Jump to content

Talk:Barbara Gordon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBarbara Gordon was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 30, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
January 21, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 30, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 16, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 23, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Miscellaneous Points

[edit]

I visited this page looking for an answer to two specific questions. First, what is Commissioner Gordon's current status in re Oracle: is he in contact with her? does he know that she's his daughter? does he know that his daughter is even alive? Second, what is the relationship between Oracle and the other members of the JLA?

I found an answer to neither question on this page. I don't know that this means that it isn't a good article, but I would venture to suggest that it's not quite as complete as it might be.

Also, Gail Simone's comment in the "Oracle (1988-present)" section should perhaps be moved to the "Critical and editorial commentary" section. As it stands, the latter section seems to be dominated by people who either (a) liked Babs better as Batgirl, or (b) want her to stay on as Oracle so she can serve as a role model to the handicapped. There should be at least one representative there of Viewpoint C: Babs should stay on as Oracle because she's cooler as an all-seeing Lady in the Tower than as a standard superhero. Just a thought. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Minute details of fictional character's live are to be avoided. It doesn't matter if Jim Gordon know's Oracle's current status unless the plot has real world historical value to DC Comics or there is an extensive amount of secondary sources commenting on the subject. Same rule applies to her standing with other members of the JLA. Gail Simone's comment belong where it is, primarily due to the fact that she was actually writing for the character for an extensive amount of time. Plus she's giving an overall opinion of the character. The Critical and editorial commentary deals with the specific convtroversies of Godon's disability. "Point c" is basically the same as "point b", people like oracle because she isn't run-of-the-mill. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry?

[edit]

DC Senior Vice President Dan DiDio comments, "Some stories... are so strong that undoing them would be a crime. The DCU would be a lesser place without Barry's sacrifice, or the crippling of Barbara at the hands of the Joker."

Who is Barry? A link would be handy, or an explanation, in square brackets, within the quotation, or perhaps after the quotation; or, it could be rephrased ("The DCU would be a lesser place without [...] the crippling..." etc.) to remove reference to this mysterious Barry.

As it stands, Barry is slightly more enigmatic than he should be, here.

G. 117.92.147.242 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the source... I'll make an edit and see what people think... G. 117.92.147.242 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love interests

[edit]

I've removed again the material speculating about Barbara's love interests/fantasies/whatever:

During the time of The Animated Series, Barbara is shown to be attracted to Nightwing/Robin/Dick Grayson[1]. Mirroring the comics, the two have a romantic relationship that does not last. Batgirl is seen fantasizing about Batman[2], but the only explicit relationship she is shown in is with Grayson. After The Animated Series, Gordon tries to rekindle their relationship in The New Batman Adventures, but to no avail.

The material takes disparate points and connects them in a way not explicitly provided by the source material. Such connection is by definition synthesis and subsequent analysis. Last time I checked, none of us here are citable, so our observations are useless to the encyclopedia. ~Hexhand

What original position do you believe is being advanced by the presentation of these points in this order? Perhaps it can be worded in a more neutral manner in recognition of your concerns. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its entirely irrelevant since there is no reliable source specifically detailing her relationships. As Hexand pointed out, its WP:synthesis. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's entirely irrelevant? The position being synthesized? If the passage is alledged to be synthesis then nothing is more releveant. From what I can see the passage merely provides a summary of events explicitly and directly shown in the programs. I ask what is being inferred. ArtistScientist (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable third party sources to not explicitly say "the writers placed her in a relationship with so and so, to keep in line with the comics" etc, then mentioning her relationships/love interests is irrelevant because it becomes not only SYNTH but also original research. I've seen every episode of both the animated series and the New Batman Adventures and Batman Beyond - Babs and Dick never called each other boyfriend/girlfriend, nor did they event explicitly say "we are in a realationship" even though the relationship was heavily implied. If there is going to be any commentary on relationships whatsoever it has to be sourced by something other than the show itself ex: the writers, producers, news publications, etc.
For example, much of the early work I did on this article details how the character was created/written from the perspective of the DC Comic editors/writers/artists, not just information from the comics themselves. The same rule has to apply to the animated adaptations.
WP:INUNIVERSE: An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, inviting unverifiable original research by relying on primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become.
To avoid In-Universe writing, every effort should be made to use sources other than the primary source (the comic or the adaptation). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it's wrong to invoke the idea of relationships when there is no explicit reference to any, but this shouldn't preclude directly quoting the shows in order to inform on their depiction of character's social interactions. I haven't seen some of the episodes so I may have to come back to this later. Also I have to admit I don't understand any distinction between original research and synthesis. ArtistScientist (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically: (example of a passage) "Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon were seen in several episodes interacting on what would appear dates or romantic encounters." This is SNYTH because although the script for the show might depict a romantic interaction, there is no source (as of yet) confirming 'yes, these to characters were dating'. Especially if the characters themselves do not actually describe the nature of their relationship on screen. That also makes it original research because you are using the primary source (the episode(s) ) to draw out a conclusion that is not there, thereby making your own opinion about the nature of the relationship.
On another note, now that I think about it, I do remember an episode in Batman Beyond where Barbara describes her relationship with Dick as "puppy love", but you'd have to find a reference that uses that exact quote from the screen play (like tv.com). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address ArtistScientist's hinted question as to the distinction between OR and SYN, it might be helpful to understand that Syn is a subset of OR. Original Research would be to suggest that all comic book super-heroines have big boobs because the artists who draw them weren't breast-fed enough as infants. Synthesis would be to take a citation that discusses the artistic evolution of Power Girl's chest (and that's a pretty funny story, btw) and another citation about the objectification of women, and state that Power Girl is an example of female objectification (at best). OR is just created whole cloth from the editor's thoughts/opinions/etc. and SYN is making a connection between two citations that is not made explicitly by either.
The synthesis problem here is not so much that Gordon and Grayson have a relationship; that's citable. Connecting that to the suggestion of a relationship (not only to Grayson but to Wayne as well) in other media without some cite saying something along the lines of 'yeah, we wanted to put that in, out of respect to the comics' is synthesizing a connection in the media you have seen with the comics you have read. A citable source can do that. We, as editors, cannot. - Hexhand (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Batman and Mr. Freeze: Subzero
  2. ^ Mystery of the Batwoman

Batgirl or Oracle

[edit]

She's better known as Batgirl by fans in other media but in comics she's currently Oracle. Which name do you think should appear in the info box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.99.28 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the current naming convention is to use Barbara Gordon. - J Greb (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should Kim Yale and John Ostrander be listed as creators for Oracle in the "Created by" section of the publication box ? In creating Oracle, they created what was basically a new character and effectively created a new world for that character to occupy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.113.243 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No.
- J Greb (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batgirl again

[edit]

DC writer Gail Simone has announced at http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2011/06/06/gail-simone-on-barbara-gordons-return-to-batgirl/ (try dcu.blog.dccomics.com and scroll down if the direct link doesn't work) that Gordon will resume the Batgirl identity in a series to begin this September. How should this be addressed on the page? ShaleZero (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly?
"In early June 2011 DC Comics announced as part of its line wide relaunch that Batgirl volume 4 will be included among the titles. The series will be written by Foo with art by Bar and Arr and will return the character of Barbara Gordon to the role of Batgirl.Ref 1, Ref 2 (of 3 or 4 out there ATM)"
Nothing more. Once the Series launches we can see what needs to be added here. And to be honest, most of it is likely to be on other pages instead of here.
- J Greb (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image

[edit]

Yesterday, while updating the article, I changed the main image to File:Batgirl1.jpg to reflect the character's return to her former identity. The edit was reverted for reasons: "1 is way too early the other needs discussion", so I'd like to discuss it now. To be honest, I've always been in favor of having a Batgirl picture as the main image as a more iconic representation of the character. Considering the wealth of sources confirming the character's change, its not exactly a case of WP:CRYSTAL. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying a bit:
  • Reason 1 that I inferred was "The new/old Batgirl is coming to comics shelves in September." The long and the short here is that a change based on that can wait the ~9 weeks for the comic to go on sale. The same for changing team images and any other cosmetic changes. This isn't a reflection on CRYSTAL but that Wikipedia isn't an news or fan site.
  • Reason 2 was that the character is "more notable" as Batgirl. I actually agree with that and it's similar to the Robin images used for Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. However, if we are going to aim at most "notable" or "recognized" I don't think the "new" costume is the best fit. Maybe looking for something from prior to Killing Joke or one of the sparse re-visits since then.
- J Greb (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around several character pages before making the change. My rebuttal is, the image for Batgirl #1 isn't radically different from her 1960s look. It would be the same as using the current Superman or Batman images that showcase promotional art from 2002 and 2004. Their original costumes, like Batgirl's, have gone through slight variations over the years, but for the most part, remain essentially the same. In fact, in comparison to the revamps to Superman and Wonder Woman's costume changes (among others in the Relaunch), the only change to Batgirl's from the character's debut is coloration. Its similar to File:Batgirl by Nowlan.jpg which is Post-Killing Joke. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Superman and batman have been mostly static for decades. The comparison here would be replacing either of the current article lead images with the Bat armor from Fitch's DK or Lee's "Super armor" from Pérez's upcoming Superman v3 #1. Also note that WW didn't get a change to Lee's new look for her.
Batgirl's costume was also stylistically static from 1967 [1] on as per [2], [3]; [4] (multiple examples); [5]; and up to the last appearance prior to Killing Joke. It's also consistent across "special" appearances after that point [6]; [7]; [8]; and [9]. There is enough weght there to argue for using the Nolan image, since it is/was already present over using the revamp.
- J Greb (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer switching to the Nolan image then. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good way forward. - J Greb (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really fantastic article

[edit]

I thought that deserved to be said on the talk page where the various contributors would see it; I'm assuming a great deal was done by Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk · contribs). Cheers to great work!Zythe (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been working on it for years. And very intensely over the past few weeks. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barbara Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Gordon. 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) 12:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbara Gordon. 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) 04:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barbara Gordon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Gordon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Gordon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Gordon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbara Gordon. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information broker

[edit]

Knowing nothing about this character, can someone please check if the Oracle is an information broker in the data broker sense of the word in the Wikipedia article? (I'm trying to sort out a lot of incorrectly linked articles relating to similar terms at the moment.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Barbara Gordon

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 2, 3, and 4. The article needs more citations (preferably from secondary sources), it is tagged as needing updates, it goes into excessive detail significantly beyond what is appropriate for the article, and the commentary section uses a non-neutral structure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_Gordon&oldid=1193890503"