Jump to content

Talk:Batman R.I.P.

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

Mister Mayhew

[edit]

Seeing as there seems to be no article for the #667-#670 issues (the island of Mister Mayhew arc) I wondered if somebody might write a brief synopsis as a background for this story. It appears to be somewhat important. Tony2Times (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take part in RIP. Dracoster (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is dealt with on Batmen of All Nations. (Emperor (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reading order?

[edit]

Have anyone found a reading order for this? They have advertised it as a Gotham crossover. Dracoster (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering about this too. I would hate for this to start sounding like a forum. I've recently been using comicbookdb.com. It is similar to Wikipedia in that users can edit it. First, I wonder if this comicbookdb can be used as a source? Second, something I noticed with this story arc there, is that they list, for the Detective Comics parts, a (sub) story arc called "Heart of Hush". And for Nightwing, one called "The Great Leap". --luckymustard (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with iFanboy, Paul Dini stated that the Detective Comics tie-in arc (called The Return of Hush) takes place over a few nights before the first issue of the main R.I.P. arc in Batman. The interview can be found here RamsesWPE (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's really interesting news to me. I'm thinking that that kind of info should go in the "Tie-ins" section. I'll do that. Meanwhile, does anyone have any other info on how the other titles tie-in? --luckymustard (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hurt

[edit]

Worth an article? He has had other appearances and it might give more background to the character (like Libra (DC Comics) with Final Crisis).

Also note this article - there is clearly a lot of speculation doing the rounds about who some of the people might be and it might be worth keeping an eye on those articles for speculation: The Black Glove (Alfred Pennyworth) and Jezebel Jet (Jezebelle or Amazing Grace (comics)). (Emperor (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

i think he would be worth an article. there are some newer batman fans who would be interested in the back-story and find it very important to understand who doctor hurt is in the first place. Jamdwater (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect at bestBrian Boru is awesome (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article could be put up for the Black Glove organization as a whole, with sections for the League of Villains members under it. At the moment though, it doesn't really seem like enough is known about Dr. Hurt to sustain an entire article.66.24.238.22 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it less than helpful that there is a redirect to this article from Jezebel Jet, but there is not a single mention of her on the page. I'd prefer a page for Jezebel Jet, but I'd settle for her being mentioned here and on the Black Hand page (when it gets created). Hope this helps! Darci (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive edit

[edit]

I've just submitted a comprehensive edit of this entry to correct grammar, cut down a bit on speculation in favor of a more informative approach, and correct or add details. Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.171.88 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plot section was too big. The bare story needs to be told, not details, especially details added because the writer thinks they may be important later. Tell the story, if the detail becomes important, add it later. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. If you want a short section put that in a summary. But I would prefer a comprehensive section describing the story. I am reading the comic and some parts I don't uderstand so I look at the wiki. I did not understand the Zur En Arr part until I read the wiki. People should be enncouraged to add more content, not keep it short. If you want to keep it short then write as little as you want in a "Summary" section, but then let people write as much as they want in a "the Story So Far" section. Please re-add the content you removed. Concerned Reader (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.49.181 (talk) [reply]
It doesn't need to be "short" it just needs to not retell the story. This article isn't a replacement for the comic, it's a description of it. If there are important details that need to be readded, by all means readd them. But everything certainly doesn't need in there. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is anonymous editor above- for what it's worth, I agree that the plot synopsis is unnecessarily long and detail-oriented, but I left it as is since my edit was focused more on making the article readable than restructuring it fundamentally. One way of approaching this might be to keep up the recap approach while the story arc is still being published, then scrapping it and rewriting the article once the story is complete and it's possible to provide a synopsis dealing with the story as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.171.88 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is not useful because it has less information. It is useful because it has a lot of detailed information. Deleting the detailed summaries and adding short 2 sentence description removes the usefulness of the entire entry. It explains very little of the story. There were many parts of Batman RIP that did not make sense in the comic, such as the Bat Radia, and who Dr. Hurt was (from the many years ago.) Luckily I read the comic then I came to this page to find the stuff that I did not understand or was not clear from the comic. This wiki helped a lot, but now all that good information is gone.

By removing the detailed descriptions you discourage others from spending the time to do so (because it will be removed). You also take away the value to other reader that are looking for clarifications and descriptions for people that are looking for more details or find things in the story that were not readily apparent. Also, there are people that don't have the time or money to read the comics, or there is not a comic store in their city, yet they want to keep up on the details of the story. In closing, an encyclopedia is about being comprehensive. So if you don't like a detailed summary they create your own brief summary section, and move the detailed stuff into a detailed summary section, but don't remove it because you don't like it. You take away the work of the people that put effort into updating the article, and you take away the usefulness of the article for those that do want all of that extra information. Wikipedia is about having a lot of stuff. If you think there is too much Batman RIP info, then reorganize it but DO NOT remove it.

Please restore and reorganize (if you like) all that usefull information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.107.3.20 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are people that don't have the time or money to read the comics, - we are categorically *not* a replacement for reading the comics - what happens in the comics is actually of secondary interest to us than what the real world reaction to it is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we are categorically *not* a replacement for reading the comics

So if a friend asks you, "Hey did you read Batman rip?, I heard a lot of interesting stuff went down. Tell me what happened." Do you reply to your friend, "Go by the comic, I am categorically *not* a replacement for reading the comic"?

Of course you will talk to your friend about the comic. Well, wikipedia is about people sharing information and acting friendly. Not imposing what one thinks an entry should contain. People are free to add and update information as they see fit. But removing information subjectivly is throwing away someone elses work, as well as removing the reason for someone to visit this magnificent website.

Have you ever missed a tv show and the next day wanted to know what happened so you asked a friend? Did the friend reply, "go buy the podcast if you want to know"? When I occassionally miss an episode of LOST, I come to wikipedia and read a nice detailed summary of what happened. I also go there to read the detailed summary to see if there is something I missed. I don't go there just to read about production notes, or what someone said about the director, or the director's comments. I go to read about what happened on the episode I missed, or that I want clarification on.

I just looked at the George Washington wikipedia entry and there was quite a lengthy and informative, article and history about him. I did not see any comments such as "This entry is categorically not a replacement for reading history books."

Not imposing what one thinks an entry should contain. - actually we do that all of the time, we have extensive guidelines on content and what an article may and may not include, what an article should and should not include. For example, fans of a certain series might want to write about it as if it's real - we don't do that, and remove it where we see it - we write about things as an object of the narrative. That's a single example of how we impose rules on content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"actually we do that all of the time" You don't do it "all" of the time. The majority of wikis I read here are extremely detailed (and as a result, USEFUL). If you did it "all" the time then most articles would not have much information at all and people would go elsewhere to find that information. In none of your replys have you addressed the issue that more information is usually better and more useful (reorganizing it acceptable, but removing is not), and that people that are coming here for more information are being disenfranchised. Isn't the purpose of a website to have content that attracts people to it and makes them want to visit often? An easy compromise is to restore the previous work of others into a new detail section of the page for the many people like me who want detailed information. Please address these issues, don't take one sentence out of context and give a non-answer.

But we aren't the "majority of other wikis" and it's irrelevant to us what other sites do. If you don't like how we do things, feel free to propose a change to policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"irrelevant to us what other sites do"
Not other sites, THIS WEBSITE!!!!!!. THIS WEBSITE has detailed articles and is about creating detailed articles... except for the ones you feel like imposing your limitless power on. This website is supposed to be a community, not a dictatorship If other people want to add stuff, why do you feel like you have the right to remove it? Are you unable to compromise? The simple solution is to create another section on the page where others are able to add information as they see fit.
To solve these issues is why they have the page on etiquette to avoid edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.107.3.20 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - just for future reference - Wikipedia is a type of wiki, but not all Wikis are wikipedia, so apologies for the confusion. As for the rest, I'm afraid you are simply wrong. The truth is, most of the pages you are thinking of are don't meet our guidelines and criteria but because the site is so big many are never editing to our minimum standards while others are when people get the time to do so - it's entirely hit and miss which ones get noticed by experienced editors and which ones people simply can't be bothered to do anything about. I (and most of the wikiproject comics) tend to concentrate on high profile articles and try and ensure they at least meet some of our minimum standards (referenced, written from a real world perspective, plot summary not a blow by blow plot account etc). So for example, Secret Invasion is a terrible article that breaches many guidelines and policies - however, now it has caught the eyes of a number of edits, the plot summary will be burnt to the ground and the article will be rewritten from a real world perspective - that's just how it is. Having said that, if you like overdetailed articles that make no sense to anyone but fans - check out the gundam section of wikipedia, it's like the wild west, articles there are basically uneditable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. The following passage is short, lacks any detail or context, and is therefore perfectly acceptable:
"the Black Glove tests Batman's resolve, forcing him to temporarily adopt the crazed persona of the "Batman of Zur-En-Arrh." He is then led to Arkham Asylum to face The Joker. Seemingly defeated, Batman is buried alive by the Black Glove, a group that includes Bruce Wayne's girlfriend, Jezebel Jet, who has betrayed him. With the assistance of Robin, Nightwing, and the Club of Heroes, he turns the tables on his foes. In a final confrontation with Dr. Hurt, Batman is caught in a helicopter crash and feared dead. Six months later, a villain named Le Bossu tortures a Gotham City policeman, enjoying the freedom villains have now that Batman is gone. Suddenly, the Bat-Signal shines into his lair."
THAT is supposed to make sense to people who aren't fans? The plot summary may meet your "brevity" requirement but I somehow doubt any of that would really make sense to someone who hadn't already read the story-arc. It certainly doesn't make sense to me or to any of the people I've shown it to. It's out-of-context, laughably vague on points that desperately need clarification, and absurdly specific on points that make no sense without larger contextualization. If this article is supposed to make sense to people who aren't fans then I'd say you editors have failed stupendously; in your quest to clear-cut and salt the earth of the summary, you've just made it into a series of apparently non-sensical offhand references. 74.201.136.2 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tie-ins

[edit]

An anonymous editor added one more issue, #682, but I don't see any proof of that at the official DC Comics website. In fact, there's proof there that it isn't part of the story arc. So I'm changing it back. If that user comes back or anyone else somehow comes up with more info from a different/somehow better source, then let's talk about it. --luckymustard (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

[edit]

Before we start paring too much more information, let's remove the speculation.

If a sentence says something about what something else "may" indicate, then that needs removal. - jc37 08:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary.

[edit]

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#What summaries aren't. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's Phil's opinion.
Though personally I don't know if I'd lean too heavily on it. There are currently several conflicting "guidelines". (One of these days I'll get back to the merge discussion.) - jc37 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that details - especially ones that have turned out to be dead ends - are necessary? When issues come out, a certain level of detail might be worthwhile, but the older stuff needs to be removed. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, let's focus on speculation, and other issues before simply pruning to prune. There would seem to be plenty there to prune : )
Also, this is only a single story arc (albeit one over several publications), it's not like it's giving the complete history of Batman... - jc37 13:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pruning simply to prune, I'm pruning because the plot-summary is out of control and not really a summary at all. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's subjective opinion. And while I don't necessarily disagree with you, it might be a bit less contentious to prune the clearer problematic text, before just removing information for "conciseness". - jc37 06:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the comic myself, so I have no idea what is and isn't the problematic text. I have made several requests for others with more knowledge to do so, but no one has. If there is stuff that needs to be there, by all means add it. If there is still problematic text there, remove it. How it was I felt I didn't need to read the comic and that's not the point of an encyclopedia. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll slash and burn it later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey congratulations to you "plot guys" into making this plot the most broad, overshortened, non informative piece of crap I have ever seen. People who are hoping to learn something about the storyline shouldn't go there. Pruning, you call that pruning? That is butchering right there. I hope you don't have editorial or writing duties in your day jobs, because I feel terrible for the people around you. The plot was great before. There is no space limitations on Wikipedia so I don't know why people like you guys shorten stuff ever, it defies all logic. 98.27.190.112 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to admit it, but I agree with the anonymous poster above. This article is vague, nonsensical at points, generally rambling, and useless as it stands. It skips all over the place, has no real direction, and seems to carefully summarize everything BUT the plot of the storyline it's supposed to decribe; it might as well be removed because it gives no useful information. Actually describing the story-arc in a comprehensible fashion is FAR more important than making offhand references to all the other on-going story-arcs in the DC universe which seem to intersect with this one. 74.201.136.2 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I don't regularly read any comics, but a passing reference to this series caused me to come here to look it up. I'm as unclear on the plot as I was when I came here. Details are fine, but the plot summary appears to be written for knowledgeable comic book fans and/or people who have already read this series. Is Batman dead? I can't tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.50.106 (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, what is the relation between Dr Hurt and the scandalous information about Thomas Wayne as described in this character's article? It's not clear at all why this is not adressed at all in Batman R.I.P., nor why the plot summary about the whole story arc is shorter than the plot description of one particular character. Diego (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media Reaction...

[edit]

I hear that reaction (seemingly wild speculation based on the title) has been occuring in non-comics media. Should there be a section on this and can does anyone have examples or cites? Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are articles by the BBC, new york times and other - plus quotes within those articles to morrison, dido and other so we should most certainly add them. I'll dig them up in a bit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up

[edit]

We need a section about the fact that this leads into Battle of the cowl? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems to be officially called, according to the top of the covers of Batman #682 and Detective #851, "Last Rites". --luckymustard (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a final crisis cross-over so we'll need to note that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot rewrite

[edit]

I noticed that the plot section was totally rewritten anonymously today. It's vastly different (and significantly longer) than the previous version.

Has anyone actually read this book? Someone who could actually determine if the plot section is accurate? I've fixed the formatting issues, but I don't know anything about the actual content. -- Eriksiers (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Hush

[edit]

"Heart of Hush" is redirecting to "Batman R.I.P.", which is incorrect. I mean Heart of Hush are Detective Comics #846-847 by Paul Dini and Dustin Nguyen. It should be another new article.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Batman R.I.P.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman_R.I.P.&oldid=1199612121"