Talk:Dick Grayson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May and August 2006

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archives to Talk:Dick Grayson/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Second to Batman" Insult or compliment?

You constently hear how Nightwing is suppose to come out of the shadow of batman, but you constently see that second rate insulting "compliment" HA "Second only to batman". People, Nightwings been doing this crimefighting and martial arts game since he was 8 when batman first started teaching him, and to contrary belief Nightwing is not some young guy just makeing it into his 20's he should be in his Late 20's 27-28 timeframe making his wealth of experience in fighting and everything else approaching 20 years if not all ready there. People act as if Batman taught him EVERY SINGLE trait he learned, that if the 2 every really clashed batman would know every move he would throw. Nightwing has been out of batman's tutelage for years and learned many things on his own. Being on the Titans for all those years as intuitive as Dick is he should have learned and mastered a hole new bag of tricks. You had peolpe like Bushido, master swordsman, Starfire who was trained by the warlords of Okaara(who had mastered ALL forms of combat before humanity even began), Donna Troy who had skills of New Chronos and Amazonian fighting styles, Arsenal Moo-goo-gin and weapons master and etc. Nightwing has been stated as being the "Natural Athlete" of the DC universe basically stating that he picks up on physicals skills rather easily ans quicker than most. Fighting and martial arts are very physical skills so that should mean he would just be absorbing new styles. In my opinion "Second only to batman" is an insult. He should be stated as being 'Among the world's greatest' or 'Equal to'. Blockbuster once stated in Nightwing #12 or 13 that Nightwing was the EQUAL to Batman THE INFAMOUS Nightwing99

Not this again. Okay, look, read the whole talk page, read how we worked together to make something to both honor Dick for his accomplishments and keep them in line with the fact that Batman is better than he is, as a detective. The 'second only..' line is from a DCU who's who, which is the horse's mouth. The DC folks put him as second to Bats, he is second to Bats. BTW, I remember you, Nightwing99. If you start making rv edits on the skills again, without citing sources for the alien training (issue numbers please), then I've got no problem asking an admin to step in. I've also looked at your edits with your other IPs (131.158.85.201 and 216.36.0.182) and I can see you're a 'Nightwing roxxor!!!11' guy. Please, try and understand we're not insulting or dissing Dick, we're keeping things as factual as we can. Grayson's not on the list of top martial artists in the DCU. He'd be the acrobat, if anyone listed that, but it's not the same. He's an agile little freak, but shit, Jason Todd just kicked his ass! Sorry, Dickie-Bird, you're not tops these days. -- Ipstenu 04:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well to the contrary the only ass Jason Todd every really kicked was Tim Drakes',and that was hilarious loved every page of it. If you read the batman later 600 issues where batman and Todd kept running into one another Jason kept beating and out smarting batman on several occasions, then it's revealed that he was just taking it easy on him and the same goes for Nightwing. Read the comics and you'll see that in most of the panels where Jason and Dick are fighting Dick usually has the upper hand except for when Jason slices his hand. It further stated in #120 that Dick had been actually holding back on Jason in a sense "letting" him get away just like bats did. As for alien training, it's always been stated that the teen titans was a place for young hero to come together support each other and to LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER so it pretty much goes with out saying. If Starfire is an alien that comes from a warrior race and trained by the best combat warrior lords in the universe and Dick and her were together for years he had to learn something. Same thing pretty much goes with Donna troy she's a warrior with advance combat skills they knew each other and worked together for years put 2 & 2 together you get 4. batman often sparred with Wonder Woman and they've been on the same team for years meaning he knows something about Amazonian combat styles. The changes I've made to skill as of recently have been legitimate. All I've said was his detective skills and martial arts skills are among the world's greatest/making him one of the finest crime fighters alive. I also say that he is a master of over a dozen martial arts and well versed in all other forms of combat and weapons with emphasis on Escrima (which u people kept taking out when you KNOW he's an Escrima Master, thanks for finally keeping it). batman has been stated as being a master of all forms of martial arts and yet Nightwing only mastered 6 come on now lets be realistic, that's highly unlikely and might I add impossible, it would take hundreds of years to master everything, it can't be done. You can be experienced, knowledgeable, practiced, well versed, or familiar with but mastered?! Not in one lifetime. Not unless you're a meta with photo graphics reflexes or like Prometheus who downloads it all into his head. Second to batman was a great compliment when he was a kid, but he's a grown man now. Being second best all your life isn't a compliment and it's not letting you step out of ones shadow, your forever in it - Nightwing99

Indeed. The 'Among the world's greatest' is untrue since nightwing is not among the 5 greatest martial artists, and the 'Equal to Batman' is only the opinion of one writter. Grayson doesn't carries a kick ass equipment, he isn't a genius, he isn't at peak human physical condition, he is only agile and well trained. - Neodammerung 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if they say, "second to batman" and batman is one of the world greatest, you know what that makes him?... Among the world's greatest. Nightwing and batman carry pretty much the same equipment and he's also with the Outsiders who are backed by a huge conglomerate supplying them with nice toys. It's already been stated he's at peak physical condition and DC Comics Encyclopedia page.222 lower right of page states COMBAT MASTER so that's more than 'well trained'. - Nightwing99

Okay. Listen to Richard-Sensei: "Slow down. Remember to breathe. It's simple. It's the essence of life." Cool? Calm? Okay. Now then. Instead of saying that you think "second to Batman is an insult", tell us what you suggest in its place. If you want to change the article to something you find less insulting, we're all open to hearing what you have in mind. If you simply want to say "Nightwing is Batman's equal (or better) in martial arts", however, and won't accept any wording except that, then I can tell you right now what you'll need in order to get that consensus vote in favor of it. You would need to be able to find (and preferably scan) a reasonably recent fight between the two characters where they clearly both go after one another, full tilt, martial arts only, each one giving his all, and Nightwing beats or ties with Batman. After the way the two characters have been treated recently, that's pretty much what it's going to take. We've gotten a large number of books over the last few years showing Batman as one of the world's best martial artists. And as much as I like Dick (and I like him a great deal), in recent years DC has not been pushing him as one of the best. Even Chuck Dixon, the guy who was most kind to Nightwing of all his writers, has been more inclined to let Dick lose to world class martial artists than to win. But, like I said, if you think you have a phrase that's better than "second to Batman" and doesn't state that he's equal or better than Batman, I think we'd all be willing to hear you out.D1Puck1T 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nightwing Secret Files & Origins 1999 states that he is a master of 6 martial arts disciplines. Please Nightwing99, if your information is legitimate as you say, give some sources (issues) to back up your arguments. - Neodammerung 02:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to do Puck. I don't put "equal to" or "better than" any more. I simple say his martial arts and detective among the world's greatest, just taking batman out of the whole equation completely. Your never out of some one's shadow if your always there second best and DC always says he's suppose to be out of his shadow but they're just to scared to write him that way. You guys once had Jason Todd listed as "on par" with batman in terms of fighting in the side profile bar under notable powers. Todd doesn't deserve such a ranking if Nightwing can't get better. Now it's been replaced with Master Combatant(yes I know Talia said it in batman annual #25) but like I said in the paragraph above, DC Comics Encyclopedia page.222 lower right of page states COMBAT MASTER why isn't that listed in Nightwing's side bar instead of exceptional martial artist. Tim Drake is an exceptional martial artist, Speedy is an exceptional martial artist, but if your a master of multiple martial arts disciplines you're a master martial artist, simple logic. You even have Black Canary listed as one of the top martial artists in the DC Comics Universe under her notable powers. She couldn't even beat Strike, Nightwing #55 Strike almost killed her until Nightwing intervened and beat Strike easilyin BOP Black Canary admits that Nightwing is better than she is in the fight with "The Brothers Silk." You say site things, but did you not read my previous paragraphs I've sited and where I didn't cite I used logical process to prove my point. It's never been cited verbatim that batman can do 200 push ups but you can come to a logical conclusion that he can. Everything doesn't need exact citing sometimes you can come to logical opinions. Read my previous paragraphs and tell me what isn’t logical or make sense and tell me why?Nightwing99

Combat Master isn't used because it's a meaningless term. Zatanna might be a combat master. I have no idea what you need to be able to do in order to be considered a combat master. "Expert martial artist" on the other hand, tells us about a specific and identifiable skill. Now, regarding Black Canary, this isn't the place for discussing her abilities, but I will point out that since that fight with Shrike she has been working out with Cassandra Cain, Wildcat, Wonder Woman, Connor Hawek, Mr. Terrific, and Scott Free, and has gotten tutoring from Lady Shiva. I would think that might have improved her skills considerably. I believe you are mistaken about what was said during the Silk Brothers story. The most she said about Nightwing in that story was, in issue 85, regarding her team of martial artists "woulda been nice to have Nightwing and Batgirl". She makes no reference to his skills. This is beside the point though. Please state exactly what sentence you would like to put in his writeup. We can discuss that. Right now I'm not entirely sure what you want, only that you disagree with what's currently posted .D1Puck1T 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lump everyone together as "you guys". I definitely didn't have anything to do with listing Jason Todd as being Batman's equal (that page is in the middle of the mother of all revert wars at the moment, I'm not going near Jason's skills until I know it won't be reverted back in two minutes). If I'm hearing you right you wish to change the text from: Dick Grayson's detective and martial arts skills are second to Batman's, making him one of the greatest crime fighters alive to Dick Grayson's detective and martial arts skills make him one of the greatest crime fighters alive Am I right in saying that? I suppose a change like that could be made, but my reluctance is due to the fact that there's a ton of characters that could be described the second way. You're upset he's being described as second to Batman, because you see it as an insult. Other editors in the past have been upset if something like that is left out, because they see it as a compliment. I just see it as a measuring stick that DC generally seems to stand behind, which is good for seperating him from all the other "greatest crime fighters alive".D1Puck1T 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise - I'm reluctant to remove the "second to Batman" line because I don't want Dick to get lost in a crowd of people that can be described as "one of the greatest crime fighters alice". I do see your point about wanting to show that he's stepped out of Batman's shadow, however. I think Infinite Crisis made it clear that Dick is already Bruce's superior when it comes to rallying, unifying, and inspiring other heroes. If mention was made in the "Skills" area that he was already superior to Batman in that important area, do you think that would be enough to balance out second to Batman indetective and martial arts skills?D1Puck1T 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the side bar however... I'm honestly not sure where your problem is here. "Combat Master" is a meaningless term. Seriously, it is, there's no definition that says at what point you qualify as one. Is Flamebird a combat master? Is Beast Boy? What about Plastic Man? Manhunter? It may look good in the DC Comics Encyclopedia (a very expensive book that's no longer canon, thanks to Infinite Crisis) but it doesn't actually tell me anything about what he can do. If you've got a majority on your side I'm cool with it, but that bar is getting pretty dang long, so at the moment I'm against putting anything in it that doesn't clearly give new information.D1Puck1T 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that Puck my Paragraph was accidentely posted before i finish, i finished it up, take a look

But what about "on par with" it's not neccesarily equal but it's close and it seperates him from the rest. Remember always second is always in the shadow.Nightwing99

The current wording doesn't say "always second", it said "second", and that seems to be the stance DC is behind. "On par with", on the other hand, means "equal to" (pull up http://www.m-w.com if you want to check) and that's something you'll never get consensus on. Like I said, your main beef seems to be with him being in Batman's shadow. When it comes to martial arts and detective skills, however, DC's current stance seems to be that he is. But Infinite Crisis made it clear that Dick is already Bruce's superior when it comes to rallying, unifying, and inspiring other heroes. We could put in a reference in the Skills section of his superiority in that important area. Would that be enough to balance out second to Batman in detective and martial arts skills and show he's stepped out of Batman's shadow? D1Puck1T 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know it doesn't say "always second" but what have they been saying about his martial arts and detective skills since he's been around?... It ALWAYS been "second to" that's what i mean when i say that. All that other stuff u said sound good to add, but what about under notable powers in the side bar? Under Black Canary's notable powers it says, "one of the top martial artists in the DC Comics Universe". I have CITED in previous paragraphs exact examples (BOP#84 or 85 & NW#55) where Nightwing has proven to be a superior fighter/martial artist, and example are cannon and in the normal continuity so u can't use that as a cop out excuse to not except it. If "one of the top martial artists in the DC Comics Universe" was put under Nightwing notable powers that would balance out "second to batman".Nightwing99

I have some problems with what you cited. "Nightwing 55" showed that Nightwing was superior to Shrike. Shrike's defeat of Black Canary was never a clear matter of martial arts skill - he managed to get the chain around her neck tangled in a turbine. And anyway, as I stated above, Black Canary has undergone extremely rigorous training in the past few years with some of the DC Universe's best fighters. I don't think it's fair to use that fight in talking about her current abilities. I am not sure what you're talking about regarding BOP#84 and #85. In #84 Dick has a brief cameo because in #83 Huntress mistook him for a criminal and started fighting him, but the fight never went anywhere. In #85 Black Canary, talking about her team of martial artists, says "woulda been nice to have Nightwing and Batgirl". Her team is outnumbered and includes Huntress and Creote. I don't think her wishing he was there says anything about his skill. She most certainly did not state that he was a better fighter than her in that issue. Nevertheless, I do think you have some points. If he is "second to Batman" in martial arts, than he is indeed one of the "top" martial artists in the DC Universe (if not actually a contender for the number one slot). I would have no objection to changing the side box to say that. D1Puck1T 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like other people's input. Here are my three suggestions for resolving this problem:

1. In the Side Box. Change exceptional martial artist, strategist and leader to one of the world's top martial artists; exceptional strategist and leader" 2. Under Skills and Abilities. Keep Dick Grayson's detective and martial arts skills are second to Batman's. At the end of the second paragraph add Additionally, Grayson's efforts to remain in contact with other heroes have made him a master at rallying, unifying, and inspiring the superhero community, a skill he has surpased his mentor in. This would be in keeping with recent events in Infinity Crisis. Thoughts? Suggestions? Movie deals?D1Puck1T 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion number 2, but not with the one of the top world's top martial artists since this guys are the greatest: Cassandra Cain , Batman, Richard Dragon, Bronze Tiger, Constantine Drakon, Lady Shiva, Connor Hawke - Neodammerung 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think #2 is well represantative of Dickie and who/what he is. #1 ... is going too far. The hero box is pretty accurate as it stands (and took us a freakin while to sort out what was both accurate and not too fanish). -- Ipstenu 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it did take a real long time... I'm the spirit of trying to find a compromise with Nightwing99 though, I think there's one more possibility. I wouldn't say that Dick is one of the ten or so best in the world, he's not depicted as being in Shiva or Dragon's league. But he's probably just below them, "second to Batman" and all. And considering how many martial artists there are in the DCU if he's second to Batman he's still one of the best in the world. If "among the world's top martial artists" or similar was put in his box, the need to show he's below the likes of Shiva and Dragon could be solved by modifying their boxes to something like "possibly the world's best martial artist". Aside from that, though, I can't think of a way to be accurate as well as within the realm of what Nightwing99 is looking for. Honestly, I really don't have a problem with the box as it is, but Nightwing 99 does, and I don't think he's asking for it to be changed to something inaccurate. I wouldn't have a problem with the box as is, or a changed box, but I seriously don't want this to be the issue that would not die. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D1Puck1T (talk • contribs) 2006-05-30 19:41:10.

Yeah that's kind of too late for that. But it looks like Nightwing99 is the only one who really has a beef with things, and given his history (a shit load of edits and ignoring the talk pages, or talking but not compromising, for 4-5 days and then gone for a week or so), I'm really inclined to write him off as a way over-hyped fan who needs to chill and remember that we're not actually here to promote the coolness of Dick, but encyclopediotically record his life. Frankly, I vote to leave the box alone. I think it's a good compromise and is factual and understandable. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much inclined to agree on keeping the box as is, I just wanted to put the ideas out there. Concerning the line for the skills section: Additionally, Grayson's efforts to remain in contact with other heroes have made him a master at rallying, unifying, and inspiring the superhero community, a skill he has surpased his mentor in. Does anyone object to this? D1Puck1T 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not every getting into the talk conversatoins earlier. I just never really new about that feature and then when i did know i wasn't sure how to do it (I'm not a very computer literate person...somtimes i have trouble checking my e-mail LOL). As for as talking for some time and then being gone for a while all I can say to that is, due to my job i'm constantly moved and restationed in places and i don't always have the luxury of internet and gone for an undetermined amount of time. I never said he was number one or THE top martial artist. All i've tryed to do was help people relise the true level of a hero. When Batman was being written in the 60's and 70's people hated the cheesy campyness of the whole bat-mite, bathound and Adam West age of batman. Fans KNEW this wasn't the true Batman even though thats what the big bosses of DC Comics condoned & portrayed him as, people knew he much more. That's what I mean when I talk about Nightwing, DC says the right things about him but doesn't portray him that way. If you've read my previous pargraphs you'd find logic & factual statments in what i was saying even if some things aren't cited it's not the simply banter of a fanboy promoting the coolnes of a character. Fighting isn't always martial arts. Just because you're a better martial artist than a person doesn't mean they can't beat u. Take Van Damm for instence, yes he's an actor but he is also still a legitimate black belt martial artist and he got his ass kicked by some guy in a bar who was just a better fighter. In Nightwing #55 Black canary's is beaten by Strike due to him using his surroundings, cunningness and just all out fighting. In Richard Dragon #9 when Dragon gets first blood on Conner, Conner referrs to it as "not a pure strike" these are not dojo fights with judges and point systems it's a street brawl with no rules, it really about being a better fighter. This what i'm talking about, just because it's written doesn't neccesarily so. If you look pass the tacky portrails of Nightwing by past writer like u did batman you'd know what i'm saying when i descirbe Nightwing. I vote that those #1 changes be added to his profile. If lesser characters (BC) can have such rating in there box Nightwing should just as rightfully so have it in his. Check out Braveandthebold.net for Nightwing skills Nightwing99

Sorry to enter the disscussion late, but I think Nightwing99 has made some interesting points and that simply calling Nightwing an "exceptinal Martial Artist" while letting Canary or others be called "One of the best" is an insult to Grayson. Black Canary couldn't beat 6 o'clock at 5:30. She beat Brutale (barely) and Nightwing uses Brutale as a punching bag. NW handed Death Stroke his ass in NW 18. Shrike, who has actually beaten Batman in the past, got into it with NW. Nightwing barely even trying beat Shrike and Shrike woke up tied to a flag pole.

I think the sidbar should clearly state: "among the world's top martial artists" so its clear he is in the top echelon while obivously not #1. It would be a great compromise and I think makes sense considering Dick's abilities. Someone whose trained for years with Batman and nearly bested him then spent YEARS more with Titans training with Starfire/Troia etc is more than simply "exceptional" he's among the best combatants on earth! 63.138.87.171

By that argument, practically every single hero in the DCU would be listed as 'among the top.' And as I've said many times, this is really subjective with how much you love Grayson. Dick's a gymnast first and foremost, and calling him one of the worlds greatest gymnasts is totally accurate. But there's never been a storyline that I can recall centered around his martial abilities and how phenominal he is. Detective, gymnast/acrobat, leader, yes. All those things have been consistantly protrayed as Dick being phenominal, and while I don't think he's as good as Batman (becuase I accept the fact that Batman will always be 'better' and while it's subjective it's the way things are in DCU), Dick's not Shiva level and he likely won't be. In the recent Birds of Prey, Canary's getting Shiva level training and just took out a fsking army. That gets you listed as 'tops' without a lot of argument. Finally, this is not a question of insulting or not, but one of encyclopediotic fact. Fact is, as the DCU is currently written, Dick is not one of the worlds best. He's amazing, exceptional and way above Bruce Lee, but that doesn't make him one of the best. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you be listed in the DC Encylopedia as "second ONLY to Batman in Martial arts" and not be among the worlds best, since Batman is arguabley the best, if not the top 3? Regrading, Canary, yeah if thats enough to get her listed at "tops without argumetment" as you state then Dick easily took out an entire trained army of 40 fighters off panel in Outsiders #36 and acted like it was cake-walk!

Also, look at it like this, Dick really is the best agility wise in DC and is on of the few MA who was trained from birth in terms of athletic prowess then went on to train with Batman for years and years, he is easily the most natural and prodigious fighter because of his inherint agilty, strength, and disipline. He should be leagues above most everyone else but a select few(Dragon, Shiva, Cain etc) who have more training. That still makes him "among the best" not just exceptional which is what some run of the mill C-list DC character with Martial Arts training should be listed as not a guy with Grayson's pedegree of training/experience. 63.138.87.171

Except is Shiva et all are the best, and he's just below them, then he's not 'among' the best! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ipstenu has a point. "Top" is too debatable a term. Let's look at what we've got: Most of Batgirl was about establishing Cassandra Cain as possibly the best. Most of Richard Dragon was about establishing him as possibly the best. The old Richard Dragon series frequently showed Bronze Tiger as Richard's equal, Tiger's appearance in Batman was all about establishing him as Batman's better, and a dang big part of Suicide Squad was about establishing him as possibly the best. Lady Shiva has had a few different stories about nothing more than the fact that she's possibly the best, including Brotherhood of the Fist, which Chuck Dixon used to make Connor Hawke into one of the few people that might be able to beat her. And Constantine Drakon makes the list because his first appearance was almost entirely about establishing him as someone that could beat either of the two Green Arrows. And Batman is Batman, and his skill levels will happily yo-yo up and down depending on what's needed for the story. Each of these guys has had a story entirely or almost entirely dedicated to establishing them as being "maybe the best in the world", and each of them has "master martial artist" in their superhero box. A quick google search should show you that for all the other characters (and about the exact ranking of those characters), people can argue until the cows come home about who's better than who. "Can Robin beat Nightwing? Wall what about on a beach, where Dick has nothing to jump on? Well, what if Robin had his staff, could he then? Would it count if Robin had his staff? Well what about Black Canary, how does she do against them?" That kinda stuff is going to be mired in opinion, and entirely built on the fact that different books have shown different characters' abilities differently. So let's just avoid that whole mess entirely and try not to use any terms that imply character A is better than character B. Just leave the ones that "just might be the best" as "master martial artist", and for pretty much everyone else leave it something clearly true like "exceptional martial artist". Leave "is A more exceptional than B?" to message boards and forums.

(I can't help myself, I've gotta say it - one of Bruce Lee's students once fought Richard Dragon to a draw. No knocking Bruce).D1Puck1T 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ipstenu said, "Canary's getting Shiva level training and just took out a fsking army. That gets you listed as 'tops' without a lot of argument. Well Nightwings had YEARS of Batman level training and recently took out an entire trained army of armed soldiers in Outsiders #36 (and like my friend above said) like it was a cake walk. So why doesn't the same logic apply for NW. And it's not oversimplifying it's simple stating facts?

Black Canary's page no longer says she's one of the top martial artists in the DCU. It says "exceptional martial artist." Same as Dick's page. Now, as I see it, there are two ways we can go from here. We can argue back and forth on this one, and eventually an administrator will have to come in since we can't all agree, the page might get locked for a while, and since administrators generally aren't comics fans there's every chance that this whole thing will end up filed under Lamest edit wars ever. Or we can agree that Dick is an exceptional martial artist, Black Canary is an exceptional martial artist, and The Question is an exceptional martial artist, and leave arguements about about which one of them is more "exceptional" for elsewhere. But it's getting pretty clear at this point that it's either one or the other.D1Puck1T 01:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying second only to Batman would imply that Dickie-Bird is on the top 10 list. He's second tier with (IMO) Question, Black Canary and the others who are great but not the best. God save us from having a 'not the best but pretty damn good martial artists in the DCU' list... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not putting "only". That argument went nowhere fast last time it came up, there's just too much discrepency between the books and the Encylopedia to pick one and favor it. Dropping the "only" was a fine compromise. And let's please not even say the words "top ten list". I'm not even into boxing and I know there are famous cases of boxer A always beating boxer B who could always beat boxer C who could always beat boxer A. Trying to put these kinds of athletes in numerical order is pretty silly in real life. To do it for fictional characters, where any writer can come in with a favorite (Chuck Dixon) or just have contempt for the very idea that there could be a fight (Jeph Loeb) is just plain wackiness. I'll say it again: Shiva, Dragon, Connor, Drakon, Tiger, Batgirl... each of one them has had a whole story (or series of stories) written just to show him or her tying with or beating one of the others on that very short list. Put those few on a list, explain the rationale for their being there, and put "master martial artist" in their box. Everyone else, whether you personally think they're one, two, or three tiers down (with the exception of clear low-level fighters like poor doomed Spoiler) put something non-judgemental like "exceptional martial artist" in their box, type what we've seen them learning in the article, and let the people reading come to their own conclusions. This is the absolute limit of what we can do in explaining the abilities of fictional fighters that get portrayed differently every time a new writer handles them, if we are to have any delusions of being remotely accurate.D1Puck1T 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why can't he revert to "ONLY"? Because one person doesn't like it? It's in the offical DC Encyclopdia...I repeat OFFICAL DC ENCYLOPEDIA! 63.138.87.171

Yelling isn't going to do anything but make people indignant - please don't use all caps. I know you're just enthusiastic, I just don't want this to get into a fight instead of a discussion - that's what happened on the Jason Todd page, and that page ended up locked. Regarding what you said, there was more than one person that didn't like it. And there were those that did. Putting the sentence in sans "only" was a compromise, and I know at least one person thought even that was overstaing his abilities. Yes, the Encyclopedia has the word "only". Frankly it's a very confusing way of stating his abilities in light of the fact that there's ongoing debate as to whether or not Batman is the best martial artist in the DCU. All of this has been discussed before, in the TALK page that's archived. Do we really have to have the exact same debate every few months? The Encyclopedia states he's right below Batman, but does it in a way that makes it hard to account for people like Shiva, Richard Dragon, and Cassandra. The wiki page currently states he's right below Batman, and does it in a way that doesn't create that confusion.D1Puck1T 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to this little discussion and I am not nearly passionate enough to fight that strongly. But, I don't see any reason why the "only" can't be included (I looked up this discussion because I went to add the "only" because I believed it was a typo from earlier re-write). I don't see why this even has to be a discussion. If we're citing the DCU Encyclopedia, that should be enough. And for the record - not only does "Second to Batman" not read well - its insulting to Dick. Vingold 02:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian?

I saw this in categories. Could someone give a source? - Neodammerung 03:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look through some issues I thought it would be in, and found nothing. And yet I can't help feeling it's true, and I read it in one of the books (and no, I'm not the one that put it in the wiki article). Can someone with one of those DC Encyclopedias see if it's in there? D1Puck1T 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that feeling too, but according to this site, DC has never stated Grayson's religion so far. Some writers and artists like Chuck Dixon and Scott McDaniel believe nightwing is a christian, but again, it is not official, its just (IMO) speculation - Neodammerung 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Grayson (movie)

I'm not 100% sure about this one. I found the IMdB reference but any other refs are blocked from my office. Can someone else weigh in on it? I'm squidgy about fanlinks in general. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a trailer, not even a full film, and it's acknowledged as a fan project. The YouTube link is just to a copy of the trailer that somebody uploaded. Does that help? CovenantD 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDB folks claim it's a full movie which ... is weird. I need more caffiene. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the expanded info, you'll see that the run time is 6 minutes. I guess the question becomes, "Is it notable?" CovenantD 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Put in "Grayson" and "movie" into google and it pops up at the top. Not something I'd watch, have any interest in, or recommend other people look into... but probably notable enough for one sentence and a link. Anything more than that and you might have something become notable just because wiki says it is. In fact I say cut it to just "Grayson (2004) is a fan film trailer for a nonexistent movie about Dick Grayon".D1Puck1T 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly only a fan trailer but professional looking and very cool. It got a 8.2 of 10 at imdb and I think with good reason.MKL

Requested Merge

Per the rules of Wikipedia:

Whenever there are:

Two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

If you take out the part on the Nightwing page about "Dick Grayson" and "Other Media" both of which are already mentioned on the Dick Grayson page then that page barely is a few short paragraghs!!(I even did this to show everyone how small the page is). Therfore I think the Nightwing should be merged with Dick Grayson and any other minor charcacters who have used the Nightwing persona should be briefly mentioned at the end of Dick Grayson(nihgtwing) page sort of like a Trivia.

[[User:|69.235.249.152]]

Survey

Do not Merge - We went over some of this when moving into separate pages. There's nothing wrong with having a disambig-ish page for something like this. Nightwing covers much more than just Dick. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. Ipstenu rocks. --Chris Griswold 05:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No merge Despite what TheCoreOne may believe, there is a history for the Nightwing name that goes beyond Dick Grayson and continues to grow. See current issues of Supergirl for what I'm talking about. Merging would not only be step backwards, it would be false and misleading. CovenantD 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, my vote is to MERGE the pages, the Nightwing stub article is just repeating information from the Dick Grayson page and there's no expansive history on the Nightwing mantle like Green Lantern because it doesn't exist, so this page will never grow. Combining them makes sense. Besides, Dick Grayson for all intents and purposes is the only Nightwing character. He's had a solo series, been featured in a tv show etc etc... --TheCoreOne 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote to MERGE the pages. It makes sense. The articles are repetative and would help clarify for people when they are searching for info on Nightwing. Van-Zho or whatever only takes up a sentance anyway, why not just add a section that says "Others with Nightwing Codename". Like someone said they did it for Daredevil (if its good enough for Matt its good enough for Dickie-bird) ;)Gurlpower Ca (talk|contribs) 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No merge This article is about grayson's history, both as robin and nightwing. The idea of merging this with nightwing is like merging the article with the robin page, why? because grayson was robin for over 50 or 40 years, in earth 1 and in earth 2. The daredevil example is NOT applicable here because that character has always had the same name, while Dick Grayson is the most notable nightwing AND robin (if we look his history). - Neodammerung

Do not MergeD1Puck1T 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I better put my vote in=MERGE for all the reasons stated below. Also, thanks for making the survey Ipstenu, lets give it 5 days. I'll try to make a sample new Nightwing page using the Dardevil as a template(if I can figure out how!) since there have been at least 6+ people with Murdock's identity and I still beleive the NW stub article is WAY unnecessary and superfluous when we can easily fit it into the bottom of a single page.

--69.235.249.152 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A mild Do Not Merge. I hope if it does stay seperate, the Nightwing article will be edited more like Supergirl and/or Robin (comics). When I tried to edit Nightwing that way, i was met with rapid reverts. Exvicious 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'd say defintley MERGE but if it doesn't happen changes should be made to get rid of repeated info and other complaints etc... Jack Blackfan 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Merge --Wakefencer

Merge it...cause Nightwing rocks! Now here's a thought what if there's a tie?!? ;0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.42.82 (talk • contribs)

Not sure you understand what we're discussing. --Chris Griswold 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This anon posted has only posted here (there are no other edits to it's account), and while I don't have a bias against anon users voting, I'm a little leery about this one. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MERGE --darkestknight

I think the guy was just a little over excited(probably heard the news Marv Wolfman is back on Nightwing) ;) Also, I vote MERGE! --61.216.78.191

I say don't merge. Dick isn't just Nightwing, he was Robin, too. It makes just as much sense to merge this article with Robin (comics): Dick isn't the only Robin, and he isn't the only Nightwing. Barbara Gordan and Tim Drake are seperate articles from Batgirl and Robin (comics), and Dick Grayson should be a seperate article from Nightwing. -Geage karlyn 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

As Core mentioned the pages are simply redundant and repeating information. Take all that out and there is one sentence on some obscure character called Van-Zhee, a paragraph on Supes and a sentence on Power-Girl, per the rules of Wikipedia this is not sufficient to entail an entire stub article. Simple as that. All of this info should be merged into the Dick Grayson page because Wiki is not a dictionary. [[User:|69.235.249.152]]

I fail to see how the page stops being an encyclopedia just by having a short entry. (PS, you can sign your posts with ~~~~) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the other discusion page, The Flash and Green Lantern both have disambiguation pages that are several pages long, covering vasts amounts of information that those characters require. A quick glance at the Nightwing page is a different story. If you take out the "Other Media" section(which only talks about Dick Grayson) and the portion which discuss "Dick Grayson" which are both repeated again in the separate Dick Grayson page then all you have is a tiny little splinter article.

Remember, per the rules "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, then its unnecessary...Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." If we can make the pages more concise by merging articles then we have to. I think for sake of economy this is the best thing to do.

Please, read the Daredevil page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevil_%28Marvel_Comics%29#Characters to see how they were able to incorporate "Other characters" who have used the codename Dardevil and fit it into a small section at the end of the page. And they have arguably more information than the tiny Nightwing article.

[[User:|69.235.249.152]]

The majority of those other Daredevils are Matt Murdock. It's not the same thing at all. --Chris Griswold 05:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually its the same, there's a Golden Age Version charcater named Daredvil of no real note. Golden Age charcter named Nightwing of no real note. There's been several imposter Dardevil's. Several imposter Nightwings. Most of these are story arc developments that don't require a separete page to highlight.

Anyhow, my vote is to MERGE the pages, the Nightwing stub article is just repeating information from the Dick Grayson page and there's no expansive history on the Nightwing mantle like Green Lantern because it doesn't exist, so this page will never grow. Combining them makes sense. Besides, Dick Grayson for all intents and purposes is the only Nightwing character. He's had a solo series, been featured in a tv show etc etc... --TheCoreOne 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me post the Reasons to Merge from wiki rules:

There are several good reasons to merge a page:

There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject.

There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

• once again to point out the Nightwing and Dick Grayson pages are simply redundant and repeating information*

If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

• there's no expansive history on the Nightwing mantle like Green Lantern because it doesn't exist, so this page will never grow*

If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

Ask yourself this question:if Dick Grayson hadn't decided to take on the codename Nightwing and create the superhero identity all his own, would there even be a Nightwing page? Probablay not. I doubt Van-Zhee would have his own page ;)

--69.235.249.152 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From WINAD, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong" - That said, this page is not just a definition of Nightwing, but a short bio of each person who has been Nightwing. This page is short, yes, but it has the potential to be expanded and stub articles are encouraged, according to WINAD. By putting it here, we've actually made it a broader topic, and while the various Nightwings may never have the massive novels one can write about GL or Flash, doesn't make its existance invalid. As for 'would we have a Nightwing page without Dick?' Yes. Look at the million other pages we have on obscure topics. That's the sort of encyclopedic depth which Wikipedia excells in :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts Ipstenu but that doesn't address the main points: redunancy, large overlap in information and the fact both pages could be easily merged as they once were, similar to the dardevil page to create a more economical Nightwing article. Which is encouraged in Wiki.

I'd like to keep this an open debate for a while and hear a broad spectrum of thoughts from different users on it before anyone decides to merge the articles. Maybe even posting it in the Merge Page or offically voting on it in a couple weeks once we've heard all arguments.

--69.235.249.152 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Five days or when discussion seems to be over is the standard I've seen, not a couple of weeks. CovenantD 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think your thoughts adress the claim you made about this being a 'dictionary' entry ;) S'alight. That said, the correct way to show the page can be trimmed down is not to just hack the article, but to make an example page. In the sandbox, or off your own user page. Or, if you must, off the talk page. (and it's 5 days on the move page) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I re-organized the Nightwing page quite a bit yesterday. It's less like a Dick Grayson article now, but it still needs to be expanded. It'not s redundant anymore. Please look at it before voting. --Chris Griswold 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two separate merge discussions being held? --Chris Griswold 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please hold the merge

I am asking that the merge discussion be tabled for now because I have been working on expanding and re-organizing the article. It is perhaps not the same article it was when voting began. I have expanded information on the Jimmy/Superman versions, I added information about Nite-Wing, and now I am trying to fill in details about the Superman/Lois versions. Additionally, there are currently three new Nightwings in the the "One Year Later" stories that are still developing, and I feel that a merge now would prevent those stories from being covered much at all. The article as it is now is becoming more about Nightwing and less about Grayson; redundancies, if any, are minimal. Please take a look at the article and add any information you feel is pertinent. If the article is merged, the Nightwing information will be reduced in favor of a focus on Dick Grayson, and a DC tradition will become a footnote. The way it is now, I simply do not believe it should be merged at all. --Chris Griswold 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your attempts on the Nightwing article, but honestly it just feels like you padded it out unnecarrily. Its also not helping the issue most people are having in that its STILL mostly repeating info form the Dick Grayson article(jason Todd, Tadd-Nite Wing, etc) Most of these characters are just a part of a particluar story arc in Nightwing's own comics that usually have them as imposters etc that Dick Grayson has to get rid of by the end of an arc. Same thing happens to other heroes all the time. It doesn't require a stub article.

I really think the best way is to merge the articles and reduce the obscure Nightwing codename characters in favor of a focus on Dick Grayson, and making the DC tradition a small footnote to make a more streamlined cohesive article. Like someone mentioned more in vein of the Daredevil page. Those are my thoughts. -- Gurlpower 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and I think it can work; I just don't want to diminish the idea that the Nightwing name has a sense of tradition to it, of characters inspiring each other. And I think it's important to keep the info about the original Nightwing. Nite-Wing is a recurring character in the Nightwing series, and I think he should be kept. Although Jason Todd and that other chick we will never see again are total footnotes, I do think they should be mentioned because of the tradition of characters borrowing the name.

I think a merge is clear, but I think it works much better to merge Dick Grayson into Nightwing since that's name people will more commonly search for. Plus, it allows us to keep the other Nightwing info.--Chris Griswold 07:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A merge is clear? It's all but tied at this point (depending on how you count the anon-user who voted for a merge with no other edits to it's IP). I think it's too close to call, personally. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was ready to accept defeat. I'm just tired of arguing over minutiae lately. But you mean I don't have to give up?--Chris Griswold 19:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's precedent for Dick being Dick and not Nightwing, in article names. Kyle Rayner (who is also Ion), Jean Grey (who is also Marvel Girl, an alias her daughter? took up) and finally Superboy and Supergirl, both of whom have been so many other people that it makes the mind boggle. In comics, it's not uncommon for hero 'names' to be passed around. The fact that Grayson is, today, the most notable Nightwing does little to erase the past that he was also the most notable Robin, or that he wasn't the first Nightwing. There are many other pages that are just as short, and yet are complete with as much information as there is. As for Daredevil, almost all of the others are variants of Matt Murdock as Daredevil, rather than multiple people using the same guise. So what are the issues? Half of the posters want this to remain a history of Nightwing, all that were and will be. Half want it to point to Dick because the page is short and Dick=Nightwing. If we're stuck at this impass, then either we need to appeal to other places for help, or we kibosh the voting for now as 'no result' and come back later. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but mostly because you used the word "kibosh".--Chris Griswold 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Death of Blockbuster

There is clearly a point where articles become too detailed; I do not think otherwise, and I applaud the efforts of those that try to cut excess detail. However I feel that reverting to the shortened version of this section undermines the quality of the article. Clearly, stating that Dick fought Copperhead and Shrike during this story would be too much detail. However, the fire at Haly's circus (establishing just how far Blockbuster is willing to go in his campaign against Nightwing), Dick turning in Tarantula to the police after struggling with the idea, and Dick's decision to turn himself in as well out of a need for penance are all important events in the life of Dick Grayson, and I do not feel that removing these facts falls under the criteria of removing excessive detail. If this section has more detail than other sections of the article, that seems altogether fair due to the fact that this storyline had more impact on the character's personal life than most. Blockbuster's hunt for a new heart would not be expected to have much impact on the character, his having to turn in Tarantula, a character he had been intimate with, would be expected to have impact on the character. D1Puck1T 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no impact at all in Grayson's life, because this storyline, with tarantula and all that stuff, is past, and it is not coming back, not with the one year later new writer. Truth is this section is way too detailed in comparison with all the other storylines in the article. Besides, the character biography it's only a part and not the most important of the article. Check the batman page, there is no detail in the storylines, not even in the major plots.

Also, this facts are excessive details since they use almost the same space than the introduction - Neodammerung 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it was proper that edited this section back your way without any sort of concession or consensus. I gave no response because I was waiting for other views, as we seemed to be in deadlock. I severely question all your arguments, and believe that you have failed to make your point that these events have had "no impact". One may as well delete the references to him being brainwashed by Brother Blood or his foiling of the plan to destroy the Chunnel if your sole criteria for something being important is that it be currently and clearly referenced. Moreover I do not believe that the Batman page is a fair comparison since many of the major Batman/Bruce Wayne events in the past few years have their own pages. Nightwing's stories aren't yet at the level that he is at the center of multibook crossovers, nor are they numerous enough that they require different pages. Perhaps one day that will be the case. As it stands, however, I feel that your repeated deletion of details that are important to understanding that particular chapter in Dick's life compromises the quality of the article. If his having to confront and imprison Tarantula is less important than his toppling the Crown Prince of Kravia, then I have no idea what's the standard for deciding if something is important enough.

I would very much like to hear other views on the matter.D1Puck1T 07:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for editing it without a consensus, but when I didn't saw other responses I thought that it was accepted. I still believe that this story doesn't have an impact in the character, in the sense that it only changes Grayson's personality during the end of Devin Grayson's run on the title. Of course it's important when you consider that because this event he indirectly kills his arch-enemy, leaves bludhaven and enters into a depression, but I was kinda surprised when Nightwing appeared during the "under the hood" storyline (which takes place after the "war games" crossover and the death of blockb.) and he was the same happy and nice guy of always (note that this story was written by the same guy that created the Nightwing with the batman-attitude from outsiders), and then I see Grayson in infinite crisis #1 back in bludhaven like nothing ever happened; it was like the story didn't left his own title.

In other hand, the character history is divided in several subsections. The subsections (with the exception of the origin) are displayed in a similar size that follows their grade of importance in the character's life. Of course I could extend the Crown Prince of Kravia story to the size of the "origin" section, but instead it is only mentioned as an important antecedent to the nightwing series. By adding this details to the Death of Blockbuster, we are giving more importance to a 2004s storyline that changed the character's life but not (in long term) his personality, instead of more recent events like the infinite crisis or other more significative moments like Grayson joining the titans or becoming nightwing.

I'm reverting it to D1Puck1T's version, but please post your opinions. - Neodammerung 03:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually think it woulda been a good idea to kill Dick off in the Infinite Crisis, according to the editors they wanted change and drama to the story. That woulda sucked big time! --75.32.229 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Teen Titans Animated Show is Dick Grayson

So, what evidence do we have? Season 1, there were no indications about who Robin really was, with the exception of two small and debatable clues: 1. Robin has relationship with Starfire, which is a Dick Grayson thing to do, and 2. This show is loosely based on the Wolfman/Perez era, and they used Dick. Still, as of Season one, not clear.

But then Season 2 happened and that all changed. In "How Long is Forever?" Starfire travels into the future, and finds that "Robin" has since become "Nightwing." Now, Dick Grayson was the only one who has ever followed that character Evolution, so the "Robin is Dick" theory gained momentum. In fact, some, (like myself,) felt this actually proved it was Dick Grayson. However, others here felt that the whole thing was far from resolved. (Even if I thought it should have been.)

Then, In "Fractured," We see that an Alternate Universe version of Robin has come through the dimensional rift to admire his hero, the TT Robin. This alt-Robin was given the name Larry when his true name proved unpronouncible. His true name was "Nosyarg Kcid," Which as the episode itself pointed out, is "Dick Grayson" spelled Backwards. Once again, many felt that this proved that Robin is Dick, but as others once again pointed out, Larry is hardly a reliable source, so us Grayson supporters still had to sit on our hands.

Finally, in Season 3, the episode "Haunted" proved to be the clincher, which settled for just about everyone Robin's identity, though just a few have argued with it. In said episode, Raven travels into Robin's mind and see's flashbacks of his life, including the time he swore his oath to Batman to fight at his side, and, here's the Kicker, when we saw The Flying Graysons fall to their death! Most people have assumed this has settled things, that Robin is Dick Grayson and TT is outside of the DCAU. - 75.32.106.229

Even though we have all this hints and stuff, the robin of the animated series is not only dick grayson. For example, the costume and the bo-staff are from tim drake's robin; and the dead of the flying graysons was also watched by tim. Besides, the show's producer Glen Murakami states that this robin is a more "iconic" character, as he created him to be a hero that people could identify with - Neodammerung 06:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the costume mores resembles the Dick Grayson costume worn on Batman the Animated Series. Also series creater David Slack answered a fan at Comic Con who asked "What's Robin's real name?" with, "Watch FRACTURED." Pretty obvious what he's talking about. http://www.titanstower.com/source/animated/behindcomiconpanel2005.html

Also ever heard of Occam's razor?

"In its simplest form, Occam's razor states that explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two viable explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable. If a charred tree is on the ground, it could be because of a lightning strike or because of a secret government weapons program. The simplest explanation that is sufficient is the logical one, according to Occam's razor, and there was a lightning strike." Courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

So, what is the final analysis? Well, there are 4 strong pieces of evidence that it's Dick Grayson, and only 1-2 weak pieces of evidence that it could be Tim Drake(That he's carrying a boo staff?) Pretty flimsy evidence and requires unnnessary multiplying the causes without necessity. It's simple logic what the answer is. - 75.32.106.229

Right off the bat, I want to say that I thoroughly believe that the Robin from the show is Grayson. That said, there's no official evidence that it is (that is to say, nobody involved in the show has said as much). I'll check the issue of ToyFare that has the Teen Titans episode guide (which features interviews with the cast and crew); if I can find something in there, I'll feel comfortable with out-and-out stating that the Teen Titans Robin is Grayson. EVula 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The costume Robin wears in Batman (animated) was designed after the Tim Drake (comics) version, so the chicken and egg argument about that one continues. Frankly, I'd say it's Grayson, but since this Robin is some what of an amalgam of Tim and Dick, I lean towards saying that it's suggested but left to interperatation. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to base the Robin's identity on his costume on Teen Titans; after all, there's no way in hell that Grayson's original costume would have been approved for the show. :P EVula 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Acutually, the shows creater Glen Murakami said: "In my mind, it's Dick Grayson just because that's what I grew up reading in the comic," Also, it was Earth 2 Dick Grayson / Robin who first updated the Robin costume with leggings, cape etc. Overall the argument is weak or non-existant on Tim Drake's side. - 75.32.106.229

Can you cite source on that quote? (The leggings/cape showed up with Earth 2 Dick, yes, but the colors were different. The short sleeves and green unitard is a Tim Bit. I'd argue Tim's current costume is more like Earth2 Dick's than his original costume). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, got the qoute from an article from Cinescape Magazine #72 [September 2003] by Eric Moro. http://www.titanstower.com/source/animated/behindcinescape.html - 75.32.106.229

When the show started, I had a feeling that this version of Robin was Dick. Guess I was right all along, although my friends said it was Tim!Jonathan.Bruce 5:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dragon Training

To what extent did Dick receive training from Dragon?

File:99c training12.jpg

(Dick is the one with Escrima sticks on bottom right)

- colossus34

Unclear in my opinion, because I am unclear if Dixon's Richard Dragon series will be considered canon in the post Infinite Crisis earth. It retconned and contradicted a lot of things, and some of those changes don't seem to have stuck. At the moment I am cautiously offering the opinion that it's not canonical any more. The version of The Question seen in 52 seems to be the one trained to control his anger by Richard Dragon, something that doesn't seem possible with Dixon's angry Dragon. So, going by that and a few other small things, it doesn't seem like Dixon's series is still canon. But hopefully we'll find out for sure with the upcoming appearance of Bronze Tiger in Checkmate and the upcoming Dixon series about Connor Hawke. At the moment I suggest a "wait and see" policy, until those books come out.D1Puck1T 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In Richard Dragon #3, Dragon goes to bludhaven, where he finds nightwing. According to the comic, this is the first time they meet, with Grayson saying that in a way he trained him, as the student with no name referred in the image is bruce wayne, who is Dick's martial arts mentor. Sooo, the picture could be symbolic, as I don't know of any other (besides bats) that trained nightwing. - Neodammerung 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin versions

Could someone divide his bio into Golden/Silver/Modern Age sections, where applicable (specifically, add/rearrange info about his origin)? I read a cheap reprint of his original origin story some time ago, and I'm quite sure most details in the present "origin" part are additions/retcons. Uthanc 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing Picture

Currently Dick is batman, thus him in the batsuit should be his current main picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.89.191 (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick's Age

Does anyone know of any references in current, post-IC continuity, as to Dick's age? I know that in the article, it states that he was 12 now when his parents were murdered. Is the DCU still on a twelve year sliding scale, making him 24? It seems like he should be in his later twenties by now, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.96.66 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wiki is not a place for opinions, but I would say Dick is 23-26. Tim would be 17, & Jason probably 17-23. (JoeLoeb (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Nightstar

Should their be at least SOME mention of her here? Shes not exactly non-canon. And with "Damion" being brought further into the continuity...

The same goes for Starfires article.....the daughters kina of an important tidbit, regardless of reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.239.251 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

She's an Elseworlds character, so that's where she gets mentioned. Alternate versions of Robin mentions her, I believe. Unless she's introduced into the regular DCU continuity (or in an animated version), she stays out. --Blckng 07:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nightwing theme PArk ride

What section should I add this too??? Other media?

http://www.sfne.com/index.php?cat=gallery&gallery=nw

Good question. I'd almost say 'In other media'... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome what about the OFFICIAL Nightwing legos? ;) http://www.nextbrick.net/2006/01/batman_first_look_at_new_licen.html

Archived

The page was long, there was very little 'new' discussion to be had, so I archived and now we can start over :) Merry Ramadan! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alliances

I think we should add Secret Society of Super Villains in allainces and categories. Even though he just joined for esponiage or other stuff. Brian Boru is awesome 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alliances - Batman Family

Per a discussion at Talk:Batman_Family#Discussion, it seems that there is agreement that 'Batman Family refers to the comic book publication and supporting characters of Batman refers to the affiliation of people that surrounds the main character. I'd like to get some input before I try to find wording that reflects this. CovenantD 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Those articles do refer to those subjects, yes; however, Birds of Prey and Runaways refer to the comic book series and not official team names, and we do use as shorthand for affiliations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nightwing is an Autistic Savant

In issue # 127 Nightwing reierates that his "mind is his greatest weapon" and says that he's always been considered a "savant" and that it clearly explains why he can see patterns in ways normal people can't. Marv Wolfman says in an interview that he always saw it that way and it was why Dick was the only person in the DCU to be able to solve the mystery of Who is Donna Troy? This should be added to skills/abilties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.101.15 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

That doesn't make him Autistic (or an idiot savant, which may be the phrase you were looking for). See Savant ;) "A savant (suh-VAHNT) is a learned person, well versed in literature or science, often with an exceptional skill in a specialized field of learning." -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually autistic savant is the politically correct term for idio savant--which Wolfman is clearly making clear about him.

Here's a def:

Most autistic savants have very extensive mental abilities, called splinter skills. They can memorize facts, numbers, license plates, maps, and extensive lists of sports and weather statistics. Some savants can mentally note and then recall perfectly a very long sequence of music, numbers, or speech. Some, dubbed mental calculators, can do exceptionally fast arithmetic, including prime factorization.

This is something Marv, NW's creator has been hinting at for years now and now finally made clear. He's even said that Nightwing is a master detective because he is able to see puzzles and clues etc and how they fit in ways no other people could see. The "Who is Donna Troy" story is perfect example of how Dick solved an entire case based on a single obscure clue that no normal person could ever imaginably solve. I remeber even Devin had an issue where NW use to watch Americas Most Wanted and solve all the cases before breakfast--that sounds like Rain Man stuff to me. Those are just a couple of the canon feats much more I'm assuming. The_Core_One (talk|contribs)

I've read the Autistic Savant article, and it heavily implies that the downside to the savant abilities is some sort of mental impairment. I'm not a doctor, and I'd be loathe, without some in universe statement of Dick being classified as such, to add any claims of savantism to the article. While Marv Wolfman may have created Nightwing, he did not invent Robin or Dick Grayson. His desires not withstanding, no one in the DCU has said Dick's a savant, in those words, and it's speculation to say that he is. Simply put: Dick's a master detective, he's a frigging genius, but we have no 'without a doubt' proof that he's a savant. Yet. Get a link for an article where Marv says it outright, or scan a panel of a comic where it's there in plain text. Otherwise, we're guessing and assuming, and neither of those belongs in an encyclopedia. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just re-read Nightwing just now. Nightwing says his mind is his greatest weapon, and then calls himself an idiot savant, in direct reference to his love life. Smart guy, sucks with girls. I think this stays out. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Dick's ability to see puzzles and read through them is definetly a savant like skill, similar to someone that can count cards at a poker table etc and its obvious MArv is implying such. But I'd say wait and see how Marv plays this out. It is obviously a key to what makes a such a great detective but thats all we can imply for now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• No. Definitely, definitely not. Somebody has misconstrued the definition of autistic savant. The definition presented above focuses on what the "savant" part without addressing the fact that the person has to be fully autistic with a range of autistic impairments to qualify. Doczilla 05:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nightwing and Batwoman

I reverted RonBatfreak's edits because we don't know which Nightwing it is in Gotham at the moment. There are contradictory news articles on the matter, and in Gotham, he's 'Nightwing' and not Dick or (the likely suspect) Jason. Please, let's keep it out of Dick's page until we can confirm it within in the pages of 52. I put the information on the Nightwing page in the meantime. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Future

I removed the future mention because we don't know who 'Red Robin' is, and putting it here is speculative and borderline original research. I mentioned this on the users talk page, but they seem to be ignoring that. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this in reference to Kingdom Come? I do believe that is Grayson, and Drake is a pilot. If it's not in the actual series directly, it's in the cards or other supplemental elements. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DC also released a teaser image a week or so back with almost zilch information. One of the characters in the image was Red Robin. Fan spec is that it's for either WW3 or the rumored follow up to 52 --- a 52 issue weekly starting the week after 52 ends, numbered 51 through 0, and focusing on the multiverse. — J Greb 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but it's spec. Like how we didn't know which Nightwing was in 52, hitting on Batwoman. Until we know, we should play it safe. And god help me, Chris ... there's MORE Kingdom Come? I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la!' *sigh* I like it as an Elseworlds but can they PLEASE leave it alone? k'thnx'bye. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In other media images

Given that images from only 2 of of the 4 or 5 possible major animation sources are present, should we knock the live action down to 1?

- J Greb 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I flipped one image to the left, to try and balance it out that way ... It should be possible to flesh out TV Dick Grayson, more than Movie Dick, just based on bulk of information. I'd rather expand this one. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

True, and once that's done moving back to "bullets & pics" is easy enough.

Side issues if the entire section is getting a look with an eye towards re-working:

• The Batman:TAS section seems a bit POV
• The Teen Titans section is just plain awkward
• The The Batman section is WP:DATED and a bit short.

— J Greb 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a first pass. Makes my head hurt, and I didn't watch most of the animated stuff. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a swing through. Added some stuff (the serials and the `66 film), reformatted (Filmation & HB toons), and cleaned up the tenses (real-world=past tense).

Now I'm wondering if we need a good screen-cap of the HB Robin...

— J Greb 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New Main Image?

The most recently solicited cover for Nightwing's ongoing (#133) by Ryan Sook would be perfect for the image up at the top of the screen. It displays his Robin costume, his second Nightwing costume, and his current costume. It serves all the purposes of the current image, except (as a cover) it's higher quality. I vote for a change. Any naysayers? -- Blckng 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say wait until it's published, but if this gives no new information that might be untrustworthy, I think it is fine. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Griswold, at least on waiting until the image sees print before thinking about swapping.

However, I don't think the proposed image offers anything additional to the image that is currently used in the infobox. It could even be argued that the image is a step back as the Robin and "old" Nightwing images are indistinct and turned away from the viewer.

Leave the image as is, it works and does not need to be replaced.

— J Greb 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I just looked at the current image and I agree that it is better than the new one for the same reasons. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Swap it out for the newer image, its more recent and higher quality plus just looks 1000000 times better!--Colossus34

Yeah, no. The current one is easily better. Dlong 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current image as well. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal preference doesn't matter. Per the rules of wiki most recent, HIGHER quality images are what is best--I mean the Leonardi pic is about a half-decade old! Plus, per the rules we must ensure that the ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character and visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances.

The Leondari pic is drastically contorted and NW's entire chest emblem--his freakin SYMBOL is not even visible! It never really worked and was a compromise pic to say the least, I'd actually prefer a single pic of only Nightwing but as a way to honor his past incarnations--the newer more recent cover art does it justice while also following the rules of wiki more closely.--Colossus34

Ok... this is the second time I've seen (to paraphrase) "The guidelines stipulate the most recent, highest quality image possible be used."

I've gone over the Comics Project guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images) and fail to find that nugget. Could someone who is relying on that to change the image please point by link where that guidelines is?

Also, by the above cited guidelines the proposed replacement fails:

• Contorted figure (item #2, bullet 3 - though since both have this failing it could be seen as a non-issue)
• Chunks of the character obscured by shadow (item #2, bullet 4 - Nightwing is not Raven or the Shadow)
• Characters should not be miss-colored (item #2, bullet 5 - Since the image is being used to represent Grayson as both Robin and Nightwing)

Oh... and whichever is kept will need to be "trimmed" to 300px across, max to allay copyvio concerns.

— J Greb 07:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Images should be low-quality to avoid infringing on copyright. The image that best represents the character is preferred over the recent image. WP:CMC/EG --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

THe rules are what they are. Its pretty obvious the Leondari pic is drastically contorted when compared to the newer image. At least this new one is more straight on, Nightwing is sitting down and we can clearly see his entire chest emblem--the freakin SYMBOL of his costume that we can't see in the Leo one AT ALL. Like I said I'd actually prefer a single pic of only Nightwing, maybe a Jim Lee one but as a way to honor his past incarnations--the newer more recent cover art does it justice while also following the rules of wiki more closely as an image.

Also, while the image is cropped its still a higher res image to begin with so looks much better quality. And the image is in public domain. --Colossus34

Except it really doesn't, but it looks like that point doesn't matter. What it seems to be boiling down to is one editor deciding I don't like the current and my tastes should be all that counts.

As to your last line... boy does it have a pair of major problems:

• "higher res" -- Resolution is the number of pixels per inch. Most images used here show at a resolution of 72 ppi. It can, if the term is stretched, refer to the images over all size. In the case we're dealing with here, most images max out at a "resolution" of 300 pixels across. What that means for the two image under discussion is that they will wind up being the same resolution.
• "public domain" -- This refers to images, texts, and other creative works where the author holds no legal interests or control. Think Mona Lisa, Beethoven's 5th, or Poe's "The Raven". The images, and the subjects they depict, that we are dealing with here are still the property of DC and its parent company both in terms of copyright and trademark. Just because an image has been used to promote sales does not wave copyright. Hence, the images have to be dealt with under the Wiki policies for fair use of material under copyright.

— J Greb 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Except quoting from Wikipedia essays for precedent aren't good policy. As to public domain, there hasn't been a clear establishment of the facts as to the old image conforming with copyright anymore than this image may/may not conform with it. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with original poster Blckng and think the pic needs to be updated since no one can make any more points and others agree that per the rules its pretty obvious the Leonardni pic is a terrible box pic for the page when compared to the newer / most recent image then lets do it. It's obvious no image should be so contorted that we don't even see Nightwing's entire chest emblem! ouch! thats just bad! Gurlpower Ca

It looks like we're split 50-50 on this one. I agree that the current picture doesn't display the 'emblem' on his costume (is that really an emblem? Dude, Dicky-bird, that's kinda lame...), however the newly proposed image is way too dark and shadowing to show Grayson. Keeping in mind that one of the main hallmarks of Dick as Robin or Nightwing was his chipper, 1940s attitude, showing thusly is very Batman of him. If we could find a bouncier picture ... heck, I'd almost rather go to the formerly proposed Hester image, as chunky as it is. The current image not only shows you his costume, but it shows you who Dick Grayson is. Plus the somersault imagery is cool 0:) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The hestor image is horrendous--way to cluttered and convuluted to be a main box pic, I think the new image is perfect. Unless someone can come up with a better rebuttal than it needs to be "bouncier" then I say make the change. Oh, and I count(including myself 5-4) in FAVOR of the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.21.105 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. This is fortunate, as I've yet to see a legitimate reason for the change. (I like it doesn't not qualify). Meanwhile J Greb has shown several policies that would be against making the change. The answer is obvious. Further more, if there is no consensus (and there isn't any), I believe Wikipedia policy is to keep things the way they are, which again means no change (I'm looking at you Netkinetic). Dlong 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we're throwing around policies, Dlong, we could also use WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, which pretty much supercede the subjective interpretations of the essay (read...essays ARE different from policies) of "I don't like it", which is pretty much being used liberally by both sides of this discussion. JGreb also mentions copyright...can we verify the copyright of the sommersault image? I'm scratching my head looking for other "policies" of which you note Dlong. It boils down to...if you don't like the image as it currently is, change it. However, know that the nature of Wikipedia isn't static...it is change...continually. Your intrepetation of Wikipedia essay as "policy" echoes your particular dog in this fight, whatever it may be. Cease violating WP:NPA against a particular poster simply because they have a different point of view. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it's unlikely people will see this added in the middle of a debate from two weeks ago, but I get so tired of people citing WP:BOLD and WP:IAR when they can't get along with others. BOLD and IAR apply for noncontroversial changes. When controversy ensues, stick to policy, or you'll just turn into kids nyah-nyahing each other. Doczilla 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:::And I, in turn, get so tired of people violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA instead of discussing the issues. Especially two weeks later. The mob mentality that perpetuates this project is disturbing. As to "nyah-nyahing"...the only one doing this right now is the editor above. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I want to make sure that I get this right ... Netkinetic, you're saying that my (and others) view of 'I don't like the new image' is trumped by your view of 'I don't like the old image'? Counting an unsigned IP comment, we're still pretty much at a stand-still argument of 'I like A!' vs 'I like B!' which is kind of funny when you get down to it. Okay, so what are the pros and cons of each image? (I'm leaving out copyright, since both images have questions about it).
Leondari Pros: It clearly shows Dick Grayson as Robin, which was his initial identity.
Leondari Cons: It shows a convoluted body and distorts the Nightwing 'emblem'
Solicit Pros: It clearly shows the body of the costume
Solicit cons: It shows Nightwing in shadow

Personally? While I prefer the older image, I'm not gonna cry over this one. Wikipedia changes and moves on. I do think we should update the image caption. We need to know who drew it, what issue it'll be used in, and that must be in the caption info. Until we have that info, I'm removing the image. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Ipstenu, absolutely not...which in fact is why I said above: "if you don't like the image as it currently is, change it". What I object to is a type of condescending approach that "we know better than you so listen to our opinion" and attempting to make such law. Although your approach, Ipstenu, is a reasonable approach which is greatly appreciated. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, JGreb's arguments 'against' the image are actually against both, when you re-read it. Each image has their own problems. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet he keeps reverting to one version of an image and not another. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That was the image before this discussion.Brian Boru is awesome 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Change is good, y'know. Mind, I dislike people throwing policy around as a sole reason when the problem here is, no matter HOW you look at it, a personal preference. :P The idea that one of these images is better than the other is preposterous, and yet if we don't come to some consensus we'll be switching back and forth for months. I feel it's clear that the pros and cons of each image balance each other out, which is why I see this as a sort of 'well, damn it' standstill. If it gets bad and every edit is an image swap, then we need to pause and take a straw poll to see where hive-mind lies. Remember, consensus can change. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just some more thoughts...
Ipstenu is right, what I laid out up-thread would indicate neither image should be used. But, until he brought it up, no "third option", either a 3rd image or "no image", was mentioned.
The image he proposes doesn't have the various problems the two under discussion have. That being said, if it comes from where I think it does, a profile page in "handbook format", it skirts being a non starter under this guideline.
At this point I think that the article may be better served if we can find a Nightwing only image that doesn't hang up on any of the guidelines. I've got a sinking feeling that and "Dick's costumes in retrospective" we find is going to fail. The loss to the 'box is minor, especially since content supported images of the various costumes pepper the article.
Copyright issues... since DC currently holds the copyright on the character design, and what attribution we have indicated that the images in question were published in material for which DC also holds the copyright, I fail to see where this needs further verification. The images are subject to copyright, the applicable fair use guidelines hold that the uploaded image be in the range of 200-300px across at a resolution of 72ppi. Both, if they are retained for use in some way or another, need to be shrunk.
And as for the image flipping... This is something some editors are going to find very, very abrasive but it really cannot be PCed down. Changing the image while it is being discussed goes far beyond being BOLD or IAR, it shows an amazing degree of disrespect for the editors engaged in the discussion. No AGF made, no willingness to work with others, just "I'm right. Your wrong. Live with it." attitude. Leave the infobox image in the state it was when this started. When this discussion is closed and if the decision is to change it, change it then.
- J Greb 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Absently noting I am a she not a he ... The third image I tossed out was one we held against the Leondri image back when we were trying to find something better. I think you're right about the 'Nightwing only' image being a better idea, or at least a more middle-road idea. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My appologies... not being sure of gender I defaulted back old school English. — J Greb 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"When this discussion is closed". And who determines when this is...when one side of an issue weighs the argument in their favour? Arbitrarily setting loose ended timeframes for a discussion and selectively applying arguments only to the other side are contrary is never justified. As to editors brandying no WP:AGF on the part of other editors need to review their line of approach towards others to make sure they are applying this themselves. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1) See below (time frame). 2) I've hit the point where, whilr I may have faith that you are trying to improve articles, I have zero faith in your ability to work with others. Whine, bitch and moan about that if you must, but that's where your style of editing has put my opinion of you. — J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In my mind the Leonardi image can't work in any way. I agree with the majority that it shows a convulted, contored image of Nightwing and we don't see an emblem--that's against policy. That image is done. On the other hand the new image is much more appropriate and instead of showcasing his old persona's they are reflective and more of a legacy(very strong imagery) and not front and center--lets not forget Dick has been Nightwing for well over 20 years now.

And I call BS on anyone who thinks its too dark--NW is completely visible--ie his entire body face can be seen just like the main box pic for Batman or dardevil--not to mention people are forgetting he's a dark vigilante that goes out at night and stalks criminals---its very appropriate.

Why not put it up to a vote one side: the new Ryan Sook NW #133 cover and others the Hestor pic?colossus34

Please keep in mind the character tones: Nightwing is not Batman nor Daredevil. That being said, you're right, this needs some sort of closure before it becomes an absolute farce (if it hasn't hit that point already).
And yes, I'm deliberately including the current one (since it has been supported) and 2 additional options. - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

At this point we need to close this out. I'm going to list the options that we have, in the order suggested, and set up a "Choice" section and a "Comment" section.
As a suggestion, lets see if we can wrap this up in a reasonable time frame. - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Does one week work? Whichever image has the most votes as of the 4th of April gets put in the character box. -- Blckng 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, technically it isn't. It is an attempt to determine if we have a consensus for the following points of contention: Does the 'box image need to be changed. If so, what should be there. And, finally, Is this a case where an exception to the standing guide lines be made.
I put it in this format because it's the best one I could think of. With that in mind, Blckng has a solid point, there needs to be a point at which a decision is made. Given the length of the harangue leading up to this section being put up, a week seems reasonable. I would suggest though that an admin step in at that point and sift through this for both consensus and the validity of exempting the image from the guides.
And no disrespect Chris, but I think it might be proper for the admin to be someone who hasn't participated in the debate.
— J Greb 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Options

1. Rick Leonardi "somersault" panel from Nightwing #57 (image used at the start of the debate)
2. Ryan Sook cover art for Nightwing #133 (solicitation image)
3. Hester image from (assumption here) Batman Allies Secret Files And Origins 2005
4. Greg Land cover for Nightwing #41
5. No image

Choice

• Greg Land -- See comments... - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• My vote for Sook. BTW I disagree with even having the Leonardi as an option but whatever-- colossus34
• Greg Land - I feel we are never going to find a 'show all Dick's personae' images that satisfies everyone, and as much as I want one, it's time for me to stop beating that particular dead horse. The best image we can do for the page is one of Dick in his current costume. I think there's a better one than the Land image, but I can't find it atm. (BTW, colossus, please show respect for the viewpoints of your fellow editors, even when you disagree with them :) ) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Land is acceptable. Dlong 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sook, since I suggested it in the first place. I'd be alright with Land's if someone could find an image without the Nightwing logo on it. --Blckng 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The logo makes it more acceptable for use. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sook - At least conceptually although I agree with some sentiments it is a bit to dark. To bad we don't have much of a selection. Mister Fax 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sook is my choice, Land would be great too if it wasn't dated. Gurlpower Ca

• Sook image is a great one--my vote is for that. Jack Blackfan

• "Sook" now why are we still discussing this? change the front image already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.188.102 (talk • contribs)

A straw poll is not a vote; It's used to determine what users think. It's clear from this poll that Sook and Land are the two choices and that Sook is more popular. However, it's also been determined that Sook violates WP:COMIC policy, whereas Land does not. Which leaves the question, should we violate policy for Nightwing and if so, why? Dlong 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Leonardi - just keep it. Sook's is way too dark. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with general consesus Sook is the best of both worlds. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.31.102 (talk)

Comments

Just to reiterate: The Leonardi, Sook, and Hester images all have problem with various guidelines. While the Land image lacks the "retrospective" the 'box is titled "Nightwing" and the other costumes do have images within the body of the article. - J Greb 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hester image is from Secret Files and Origins, a reference work, and so would be a violation of copyright. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, since it's been mentioned... how exactly is the land image "dated"? As far as I can tell it's the same costume as in the Sook image... - J Greb 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They mean because it's about 6 years old. (And ... well, y'all should go and check out the nice 1980s Wonder Woman image with the big fro-80s hair we had up over there for a while ;) Talk about dated!) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that's what was meant... and I have trouble seeing the validity in this case (the WW one I can). The costume is costume is the same and there's really nothing that puts a date stamp on the image... - J Greb 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Land art looks dated too. Can't say why but the "blocky-exagerated muscle-look" just screams late 90's to me. Also, why is Jim Lee not an option?!? - Jack Blackfan

The images presented are the cureent image (#1), those that came up in the above discusion (#2 & #3), and one to fill out a suggested type (#4). The last was was a judgment call of the various cover images available since it covered: non-contorted, full figure; full front of costume; current costume; not too dark; and fairly indicative of the character.
And I have problems with "the art style is what dates the image" arguments. In this case the general style is still in use on various books so it's a hard sell. (As an example, a Perez Titans Nightwing would be dated based on the costume design, not the art style.) Also, it would lead to "flavor of the moment" trend in changes to the 'boxes across the board. - J Greb 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically #4 is the only one that confirms with current WP:COMIC policies? Dlong 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell? As near as I can tell, and based on the above, yup. Doesn't mean that there cannot be exceptions, but there has to be some substance behind that.
And for the ease of those looking here, the Comics Project guidelines are listed here:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use"

- J Greb 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As no one has provided a reason why we should ignore policy for this article, I am changing the image to Land, the only one that meets the WP:COMIC criteria. Dlong 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." Also "When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." - This is a reminder to people who see the above poll as the be all and end all of this discussion. It was meant to establish a baseline, not to restrict further discussion. As Dlong and J Greb have pointed out, the images other than Land's are against policy. If you wish to use Sook or Leonardi (or Hester), you will need to provide a reason. In this instance, I would support not being bold, and instead engaging in polite discussion. There is still room for debate. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This still hasn't been resolved, despite a consensus that the Sook image is the ideal pic for the site info box image?!? The Sook image does not violate any policy I know of. The 1-2 naysayers that think its dark just becuase it actually has shading are completely wrong. That wiki policy does not mean images can't have ANY shading it was put into palce to discourage posting pics where characters are heavily obscured in darkness and are barely recogonizable. For a sample check out this Batman image(this is what the rule applies too) and the Sook image is nothing like it:

http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/divers67/Batman%20-%20in%20the%20dark.jpg

I simply just don't get the issue here, it feels like a couple users are forcing their personal opinion that a dated Land image is good on others despite an overwhelming consensus otherwise. The Sook image is the perfect box image for the based on a broad wiki consensus. This is why a consensus and poll is usually put into place and people follow it, otherwise whats the point in the forst place?? We need to follow a overwhelming consensus or we are going to continully get this editing back and forth by other users. - colossus34

If anyone's trying to force their personal opinion it's you, as can be seen by several of your comments. Additionally, I suspect several of the IP users involved in this discussion are sock-puppets of you. Finally, it clearly does violate policy, as I, Ipstenu, and J Greb have pointed out. The fact that you don't choose to recognize this fact is quite irrelevant. Dlong 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dlong, whether you agree with colossus34 or not is what is irrelevant. Displaying at least a modicum of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, which are a policy and guideline respectively that you are violating by your above commentary, is in fact relevant. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So since DLONG tells everyone it violates policy then he must know what he's talking about??? Sure. Despite a clear consensus saying otherwise and a poll where the overwhelming majority of users are in favor of another pic? I don't follow any of your logic except that it feels like your clearly out to force your own opinion on others. Like I said before the wiki policy does not mean images can't have ANY shading, it was put into place to discourage posting pics where characters are heavily obscured in darkness and are barely recogonizable.

This is simply not the case here. We have a recent, high resolution, full frontal image, with chest emblem and iconic escrima weapons present and entire character clearly visible in his domain as a vigilante, crime fighter. Not to mention it does the charcter's past justice by showing he's a legacy character(ie its Dick Grayson page) and not just Nightwing. - colossus34

While several Wikipedians prefer the "Sook image", it would apparently not conform to several of the existing WikiProject guidelines for Infobox images. Especially: "Visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances." I am attempting to stay out of the "debate" as J Greb requested above. I merely would like to see some discussion about the images in terms of guidelines and policies, rather than just which image we all "like better" : ) - jc37 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* Visibly contorted?!? Based on what!? Once again using wiki guidlines without precident. That policy is to discourage using images that have characters in crazy action poses or bizzare angles. Nightwing in the Sook image is CLEARLY not in some crazy action/jumping motion like the old Leonardi pic. He's sitting down on a ledge full frontal image, with chest emblem and iconic escrima weapons present and entire character clearly visible. This is getting redundant. -colossus34

"using wiki guidlines without precident"? Do you mean citing guidelines without explanation, perhaps? I'm honestly a bit confused what you mean to say. The Sook image has Nightwing in a squat, with the lower half of his costume obscured. That would be visibly contorted by definition. The Leonardi image falls under that as well. The only one that shows at least 3/4ths of Nightwing is the Land image. I have asked for people to chime in on the WP:Comics project. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean explaining exactly what the rules are without proper explanation. Like I said the rules about contorted images are clearly meant to discourage obviously crazy/bizzare action/splash page poses and I don't see how a resting, full frontal squating character equals=visually contorted?? Just check out the Cassandra Cain main image page,(she's in a similar position, as is Tim Drake and many others) We can see Dick's entire costume, chest emblem, escrima sticks, full frontal face and body. For all intents and purposes the image is very much a still image shot that shows the entire character, not some crazy action/perspective shot. Be curious to hear others chim in. -colossus34

Indeed there seems to be some ambiguity towards certain rules i.e. guidelines as cited above. I must say it is very curious how somewhat...dare I say...militant individuals on various sides of this discussion are becoming. In the grand scheme of things, Wikipedia will continue to evolve and develop. As such, I foresee somewhere down the line a completely new picture inserted into the page header, and a renewed discussion developing along similar lines. I simply ponder the time and energy devoted to an image could/would/should be better applied towards the actual overall content of the article. May be out of line for stating this. Mister Fax 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sept 2008 revisit

I think this would be an excellent one to have: [1] --CmdrClow (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

2 things:

1. Care to move your post and this response to a new section instead of burying it here? There was a revisit to the issue down page, so posting here is a touch confusing. A "Infobox image (Sept 2008)" wouldn't be wrong.
2. And aside from "change for the sake of change", why?

- J Greb (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1. First of all, there are virtually no other super-hero articles that has a trade dress on the main photo. It's an unnecessary thing to have, and if we have a desire of keeping these things uniform, then we should find a picture without a trade dress. If the same image can be found without the trade dress, then that would be much better.
2. Second of all, it features an unposed Nightwing standing clearly facing the viewer. Jim Lee also seems to be a standard with many DC character pages on here, and he doesn't draw a bad Nightwing.--CmdrClow (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right...

1. Covers as published
   • "virtually no other" is an overstatement. Yes, the ones that use covers in full are few and far between, but that is very different from "nil or next to nil".
   • There is no guideline forbidding the use of covers as published, just as there is none mandating their use.
   • The artifacts of the comic aren't a bad thing either. They do reinforce that the images are drawn from a work of fiction.
   • If the credo of "only artwork" is picked up we are going to be limiting what can be used within the image boxes because:
     • Useable "cover art only" exists for a limited portion of comics, mostly since the advent of the full color solicitation catalogues. And even there, some of the images aren't of useful quality. And even that may be drying up since Marvel has started to add banners and tags to its solicit images.
     • Usable interior panels without word balloons are even harder to come by.
     • Using watermarked images is frowned upon. And using those where the 'mark is a 3rd party is a no-no.
     • Using edited images is also limited. Cropping is marginally acceptable. But digitally adding or removing material, or boxing out isn't. These are fair-use images, they aren’t ours to rework however we want.
2. The guideline
   • The full quote is:
     
     "The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best."
     
     Now, it looks like we’ve already stepped beyond that since there is a background to the propose image. That is unless you are suggesting that we digitally erase the background. It looks like we’ve moved on to the "lesser" criteria, which the cover fills.
   • There is also an implied ideal buried in the "in shadows" caveat, and it is one that is applied in a lot of infobox images: the image should not only clearly show the character, but that it should evoke the character.
3. Artist choice
   • Choosing one because "his art is in other 'boxes" isn't a big selling point. Why not Perez or Ross?
   • Since the article is about the character, why not an artist that the character is linked to: Kane, Finger, Sprang, Giordano, Perez, McDonnald, etc?

Now, it looks a lot like you want to change the image because you don't like the trade dress, don't like the pose, and would prefer a larger "name" artist. This even though the current image is a good one that clearly illustrates and evokes the character, right?

- J Greb (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I could care less about the name of the artist, but it would be just as easy to obtain a suitable image without a trade dress. Watermarking disrupts the main image, trade dress does the exact same thing on this image. Besides, that is also a relatively non-notable issue of Nightwing. I would either like to see the one I outlined, the Ryan Sook image which covers most of his incarnations, a cropped version of the cover to Batman #615, or Nightwing #1. These are all easily attainable, represent Dick Grayson well, and examples without a disrupting trade dress can easily be found. --CmdrClow (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, the reason watermarks are frowned upon isn't "distraction", it's implied ownership of the website that was hosting the image and/or the television station which broadcast a show/film when a screencapture was made. Trade dress does not fall into that category — it isn't implied ownership, it's part of the actual material owned by the publisher.

Second, you find it distracting, that doesn't mean it is. I would buy that if the trade dress covered the figure ("character should not be obscured" from the guide) or overwhelmed the character by color, size, or placement ("character should be the main focus" also from the guide). Neither is the case here — Nightwing is the predominant, unobscured item on the cover.

Notability is a slippery item here, especially since the article is titled "Dick Grayson". "Notability" in that respect attaches to images outside of the current Nightwing costume to include images of the character as Robin as well as older versions of the Nightwing costume.

Last thing, and this is a nagging point that I find more attractive each time the infobox image for this article is broached — Is it really appropriate for this article to have an infobox image? Every time we come back to this I wind up getting closer to the "No, 4 spot images in chronological order within the FCB is more appropriate" position. Strike the 'box image and change it so that the character name is "Dick Grayson". Either that or find a usable 2-, 3-, or 4-in-1 where each costume meets the guidelines. (And Nightwing #133 doesn't do that, either as a cover or as cover art. The Robin and 2nd Nightwing aren't facing forward, are obscured, and are off color.) And yes, I have similar reservations with Superboy-Prime, Hank Henshaw, Jason Todd, Wally West, and Roy Harper (comics), among others.

- J Greb (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to find an image which represents Dick Grayson in all of his incarnations. The Ryan Sook image features reflections of his previous identities/costumes. Because his primary identity is fully in view, I would argue that the previous costumes don't need to be full on. The mere fact that they're in the image and clearly visible along with his main costume should be sufficient enough to let people know he Dick Grayson was and is, and is perfect for the qualities that the infobox requires. --CmdrClow (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's running up against three things:

• Dated imagery, either from the point of "recentism" (it must be today's version in the spotlight) or "hidebound traditionalism" (it must be the character's first look, even if it isn't the most iconic);
• Half measures; and
• The grey hole in the guideline, which goes hand in hand with the half measures.

At best, since there isn't a direct reference in the guide for images that focus on multiple characters (teams, "legacy" characters) or multiple looks (this case), treating all of the characters/looks equally is in line with overall Wiki guidelines and principles. This is also why I'm starting to lean towards "no image" in cases like this article. Unless there is one iconic look, as with Robin or Captain Marvel, we're ascribing which look is "most important". Even with a consensus, that's coming close to pushing a point of view.

Your argument is doing the same thing — it's promoting the point of view that the Robin and previous Nightwing costumes are not as important as the current one. That they only rate lip-service in the infobox. That may be valid with the previous Night wing outfits, may, but it isn't with Robin. That look is as importantly to the character as the Nightwing one.

One other thing to keep in mind... policy is that redundant non-free images are not to be left in an article. If the infobox is covering one or more versions of the character's look, then any image within the body of the article that version must do something in addition to just "show the look". Right now, that isn't an major issue since the only duplicate infobox is depicting the characters "combat skills". Swap to the Sook or like image and the Detective Comics and Thibert poster need to be looked at. The Detective cover passes, the poster doesn't. There is also an interpretation of the policy that holds that all other "character looks like" image get pulled if there's a "group" image, even if a particular look/character isn't in the group. This would see the Tales of the Teen Titans go since it's only there to show the original Nightwing costume.

- J Greb (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

J Greb, some of your points are valid, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to people today. That alone makes the current costume the most important. For the very same reason that the current costume is showcased on Tim Drake's article, Kara Zor-El's article, Batman's article, Kyle Rayner's article, Sinestro's, and so on. While the Sook image does a decent job of paying tribute to Dick's previous costumes, I tend to think that either Nightwing #1 or #2 would be the best choices. Not only are they well liked and iconic for fans of Grayson, but they're also the first two comic related hits on Googleimage search for Nightwing. That says something. [2] 216.162.220.159 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the pictures are supposed to be the characters at their most iconic. The pictures used at the top of Superman and Batman depict them in iconic ways, a way that I think the current picture does just fine in fulfilling. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the most iconic picture of Nightwing probably is the McDaniel image from the first issue of his ongoing. I agree with the IP user, maybe the Jim Lee one isn't the best. McDaniel's is an iconic Nightwing image without an obstructive trade dress. --CmdrClow (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP's argument is feels like it 1) rests on Wikipedia as a news site as opposed to an encyclopedia and 2) runs into issues of rentism and dated information.

I've got major issues with the first. If that were the case we might as well just leave the trivia and rumors in the article. We don't. We go to pains to remove that. The intent is to present an encyclopedic article, one that covers the character in its entirety, not just "today".

The second point feeds into that — but as I said that a nagging concern for me, and not a major at the moment.

As for "iconic"... What about the iconic link for the character with the Robin outfit? - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why not the "iconic link" with Sinestro's original uniform? Why not the golden age Superman costume? Batman's from Detective 27? Kyle Rayner's original Green Lantern uniform? Iron Man's original suit? These have non-obstructive main images of the characters as they appear today, in their best examples. I agree that the McDaniel image accomplishes this perfectly, and that we simply adhere to Grayson as we have to previously mentioned characters, by having a main image that just is. The Greg Land image would be fine, but the trade dress takes away from the artwork to a certain extent. I say McDaniel from #1. 67.171.31.213 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further objections to this then I will add the image to the article within 24 hours. --CmdrClow (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, since there doesn't seem to be clear consensus leave the image as is. - J Greb (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why aren't you participating any further in the discussion? The user above has valid points and precedents. Dick Grayson shouldn't be treated any differently than Sinestro, Kyle Rayner, Superman, Batman, Iron Man, or Captain America. If there is debate to be had instead of standing silent after a point of change is made (with no rebuttal), then please contribute to it. If there is no further answer, then the McDaniel image should be implemented. --CmdrClow (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to the discussion, but I thought I'd mention that your comment above is not how consensus works. The onus is on the changer to provide reason for inclusion, per WP:BRD.

If there is no consensus for the change at this point, this change doesn't happen. Period.

I hope that clarifies. If not, please feel free to ask. - jc37 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)