Template talk:Batman/Archive 02

What are the specific problems with this template?
Everyone needs to just take a step back and take a deep breath from this. I have looked at this discussion for a few minutes and I have absolutely no idea what is being disputed. It appears that everyone has burst into a circle of personal attacks and has forgotten that we are here to build an encyclopedia. No one in particular is at fault for this mess, as everyone has contributed to the tension in some way, inadvertantly or not. So, the bad faith assumptions and personal attacks end here - let us state calmly and impartially what exactly about this template is the source of the dispute? Content is what is important - whether someone made a personal attack on you is not grounds to revert their changes. Once we determine what the problem(s) is/are, then perhaps we can go one step at a time to reach some sort of compromise. Rewriting the entire template at once doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, of course. Well, then, what specific details are being disputed? Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem was that there was a lot of dead space in the template, which made it unmanageably large. That problem has now been fixed. --Jamdav86 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's still more whitespace than really necessary (there are three lines that don't even reach across the box) and a lot of unnecessary links (the video games? three different links to the same article on the serials? the cancelled movies?). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy if we could remove the cancelled films from the userbox, for a start. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides condensing space, my main concern has been limiting links to "primary" links, such that it could be easily navigated by someone less familiar with the subject than comic book fans. The popularity of the movies alone would seem to suggest that people casually interested in a Batman subject might read one of these articles and then wish to read more.  My opinion is the links have no need for movies broken down by creator or continuity (as those distinctions are less important to casual readers), ignore video games (plenty of links out there in video game threads), movies that have not been made (which can be commented on in existing movie articles), and limit characters/places/enemies to only the most notable (read: those that have crossed over between movies and comics). -Markeer 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to go one by one on questionable links to see people's brief opinions about keeping or removing them from the article? Similar to a straw poll, for example. Some procedure and organization might settle this, as it seems we're jumping all over the place to fix this. Cowman109 Talk 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A straw poll would be a good idea, but I'm concerned that right now we seem to have everybody except ThuranX involved in the discussion. He was the one who was most upset at the changes, and he doesn't seem to be participating right now.  I tried to reach out to him a couple of times, but was not successful — Cowman, do you want to give it a shot? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re enemies, I'm really happy with the list we've got now. It's all the film villains in film order, which would be really useful to the casual reader. Re straw poll, that would be a good idea. Either that or someone goes kamikaze and deletes them anyway, but that's not recommended. :)--Jamdav86 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've only glanced over this dispute, but it would be best to first determine what specific entries are disputed, otherwise we have nothing to discuss :) Cowman109 Talk 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe some of us are waiting for User:ThuranX to weigh in Cowman, as he appeared to strongly dissent with edits the past two days. -Markeer 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to remove the dead space, condense the information, do away with too many descriptors. For instance, all of the movies should be grouped together regardless of director or star. For the two movies with the same name, put "(1966)" and "(1989)" next to them. I would prefer the template be arranged more like LostNav or X-Men. --Chris Griswold 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the main disputant in this incident isn't responding, there doesn't seem to be too much to mediate. It's as simple as coming to a consensus before making possibly contriversial changes to the template - do people agree, for example, with Chris Griswold's idea above of grouping together all the movies? We can start there. :) Cowman109 Talk 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would vote yes to grouping the movies -Markeer 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone know this existed? I didn't, and it seems to be a solution to some of the problems. Batmanmovies --Jamdav86 08:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested additions
I was going to add a few things to the template but then I noticed the brouhaha going on here so I thought I'd put the suggestions out there instead. I suggest:
 * Adding Justice League of America to the current series, since Batman is playing a major role in that new series.
 * Adding another column for "past series". Obviously I wouldn't suggest listing every title in which Batman played a role, just the major ones like Batman and the Outsiders, Brave and the Bold (actually isn't that title going again?), Batman Family and World's Finest to name a few. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. --Jamdav86 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To add them, I mean. --Jamdav86 09:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the size
I am currently working to reduce the size of this massive template. I'm going to have to make a few minor cuts here and there and combine come fields because there's just no reason for this to take so much space. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuities
Do we really need to denote continuities?--Chris Griswold 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And why does the template list all these creators?
 * Bob Kane • Bill Finger • Neal Adams • Julius Schwartz • Dennis O'Neil • Frank Miller • Greg Rucka • Paul Dini
 * If that's supposed to be a list of everyone who ever created any Batman character, that's not enough. If it's supposed to name those who created Batman, it's too many. I say cut the list down to Kane and Finger. Doczilla 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember the one guy who got upset when WP:CMC "took over" his Batman template? The continuities were his idea, and pretty much nobody but him thought it was a good idea.

As for the creators, it was originally Kane, Finger, O'Neil, and Miller; people keep adding and removing names. Kane and Finger should certainly be on there, but I think a case can be made to include writers/artists whose articles are significantly devoted to their work on Batman. That would definitely include Miller, would arguably include Dini, but probably nobody else. Another idea would be to include artists who whose work on Batman established styles that outlived their own runs; that would probably include everyone there except maybe Rucka and would also include Jim Lee. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Once you include anyone other than Kane and Finger, you open the gap for editors to keep adding and removing others. Doczilla 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's make a rule so we have a standard by which to discuss the appropriateness. Half of Frank Miller's article is about Batman and nobody can really dispute Miller's influence, so it's clearly relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So it's
 * Bob Kane, who created Batman
 * Bill Finger, who co-created, fleshed the character out, gave him his origin
 * Frank Miller, who made crucial revisions to the origin like Alfred raising Bruce -- not to mention how the Dark Knight business reshaped how people thought of the character.
 * Many writers have tweaked the origin, but nothing so critical with long lasting effects. Doczilla 00:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Seeing the template now, I still think it should just be Kane & Finger. I'll leave Miller so other people can weigh in to indicate what the consensus might be. Doczilla 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted leave Miller in on the strength of Year One - it pretty much re-booted Batman post-Crisis. But I'm not sure it fits with the credit "creators". I'm also not sure about leaving so many people out. Is there a list of Batman writers somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps as a section in another article, that could be linked to from the template? 172.189.220.211 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find such a list, but creating one is a decent idea. "Notable Batman writers and artists" perhaps? Wikipedia has notability standards, so "notable" is all right, although it will still raise some arguments and POV issues. Doczilla 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. So, should that be added after Kane and Finger (and then I think everyone else can be left out)? Or could that perhas go into the Miscelaneous section, and the Creators section could be dropped from the template altogether? 172.189.220.211 01:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * After we flesh out Notable Batman creators some more, it should go in the Creators section. Right now, it needs a lot of work to keep from (a) being OR or (b) growing without end Doczilla 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I still think this template should list only Kane and Finger. Superman's template lists only Siegel & Shuster. Notable Batman creators can properly acknowledge Miller. Doczilla 06:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't last long. Somebody already put Denny O' back in the template. So it's Kane and Finger, the creators. When List of notable Batman creators (or some alternative) looks right, we can link the template to it. Doczilla 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad. Normally I don't even look at or use the Templates.  I happened to glance down and saw Frank Miller being placed above Denny and equal to Kane and Finger, and it hurt my head so much I didn't think to check the Talk page and see if there was discussion on the subject.  Sorry about that.D1Puck1T 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam West
As important as Adam West is, does he really need his own section? His movie can go under Movies. Legends of the Superheroes and Back to the Batcave aren't noteworthy enough to go in the template when far too many other bits of Bat-trivia have gotten left out. There should be a TV section to cover his show and all the animated series and an Animated Movie section for the animated movies. Doczilla 00:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what about moving Batman (1966 film) to the film section and renaming Adam West to Live-action television? That does become the defining characteristic. CovenantD 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The 1966 film was a theatrical release, so yeah, that works for now. Doczilla 00:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I considered making a "people" section like in the Superman template. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 06:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections
We still haven't come up with accurate names for these sections. Allies/supporting cast: Jason Todd isn't currently an ally. Villains/enemies/rogues: Catwoman is an ally. Doczilla 16:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason Todd was an ally (or a deceased ally) for decades, and the fact that Todd is the Red Hood is probably a spoiler for someone.


 * As for Catwoman, she was a Batman villain for the longest time and still is an on-again off-again antagonist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I left "Rogues" alone when it was called that. Whether Catwoman is currently enemy or ally, she remains a class part of his rogue's gallery. If we come up with a satisfying group name for the other characters, we might be able to sell "Rogues" (not that I wouldn't be happy for an even better suggestion to emerge). Doczilla 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the article that is linked is named "Batman villains". Rogues is more of a comic fan term. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True. But what the hell is Catwoman? Post-Crisis, she really hasn't been a villain/enemy to him. That's twenty years. Doczilla 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the term "Rogue's gallery" pre-dates the comics. But whatever the choice, we do need better names : ) - jc37 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Villains
Looking at the most recent edits, I realized that it's not very intuitive to click on the large "Villains" in order to get to Batman villains. Perhaps "Batman Villains" could be added to that list of notable villains?D1Puck1T 01:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I almost added the Batman villains entry at the end the list a few days ago because I didn't recognize that the category line was a link. Same with 'Allies'.  It's arguable in my case that I'm just unobservant or dumb (always a possibility) but neutralizing the category link and adding the "and others" links in the template body would at least make it idiot proof. -Markeer 03:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly to the link to other contributors after Kane and Finger. I know what you mean. I had followed links through these templates many times before I ever noticed the category links you're talking about. Doczilla 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nearly did the same thing myself Markeer. Anyone have any objections at all to putting Other notable Batman villains into the Villains line of the Template?D1Puck1T 14:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cassandra Cain
Oy, what a headache. Yes, she is a significant enough character to be listed seperately in the box somewhere. Putting her under villains is likely to ruffle a lot of feathers though, and it's note entirely accurate either, since she only fought Robin and not Batman. Allies... I don't feel that fits either. Suggestions?D1Puck1T 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thing is, she's "only" notable as a Batman-related character as Batgirl. - jc37 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... I'm not sure I agree with that statement, but even then, she is notable as Batgirl. And the Batgirl article is spread out to cover several characters as well as the real world creation of the "Batgirl" persona.  Tim Drake is "only" notable as Robin, but he's listed seperately from the Robin article.  I'm thinking the way to go is put Cassandra in parenthesies after Batgirl.  She's the one to wear the mantle most recently, she'll be officially wearing it again soon enough, and while she doesn't quite fit as an ally right now, "Batgirl" is an ally, Cassandra Cain is the most recent Batgirl... it's not perfect, but there's going to confusion no matter how it's broken down, unfortunately. D1Puck1T 01:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * She's not Batgirl right now, and she tended to stay out of Batman's stories. Cassandra Cain is not in Batman's supporting cast. She is not an ally any more. She has not been meaningfully involved with Batman outside her role as Batgirl, and Batgirl is already linked, as opposed to Barbara who has not been Batgirl for twenty years but has been very involved as Oracle. Many, many characters have contributed more to Batman's stories than Cassandra Cain has. Bullock belongs there before she does (and I am not saying he belongs there). Doczilla 07:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Hood
I agree. Jason belongs under the villains for now. He hasn't been an ally/supporting cast member for a lot of years. His only active involvement with Batman since his death has been as an antagonist. Doczilla 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Template width
Superman/Batman templates:
 * Template:Batman
 * Template:Batman in popular media
 * Template:Batman fan films
 * Template:Superman
 * Template:Superman in popular media

Related template:
 * Template:dc-animation

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


 * 95 or 100 is fine with me. I don't really have a preference, except that the goal, as I understood it, was to reduce length not width. - jc37 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Width affects length -- physical length (and therefore the position of everything else on the page, reducing how much other text appears on the screen with the box), not content length. A wider box will reduce physical length (i.e., height, however you label that direction in two-dimensional space), leaving more room for other text to appear on the visible screen. Doczilla 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a standard, although it would be nice if one developed down the line. I think for this template 95% looks good, although if anyone has reasons they think it would work better another way, I'm sure we're happy to listen.D1Puck1T 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm back to preferring 100%. I was just looking at how the template sits right over the category box. Doczilla 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Personally, I think the goal was/is to reduce the "height" of the box as much as possible? Is there a reason that whitespace (as opposed to the page's whitespace/bluespace) is a "bad thing"? (Or am I misunderstanding?) I like how the WikiProject templates at the top of this page resize as I resize the window. Shouldn't these navboxes work the same way? - jc37 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re:Jamdav above. I tried using line breaks. Someone recently pointed out the problem with those. Browser windows vary in size. Doczilla 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * I changed all the boxes above to 80%, so that we could see how they look. Is there a reason why the CVG project chose 80%? or was that an "out of the blue" number? - jc37 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was the one who pitched the current as-of-yet-stalled proposal, and I picked 80% because it looked decent on anything from really narrow screens (PDAs, PSPs, etc.) all the way up to monster resolutions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like 100% because it reduces height the most and fits neatly on top of the category box. If we do change to another number, include Timm DCAU in the changes. Doczilla 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% creates problems on very large resolutions or with smaller lines. Also, 80% matches the size used by WP:CVG, for the occasional article with boxes from both projects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Problems? Really? What kind of problems would 100% create for those things? Doczilla 07:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also very much prefer 100%. I tested it with several resolutions without problems. 100% would be the best way the reduce height and it looks also better for me than 80%. --Lasttan 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And 100% would be more consistent with other templates throughout the comics project, which tend to go for 95% or 100% (Justice League, Spider-Man, Avengers, Flight Program). Doczilla 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't those all new templates? As we were discussing above, widths seem to be arbitrarily chosen. I think at this point we should note this discussion again on the WikiProject talk page, so that everyone can come comment, and we should just finish developing consensus for a standard width. - jc37 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(restarting indent)

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

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


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

Blank line
Template:Batman Template:Batman in popular media Template:Batman fan films

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

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

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


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

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

...Batutsi
I must agree that the Batutsi does not seem best suited to the main Batman box. Would it be possible to put it in some for of "Miscelania" section of the "Batman in popular media" template? Reading the article, a case could be made for its pop-culture relevance.D1Puck1T 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do we need Batusi in any navbox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Batusi certainly doesn't belong on this navbox. The article for it is well referenced and gives a good argument for it's own notability based on several cultural references, but it is intrinsically an expanded article on a piece of trivia from one specific Batman show.  For those interested in reading an article on the Batusi, I imagine they can follow a link from the main Batman (TV series) article, which can be found in the popular media link of this navbox.  Let's try to keep this box focused on a broad overview of the Batman character, not a collection of links to minor subjects -Markeer 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree -- the Batusi is a very minor part of only the 60's television program, and is not notible enough for this template, nor the Batman main-article. It's place is to be linked from the Batman (TV series) article, or other dance-related articles, not the top-level Batman articles. ~CS 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


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

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