Template talk:Batman

Batman Names
Since the names of all the alt Batgirls and Robins are listed shouldn't the replacement Batmen be listed as well. Yes I know Azrael and Dick Grayson appear in other places but Stephanie Brown now appears twice, appropriately so, so wh can't they 24.168.27.158 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say that's an argument for removing one of the Stephanie Brown's, not adding more names. Moving Stephanie Brown to a solo entry, since people can of course get details about the character's events on her article. -Markeer 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do that then all of the names should be separated while a leaving a link to the basic Robin and batgirl pages 24.168.27.158 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New Batman enemies article
I a while ago made an batman enemies article consisted of just a little bit more villians than the one used in the template right now. Surprised to find out that it's still there after so long I decided to show you. I doubt that you may use it but hey worth a try showing it to you.Captain Virtue (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to List of Batman Family enemies it's still linked on this template (as that title, left side of template) -Markeer 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No I am referring to what I have on the bottom. It's not really an article I know I am not sure what you call it. But I am really talking about this. User:Captain Virtue/Batman/adversaries which just shows the same thing you see above .Captain Virtue (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Batzarro
Could Batzarro count as Batman family. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a recent and largely minor character, he wouldn't belong on this template. If you can find reliable sources to demonstrate a strong and unique significance of the character in Batman's history, feel free to bring that up here. -Markeer 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I do feel that Joe Chill should be on the template somewhere but I am not sure where. I don't think I even have to explain what strong significance he has done to Batman. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would imagine a strong argument could be found for Joe Chill, but looking at the wikipedia article on that subject, I notice it is decidedly lacking in footnotes or other citation. I'd recommend to anyone wishing to add him to this template to put in the work of improving the source article extensively, and then come back here to discuss reliable sources of his notability to the Batman. -Markeer 17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Didio's comments > Batman's dialogue
Dan Didio's comments that Stephanie "was never really a Robin" override Batman telling Stephanie (on her deathbed by the way) that she was. She doesn't count as a Robin. That's straight from the most pertainent source possible. She no more counts as Robin as Helena did as Batgirl. It is ludicrous to use dialogue by a fictional character as the basis for content on an encyclopedia when the editor of the company says otherwise. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All things being equal, lets not set up a reference section on the talk page, http links are fine.
 * Besides that... Part of what goes into the navbox, among other things, is a reflection of the story content - for which the unspoken consensus for comics seems to be "current continuity". So Didio doesn't "count" Stephanie as Robin, fair enough. Has he, as EIC, dictate a retcon to remove/rework that particular story arc? Otherwise there is going to be some awkward article sections.
 * And a side suggestion to avoid/eliminate this in the future. Maybe we should restructure the "Batman Family" section as:


 * - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the section change for two reasons: 1) a casual navigator can click more immediately to the larger articles without wading through the parenthetical sub-names and 2) comics being what they are, several of the individual characters now fall under more than one heading (e.g. Stephanie Brown as both Robin and Batgirl, Dick Grayson as both Robin and Batman).  For a 16 year old who just saw Dark Knight and always wondered who Robin was since he wasn't in the movie, he can go straight to the article without being confused (and then proceed to be confused there instead of here).  For more knowledgeable searchers, they have multiple options of where they want to go next based on their own criteria.  Strikes me as win-win. -Markeer 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to work. ArtistScientist (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Batwoman is a codename shared between Kathy Kane and her stepdaughter Kate Kane. ArtistScientist (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair the first group can be "By codename" with Azreal, Batwoman, and Catwoman being moved there. All three cover more than on character. - J Greb (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the Batman franchise
This article speaks for itself now. Is it good enough to make it to the template? /Yvwv (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it would belong on the primary navbox. It's already a significant subsection of the main Batman article, so there's no issue of readers being unable to find out more about the topic easily, and for that matter the article appears to just be a slight expansion of that subsection.  I've always supported the inclusion of some attention to the topic on the main article, but I don't see much need for the split-off article, much less adding a link to it in this navbox.  The key phrase of this template (to me at least) is "overview".  A broad first-hit look at the most significant articles surrounding the character, and I'd want to hear a strong well-supported argument as to why this split-off article would be considered one of those. -Markeer 04:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has grown even more. Is anything missing to include it in the template? /Yvwv (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See comments below under Fictional History of Dick Grayson -Markeer 12:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Dick Grayson
Does this belong anywhere in the template. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's linked on the main Dick Grayson page, so wouldn't be needed here. -Markeer 01:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've pared back on the two items added to the Miscellanea section in the last year (Homosexuality in the Batman franchise and Fictional history of Dick Grayson) having looked through both of them. In both cases the articles are spinoff topics from main articles (Batman and Dick Grayson respectively) and can be found on those articles as primary subsections from the top level table of contents.  As neither article on it's own is a primary subject (such as a full character page), I don't believe they need to be included in this navbox.  The mandate of this tool is to be a first-glance overview of topics essential to the character of the Batman, and to manage individuals' ability to arrive at information with a minimum number of clicks.  It is not here to provide a comprehensive guide to every single article relating to the topic on wikipedia.


 * That said, past consensus is what decided that top level mandate, and consensus changes over time. For these specific topics, I'm unable to see any clear consensus for inclusion from these two discussion subsections so I've removed them. Currently both consist only of an editor wishing to include and another editor (in this case myself) disagreeing, which implies a) soft consensus is not to include until others weigh in, given the past conservatism of this page and b) currently there's no "hard" consensus of any kind.


 * So this is a request for others' opinions. Please feel free to speak up :) -Markeer 12:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hush
Don't you think Hush has earned his place in this template? He's growing to be quite the formidable foe, especially in recent comics looking like Bruce Wayne. Cyfin (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hush should definitely be added. He has been the focus of three big storylines in the past decade: Hush, Hush Returns, and Heart of Hush. His has had a strong affect on many other characters, both of the Batman family and other adversaries. He's made a greater impact on the Batman comics than half of the adversaries already listed have made in this decade. Arryc (talk) 11:24, 04 November 2009 (UTC)

Again
Shouldn't Hush be in this list? I think he should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillythePuppet (talk • contribs)
 * I see this is repeatedly proposed but never opposed. So ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Far as I can see, Hush was added to the template a little over two years ago, unless I'm missing something. If the unsigned BillythePuppet wants a reply though, I would argue against Hush's inclusion on the basis of having extremely few appearances over the 75 year history of the character.  Basically one 12 issue series (albeit a popular one) and 3-4 reappearances since then.  Glancing at the article for the character, I feel it should be slapped with a number of "out of universe perspective" tags (e.g. "When Hush resurfaces, he does so with a vengence." When did Wikipedia become a DC comics fan site?  Did I miss a memo?) but that's a matter for that article, not this template.  If this is being brought to a discussion again, I'd argue for removal of the character from the template. -Markeer 23:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of Hush's inclusion of when it comes down to the villains that are already there. He isn't on their level of "classic villain". But if other villains such as the one's mentioned on were added then I would be ok with it. There's still plenty room for more villains to be mention than what's on here for right now. I myself would just request unprotection or just keep it to semi-protection.  −  Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been over a year and a half since the last extensive discussion about criteria for inclusion, so I suppose it's time. If someone wishes to begin the conversation again, I'd suggest opening up a new subsection at the bottom.  I would ask for those serious about discussing this that they at least briefly glance through the previous discussion, which can probably be summarized on this discussion using the Ventriloquist as the test case.


 * I tend toward being a non-inclusionist, preferring a very lean template for simplest top-level navigation, but consensus changes over time and I have no problem if a previous consensus overrides my opinion (I'm only one guy and not an administrator or anything like that). So having linked that discussion I'm out of this for a bit, except to mention that "I think this character is good" is NOT an argument to place it on every one of the (guestimated) 100+ articles that have this template at the bottom.  I'm sure there are real arguments to be made if someone wants to use one to start a new discussion on this. -Markeer 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a plan to let other being included in some pages. I am going to test it on the template with a subtemplate. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. What do you think? If you haven't noticed what the difference is, go to the Batman enemies article, you will notice more and even they are included in their own article thanks to this subtemplate. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Long and short (and why it was reverted): Having a different field lay out for each character isn't going to work. There are ways to "expand" the fields, but it would be for a "class" or "set" of articles. - J Greb (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind then. But your excuse isn't valid, you did the same exact thing with this template and this and your subtemplate worked just fine. Quit saying there are other ways to do it, if you are not going to explain yourself better on how it works or do it yourself. It would be nice if you quit acting like a the word of everything comic book related. −  Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a bit of "lemons and limes". The X-Men Brotherhood sub is an attempt to deal with grouping the characters together under the team listing while not eliminating the individual entries. Yes, it's a way to re-jig the lists, but with in a theme. Not a case where each article where the 'box is applies generates a unique list of links.
 * If we are going for a "expanded" list for the villain pages - not something I'd be against - what are we looking at? Are we going for List of Batman Family enemies or something shorter?
 * Once there we've got two options - a flag or the switch option. If we have just the two states - the non-villain page 16 and the villain page 34 - a flag works fine, even if has to be added to those 34 pages. If there ar going to be places withing the list that the PAGENAME is going to be important, then the longer/larger switch is going to be needed.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, central rogues gallery is similar to what I am looking for. Although not all those villains on the list because some that on there don't even look like they need to be on there. Solomon Grundy fighting Batman doesn't make him Batman rogue for example. What you are explaining might work but it does sounds a little technical for my mind and sometimes stuff like that I got to see just to fully understand it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... so doing a rough run on that section...


 * Is that about right?
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's about right. Simon Hurt should not have been in Central Rogues gallery though. He is a more minor villain. And I have already stated my point of Solomon Grundy. He's a more Green Lantern and Justice Society centric villain. Ventriloquist could be argued as a base villain while (in my opinion) Hush is not a base villain, he's too new and not classic enough for that. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK... we have a working "Option A" or "Option B", though it has a hic-up (Ra's). - J Greb (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There we go, I like that. Including more on the villain pages themselves is a good idea. Although my opinion differ on where of some being where they are at. Like Hush (if we going as far to include him, then Black Mask belongs as well) being on base and the Ventriloqist MAYBE belonging on base but overall that's a nice format. Also on this section, there was a few more that are included that's probably questionable. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Batman villains
Do you think Killer Moth, Maxie Zeus and the Terrible Trio should be included in the template. Batman has fought them a lot. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories
editprotected

Please add the following to this template:

Thanks! GregorB (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ JPG-GR (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial
Bane·Black Mask·Deadshot·Catwoman·Clayface·Great White Shark·Harley Quinn·Hush·Joker·Killer Croc·Killer Moth·Mad Hatter·Man-Bat·Maxie Zeus·Mr. Freeze·Penguin·Poison Ivy·Professor Milo·Ra's al Ghul·Riddler·Scarecrow·Terrible Trio·Tweedledum and Tweedledee·Two-Face·Ventriloquist & Scarface·Victor Zsasz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Virtue (talk • contribs)

P.S. This was originally signed by the one who posted it. But this section kept being changed around by other editors. So not all the discussion is his. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pagemonster18, 17 May 2010
Black Mask Killer Moth Mr. Zsasz

Pagemonster18 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this editor is requesting some additions to the /adversaries section. I suggest this needs discussing first. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
While the current lay out is reasonable for most of the listed articles, there is a way to expand the list just for the "foes" articles.

The nutshell is that the template can be coded to show a larger list on those pages while retaining the current 15 for the other pages.

- J Greb (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Azrael
I moved Azrael from shared codenames for several reasons.

Jean-Paul was Batman for a short time, and should be listed with the other names of individuals who were one or more of the shared code names (a question of clarity).

To consider Azrael a shared codename isn't true in relation to this navigational purpose of this template. The name has been applied to a lot of people (similar to Brother Blood, for example), most of whom have nothing to do with the Bat-family.

And again for clarity, though this time, due to what remains: all are variations on bat, robin, and include huntress and nightwing.

And since this is about navigation, this would seem to be appropriate. - jc37 18:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I have a small concern about both Jean-Paul Valley and Selina Kyle's names on the template not being links themselves. Probably a trivial concern, but I have a mental image of people trying to click on those names and blinking for a second. Both names have redirects to Azrael and Catwoman anyway, so we should probably just link them there on the template.  Yes, it will mean two links each, but personally I'm okay with that. -Markeer 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As an option you could link to them like this: Jean-Paul Valley (Azrael) and Selina Kyle (Catwoman).-5- (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I did the latter. (I just figured out what you were saying, markeer : )
 * I dunno which is better (if anything is), do you have a preference? - jc37 06:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting linking both the name and the codename, but the single links -5- suggested (which you placed live) are simpler and better, thanks. Sorry for the confusion. -Markeer 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alfred
I moved Alfred out of supporting characters.

Since the template has been redesigned to group/show (for lack of a better description) the "suit-wearing"/"codename-wearing" characters, that would seem to apply to Alfred too.

When we consider how many times he wore the suit, and that before barbara gordon became oracle, he often acted in that fashion at the batcave.

And speaking of that, he's a batcave regular.

(Not to mention the incident of becoming the outsider.)

So with all that in mind, it just would seem to make sense to place him with that group. - jc37 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit proposal
Scarecrow (comics) has been moved to Scarecrow (DC Comics). Can it be changed on this template?-5- (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like somebody moved it back. Scarecrow (DC Comics) currently redirects to Scarecrow (comics). – droll &#91;chat&#93;


 * Yes... and there is an explination on the article's talk page as to why it was moved back. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other creators
I like this feature. many other templates for comics franchises dont include this, and dont have such lists. I would strongly recommend that people create such lists for the major franchises, and add them to the various templates. its really not helpful to see only lee and kirby as the "creators" for fantastic four. yes, they are the creators of the original 4 heros and most of the first supporting characters, but surely later writers and artists deserve to be in that spot as well. Pogo possum has walt kelly, period, but every time a comic has a redesign, a new lineup, someone has "created" that scenario, and deserves mention (assuming its a notable creation, as always).(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Affiliations?
I noticed that Template:Superman has an "Affiliations" group, and added a similar group here. My edit was reverted with a summary stating Navboxes don't do teams. If it's OK to have "Affiliations" on the Superman navbox since March 2010, why isn't it OK here? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The blunt 2¢? Clean up hasn't hit the Superman navbox yet.
 * Beyond that, adding "teams" into these boxes or full rosters into team navboxes has long been a "bad idea" given how fluid those rosters tenuous the connection can be. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Strange
I believe that Professor Hugo Strange should be included in the villains template. First, he was Batman's first major recurring super villain, appearing in Detective Comics #36 in 1940 and preceding both the Joker and Catwoman by serval months. While the character was one of Batman's lesser known villains after his heyday in the 1940s, he had a resurgence in popularity beginning in 1990 with the Batman: Prey storyline. The character has also gained further notoriety in the past year when it was rumored that he would be a villain in The Dark Knight Rises. While the rumors turned out to be false (at least for now -- I guess we will see what "evil mad scientist" role Alon Abutbul is playing when the film is released), the character gained further awareness by Batman fans due to all the press that the character received. Furthermore, he is featured as the main villain in the upcoming video game Batman: Arkham City, which will surely elevate him onto the A-list of Batman's rogues gallery.TheLastAmigo (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Long & short: Hugo Strange is cocvered by the template, just not in the default "short" list of villains. Strange is one of 16 articles that pop-up on the villain specific articles.
 * - J Greb (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help fixing Blockbuster link
When I show this template on Bane (comics), the Enemies section includes a link to Blockbuster (comics) that should be changed to Blockbuster (DC Comics). However, when I view Template:Batman directly, I see no such link. Could someone please point out what I'm doing wrong and fix the link? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in sub-template designed to only show on the "villains" pages - Batman/adversaries. When the link was "repaired" the editor only fixed the switch, not the actual link. - J Greb (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks J Greb. When I went to Batman/adversaries I didn't see "Blockbuster" listed in Read mode.  However, when I viewed the template in Edit mode, I saw the link.  Thanks again!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Red Hood
I think Red Hood should be added as he is one of Batman's modern recurring foes like Hush, and sometimes randomly appears as the Joker so if Joker is included in the template and Hush is, I think you should add him as he is still more recurring than Hush. (Jogoblin (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC))
 * The Red Hood article has two major sections: Joker and Jason Todd, both of which are already included in the template. GoingBatty (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Villains
The villains could have these characters on it.

Bane · Catwoman · Clayface · Deadshot · Firefly · Harley Quinn · Hugo Strange · Hush · Joe Chill · Joker · Killer Croc · Killer Moth · Lady Shiva · Mad Hatter · Man-Bat · Mr. Freeze · Penguin · Poison Ivy · Professor Pyg · Ra's al Ghul · Riddler · Scarecrow · Solomon Grundy · Two-Face · Ventriloquist and Scarface · Victor Zsasz

Finister2 (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Recap:
 * Long standing consensus has been that the template is not the place to include all the Bat-villains. The 17 that show up where ever the template is placed are the "core" set and that is not likely to change. This list is part of your suggestion:
 * Bane, Catwoman, Clayface, Harley Quinn, Hush, Joe Chill, Joker, Killer Croc, Mad Hatter, Man-Bat, Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Poison Ivy, Ra's al Ghul, Riddler, Scarecrow, and Two-Face
 * A general consensus with the comics related 'boxes is to avoid 1) minor characters and 2) "borrowed" foes. This would eliminate:
 * Professor Pyg (minor character), Solomon Grundy (borrowed from the original GL), and Lady Shiva (who is more or less a "DC villain", not a "Batman" one).
 * A compromise was put in place to allow jumping between villain articles. This sees the "Enemies" group exapand on articles it contains. This covers:
 * Deadshot, Firefly, Hugo Strange, Killer Moth, Mr. Zsasz, and Ventriloquist.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Shiva
I think we should discuss Lady Shiva again.

Yes, she comes from the comics involving Richard Dragon. However, he has been somewhat assimilated into the bat-mythos, along with Bronze Tiger and Lady Shiva.

At this point, while they have appeared elsewhere (like other bat-related characters), I think it could easily be argued that they are more part of the bat-mythos than anything else. - jc37 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Shiva at a stretch, maybe. The set though is more "DC martial arts" than Batman. - J Greb (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Outside of Richard Dragon, Kong Fu Master (and the yearly DC crossover events), each one has been primarily in the batbooks. Not to mention that Bronze Tiger's claim to fame for many years was pretty much that he killed the Kathy Kane Bat Woman (See his Who's who entry), which led to him being used in the Suicide Squad.
 * This is really no different that the League of Assassins and Sensei started out as villains for Deadman, but obviously have been subsumed into the batbooks. (Even to being retconned to include the Cain family.)
 * And I might have agreed that we could look to the Question. But even that character was subsumed into the batbooks.
 * Are there any other examples? I'm having a tough time coming up with them. - jc37 23:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dragon seems to sit outside of things. Both from the two self tilted series and that he's been used as a "teacher" for both of DC's versions of the Question and the post-Crisis Huntress. And being a "teacher" for a Bat-character should not be criteria for inclusion here.
 * Tiger may be a cases of YMMV. From where I stand that character is more notable for his use in the Suicide Squad books than killing the Silver Age Batwoman. There really isn't much to place him within this template.
 * Shiva though... She's become the flip side of Dragon - teaching other characters, but not with the goal of serenity, but for violence. She's got a stronger connection with the Bats more from her desire to test herself against the best martial artists in the DCU, which the writers seem bound and determined to be the Bat-Family. If it weren't for the prominent role with DC's version of Vic Sage and the "feud" with Black Canary, I'd agree that she's become a Bat character with the help/hurt arcs with Batman, Tim, and Cassandra rather than a general DCU "big bad".
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm actually talking about outside the DC universe usage. For example, several characters who appeared in Who's who suddenly were used for suicide squad. the reasoning was (among other things) that they wanted to cut down on these "extra" characters (for various reasons). Certain characters' popularity caused them to stick around longer. (there are interviews which I believe confirm this) But up until they decided to use BT in suicide squad (with the other villains and borderline cases), he was appearing in brave and bold and other bat books exclusively.
 * And when training, what comics were they appearing in? I think that these are no less comparable to how poison ivy and scarecrow were members of the Injustice gang. They still were clearly bat-characters.
 * There are innumerable characters that start out elsewhere,, who end up a part of a specific hero' family/rogue's gallery.
 * I think it's hard to suggest that the league of assassins isn't part of the bat books. And so with that goes, BT and LS. Richard dragon hasn't appeared much of anywhere outside of his series' and the company crossovers (oh except to note him training or working with various bat characters, including Bruce himself.)
 * Anyway, perhaps as a compromise, adding a separate line concerning the League of Assassins, with links to sensei, BT, and LS (and anyone else who may have an article) might work? This all ties into Ra's al ghul... - jc37 02:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Villains
I think Black Mask (comics), Deadshot, Hugo Strange, Killer Moth, Maxie Zeus, Red Hood (With Joker and Jason Todd alter egos in them  and the two links redirects to their sections on the Red Hood page) and Ventriloquist should be added as they are like the "primary of the secondary" Batman Villains. (Injuegue (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
 * No. See above. - J Greb (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Besides, if Hush (comics) is added to the template and all of them are more recurring and have more impact on Batman, I see no reason why they should not be added. (Injuegue (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC))
 * I mean "No, see above", Jogoblin. If that is not clear, I'm sorry. This has been broached many times and discussed many times without the "base" foes being changed. Please read the other discussions both on the current talk page and the archives.
 * - J Greb (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Karankyle, 7 August
I think Red Hood and Ventriloquist should be added as:
 * Red Hood is the current identity of Jason Todd and he is a very recurring Batman villain in the modern mythos. You might argue that he is already in the supporting characters section and can't be added into the enemies section, but like Catwoman, you can put his alter ego in the supporting cast section and his villain persona in the enemies section. His apperances are a bit like Hush's so if he's added, Red Hood can be.

(Karankyle (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Ventriloquist is like the last of the "core" Batman villains but is still a core one as he has faced Batman more than any other not included villain.


 * If you were reading the post above, the same statement holds: "No. See above." Read the other discussions and the archives.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I don't think that Joe Chill is a core Batman villain. Yes, he may have been the one to kill Martha and Thomas Wayne but he apart from that, he only appears in one story arc in the Batman mythos and nothing else, even doesn't have the name of the burglar who killed Uncle Ben.

Karankyle (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you actually going to discuss things to see if consensus has changed our are you going to continue to disrupt every page you edit? - J Greb (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to to bad things, I just want to help. I tried to create a page for Selina Kyle's appearances in other media and you redirected it to the "In other media" section in Catwoman. I tried to create a list of all the batman issues and you declined it. I tried to contribute an idea to this template of deleting Joe Chill as he is not a core villain and you give me a statement that hurts my feelings. Just for your information J Greb, whenever you do something like this to me, I always feel heartbroken and its only you, not the other editors. Do you know that I wanted to write a letter to you showing my appreciation but when seeing this statement I shrieked and changed my mind? Can you just listen to one of my ideas instead of declining it? Karankyle (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Hush or add the more popular villains
How is Hush more important than Deadshot, Firefly, Killer Moth, Mr. Zsasz, and specially Hugo Strange and Ventriloquist?? Strange is just Batman's oldest recurring villain and, like Croc, the Ventriloquist quickly became one of the most recurring villains. Both Strange and the Ventriloquist have been in at least 6 episodes of 2 or more TV series, while Hush has been in none and is unlikely to ever be in one. Even Maxie Zeus and firefly has had more mainstream exposition.--20-dude (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I personally might be inclined to agree at least as far as adding Hugo Strange and Killer Moth, and removing Hush, the current list was based upon actual references (See the talk page archive), after some very lengthy discussions. Do you have some in support of your assertions? - jc37 23:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm hush was added merely because it was requested several times without opposition (see further up this talk page). I will have to agree with you that Hush should be removed, or at least deprecated through the use of J Greb's template magic. - jc37 00:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really a problem there... just a snip in the sub-template.
 * And I'd tend to agree with it since Hush is the odd one out - a comics only character.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur for the reasons stated above. Hush figured prominently in one very important comic book story but does not cross into other media and would be unknown to the public in general, even BtAS fans. Doczilla  STOMP! 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012
Remove Hush from the villains section or, better, add The Ventriloquist, Black Mask, Hugo Strange. Hush has no mainstream precence: while he has not appeared anywhere outside comics, they have at least 4 appearances each in two or more TV series. I'd say that even the likes of Firefly, Killer Moth or Cavalier are more important to the mythos.

20-dude (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The page containing Hush is Batman/adversaries, which is only semi-protected. You should probably read up about #switch functions before you edit it though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assessing this. I've now made the edit. Hopefully I got the syntax right : ) - jc37 16:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. - J Greb (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Template Order
I think every section of the template, apart from "creators" should be categorized alphabetically. For the "Batman family" section, I think you could place "Azrael""Shared codenames", while her alter ego in the "Character names" section. For the "(Catwoman)" in "Character names" section, you could delete it and place "Selina Kyle" in supporting cast section as she has never been truly let into the Batman family, only considered a close ally and being rejected from the family. Talia al Ghul is more of a villain that supporting cast as she only helps Batman when she feels pitiful for him or their interests align. Red Hood could be added as he is a very popular alias of The Joker and the current identity of Jason Todd who is a core character in the mythos, very recurring as Red Hood and has his own Red Hood and the Outlaws series which notes his infamy. Thanks! TheBat&#38;TheCat (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ventriloquist, Black Mask and Hugo Strange
How can I make a case to prove that those 3 should be listed as well?

Killer Moth was once relevant; however, his mainstream precense is terrible.

The 3 characters I'm mentioning have been around for over 20 years, and have been the lead villain in 5 or more TV stories and have been the main villain of at least one crossover or long story arc.

Ventriloquist / Scarface: Very recurring in comics, his comical look makes him a favorite for cameos in Arkham scenes (both in comics and animation). Was the main villain in the Batman: Cataclysm arc. Killed off in the past continuity and restored in the New 52. In Batman: The Animated Series he appeared in Read My Lips, Catwalk and Double Talk as the main villain, plus Lock-Up, Trial, Over The Edge; the dummy was constanty seen in the backgroun of Batman Beyond and he made a silent cameo in Justice League. In the Batman, he appeared in "The Big Dummy", "A Fistful of Felt" and "The End of The Batman".

Hugo Strange: Is the oldest of the recurring enemies of Batman. He was the main villain in "Strange Apparitions", one of the turning points of the Batman character. He was the main villain of one episode of Batman: The Animated Series, made a cameo in Justice League Unlimited, and with 7 episodes was the third most recurring foe in The Batman (after the Joker and the Penguin). He's a recurring character in Young Justice.

Black Mask: Bacame the lead crime boss of Gotham in recent year, which made him the main villain in War Games and a number of Catwoman issues, as well as one of the main players in Under the Hood. He appeared in 3 episodes of The Batman and 2 of Batman: The Brave and the Bold.

The next in fame would be Firefly, however he has never been the main villain of any long arc.

--20-dude (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely Hugo Strange. He's historically important as Batman's first long-term enemy, the earliest candidate to be his Moriarty. Doczilla  STOMP! 15:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hugo Strange is Batman only, historically important, the villain in Arkham City and generally a big deal. Should definitely go in. I'm also partial to adding Hush (but not the others), but Hugo Strange's omission should strike anyone looking at the table as an editorial oversight.Zythe (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've opposed the inclusion of these three in the past, as the editorial consensus of the template was to keep it extremely small and lean. But, time has gone by and it's expanded so it's certainly a good idea to consider those past decisions again.  Adding these three would involve moving to a second line on the "Villains" section, which wouldn't horribly expand the navbox, but I will ask that editors respect the guidelines of Template:Batman/doc to note verifiable reliable sources for each inclusion.  "X character was in 5 episodes" is an argument for inclusion, not evidence of notability on it's own.  Multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources is, as always, the standard for inclusion for wikipedia. -Markeer 13:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hugo Strange is notable historically for being Batman's first long-term enemy, the original candidate to be his Moriarty until cooler villains came along. So yes on Hugo. But Firefly? No, no, no, no, and no.  Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the next in line would SO NOT be Firefly but either Hush or Deadshot. Giving a little thought I think I am down with these inclusions though. Jhenderson 7 7 7  13:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine the way it is. Although if you would want more than just the top 15. Then yeah Hugo Strange and Ventriloquist would probably be next in line. They are probably the oldest villains on the hidden villain category. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Adversaries (again)
I've thought for some time Hugo Strange should be added. Anyone like to help find references for this? - jc37 23:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly we did not go with a consensus for Joe Chill. It was just a bold edit. One editor had a problem with it and I don't think it belongs with the other villains either. If we were determining consensus that would most likely be a draw. J Greb is mostly reverting because he is the one that added him with no consensus. Also navbox is not really for references. If anything top # lists are a good source..but you said they weren't reliable to editors whenever they showed it to you last time I remembered. I honestly am trying to assume good faith but it feels that WP:Own is going on here. Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also the protection is very unnecessary. The protection might have been important then but it shouldn't be indefinite. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not about OWN, it's about stability.
 * Batman is inarguably one of the top three well-know comic super hero characters. (Superman and Spider-Man being the other two.) Batman's large stable of adversaries leads to a constant edit warring of this template. (Before you disagree, look to the archives of this page, and to the page's edit history.) So, following Wikipedia policy, we're relying on references here.
 * Do I think other adversaries could be added? Sure. Do I have good references for this? Not yet, but I'm slowly working on it. And so, I was asking if others might help.
 * And incidentally, ad hominem attacks probably aren't the most helpful argument... - jc37 00:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I never disagreed. I do know of the edit warring. But it's honestly because we are like "that villain doesn't belong" a little too much. Now almost all of the important villains are there and we didn't have that much edit warring. I think you are protective on something that you have created ourselves. More inclusions can be a good thing. After all Wikipedia should be about encouraging editing and including. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also this navbox is not crowded at all to worry about more inclusions. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is merely a navbox. designed to help navigation. it shouldn't be considered an all inclusive list, or in anyway a substitute for content. We have articles and list pages for that : )


 * Speaking of "shouldn't be listed here", though... the tweedles? anarky? kgbeast? And Joe Chill, aside from being reprinted forever as part of the origin, isn't much in the way of a mainstream recurring adversary... And red hood is in a similar situation for the joker's origin. If anything it's more known these days as a moniker for Jason. - jc37 00:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Those are only half the villains with articles...but at least all of them have been in more than one media adaptions or something like that. It sounds like Anarky is going to be a main antagonist in the new Batman animated series. Also it being a featured article implies that he is at least he is notable. I think Red Hood is fine but the rest I agree can be debatable. I agree with the Joe Chill statement. I think he belongs in the navbox. If anything him being described as a supporting character (like Batman's parents) sounds more fitting even though he is a bad guy more than a good guy. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the animated series that I was talking about on him being the main antagonist. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I changed the subject and and also assumed WP:Own. If anything I can move my changing subject as a different section and then we can focus on Hugo Strange on a different section. Also about him I could probably find sources if I know what you are trying to look for. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are looking for as a source. Is it something like this? Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends. If that is a site where anyone from the net can post an opinion, then prolly not. If not, and (even better) it has editorial oversight etc by Mtv or whomever, then probably yes. Regardless, nice find, by the way : ) - jc37 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think MTV is a fine source BUT...the article does admit that he is not as well know as someone like Joker or Catwoman so he might be fine where he is. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

batman/adversary
I was trying to do a compromise that I would hope me and J Greb. I know a lot of editors don't like these switch devices. For good reason. They make navigating more confusing. but I just want to divide the villains that are listing and the villains that are not listing to just not confuse one who is actually navigating the box.

Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proposing your idea here.
 * I agree that the two types should be split, but how about placing the blue box for "Primary", instead. We tend to try to avoid "other X", I think. - jc37 23:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If that's the way you and other editors prefer it. That's fine. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of this goes back to why the template was locked years ago, so bare with me.
 * Ideally a navigation box facilitates movement among articles related to a core topic. It should do this without being overly cluttered and without presenting editorial judgment.
 * At one point all the articles for Batman's foes were being pushed into the template. That was making the template itself hard to navigate. At that point, it was hashed out to limit the template to the "tent pole" villains - which was a slightly smaller list that what is there right now. (And IIRC Chill was included as "Whiteout him, there would have been no Batman".)
 * That made some sense at the time, and worked. Aside from various pushes for this or that character to be added. And frankly that's where the sub-template came from. The "List" had been more less set and the sub at least allowed for the bulk of the articles not to get a navbox swamped by the villains.
 * Now, I can see the argument for ditching it. At this point its a recurring argument of "What about..." that would make sense is most of them weren't couched in fanis stumping. And the request for some sort of secondary source showing that the villain is a major topic is greeted as more geared for articles and not navboxes.
 * If we are going this way, I really do not think that a label of "Primary" anything is a good step forward. It is an editorial judgment as far as this template goes - even if there is consensus for it on this talk page. Either we just have the one section or we split it off almost entirely.
 * - J Greb (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the look of this and the two separate groupings (and totally agree it's time to reduce the protection on this template). I'm neutral to the word "primary" and have no opinion on that. -Markeer 17:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's other words we can use besides "primary" I'm sure. Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't have a strong opinion either way.
 * As a suggestion, I think the "second tier" list should only be those recurring adversaries who really could be on the regular displayed list, but who we lack definitive references for. Which is why I question the inclusion of the tweedles, anarky, kgbeast, and even joe chill and red hood. - jc37 15:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I (maybe) agree with Kgbeast and Tweedles but I think the rest are fine (even though I disagree with where Joe Chill is at). Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How about "famed adversaries". I am trying to make a statement that goes with why you guys chose the certain villains. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Famed" is as troubling as "Primary" - it's editorializing. In an article, there would need to be a source other than the comics/shows/films supporting the statements that one of the characters is "Famed" or "Primary".
 * On my talk page you asked if I has an alternate suggestion for "Primary", the honest truth is I don't. I don't think we can reasonable split up the foes, even if they get moved to a separate template, without making the template into a mini-article or carrying its own footnotes. Neither of which is a good solution.
 * The best I can offer is probably the hardest thing to do. Look at the list and ask yourself:
 * Which characters would someone outside of comics book fandom expect to be there, and
 * Which characters would a fan touch on when giving a general overview of Batman and the related mythos to someone new to the comics.
 * When I answer those, I come up with, for #1, (and I tend to alphabetize, not rank) Bane, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Joker, Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Poison Ivy, Riddler, Scarecrow, and Two-Face. And for #2, those plus Anarky, Clayface, Hugo Strange, Hush, Joe Chill, Killer Croc, Killer Moth, Mad Hatter, Man-Bat, Ra's al Ghul, Red Hood, and Ventriloquist. I might add Black Mask to that given the intersect with Catwoman and Stephanie, but that would be it, the basics that should be here in one field.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're list is definitely missing Deadshot (among maybe others).
 * Come on we have two editors that are for the dividing. The consensus seems official but I want to at least keep you satisfied too. Perhaps the dividing can be done without words. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I meant by the hardest thing to do. When providing a general overview, not every thing gets put in. Characters like Deadshot, Firefly, Calender Man, the Tweeds, and so on are not needed for that. Some like Chill, Killer Moth, and the Red Hood get hit on when you explain where some of the broad stroke characters came in or went. Just waring the fan-hat it is very easy to say that it we have the article, and it strongly invokes "Batman", then it is in the navbox, no matter how large it gets. The hard part is stepping back and seeing what part of that swamp can be cleared to make the 'box actually useable. And I'm all for being included, but calling consensus at this point seems a bit early. - J Greb (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How are you determining who doesn't belong. I am determining that he does belong with sources or two which is a far better opinion maker (for Wikipedia) than maybe what you are doing. I am not wearing no fan-hat at all and I resent that remark. Right now the villains in here are probably fine to stay. I can probably make a consensus on that later. Just let's not change the subject (on this particular section) about that yet. I also do agree that it is too early for consensus to take action. I will wait for at least a week or two or when the thread dies down if the majority vote that it's ok. As long as I won't be reverted from you. Because I do fear that you will do such a thing. Also I changed this example navbox again. My prose is from Template: Green Lantern mostly.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm following how an article on the inclusion "DC Comics' infamous mercenary" is support for inclusion of the character here. Nor a single page out of a 2009 "Top 100" list that is more about the character's general use instead of how it fits in with Batman. If you are going to use sources, the sources should support "Whey here" not just that the character is notable for an article.
 * I'm sorry, but "You're list is definitely missing..." sounded like it was coming from a fan's POV. Again, if I miss read that, I'm sorry.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is you are totally off to subject. You accuse me of POV...but you're list is POV. So you might need to get the speck out of you're eye first. All those villains that are unhidden was decided by consensus from sources. So they are fine. You're list was determined by you're assumption. My source might not determine that he is a Batman enemy (even though it talks specifically about that) although there is other sources out there but I am sure you will question those too. Accusing someone of fan POV sounds a little like assuming bad faith. Sometimes J Greb I think you need to be a little less blunt about that sometimes. "Sounds like" doesn't make it officially true. Jhenderson 7 7 7  13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ..and now IRONICALLY I am probably getting too blunt and full of lecturing (like you) and if so I apologize. Let's not talk about this Deadshot thing anymore. He wasn't the only villain that I thought was missing but that's ok. It's called opinion. Opinion doesn't make me a fan of the said character. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I started writing rather lengthy set of respones/comments, and realised it was starting to look like a research paper, soo, here's the incredibly short version:

I think that for "primary" (whatever we call it): The three from Batman #1 - Joker, Catwoman and Penguin. Add the Riddler, the Scarecrow, and Two-face.

Most of the rest are either mob bosses or martial artists with a nom de plume, or are those who were present at some presumably significant event in someone in the Bat-family's backstory, or have become more visible in the broader DCU, than just being in Gotham.

Anyway, here are the 3 tiers I came up with, based on way too much research lol


 * Joker
 * Catwoman
 * Penguin
 * Riddler
 * Scarecrow
 * Two-face

--


 * Hugo Strange
 * Ra's al Ghul


 * Mad Hatter


 * Man-bat


 * Killer Croc


 * Clayface


 * Poison Ivy


 * Mr. Freeze


 * Bat-mite

And maybe


 * Joe Chill
 * Red Hood


 * Bane


 * Killer Moth


 * Cavalier


 * Cluemaster


 * Copperhead
 * Blockbuster
 * Catman
 * Firefly


 * Black Mask
 * Ventriloquist


 * Terrible Trio


 * Harley Quinn

Enjoy : ) - jc37 08:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting list. Here's my take on this. This list (even though I don't agree with the ranking) contains the top ten in my opinion. All the other 15 and 16 could maybe go in with the hidden. Although I can't deny that Harley Quinn has gotten really popular thanks to the animated series and also that Hugo Strange is a classic Batman villain that only real Batman knowledgeable fans probably heard of. Kind of like Ultra-Humanite as a Superman villain. Interesting thing about the unhidden list is it's just about the same on which character is considered main antagonist of Batman: The Animated series while it's only missing the Ventriloquist. That would probably be my top 16 imo. We all have different opinions on that it seems. Jhenderson 7 7 7  14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Template protection
I've changed the protection from full to semi. But note: This obviously isn't an invitation to start edit warring again. By doing so you just make it more likely that it will stay fully protected. - jc37 00:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I and many editors will have this on the watchlist. If an editor is edit-warring when he has been warned he really needs to be blocked for a certain amount of time probably more so than protect the template. Because there is other editors than the one who has edit warred. They don't need to be punished just because of the certain editor. But that's just my opinion. You are the administrator though. Not me. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Protection isn't intended to be "punishment", indeed, the goal of protection tends to be "preventative, not punitive".
 * And your opinion is of course welcome : )
 * Admins are merely editors with some extra tools and responsibilities. - jc37 15:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree with that. Although it does take quite a bit of honor to be one since it takes votes by other editors to pass on being one. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

consensus on villains belonging
This is my opinion on where the characters go. I want you to add yours. You can even add more. Hopefully we can make a consensus on that.

Oracle & Beyond
Oracle and Batman (Terry McGinnis) are notably missing on the "shared codenames" and "character names" bracket, respectively; Barbara wasnt the only person to that codename, and Project Batman Beyond reveals that Terry and Matt (his brother) are his genetic offspring. --72.67.93.68 (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia article dedicated to the DC Comics characters who used the codename Oracle. Oracle (comics) is a disambiguation page for Barbara Gordon and four non-related characters.
 * Although the template documentation states "characters who appeared in other media (such as Terry McGinnis), shouldn't appear here", it was written before McGinnis appeared in mainstream comic continuity. Therefore, I think it's worthwhile to discuss adding McGinnis.  GoingBatty (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Changes
I'm reverting this template to remove a significant amount of changes, primarily by the editor DanDudd88 but with some additions by other editors. While I respect the extensive amount of work, I have three major issues with these changes:


 * 1) The addition of so many links and sections has effectively doubled the size of this template, which appears on a large number of pages, subsequently increasing the length of all of those pages (although the template is click-reduced by default on those with multiple navboxes). Navigation boxes are intended primarily to facilitate one's ability to find out more information on a topic in a simple and direct manner, so in my opinion they work best when kept very tight and focused.  Batman is a topic that links across a great many Wikipedia articles so it's reasonable that someone looking at any one of those articles might wish to find out more about a variety of subjects.  So this navbox has value, but that value diminishes when that theoretical someone is faced with an enormity of options.  This box works best with a broad overview, and little more than that.  Many of its links lead to other broad subjects, so it shouldn't take any searcher more than two clicks to find a specific subject. But first and foremost they should have an index, not a full list.


 * 2) The Template Documentation section (found directly under the template here) very clearly expresses a long-standing editorial consensus that adding villains should only be done with appropriate documentation. If memory serves, this documentation note was only made about villains since there was a great deal of back-and-forth on that subject some years back, but I would say that the essence of the note applies to any characters, and most links of any kind.  Regardless, the new villain additions obviously have not respected this consensus guideline.


 * 3) There's one particular new section I have a very strong opinion against: The "Other Writers" section added by Editor DanDudd88 is a direct duplication of the list that one finds by clicking on Other Writers. I would strongly argue against increasing the length of so many pages for information that is already available with one click, and which has a presumed bias regarding choices of which creators and writers are important or not.  Previous consensus was to only add the official creators of the character and one link toward "other" to avoid such bias.  I continue to agree with that consensus.

I'll leave a note on DanDudd88's talk page as a courtesy but this is a subject for any editor to talk about as I believe such large changes to this template should be discussed before being restored. -Markeer 15:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. He added too much...but looking for a consensus here feels like looking for acorns in a peanut shell. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Hi, this is my proposal for the template since there are a lot of major issues going on with the layout of this template.
 * Firstly, I don't think the villains under "additional villains" (in the real Wikipedia template) are needed since all of them lack fame (or infamy), like literally ALL of them.
 * Lady Shiva isn't a villain since she willingly retrained Batman and bears respect for earth's heroes, so, I suggest we put her under "Supporting Characters".
 * Firefly isn't famous (or infamous) enough to be a "primary" villain.
 * All the locations are in Gotham City, so, I think we should put them in a long bracket, to make readers understand that all these locations except Bludhaven, Lazarus Pit and Santa Prisca are in Gotham.
 * GothCorp isn't featured at all except in Batman: The Animated Series since its comic appearances in "Legends of the Dark Knight" are non-canonical
 * I think we should change "Shared Codenames" to "Codenames", like an umbrella section for all codenames (including Catwoman and Azrael).

--Zinthos7 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Batman (Terry McGinnis)
please add Batman (Terry McGinnis) to the roster. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ventriloquist
Any reason Ventriloquist (comics) shouldn't be added. He is been quite recurring as an antagonist? Many media appearances of him. He's quite recognizable too. I might boldly add him but I want to make sure there is no objections. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I added (or re-added) Ventriloquist actually, but I also argue that Anarky, Deathstroke and Firefly be included in the list as well. If media appearances count? Anarky was pushed very heavily as the big bad in Beware The Batman animated series, played a significant role in recent comic story arcs and video games, not to mention the fact that he was already getting limited series and one shots within the Batman mythos years ago. Deathstroke has figured very prominently in Batman-related video games (particularly Arkham Origins), TV movies (Son of Batman) & animated series (Beware The Batman), and some recent story arcs pre and post New 52. At least one of the Firefly alter egos has appeared nearly as often as the Ventriloquist in the comics and animated series, and appeared as a major boss in one recent video game. To give an example...Mystique debuted as a Ms Marvel villain. Is that mutually exclusive with her current status as one of the X-Men's most important recurring adversaries?

The fact is, we have to accept the reality that the entire Batman mythos as of today, has built up a very strong and numerically superior set of supporting characters and rogues galleries, perhaps the largest and most well known in all of comics. That extends to the Batman family as well, which this template is all about really. Maggie Sawyer's the current love interest and partner of Batwoman. Batman founded, funded and led the Outsiders, and they answered to him directly as supporting characters. Batman Incorporated includes all of the auxiliary Bat-themed characters who also associate themselves with Batman, albeit more loosely. Jason Bard was already a notable character in the past and looks set to play an even bigger role in the current and upcoming story arcs, as in he's not a vintage character who has lost relevancy like Harold Allnut or Julie Madison. Sarah Essen is currently a major character in the Gotham live action show (along with both Crispus Allen as well as Renee Montoya who has also YET to appear in the New 52), although she bears little resemblance to her comic book counterpart. And of all the characters in the DC superhero community, Superman has been the most involved in Batman/Bruce Wayne's private and personal affairs away from the Justice League.

Even with the recent additions that I made which you may or may not disagree with, it's not even close to being a big list, let alone the exhaustive list of relevant characters past and present. No offense, but half of Superman's original supporting cast don't even appear in the New 52, so by following your earlier reasoning, why keep them there on his template page while you guys do a lot of nitpicking over the Batman template? Haleth (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We can't count "Deathstroke being in Batman: Arkham Origins" being a plausible argument. We need sources. Maybe list sources. Like "top

Batman villains" on IGN or something similar to that. One problem with Anarky is more of an anti-hero while this navbox clearly says villain.

Also this judging my media adaptions is got to stop. The comic books are the main source of an inclusion. Batman has had more media adaptions than almost any superhero on the modern age so there can be a lot of villains that have had a chance to appear like Anarky. We are grasping at straws here a little bit regarding that specifically. Like I said sources and a character appearing in comic books for a long and consistent time are better for that. Media adaptions are just an another good example with that. Also the character has got to be a household name. One reason why I was ok with the Ventriloquist because I know most people hearing of him as a Batman villain. Jhenderson 7 7 7  18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also I am not the one who made the rule of discussing it. Those were some administrators who took charge of that concept. But I am not sure they are still active. The only thing I am sure I am not approving is Deathstroke being a Batman villain. He is a borrowed Teen Titans villain and that's that.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Catwoman is without a doubt an anti-hero too, but anyway...household name? Everyone else I know who have at least a passing interest in Batman comics/TV/movie, doesn't remember who the Ventriloquist is, or that there is a female version to boot. But they all know the Joker, Catwoman, Two-Face, Riddler, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Penguin, Bane, Scarecrow, maybe Ra's al Ghul and Mr Freeze. IGN or Newsarama etc articles are essentially opinion pieces which are useful as a reference, not a source of authority on the subject. Back to the concept of household names as well...I suppose media adaptations outside of the comic books do skew the perception of such characters, and it's a tall task to keep track of the franchise's history. If you disagree with Anarky and Deathstroke, what about Firefly then? The notes on the template edit page clearly states that Firefly is allowed to be included on the template's villain list, so I take it that there was a consensus in the past for his inclusion? Personally I think his level of importance is about on par with the Ventriloquist, not sure if you agree... Haleth (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, can you please read up the sources dotted all over the Anarky wikipedia page. if you haven't done so already? My reasoning for his inclusion is that I consider him an anti-villain. He did come into conflict with Batman and/or Robin multiple times in the comics, but for very different reasons compared to most of Batman's rogues gallery. Haleth (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose I am fine with the ordering thing. Batman and Robin and everything else alphabetical seems a bit weird but whatever. Catwoman is somebody that is notable as a villain because the character started out that way. Being a thug is obviously villainous. Firefly just seems like a character that we can go "what about Killer Moth Cluemaster, Calendar Man, etc too Maybe they are in the same leaugue too". So I am not sure of that character as I am not sure of what characters I referenced too. I have more to say but I will talk later. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are two links to a verifiable reliable source, IGN:


 * 
 * 

Haleth (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Batman (Dark Knight Universe)
please add Batman (Dark Knight Universe) to the roster. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

please add
Court of Owls. --173.55.119.156 (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2015
Alex17Hero (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  00:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusions
Maggie Sawyer is an Batwoman supporting character. Batwoman not Batman. That's only in a little bit of Batwoman comic books at that. Duela Dent was an Teen Titans member. New 52 is revamping her in the rogues gallery. That doesn't count. Classic major villains should be the spotlight. New 52 is too current to count Duela Dent. Deathstroke is a crossover villain and also a character that has had his own comic book series. He is a major archenemy of the Teen Titans originally. Adding him as a Green Arrow villain is ok because Green Arrow didn't really have much of a rogues gallery anyway. So the writers have written him off as one of Green Arrow's greatest rivals. Not so with Batman. Yes they had stalemate encounters. But the most notable one is from a Deathstroke comic book making Batman more of the antagonist. We should count Batman comic books since they are both in a shared universe where of course they would cross over. Jhenderson 7 7 7  01:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your second reasoning was a terrible reasoning for edit warring. You didn't explain why you wanted them back but instead you pointed the finger back at me. No straw-man arguements please. I brought back the inclusions when people took away the adversaries template. I never removed the villains that I thought shouldn't haven't stayed. What happened is we had this on the template but for some reasons it was removed and I brought all the characters that were on it before along with a few more additions that I boldly put in with no disagreement yet. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Maggie Sawyer, that is not correct. DC moved her out of the Superman franchise and into the GCPD and Batman family series since 2004. She was a major character in Gotham Central and appeared in various Batman family-related storylines for several years before writers started using her as Batwoman's love interest in 2011. In the New 52, especially in Batman Eternal, she has basically taken over the archetypes and roles of Sarah Essen, Renee Montoya and Crispus Allen altogether (all three has yet to appear in the comics since the 2011 relaunch and is technically living on in the Gotham TV series which takes inspiration from pre-Flashpoint) as one of the few honourable cops in the GCPD. Technically, this template is a Batman family template in all but name. I can make a case for Jim Corrigan as well since he appeared in Gotham Central and is starring in Gotham By Midnight, which is another Batman-related spinoff title, but you might object to that. I concede Deathstroke's addition is debatable. But like so many characters in the comics, just because he started off in one direction or as one concept initially, doesn't mean he stays there as he's been positioned more as a Batman family menace in recent years. For example, he worked with Talia in a previous run for Batman and Robin, and had on-and-off appearances fighting various Batman family members. But adding Deathstroke as a Green Arrow villain on the template just because his rogues gallery goes against principle, when you think about it. If it's good enough for inclusion on the Green Arrow template, it's good enough for the Batman one.

Joker's Daughter first appeared in this comic title called "Batman Family", so she was always meant to be part of the Batman mythos and she isn't a brand new addition like Emperor Blackgate. Her current run in Suicide Squad ran concurrently with her recurring role in Batman Eternal. Sure, she's no longer obscure again after 2011, but barring her brief Teen Titans run, her other appearances were villainous ones.

Simon Hurt was one of the major big bads during Grant Morrison's Batman run and was acknowledged as such by websites like Newsarama on their villains rap sheet. If Professor Pyg and Court of Owls deserves inclusion, he does too. Haleth (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My second reasoning was not a reason at all. It was my response to your initial comments which I find rather rude. Haleth (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please check out Recentism. Just because something going on currently doesn't deserve it's inclusion. You put Duela Dent as part of the villains. She and Simon Hurt are lacking something that all the villains have. Media adaptions is the biggest thing. With characters like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man, the rule of thumb to help prove notability was that they had media adaptions of themselves and alternate versions of themselves along with being VERY RECURRING in the title character's own comic book for a long time (Detective Comics, Batman, etc.) All that together. Not in universal comic book logic. I can tell you are a fan of the comics. Unfortunately what happens in the comics only half of why one should be included. The biggest reason of why we allow them to be included is that they have proven to be a notable Batman villain / supporting character without even needing to read the comic books. Not explanations that should be used in Wikia. Unfortunately that Maggie Sawyer reasoning is very modern and not as recurring compared to Superman adaption. Also no media adaption has helped prove that that's the most notable feature of her. She still appears in Superman media. If she would have been a big deal supporting character she should be in Batman media soon. No Rush.  Also you said since Deathstroke is on the Green Arrow navbox. He should be on Batman navbox. Please see: Other stuff exists. That doesn't help explain that he SHOULD be on there. It just explains why you want him to be on there. Also I apologize for coming off as rude. That's not how I meant to come off at all. Also regarding Simon Hurt, I ain't going to revert you if you add JUST HIM.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  03:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are being consistent with your points in regards to notability. If recurring media adaptations and portrayals are "the biggest thing" as you claimed, then Deathstroke's inclusion in the template on that basis alone should be a no-brainer given his prominent appearances in video games and Batman-related animation media, but even I would admit that reasoning is shaky at best. The caveat is that he has a long-running grudge with the various Robins, he plotted with Talia to kill Damian in Batman and Robin, and he's clashed with Batman outside of his own title as well. For that matter, besides a cameo in Batman vs Robin the Kate Kane Batwoman has yet to appear in anything else outside of the comic books, but I doubt you would discount her importance - she did get intense media attention as she is a poster woman for the purported progressive values DC has been pushing in recent years. Outside of a few Smallville episodes, can you name any other notable Superman-related media Maggie Sawyer has appeared in since they moved her to Gotham more then a decade ago? I'm pretty sure people who started reading Batman-related comics in the last 10 years would probably associate her much more with her activities in Gotham then her past incarnation as a Superman supporting character. But inclusions in these navboxes are not always mutually exclusive; I don't really see a problem with her appearing on both Superman and Batman templates. And as I've said, the New 52 was launched in 2011, nearly 4 years ago now. It's passed into history and entering solid canon, so there is no basis for the issue of recentism which you brought up. I'll point to the fact that you implicitly approved of the inclusion of the Court of Owls (perhaps due to their prominent role in Batman vs Robin? If so what about Deathstroke for Son of Batman?) as one example, and I did not put them in. Haleth (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out as well that because of the media attention and reporting following Batwoman (relatively intensive for a niche character in DC's continuity) which continued years after her debut, Maggie Sawyer is often put in the same spotlight as well being her consistent love interest since 2011. Also being the captain of the GCPD keeps the spotlight on her in her own right in the various Batman books. Mostly just fans who really follow the books' continuity would be aware of her past association with Superman. If her association with the Batman franchise media started after New 52 then I would agree that it's definitely very modern, but she was already long part of that prior to 2011. It's now 2015. Haleth (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Deathstroke is different because (like I said) he is a crossover villain. He is obviously one of the most notable villains enough to clash with many supervillains. Also since Batman is WB's most used character in other media. It is not surprising that he he was used in Batman media. In any case he was just a crossover villain in the other media as well. I want you to point out all the Batman comic books that Deathstroke has been and if it at least thirty issues then consider myself wrong that Deathstroke isn't a common antagonist of Batman. That's depending on how regular Deathstroke really is. The more popular the villain. The more he crosses over. For right now this seems like adding Juggernaut as a Spider-Man villain on a navbox. Regarding Joker's daughter being canon. That doesn't matter. We shouldn't even count New 52 introduced characters at all for the New 52 part.hat's too young!  Put her somewhere else besides the villain part is all I am asking. Maybe where Batzorro is at.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I caved with everything but the inclusion of Deathstroke. I still don't think of him as a Batman rogue. I wouldn't mind being proved wrong. I just disagree for the time being.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am curious though. Why do you remove characters. Not that I feel that Doctor Death should appear. He is Batman's first recurring villain though. After that is the Monk. Even the Cavalier is an early classic villain that could maybe work. They seem to be in some ways a better inclusion than a character who obsesses over being Joker's Daughter. Them and the Dollmaker. Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll concede with Deathstroke. Given the direction DC is taking him, if he doesn't go on to play a bigger role in the Batman family series, I wouldn't be surprised if they find him in a permanent role interacting with the Suicide Squad or have him antagonize Green Arrow even more. We'll see. His Teen Titans villain days appear to be all but over though.

If she's not going to be included as a villain in the Batman navbox, then she might as well not be included at all. The comparison with Juggernaut isn't a good one because he debuted and stayed as a X-Men villain, and actually became rather popular in that capacity (Deathstroke would be the more appropriate comparison here)...whereas Duela did debut in a Batman title. It was Robin she was really obsessed over, and she's also claimed parentage from numerous other Batman villains besides the Joker. Given her outright axe-crazy villainous portrayal recently, I suspect she's meant to be a legacy heir character if and when they decide to retire the Joker for good, but her pre-Flashpoint characterization was more complex and interesting.

I find Doctor Death to be extremely obscure, even by comic book readership standards. He may have been the first recurring antagonist, but he hasn't left any mark in Batman's long publication history. It doesn't help that he ended up dying not long after his New 52 reintroduction. There's the saying along the lines of being the first doesn't matter but being the best does, and he's a perfect example of that. Julie Madison is kind of like that too as far as being Batman's love interest, but they did use her in that 1989 movie. Haleth (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I was comparing Deathstroke to Juggernaut. Not Duela. Also believe me Juggernaut is considered a Spider-Man foe. He was ranked as one of his greatest foes by both Comic Book Resources and IGN. The main reason is because of one of their most popular comic book storyline. That isn't the only time they clashed either. The only reason why he isn't in the Spider-Man navbox is the same reason of Deathstroke.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I feel that your reasonings are that you aren't a big fan of them. You seem to have a strong likenings to current comics. Definitely ones written by Grant Morrison and the New 52. It almost seems like Batman is your favorite superhero as I only have conflict with you regarding him. I remember you in archenemy having disagreements there involving Batman. Also how is Doctor Death obscure but Proffessor Pyg not? Killer Moth? Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Also how has Joker's Daughter been an important antagonist in the New 52 compared to the Court of Owls or the Dollmaker? Also it isn't the fact that Doctor Death died early in the New 52. It's the fact that he managed to return once again in the New 52. He doesn't have to be recurring in the New 52. He was always a bit recurring to start off with. Not compared to Hugo Strange. More like Proffessor Pyg, Tweedledum and Tweedledee or Doctor Hurt. They only reasoning he doesn't have to be on there is media adaptions. But now that we included Doctor Hurt on the navbox. I guess that doesn't matter. This of course is my opinion. Also you are welcome to have yours. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You presume too much Jhenderson. No, Batman isn't my favourite, the X-Men are. As for Juggernaut I would consider including him in the Spider-Man navbox for the exact same reasons you have mentioned (because he's had a significant presence in his comics despite being a canon immigrant), but then you and maybe a few other editors would object to it vehemently and won't let the matter slide like Deathstroke and a few other characters, so what's the point? I hardly even read the current comics, believe it or not. Doesn't stop me from keeping up to date with the current status quo in the comics or researching historical stuff I never got around to read.

Now, I can say the same about you, why you reckon I disagree with the inclusion of some characters, the real reason why you object to my decision to include some characters: you simply don't like them, or aren't a big fan them. You appear have a lot of conflict with me regarding stuff on the Batman wiki, probably because Batman is your favourite superhero and you have little tolerance for dissenting opinions. Thus, it all boils down to my word against your word, because apparently citing opinion pieces from reputable third party sources like IGN is not good enough for you. Does it bother me? No, but please don't act or pretend like you have an objective PoV or that somehow your reasonings are unbiased, make more sense, or is in anyway more rational compared to mine. It has always been your word against my word when we disagree on something. Doctor Death doesn't have to be recurring, but unlike people like Hurt, Pym etc, he stopped playing any sort of meaningful role in the Batman comics after the first 2 or so arcs involving him, then slided into obscurity only to last a few issues in the New 52, not unlike Julie Madison. Try googling or finding online articles or book sources which discuss Doctor Death's significance before his all-too-brief New 52 reintroduction. Media adaptations certainly help (or is symptomatic of a character's popularity), but two reasons why some characters seem to be more notable then others: acclaim based on reader feedback/sales figures/critic reviews, and creative direction. Cupid from Green Arrow is the perfect example, adapted by the same writer who created her in the comics medium and was heavily used at the time, but not necessarily a popular figure amongst comic fandom. Haleth (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * lol. Did you just imply that I don't like characters like Deathstroke? He's like one of my favorite DC villains. Also Batman is technically not my favorite superhero too. At least not always. I was clearly in many other navboxes if you were paying attention. I even noticed your Iron Man navbox comment. Also don't you remember me being on the Spider-Man navbox having a difference of opinion. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for interjecting. But if Deathstroke isn't significant enough to be included as a Batman rogue, why is Batman mentioned at the very top of the Deathstroke page? 101.181.65.52 (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Batman, Inc
Shouldn't "Batman, Inc." have a section? It's own section? I would say without their public names. I ask because I don't think Knight and Squire should be along with the rest of the Bat family. They are Inc.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016
Gillian B. Loeb is listed as a police contact, when he is an enemy of Batman I would have create another enemy type "Corrupt officials" with Gillian B. Loeb, Amanda Waller, Arnold John Flass and Mayor Hamilton Hill.

92.23.155.84 (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Updated 2.97.101.36 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Characters be splitoff
I don't know who split-off the characters navbox but I never thought it needed a split. We needed a consensus first. Having it without all the rest of the fictional universe stuff like the Batsuit and Arkham Asylum seems out of place. We should have started with a consensus with who is going here in the first place. Never there should have been a divided navbox just because editors wanted to include everyone in it. To not have Robin, Joker, Catwoman etc. in it seems like it's a waste. There is POV either way you look into it. The other navbox does that. The list article already does that. The Superman navbox does it. But at least this navbox would be more useful. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Spliting the characters keeps a template like this form being gigantic. It's way better. Also please stop reverting yourslef back and forth.★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It was never THAT "gigantic". Just look at Template:X-Men. Also I got the iPad go button to blame for reverting you the second time. I then reverted myself for not continuing what I was saying. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "It's way better". That's your opinion man. I don't think this makes this navbox better. Just the other navbox better. Also everything I said on your talk page I obviously mean here too. I don't know why you question me talking on your page but since you do I will remain here for now. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel the need to have the same conversation on more than one place, it's pretty pointless and takes time. Splitting navboxes once they get to big is pretty common. I think splitting the X-Men template might have been a good idea as well if it wasn't for the fact that that nabox is pretty much just characters anyway. Your opinon that it's not too big not anymore valid than mine that it is. Take it up to the comics project if you want more input, becuse otherwise we might just go in circles in this disscussion.★Trekker (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well my overall complaint is not that there is a character navbox anyway. Just that there isn't any characters on here. I don't think that dividing up a character navbox should mean that we should say goodbye to having characters here. All the characters navboxes have characters in it like the X-Men navbox did. That's kind of my point. But I do agree we will go on circles if we keep discussing it. Also I have a feeling that the consensus will be in your favor any way. So never mind. I will see with what I with the characters navbox. I still like the overall ordering of chronological appearances. But that can just be me too. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the (now numerous) collection of navboxes at the bottom of the Batman main page, it seems to me that having a separate characters navbox is useful. There are hundreds of articles related to the primary subject at this point and it's always a good idea for a first time visitor to be able to start with page 1 and have a detailed index leading to most or all of those other articles. So I would support that split to a secondary navbox for characters.

BUT I would then suggest that THIS navbox be a meta-organization spot rather than it's current form. It could be a central repository for links to the other navboxes (which currently include "Characters", "Publications and Storylines", "Franchise Media", "Music", "Video Games", "Film", "Amusement Parks" (?) as well as the navboxes for various other comics characters strongly associated with the Batman).

At the moment this navbox seems to be a series of links to "stuff that didn't fit in those other categories" rather than a top-level navigation portal to the the broader topic of the Batman. I'd rather see one more navbox be created with "Batman Miscellanea", and have this primary navbox point to all of the rest, than have this (which is actually called "Batman") be less useful to a wikipedia user than many of those other boxes.

Just my 2 cents. I haven't been active on this box in years although I still seem to have it on my watch page -Markeer 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Batman Publications
Should we include here only publications with "Batman" in the title, or should we also include all the publications where Batman is directly involved?

This would mean adding Trinity, JL, & JLA, but not the Batman Family titles. Is Batman Beyond a Batman title, or a Batman Family title?

As such the list would be:
 * Batman
 * Detective Comics
 * Batman Beyond
 * Trinity
 * Justice League
 * Justice League of America

Is there a template with the Batman Family Publications? --Coquidragon (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Batman Beyond
 * Nightwing
 * Batwoman
 * Batgirl
 * Batgirl and the Birds of Prey
 * Red Hood and the Outlaws
 * Super Sons
 * Mother Panic (?)
 * I think it should be avoided. Spin-off titles about other characters or team titles don't beling on the navbox with only the specific character. I think there should be a navbox for the "ongoing Batman family publications" that is separate from this or the overall "Batman publication" template.★Trekker (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)