Talk:Catwoman

Uncategorised comments

I believe there's a slight inaccuracy concerning Patience Phillips, Although she is Catwoman she is the proteter of New york city. With Ofialia Powers as her mentour and guid Patience is invinsible. Midnight one of Ofialia's cats help Patience time to time. She helped Patience figuer out that she spent a lift time caged but if she finds that freedum is power that she can do anything. Every site, smell, and hearing is totaly hightened to the aspets of a cat. Her love of her life Tom Lone has to put her in jail for being framed by Mrs.Hidaire, she killed her hunbund so Catwoman would be put in jail she would have no one in her way, but she all ready Killed Patience. With out midnight testing her will power to go on a leg of her appartment to save midnight. Patience would still be dead if midnight didn't give her the power of catwoman she wouldn't be abole to stop mrs.Hidaire. But she had to break up with Tom so he wouldn't git heart if catwoman got in truble. But there is one thing everyone in New York city knows that Catwoman saved the day.

There have been many origins and histories of the Catwoman in the comicbooks.

"In her original origin, Selina Kyle had been the wife of an abusive man, who decided to leave her husband. However her husband had kept her jewelery in his private vault, and she had to break into it to retrieve them. She enjoyed this experience so much she decided to become a professional costumed cat burglar and thus began a career that would repeatedly lead to her encountering the Batman. This origin, though rarely cited, remained in place up until the mid 1980s."

That was not her original origin. That came from Brave and the Bold#197 in the 1980's. The original origin was that she was a flight attendant who became amnesiac in a plane crash. The B and B#197 reveals that she dissembled when she related that tale.

"The second main origin of Catwoman came in 1986 when writer Frank Miller and artist David Mazzucchelli produced Batman: Year One, an attempt to re-envision Batman’s origin. In the course of the story the origin of Catwoman was also re-envisioned, as Selina Kyle was re-introduced as a cat-loving prostitute/dominatrix who is inspired to become a costumed cat burglar when she sees Batman in action."

"It is currently unclear how much of these stories remain canonical to Catwoman’s origin, as various stories and editor’s statements over the years since have stated that Selina was never a prostitute and that other events depicted in those stories never happened."

I recall that a writer (Jo Duffy?) intimated that Kyle posed as a prostitute as a ruse to get alone with men and then steal their valuables.

....................................... Enda80-thanks for correcting the article after I wrote in with the above. That said, it got me thinking; lucky for Selina Kyle that the Earth-2 Batman never thought of asking the Earth-2 Catwoman which airline she worked for, and then checking with said airline as to any plane crashes.

I edited and expanded the JLA/Catwoman #47-8 section of the recent history portion of the entry to make clearer what actually went on in JLA #119 and Catwoman # 48. One other thing: I think something should be added to the entry to mention the recent Loeb/Sale mini-series Catwoman: When in Rome.--Galliaz 14:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

Why is the main picture of a marvel comics character by the name of X-Cutioner?

I think the main image of the article is nice, quite illustrative, but not nearly as striking as, say, the main image from the Joker or the Poison Ivy articles. The way I see it, the ideal one would be the cover for Catwoman No 46 by Adam Hughes. The wikipedian(s) who got the high resolution cover of No 50 (thank you very much, by the way, whoever you are) should be able to get it, don't you think? --Fue encontrado 14:41, 27 Novemeber 2005

I think that the main cover of the article should more fun than "nine lives", for example the #46 or the #48 are perfectly reflecting the character with her actual costume. But, "nine lives" is interesting for all the costumes, so... it's ok for me. But the cover to #1 isn't interesting instead of the #48 for the "environment" and not only for the costume. And finally, why the #50 cover??? Is it a Zatanna article?? So let's try discuss about this instead of changing every day the differents illustrations, this is boring!! Kaperni | Talk 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Zatanna cover is the cover to Catwoman #50, which deals with her possibly being mindwiped Zatanna, a major thing for the character.

And #1 is more significant than #48 (which is so dark it looks like she has no arms). Furthermore, how was it better than the #25 cover?--DrBat 19:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know fot the Zatanna thing. Do you want to illustrate the article about Catwoman or a storyline? To choose between #46, #48 or #50, I definitely prefer #48 (for the thief part that is a important part of the activity of catwoman... no?) and #46. And I prefer #25 to #01, I don't think it's me that change this cover, the #01 is... horrible? maybe I'm a Hughes victim too, but illustrating an article with nice covers seems important and attractive to me Kaperni | Talk 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Zatanna cover is right next to the chunk of the article dealing with her.

And the Brubaker/Cooke run is far more significant. And I dont see how #48 shows she's a thief. She looks like she's hiding, and due to the darkness she appears armless--DrBat 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that I am totally stupid... I sait I know for the Zatanna story, so... why not a cover with Hush for the part dealing wth Batman : HUSH, or the supervillain Harley Quinn... Sorry, it's not so evident for me to illustrate the part of the article with the a big Zatanna on the cover (and a little catwoman). And I think the variant cover is much better, that's the reason why Hughes re-draw it.

The Brubaker/Cooke run is maybe far more significant, but the cover is not. And for the #48 cover... well... Maybe I'm stupid but seems that you're blind Kaperni | Talk 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? The first issue isn't significant? It's certainly more significant than a random cover of her posing.

Concerning Hush and Zatanna; Hush is only mentioned in one sentence, and the deal with HQ shooting her isnt dealt with at all. Furthermore, the mindwiping part takes up a decent chunk of the article, and is a big part for the character.--DrBat 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reasonable way to resolve this battle over the images? I actually see value in having the first Brubaker/Cooke cover and the more recent one, (which I think captures something about the character). Is it technically possible to set up a wild-card/randomizer thing which would make it possible for either of the images to appear on the reader's screen when they access the page? The reason I suggest this solution is because I definitely don't think the article would be improved by shoe-horning another image into it.--Galliaz 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the reason why I prefer writting here instead of changing the covers of the article every 2 hours. DrBat explained his reasons and I explained mines. Seems that there's several others people thinking the covers of DrBat aren't the better choice, he's the only one wanting absolutly those two covers.

My opinion is "why not", OK for the #1 cover, I understand DrBat's arguments. But the #50 isn't necessary at all and my preference is for the #48 cover "that capture something about the character". Is anyone agree?

What does #48 have to do with the mindwiping arc (which is what the image #50 is next to)? The arc in question takes up a good chunk of the page, as opposed to something like Hush which is only mentioned once.

#48 is not a good cover. It shows her against a wall, and I was more under the impression she was hiding from the villains as opposed to stealing something. Her being a thief is not reflected anywhere there, and its so dark it looks like she's missing her arms. --DrBat 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The images up now strike me as adequate for the entry: we've got the covers to CW's various #1 issues, and the upcoming #50. It's pretty clear that #50 will be a very big deal, and should be displayed. In a recent chat over at CBR, Will Pfeifer hinted that events in the issue will prove to be a turning point for Selina. (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6228) Does this work for everyone else?--Galliaz 02:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Dark Knight Returns info in Modern Age section

Since CW's role is so marginal in Miller's book, I don't think this information actually needs to be in this entry at all. (Especially since DKR isn't in continuity.) It's inclusion adds nothing to the entry.--Galliaz 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than expanding this sub-section, I think we should be working to radically condense it and integrate the information we want to keep into the body of the section. As I've said, this information doesn't add much to an entry about Catwoman. (It'd be fine in an entry on Miller or an entry on the DKR, but is of marginal value here.) Galliaz 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I integrated the DKR info into the entry; it now directly follows what is said about Miller's Year One. (They were published the same year.)--Galliaz 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fan film image

The image that User:Blinky500 has added and re-added (without explanation) to the article has no copyright information associated with it. Therefore, I've removed it and think it should stay removed until such issue is resolved. I also have a concern that Blinky500 is associated with Blinky Productions, and plugging one's own products is a no-no on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia is not a soapbox for more information and guidelines. Thanks, dfg 18:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Hey guys -- I think maybe this article is pushing it on fair use. There are a lot of comics covers in this article, including more than one by Adam Hughes. They're pretty, and I like the illustration, but is it necessary to have so many? I think we should just have a few that are more necessary. Mangojuice 14:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Bibiliography

Looking at how small the bibliography page is, I'm for merging it in here. -- Ipstenu 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? Catwoman deserves her own dadgum entry. Do NOT merge her into a bibliography page. Good grief, would people then merge all superheroes/villains into bibliography pages? I hope not. Wryspy 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about emrging the Catwoman entry into something else, but adding her bibliography to her entry. --Chris Griswold 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I vote the deletion of the bibliography page. It serves no purpose. Kusonaga 12:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A bibliography does not belong here. Wryspy 17:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't think that the bibliography should be deleted. However, an Afd has been initiated, so if you have an opinion about this, one way or the other, I urge you to make your feelings known. GentlemanGhost 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WHOA, I completely disagree with deleting the bibliography page!!! I think it serves the very obvious purpose of a bigger and better resource for anyone who comes to Wikipedia looking for more on this subject/character, and her history. On the subject of merging - it does not matter to me whether it is or isnt - I believe its a bit large to includeon the main page; though it is pretty pertinent so maybe it should be bumped up on the "links" list. I am currently adding to the "Graphic Novels" portion - anyone who has better/additional information and wants to help please do :) ~BluderFly July 12, 2006 1:44 am est. time

Category:LGBT comic book characters

Holly Robinson, the current Catwoman is a lesbian. But since this article is about both her and Selina Kyle (who is straight) I'm wondering if this category should be added to the bottom of the page. Thoughts? -- The above comment was made by Spookyadler

I think it'd be fine to add in. IIRC, you can make it with a |Robinson, Holly, so we get the right one in. -- Ipstenu 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should. Holly has her own page, we can add it there. Template:Unsigned:167.206.190.114

As of April we had not split the pages yet. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Catwoman Split

There are multiple Catwomen right now. Selina and Holly (comics), Selina and Patience (movies), and all the myriad ones from TV. I can't help but feel there has to be a better way to organize this. Maybe make a Catwoman (movies) and Catwoman (Television) page to shunt off things? Admitedly 'Catwoman = Selina Kyle' so she should be the main focus of the page, but ... which Selina? I think comics. -- Ipstenu 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of the individual Catwomen are extensive enough of a subject to warrant a split. --Chris Griswold 17:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

One a related subject, the Holly section should fill out more of her history, not just what's happening with the character right now. And the OYL-Selina stuff should be in her section, not Holly's. --DrBat 00:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Selina Kyle and Holly Robinson should have two separate pages, with a single page that overlooks all Catwomen, like what was done with Robin.

Yes, I agree, that makes sense. Let's make it happen.--a_gx7

We split Holly off already. Anyone think we should make a Catwoman (movies)? I don't. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Very Important Image

So theres this image of catwoman with a cat head on peering into a treasure chest...can anyone find it?

Too Much?!?!

OK, I love Catwoman and I love obsessing about minute comic character details as much as anyone, but am I the only one that feels that the paragraph discussing Selina's hair color in Catwoman#Television: animated is overkill? TAnthony 04:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hhahahhahah, I just made a comment about that in an edit summary without reading yours here. The info is sort of ok, but the important details need to be explored too. Check the section below.--The Judge 14:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed that section down, hacked out the spec about her hair (it borders on original research) and tried to clean it up. Explore important details, yes. Give an ep by ep break down? No. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't original research at all. The hair thing was publiches in The Lost Years which is suposed to be one of the few comic boos cannonical to the mythos. Otherwise I'd have chopped off the hair thing myself. I vote to keep it. It was odd having it with so much missing info, but know, as trivia I think is ok. After all, I've seen trivial sections way more trivial than that. Besides, I think the hair thing makes it more women-friendly. I'm just kiiiiidding! hahahah.--The Judge 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

By original research I meant that the comments along the lines of 'It's possible that her hair was...' is speculation and kinda weird. I trimmed the hair paragraph to "Initially Selina had blonde hair, coinciding with the release of Batman Returns, in which she was played by blonde actress Michelle Pfeiffer. In the revamp, she appears to have shorter black hair. Whether her hair was dyed or her natural color was never made clear in the series itself, however in the episode "Tyger, Tyger", Selina became a cat/woman hybrid and her hair (or rather fur) was blonde. Some episodes have stated that her original color was blonde, that she dyed it black, and abandoned the regular products she used (due to animal testing) until she found some that didn't use animal testing." which I think touches on the episode as well as the issue involved, while keeping it contextual. I'm anti-triva sections, since they're nto permitted in Feature Arrticles, and I think all articles should have feature potential :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's remove all of the hair info. It's a little creepy and needless. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's encyclopaedic and there's 'fat smelly sweaty guy in the back of the comic shop who drools on the catwoman issues'. id suggest further revising the whole 'physical appearance' thing to suggest that her appearance has occasionally been modified in minor ways to match current motion picture versions of the character, but not always... otherwise, we'll be into which artists forgot how in batman #xxx, she got a scar but in issue 27 of her book, page 7 panel four the scar was upside down, so continuity blah blah blah. CREEEEEEEEEEPYYYYYY. ThuranX 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing info

I filled some missing info. However some copyedit is needed. I speak English as second language, so please make sure my grammar is correct.--The Judge 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

images 2

Do we need 'alternating' patterns on the images on the page? I do not think that 'decorating' the page is encyclopedic.ThuranX 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's 'decorating' so much as layout-adjusting, which is a part of making a readable encyclopedia. The alternating helps keep paragraphs a little thinner, which assists in reading, at least, from what I recall from newspaper work. It's a 'flow' issue. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a question of lay-out and readability, rather than mere decoration.--Galliaz 13:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:TBCatwoman.gif

Can someone more experienced in licensing look at this image? it reads as computer game, but then it says it's from a website and I don't see anything on that site to indicate where it got the license. Something feels wrong, but I'm not as up to date on that as I'd like to be. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like fan art to me. That's not exactly the style of The Batman. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't watch it, myself, but my main concern was that the website it's from doesn't list any license info. Which means we may have it fair from them, but they may have gotten it illegally. Do we have a 'help! Image copyright in question!' WP team here? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Uploading_images. CovenantD 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you it is not fan art. That is in fact how she looks in the show, and is from her model sheet.

Hero or Villian

she is a protagonist. She has an interest for jewelry, but she is allso aware of the mother earth or whatever is threatening it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.247.10 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Eartha Kitt

Did Eartha play Selina Kyle, or a second Catwoman? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Did Catwoman have another name in that series? I can't remember. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

She listed as 'Catwoman' and nothing more. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay! I was watching a Catwoman featurette on the DVD and Halle said "both the original sixties Selina Kyle as well as... Eartha Kitt's character", or something like that. Made me wonder. It would also have made sense, too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, they weren't concerned with such trivial things as continuity ;) One of the Catwomans was a princess or something ... I'd have to start watching it on re-runs, Sunday morning. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe Eartha Kitt's character was Patience Phillips lol! As far as I'm aware, the character of Selina Kyle did not exist in the 60s TV show. Eartha, Julie and Lee's Catwomen were all born "Catwoman" in the costume and had no human identity! lol! Remember when Lee slaps one of her henchmen for calling her by her real name in public, after he says "Ahoy there, Catwoman!" 80.47.0.42 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Selina Kyle

When did the name, Selina Kyle first referenced to? 68.82.82.248 08:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Publication History

In order to better review the character as a character, instead of giving a person a bio, should this articel be examined for ways to construct a 'Publication History' instead? it would allow items such at this:

• After the events in 52, Selina gave birth to a daughter named Helena. That name is the same as Catwoman and Batman's daughter on Earth 2 (that universe's Huntress). The name is also the same as Catwoman and Batman's daughter in the Birds of Prey live-action television series as Huntress.

to better be incorporated as well. This was in the trivia section, but isn't particularly 'trivial', as it has some Out-Of-Universe relations to DC's reboots and reworkigns of continuity. ThuranX 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Sections

These parts seem to keep getting cut fromt he article in some pissing match, so I've now put them here, which allows for some industrious contributor or editor to cite the statements. Once that is done, they can be placed back into the article.

Catwoman parodies and homages

• One of the recurring villains in the cartoon Xiaolin Showdown was called "Katnappe," and was similar to Catwoman in appearance and behavior.
• Mink, a member of Marvel Comics Squadron Supreme, appears to be based loosely on Catwoman. An heiress who turns to life of crime for excitement, she is a part of Nighthawk's America Redeemers. She is in love with Nighthawk, a character based on Batman.
• In the comic book miniseries Wanted by Mark Millar, The Fox is a pastiche of Catwoman character elements, with the background of the Batman: Year One former prostitute, the thrill-seeking attitude of the Gold/Silver Age version, and a look clearly based on actress [[Halle Berry).

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

More uncited, yet interesting material, awaiting reliable citation:

Catwoman was so popular that Warner Bros. found the need to replenish the Catwoman posters in various cities because the bus stop ads were being stolen. (Police officers patrolled the stops to deter perpetrators from breaking the Plexiglas poster-holders.) The large-scale Catwoman ads are worth a great deal of money.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Brother

Doesn't she have a brother Kyle, shouldn't that be at least mentioned. My comic collection is packed away so no source things or info, but I'm sure he existed briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Credited by DC

To me, the statement: "credited by DC" seems superfluous. DC just acknowledges that everything that came out of the Kane Studio was Kane's no matter who came up with the idea first. Why? It's just shorthand. Basically, Finger wasn't working for himself, he was working for Kane and anything he contributed "belonged" to Kane. But for our purposes, doesn't it make more sense to just list the names of who was involved and the chain of creation as best to our knowledge? Kane himself has said that when it came to the villains, most of the time, Finger would come up with a concept and they would "talk it over". He credited Finger with most of the villain concepts but freely admitted they collaborated on the final versions. Kane wanted a "Jean Harlowe" type of villainess, Finger came up with The Cat who would eventually become the Cat-Woman. With the Penguin, he claims he came up with the idea for The Penguin based on a cigarette ad, what Finger delivered a was a character inspired by overweight businessmen Bill saw everyday. Supposedly, according to Fred Finger, Bill's wife gave him the general idea of tricky umbrellas.(If you need exact quotes I can provide them later) but I just think we don't need "Credited by DC". Let's just list the names?

What do think? If someone else came up with a concept that was either rejected or re-worked (like with Jerry Robinson with the Joker or Jack Kirby and Spider-Man, should they be given "credit" for the concept or put at the bottom (foundation?) of the chain of creation? What do you think?Bernard ferrell (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Toys

There was a line of Batman action figures that had as its premise that Batman was tossed into a bizarre alternate reality where noteable figures in his rogues gallery have taken nightmarish form. One of them was Catwoman, wearing a variant of her purple costume and accompanied by a machanoid panther that transformed into a powered exoskeleton whose tail could be used as Catwoman's whip. Misterandersen (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

BDSM?

I wonder if Catwoman's look or appeal is related to, or inspired by, BDSM? Seems like it. 71.122.67.169 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See Batman Year One for more on that. in that origin, she started out as a prostitute. ThuranX (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Golden Age Batman

I came here looking for information on Golden Age Catwoman as she was originally, and found the section here confusing. I don't want information on how she was retconed decades later to make her origin fit, I want to know how she was originally written by Bob Kane. 70.178.126.66 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to check other sites like Don Markstein's Toonopedia.Rickremember (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)