask is moving up, but far too recent - purportedly around/involved during Knightfall and No Man's Land, he's barely (not?) mentioned in the TPBs of the former, and similarly in the latter (if memory serves). His notoriety is in the very recent past, and in particular Stephanie's (alleged) death. Bane has been around since he broke Bruce and was himself snapped by AzBat, but only barely. He lurked towards the end of No Man's Land, and was Ubu for Ra's, but he's famous for that one - albeit enormous - moment. Harley, Hatter, Croc, Clayface, Firefly, Strange and the Ventriloquist... Only the first four have any kind of widespread recognition - and Firefly is rubbish, anyway; Strange is one-note and the Ventriloquist, well, he's not on a par with the higher-ups, is he? He claimed the earthquake as his work, and has turned up a fair bit. He's notable, but not AS notable. Harley's a sidekick. The Hatter was in the 1960s TV show, true, so maybe he should be a candidate. Croc is a great villain, and the Clayfaces have longevity, but not the innovative Bat-villain streak, nor particularly widespread recognition: Which Clayface is notable..? (Karlo, clearly, but it's still a question.) Clayface was there at the end of NML but absent during Knightfall. Where was he/it during War Games..? He's on a lower level, surely.

Notability Guidelines

It's not going to be possible to produce a non-complex inclusion guidelines, because it's going to have to rely on subjectivity somewhere along the line. I have produced a VERY complicated pseudo-mathematical calculation index, but I don't know whether that wouldn't just make things MORE complicated..! ntnon (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop inserting characters while this is under discussion.

Please stop inserting and removing characters while this discussion is in progress. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As per above, is the discussion over, then?

I'm obviously slightly pleased that Azrael is now in his "proper" place(!), but at what cost? I see Stephanie, Bat-Mite and Ace the Bat Hound have now gone, but Man-Bat has been kept...? That's odd logic. Dick and Barbara are Robin and Batgirl first, but Nightwing and Oracle just as notably, so those need to come back as notes.

Catwoman is a Villain first, and "family" a long way second, so she's still in the wrong place.

I was criticised for putting that many comics titles on before (although I think they should be there - minus, maybe, Batman Strikes!), so that's also odd. The Newspaper strips are crucial, though - I read yesterday that Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot might not have been given that name until the news strips... ntnon (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we've reall gotten to far...

As for Stephanie... the editor that re-worked the "family" added in a piping for "Spoiler", so only the dog and the imp were removed.

A few other points:

• I'm a little more holistic in looking at subject matter for the 'box, that does put me at odds with some of the points you brought up.
  • Catwoman - Given an overview of the character, she is not "just" or "first and foremost" one thing. Throughout the comics the character has moved from crook to love interest to confidant many times. Part of that is that the character has taken on aspects of a reluctant hero, or an anti-hero, which don't hit lumping her into the villains.
  • The above also goes for Talia.
  • Villains — Again, in general I'm in favor of including most that have been mass marketed inside and outside of the comics. That includes the seven currently in the 'box plus the list I posted up page. The intent of the 'box, IIUC, is to hit the major articles of the topic. The elements here are the major elements of the Batman mythos, that extends beyond "Batman in comics" just as it extends beyond "post-InfC Batman" or "Batman of Earth-1".
  • Teams — I've voiced this else where, I'm not a fan of adding them to the character 'boxes, mostly given that characters pass in and out of teams. But if we were to add a group for them here, based on my understanding that the character had been used as part of the JSA in the 1940s (real world context here), then the JSA would be included.
• Publications — Given the breadth of runs, I'm not a fan of this becoming a separate group. Leave the list linked into the "Miscellanea" along with the massive storylines list. (This logic can and should also be applied to Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, and the like.)

- J Greb (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Spoiler, but like Oracle and Nightwing it's not enough to have them there - it needs to be in addition to Robin, Batgirl, Robin. How can a Robin list not include Dick, for goodness' sake...? That needs to come back. Hence, as I've said before, some characters need to be linked in TWICE: Robin/Nightwing and Batgirl/Oracle are the main ones. Catwoman (..maybe..) in both sections. And possibly Stephanie/Spoiler. Although I will say that personally having her JUST as Spoiler does not bother me, but Project: Girl Wonder may not be happy (for example)...

I would have to disagree with you over Catwoman (not entirely surprisingly! ;o)) not least on several technical grounds:

• FIRST and foremost - She debuted as a villain. So on that (albeit slightly spurious) logical line of reasoning, she is indisputedly "First" a Villain.
• First and foremost - It's only in the last 10-15 years in comics that she's been anti-heroine rather than criminal/villain. She's less "villain" than adversary, it's true. But that's hair-splitting over the name of the section: she is on the "other" side - the side of criminals. 1993, her series starts with her as an international cat burglar.
• First and foremost - "In universe" it's even more recent - she was (variously) prostitute, petty thief, burglar and murderer for several years before the more recent - still hazily grey - move towards the side of the good.
• First and foremost - 1966: Julie Newmar, Eartha Kitt and Lee Merriwether - adversaries. 1992: Michelle Pfeiffer - adversary. Etc.

Now, fair enough, she's always broadly been an anti-hero, and rarely played the role of "super-villainess" (as per, say, Poison Ivy) - she's a thief and rarely more. She's often marginally amoral, but does follow her own code. So it's a little harsh to put her in with the Joker and the Scarecrow, but she IS an adversary. If "Villains" needs to changed to a 'softer' term, then that's perhaps preferrable. Otherwise, she ought to be in BOTH categories.

Talia can safely remain where she is, if for no other reason than that SHE is primarily a love-interest. Ra's is the villain; Talia initially merely family. She's criminalised/become more prominent over time, but her Bat-relationship is as love interest.

Extending the included - the sticking point is always going to be that word: "major." There has to be a cut off, but for that to stick, there needs to be a ranked list. (Should I try to plug numbers into my pseudo-mathemaniacal formula and produce a suggestion..?! ;o)) And that will be controversial and contestable.

As far as teams go, it's generally not too hard to realise which people are "Properly" on which teams. In any case, having a link to the team from the character isn't as bad as the reverse - i.e. If a JLA infobox were to try and include Vixen and Max Lord, there might be a concern to raise over that logic. But linking back to JLA/JLI from them is reasonably fair enough. As far as the JSA goes, though, Batman is a very minor member of a brief incarnation of the JSA - the Earth-2 Batman is dead or absent for most key Earth-2 JSA shenanigans, and clearly not on the Post-CoIE JSA. Indeed - "Although a charter member, Batman's participation in JSA cases was minimal; he served only in a reserve capacity.." It's not on the level of JLA or Batman-and-the-Outsiders. But, maybe it could be included, IF 'Teams' was a worthwhile addition to this box.

I reluctantly concur about publications being part of miscellany, but that rankles with me quite a bit considering that Detective Comics and Batman (maybe B&B and World's Finest, Shadow, etc.) are so much MORE than just throwaway "misc." items. (Ultimately this is just a sideshoot of my/your?/others' wider concerns about "distorting" the various categories by including 'minor' with 'major'. Batman and Detective should be up there with Kane and Finger (and Robinson). And arguably Sprang, etc... They're too important to BATMAN to be relegated in this way. Just as Azrael is not, and Catwoman is - as adversary.) ntnon (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate, I'd like to see some criteria.

In other words, is there any listing/grouping/whatever criteria that isn't based on your or my preferences? you, me, and others could each come up with our own cool algorithm for inclusion, but what we need are references, and some third party examples of what they feel are the best/greatest/most well-known.

Obviously we should follow WP:RS and WP:V in looking for references. (No fan-boy/girl blogs, for example).

But I would think that we should be able to find 10 (at the very least, though 25 would be better) verifiably notable individuals/groups who identify such things, in order to cull from them such a list.

For example, I seem to recall seeing on television a top 100 villains list of all time. Culling Batman's enemies from there, for example, would be a start.

I think, at this point, we're all fairly aware of the media's influence (television and film, etc) on such lists, and may take that into due consideration.

I also think it would be worth investigating which villains were chosen to be included in the most recent Batman comic strip.

The main thing to remember is that this template is intended for navigation, not an IWANTIT sheet for someone's favourites. And atm, there is really little reason to not eliminate all individual villain (or character for that matter) names, and merely list the links to the lists. So can we (including me) please do better than personal preference rationales and WP:OR? - jc37 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Riddler to supporting characters

Shouldn't the Riddler be moved to supporting characters since he is no longer a villain?--Darknus823 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now? Based on the current what, 2 years worth of appearances? No. That is a very recent addition to the character.

And yes, it is different from the situation with Catwoman. That character has decades worth of history "not-quite-a-villain/outlaw-hero". - J Greb (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand number of villains

Batman has one of the richest rogue's gallery of any superhero. There should denfinately be more villains added to the template. Here are the ones I suggest: Bane · Black Mask  · Doctor Phosphorus · Clayface · Harley Quinn  · Hugo Strange  · Hush  · KGBeast · Killer Croc · Killer Moth · Mad Hatter · Mr. Freeze · Rupert Thorne · Ventriloquist · Zsasz.--Darknus823 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, we should probably be wary of including too many villains as well as too few but it's definitely true that there's a large number of Batman villains and the amount included here is pitiful. I'd definitely include Mr.Freeze, Bane, Mad Hatter, Killer Moth, Ventriloquist, Killer Croc and possibly Lady Shiva. There's also the issue of whether Catwoman should be moved here as well but that's an argument for a different day.Skteosk (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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 for now: 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:

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

Second, quizes 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)

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)