Talk:Dick Grayson/Archive 4

Character name - Again
In general terms the lead should be an overview of a topic and part of that is what the subject is called. With a character in fiction that would be the name or names that are commonly or universally used for the character.

In this case that would be "Dick Grayson", "Robin", and "Nightwing". The character is not universally know as "Richard Grayson" much less "Richard John Grayson". There are the odd instances where either of those are use and depending on important the in-story plot point is, they can be handled in the later sections of the article.

That other character articles serve the fan base by expanding nickname and adding rarely if ever used middle names isn't relevant at best. At worse, it is a sign that they need to be fixed.

And this is worth pointing out, the character is not the equivalent of a real person. Yes, the MoS for biographies points to having the person's fill name in the lead even if they are better know under a nickname or a stage name. But that MoS is for dealing with real people and standing consesns is that it does not, and never should, apply to elements in a work of fiction.

- J Greb (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Richard John Grayson is his actual name. It's not used often, but it is his name. There are other articles where full names are used as well, no one touches them. I don't see why you insist on switching it to Dick Grayson, when that is clearly NOT his name. It's a nick name. The character's legal name is Richard John Grayson. He is often referred to as "Master Richard" by Alfred, or by full name "Richard Grayson" by some others. This name also appears on the adoption document from Gotham Knights #17, July 2001. There is really NO reason to put Dick Grayson over Richard John "Dick" Grayson, as the former is misleading. Tako (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So, can somebody add the real name somewhere in the text? I recomend using the reference too, but "in" the text and not at the begining... I understand what 'J Greb' says but I think that is logical that the real or complete name is in the article somewhere... Arussom (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what he's saying too, but I believe it should NOT be that way. Richard John Grayson IS the character's name. There is no disputing that. By leading with, and saying his name is Dick Grayson you're ignoring the fact that, that ISN'T his name. The name also holds symbolic meaning, as John is his father's name. Now, if you could put "Alter Ego" and "Real Name" separately, I'd be fine with that. Tako (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The character is called Dick Grayson. It is recognized in a real world context when referred to as "Dick Grayson". Most in that real world context would have little clue what is being referred to if "Richard John Grayson" is substituted. It is misleading to try and force the in-story, rarely used context in place of the widely understood real world context.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is misleading to say his name "Dick Grayson". As, I've pointed out, that's not true. It's also why we I did "Richard John 'Dick' Grayson", is way more appropriate than Richard John or Dick on its own. It clearly points out his first, and middle name, and points out that he's referred to as Dick. This is way it should be. Anything else is too little, and does not portray the information correctly. Tako (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is misleading to say his name "Dick Grayson". As, I've pointed out, that's not true. It's also why we I did "Richard John 'Dick' Grayson", is way more appropriate than Richard John or Dick on its own. It clearly points out his first, and middle name, and points out that he's referred to as Dick. This is way it should be. Anything else is too little, and does not portray the information correctly. Tako (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have an idea, how about we scrap 'Alter ego' as that's pointless. A list of his alter egos and aliases are listed in the Notable aliases box. We can then, in place, use |full_name = Richard John Grayson, and leave the lead as it is. Tako (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, if we keep with the 'Robins', see Tim Drake, the article is, right now, as 'Tako' is saying... See now Jason Todd, the 'full name' is in the box, even Stephanie Brown and Damian Wayne are like this (their full name is the same but are like this :) ); I think that both options are valid, but not telling the real, complete or full name is wrong. Arussom (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what you think? Arussom (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, since I agree...should we wait for J Greb's approval to take action? Tako (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we can wait his comment, because is better than have a edit-war in the article. Arussom (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW the latter two articles are running on the commonly used names the characters are known under. The former two aren't and really should be changed.
 * "real, complete or full name" is loaded since more often than not, what in-story is "full and correct" includes retcons or later changes. When this particular character was introduced, it was as "Dick Grayson" and "Robin". "Richard" wasn't there until characters were introduced that would not use any nicknames and would be regularly interacting with Robin when not in costume. And even then, the character was still identified outside of the in-story context as "Dick Grayson". "John" is an even more recent and infrequently used addition.
 * There should be no issue with including this in the Publication history since it is part an parcel of how DC has used and presented the character. But in the lead it is inappropriate since it either is an attempt to treat the character as a real person or fram the article in an in-story POV.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're done with the lead stuff - we're on the Info box. You haven't said anything about the idea of dropping "alter ego" (because it's redundant with "notable aliases"), and replacing it with the full name. Tako (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that someone has to mention the complete name somewhere in the article; if is wrong to put it at the begining so put it somewhere else; the Info Box seems to me a good place. Arussom (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And...J Greb is refusing to do the logical thing. The info_box template states: 'Alter ego and Full name are mutually exclusive; the former is for articles where the character has a superhero name, the latter is for characters that go by a shortened version of their given name or a nickname.' Sounds like Dick Grayson to me. Tako (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm agree with you, and the Info Box seems perfect like this to me. Arussom (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, a section on the name - in the publication history - would be a good thing. That could ate least get the item close to the top without over-wighting it. - J Greb (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The infobox is, like the lead, an condensed version of the article. Most time, if it is inappropriate for it to be in the lead, it should not be in the infobox.
 * 2) The aliases, powers/abilities, teams, and partners are a stretch of that since the notable one could be worked into a lead section. For this character those would be:
 * 3) *Aliases - Robin, Nightwing, and Batman. (Just those and in chronological order.)
 * 4) *Teams - Batman Family and Teen titans. (Nixing the rest is a whole different discussion.)
 * 5) *Partners - Batman, Barbara, and maybe Damian.
 * 6) *Abilities are pretty much at the bare bones.
 * 7) A construct that exists at the whim of one or more writers of the comics does not automatically deserve to be place into the infobox.
 * 8) Just because a field exists in the infoboes, that does not mean it must be included. "full name" is present to handle characters that are commonly, in a real world context, know by both a nickname and a longer version. This character is not a case of that.
 * Sorry to bother you but, to understand, I need a things: One or two examples of "characters that are commonly, in a real world context, know by both a nickname and a longer version". Thanks. Arussom (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, even though the Info box gives a clear description of the usage of "full_name" - one that matches Dick Grayson. Goes by a shortened name. But, lets ignore that, I have an idea. Lets just remove "full name" from the infobox template. Because you know, with your silly argument, there is no reason for it all! We should just ignore every character's full name, and only use their nick name. Even though...every other article, ever, does at least a portion of what I'm asking. Including his name just in a section of the article wouldn't do it justice. If we do it your way, and include it in the actual content of the article, people will look at it, and be like "Richard John? Why is that not in the info box? Must be a lie." When is a character's name not a character's name? When a moderator on Wikipedia refuses to include it as the character's full name, and yet, two people here want to see his full name included in the info box. If a field exists for his full name...why would we ignore it? I'm not the only person ever to want to include this info. I've looked through, and there are a bunch of edits to include his name somewhere important, the lead and infobox, and yet. You're the only one fighting it. Will including his name in the infobox somehow kill the article? No. It'll probably improve it. Tako (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, try not to offend nobody, we HAVE to put this information, it WILL improve the article. Like everybody can see, I don't speak english as a mother language, I speak spanish, in spanish Robin is Ricardo Tapia, this is not an important information in the english article, maybe in the spanish one (mention something like "in some contries Bruce Wayne was call Bruno Diaz and Dick Grayson Ricardo Tapia"), but the character, fictional of course, HAS a full name, some people even put a referencen of that... Why Dick doesn't deserve that when Bart (Bart Allen: Bartholomew "Bart" Allen) has it? What is the difference between Dick and Wally (Wally West: Wallace Rudolph "Wally" West)? Why Dick and not Nick (Nick Fury: Nicholas Joseph "Nick" Fury)?. I have seen the work of J Greb and I admire it, but I really need help undersanding this... Arussom (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the character's full name, Richard John Grayson, appear in the Info box and/or lead? &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No to both. Both are lead and infobox are brief overviews of the article that should rely on general, commonly used, information about the character in a real world context. The names used for the character in that manner are "Dick Grayson", "Robin", "Nightwing", and at a stretch "Batman". This dos not preclude adding in the Publication history section either the information about "Dick Grayson" being refined as it happened or, more likely, as a separate subsection. This is not ignoring information but giving it the weight it deserves. And regarding the parameter full_name, it exists for cases like Sgt. Rock or Doctor Strange where the article title, the most common name for the character is made up of an honorific and a surname and the full name - a given name and surname with or without the honorific - is also commonly used. Those aren't code name for which there is an alter ego. Nick Fury is at the rough edge of that since both "Nick Fury" and "Nicholas Fury" are commonly used to refer to the character the character in real world context. - J Greb (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what the info_box template says, the latter [in reference to full name] is for characters that go by a shortened version of their given name or a nickname. Dick is a shortened form of Richard. He goes by that name. Therefore, the full name parameter should in fact - show his full name. There is no reason to expand the publication history to having an entire sub-section on the name. The character's middle name, John, might be excessive, but there's no reason to not include 'Richard' as his full name in the info box. Very few people know or realize that Dick is a shortened version of Richard, and thus, such information would be available to them at a quick glance to the info box. The info box should be a general description of what the article covers - why is a character's name not important enough? Why should they have to read the entire article to get to a one line piece of relevant information? You haven't provided any reason of why his name isn't important, only that "HIS NICKNAME IS USED. THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING USED (except if you want an entire section on his name)" &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: the template. Sad point here: when that was written up there was an assumption of common sense in the treatment of characters and that exactly how it is to be applied didn't need to be elaborately spelled out.. That line should be clarified, however the editor that put it in place, and the one that tends to maintain the infobox templates for the comics, would get pilloried for fixing it at the moment. (Though he probably will any way for pointing that out...) "Very few people know or realize that Dick is a shortened version of Richard..." Please, look at WP:COMMONNAME. By an large that is what is being applied to the article overview that is in the lead and the 'box. Something that "Very few people know" is not a common name for a character. Full stop. Getting into writers' treatment of the character's background and added detail - and yes the decision that some characters would use the more formal "Richard" was a later addition - that should be covered in the body of the article. That is after the infobox and lead. - J Greb (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As WP:COMMONNAME applies to real people, and you were previously arguing that Dick Grayson is not a real person, and therefore should not have a name, I feel as though I should point to
 * WP:Manual of Style/Lead section and WP:Article titles -
 * "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph."
 * In articles about people, literary and artistic works, scientific principles and concepts, and other subjects, the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses.
 * These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article.
 * WP:Official_names
 * Undisputed: "It should always be given early in the article introduction. It should be bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicised. See Lead section."
 * Disputed: "The alternative name should be mentioned early (normally in the first sentence) in an appropriate section of the article."
 * Let's point it out if it's not clear: These all say that an alternative name should appear in the lead. Don't spew "Dick Grayson is not a real person" as an argument, especially when your so cherished WP:COMMONNAME talks solely about the title, not the lead. No one wants to change the title - we're abiding by that, but everything else says something along the lines of "ALTERNATIVE NAMES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LEAD" &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the guideline and policy points...
 * Go back and re-read COMMONNAME. It relates to ALL topics. Refrain from trying to fob it off as only related to real people - or point out how Caffeine, Guinea pig, The Hague, Romeo and Juliet, and the like, all of them in the exemplar list, are "real people".
 * MOS:LEADALT follows from the article title as defined by COMMONNAME. Also, follow through on the entire paragraphs quoted.
 * "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article." What you quoted is correct. Your splitting it up is not. "Dick Grayson" is the nae of the character used as the article title. Additional names for it wold be "Robin", "Nightwing", "Batman", Robin, the Boy Wonder", "Boy Wonder", "Richard Grayson", and "Richard John Grayson" and possibly others which have been used to identify the character in some contexts. Including all of the permutations makes it awkward.
 * Usage in first sentence, the item you sandwiched in between, would cover "Robin" and "Nightwing". Two alternate names for the character that are commonly used to dientify it in secondary source material.
 * As for "official names"... you mean the ones DC uses in the pages at their website: Robin and Nightwing?
 * This also brings up a few other points:
 * WP:UNDUE - A policy that holds the information be presented to neither over or under emphasize its importance. Arguing that a name associated with a character from a single or minimal use trumps a name or names that it is commonly known by and predominantly referd to by both in common use and in secondary sources steps well beyond that.
 * WP:Real world - Part of the general MoS and how Wikipedia should be treating both works of fiction and elements of such works.
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME applies to article titles. It is not relevant to this discussion. The name used in the title, and throughout is Dick Grayson. The discussion is info box and lead.
 * Let's focus on LEADALT, then.
 * By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title.
 * Okay, it's Dick Grayson.
 * When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.
 * Robin, and Nightwing are mentioned in the lead, however, they are not alternate names. Those are his past and current identities. Let's look at UNDUE here too, in the info box, there is also listed The Target, Renegade, Robbie Malone, Freddy Loyd, and Chester Honeywell. Somehow, all of these are more relevant than the character's full name, these identities being one issue, or story arc things, never to be brought up again.
 * These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.
 * Alternative spellings...longer forms...Oh, where is Richard John Grayson? Oh, it's not relevant information, sorry.
 * Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article
 * Oh, hey, sounds like it's more appropriate to use in an infobox, where it has a parameter provided for full name, or in an explanation of his birth.
 * Bringing up Real world is pointless here. Throughout the character's entire publication history, his name has never been established to be something other than Richard John Grayson. This is not biographical information. This is a simple character fact.
 * Let's also mention the fact that this is the ONLY article where the character's full name is not considered to be relevant information. None of these policies, and style guides say "a character's full name is not relevant if they are known by a nick name", yet this is what you keep pointing to. All of the guides DO say to include information about alternate names, including longer versions of their name. This is consistent among all fictional comic character articles I've come across. Again, there is no reason NOT to include his name besides for your reverts of revisions that do add his name properly. A one line mention in the lead, or info box is NOT undue weight, especially considering the fact that everything else in the article will continue to read "Dick Grayson" &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No to both, with some wiggle room. The character was introduced to readers as Dick Grayson. It wasn't until decades later that his middle name was established. As someone pointed out, the infobox is an exceptionally brief encapsulation of the article, we use the name the character is most commonly known by. That said, the Lede is a more expansive summarization of the article, so noting that it was established in such and such issue on such and such date that the character's name was Richard John Grayson seems like it would be okay - especially if it was described in more detail within the article. I would point out that in order to avoid in-universe prose, it would be very smart to find out why the writers decided to expand on Grayson's middle name at that time. That would be worth reading. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why when it was established matters. Superman wasn't called 'Kal-El' in his first appearance. It was introduced...after! In fact, we don't even mention that Superman was originally called Kal-L, in his article, only his modern name. This is the same case as Dick Grayson, except, instead of a completely different name, it's a simple extension of what "Dick" means. Also, I don't think there's really a documented timeline of when Dick was first called "Richard", or when "John" was first added. It's one of those things that is simply accepted as fact. You don't see an explanation of when Henry Pym was first called "Henry" or "Hank". They are interchangeable - and the info box there, and in many different articles lists the full and proper name of the character, as such would be indicated by the info box parameters. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I think that you are conflating the popularity of Dick Grayson/Robin/Nightwing/etc. with that of Superman. Indeed, Kal-El (a question I'm interested in having answered would be when the Kryptonian name was introduced - a quick Google search suggests in '86 in MOS #1) is the character's real name, whereas Dick is just a nickname of the character. I personally think you are selling our readers short in suggesting that they wouldn't know that Dick is a possible nickname for someone named Richard.
 * And yeah, it does matter when it was introduced, since the continual retconning by ego-driven comic writers unable to actually work within a pre-existing framework make it necessary. Since the backgrounds are constantly being rewritten, Richard John Grayson might be changed to "Dwfhqweif Nqwe" from the planet Fartmaster IIII next week. (Laugh if you want, but consider how much writers have screwed with Starfire and Captain America in the span of less than 10 years). I guess my concern is over the durability of character naming as well as offering undue weight to a version of the character as offered by a writer who's other changes to Grayson might have likely been retconned out of existence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about the character's history...up to RIGHT NOW. If it changes in the future, the article can be changed to reflect those changes. That's the entire point of Wikipedia. Information grows and changes, Wikipedia will keep up with those changes. "Richard John Grayson" is something that's been around for around 30 years. Maybe as long, if not longer, as he's been Nightwing. If his name full name isn't relevant, than neither is his history as Nightwing. Or his stints as Batman. We might as well remove his entire publication history, love interests, Skills, abilities, and resources. In fact, scrap the entire article, because everything about the character is up to "ego-driven comic writers unable to work within a pre-existing framework". Read anything in the New 52, and you'll see exactly that. While the article hasn't really been updated with New 52 information, as very little of his new history has been revealed, Richard John Grayson is something that has not changed. It's funny - the Earth-2 version of the character has his name listed as "Richard 'Dick' Grayson". While structured a bit differently, it recognizes and establishes at least the character's proper first name. &#124;&#124; Tako (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm comfortable with this. It is reasonable to think people will come here specifically to answer that question.  Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Yes from me, too. The lead should state "Richard John "Dick" Grayson..." — Jon C.  ॐ  18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Main Infobox Picture Update?
I'm the anonymous user who went in and did my best to update information on his current direction as well as pointing out some Post-Flashpoint differences the best I could and apologize ahead of time. However, I wanted to ask: Is there any way to change the current infobox picture? Perhaps use the Blue Nightwing, Red Nightwing, or maybe even the Agent 37 Incantation since it's more recent? I've been looking at other Legacy characters pages like Donna Troy and Roy Harper and their pages seem to reflect more of recent mantles (not all are the very most recent) and some of the other character pages also have more recent art to them. I don't know you policy on it or whether you're going to utilize whatever the character is mostly known as but I just wanted to put that out here and see what I get. JayAaerow (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick warning
If blatant vandalism keeps happening on a regular basis like it is now, I will be requesting semi-protection in order to keep the article safe from such unacceptable behaviour. That's a promise. DarkKnight2149 22:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Dick Grayson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014230714/http://dccomics.com/dcu/comics/?cm=11864 to http://dccomics.com/dcu/comics/?cm=11864
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213175304/http://tvseriesfinale.com:80/articles/batman-cw-builds-a-series-around-pre-robin-dick-grayson/ to http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/batman-cw-builds-a-series-around-pre-robin-dick-grayson/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726145835/http://www.ugo.com/tv/comic-con-2010-young-justice to http://www.ugo.com/tv/comic-con-2010-young-justice

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dick Grayson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018024021/http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters to http://comicsalliance.com/comics-sexiest-male-characters
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsarama.com/WWPhilly06/DC/DCUPanel.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150424060905/http://comicsalliance.com/grayson-tim-seeley-tom-king-mikel-janin-dc-comics/ to http://comicsalliance.com/grayson-tim-seeley-tom-king-mikel-janin-dc-comics/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/batman-cw-builds-a-series-around-pre-robin-dick-grayson/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)