Talk:Batman: The Animated Series/Animated Series Batman Talk

Batman
I've a feeling this should probably be merged into the general 'Batman' article. The animated Batman isn't really different enough to merit it's own article in my view.--Joseph Q Publique 06:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree: most of this material is redundent. It should be merged back into Batman or the Batman: The Animated Series articles. ~CS 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not until it is finished. Then we can decide. We need to see how much information can be gathered, edit it and then, we can really see if werther the versions are diferent or not. There is no hurry.

My point is: Hold proposals for some weeks. Nobody is gonna die just for analising some possibilities--T-man, the wise 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is also no need to put the work into creating an article if the information already exists in another form elsewhere. You were probably better off soliciting opinions on one of the other pages about what could or should go into a new Batman article than re-creating one without thinking it though first.  IMHO, there is not need to water-down the content into too many pages. ~CS 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well when am I supposed to develop the idea if your sensoring it from the very begining. You haven't even seen the final product, and you are already stating that its content is somewhere else. What are you talking about? You are talking about something you have not seen yet. This is only the stub


 * That's what the 'Discussion' pages are for - to determine what would be good ideas and what would not be so great (particularly relatively drastic ideas such as this). It seems that here and on the main 'Batman' page there's something of a consensus that this isn't a good idea, because the various incarnations aren't drastically different enough to merit their own separate articles, and that most of the content that is appearing in this article is already expressed elsewhere. It's not about censoring you, it's about sparing you putting so much effort into an article that isn't needed. In this case, it seems fair to say that we don't really need to wait for a 'finished' article about the Animated Batman(such as an article can be said to actually be 'finished' in Wikipedia, as they're continuously evolving) to see what's going to be in this article, as it seems fairly likely that it's not going to be greatly different to main Batman article or any of the articles about the Animated Series. It's already been said well enough.


 * Plus, most of us who contribute to the Batman articles on a regular basis, whilst we all might not be experts, know enough about the various forms of Batman to know what we're talking about here. We know enough about, say, the comics Batman and the Animated Batman to know that there's very little difference between them bar the superficial, and as such little requiring a new article for the animated Batman that can't be said in the main Batman article.--Joseph Q Publique 06:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems like fancruft to me. Most of the differences between the iterations of the character have to do with the alternate future of Batman Beyond. This material belongs either or the Batman in other media page or the animated series page. WesleyDodds 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is wikipedia's policy on fancruft:

''"As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.

''Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research."

...so let me be. ha ha ha.

It can later be integrated to some other article after we decide with moments are worthy of keeping, someone add the several ones I'm forgeting and it looks generally better.

Think it this way: there are bios for most Batman Beyond characters. Right? Right, therefore, just as Terry has already one, old bruce Wayne should have one. right? right, but if there is an old Bruce Wayne bio, wouldn't it make sense to go back to what he did since the flashbacks of the Mask of the Phantom?. Then, there: following that logic this bio makes perfect sence. Like it or not there is a bio for every version of batman already, the golden and silverage are written as part of the overall batman article, but at least they exist. The animated series batman didn't even exist on the BTAS page!! Another logic to followis just checkng out John Stewart, Hawkgirl and Darksaid bios, they all have an animated series bio. Batman did more things and is more importan than all of them together, why the censoreship?

BTW I finished filling the sections with the basics. Although there is a lot of info to add and a lot to take off.--T-man, the wise 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The animated versions of Jon Stewart and Hawgirl are drastically different from their print counterparts. Batman isn't.  And just because these articles exist there is not a rationale that a separate article should exist for the animated Batman.  What about the other animated interpretations of Batman?  What about the movie versions of Batman?  These are all variations on the same character, and in-depth character bios are the domain of other Wiki projects that allow such focus on fictional characters.


 * Certainly we can write about the animated version of Batman, but it doesn't warrant a separate page. WesleyDodds 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then don't follow the John Stewart, Hawkgirl and Darksaid logic, follow the Batman Beyond logic I enphasized more. The DCAU covers a biger part of Bruce Wayne's life than even the current comics continuity. And there are significant other differences, in the first, Batman appeared first and was the romantic interest of Wonder Woman, while in comics Superman did that. There was no Jason Todd here, The Was no Grimm Reaper and Rachel Caspian, there was a Phanthom and Andrea Beaumont. Batman didn't start his career fighting corruption in goverment and police. Bane didn't broke his back. Batgirl was never crippled, there is no Casandra and no Azrael, no contagion, no eathquaque, and no noman's land. The penguin became mayor while Luthor never got in the White House. Only one clay face. Harvey dent was Bruce's best friend. Kyodai-Ken. There was only one encarnation of the Justice League. Toyman Killed Superman, not Doomsday. No infinite Crisis, no Hal Jordan. The green skined Poison Ivy is a clone. No Outsiders. Ra's Al Ghul didn't die, he took Talia's body...Want more differences? I don't think even Silver Age Batman and Modern Batman are that different. So C'mon! Let me have my pop sticle.


 * Uh, and it seems like people have been doing some nice work editting me, and somebody removed the stub tag and qualify this as significant work, so IN YOUR FACE, WESLEY!! hahah :P--T-man, the wise 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of those differences you listed mainly have to do with other characters, and some are downright wrong (Batman and Wonder Woman had a brief relationship in the comcis around the same time, and the Peguin was enver mayor in the animated seris, only in the comic adaption). These are generally surface changes, and Batman throughout the incarnations in the comics and in other media (you seem to be forgetting the TV series, other cartoons, and movies in this discussion) has had them.


 * And just because other people the page does not mean it is valid. Right now the page is just a synopsis of episodes of the cartoon.  It has no reason to exist on its own.  And no, you can't have your popsicle.  No one on Wikipedia owns these pages, We are all supposed to contribute and share in the process of cataloguing and determining the notability of information.  WesleyDodds 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * T-Man, no one is trying to censor you. What you have to say whould have to be a whole lot more controvercial for that even to be an option.  We are concerned about the need for a second B:tAS article, to which you've responded with an in-your-face attitude which is not helpful to the discussion.  Please tone down the rhetoric -- no one is confronting you personally.  This article is the least of my concerns -- it's actually shaping up nicely.  I'm just not sure that a summery of the entirity of the Animated Series is in any way necessary. Much of, if not all, of the information is inherent in the articles about the series themselves.


 * I am unconvinced about the need for "biographical" articles for fictional characters when articles about publications are just as well-suited for relating content. This is where the content veers into the fancruft territory that User:WesleyDoods mentions above.  I personally don't think that comic book characters should be treated as if they're real people, they should be treated as characters in media and literature.  It seems to me that you want a distinction between publication and character history.  This distinction seems artificial to me.  Canon, continuity, and 'alternate reality' are the material of fans and speculation. History is the material of an encyclopedia.


 * The changes to Batman and Batman: The Animated Series are far more of a concern to me. The deletion of vast amounts of information en masse is innapropriate, and the aditional fannish tone, I feel, spoils the intergrity of the articles.  People are trying to engange with you in discussion about the problems they have in the changes to material -- that is the purpose of the talk pages.  Crying "censorship!" or leaving rude remarks on people's talk pages is not a mature way to handle the situation. All anyone here wants is to ensure that the quality of the articles is top-notch.  ~CS 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, do yourself a favor and keep updated, pal. I write a lot in discusions pages. I've alredy came to an agreement, and you are the only one crying about the fannish tone. You can have an article about a tv series without explaining who are the players and what's the game. And there have been edits over mine backing me up, they count as people on mi side even though they might have not felt as chatty as you. As I said, KEEP UP DATED, if you care so much about discussion pages at least read them.--T-man, the wise 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * T-man, please be civil. The poor attitude and accusations are unnecessary. I have been paying attention to the talk pages and the edit history and see no reason they should prevent me from responding to your comments from last night. ~CS 01:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

MORE FOCUS ON BRUCE WAYNE
Tere have been great edits, but remember we ar talking about Bruce Wayne, not about Terry, the Arkhams or the League.--T-man, the wise 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Animated Series Batman

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

7 Merge, 1 No Merge

See Talk:Animated Series Batman for more info... that article is essentially fancraft and can be substantially reduced and included here. In any event much of it duplicates existing info found on pages for specific TV shows like Batman: The Animated Series and Justice League Unlimited and there is no need for a separate page. Merge. Dyslexic agnostic 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I asked for some time before voting. It's not a finished projets. Wath bothers me the most is that, I'd already came to an agreement about getting some time to finish the project. I consider this proposal a personal attack and question (not deny) the good faith of the editor who put the merging tag. I consider his actions harassment (he reverts whatever I do without asking, move pages, erase info that later other people add again, etc).

I'm taking of the tag. I'm not against a future merge, but I need some time to shape the info, and discuss with other users wich page to merge the info with. I'm taking the liberty specially since DA's proposal has yet failed to raise interest of other editors. I ask, with all respect to give me and the enthusiast of this little project until June 25 to finish with the info. I'll ask help to the finest editors I know so far and promess to do my best. --T-man, the wise 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but a number of us are calling for a merge. You can add a "Merge disputed" tag, but please don't just remove it entirely.  WesleyDodds 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To speak your mind regarding any issue open a new topic or write extended opinions, please start another section. For now, I ask everybody to propose in 1 to 5 words proposals for the fate of this article. Whether we should keep the article independent or merge with a page (specify wich one):

Note: WesleyDodds and ~CS are proposing to split, while Dyslexic agnostic and Gillespee (probbaly his sockpuppet) are proposing to merge with a single article, and T-man, the wise ask for time.
 * (note: the above is not an accurate description of the below votes and discussion.~CS 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Need Time. --T-man, the wise 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Batman in other media T-man is correct in that the character changes span across several animated series, but it's still not significant to be a separate article from the other media versions. CovenantD 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Batman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond, Justice League (TV series) and other appropriate articles. Delete over-detailed summeries, redundant information, and fancruft ~CS 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into appropriate articles per CovenantD and CS. WesleyDodds 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and shorten into the Batman in Other Media article.--Gillespee 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge --Chris Griswold 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge If this was like Hawkgirl, where the one on the animated series was so vastly different from the comics, then maybe we could keep it (and IMO it should have been Batman (animated) as a title). As it stands, merge it into the appropriate shows and delete this page. -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 18:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been well over a week since we started the merge discussion. I think it's the consensus to merge, but I don't know how to do it. Can someone finally do this? --Chris Griswold 05:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cut and rework the pieces of the article that aren't redundant onto the appropriate article, and then redirect the page name to the page you are merging to. I'd do it, but I don't quite feel like wading through BTAS minutae at the moment. WesleyDodds 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized after I posted what this was going to entail. I'll do it. --Chris Griswold 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a pain, and will take time. Making the page a redirect is a first step -- someone will just have to look at the history to merge the good content later.  Meanwhile, I'll archive this talkpage at Batman: The Animated Series sometime tomorrow.  If T-Man wants to resurrect the content somehow, he should think about the Wikia suggestion below.  Consensus for a merge was overwhelming, and the only defender's hostile attitude and subsequent blocking didn't to much to give his arguments traction.  Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Please, if you wish, write extented opinions or other issues below
T-man asked me to take a look at the article and polish up the prose a bit. I'm pretty busy with my real-life work these days, and may not have time to fulfill T-man's request, but I would like to comment on the merge proposal. Everyone should consider this from WP:FICT:
 * Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).

From this and the examples listed on WP:FICT, I gather that the guideline's purpose is to avoid the twin evils of bloated articles on works of fiction and multiple stubs of insignificant characters. The main Batman article is clearly too long to incorporate even a mercilessly edited version of this page. I don't think it would be really appropriate to merge it with Batman: The Animated Series since the point seems to be to consider the fictional biography of Batman as constructed in multiple DCAU series, not just Batman:TAS. That leaves Batman in other media. Perhaps it might be helpful if the advocates of the merge were to provide a sandbox version of Batman in other media with a condensed version of the biographical content of this page included in the "Animated" section? That way, everyone could see whether including this biographical content into "other media" would cause the article to become too bloated or not.

Of course, this assumes that the biographical/character content is itself noteworthy in some regard. Although some may disagree, I think it's fine for Wikipedia to include brief biographies of fictional characters who have appeared in long-running serials, whatever their medium of origin. I know that "comparison is odious", but it might well be argued that the DCAU version of Batman is as notable as, say, Professor Utonium or Rocky the Flying Squirrel. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My assertation is that this adaptation of Batman is not anymore significantly different from the comics version (which itself has had numerous variations over the last few decades) than any other. The differences there are can be covered in an appropriate article like the Animated Series page or Batman Beyond.  WesleyDodds 07:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this version of Batman does have a great deal more cultural significance than some other adaptations, but that significance is best expressed through good articles on the series. Right now, the article is simply a list of the various animated series, comics, and films, featuring summeries of what happens to Batman in each category. Since Batman is the protagonist of these publications, I think this is unnecessary: the already existing articles are enough.  ~CS 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Wesly you just enounced the problem, by saying "The differences there are can be covered in an appropriate article like the Animated Series page or Batman Beyond". According to WP:FICT (and Wesley comments), There should be a Batman bio in B Beyond (like Terry has), BTAS(like the Clok King, or Harley Quinn have), TNBA(like Calendar Girl has) and JL/JLU (like all other 6 have)... Or have all those bios in one and put Links there. You can sure try create the page in Batman in other media. But you know wikipedia, the section will grow with details from all the series...and eventually become an article. Or what about taking the coment literally, we divide the article and put the pieces in the corresponding series article...and watch them grow to 4 equal bios (BB fans will go to backards, bruce's bast and BTAS fans will go forwards to his future)... Or maybe we can just improve this article. Wesley, I actually agree with your opinion on the quality of this article, I consider it as raw stuf, a sketch of what's gonna be, you have vision, man, I know it. I've seen you work, regardless the future of this article, I invite you to make it your own, to make it raise its quality to your standards. I knew I did good by going to Rowe, he is my kind of guy. Always with an answer and always the perfect one. Although I find funny how WP policies are so ambiguos, if I'd have had an opposing view to myself I think I'd also find it backing my actions. I think the first points in WP:FICT, are exactly the idea that inspired me. It really bothers me when people say this or that doesn't deserve an article, to me every concept deserves an article. If there are differences they're not the same concept to me. Rowe, I salute you, as always you're the man! --T-man, the wise 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm taking of the tag, I asked for some time, and I stand my ground, what's the hurry anyways? What's a month to wikipedia? June 25.

--T-man, the wise 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT remove the tag again - you are obviously in the minority here and don't have the right to vandalize the page by removing the tag. Argue your case, let people decide. CovenantD 20:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and spend a bit more time proofreading your edits for spelling mistakes. If you need help, I'd suggest Dictionary.com or some other reference. CovenantD 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm usually one to overlook poor spelling typos -- but I'm finding it very difficult to understand the meaning of some of T-man's sentences. A quick trick to verify spelling is to plug your words into http://www.google.com .  I find Google's spellchecker is fast and usually understands what you mean on the first try.  Might you also concider re-reading for clarity before you hit 'save page'? I think some quick proofing would go a long way toward making your position more clear.  ~CS 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with CS that this page is unnecessary, and that the already existing articles are enough. Dyslexic agnostic 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, a little, what's the fuzz about? It's just a freggin cartoon, we are not deciding the next periode tax politics. "Oh, no, children are going to read all periodes of Batman's life on the DCAU in a single page, what kind of future are we creating for em?!! The humanity!! Kill T-man, the mean, bad, bad, man. He is worst than the antiCrist, he created pages with the plot of JLU, he is mad!!" Is this what your life has become. How does this compromise the enciclopedia, anyway? Does it actually states that such article is a crime? This must be vandalism! Wikipedia is strugglig for space!! Internet is getting slower!!! If this is such a bad idea howcome no enforcers of WP has sent this article to oblivion right away. You feel so mighty, don't you? You get to decide what administrators don't mind about. I asked with respect to hold such voting for a very reasonable period and you can even respect that? Actually the proposal was right after I asked the time, that's just rude and arrogant. Start the editing and stop cryticizing, anybody can do that. Rv's and links, that's for robots and automatons, be creative, be bold show your talent, anyone can just complaint. Who goes to a page about fictional entertaiment to keep it as less informative as posible? what's wrong with you people? Where is the passion for the hobby you like? Where it the thirst of knoledge. Who researches info to get as little as posible. Don't you have dictionaries fot that? Even Batman (modern) bio isn't that complete, it looks like wikipedia is selling comic books. Every paragraph talks more about the authors and editions than the contents. I think that's product of the obssesive request of sourcing. It's a good thing but there is a reasonable middle point for everything--T-man, the wise 09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would adminsitrators become involved? We can certainly work this out ourselves.


 * This argument really isn't about that the page takes up a lot of unnecessary space (although this article as it stands is pretty big). The argument is that it's unnecessary, period.  Consider this: in the first paragraph, which for all articles is intended to describe and state the importance of an entry, the name of the article links to another entry (Batman!).  WesleyDodds 09:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's extacly what I'm talking about, you are great for that. Actually, it was I who asked you to speak your mind and invite you to edit. I've never defended it's content, to me it's just a draft, it's the concept i like. It's not that well delivered, take the concept and shape it from there. You are the one that always nails the great observations and recognizes importance.


 * Another observation, all links in JLU pages direct to various biografies an "inoter media section where you can read his DCAU interventions and role... Again Hawkgirl, GL, yada,yada.. You propose to merge with Batman in other Media... Were do you plan to direct the people reading JLU? articles to Batman, where there is no Animated Batman Info, or toe Batman in other media? were readers won't get neither Comics Batman, nor a ful Animated bio, or Maybe to Batman:TAS, where info is only supposed to cover before The New Batman Adventures.


 * --T-man, the wise 10:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * T-man, please don't be ranty. No one is addressing the article with the hysteria you are attributing to us.  Also: I'm still having a diffcult time understanding your prose.  Could you please proofread before you post? It would go leagues toward making your position more clear. I'd also like to encourage you to poke around some of the meta-articles on wikipedia to get a better idea of how the process works.


 * To the article at hand: your approach seems to be to regard this article as if Batman were a real person -- which I find simply bizarre.  The publications and authors are, of course, more important than the "life" of the character -- that's where all the creativity and information is from.  As I stated above, the place of an encyclopedia is to address works of art and literature, not to construct a faux-biography by stringing together other articles.  The appropriate places for storyline information regarding this incarnation of Batman is in Batman: The Animated Series, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, The New Batman Adventures, Batman Beyond, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman, Justice League (TV series), et cetera.  Each publication already has its own article. ~CS 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are on to something, I like it. Can you make the article more like that. At least to a couple of sections, and I can imitate your style later. But I don't mind if you go crazy and do the whole thing. Is that style WP policy?--T-man, the wise 17:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I likewise agree that this page should be merged into the other media article. There's just not enough setting Timmverse Batman apart from the other Batmans in other media to deserve it's own article.  As stated by others, the place for this information is in the respective series (especially since it's organized mostly by those series.)  In addition, the "Lost Years" section is almost all about Nightwing.  I'm not sure why that's been included in this Animated Batman article.--Gillespee 05:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then modify it. You are right.--T-man, the wise 05:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done!--Gillespee 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

MORE FOCUS ON BRUCE WAYNE
Tere have been great edits, but remember we ar talking about Bruce Wayne, not about Terry, the Arkhams or the League.--T-man, the wise 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, discuss all you want, but help me editing the article. Doit your way --T-man, the wise 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a social club and nobody told me? Are you here because you can't minle in real life? You should be ashamed of calling yourselves editors, look at all that whinning you've written and look at how much work have you actually acomplished on the page!! C'mon be bold, get crazy, shake, shape and create articles. That's why you are supposed to be here!! I'm saying this in good fate, I know you guys have it in you. You are just censoring because some jackasses did the same to you, that's called transference. Being passive, won't get you a better world. Live life, be proactive and reactive, don't let people sh*t all over you and worst don't do the same to others! --T-man, the wise 03:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do no attack fellow editors. This is not a positive way to encourage contributions.  WesleyDodds 04:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's so easy to to call everything an attack. You know very well that's not the intention.--T-man, the wise 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see much point in editing an article that looks headed for a merge. I'm waiting until the issue is resolved. CovenantD 19:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I guess that was my mediocre version of motivational speech, but c'mon, please do some editing, don't leave me alone. If you are so interested, take off some words, lines or paragraphs and replace (or not) with what you think it's better. That's what I'm trying to aks everyone. Please, I'd really apreciate it. Again, my apologies if someone felt ofended, not my intention at all.--T-man, the wise 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merged, not erased. That's even more reason to fix it than if it was an independent article.--T-man, the wise 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Every vote except yours has been to merge. If you are changing yours to merge, I see no reason why we can't close the process and make it happen. Thoughts? CovenantD 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How can I get you to undestand my idea? Shape, then merge.--T-man, the wise 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC). Besides, I think there is one sockpuppet.--T-man, the wise 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC). So easy to critizise, I'm not seeing work done!! I'm very concern.--T-man, the wise 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your idea, I just don't agree with it. I have no interest in trying to make 5 or 6 different articles fit the merge. I'd rather wait til the merge issue is settled, then pick one of the articles to work on at a time, probably in chronological order. I'm sure there's duplicate info and I just have no interest in trying to coordinate that many articles at once. I have other projects that need my attention right now.


 * As for the sockpuppet allegation, even if you throw out one of the expressed opinions, there's still overwhelming support for a merge. CovenantD 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC).


 * Yeah, but check the merger of B:TAS with TNBA, a very bad idea to begin with, but 5 guys supported it at the very beggining. 5 persons in a row with supported a bad idea, not the same here, but partly that's time I'm asking for.--T-man, the wise 21:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the nature of the merge is underestimated. The merging can be like this: It has been suggested that this page be split into multiple pages accessible from a disambiguation page. (|Discuss)

Or the entire info can be taken into another article, but there can be proposed 3 or more options: Batman, Batman in other Media, Batman: The Animated Series.--T-man, the wise 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: A 'split' is not the same thing as a merge -- it is a proposal to split one article into two entirely new articles. The proposal here was to merge into multiple already existing articles. ~CS 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sockpuppet

 * If your sock puppet allegation is against me, by all means, please request a check. I'm posting from the same IP address I have 99% of the time in the past (I did edit from school a couple of times.)  Just because I haven't editted in a while does not mean that I'm suddenly (or ever was) a sock.--Gillespee 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)  P.S.  I saw on Shanel's talk page you already have.

Yeah, but in your talk page it seems you are involved in almost only the topics that troubled me and my stalker in the past, you always back him with repeating almost the same words, making the same points, your editing style (erasing instead of correcting) is the same, you just admited ignorance on the topics you edit just like him. And your inactivity period is almost the same as DA's and mine. You are DA. And yes an administration started researchin before I told you.--T-man, the wise 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, and don't even bother replying, from this point I'm starting the no talking to you or about you I apply to your other nick.--T-man, the wise 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I once again encourage you to request the check. Nothing I can say will convince you, so just go for it. --Gillespee 05:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved project
I've moved this page into the Wikipedia namespace, as projects don't belong in the article namespace. Update your bookmarks accordingly. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What the hell did I do?! Seriously, I don't know!--T-man, the wise 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing. Explanation is on my talk page. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. This appears to have been a mistake. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Compromise
T-Man -- are you familiar at all with Wikia? It is another Wiki-Media related project with emphasis on fan communities. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the DCAU and Batman communities there, and move this article entirely off Wikipedia, and into Wikia? ~CS 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but are you familiar to these articles?:


 * Core Members:
 * Hawkgirl (animated) 24 lines in a separated article, longer than her DCU bio. Even though one of the most different adaptations, not the longest bio.
 * John Stewart (comics) 83 lines, longer than his DCU bio, substantial info, comparable to Animated Series Batman.
 * Martian Manhunter 22 lines.
 * Flash 15 lines in flash and 15 lines in Wally West. Lack of communication I guess.
 * Cultural impact of Wonder Woman 27 lines. Excellent example, since while short, it explains the characters from the producers point. That’s definitively something I’d have loved for the Animated series Batman article.
 * Superman A big donut. Go team! Bright!
 * Batman A big donut. Go team! Bright!


 * regular members:
 * Question (comics) 55 lines. Explain the characters from the producers point. That’s definitively something I’d have loved for the Animated series Batman article. Great stuff.
 * Supergirl 34 lines. Good.
 * Terry McGinnis
 * Aquaman 15 lines.
 * Green Arrow 6 lines.
 * Huntress (comics) 10 lines.
 * Black Canary 15 lines
 * Atom (comics) 4 lines (repeated in Ray Plamer)
 * Batgirl only 5? Whut the f? uh, and 14 in Barbara Gordon ok, but still too little.


 * Villains:
 * Brainiac 65 lines
 * Joker (comics) 60 lines. substantial info, comparable to Animated Series Batman, take that!!
 * Harley Quinn 32 lines (great stuff)
 * Jokerz
 * Lex Luthor 30 lines. Surprising since Lex could arguably be considered the main character of JLU. Then again, from my experience, most editors are normally not bright enough to balance this kind of stuff and make some coherence.
 * Chronos 21 lines
 * Catwoman 13 lines
 * Clayface 29
 * Parasite (comics) 20 lines
 * Gorilla Grodd 30 lines
 * Clock King 32 lines. While he had only 3 and 1/100 appearences, one of the biggest DCAU bio, obviously way longer than his DCU bio.
 * Vandal Savage 29 lines. Even longer than his regular DCU info.
 * Amazo 25 lines, as big as his regular DCU bio.
 * Penguin (comics) 8 lines
 * Doomsday (comics) 7 lines.
 * Two-face 40 lines
 * Scarecrow (comics) 19 lines
 * Tobias Whale 7 lines. (my baby’s first steps! I created the article as a stub, I love doing that)
 * Terra-man 4 lines

While Question (comics) is the ideal bio, there is no coherence or balance in the amout of info each character has. While a minor character, the Clock King has about 32 lines, catwoman or the penguin have about 10, and worst, Batman and Superman have none. The Joker and Brainic, however, characters that went through a symilar amout of original major changes and adventures to Batman and Superman's, have around some reasonable 60 lines. Remember, it's not the same talking about a series about a character than talking about the character. Think Seinfeld or Frasier, it you talk about the sitcoms you must cover a number of aspects including, broadcast, episodes and characters, including (mainly including, duh!!) the protagonist.

As I've always been saying, the Info I placed is far from good enough or a final draft, several of you are completely right when you say that it's just aretell of events, that's because that's what I've so far, but it's never been my goal. The Question (comics), its's kinda the ultimate animated bio to me. It doesn't only retell his interventions during the series, but it also explains where does his personality comes from, why did he acted like he did, all the pop cult characters merged into his personality (mulder, rorschach, ditko's question, etc). It's very well sourced and has good quotes. All that makes an interesting bio, not a mere recap. - Above long speech unsigned by T-Man


 * I agree that much of the fangruft should and likely will move to a separate comic wikipedia soon, and I think T-Man should lead the charge there. Agree Dyslexic agnostic 05:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All you're doing is listing animated version entries I haven't gotten to yet. --Chris Griswold 07:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New section made since my points above were not addresed at all
A good point was made, I don't actually mind if this and all articles per episodes are moved to wikia. However meanwhile the amount of info should be balanced and coherent between DCU characters that appeared on the DCAU articles. Ther merge can happen, just not now, most DCAU have reached a good level of quality, moving this incomplete info over there will lower their quality for sure. I encourage editing the article to improve it and I'm not pro-merging, but if I were, I'd insist twice as much. The stuff you will be moving to the BTAS ot TNBA pages should be high quality.--T-man, the wise 07:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Uh, what did you mean, Chris? My point was that balance needs to be done. And readers should be able to get the animated bios (wherther or not those are short because the character bio is too symilar to his regular DCU bio). You are also kind of rude when you say its just a listing, those observations are not that easy to acomplish, it took me about 4 hours of reading and comparing and I don't see you making any big effort to explain yourself (not that you are obligated to or anything, but it'd be nicer since you're minimizing my work).--T-man, the wise 07:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

None of it
I took the text and compared it to the applicable entries, and it's all already covered. It's not in a straightforward fictional timeline order, but it's all there. Some of it might have been used in the Justice League entry except T-man himself has been editing that entry, and it's unnecessary. --Chris Griswold 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, especify which part is where, then.--T-man, the wise 07:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The story elements from the TV episodes and movies are in/from the plot summaries for those movies and TV episodes (in the seris' entries). All you did was take episode information and string it together into the biography of someone who does not exist. If I want this information, I will most-- No, you know what? I can't imagine wanting the information presented this way on Wikipedia. That's not what I have ever come to this site looking for. I expect lovingly crafted fancruft on fan sites along with the applicable fanfic and slash. It just doesn't belong here. You have been pointed toward appropriate outlets for your enthusiasm and attention to detail; I suggest you investigate those avenues. And before you say it, no, I am not the boss of you, nor am I your father. I am not the king of Wikipedia, although I am crossing my fingers for the upcoming coup. I am just another guy on Wikipedia who doesn't think what you are doing fits here, and while I am not asking you to go away, I am asking you to consider that perhaps there is a reason so many people seem to be against what you are doing. See, on another site, with your skills, you could easily be KingBossDad of the whole thing. Go drag the Batman bio out of the history and put it someplace where people will not only appreciate it but praise you for it and offer to buy your underpants. --Chris Griswold 07:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I had to do anoter rv to save some new info. In order to compensate I'll stop editing here for some time.--T-man, the wise 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Hey Chris how do you expect me to lose an argue with you if you're giving me more elements to prove articles as this are common. Go try to erase KingBossDad and maybe also Hawkgirl (animated). You won't be able to do it, that's because I'm right. If you erase the Hawkgirl info I'm sure someone else will move it to the regular Hawkgirl article. This is not Britannica, in wikipedia you get to know whatever you want, that's the beauty of it, narrow minded editors don't get it. That's why you or me are editors, if wikipedia wanted to be like Britannica, they'd hire real professionals and we wouldn't be writtting here. Althoug I'd bet we'd still get articles per episode and per animated and comics character. According to what you said you're the Dark Heart of wikipedia, only hating not so world important articles instead of love or whatever the carebears are supposed to like. Oh, ther you go another article for you to try to erase. BTW, if you only care about trascendental articles, what the hell are you doing in this article or editing Teen Titans, anyways? hahahah. I'm teasing not atacking, you know I like you, man (... in a straight, healthy regular cordial editor-editor way, of course, :P)--T-man, the wise 08:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, your argument that other articles exist doesn't wash. It just doesn't. It's not a good argument. There's lots of garbage on Wikipedia, but that's only because people haven't gotten to eliminate it yet. I think veronica Mars is a good example of how to handle shows like this. The article looked awful. There were unfinished sections just sitting there, for instance. And then some editors came in and explained the Wikipedia guidelines, and the thing is shaping up nicely. Also, notice that we don't have any episode entries. That's because they are unnecessary. Any summary you write I can sum up in a handful of sentences and still have all the relevent information. Just because you can post these things, doesn't mean you should, and it doesn't mean that other editors won't delete them.

Ok then I dare you. Erase this crap if you can The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie. You said that's only because people haven't gotten to eliminate it yet. Ok lets see if people support you erasing it. It'll be fun to watch. Also can you quote WP stating that the site doesn't like such articles? ... Yep didn't think so. hahahah--T-man, the wise 09:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would I eliminate that? It's a short article that serves its subject. I'm sure I could condense the summary, but there's really not much need. --Chris Griswold 09:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The amazing thing about you is that you keep providing examples of how you are wrong. 'went to the Veronica Mars article (Ijust love that girl) and gues what was the first thing I found: Veronica Mars (character) THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE CHARACTER!! 3 words: In-Your-Face. Better yet they used WP guidelines didn't they. I bet those very guidelines explain how to shape this article (again, I don't think I achieved a proper format, that's why I keep encouraging edits). I bet they also have articles per episode...--T-man, the wise 09:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Bingo! List of Veronica Mars episodes and Meet John Smith (Veronica Mars episode). Too bad you are about to erase these articles because they go against your personal policies hahaha--T-man, the wise 09:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're still in the process of fixing that entry. It's still not what I would called perfect Wikipedia style, but it's getting there, and that's what I am trying to say. It's a process. As for the Veronica Mars character entry, she's an original lead character in a television show, not a simple variation on a 60-year-old character.
 * You know, I'm pretty much tired of you at this point. I and quite a few others have tried to be encouraging and have tried to gently explain to you why people disagree with your edits. And you do nothing but throw your little hip-shaking attitude back at them. Shake your hips all you want; I'm not going to look at them anymore. A number of us do not support your ideas. You throw tantrums when you don't get your way, and you don't seem to understand why people might not want to give you a chance after a while. I was ready to let you do your little JLU project until I looked at your edits and saw them to be lacking. And then, despite consensus seemingly against your even proceeding, you said you planned on taking until June 25. You're rude, you're arrogant, and you're ill-mannered. I've tried to be nice to you. I've tried to make jokes. I've tried to just be hypnotized by those hips of yours. But I won't be working with you on anything anymore. You've lost any support I might have given you, which, to me, looks like a lot more than quite a few other people were willing to give.
 * No Animated Series Batman. It's a grotesquely escapist project, it's embarrassing, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I really don't know what more to say. You exhaust me. --Chris Griswold 09:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another example besides Veronica Mars and Veronica Mars (character), of the logic I followed to create this article is Frasier and Frasier Crane, or Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character). However regardles my attention, I know this entries will keep existing, if it's been done hundresd od times and nobody seem to be erasing those, at some point the entries I created will be re taken by somebody else. Besides if you're so sure I´m going to fail you shouldn't insist on undoing my edits. I'm right and I know it, that's why you won't erase any other articles like the episodes of teenage mutant ninja turtles or Meet John Smith (Veronica Mars episode) ot any, I'm the weak link, but not my ideas, one, 5 or 20 years from now articles like those or the episodes of JLU will still exist and you know it. You don't exhaust me I can take you as easy as I stand my ground. --T-man, the wise 10:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've decided I like the Veronica Mars episode guide. It's an hour-long mystery series. As for why I don't delete those other entries you mention is 1. I have no desire to. 2. Consensus would be against it, as opposed to this instant. 3. I don't have any interest in those series, as opposed to JLU. It's not all black and white. --Chris Griswold 10:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you know that it's not normal to get banned from this site as much as you do or to require a mentor? You're basically in the same situation as outright vandals. It ought to make you wonder about the validity of your edits. --Chris Griswold 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

woah STOP right here t-man seriosly, this debate is getting way too heated especially off the back of a 72 hour ban from Titoxd, medation is avalible here if the parties think it would help, but being incivil dosent get anyone anywhere and eventually pepole become tired of it, everyone here is a volunteer, consueus was reached here. If you want to work on the article content why not use a personal sandbox in your userspace like User:T-man%2C_the_Wise_Scarecrow/sandbox where you can work without disturbing article space, my opnion anyway Benon 12:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)