Talk:Dick Grayson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Images in the article

Just in looking over this discussion, and the relevant guidelines...

• 1.) None of the images seems to be correct for this article. The article title is "Dick Grayson", not Nightwing or Robin. As a poster above noted, there are pictures of the various costumes in the body of the article. Someone should find a decent picture of DG out of costume, though one which shows him in a setting which indicates that this person is more than just a brunette male comic book character would be nice : )

• 2.) The fact that a person has to scroll quite a distance down the page to see the current character's images as Robin and Nightwing is also concerning. Perhaps a link in the introduction to jump down to the current version would be appropriate?

• 3.) There is no picture of Robin associated with Dick Grayson#Earth-One Dick Grayson. (Where I would expect one.)

• 4.) I think Image:Robinyearone.jpg, while interesting and somewhat related to the text, probably violates "fair use", since it's not a "need" at the point it's shown in the article.

• 5.) I think the same can be said of Image:NightwingCVR91.jpg. If one wanted to illustrate this presumed important moment in his history, perhaps one of rooftop scenes (before or after) would be more appropriate?

Further discussion is obviously welcome : ) - jc37 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some observations...

1. While I agree the article is titled "Dick Grayson", the infobox is using the title "Nightwing". It's a small thing, but the general "consensus by use" of the 'box is that its title takes precedence over the article's for image selection. In most cases this isn't an issue, it just article like this one that are a problem.
2. This could be solved by Wikifying the aliases in the 'box to link to the appropriate lower section of the article. This would rely on a thumbed image being present just under that header.
3. It looks like the "Robin of Earth-One" pic would be the image associated with "Emancipation", which is a sub section to the E-1 section. There is an additional problem here... unlike the E-2 section, E-1 leads into the post-Crisis section, without any repeat of sections. It also doesn't really help that the E-1 and post-Crisis costumes are identical.
4. It looks like the cover is supposed to be a ref to the paragraph immediately to it's right. That being said, it is to generic for that section. I doubt a relevant image can really be found so the section can lose the decoration.
5. The Nightwing #91 is a slightly better sell, it directly, and more or less clearly relates to the section it's in. It could be a bit clearer, but it may be that the clarification would make the caption unwieldy, and the image worthless.

- J Greb 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Well it's something that I think is worth discussion "somewhere" : )
2. Well, I think the article could use a "Dick Grayson as Robin" image that isn't him in the setting/company of the Titans. (Silver age is roughly equivalent to Earth-One.)
3. I don't believe that he was Robin post-Crisis? (Granted, I may be confused by the "one-year forward" Baxter print books.)
4. Yes, I think it should be removed.
5. Well, right now it's an image of Nightwing, with the image of "someone" reflected in a sword, which requires a caption saying who it is. The image should be quite a bit more straight-forward.
6. (new comment) - Image:Nightwingwho.jpg not only needs to be removed from the article, it needs to be deleted. It's from Nightwing's entry in Who's Who.

- jc37 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jc37, you're right. I've taken it out of the article and I'll tag the image for someone to handle. Image use violations make my head ache and I can't figure 'em out most days :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. (Mutil-Codename-Characters) I agree, this is something that really needs to be hashed out. At the moment there are a number of articles that are under the character's name due to the character having used more than one codename. It's reasonable to argue that the 'box should reflect the article title. It's just that it may be an uphill battle since in a few cases the defense would be that the costume(s) is more iconic than the character.
2. (Dick-as-Robin) Also agreed, but we need to find a good replacement, preferably, given the sectioning, one published pre-CoIE.
3. (Robin chronology) I'll try to keep this to a nutshell... Based on how DC treated stories after the fact, "Robin" breaks down into 6 sections
   • "Earth-Two" where the Golden Age (1940-c.1959) Dick Grayson/Robin material was assigned. Though some of these stories were later implied to also have happened for the Earth-One Robin. This character was eliminated as a result of CoIE. Also, up until 1967 he had the same Robin costume as the Earth-One character.
   • "Earth-One" where the Silver Age through then modern (c.1959-1986) Dick Grayson/Robin/Nightwing material was assigned.
   • "Post-CoIE" (1986 on) is the current Grayson/Robin/Nightwing material. This character, essentially, is the Earth-One character, with the majority of the Silver Age history kept. This also means he kept the pre-CoIE costumes. There is nothing to visually differentiate the two until the move away from "Disco-Nightwing". Hence an E-1 Dick-as-Robin will look the same as a post-CoIE's one.
   • The remaining 3 (Earth-One Jason Todd, Post-CoIE Jason Todd, and Tim Drake) really don't come into play here.
4. (eye candy usage) I've struck the Robin: Year One image and expanded the caption on the Blockbuster image. I don't think the latter is a bad fix, but a second set of eyes on it would be a good thing.

- J Greb 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Superheronbox #2

I'm going to delete that second one. We don't need two infoboxes. Brian Boru is awesome 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting for more discussion. I seem to recall a WikiProject discussion that more than one is acceptable in certain circumstances (See Xorn, for example.) - jc37 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

2¢... I'd truncate it rather than remove it, remove what is not a required field and is repeated from the main 'box. That would leave us with, I believe:

• Publisher
• 1st Appearance (JLA issue only)
• Creators (w/ note "derived from work of Kane and Finger)
• Affiliations

The alter ego may be a sticking point, but, given the name of the article, it could go in this case.

- J Greb 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Noting the point(s) of divergence for this particular iteration of the character without duplicating redundant facts would seem to conform with precedents indicated above. I also echo a sentiment above for another picture added towards the Earth-One section aside from the Teen Titan group pic. However, as images seem contentious previously, caution should be exercised. Mister Fax 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh I'll leave it for now. And let somebody else do it.Brian Boru is awesome 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Earth-2 (52) Robin

This is in the vein of something I posted at Talk:Multiverse (DC Comics).

At this point we're making un-cited assumptions that:

1. The character uses the codename "Robin" (even though it should be a lock).
2. The character's alter-ego is Dick Grayson. It looks likely, but there is an unnerving lack of dialogue, or writer/editorial commentary to confirm this.
3. This is a continuation of the pre-Crisis character.

This is something that is going to crop up in a lot of articles given 4 pages "tour" from 52 Week 52. At this point, I would think that all the characters shown fit as "Alternate versions" not linked directly into existing characters.

- J Greb 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed the same assumptions placed on several articles relating to these rather cryptic panels, and have notified the comics project folks to be watchful. Mister Fax 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted this once more with the previso that it is undoubtedly Robin (the costume is an indicator) and Dick Grayson is probable yet not factural until a further appearence (presumably in the new Booster Gold mini - as he is featured on the cover of the 1st issue).Mister Fax 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can o' worms redux

Just a small request:

If there is a thought to change the 'box image, in light of the last lengthy debate, could it be raised here first? Instead of the image file being edited as was done on May 29, 2007.

I've reverted the image file back to the consensus result.

Thanks - J Greb 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, J Greb means the image here was changed, not that the Grayson Page was changed (for those of us who only have the Grayson page on our watch list). -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even watching the image page wouldn't have caught it, the upload isn't considered an edit. The only reason I caught it is I'm weeding my watched list and looked at the page. The image was off, but the link was to the same image page. - J Greb 07:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This page needs reorganization

This page is extremely confusing. it jumps from one reality to another. someone with good knowledge and understanding of the full storyline needs to reorganize the page

72.177.154.70, please offer your suggestions to better arrange this article. Mister Fax 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Second only to Batman

This phrase in the skills and abilities section is a clear and unadulterated violation of WP:NOR. "Approaching" or "on par" would be better. There seems to be some outdated consensus, however per WP:CONSENSUS: "consensus can change" and can be wrong, particularly when it sanctions a violation of the above guideline along with WP:RS and WP:V.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussions here and here - However, consensus is not just one person, so engaging in a dialogue here is better than a revert war :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of a previous discussion, WP:V and WP:NOR are quite clear on this issue, of which the statement "second only to Batman" is a clear violation. Can we locate a source for this view prior to reinserting original research into this article. Thanks.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For those clinging to WP:CONSENSUS even though per that "tenant": "consensus can be wrong", I quote from WP:NOR the following: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source". I'm simply asking for this, and if there are several that support this statement's insertion into the article...surely among those several at least one of them can find documented proof of this from an original source. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Netkinetic I agree, 'on par'would be better or as Ubu says in #838 Batman: Detective comics I quote,"Impressive, Your skills Rival those of the bat." Rival not second to, but hey check the archives 2 'second only to batman' i started that topic and fought this battle then. They just don't ever want to let Nightwing fully come from under batman, it's like they're scared of his potential. why not put "RIVAL THOSE OF BATMAN" thats directly from Ubu...its most recent and makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.117.31 (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that's simply the opinion of a character in the DCUniverse, and a character who is not considered an expert. If it was something said by Batman, Karate Kid, Richard Dragon, or another acknowledged expert it would carry a little more water. Ubu, on the other hand, is not an expert - he's a guy that got beaten up by Alfred. D1Puck1T (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That was total PLOT INDUCED STUPIDITY! Ubu has shown on many many occasions to be able to hold his own against Batman, sure he's lost but he's also highly regarded in the LEague of Assasins and has seen some of the best Martial artists in the world. He is an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.119.171 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ubu" is the name and/or title (it's unspecified) bestowed to Ra's al Ghul's bodyguard. Ubus come from a tribe of similar looking individuals. The tribe is dying out apparently, and Nyssa was forced to make use of some of the tribe's women for her operations. Traditionally they are not considered members of the League of Assassins (although this may have changed). There has been more than one Ubu. The current one has never (to the best of my recollection) fought Batman, much less "held his own against Batman". The last one to have fought Batman died at the hands of Bane.D1Puck1T (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm casting my support for the "on par" or "rivals" rewording here. One major reason being that "second only to" implies that Batman is a zenith that has nothing above or below, save for Dick Grayson. Anyone who has read DC comics for an extended time can certainly note that Batman's "skills" have been challenged (and, in some cases, surpassed) by other characters in the past, although this does not seem consistent in most cases. Generally, whether a character is "better" or "worse" than Batman in a particular area merely serves the purposes of the plot. Nightwing, however, has almost always been portrayed with an "almost-but-not-quite" parallel to Bruce. His abilities are indeed "second" to Bruce when only comparing the two of them, but not when there's an entire universe of characters involved. King Zeal (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To say that Dick "rivals" or is "on par" with Batman would imply the two were equal in skill. There's nothing to back that up.D1Puck1T (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so with "on par", but "rivals" has many interpretations. I see your point, however. In that case, then, why is a comparison with Batman even necessary to make the point? If the idea is to exemplify Grayson's skill, then why not simply say that he is "one of the best"? Leaving it as it is now isn't any more or less accurate than using the words "on par" or "rivals" King Zeal (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RIVALs is much better qoute its not implying he's better but just a notc below bruce with great potential. Anything else would not make sense unless someone wants to go back to "second only to Batman" which acutally is said in several different DC encylopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.27 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally glad that this biased qualifier has been removed. Subjective statements should find no place in Wikipedia text (well in an ideal world).Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Master Martial Artist?

Simply put you have Green Arrow & Damian listed as master martial artist and Nightwing's only exceptional?? I mean seriously come on. Just can't ever give Dick Grayson his due credit i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.176.64 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like either of them, as it's original research to say someone is a "master martial artist" or "exceptional" unless it's stated somewhere. Anakinjmt 14:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If Teen Titans TV Robin, was not made, I would never give him enough credit. But he is so bad ass I'll give him all the credit. The inspiration for him was a teenage Bruce Lee. (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Main image

Why does nobody bring up Nightwing #1? The first issue of the ongoing is/was an iconic Nightwing image, wouldn't that fit the criteria better than the Land image? --CmdrClow (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Which Nightwing #1... volume 1 which has an over use of shadow? Or volume 2 which is also heavy on the shadows and contortion?

Frankly, the current acrobat image ain't broke so it doesn't need to be "fixed". - J Greb (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are really matters of opinion, though. Nightwing #1 (the ongoing, since the first series was only a mini and not a volume) is generally considered to be a pretty iconic image of the modern-era Nightwing. I'd like to hear other opinions. --CmdrClow (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think volume 2 is the best image of Nightwing overall. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Cmdrclw. the main image should be from cover of vol 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.117.31 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a better image of the two Nightwings #1? The link J Greb points to each time is for a cover of "De Rode Ridder"?!? Or was that in jest?Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 01:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Both seem to be working fine now. If the links were yielding the same image, then the GCB was having a server issue, the image links default to a static "last uploaded" if the database is unavailable. - J Greb (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And since the GCB seems to be having issues again... from another source: volume 1 and volume 2. - J Greb (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, the first Nightwing #1 his face is all in shadow, and the second Nightwing #1 he's in a crouching position. Neat image though it doesn't give him a traditional pose like we've become accostumed to in character articles.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Side question (nagging item really) — CmdrClow can you provide a source for "[The October 1996 cover] is generally considered to be a pretty iconic image..."? That sounds a lot like a personal opinion being passed as a fact. - J Greb (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to open an old can of worms, but if we're willing to let the "character in shadows" thing slide for the McDaniel cover, then there's no real reason for us not to use the Sook cover from issue #133, which is (still) superior in every way. --Blckng (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Robin actor - Steven Strait or Frankie Muniz?

This article contains a line about Christopher Nolan's first choice for a Robin actor if he were compelled to make a decision on the spot. Can anyone confirm or deny that this person is either Frankie Muniz or Steven Strait? I've already reverted an edit because a Google search turned up results for Muniz before it turned up results for Strait. However, someone changed it back, and rather than get into a revert war I figured I'd better see if anyone was more informed than I am. Thanks Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It is poorly referenced and long sections don't even have primary sources. I would usually prefer a publication history section but given the mix of some out of universe material in the FCB it might be better if the FCB was heavily rewritten to focus on character development, etc. This is probably going to happen if this is going on to GA/FA class (see my comments here) and it might be worth doing a heavy rewrite now. Either way something needs to also be done to add in more out-of-universe material and background. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Cruft

Lots of cruft in this article, especially that personal life section. The biography section might need to have part broken off into Publication History. --192.154.91.225 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the section above. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Death

In an the last episode of JLAU when terry found out he was batman's son night wing had been shot by a 60 year old catwomen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.133.168 (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, dude. Andrea Beaumont was hired by Waller to kill McGinnis' parents. The trauma would put Terry on the road to become Batman. But Andrea (elderly) argued against Amanda that Bruce Wayne would never resort to killing. So Waller couldn't either. The Catwoman thing is a rumor back in 2000. (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Dick Grayson ... Batman

This conversation may be a bit premature ... But if Dick does emerge as Batman following Battle for the Cowl should the first appearance section in the hero box list Dick's first appearance as Batman a la Prodigal or Post-Cowl? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

Well, considering that everyone believes Bruce is dead, Dick thinks he will be permanently Batman, since in Prodigal, he was only doing while Bruce was still getting himself back together. While we're on the topic, should the first picture in this section now show Dick as Batman? 67.58.228.129 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User 66.109.248.114 is correct. Dick's first appearance as Batman is Robin #0 (right before Batman: Prodigal), not Batman: Battle for the Cowl #3. The fact that he knew he would only be a temporary substitute in Batman: Prodigal is irrelevant.
ABCxyz (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But at that time Dick knew he was only doing temporarily while Bruce was still recovering. Now, with Bruce believed to be dead, Dick is becoming the new official Batman. Therefore, Battle for the Cowl #3 is his first appearance.67.58.228.129 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

2¢

Generally the only things that are discounted are 1) "imaginary" stories and 2) visits from future versions. Everything else is in continuity and in play.

"Prodigal" is not an "imaginary" story (hallucination, "What if...", Elseworld or the like) and the Dick Grayson in the story isn't from the future. It's "in play". It's the first time Dick took on the role fully. That's the test.

Ignoring it is stating that Wikipedia will no acknowledge that as happening. Sorry, but that's a POV push.

And before it's suggested: The line in the infobox is 1st only. So adding a "Batman (temporary)" and "Batman (permanent)" isn't an option. Clarifying it in the article text is.

- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, 67.58.228.129, Dick's first appearance as Batman is Robin #0 (right before Batman: Prodigal), not Batman: Battle for the Cowl #3. And Robin #0/Batman: Prodigal was an in-continuity story arc. The fact that he knew he would only be a temporary substitute in Batman: Prodigal is irrelevant.
ABCxyz (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick is officially becoming the new Batman, and that happened in Battle for the Cowl. Prodigal was only a temporary thing. If we're going to have first appearances for temporary stand-ins, then Azrael should also have a First Appearance as Batman in his bio page. 67.58.228.129 (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Also, then we should probably have Damian's first appearance as Robin in Batman #657 right? No. Because he did not become an official Robin until BFTC. We might as well add "First Appearance as Batman" to Tim and Jason's pages as well since they also wore the guise of Batman in the storyline. Get the point yet?67.58.228.129 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To 67.58.228.129: I got your point the first time, as I believed others did as well. It's just that the majority of people apparently disagree with your logic. An in-continuity first appearance is an in-continuity first appearance.
ABCxyz (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You might as well change Azrael's, Tim Drake's, and Jason Todd's page as well for their temporary fill-ins. 67.58.228.129 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason and Tim were impersonating Batman, not replacing him. But frankly, the infobox on Azrael's page should be changed. Nevertheless, 67.58.228.129, you are still ignoring the consensus. Dick's first appearance as Batman is Robin #0
ABCxyz (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but if anything, Jason Todd should be erased from the "Alternate Versions of Batman" page as one of the Modern Continuity depictions, since he was impersonating him. 67.58.228.129 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Retcons

Comic book characters have their origins retold every five years or so, so I replaced the Pre-Crisis origin story with the original Detective Comics #38 story.Kurzon (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image issues

The fair use of image:Batman and Robin.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase, or its lack would significantly hinder, understanding the topic of the article. Full policy

Mainly it's that the image focuses on Damian, not the central topic of the article.

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with Batman and Robin.jpg has been addressed.

- J Greb (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it. At least I found a use for my picture of Grayson as Batman. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

There should be picture of Dick as Robin, Nightwing, and Batman in a combined pic or something. (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm actually really liking the main pic used on the Batman Wiki site. http://www.dcuguide.com/Nw/Lair/prodigal.jpg How about that one? Jedi Striker (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See #Dick Grayson ... Batman (image)... which I believe you've commented in. - J Greb (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 - April 2006
• Archive 2 - May 2006 through August 2006

Nightwing as Green Lantern

Nightwing discovered that years earlier, when the Green Lantern known as Abin Sur crashed on Earth, Dick Grayson was one of the candidates that his emerald ring selected to be his successor (Action Comics Weekly # 642). Where does this go?

Dick Grayson ... Batman (image)

Since Dick Grayson is now officially Batman, the box on the right should be changed to have him be "Batman" and have a picture of him as Batman. There's a good one of him from the (unpublished) second issue of Batman and Robin, here (I've reduced resolution, but a proper rationale, etc.)(Smallvillefanatic (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)):

First off, linking non-free pictures to display anywhere other than actual articles is a no-no.

That aside... The Project level guidelines are for "the most universally recognisable appearance of a character." Right now, for this character, that's either "Robin" or "Nightwing", and the standing consensus has been for the Nightwing costume. And if that is going to be revisited, the "brand new, now Batman" images don't meet the criteria for consideration.

- J Greb (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

First, Sorry. I assumed the talk page was considered part of the article for copyright purposes. My bad.

Second, the front page doesn't just show Dick Grayson as Nightwing, it says "Nightwing" over it for some reason. He's not Nightwing anymore, so at the very least, that heading should be removed.

Third, if it's going to be any costume because it is most recognizable as Dick Grayson, it should be Robin. I guess that's probably been discussed, but take a "Who is Dick Grayson poll?", and Robin will win, hands down.

Fourth, we should revisit the consensus here, since it was formed before Dick Grayson became the second-most recognizable comic character in the world. The Batman costume is his most universally recognisable appearance. I put the photo up, not because it was new, but because it was the best one I could find of him as Batman.(76.67.18.169 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, changing the infobox over to "Batman" is a case of "new, new, gotta do the new". It's also putting undo weight on the last two months in comparison to the rest of the character's existence.

As for the captioning, and that's what the title is, it reflects what is presented in the 'box.

All that being said, IMO, since the character has had three distinct costumed identities and given the Project level article naming conventions, we should drop back to either an image of the character without a costume or no image.

- J Greb (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you didn't guess at my motivations, since I know them and you're just mind-reading (and rather badly). I want what is current which is different from what is new. I wouldn't care if he'd been Batman for two months or fifty years. Current and new are not the same, since current and old can be the same.

On a less defensive note, now that he's on to his third identity, we should change his photo to either a costumeless one or to Robin or to Batman. Nightwing is neither his current persona nor his most identifiable persona nor his longest lasting persona (remember he was Robin for twice as long as he was Nightwing). As for the header on the photo, isn't that what the caption is for? It is Dick Grayson in that costume, too, so a change to a "Dick Grayson" header would be equally accurate, not to mention more relevant. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

(sigh) Smallvillefanatic, regardless of why you want the change, it's still forcing the new look/image into the 'box. Please, go read through the go read through the project level guideline again. The intent is for the most universally recognized look for the character. The Batman costume is not that for Grayson. Worse, it comes off as sticking an image of Bruce Wayne into the infobox. - J Greb (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So, you violated AGF by reading my mind twice (even after I'd clarified my motives!), and when called on it, your solution was to sarcastically "(sigh)" at me rather than apologize? This conversation is over. Heading back to the left if anyone else would like to continue (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

Oh for the love of...

1. Assumption of bad faith was not made. Pointing out a bad choice that reads as recentism was.
2. I've had more than enough of the poking, prodding, and snidness from your comments over various Batman related articles to be more than a little exasperated at this point.

You wish to step away from this part of the conversation/discussion. Fair enough, but the point of recentism still stands, as does problem of calling Grayson most recognized as Batman. - J Greb (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The main picture should be changed to meet the Project Comics policy either to Robin (his "most recognizable" in the sense that that's who most people think Dick Grayson is) or to Batman (his "most recognizable" per se). Nightwing isn't either and isn't even his current persona. Moreover, if we do keep the picture, the heading should be changed to "Dick Grayson". The policy is quite bad at dealing with legacy characters and characters with multiple identities (as opposed to costumes), so there's no obvious answer (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

I've long felt we really need the infobox to show:

• Nothing, it is an option we've used elsewhere, like Mac Gargan (who has been Scorpion, Venom and Spider-Man).
• Dick Grayson out of costume (possible as a Flying Grayson?)
• As Robin, as that is the main alias he has used over the years and, thanks to that long run and the media adaptations, he is best know in this alias.

Personally I'd say Robin all the way (with a second option for nothing). I think the last thing we need is Batman as it tells us very little (it'd just look like the Batman article) and we don't know how long Bruce Wayne will stay dead - he seems to be coming back as a zombie in Blackest Night: Batman but the spirit is elsewhere. Granted Grayson will get a decent run but it is crytal ball gazing to suggest that this is the most iconic image of him. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Strictly speaking, the Project Comics policy says the most recognizable appearance of a character, not the most recognizable appearance as a character. Batman's costume is the most recognisable image of Dick Grayson, even if it isn't most recognisable as Dick Grayson. At any rate, you're right, it's probably not the intention, but that is what it says.

The problem's with the policy itself, since it's designed for one-character-one-identity situations and I've started a discussion about it in that topic's discussion page. It seems to me that the policy confuses characters and identities, and the lack of a clear distinction is causing a ruckus all over the superhero pages (go see the Vision_(Marvel_Comics)!.

As for a Robin photo, I kind of like [[1]], but I'd need to figure out where it came from to source it (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

If we go with Robin, I like this: [[2]]. Jedi Striker (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallville, that's a fine point of wikilawyering. The intent is the character and the importance of the depiction there of. Not which costume brings the importance of another character with it.

That aside, Robin as per Emperor, as Robin would be a good choice to likely lock this down once and for all. That said... could we go with something that:

1. Gives a full, uncontorted, unobscured shot of the character face on (The clipping from All Star Batman and Robin #1 doesn't), and
2. Is actually the Dick Grayson character (Sorry Jedi Striker, that's the Drake version).

- J Greb (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

a) Anti-"wikilawyering" isn't a policy. It's just some essay. Moreover, its name is based on an offensive stereotype of an entire profession, and I can't take seriously any essay with an offensive title like that. Since I'm not a practiced mind-reader, I don't know what the "intent" of the rule is. From the evidence available, the rule wasn't envisioned with cases like Dick Grayson in mind, but cases like Spider-man's red and blue versus black costumes (the case from the rule). As far as I can tell, there is no "intent" of the rule with respect to cases like Grayson, since the only case mentioned is nothing like Grayson's. Grayson hasn't just changed "appearance". He's changed superhero identities, twice. There's no evidence that the rule considers a case like Grayson's and so there's no "intent" to be discussed, unless you want to talk about "what someone would have said had they thought of this case", which is mind-reading upon mind-reading, which moves from intent to interpretation. Left without an intent, we are left with the words of the rule, which are ambiguous, to say the least. We need a better rule, not increasingly convoluted intuitions about the "intent" or interpretation of the rule, which is why I've raised the issue in [that thread].

I found [3], which might be a compromise for everyone. It's got Dick Grayson as Robin, disco Nightwing and modern Nightwing. It's not the greatest picture of any costume, but it does have all three. There's also [4], which is Grayson as Robin, but may violate the Anti-fugly photos policy. I'm not sure of the original source for either (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)).

Hate to breake this to you, but the vaulting image was in use as the infobox image at one time. It got pulled as consensus was that it ranged from to obscured to to contorted. - J Greb (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to change it to Robin, the vaulting image may be appropriate again. It has a good (albeit small) picture of Robin and a contorted one of Nightwing. The alternative is a good picture of Robin and no picture of Nightwing. As a picture of Nightwing, yes, the vaulted one is inferior, but if the primary subject of the image is Robin, then the vaulting one has some advantages. By the way, that was not a consensus. You and another guy just wore everyone down (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'd be partial to the vaulting image as well, or the previously discussed cover to Nightwing #133. A character like Grayson who has had numerous costumes/identities/ages throughout his history in publication should have an image that is representative of all of his changes. You're never going to find an image of all Dick Grayson's incarnations where he is not in some pose unless one was created either for a poster or by one of us using photo manipulation, which I believe is against policy anyways. Except for here, but that is not an amalgam of images. --CmdrClow (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the #133 image, since the robin and disco costumes are kind of indistinct. I think if it's multiple costumes we're after, the vaulting one is better. I did, however, find an old picture with Dick having all three costumes on the cover of [Batman:Prodigal]. Yes, it's the wrong Batman costume (it has the yellow bat) and he has the silly 90s hair, but it's the only image with all three identities and might be worth considering in its own right (I still like the vaulting one, though). (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Works for me. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in? (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Why can't we use the image we have next to the part of his article of his becoming Batman from Issue 687? No reason we can't no use it, and we can put another image next to that part of the article. Granted it's not his best Batman pick, but it's the best one we got. Jedi Striker (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly? The idea behind an infobox image is the look most associated with the character. Not "Today's look is...". Right now "Batman" is not the most associate look for this character, just the current one. And the more I think about it, the less the "Prodigal" cover works as anything other than a quick fix to try and pacify everyone. - J Greb (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines at Project Comics policy are just suggestions. It says so right in the guidelines. Even if they weren't just suggestions, we could ignore all rules if we think they're inappropriate. Nightwing is clearly a tricky case, since he's one of the few characters to have multiple, long-standing identities, so it makes to use a picture with multiple identities rather than blindly follow an inappropriate suggestion. I really have no preference between the two, Prodigal or vaulting, so either of those suits me just fine. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) <---

This is getting squishy. Let's move this to the left. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

One thing to keep in mind - and IAR really won't skirt this one, is that using the "multiple costume" images in the 'box will reduce what can be used for spot images. If the "vaulting" image goes in, then both the Tales ofthe Teen Titans #59 cover (the first Nightwing costum's look) and the Nightwing #97 page ("skilled at acrobatics/tumbling") become redundant and are pulled by WP:NFCC. The Prodigal cover does the same to the Batman #687 cover (Dick in the Batman costume looks like...). - J Greb (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm alright with that, though I think for the vaulting picture would still allow for Robin and new Nightwing pictures because, as you pointed out, Robin is small and new Nightwing is contorted and so there would still be a fair-use justification of a new picture. It's a very clear picture of disco-Nightwing, though, so #59 would have to go, as would the tumbling image. I also think you're forgetting that fair use also applies to certain covers as comic covers, not merely as representations of the character but as being about the comic book itself. The first issue of a regular series in which Dick Grayson is Batman is notable in itself. This would only apply to Batman and Robin #1 or Batman #687, but those seem to be the covers people want to use. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

The "Cover of the character's first appearance" tends to work when the section immediately near the image and it actually is the issue with that first appearance. This is the case with the Detective Comics #38. It also doesn't hurt when the image is notable in and of itself. Again, that is the case with Detective Comics #38. Neither Tales of the Teen Titans #59 nor Batman #687 have either of those aspects working for them. - J Greb (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

J Greb, with all due respect, I just don't think that's true. The first appearance of a character is not the only notable event in its publication history. If we discuss a comic book by name, we may use a picture of it according to Template:Non-free_comic "the use of low-resolution images of the cover of a comic book to illustrate: *the issue of the comic book in question;". So, if the article's publication history says, "Beginning with Batman #687, DC decided to feature the character of Dick Grayson as Batman", then we have a fair use rationale to use the cover of Batman #687. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

True, there are other notable points for characters, either derived from in-story events/context or from the real life decisions/actions of the authors/publishers. But, for the purposes of an encyclopedic article, using the issue cover in conjunction with text about the point isn't always best.

One thing to keep in mind is WP:NFCC#8 - does the presence of the image significantly increased understanding and does its omission hinder understanding. The non-free image is supposed to be used in conveying something that is difficult to get across in text. Descriptions of character designs tend to fall in line with needing a picture. There are a few hedges though across comics articles - interior panels depicting a key in-story events (Bane breaking Batman's back or the deaths of Superman or Captain America leap to mind) or the notable "1st appearance" covers. The latter is a bit of a stretch and tends to be limited to "iconic" covers.

So the text "Beginning with Batman #687, DC decided to feature the character of Dick Grayson as Batman" has a few issues:

1. The phrasing is awkward, but still fairly self evident.
2. Contains at least two quibble points since the costumed identity was changed during the final issue of Batman: Battle for the Cowl and that the article, by consensus, uses "Prodigal" as the first time the character appeared as "Batman".
3. Which, if either, of the covers is the notable one, the 1-in-10 Jones' incentive or the standard Daniel's one? Do either of them meet the stretched definition used for cases like Detective Comics #27 or #38?

Without the need to show "Dick as Batman", the use of an image "'Batman: Reborn'" section becomes extremely tenuous. And the more I look at it, the incentive cover more so - it reads as the Michael Keaton "Batman"...

- J Greb (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the Michael Keaton commment. In terms of NFCC#8, since a comic book is a physical thing in the world, a picture of it is meets fair use criteria. My understanding was that a picture of an actual object is a paradigmatic case of fair use. Batman #687 is not an abstraction. It's a book. Are there even any exceptions to using a picture of a physical object being discussed not constituting fair use? This seems to me to be a paradigmatic case of fair use.

As for the rest:

1. It was just an example. Feel free to rephrase it. It was intended as a paraphrase anyway.
2. What I meant by "featured" here was that the character of Dick Grayson is now featured as the main character in one of DC's flagship and oldest titles. In terms of publication history, this is a more significant event than the first appearance of most minor villains.
3. Either, but not both (unless you're discussing the two different covers for some reason).

In general, though, I think you're coming from a more fictionalized viewpoint than I am. Dick Grayson isn't a human being. He's a character with a distinct publication history that is interesting in its own right. The first time that the character Dick Grayson acted as Batman in Prodigal might be important from a character perspective, but from a publication perspective, the day that the character Dick Grayson was featured as the main character for an indefinite period in one of DC's oldest titles is far more important. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

One second... NFCC point 8 is:

"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

There is zip there about if it's a physical object or not. It deals with the actual need in the article for an image to illustrate a point. The test is if an image of the cover of Batman #687 needed for some one reading the passage to understand the meaning of the passage. It isn't. Lack of the image does not hurt a reader's understanding. Presence of the image, aside from illustrating the costume, does not really enhance a reader's understanding.

It's funny... but I would think that the Prodigal arc would also fulfill Grayson as the main character in a flagship titles. But I guess that would fall under the "But it was only for a finite time. DC didn't intend to permanently replace Bruce" call.

And you really consider both of the image to be notable? Two more or less generic Batman posses? hrm... I must really be missing something. Oh... and the Keaton comment. The Jones cover looks like it was worked off of the designs for Batman (1989) - it looks like Michael Keaton as Bruce "Batman" Wayne.

- J Greb (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Keaton is one of the best of Batman actors. Sorry, (no opinions, might get thrown off again.) It's also a way to differentiate from Bruce to Dick's costumes.(JoeLoeb (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Simple question: Who says Dick Grayson is more recognizable as Nightwing than as Robin? It seems really dubious given the pop culture depictions of Dick Grayson. ArtistScientist (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Image should be current. Current identity is Batman. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.28.56.90 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jedi Striker (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Current" isn't the guideline. "Most recognizable" is. Dick is not most recognizable as Batman, but as Robin or Nightwing. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel that's really stupid. I've been reading comics a lot, and since Dick became Batman, that's all I recognize him CURRENTLY as. Jedi Striker (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but that's the guideline. Besides, when you think of Dick, do you REALLY think of him as Batman? I sure as heck don't. I still see him as Nightwing. Tim Drake I still see as Robin. And Batman I still see as being Bruce Wayne. Supergirl I still think of as Kara Zor-El. Eddie Brock I still think of as Venom. Mac Gargan I still think of as Scorpion. The only exception I can see is Barbara Gordon. Sometimes I think of her as Batgirl, sometimes I think of her as Oracle. But, for the vast majority of people, Dick Grayson is either Robin or Nightwing. Heck, I think most people aren't even aware that he's Batman! Even though you might look at Batman and go "that's Grayson" to someone else, if you showed them Blackest Night: Batman #1, if they didn't read text that indicated that was Grayson, they'd probably think it was Bruce. If you told them Grayson was in this issue, they'd probably think that he was Robin and not Batman. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we were to go based on your reasoning, most people identify him with Robin, so the whole Nightwing picture thing is not right. So either get a picture of him as Robin or do as someone else said before and put a picture of him out of costume. Still think it should be a Batman picture, there was even news coverage of him taking over the role. But still, if your reasoning is the be all and end all of this discussion, the picture should be of him as Robin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.28.56.90 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We actually went round on that one and it got hung up on a "six of one..." point - at the time the image was brought up, as well as when the article was created, "Nightwing" and "Robin" seemed to be equally weighted as a response to "Dick Grayson is..."

And aside from throwing a snit, it has little bearing on using a Batman images - "Batman" is a distant third. - J Greb (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You obviously polled comics fans, to the general public you say Dick Grayson they think Robin. Sorry guys, but the 60's Batman show and the movies are what is stuck in America's mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.28.56.90 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the editors here are comics fans. The general public would see Dick Grayson as primarily Robin the Boy Wonder (and the character to make Robin popular was of course Dick Grayson)--most people are familiar with Robin, but don't know what the hell a Nightwing is. So having a Nightwing picture over a Robin one really isn't defensible from any point of view other than fan consensus.ArtistScientist (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sex sex sex?

The romantic involvement section seems pretty distracted. I genuinely can't tell whether some bits are vandalism or not. Reference to anal penetration seems entire irrelevant to the subject discussed, and the language implies that Grayson and Starfire don't so much have a relationship as just a lot of sex. "...began to flirt and sleep together, even going as far to date seriously", is it literally the case that dating was a step up from sex? That seems unlikely. Furthermore "Finally, after months of foreplay and sex, Dick proposed to his lover," surely it would be better to say "after months of dating". And that's just in the paragraph about Starfire. Okay, I get it, Dick is a sexy man, but seeing as the section is titled "Romantic Involvement" and not "Sexual Liasons", I think it could be toned down a bit... 86.25.216.229 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Robin image vs Nightwing image

Let's have a discussion over which of these personae is more fitting as the main image (whether Batman, or the unmasked Grayson is more appropriate than Robin or Nightwing is another discussion. One of those may well be a better choice, but the debate I want to have here is strictly the comparative worth of Robin vs Nightwing).

I believe that Robin is clearly the role more associated with Dick Grayson in the minds of the general public. Nightwing is not a household name, but Robin is, and that has been achieved by Dick Grayson alone--Grayson's 44 years as Robin were enough to establish Robin as a well known name before any other character assumed the role. In contrast Nightwing will rarely be associated with Dick Grayson by the average person. If you say "Dick Grayson", most people who recognise the name will think "Robin". We shouldn't let our collective youthful bias create undue emphasis on Grayson's recent history as Nightwing.

Alternatively, a picture that shows both roles may be appropriate. ArtistScientist (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it, I can see a solid reason to put a Robin image in place. As you point out that is the bulk of how the character is identified, up to and including the preference for the Grayson Robin to be the initial Robin in the recent Batman animated shows.

Personally, I'd avoid the "2-in-1" images. We really haven't had one come along that provides equal weight to the IDs.

On a side note, if there is a consensus on changing the infobox image to Robin, there also needs to be a discussion as to which Nightwing image to include in the body of the text - original disco or the one used for the full run of the ongoing monthly. We really cant have both.

- J Greb (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been nine days, so I've changed the images around. Historically, Dick Grayson has more recognition and significance as Robin, so I hope we can keep Robin as the main image, but I'm not too bothered about the others. ArtistScientist (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep the Nightwing image as is. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on that - Why? Is it:

• What is currently there?
• The more recent long term ID?
• The ID that headlined a solo book longer?
• Something else?

- J Greb (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Two glaring things:

1. There is no deadline - any discussion hashed out on an article level will take as long as it takes. That maybe longer or shorter than you feel is reasonable. Generally it takes much longer than a CfD (average run there is 7-9 days).
2. Given the time of the year, expecting massive participation may be overly hopeful. Waiting into 2010 is not unreasonable.

- J Greb (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He's known as Nightwing more now. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Batman filmography: live-action features, 1943-1997 By Mark S. Reinhart identifies Grayson as the most well-known Robin.
• Robin is more well-known than Nightwing.
• Therefore, Grayson is more widely known in his Robin identity.

Do you have a source that says Grayson is more well known as Nightwing than Robin? ArtistScientist (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Collected Editions

I'd like to see a "Collected Editions" section in this article mimicking the one in the Tim Drake article. That is, list all trade paperbacks and various collections for titles featuring Dick Grayson as the lead character (currently, I think this just includes the recently-ended NIGHTWING and the recently-launched BATMAN AND ROBIN). Valid ISBN's should be required for a title to be listed. I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge of Dick's collected titles, though, so consider this a request for someone else to take the job! Thanks. -Whesparrow (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Martial arts savant...

I see we're getting a list of martial arts styles filling out the powers and skills. Is there a cite for all of these, and I mean a piece of text basically saying "Dick knows Foo-fu", or is it an editors deduction/opinion based on weapons and/or visual depictions? - J Greb 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree NONE of that can be citied at all. simply saying Nightwing is a martial arts master is enough...this is from his DC profile and encylopdia. Plus in comic it is said "nightwing's skills rival those of Batman". That gets the point across without naming off random martial arts.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.192.50 (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone put up a "DON'T CHANGE THIS PARAGRAPH" warning in the skills and abilities section, so before I anger anybody I'll ask here. Is it really necessary to wikilink each of his "preferred" martial arts skills again in the very next sentence? Also, I'm not sure it is necessary/correct to capitalize each of the different types. Khaotika 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks a lot like someone with article ownership issues just wanted to keep that there. I've replaced the unsourced list with appropriately cited information from Robin Year One and Nightwing's profile from Nightwing Origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.120.205 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures

To resolve the "too many pictures" tag, it makes most sense to remove portrayals of Grayson in other media, especially multiple pictures from the same continuity. Accordingly, the picture from Batman Forever as well as the Robin picture from DCAU have been removed. Multiple arguments to this effect have already been advanced in the editing comments, but a few editors (or sockpuppets) have seen fit to repeatedly revert these changes (along with other unrelated changes by the same users) with no legimitate reasons given.

If you have a good reason why these pictures belong in the article when we clearly need to remove some, please suggest alternative pictures for us to cut along with reasons why this is a superior choice. Otherwise, stop wasting time with the edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.120.205 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Batman Begins homage

Let me preface this with the fact that I haven't read any of the comic books in question. But the bit about wings giving Grayson's Batman the ability to glide being an homage to Batman Begins seems incorrect. I don't know about the comics, but the early 90s Timmverse/DCAU, Dick's Nightwing costume has had gliding abilities built-in. So he's had the gliding thing since at least 10 years before Nolan's films, possibly earlier if it was in the comics as well... 76.123.241.114 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.129.139.1.68 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

{{Edit protected}} I would like to request that some edits be added back to the article:

• My clean-up edits from this edit because they are simply clean-up edits and not related to the disputes.
• User:88.104.209.188's edits from this edit because it is just an additional detail added to the article and not related to the disputes.
• User:76.21.120.205's edits from this edit because they are simply clean-up edits and not related to the disputes.

-5- (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - J Greb (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} Sorry, but there's another one. At the end of the following paragraph there's an extra unnecessary space:

Dick Grayson appeared as Robin and later Nightwing on Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures, voiced by Loren Lester. The ten-year old version of the character was voiced by Joey Simmrin in the Emmy Award winning two-part episode "Robin's Reckoning", which provided Dick's origin story. While much of Dick's past remained the same, his costume was updated to the more modern look (with short sleeves and long pants), exactly like Tim Drake's original Robin outfit. "Batgirl Returns" establishes that Dick and Barbara Gordon attend the same college and that they have a fairly mutual romantic attraction to each other, but neither one knows that the other is secretly Robin and/or Batgirl, respectively (despite having collaborated in "Shadow of the Bat", albeit without getting along), and their relationship is one of the plot elements of Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero. Dick quit being Robin and left Gotham in the episode "Old Wounds", after coming to blows with Batman over the Dark Knight's controlling and ruthless behavior, even to the point of punching Batman in the face. Years later, Dick returned as Nightwing, and while he would work with Batman, the two never fully reconciled. Nightwing does however establish a strong working bond with his replacement, Tim Drake. Barbara Gordon also showed a desire to renew their relationship. <--It's right here.

Sorry to be bothering with minute details, but it bugs me.-5- (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, you can't even tell the difference in the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} See above. It can't take that much effort to do.-5- (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough, but a waste of administrator time none the less. I've made the edit in conjunction with the request below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected 2.0

{{Edit protected}} As the current edit war seems to be over content issues regarding the reduction of the number of non-free images, but the number of non-free images is back-up to 9, I was wondering if we could re-insert {{non-free-lists}} or {{too many photos}}, just to bring focus back to issue of non-free minimal use. -Sharp962 (talk).

Is there agreement that these tags are needed/appropriate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes. The intitial placement of the tags was uncontested. The tag was ultimately removed due by an anon editor active for less than a month (which I assume to equate in to lack of understanding of fair-use and implications of violation of policy). The additional discussion of the excess of non-free images has been posted and supported on the WP: Comics proj talk page, which has been uncontested. -Sharp962 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

I was hoping for assent from some other editors actually. But as no one has opposed this, I have added the tag. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In light of these problems, perhaps it would be best to remove all pictures from the "In Other Media" section? People interested in pictures can follow the links to the expanded sections on Robin/Nightwing in other media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.120.205 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good idea. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Images between Dick Grayson and Robin

• Dick Grayson
• Robin (comics)
• Nightwing

I looked over the images in history which have been removed from here, and every one of them was a picture of Dick grayson as Robin.

In my opinion, this is what we should have for pictures:

The Infobox should have an image of a fairly current Dick Grayson out of costume, NOT an image of Robin in it.

The image of Robin should be moved down to the section on Robin the boy wonder. (And an image of him as a kid, out of costume, might also be helpful.)

Every different costume/persona that Dick Grayson was. That means only two Robin images: the original Batman and Robin image and one from the Titans era.

All the other Dick Grayson-as-Robin images should be moved/merged to Robin (comics) and/or Robin in other media.

The two main Nightwing costumes should appear here (the yellow winged waist of the Titans era, and the "new look" from the ongoing series).

And of course the Dick as Batman image.

The Robin article covers more characters than just Dick, so that page should probably be an overview of the different ways Robin has been portrayed. So the "Robin in comics"-related images should go there. And since there is a Robin in other media article, the "in other media" images should go there.

Same with the Nightwing overview page.

I also think that (unlike the single story/arc appearances of alternate versions) there should be an image (and maybe an infobox - see also Robin (Earth-Two)) on this page of the Dick Grayson of Earth-2 and Deathwing. - jc37 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the infobox has had a history of being a trouble spot. Looking at what we'd like to be aiming at based on the Comic project guide line - the most recognized design for the character - Dick Grayson comes in a distant third to either "Robin" or "Nightwing". And the last time the issue was raised here, a strong argument was made that to a more general audience, the "Robin" character design was more recognized as Grayson than Nightwing. Grudgingly, I agree with that even if it would be "easier" or "common sense" to match article title to character design. Also, I don't see a problem with 2 or more articles "sharing" infobox content.

The two current Nightwing images and the Batman one I agree are reasonable here. Though there is an issue with the placement of the "wings" version.

As for the "Other versions" and "In other media"... thoughts tend to be a mixed bag.

• IOM seems clear cut.
  • For the most part the material can be moved lock, stock, and barrel to Robin in other media. The images can sit there and the Nightwing appearances can be minimized there.
  • The actual Nightwing material can be moved to Nightwing#In other media with the Robin aspects being minimized. A {{See}} pointing to Robin in other media should complete the information.
  • A minimized version should be retained here. No sub-heads, just an over view of how the character has been adapted outside of comics.
  • And there are a number of IOM tidbits that are questionable at best for inclusion
    • Birds of Prey (TV series) - The character never appeared, it was just mentioned. That seems like trivia.
    • Nolan series - Same issue
    • Teen Titans [film] - And again
    • The Teen Titans Nightwing design. This and the Nightwing look from The Batman were pulled from the Nightwing IOM as "One shot appearance".
• The AV is a lot more cluttered.
  • In some respects it needs its own "See also" section to point to the Earth-2 Robin article, Alternate versions of Robin, and an AV section on Nightwing.
  • Deathwing can move from AV Robin to AV Nightwing.
  • Aside from Batman Beyond (the current limited series), a shortened version of the "alts" can exist here with the details, and images, sitting elsewhere.
  • Given the current Batman Beyond is currently at issue 4 of 6, the reveal may still be subject to a plot twist and might need to be moved in the end.
  • If there are any AVs of Grayson that weren't showcased as "Robin" or "Nightwing", like the BB one is looking to be, they should be here as well.

- J Greb (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for that is because in most cases, there is only one article covering the person (or persons). In this case, we have 3. (There are few characters with such a long and varied history.) And the other two cover 2 of the three you mention.

So WP:IAR applies - you even said it when you mentioned "common sense".

And Deathwing is an alternate version of Dick Grayson as Nightwing. And wasn't a single story alternate version, which is why I mentioned him. Same with the Earth-2 version. - jc37 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "other media" I think the pruning makes great sense. AV also seems perfect as well. As for the box image, JGrebs suggestion of a simple Dick picture seems to work, I'm just straining to figure from where. My best suggestions are either New Teen Titans prior to the start of Nightwing, or some internal art from Nightwing or Batman. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

True, there should be a decent Perez era Dick-not-in-costume-or-disguise image out there from the `80s. The concern I've got is that changing the infobox image on this article has been thorny each time it's been broached. I'd also hope that if we hit a consensus on using a Grayson image, that it finally stabilizes the issue. - J Greb (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a little time, and so I started hunting. There are the coverage images for the Prodigal storyline or Battle for the Cowl #1 alt cover. Both are a little Robin light however (The Prodigal atleast features all three costumes). There is a Nightwing Annual I believe that has Dick running across the rooftop and shows the evolution of the character, but this fairly Batman light. This doesn't really broach the solo Dick pic, but some options. Without scoping out internal art, I think the Prodigal pic would be the most palettable as it alludes at least to all of Dick's incarnations. - Sharp962 (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

I fully agree with J Greb on pruning the IOM and AV sections. I'll be working on doing so as time permits, though I'd appreciate any help. In the interim period I've removed the images in question and the non-free image tag.Bluemage55 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Batman Beyond

JGreb, the reference was not removed. There was a duplication of a section due to copy pasting error, but the reference remained. http://www.newsarama.com/comics/adam-beechen-batman-beyond-100318.html is the relevant reference, and clearly indicates that the Batman Beyond miniseries is a continuation of the animated series. Both the Batman Beyond and the Batman Beyond (2010) articles concur, as would a cursory reading of the actual miniseries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.120.205 (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources.
2. Drawing a conclusion from the primary source is original research, which is not acceptable within the articles.
3. From the source you point to:

Nrama: How does this series tie into current DC continuity? Or does it?

Beechen: It fits in, in that it directly references specific, important incidents from the Batman comic book continuity that never tied into the show previously. Also, just as the show told us what became of some of the characters from the comic continuity, this series will tell us a little more about some characters we never saw in the show.

If we want to assign this mini to a specific continuity, this causes a problem - the DCU and the DCAU cannot be forced to match each other, they diverge too much. And even if we go down that road, it becomes OR real quick with editors here picking what makes this fit where.

The best we can say is that: "Beechen has stated he use Batman Beyond (the cartoon) as the primary basis for the series while tying it to the current DC continuity. He has set the story after the animated series ended and is using it to work in characters that had not appeared in the show, such as Dick Grayson..." and we go from there.

Last thing, if the other articles are indulging in OR as well, they may need to be looked at as well.

- J Greb (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It also states this:

Nrama: Will your mini-series explore the exact same Terry McGinnis we know from the series?

Beechen: Yup, same guy. Our story takes place after the animated series ends, so Terry's pretty experienced as Batman. But, as we'll see, he still has a lot to learn.

You misinterpreted the question you quoted. That asks how it ties into the *DC comics continuity*, whereas the portion I quoted addresses how it fits into the *DCAU continuity*. It's been stated in that interview, and elsewhere (http://www.ifanboy.com/content/articles/Interview__Adam_Beechen_on_Batman_Beyond, http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=25300), that the miniseries is in continuity with the DCAU, but is also an attempt to tie it to the DC comics universe. The other links found on the Batman Beyond (2010) page also suggest the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.120.205 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when Beechen's answer includes "...Batman comic book continuity...", the question and answer stop refferring to the DCAU.

When both questions about the content of the mini are asked, with the given answers, it stops being a support for the mini being a direct continuation of the show. That is unless to cherry pick to support your particular fan POV.

- J Greb (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

From http://www.ifanboy.com/content/articles/Interview__Adam_Beechen_on_Batman_Beyond:

"The series ended in 2001, but due to popular demand, DC Comics is returning to the world of Batman Beyond in a 6-issue limited series that picks up where the animated series left off."

"MA: What made you decide to keep this in continuity with the cartoon, rather than just starting with your own take?

AB: It was an editorial request to give the miniseries a link to the cartoon so that, if DC decided to draw the cartoon tighter into its mainstream continuity, it could do so. I think we’ve come up with a story that does that."

MA: I've heard you will be making an effort to tie the Batman Beyond universe in with current continuity; any hints on how you'll do that? And do you think there's a difficulty in making future stories "count" with the fans?

AB: We’ll be name-checking a lot of stuff from current continuity, and our story has to do directly with Batman’s comic book past. And making this story “count” was never a problem because, once we had the basic idea, there was never any doubt it was going to “count” for both fans of the books and the cartoons.

AB: Our story takes place before Epilogue, but some of the things we learned in that episode may be seeded in our miniseries, yes.

From:http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=25300

Set within the DC Animated Universe (DCAU) along with shows like "Batman: The Animated Series" and "Justice League Unlimited," the series introduced the world to Terry McGinnis, Bruce Wayne’s successor as Batman, the protector of Neo Gotham circa 2039.

From: http://comics.ign.com/articles/110/1103267p1.html

While a slightly older Terry appeared several times during the course of Justice League Unlimited, this comic looks to be set during the timeline of the original Beyond show.

Is there any particular reason you are arguing that the comics are not in DCAU continuity? I'm sure you could cherry pick some quotes that might be interpreted as supporting the idea that they are not, but when the majority of the articles on the subject all suggest the same, why are you working to oppose it? Have you watched the DCAU and read the miniseries in question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.120.205 (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly? All three of the interviews are clear that both continuities are in play. Stopping short at the answers that say "show continuation" is using the sources dishonestly.

As for the review - it relies on what are considered "weasel words" with in a Wikipedia article to guess at the continuity the mini is set it.

- J Greb (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no disagreement that both continuities are in play. All the interviews make it clear that the series attempts to tie into the DC comics continuity (and reading the primary source thus far it's referring to the inclusion of Hush, Signalman, and Calendar Man), but that does not mean it is not set in the DCAU.

All of the linked sources, as well as the primary source, make it clear that the show is both set in the DCAU, and has ties to the DC comics continuity. That is why there are numerous quotes that state that the miniseries is in continuity, how the the story is set after "Return of the Joker" but before "Epilogue", how the writers are fact-checking carefully to make sure that it matches the DCAU, and at the same time, why we see elements from the comics (Hush, Signalman, Calendar Man) that have never been seen in the DCAU before (but do not in any way contradict DCAU canon).

Did you instead interpret the interviews to mean that it is in a completely new continuity? And if so, why? Again, I'd like to ask if you have watched Batman Beyond/RotJ and read the comics in question? It's very readily apparent that the series takes place after RotJ, as Terry meets with Tim Drake and those events (which never existed in any other continuity) are referenced directly. Although I understand Wikipedia policy is not to use primary sources, they may help you understand the issue in question. 76.21.120.205 (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by all this. It looks almost like DC has avoided specifically confirming one way or another whether or not the 2010 miniseries and 2011 ongoing series belong to the DCAU continuity. Even more complicating, both series reference events that have happened only in the DCAU, and the new series are Vols #3 and #4 while Vols #1 and #2 were officially canon, yet there appear to be a few continuity errors with the DCAU. Is there an official announcement anywhere on this? -Bluemage55 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, the cites provided to this point put vol 3 and 4 neither in the DCU nor the DCAU. The best that can be said is that the new ongoing is an extension of the more recent mini.

As for vol 1 and 2 being "officially canon"... short of a cite from DC, Warner Animation, Timm, etc I'm leeery of that. There are too many situations where spin-off media is licenced, but has to be "made" to fit the parent continuity. This is closser since the animated shows and the comics are produced by essencially the same company, but we should have something more than our assumption that the spin-off are the same continuity as the parent material.

- J Greb (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I see how this might be difficult. I take it that we don't actually have official clarification then. (Hint hint to anyone reading this who gets to interview or ask questions at a panel in the future).

The interpretation I'm drawing from the above cites and having read the comics and watched the DCAU is that they took the DCAU as a base and then threw in some DCU elements. It's pretty clear that the past of Vol 3/4 is very similar if not identical (which exactly depends on whether few discrepancies are errors rather than deliberate departures) to the DCAU history, as Batman is Terry, and both RotJ and "The Call" are referenced.

So just to be clear, Wikipedia policy tells us that only official confirmation would group it under DCAU? If so, does this mean we should also take out "Batman Adventures" (and likewise, "Superman Adventures" on its respective pages)? After all, "Batman Adventures" seems to follow the same general idea: it's "set within the DCAU", yet features characters from the DCU that never appeared in DCAU. Or is it correct to follow the trend on a page like DC Animated Universe, where works of unconfirmed but clearly related continuity are listed, but clearly noted that their canonity is unknown?

Thanks for collaborating on this. -Bluemage55 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hot pants?

The article should discuss why Batman chose to dress Robin in hot pants. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should it? Got any quotable sources that would merit inclusion? Up to the 60s, young male teenagers usually wore shorts (not "hot pants" as you put them, that's your sexualized interpretation...), including school uniforms. The first long trousers they got (usually in their mid-teens) were a special occasion in their life, since they symbolized adulthood. So what's depicted was actually ordinary for a teenager of Robin's age. (although tighter, following the usual spandex superhero costume conventions)-- megA (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AeryValley, 1 June 2011

Dick Grayson was voted #11 in IGN's Top 100 Comic Book Heroes of All Time.

AeryValley (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. "Please change X" is not acceptable and has been rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". GaneshBhakt (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarantula- Love Interest?

Is there anything more to their relationship than the rape? It should be mentioned if there was. If not, I would have a hard time justifying placing her with the other women there.

I'd prefer her removed from that section. She wasn't ever a love interest of Grayson's. There are many other woman who should be in her place. Might I suggest his "first love"? Liu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estaminetwyvern (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Names in the infobox and lead

The long and the short: For an element in a work of fiction, using the common name(s) is sufficient and proper. In this case the common names for the character are: "Dick Grayson", "Robin", "Nightwing", and, at a stretch, "Batman". This is not an actual person where we would follow the MoS for a bio.

While "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard", "Richard Grayson" is not a commonly used name for the character. It may be worth mentioning in the fictography section that "Richard" has been used in various plot points, but even that is a stretch.

- J Greb (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I see no evidence that Dick Grayson is ever called Richard Grayson. The point that Dick is short for Richard is pedantic and indeed it is POINTY to keep inserting this into the article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nightwing Again

Any chance this section come be reworded, it's quite confusing especially the part that tries to explain when Dick met Batman. 124.170.102.216 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012

Dick Grayson is now 6'0" according to the new Batman Arkham City game. Ib.positive (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not really what this article is for... - J Greb (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Robin or Azarel?

Who replaced Bruce Wayne as Batman in the story arc Batman:Knightfall? Was it Azarel as claimed in the Knightfall article or is it Dick Grayson as being claimed in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.44.104 (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It was Azrael. Somebody can confirm it? So we can remove this part... Arussom (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember now... First it was Azrael but later, when Azrael is beaten, was Dick... so, I think both are correct. Arussom (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

alter ego

how can Dick Grayson's alter ego be Dick Grayson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.9.27 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it. ArtistScientist (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page.

Edit warring is simply inappropriate. There are discussions above on this talk page, avail yourselves of them.

I protected the page for a month (the typical length of an RfC), but in hindsight, I'll probably lift protection sooner than that.

Warning: If the edit warring re-persists, blocks will likely be handed out instead of protection, per WP:PROTECT. - jc37 07:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012

Just a grammar problem I came across: "Robin currently appears in Teen Titans Go!, a spin-off comic book series based on the TV shows. #47 confirmed Robin to be Dick Grayson. During the "Apprentice" arc, Slade made a comment about wanting to be a father figure for Robin, to which he replied, "I already have a father", followed by a shot of several bats flying." Iamthecheese44 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 November 2012

Need to add Дик Грейсон (ru).

Mrfett (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 November 2012

Dick Grayson needs to be changed to Richard Grayson. Dick isn't his name, it's a rhyming jumble of Richard that became a nickname that was used hundreds of years ago and is not the real thing.

---

Replace all of Dick Grayson with Richard Grayson, not just the full name.

Edtion (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done Unless J Greb reverts it again for his nonsensical reasons. || Tako (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you can put it in place in context of when the character name was changed from just "Dick Grayson" to "Richard 'Dick' Grayson" to "Richard John 'Dick' Grayson" and wight it properly, then go a head. Otherwise, the character is routinely and normally identified as "Dick Grayson". And YES the other articles should also be tweaked to avoid that in story tone. - J Greb (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I still think you're missing the entire point where the character's name is Richard John Grayson. It doesn't matter what name came first. As of now and the past x years, the character of which the article is on, is named Richard John Grayson. |full_name exists for cases EXACTLY LIKE THIS. You're ignoring a piece of ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION about this character. Three people want to see this. Why are you so against it? This is VALID INFORMATION which SHOULD be in the article. This has been discussed enough. You have provided no valid reason for why it should not be in the info box. If it's a quick overview of the article, then why shouldn't it include the only valid full name of the character? || Tako (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unfinished, my request is for all of the Dick Graysons to be replace with Richard Grayson. Edtion (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Not useful to change throughout. He's not a real person, there is no chance of confusion, we should use his in-world name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
    
    • I have changed this to "answered" no-one is going to change the name throughout the article. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
      

May I point out that the title of the article is "Dick Grayson"? I would never have found the article if it had been titled differently. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)