Jump to content

Talk:Batman: Caped Crusader

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

character descriptions

[edit]

User BoythisisworsethanthetimeIwassus keeps undoing revisions adding descriptions of the re-imagined characters for this animated series with no explanation- can we get a ruling or opinion on whether character descriptions for new iterations, e.g. Oswalda Cobblepot instead of Oswald, Oswalda's sons, Catwoman being an heiress in this iteration, Harley Quinn being a villain before meeting Joker, etc is being undone? Unique perspectives for the current property seem like they should be kept in the wiki as they add detailed information on how this iteration is different. 2601:283:4C01:EEC0:E45F:6F4D:1BB4:E85D (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2

[edit]

Is there going to be a second season? RicLightning (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BoythisisworsethanthetimeIwassus (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

[edit]

I've removed the following from the article's See Also section; they need citations noting the similarities between this series and another. -

* Batman: Strange Days, a 2014 short film directed by Timm that has a similar Batman: The Doom That Came to Gotham theme to it. The short was released as a celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Batman character.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Sebastian I don’t think citations are needed here. The connections between the entries are more about shared tone, style, or thematic elements, which seem like common sense to point out (WP:UCS). The "See Also" section is meant for editorial suggestions, not sourced claims (MOS:SEEALSO).Lililolol (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lililolol - Respectfully, what we cannot do is insert ourselves into an article, like, ever - as per NOR. If it is you noting a 'shared tone, style or thematic element', we cannot include it. If you have a RS that addresses a connection in that way, we can add that, citing a source. If you want to open an RfC ticket to get more eyes on the discussion, I'd be amenable to that. Until then, it appears to be an uncited statement, and therefore unencylopedic. Sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]